[0:00] All right, we're going to bounce right into our regular city council meeting. It's 7 p.m. Welcome, everyone.

[0:06] Before we get a call to order, I just want to let everybody know that this meeting tonight is a joint meeting

[0:10] of the city council and the Tracy Operating Partnership Joint Powers Authorities Board.

[0:16] So again, thank you, everyone, for coming.

[0:20] If you could all please stand and join me for the Pledge of Allegiance and remain standing

[0:23] if you wish for the invocation by Pastor Tim Heinrich from Crossroads Baptist Church.

[0:47] It's not here. I don't see him. All right, with that being said, everybody can have a seat.

[1:00] Get a roll call, please.

[1:03] Councilman Ariola.

[1:04] Present.

[1:05] Councilman Ransom.

[1:06] Present.

[1:07] Councilman Vargas.

[1:08] Here.

[1:08] May I approach him young?

[1:09] Present.

[1:10] And Mayor Rickman.

[1:11] Here.

[1:12] All right.

[1:14] Consent color.

[1:14] Anybody want to pull anything from consent?

[1:21] Anybody for the audience, we should pull anything from consent.

[1:26] All right.

[1:26] I have one, I think.

[1:28] Let me hold, give me one second.

[1:29] Okay.

[1:40] All right. I'm going to want to pull item 1j make a motion to approve consent Titan agenda minus 1j

[1:48] I'll second that motion in real call, please

[1:51] Councilman vagus. Yes. Councilman Renson. Yes. Councilmember areola. Yes. Me approach him young. Yes. And me recommend. Yes.

[2:00] I get a staff report.

[2:02] I'll be happy to do that in the absence of Midori.

[2:06] So ad hoc subcommittees are of a limited duration.

[2:10] They're temporary.

[2:11] We established, have formally established an ad hoc for the homelessness strategic plan

[2:16] purposes, comprised of Council Member Ransom and Council Member Areola.

[2:22] It expires at the end of the calendar year.

[2:25] And so typically you have to re-establish the ad hoc committees and that is what

[2:30] we're doing this evening under consent. And so this will run from January 1st through

[2:36] June 30th, 2020. Six months, this should allow the ad hoc committee to complete the strategic

[2:41] plan and then also bring back anything related to the feasibility of temporary shelter.

[2:48] And it's as simple as that. That concludes my report.

[2:52] All right. Thank you. Anybody from the audience wish to comment on Item 1J?

[3:02] Say

[3:03] And one of the things that at least some confusion, some members of the community, and myself too,

[3:14] is with the ad hoc committee, and we have the homeless task force, so where does one

[3:23] begin and one end?

[3:26] What would you like to answer that?

[3:27] It doesn't matter.

[3:28] Okay.

[3:29] I mean, you're one part of the ad hoc.

[3:31] Okay, so I'm part of the ad hoc and this Council also made me an official liaison to the Homelessness Task Force.

[3:38] The Homelessness Task Force is a separate entity from the City Council.

[3:44] The City Council's ad hoc committee brings recommendations for policy decisions in relations to strategic policies that we as a Council can vote on,

[3:55] where as the homelessness task force is a collaboration of service providers and people

[4:01] who are concerned with resolving the homelessness issue in the community, the homelessness task

[4:06] force has participated in the team of care which actually made it possible for the city

[4:11] to actually qualify for the funding for the strategic planning grant. But the homelessness

[4:18] task force is an entity that is not a decision maker. They can only advocate on behalf and

[4:24] to bring those concerns to the city council.

[4:27] So although I bring that information for the task force,

[4:31] the ad hoc committee of Areola and myself

[4:34] meet with the city manager, we meet with Midori,

[4:36] we meet with the city staff,

[4:39] and we bring policy recommendations

[4:42] based on the meetings that we have regarding homelessness.

[4:48] Okay.

[4:51] And one more, yeah, these are, I mean, I have a couple of concerns, and one of them was being,

[4:58] and this is one of my concerns, is the

[5:08] internship with your organization, the SOA Seed Melinda,

[5:13] I think her name is.

[5:14] Melinda, she's not a SOA Seed intern.

[5:17] SOA Seed Community Foundation, my employees.

[5:19] Yeah, I just want to know where this fits in.

[5:21] has nothing to do with the homelessness task force. We don't serve homelessness as gets

[5:25] implied here by people on the council. We do not get grants for homelessness. Melinda

[5:31] Ramirez is a graduate student at University of Chico or Chico State University and she

[5:37] interns with me in regards to my position on city council. Has nothing to do with

[5:42] my day job. Melinda is not paid.

[5:45] Okay. I have a letter from the Melinda Ramirez. The reason I'm asking is that you're right.

[5:54] It says, I'm a senior at CSU Chico Study and Sociology.

[5:58] And my internship involves 240 hours that will be devoted to working on the issue of homelessness and Tracy.

[6:05] So my question is,

[6:09] is that working as part of the ad hoc committee?

[6:12] Is that working as your organization in regards to the task force or just working for the

[6:18] task force?

[6:19] No.

[6:20] Melinda is an intern.

[6:21] As a city council member, I have the right to have interns.

[6:24] I'm just saying you know how things work.

[6:27] So Melinda is my intern as a council member.

[6:29] She is assigned to different tasks through me in relation to the issues of homelessness.

[6:36] She also has experience for the last several years working in the issue of homelessness helping to put together shelters.

[6:44] She's worked for several shelters in the city that I will not name.

[6:48] And she's also worked as a case manager for the issues of homelessness in regards to helping make sure that we are resolving the issue of homelessness.

[6:57] So as a council member, I have her as an intern to do research for me.

[7:02] I've had to research different models that I've been interested in proposing to the city,

[7:07] such as the Santa Ana referral-only shelter model.

[7:10] I've had her research, you know, similar-sized cities, job program from homelessness, different

[7:16] sort of collaborations for homelessness.

[7:19] She does not make any decisions.

[7:21] She just does tasks that I assigned to her based on the guidelines of her professor.

[7:27] She has 240 hours of specific strategic research tasks that she needs to complete.

[7:33] And I provide a grade and feedback to her professor, very similar to when I was a professor and

[7:39] I had interns that worked out in the community.

[7:43] We needed to make sure that their work was quality work and making a contribution to

[7:48] the community.

[7:48] So that's her service and that's her requirement for her school.

[7:51] And I do that as a council member.

[7:53] Okay.

[7:53] So she's not working for SOASED?

[7:56] It does not have a job with SOCI. She's not.

[7:58] So she's interning with you in your official capacity as council member.

[8:01] But she does.

[8:04] And she also assists me with tasks for that.

[8:06] She's a member of the Tracy Community Homelessness Task Force,

[8:09] which is, she's a member of that,

[8:11] as well as a bunch of other members in the community.

[8:15] Okay. No, that's, that was my three main questions is, you know,

[8:20] where is the line?

[8:23] I mean, I see it as a convoluted myself is that you have two organizations, one the ad hoc,

[8:32] one being the homeless task force, and where does one start and one begin?

[8:43] Well, the homeless task force cannot make any decisions for this council.

[8:47] Right, I understand what you're saying.

[8:51] some individuals here in the community.

[8:58] So overall, the goal is to resolve and bring solutions for homelessness.

[9:03] It doesn't matter how many committees I need to be part of on this council.

[9:08] I can be a member of the full council, a member of the ad hoc committee,

[9:11] and that's kind of where the line ends here.

[9:13] But in the community, whatever additional opportunities there are,

[9:16] that's where I'm going to be.

[9:18] So what exactly, I mean what, I mean the council hasn't, and this is one of the reasons I disagreed with having the ad hoc committee with the transparency side.

[9:30] I know the council hasn't been apprised of anything. So what exactly is the ad hoc committee doing?

[9:37] What have you guys accomplished? Can you let the rest of the council know?

[9:41] Or is that even appropriate here? Or is I'm going out beyond the scope?

[9:46] I would love to answer a lot of questions.

[9:48] The agenda item before council is for council to establish.

[9:53] So you're saying that's going beyond the scope?

[9:55] No.

[9:56] No, I'm talking.

[9:57] I do think some are relevant questions to the item at hand, right?

[10:00] The item at hand is that council established the ad hoc committee for the new year.

[10:05] Okay, so that's okay then.

[10:06] I'm sorry.

[10:07] Go ahead.

[10:08] Yeah, I think that's relevant.

[10:09] I mean, we're just wanting to make sure.

[10:11] If you feel that you have questions, I'll be more than happy to answer them.

[10:14] So in regards to the whole purpose of the ad hoc committee was to be able to move forward some policies specifically the strategic plan.

[10:23] In the beginning the city did not qualify even to get the grant.

[10:28] However, because the task force did exist and me being the liaison was able to bring that information make that connection so that we can get free technical assistance in order to do a strategic plan.

[10:39] The original strategic plan technical service provider had advised us that we would be completed with that project by December.

[10:47] However, they needed to push that back. The original meetings were supposed to start earlier.

[10:52] And because they pushed that back, that's why we're even having this discussion.

[10:56] We just wrapped up three of the four public sessions that need to happen.

[11:01] So the first session was with service providers for homelessness,

[11:06] bringing everyone to the table to talk about goals, not just talk about complaints and what we don't want to see.

[11:11] We're really focused on what are the solutions that would fit the Tracy community.

[11:16] We had a weekday opportunity, a week-end opportunity for people from the community to come.

[11:21] Again, provide their input for what they think is best for this community.

[11:26] We've had several meetings with different nonprofit agencies that are not local here,

[11:32] but some that are out of town who have also been able to demonstrate that they can have

[11:38] shelters that are not, you know, attracting new homeless from out of town, but still be

[11:44] able to be selective in who they allow in those shelters.

[11:50] So basically what we've been doing is bringing different proposals we've gone to when we

[11:56] go to Lilligo Cities, we've gone to different workshops on how we can resolve those issues

[12:00] and what best practices are, but more than anything, we've been working alongside our

[12:05] city manager bringing most of the, any request that we've made that needs to be voted on,

[12:11] we've made publicly, such as the request to look into what it would take to do an emergency

[12:16] shelter after we, you know, found deceased person, homeless deceased person, as well

[12:22] as the murder of a homeless person in the park.

[12:25] So we brought those, those are the type of things that we've been doing is really,

[12:28] we've met with the community to hear some of their questions and really the whole purpose

[12:33] was to do a strategic plan. We've been working through the city manager and the assistant

[12:38] city manager with the technical assistance provider. So we are just to the point where

[12:42] they are going to be bringing back their recommendations and that's when the council as a whole have

[12:47] an opportunity to vote as to what our next direction is.

[12:52] Real quick one. So when you're meeting and say, I've only seen, you know, since,

[12:57] you know, that's the thing, council, we can't really go.

[13:00] The other council members because of the Brown Act and stuff.

[13:02] But one that I did see, like for the TECA meeting,

[13:04] is that in your capacity as ad hoc,

[13:06] is that your capacity as like task force?

[13:08] I was invited to the TECA meeting

[13:10] as a member of the council, as an ad hoc committee.

[13:14] They had an originally a question

[13:18] and they wanted to get clarification.

[13:22] When I'm there, I am the liaison

[13:24] on from the task force to this council as well as a member of the council as well as

[13:30] a member of the ad hoc committee. I made it very clear in fact the city manager was there.

[13:34] We provided clarification. You were also there as well as council member Vargas. So the

[13:42] answers were there. Is there a point that you're going to say?

[13:45] No, I'm just, I don't, I just don't. I'm sorry if I, I hope you don't take an

[13:49] offense with that. I just don't.

[13:50] I'm not taking offense, there's just a pattern of trying to discredit and create confusion

[13:55] that where there is none and so I'm really concerned, I just really want to know what

[13:59] the question is.

[13:59] I mean my question is I don't understand where the, it's, and this is not just coming

[14:04] from me.

[14:05] I mean it's, again, you have the rest of the council who's out of the loop and, you

[14:10] know, we're-

[14:10] Can you explain when you say the rest of the council is out of the loop?

[14:13] Well, I mean, well at least I can say I'm out of the loop, but you and Dan,

[14:16] excuse me, you and council member are older.

[14:18] Oh, they're only two people that are able, you know,

[14:21] to converse and go to meetings and, you know,

[14:24] talk to individuals because if you get three people in there,

[14:26] they're in the Brown Act violation.

[14:28] And that's one of the-

[14:28] I just gave an example of when three people were there.

[14:32] Right, but the only thing is I was the only one to talk

[14:34] and thank God no other council member to talk

[14:36] because if another council member would have talked,

[14:38] then we would have had a Brown Act violation.

[14:40] So that's where I'm getting at.

[14:41] So when you're having the open dialogue

[14:43] like you have in here is something completely different.

[14:46] I just don't understand where it just seems like everything's lumped together.

[14:52] And it's not just my confusion.

[14:54] It's confusion from those that have attended the Tee Comedians.

[14:59] There's confusion.

[15:03] So hopefully try to get some clarification so I can know where we're going.

[15:10] A prime example is like the internship. Thank you for clarifying that because somebody was

[15:18] saying it was from solicit, but it wasn't from solicit, it was from your role as a council member.

[15:23] So that's a clarification. So no, that's just clarifying information on that.

[15:27] I appreciate you for clarifying those are rumors and that's how rumors get started and that's been the consistent pattern here

[15:33] Which is why we created council protocols to try to avoid those type of things, but I'm similar

[15:38] It's my understanding. I know council member Vargas has had an intern. I believe you've had an intern. I have

[15:44] I've never had an intern. You didn't have an intern before I've never had one

[15:48] Well, okay, there was a letter in the paper from one of your interns last year, but that's okay

[15:56] The point is that if anyone is unclear, my goal as a council member is to help resolve

[16:03] and reduce the issue of homelessness in this community, and within the legal realm that

[16:09] I can, that's what I'm going to do.

[16:11] If anybody is unclear about what the task force is, I would suggest you attend the task

[16:16] force meeting.

[16:17] They're on the first Monday of every month.

[16:19] They alternate between daytime and evening.

[16:20] Go on Facebook, look at the Tracy Community Homeless Task Force for the schedule,

[16:25] or go on to the website.

[16:26] Or you can contact me personally if anybody needs further clarification.

[16:30] And I'll be more than happy to meet with any member here if you need additional clarification as well.

[16:35] But that's the thing. I mean, we've got to be careful because of two of you are on a task force.

[16:39] I mean, do you see what I'm saying?

[16:40] For clarification?

[16:41] No, I'm talking about meeting with you on a...

[16:44] I can give you clarification if you need that.

[16:46] If you have an ad hoc committee with two of you already talk about the issue a third of us can't join in because it's a brown act violation

[16:54] That's what I'm going to suggest our city managers will verse on the issue. You can sit with the city manager

[16:58] She's very clear on the difference between the task force as well as the ad hoc committee

[17:03] So if anyone is that okay with you city manager?

[17:07] I was going to make a suggestion to just kind of bring this back full circle

[17:10] is that one, I think, Council Member Rodizia accurately summarized the events so far with

[17:15] the ad hoc subcommittee. I would be more than happy through staff updates to kind of check

[17:20] in with the council after any type of meeting that we have, just so that we can keep this

[17:24] issue in front of us. Council can stay apprised. There's any deviation or change. Of course,

[17:29] the ad hoc committee can, under council items, do an update to both the community

[17:33] and to the council. But I'd be happy to just do various check-ins to just get

[17:37] ahead of that if that would work for you, Mayor.

[17:38] Yeah, I mean I think the council I mean the longest not a series meeting or something like you know the brown

[17:44] I mean, I'm just very cautious when it comes to the brown act of violations

[17:48] If we can get information be it a council item or something so we can know the rest of the council can know exactly

[17:54] What's going on instead of hearing it from you know other folks?

[17:59] So we don't have to discuss here like this councilmember Vargas. Thank you mayor

[18:04] I first want to commend our two council members that are working diligently to solve some

[18:11] issues that we're having in our community, homelessness, it's not just in Tracy but it's

[18:18] the nation-wide concern and it needs a lot of hard work to figure out how and how we're

[18:32] going to solve this.

[18:34] However, as I witnessed the interaction here, I think it will be prudent to get updates.

[18:46] I think if it's not an issue, in order to be transparent and the public can also get

[18:52] to participate, I think it will be appropriate to have not just an update from the hot

[18:58] committee but an update from the task force. And I can sympathize with the mayor's concerns

[19:07] about how those two interact and if this one is being, could be made political to help

[19:18] the other. So we want to make sure that this is, you know, address all five of us here,

[19:24] There are articles out to those folks that are having difficult times and living in the

[19:29] streets and there's many different issues why somebody finds themselves without a home.

[19:36] With that being said, I think there's an opportunity for all of us to collaborate, to work together

[19:42] and the spirit of solving this problem.

[19:45] And I think the lack of information is making some of us very uncomfortable and it's not

[19:51] prudent for any of us to show up to a meeting. And even though we remain quiet at times, it's

[20:00] human nature to want to participate and share our thoughts. And we cannot do that in any

[20:05] of those two forums. So I appreciate our city manager on those one-on-one. I think it's

[20:13] great to have updates, but it is leaving the rest of the public out. So I think in

[20:20] in the spirit of transparency.

[20:21] I think maybe once a quarter it will be appropriate

[20:25] to have an update not jointly

[20:29] because there are two different branches

[20:32] but I would like to see that if it's possible.

[20:35] I know that you guys are super busy

[20:37] but a quick little update

[20:38] and maybe it's on the agenda as a consent item

[20:41] it doesn't have to be a full bond presentation

[20:43] but something that the public can easily access

[20:47] and we are all informed and we're not afraid of being left in the dark.

[20:53] That will be my suggestion and a spirit of bringing us all together and working towards a solution.

[20:59] That's all.

[21:02] Sure.

[21:03] So I just want to make sure that we're staying on topic and we're addressing the actual,

[21:06] what's on the agenda.

[21:07] So when I first proposed the strategic plan and we received the grant,

[21:11] we were told that it was going to be done by December.

[21:13] So that's what we had anticipated and that's why the length was to December.

[21:16] So after working with the technical assistance team from the state, it was determined that they needed several extra months.

[21:24] And I believe they told us March.

[21:25] So are we still on track that they're going to be able to have that done by March?

[21:29] Yes. As far as I know, that is the deadline.

[21:31] Okay. So even though – so then may I ask why we're asking to extend it for six months instead of three months?

[21:38] Because there are two components to what the ad hoc subcommittee was to work on.

[21:42] One was the strategic plan.

[21:43] and the second was a feasibility of a temporary shelter.

[21:46] Okay, like I said, I hope that we can have

[21:50] something coming back an entire product

[21:53] that we can debate and vote on prior to six months

[21:56] because I want to get this done as soon as possible.

[21:59] I haven't had any confusion with the distinction

[22:01] between a community organization

[22:03] who's doing work directly with homeless individuals

[22:06] and the subcommittee which is working

[22:08] on developing policy for us to bring back.

[22:11] And we had a really good public workshop that was done.

[22:14] We identified five goals.

[22:16] We worked for six hours on how we were going to do that.

[22:19] So perhaps we can include that in any future presentation because I thought that was a really

[22:24] effective meeting that we had, and we figured out a big hunk of what the next steps were

[22:31] for our strategic plan.

[22:32] That being said, we did have a strategic plan meeting recently, and I anticipate

[22:35] that Councilmember Ransom will probably be speaking about it during the Council

[22:38] reports. Unfortunately, I was not there because I was sick. So that being said, I think we're

[22:44] having our steps are moving forward effectively and efficiently. We just did that a few bumps

[22:50] because of the timing. That was just a calendaring problem with the tactical strategic team or

[22:55] the tactical assistance team. So with that being said, I'd like to make a motion to

[23:01] move this because I'd like to actually say something before.

[23:04] Sure. Okay. Sorry. I just wanted to, I just wanted to say.

[23:07] We can go ahead and do a motion.

[23:09] Go ahead and do the motion, then we'll do a second.

[23:10] We can go ahead and do that.

[23:11] I'll second the motion to approve the item.

[23:13] I haven't motion yet.

[23:14] What's that?

[23:15] You're dead.

[23:16] Just to clarify, there was a request on the floor

[23:20] from Councilmember Vargas about a quarterly update.

[23:25] What I understood was a request to have a quarterly update

[23:27] on the work of the ad hoc committee.

[23:31] Was that seconded by anybody?

[23:33] I don't think that motion has been made.

[23:38] OK.

[23:39] So kind of premature.

[23:39] So, do you pull your motion, Dan?

[23:41] I pull one motion.

[23:42] I want to make sure that we have a pro-temp opportunity.

[23:44] Thank you.

[23:44] I just have a further clarification of what Carence Memorial asked, which was my one simple

[23:49] question for why we extended this to June.

[23:52] So what was just clarified was that it should be done around March, and then it's a two-part

[23:57] thing.

[23:57] That's why it's asked to June.

[23:59] So my simple question is, when will we have a strategic plan report to us?

[24:04] Will that be expected in two parts in March and June, or will that be one after

[24:09] June sometime. We'd get one in March and that would cover the strategic plan and

[24:14] then anything either at the same time or subsequent to that would involve

[24:17] whatever the work is directed by the subcommittee with respect to a

[24:21] feasibility of a temporary shelter that's also in play as well and we're

[24:25] still working and researching that. So then in March then we'll have the

[24:28] opportunity to talk whatever that's going to go beyond that. Absolutely because that would probably come out of that conversation organically anyway.

[24:34] Okay. So that's my question. I'll leave my comment. Well, I will add this one comment, though.

[24:41] As far as the differential, I'm not going to even really discuss the difference to an ad hoc in the task force

[24:48] because it's been made clear. But just for anyone who's really interested in homelessness

[24:53] and the challenges that there are not only in our city but abroad, as was already stated,

[25:00] I just want to reiterate that the Tracy Community Homelessness Task Force is open invitation

[25:06] to every single person that's concerned about that within our community and beyond.

[25:11] So you can go to that.

[25:11] I've attended them as well.

[25:13] And so it's not a conflict.

[25:14] The Brown Act to be able to be involved in a community organization

[25:17] that's trying to do something good for our community.

[25:20] Thank you.

[25:21] I move that we approve item 1J.

[25:24] I'll second.

[25:25] Okay. I had one more quick.

[25:27] Before we go to vote, I have one more quick.

[25:28] It's, I still have a, I mean, one of the reasons I disagree with this ad hoc community at the

[25:35] very beginning and I'm going to be the, an old dissent on this is that of transparency

[25:41] issue and you've seen some of the confusion that we've had here and this isn't just

[25:46] coming from me but some members of the community and, you know, a prime example is talking

[25:51] about temporary homeless shelters and, you know, what that means and, you know, what

[25:57] to the public think about that. And I know Councilmember Ranson talked about some city

[26:04] owned property that we've had in here in the city and does that, or we're using that as

[26:10] a place positive at home and shelter, there's a lot of questions. And another complaint

[26:16] that I heard was that, you know, that all voices aren't being heard, meaning that

[26:21] you go to some of these meetings and unless you're in support of temporary homeless shelters

[26:29] that you're kind of put out to the side. And again, these are some of the complaints that

[26:34] I hear. And I think one of the ways that we can eliminate that kind of talk

[26:44] amongst

[26:44] people is have an open forum. I mean, to me, this is, you're right, this is a huge,

[26:50] huge issue not just for the state or the city of Tracy but this whole entire

[26:54] valley not to the state and it will kind of like at least I equate it to is like

[27:00] when we discuss cannabis issues it's like to have an ad hoc issue or ad hoc

[27:05] committing dealing with cannabis I don't think anybody here would be too

[27:10] thrilled with that and so based on the transparency side of it I mean I

[27:16] think there is a huge lack of transparency in getting with the

[27:19] public involved in the open council setting. So that's my reason for dissenting.

[27:24] So as well, I'm sorry, I have a point afterwards.

[27:28] Okay.

[27:29] What I would like to point out is that this is not the only ad hoc committee we

[27:32] had in this city. Um,

[27:34] and what you're saying is that people are bringing you things and this is what

[27:38] you're hearing. Those are rumors. You're bringing rumors to the dais.

[27:41] So, um, while I appreciate that we brought, we brought, excuse me,

[27:45] what we did is we had an open invitation to the community through the city for

[27:52] four meetings where people can actually come and participate so we've had three

[27:56] of those meetings so far so when you're saying that people are saying that it's

[28:00] one-sided the task force does not make decisions on behalf of the city only

[28:03] the council can do that and we've opened those meetings up for the

[28:07] community to provide input three out of four have already happened so I just

[28:11] really wanted to bring that to your attention that when people are saying

[28:14] that they don't get a chance to participate, that's specifically and exactly why we added

[28:21] three additional meetings as opposed to just having one meeting.

[28:25] We added a weekend meeting, a Saturday meeting, and those are the meetings that will influence

[28:29] this City Council.

[28:31] And so I just would like to bring that to your attention.

[28:33] This is politics.

[28:34] People are going to talk.

[28:35] People are going to try to shade things one way or another.

[28:37] I can appreciate that.

[28:39] But the decisions that we make are going to be based on those open meetings that

[28:43] that were noticed to the public.

[28:45] So I'm done and thank you.

[28:46] No, I thank you.

[28:47] Council member.

[28:47] Mayor, I'm jumping in here.

[28:50] So we had a staff report

[28:51] and we've had council discussion.

[28:54] I do not believe this has been opened up to the public.

[28:57] Yeah, we did at the very beginning.

[28:58] Did you?

[28:59] Yeah.

[28:59] Yes.

[29:00] Okay.

[29:00] So my point, I just want to bring,

[29:02] I want to jump on council member Vargas's point

[29:04] and just I'm happy with us doing some type of update.

[29:11] If four public forums weren't sufficient, then I'm fine doing something different.

[29:16] The last time I spoke, I suggested that we discuss the initial workshop we had,

[29:23] in which we talked about our actual priorities that these service providers themselves developed for six hours.

[29:29] It was really in depth.

[29:30] So if Council Member Vargas wants to make a motion, I'd be happy to second it to make sure that we do have an update

[29:38] And that would include some of those details from that workshop. I think that would be appropriate given that was done in a public forum

[29:44] Am I on but what I would that be one of clarification?

[29:48] It was requested that it be done quarterly council mayor Errol is still have the floor unless you get it up

[29:53] I just wanted to make sure would that be appropriate?

[29:55] Mr. Mears. Yeah, that's an appropriate motion to be made after there is a

[30:00] Currently a motion on the floor.

[30:02] No, he pulled it, so there's no motion on the floor.

[30:04] Council member one second where everybody can't speak at once.

[30:08] They had a motion. They were not clarifying that.

[30:10] Okay, so you made the motion. Who seconded Council Member Pro Tem?

[30:14] I did.

[30:14] Okay, so Council Member Areola has questions for our city attorney. Let's go there.

[30:19] So the answer to Council Member Areola's question is that is an appropriate motion that can be made after the current motion on the floor is addressed.

[30:28] Thank you. Okay. Can I still have my point of clarification?

[30:31] Okay, so the request as far as I just recall was that we can have a quarterly update.

[30:37] So the next quarter will be March. March is when the strategic plan will be coming back to us.

[30:42] That will be a full update at that particular time unless you're going to alter the original request.

[30:47] So if it's coming back in three months, that's redundant.

[30:50] So I just want to make sure that we're clear on what we're asking for.

[30:54] So, so what I'm asking since I'm the one asking I'll clarify that mayor pro tem and you're

[31:00] right if that is coming on the first quarter which is a march as great but we can have

[31:05] the update from the other side as well which is the community task force so we can alternate

[31:12] so not to be redundant and repetitive and that way everything is addressed is open to

[31:19] with the public is well beyond transparent.

[31:22] I think there's nothing wrong here.

[31:25] We just need to...

[31:26] No, I just want to make sure that we're having a report

[31:27] because the strategic plan that comes back

[31:30] is based on the task force and all the ad hoc committee,

[31:35] everything that comes back from the public hearings.

[31:37] I just want to make sure just,

[31:39] I mean, we're going to have two line items

[31:40] about the same thing,

[31:41] just coming from two different directions.

[31:42] I actually think there would be two different things.

[31:44] Councilmember Areola was asking for specific updates

[31:47] with all of the priorities that were actually documented and outlined in the

[31:50] first meeting which was November 19th and then we could also incorporate what's

[31:55] been done to date. Then then the strategic plan would be all of that

[31:58] information assimilated and with some recommended deliverables for council's

[32:02] consideration. So then that one we need to be sooner. It wouldn't be the first

[32:07] quarter as was said. We could do something in January or it

[32:12] shouldn't be a problem early February. The meeting there's another there's

[32:16] There's another open meeting that's in our report that says January 14th that the entire

[32:21] community can come to if they wish to.

[32:23] Yes.

[32:24] And I would not object to that.

[32:27] And what I do object to is a characterization that it's not been transparent and we've

[32:31] not given updates here because we've done updates here that have not been agendized.

[32:35] I do them in council items.

[32:37] So I object to the characterization, which is very intentional, but I do not object

[32:42] up to the actual agendizing updates for the future.

[32:47] So with that being said,

[32:48] is it okay to call for the question?

[32:51] It's, so how many motions do we have on here?

[32:54] There's two.

[32:55] The first one was Council Member Ransom,

[32:56] seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Young,

[32:59] regarding adopting a resolution to formally establish

[33:02] the Tracy-Holmes Strategic Plan Development Ad Hoc

[33:05] Committee through June 30th, 2020.

[33:07] The second motion was, I believe,

[33:11] introduced by to bring updates to council on a quarterly basis including the

[33:17] details from previous meetings and they start you know in the strategic point may

[33:22] make a friendly amendment to Vargas to council member Vargas's request is that

[33:27] can we do that after the January 14th meeting so then we have a compiled

[33:31] information for all of our public comments so that we'll have a really

[33:35] comprehensive update for everyone after the January 14th meeting great

[33:39] amendment to that yes that amendment to council member Vargas so the first

[33:43] amendment that's good the first amendment is to approve what's on the

[33:47] agenda is a second amendment it or excuse me the second motion would be to to

[33:51] bring to council a quarterly update including details from the previous

[33:55] meeting and that those updates to be brought after the January 14th okay

[34:02] and I just and real quick in regards to intentional and you know and this is

[34:09] Again, we have a right to know what the heck is going on in our community and as far as

[34:14] to ask questions, this kind of gets back to a prior council meeting that we're not accusing

[34:19] anybody of anything.

[34:21] We're not putting somebody's idea down, but there is a lot of questions that I'm not

[34:26] even aware of.

[34:27] I'm the mayor and I don't even know what's going on here because nobody's informing

[34:30] us.

[34:31] If there is talk about a temporary homeless shelter, there is talk about using city

[34:36] own property for the temporary homeless shelters, you know, and I think the public has the right

[34:40] to know, and that is where I'm going from. This is no disrespect to ad hoc committee,

[34:44] no disrespect to individual council members. But again, it points to the public has the

[34:50] right to know where the heck this city is going, and we're asked questions as equals

[34:55] up here, and we can't provide answers because one side is doing the other, and one right

[35:00] hand doesn't know what the left hand's side is doing. I have an issue with that,

[35:03] and that's the transparency side I'm talking about.

[35:06] So get a roll call on motion number one

[35:11] by Council Member Ransom or Pro Tem.

[35:13] Council Member Ransom?

[35:15] Yes.

[35:15] Mayor Pro Tem Young?

[35:16] Yes.

[35:16] Council Member Eriola?

[35:17] Yes.

[35:18] Council Member Vargas?

[35:18] Yes.

[35:19] Mayor Rickman?

[35:20] No.

[35:23] Get a roll call for motion number two.

[35:26] Council Member Vargas?

[35:28] Yes.

[35:28] Council Member Eriola?

[35:29] Yes.

[35:30] Council Member Ransom?

[35:30] Yes.

[35:31] Mayor Pro Tem Young?

[35:32] Yes.

[35:32] And Mayor Rickman?

[35:33] Yes.

[35:34] Alright, we're going to move on to item number two, item from the audience.

[35:39] Anybody from the audience wish to address Council on this item?

[35:42] Please keep your hands up high so I can see.

[35:44] Three,

[35:48] three folks, you got five minutes.

[35:50] That's it, just three folks.

[35:52] We're limited to 15 minutes, so five minutes apiece.

[35:55] So whoever would like to go.

[35:56] I know I'm looking at you, but you don't have to if you don't wish.

[35:59] I do actually, because I had a question about what we just finished talking about.

[36:04] If you did that means it was an agenda item so you can't but so well my questions because I asked for clarification about that when you guys

[36:13] were having your debate and she said no I should not come then because you guys were only supposed to be talking about what it said which

[36:21] was extending their time.

[36:22] Okay.

[36:23] And you guys went down a different chain.

[36:25] Okay.

[36:25] Let's try this.

[36:26] We'll go ahead and we don't start your time yet.

[36:29] Go ahead and talk.

[36:29] And if you veer into what we've just discussed an agenda item.

[36:33] I'm not going to veer into anything about voting as to whether or not that should be extended.

[36:37] All right, so let's go ahead and if you don't mind, get your name and address.

[36:43] Yep, Melissa Johnson 212 Alvarado Way.

[36:45] Thank you, Mr. Johnson.

[36:47] So my first question was about the ad hoc committee and the task force.

[36:51] Can we as a community member join either one of those or only the task force?

[36:56] And unfortunately, we can't...

[36:58] That speaks to non-agendized matters.

[37:00] Right, but we can't comment on that, right?

[37:02] Okay, so it's not an agenda item.

[37:05] They can talk to staff.

[37:06] But staff can answer your question afterwards.

[37:09] Thank you, City Manager, I'm just about to get to it.

[37:12] Well, the question that you asked is not an agenda item,

[37:15] so we can't comment on that or give you advice

[37:18] or tell you, but what we'll do is have one of our staff

[37:20] members relay that information to you.

[37:22] Okay. All right.

[37:23] I'm sorry, let me make sure I understand.

[37:25] I can only ask questions about what was on the agenda.

[37:28] Was not on the agenda.

[37:30] Okay, but that wasn't on the agenda.

[37:32] Right. No, you're fine. All we're saying is that we can't...

[37:34] But why didn't I get an answer?

[37:35] Because we can't, because it is not on the agenda, so we can't discuss it.

[37:40] So we have to have notice to the public what we're going to discuss.

[37:43] None of my questions are on the agenda.

[37:45] Okay, so what will happen?

[37:46] They're all about homelessness and all about confusion.

[37:49] They're all about clarity and transparency.

[37:51] One second. What will happen? You can ask the questions.

[37:53] We can't respond, but we'll have our staff member come and answer those questions for you.

[37:57] Okay.

[37:58] Alright, so with that being said,

[38:00] why don't we go ahead and start her time

[38:02] so we don't shorten ya.

[38:03] Oh, that's okay, there's only six questions

[38:05] and one of them was already answered.

[38:07] So question number two,

[38:09] when is the next public meeting

[38:10] to provide input about homelessness?

[38:14] Question number three,

[38:15] what happened to the emergency shelter?

[38:17] Is that happening? When is that happening?

[38:19] Is it not happening until June?

[38:21] So I can still expect to see the homeless

[38:23] with tents in the park, El Pasquodero,

[38:25] or no, next to the school, no.

[38:28] Question number four, when will the strategic plan

[38:31] actually be brought to the city council

[38:32] for you guys to vote on that?

[38:34] Question number five, where can we find updates

[38:37] on what's happening with either of the groups

[38:39] since I'm still kind of unclear

[38:41] as to what either of them really do.

[38:44] And question number six is someone going to do something

[38:46] about the homeless tents that are sitting next

[38:48] to North Elementary School.

[38:51] Because I don't really feel like waiting until

[38:54] June for the tents to disappear or the vagrancy to disappear?

[38:59] All right, thank you, Ms. Johnson.

[39:00] We'll have one of our staff members in contacting to answer those questions for you.

[39:05] Perfect.

[39:05] All right, thank you.

[39:07] Mayor, could staff also send a memo or email about the response given to the lady, Ms. Johnson?

[39:17] No, sir.

[39:19] See why not.

[39:21] Who would like to go next?

[39:22] Robert

[39:29] Tanner, 1371, Russia Street.

[39:31] A couple of meetings back, this city council voted talking about the e-cigarettes, the vapors, and the cartridges.

[39:41] And the only thing this city council voted on was the non-sale of the cartridges.

[39:47] Several days later, there was a CDC report that said e-cigarettes and vapors were causing up to 2,000 people having health problems.

[39:58] and some deaths beyond that and I would hope that the city council has the

[40:04] backbone if you will to not have e-cigarettes and vapors and the

[40:11] cartridges sold in the city limits of Tracy if the people want to ruin their

[40:16] lives let them go outside the city to buy it we don't need to support that

[40:21] kind of a thing thank you thank you mr. Tanner point of clarification on that

[40:27] I'm a senior attorney.

[40:31] Our goal was to ban e-cigarettes and flavor tobacco

[40:34] and not being able to sell within 600 feet of schools.

[40:39] The direction was just to ban flavored tobacco

[40:42] and to restrict the sale of tobacco retailers

[40:46] from being within 600 feet of sensitive youth uses like schools.

[40:57] Alice English, Tracy, California.

[40:59] Sorry.

[41:01] I just want to mention on October 15th, we had a consent item for the Mayor's Fund that

[41:09] was pulled.

[41:10] And I just want to clarify 26 minutes into that conversation of the consent item for the

[41:21] Youth Grant.

[41:22] There was a member from the audience that said she was a board member and that Councilwoman

[41:28] Ransom was not receiving money as counsel, 29 minutes into that same item, Councilwoman

[41:38] Young, quote, unquote, she said, I'm going on record since Councilwoman Ransom has not

[41:46] – since she's been on counsel, has not applied for funding.

[41:50] That is an incorrect statement.

[41:52] And then she went again and said, I'm going on record as part of the advisory committee.

[41:58] She has not receiving money from the Mayor's Fund.

[42:02] So I would like to enter this on record that Radisha Ransom sow a seed.

[42:08] And the reason I say that because it has her name and it has her home address where all the checks go to,

[42:13] She applied for August 2017 to 2018 council members.

[42:22] So I'm going to submit this as a record.

[42:23] It's here.

[42:24] It's the city of Tracy that she has been receiving money on 2016 when she ran for council.

[42:31] She did apply again for 2016-2017 and also received funds.

[42:36] She received a check when being a City Council member back in March of 2017 for $5,000 for

[42:45] one month, and there was another check in February for another $3,000 in 2017, and that's also

[42:53] going to go on record.

[42:54] But since Councilwoman Young mentioned that she's been a member in a part of the advisory

[43:00] committee, I think she said seven years, so that goes further than what my records

[43:04] show.

[43:04] So in 2013-2014, Councilwoman Young at that time voted for funding for SOA seat and has been on the budget.

[43:17] So that's on record. She has never reviewed herself. She's been part of the member and advisory board member.

[43:23] So that is also going on. And on 2014 to go on record, on the mayor's fund, they were only allowed up to $50,000.

[43:32] So at that time, there was extra money allocated.

[43:36] It could have gone to other ones, but so was seed received and extra additional money, which almost was $58,000.

[43:42] Not including the money for CBDG fund, which I think I'm going to pursue that one because that is double dipping.

[43:51] She should have been qualified to receive another $6,000 CBDG fund.

[43:56] And at that time, Councilwoman Young did not repeat herself.

[43:59] On record, she said she didn't have to, but she didn't need to.

[44:03] So this just shows you the pattern that we have here with council.

[44:06] So that year, close to $65,000, and this is taxpayers' money.

[44:11] And the reason that's why I'm disclosing this, it's our money.

[44:14] It comes out of taxpayers' money, it came out of the general fund.

[44:19] So that happened back in 2014, but I do have all this on record.

[44:23] I do have all the documents to provide that she received $3,000, $4,000, $1,300 just through

[44:31] when she was on 2016, 2017, 2017, 2018.

[44:38] So a seed did apply for it.

[44:40] So this is why I'm here because it was on record October 15th.

[44:45] It was 29 minutes into it when Councilwoman Young said that she is going on record.

[44:50] This is a pattern of what goes on and has been going on.

[44:53] She never recused herself and voted in any of the budget, which is fine.

[44:58] But I'm just going on record.

[45:00] So that's what happened, and it's ongoing. And there's another incident that happened this

[45:05] year on the CBDG fund that I will bring that document. I thought I brought it up on another

[45:10] project that she did not recruit herself. And I think I came up to council on that,

[45:15] and I went on record. So just for the audience, I will come back on that one. So they'll have

[45:20] that. But I'd like to give this to the clerk, even though it is to the city of Tracy.

[45:24] And then I have a point of clarification, Jess, Ms. Hart's correction.

[45:30] Once I can, she still has her time here.

[45:32] So what I'm stating, in case it doesn't make sense, it's on the open agenda on October

[45:39] 15th, 26 minutes into and 29 minutes is when Councilwoman Young, and she did say that she's

[45:45] going on record.

[45:46] Not only that, she did that at the ribbon cutting that she's been a member on that

[45:50] and kind of made a joke about city council as a pro tem so I just want to

[45:56] mention that some of the things that are saying out there in public as well thank

[46:00] you thank you miss English I just have one I know that council member ransom

[46:05] I'm not going to speak to to her itself I will speak to myself first of all the

[46:11] very first thing that I need to clarify is if we want to go on record be an

[46:19] to you, or at all, that's my title right there, you can see it.

[46:23] It's not ASME or Pro Tem, but because it's just blatant disrespect.

[46:28] And so I have said very clearly, I'm on the advisory committee, and if you don't know

[46:32] the difference between advisory committee and a board member, then I can share definitions

[46:37] with you later as far as my voting, and it's already been clarified and cleared.

[46:45] I don't have to recuse myself on the council.

[46:46] And so and it's the same when it goes to

[46:49] Suicide but counsel I just like to remind everyone that we're in the items from the audience portion of the agenda

[46:55] So please make your comments very and I'm correcting

[46:58] Yes, I am mayor pro tem and so it's as far as a matter of if we're going on record all the many times that I was referred to

[47:05] And we have that information. Thank you. Okay, so I will be brief

[47:09] The law does allow that when people come and intentionally say things that are factually untrue

[47:14] that we can provide clarification.

[47:17] This has been going on for several years.

[47:20] As an executive director of a nonprofit organization

[47:23] over the years, we have received funding, the organization.

[47:26] When she's saying that checks are made to me,

[47:28] there are no checks made to Rhodesia Ransom.

[47:31] They've already filed an FPPC complaint

[47:33] and have received the information

[47:35] that it is legal for funds to go to the organization.

[47:40] I've done that before getting on this council.

[47:42] Mayor Pro Tem Young is an advisory member,

[47:45] is not a paid member, is not on the Board of Directors

[47:47] for the organization.

[47:49] The year where she's talking about the organization

[47:51] got more than anyone else, it is a competitive process.

[47:55] The organization outperformed other organizations

[47:58] and there was additional funding that can be clarified

[48:01] with Vanessa Carrera and any other city staff

[48:05] as to why the organization received additional funding.

[48:08] In 2017-2018 it was on record here

[48:12] that our board of directors submitted an application and withdrew the application at my request

[48:17] for 2017 and 2018, went on the council. And Ms. English is very aware of that because

[48:23] she spent over 100 hours of staff time requesting public records for this non-profit organization.

[48:29] And that is on record from Mr. Watson. So, Mr. Rickman, for the publics to understand,

[48:37] there are three of us running for county supervisor right now. Ms. English represents that

[48:40] And you're going to continue to see politics brought into this council until the election is over. Thank you.

[48:46] Okay, you're way beyond that.

[48:48] I'm done, sir.

[48:50] So I have pointed privilege. I would just ask that any personal identifying information that's been requested to be entered into the record be redacted for personal information including addresses.

[49:00] Thank you.

[49:01] And just, you know, council, we have a right under the Brown Act. However, it needs to be brief and factual.

[49:09] That was a brief infection?

[49:12] Accusations and so on, you know, it's uncalled for and it's not germane to the jurisdiction.

[49:21] And, sir, you came in, did you?

[49:24] Okay, so go ahead. I didn't see it.

[49:27] Felix Manges, 23285.

[49:29] I'm sorry, sir.

[49:30] Felix Manges, 23285 Sorrellas Drive.

[49:34] Earlier, I was with the fire department downtown.

[49:38] I need to know if the fire department is associated with the city of Tracy.

[49:43] I've lived here for 63 years, and I'm kind of not liking it much more, much longer.

[49:53] Story cut short. I've had a talk with him, had a talk with her, and I had a talk with him at the fire department.

[50:00] eventually there was a lady in there that that needs to be addressed and I

[50:06] don't know who to address it to or who she's involved with got into a

[50:11] belligerent conversation with my wife trying to get a permit signed and she

[50:17] came home angry and she came home crying. Do you want me to go downtown and take

[50:22] care of it? Yes. So the paperwork that we had to file with the fire

[50:26] department was not documented into the computer that lady left to take

[50:30] another job in Reno. Okay, so then this lady was badgering my wife, made us write

[50:37] another check, made us pay for another whole new permit and everything else, and

[50:41] so by the time I went down there, another fire lady, Marshal, whatever, had to

[50:48] intervene because it got pretty nasty. And I told her, it says, you know what, you

[50:52] could talk to anybody you want to, like that, but you're not gonna talk to me

[50:54] like that. It got very heated. Eventually, we got our check back because

[50:58] as the other lady mediated, okay?

[51:01] And then on top of that, I ended up driving home

[51:05] and I got a flat tire by the fire station on 11th Street.

[51:08] Changed my tire, my car fell on my arm.

[51:12] I was stuck there for seven minutes.

[51:15] Two tow truck drivers went by, nobody stopped.

[51:18] I was underneath my car, my tire was on top of my foot,

[51:21] my cell phone was in my car.

[51:23] Couldn't call nobody.

[51:24] Two tow truck drivers went by, I was waving,

[51:27] rush hour traffic at five o'clock nobody stopped nobody I was stuck there so I

[51:36] started cutting my wrist off I just started going side-to-side cut my wrist

[51:39] off and I just felt later down the road that I was going to need my wrist

[51:45] counted three pulled it out ran down to the fire station knocked on the door

[51:50] fireman came out and I says you know I need some ice really bad now here's a

[51:54] part that really angers me and I need this looked into because I think it's

[51:58] some form of discrimination because he told me he came out there we don't have

[52:03] no ice I said what do you mean you don't have no ice you're a fire department

[52:07] half paramedic you don't have no ice two three minutes later another fire

[52:12] truck pulls in the guys went right by my arm he says oh man let me run inside

[52:16] to get you some ice he came outside with some ice and the whole meeting

[52:22] behind this whole thing if that lady would have been very professional I wouldn't have had to come

[52:28] into town I would have never got my hands smashed this happened back July 9th I was in doctors care

[52:33] to this day to don't move they've already casted this like six times already now and the reason

[52:40] why they took it off now is to give it some circulation I have no use of this arm cracked

[52:45] here cracked there cracked there cracked underneath here and this is pulverized now my medical

[52:51] Bills are like really stacking up. I can't afford it. They don't want to put me on the

[52:56] table to try and fix it because I've already had two heart attacks already. Now they wanted

[53:00] to put a plate in here, but they want to put me on the table. But they said no, we'll just

[53:06] let it heal. I've been sitting down in my house since July doing absolutely nothing.

[53:13] I had to pay to somebody to come in and frame my concrete. I had to pay for somebody

[53:19] to come in and pour my concrete and to dig the trench, and that's unacceptable because

[53:27] of somebody's bad behavior that needs to be dealt with.

[53:32] This is very inappropriate, and I don't want to get into this political BS.

[53:36] I called him, never returned any of my calls.

[53:39] You disrespected me as a Tracyite, not one call.

[53:43] I came to the council here numerous times to get your phone number.

[53:47] Never returned not one of my calls.

[53:49] So am I not important to you? Am I not important to you? Because this happened because of you, you didn't answer my phone. You're part of this.

[53:57] You're part of it too.

[53:59] Maybe because you didn't handle that situation with that female person that had that attitude.

[54:06] Now, if I could have not been a gentleman, I could have resolved that issue myself because nobody is going to talk to me like that.

[54:13] And I should have never have come from out of town to take care of my wife's situation

[54:19] for something that had a bad attitude that was very unprofessional.

[54:23] I can't do nothing.

[54:24] I can't, I can't move it.

[54:25] I can't do nothing.

[54:27] I'm useless with my left arm.

[54:28] So I wanted to bring this to your guys' attention.

[54:31] So each one you say, you guys don't know the whole story.

[54:34] I feel, thank you.

[54:35] We have our human resources.

[54:37] I've, I've, I've talked to them already today.

[54:39] Okay.

[54:39] She's right behind if you have any, so you can talk to her.

[54:43] I just want to let you know.

[54:44] I want to know why you didn't answer my return my call.

[54:47] Okay, all right.

[54:48] No, you tell me.

[54:49] I can't. This is not an agendized item.

[54:51] I'm sorry.

[54:52] It's if you want to wait for it after the meeting or we can talk.

[54:56] But unfortunately by the law, I can't. I lost all faith in you.

[54:59] I have no respect for you.

[55:00] All right. Thank you, Alex.

[55:02] Same with you, Randy. No respect.

[55:04] All right. We're going to move on to item number three a city council adoption

[55:08] of a resolution approving documents and actions relating to the refinancing of outstanding

[55:13] lease revenue bonds and related lease payment obligations of the city. And two, Tracy Operating

[55:19] Partnership, Joint Powers Authority Board of Directors, approval of a resolution authorizing

[55:23] the issuance and sale of lease revenue bonds through refinancing outstanding lease revenue

[55:29] bonds and approving related documents and official auctions. Staff report please.

[55:35] Good evening, Mayor, City Council. Thank you for allowing us to bring this item to you.

[55:41] We've had a very successful look at refinancing some existing bonds given the current market conditions.

[55:50] There are two resolutions on the agenda tonight, both items related to the refinancing of outstanding lease revenue bonds,

[55:57] meaning these are bonds that have already gone out and we're looking to lower the interest rates.

[56:02] One for the adoption by the city council and two by the adoption of the Tracy operating Tracy's

[56:09] joint power authority and that is basically a state agent oversight requirement that is done by

[56:16] the city council. The out same bonds were issued in 2007 and in 2008 a portion of the debt

[56:24] services for 2008 bonds is paid with redevelopment tax increment bonds and we have received

[56:31] approved approval from Department of Finance.

[56:33] Under current market conditions, the refunding of the 2007 bonds is expected to generate

[56:37] approximately $580,000 in net debt savings with an annual amount of $32,000.

[56:45] Under the current conditions for the 2008 bonds, it's expected to, over the life

[56:50] of the bonds, save $7.8 million or approximately $410 over for an annual amount.

[56:58] The date of this maturity is 2037 for the 2007 bonds and the date of maturity for the 2008

[57:06] is 2003, I'm sorry 2038.

[57:10] The general fund savings from the 2008 bonds is expected to be $315,000 with other tax

[57:17] amenities such as redevelopment sharing $96,000.

[57:22] The proposed refunding bonds are payable from the city's general fund with some

[57:26] support from the redevelopment agency. Any known facts related to the preliminary official

[57:31] statements that were included in your packet as well as I would say almost 10 attachments

[57:36] so quite a lengthy packet item tonight. To repay these bonds is this is the opportunity

[57:42] for you to make any statements on that. With that, that concludes our presentation.

[57:49] I thank you Karen. All right, at this time we're going to open up the public hearing.

[57:53] Anybody from the audience wish to address council on this item item 3a?

[58:01] Anyone else anyone?

[58:04] And no one we will close the public hearing and bring it back to council for discussion

[58:11] If there is no discussion entertain a motion and move to adopt a resolution

[58:17] approving documents and actions relating to the refinancing of outstanding lease revenue bonds and related lease payment obligations of the city

[58:26] seconded

[58:26] Council member are you looking at real call, please may purchase me young. Yes, council of ariola. Yes, council of ransom

[58:33] Yes, that's my vagus and may Rickman. Yes

[58:38] So as the authority I'm going to adopt a resolution of the Tracy operating partnership joint powers authorities

[58:46] Authorizing the issuance and sell of lease revenue bonds to refinance outstanding lease revenue bonds

[58:51] ratifying and improving a debt management policy and improving related documents and official actions a second that motion

[58:58] I had a real call please.

[59:00] Director Young.

[59:01] Yes.

[59:02] Director Ansem.

[59:03] Yes.

[59:03] Director Arayola.

[59:05] Director Vargas.

[59:06] And Chair Rickman.

[59:08] Yes.

[59:09] All right.

[59:09] Move on to item 3B, public hearing to introduce an ordinance admitting the I-205 court or

[59:14] a specific plan that appendix A, table A-2, permitted and conditionally permitted commercial

[59:20] and industrial uses to allow breweries, wineries and distilleries.

[59:24] Staff report please.

[59:27] Yes.

[59:28] Thank you mayor and council members. I'm Scott Clair with Development Services Department

[59:32] the I-205 quarter specific plan area

[59:35] currently only permits

[59:38] breweries wineries and distilleries in the light industrial designated areas and also

[59:44] Conditionally permits them in the service commercial areas. So this proposed ordinance

[59:47] Would allow breweries wineries and distilleries to locate in all of the commercially designated areas within the I-205 specific plan

[59:54] as long as those uses are including at least 30%

[1:00:04] And the reason for that requirement is so that the use is compatible with a retail center.

[1:00:10] The project applicant is proposed to locate a craft brewery in the Northgate Village Shopping

[1:00:16] Center. And if this ordinance is approved, that use would be allowed. So staff and planning

[1:00:22] commissioner are recommending that city council introduce and waive the first reading of

[1:00:26] the ordinance. I'm happy to answer any questions you have. Thank you.

[1:00:30] All right. Thank you, sir. We'll move on to

[1:00:33] Opening the public hearing so at this time we're going to open up the public hearing for item 3b. No

[1:00:43] one

[1:00:45] We will close the public hearing and bring it back for a discount the council for discussion

[1:00:52] Don't see any discussion. So with that being said, I'm going to request that our city clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance

[1:00:59] An ordinance of the city of Tracy amending the I-205 corridor specific plan

[1:01:04] Appendix A, Table A-2, permitted and conditionally permitted commercial and

[1:01:09] industrial uses to allow breweries, wineries and distilleries application

[1:01:14] number SPA 19-0005. I move to waive reading of the text and

[1:01:20] introduce the proposed ordinance. I second. I roll call. Council Member Areola. Yes.

[1:01:25] Yes.

[1:01:25] Mayor Pro-Jim Young.

[1:01:26] Yes.

[1:01:27] Councilman Branson.

[1:01:27] Yes.

[1:01:28] Councilman Vargas.

[1:01:29] Yes.

[1:01:30] Mayor Rickman.

[1:01:31] Yes.

[1:01:32] All right.

[1:01:34] Looking forward to another brewery.

[1:01:36] Or winery.

[1:01:37] Or distillery.

[1:01:40] I like the breweries.

[1:01:43] I like wine.

[1:01:45] And I like distilleries.

[1:01:47] So.

[1:01:48] We move on to item 3C.

[1:01:51] Public hearing to introduce an ordinance admitting the central business district zone to permit

[1:01:54] high density to residential uses, including single family dwellings, two family dwellings,

[1:02:01] and multi-family dwellings, and approval of a development review permit to construct a

[1:02:06] five-unit residential project consistent of two single family dwellings, and a triplex

[1:02:12] located at 21, 25, and 29 East 8th Street.

[1:02:17] Good roll call. Oh, excuse me, your staff report. No pressure. I'm not trying to, Russia.

[1:02:25] Yes, thank you, Mayor and Council Members. This item involves a proposed amendment to

[1:02:30] the CBD zone to permit residential uses as long as they're not located on the ground

[1:02:36] floor of Central Avenue or 10th Street between Central and A Street and also not on the

[1:02:44] ground floor facing the plaza on 6th Street.

[1:02:47] So the current CBD zone requires a conditional use permit for multi-family housing in the

[1:02:52] CBD and also does not currently permit single-family dwellings and duplexes.

[1:02:57] However, the general plan states that residential development is strongly encouraged in the

[1:03:01] downtown as long as it meets the density of 15 to 50 units per gross acre.

[1:03:08] And so with this proposed amendment, it would be more encouraging of residential

[1:03:13] as long as it meets that criteria.

[1:03:16] The project applicant is proposing a five-unit project

[1:03:19] on East 8th Street that includes a triplex

[1:03:22] and two single-family homes.

[1:03:24] So the agenda item also includes a development review permit

[1:03:27] to approve that project.

[1:03:29] The project is consistent with the general plan

[1:03:31] as well as the proposed amendment to the CBD zone

[1:03:33] and also the city's design goals and standards.

[1:03:36] Staff and Planning Commission recommend that the city council

[1:03:39] introduce and waive the first reading of the ordinance

[1:03:41] to amend the CBD zone and also approve the development review permit for this five-unit

[1:03:46] residential project. That concludes the staff report. Happy to answer your questions you have.

[1:03:51] All right, thank you. All right, we're going to open up the public hearing. Anybody from the

[1:03:56] public, since it is an open public hearing, which I can talk to council on this issue.

[1:04:07] Seeing no one, we will close the public hearing and bring it back to council for discussion.

[1:04:15] any council? Just a quick question. Yes. Is the amendment that we have been handed with

[1:04:23] the red line, is that what we're voting on currently or is that separate? That's a different

[1:04:28] agenda item. 3C? 3C. Yes, I'm sorry. Yeah. My bad. Yes. That is what you're voting

[1:04:39] on right now. It's an ordinance. Including that amendment that's been provided to us?

[1:04:42] Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

[1:04:45] Thank you.

[1:04:45] Can somebody else have one?

[1:04:47] I did.

[1:04:48] All right.

[1:04:52] That being said, I'll request our city clerk to read the title of proposed ordinance.

[1:04:58] An ordinance of the City of Tracy amending Article 18, Central Business District,

[1:05:03] zone of Chapter 10.08 of the Tracy Municipal Code to permit high density residential uses,

[1:05:10] including single family dwellings, two family dwellings,

[1:05:13] and multi-family dwellings application number ZA 117-0003.

[1:05:19] Motion to waive the reading of the text and introduce a proposed ordinance.

[1:05:26] A second.

[1:05:26] Can I roll call, please?

[1:05:28] Councilman Vargas?

[1:05:30] Yes.

[1:05:30] Mayor Pro Tem Young?

[1:05:31] Yes.

[1:05:31] Councilman Areola?

[1:05:32] Yes.

[1:05:33] Councilman Ransom?

[1:05:34] Yes.

[1:05:34] And Mayor Rickman?

[1:05:35] Yes.

[1:05:35] Motion to adopt the resolution approving the development review permit to construct

[1:05:41] the five units residential project consisting of two single-family dwellings and triplex

[1:05:47] triplex. Thank you. Triplex on the approximate 9,885 square foot site located at 21 25 and

[1:05:57] 29 E A Street. Second. Second by Councilman Aureola. Can we roll call please?

[1:06:11] Councilman

[1:06:11] All right, thank you.

[1:06:13] Move on to item 3D, provide direction on fiscal year 2019

[1:06:17] slash 20 strategic priorities

[1:06:19] and approve council workshop report

[1:06:20] as October 2nd, 2018, special meeting minutes.

[1:06:26] Staff report, please.

[1:06:28] All right, thank you, mayor, members of the council.

[1:06:29] Can I have the PowerPoint, please?

[1:06:34] Okay, as the council's aware,

[1:06:36] we held a strategic planning process on October 2nd,

[1:06:39] which was facilitated by management partners.

[1:06:43] We went ahead and identified a variety of priorities with council, and I'll go through kind of exactly what we spoke about.

[1:06:51] But on this discussion outline, not only would I like to go through the priorities, but also kind of give a little bit of an overview of where our time is spent to help guide council's discussion tonight.

[1:07:01] Go over the priorities, give you a sense of a work plan, and then give you a recommendation in next steps.

[1:07:07] This kind of outlines what the workshop overview is for members of the public that aren't aware of the process.

[1:07:13] Of course, this lays and sets the table for council to identify priorities, but it's also an opportunity to talk about norms

[1:07:19] and governance in terms of council roles and responsibilities for them to talk about some of the opportunities

[1:07:25] and challenges and Tracy, and then also to just set the stage for what their priorities are for the coming fiscal year.

[1:07:31] And council did exactly that.

[1:07:33] But before we get into the priorities, I just want to remind the council that day to day service delivery, as you know, 90% of staff's time is just doing the day to day operations, calls for service, maintaining and processing things like permits and applications.

[1:07:48] And when we deal with council directives and priorities, that really leaves about 10% of our time.

[1:07:54] And so when we look at priorities, we need to make sure that those priorities count because otherwise we're doing competing priorities.

[1:08:00] And so I just want to set that context for Council for tonight's discussion.

[1:08:05] And so what happens is that shifts, right?

[1:08:08] If we have less on the priorities, we have more opportunity to focus on day to day, but

[1:08:14] we also don't want to overextend that so that we're not able to get to your 10 percent.

[1:08:19] And so, again, this is just to be mindful of that staff has limited bandwidth, and

[1:08:23] so we need to make sure that we're, in fact, prioritizing those goals and objectives.

[1:08:28] Council identified a number of priorities, the top tier priorities in which everyone had voted for.

[1:08:34] Council, as you know, did a DOT exercise, and all of the Council identified that making sure that our financial

[1:08:40] house in order and that the public is aware of sources and uses and how things are funded was important.

[1:08:46] Measure V, getting the amenities in the ground was also another majority.

[1:08:51] We, excuse me, all of the council wanted that to happen and then adopt a code of conduct

[1:08:55] which we know, if someone could take that off the screen, that'd be great.

[1:09:00] Adopt a code of conduct which as you can see here, we have them posted and those have

[1:09:04] been complete.

[1:09:06] We also have some organizational priorities that council identified.

[1:09:11] Valley Link was a priority looking at infrastructure around the city, that's not Valley Link

[1:09:16] infrastructure, but just infrastructure in general, addressing citywide traffic issues.

[1:09:21] We've had a number of conversations with the public that this is a key priority.

[1:09:25] And then economic development, very specific targeted economic development, was very important

[1:09:30] in terms of jobs for the council.

[1:09:32] There are a couple of other items that did not make the list, but I did include them

[1:09:39] on your priority list for a couple of reasons.

[1:09:41] One, these are already underway, and so I didn't want to lose sight of those.

[1:09:45] and they have little asterisks next to them.

[1:09:47] A transit-oriented development, TOD, that's underway,

[1:09:51] homeless strategy is underway, and also cannabis regulations.

[1:09:54] And as you know, we've taken care of the zoning piece

[1:09:57] and the regulatory piece in next,

[1:09:59] which will come before you, is the application.

[1:10:01] So again, I added those on your priorities,

[1:10:04] but this evening is for you to identify

[1:10:06] if these still make sense to you,

[1:10:09] if there's anything you wanna add, delete or modify.

[1:10:12] The other ones that are listed here,

[1:10:13] and I won't go through them,

[1:10:14] They didn't make the top tier, but of course, again, Council can shift these as they see fit.

[1:10:20] So I won't go through these individually.

[1:10:22] We'll let Council have an opportunity to have a discussion.

[1:10:24] I've organized these based on categories.

[1:10:27] So we have quality of life categories, where we've got Measure V infrastructure projects

[1:10:32] and a Homelands Strategic Plan listed.

[1:10:36] We have economic development goals.

[1:10:37] We have Valley Link.

[1:10:39] We have cannabis regulations, TOD, and also targeting industries

[1:10:43] that meet our need or the desires of the community.

[1:10:46] That's all under the umbrella of economic development.

[1:10:49] And then we have public safety, including traffic conditions.

[1:10:53] We also have homeless and strategic plan.

[1:10:56] This may be better suited to just go under quality of life,

[1:10:58] so it's not confusing, and we'll get back to that.

[1:11:01] And then we have governance, and the city has been doing a lot of work

[1:11:04] with respect to good governance policies, city finances,

[1:11:08] and creating that awareness of what our situation and constraints are

[1:11:11] is listed here, as well as options for making sure that we have short and long-term sustainability.

[1:11:18] And that, of course, will come to you as a part of the budget development process this

[1:11:21] year.

[1:11:22] So the recommendation is to give staff some feedback on these recommended priorities.

[1:11:30] We would ask you to adopt the report that's attached, just the minutes.

[1:11:34] This summarizes everything that transpired at the workshop, and then we'll continue

[1:11:39] to update these as needed but we will also make sure that those are up and on boards

[1:11:45] that you see throughout City Hall so people are aware of what those strategic priorities

[1:11:49] are as also getting them on the website too.

[1:11:52] We would also like some direction on the work plan if there are other objectives that

[1:11:56] you would like to see under each of the goals, please let us know that.

[1:12:00] None of this is in stone, it's very fluid and then we will commit to reporting to

[1:12:04] on a quarterly basis on our process and how well we're moving the needle on those items.

[1:12:10] And that concludes my report.

[1:12:13] All right. Thank you, Manager.

[1:12:15] At this time, I'm going to open up for the public comment.

[1:12:17] Anybody from Public Worship and Dress Council, Item 3D.

[1:12:25] Seeing no one, we'll bring it back for discussion.

[1:12:32] Council Member Areola.

[1:12:33] Thank you.

[1:12:34] So I had two points.

[1:12:35] The first one was related to economic development goal four.

[1:12:41] So during our actual workshop that we had, we had brought this up in the sense of targeted recruitment.

[1:12:47] And so what I really kind of wanted to see, I don't really see the language of it included within the objectives of what we discussed during the workshop.

[1:12:53] But kind of what I took from the workshop was that we really wanted to target jobs, bring jobs with Tracy.

[1:13:01] So, I was hoping we could, maybe it looks like the language is close with Objective 2, but

[1:13:09] I'd really want to, maybe in addition to that, add developing incentives to bring targeted

[1:13:15] jobs to Tracy.

[1:13:16] Hey, Katherine, what are the councils where?

[1:13:19] What page are you on?

[1:13:20] You said four.

[1:13:21] Oh, page three, related to economic development, goal four.

[1:13:26] Can we have a PowerPoint backup that might help the council?

[1:13:29] One,

[1:13:34] two, three. Okay, I see it.

[1:13:39] So right now it talks about a marketing campaign to target specific businesses.

[1:13:43] I also want not only just targeting, but really kind of working on developing incentives to really bring those head of household jobs to Tracy.

[1:13:52] It's a very slight difference in language, but I think it really makes a really big difference and what we as a council should be prioritizing.

[1:13:58] And then the second point that I wanted to make was that related to all of the other goals all of the other ones have

[1:14:05] three or four goals. However when it comes to public safety we only have two. One of the goals that I had brought up during the workshop

[1:14:12] was adding a goal of crime prevention and I think it's particularly notable that we did have the workshop unfortunately at that point

[1:14:21] subsequent to that meeting we had another homicide in our town subsequent to that

[1:14:26] I've recently held a town hall on crime prevention and I would like to ask the

[1:14:31] council to reconsider our discussion that we had during the workshop and I

[1:14:36] like to see added as goal number three to public safety prioritizing crime

[1:14:41] prevention in our town thank you

[1:14:46] thank you mayor I agree with a first

[1:14:53] request so I will second that I will be second that request on the

[1:15:00] Public safety, besides the education component for prevention, will also like to

[1:15:10] reiterate, maybe, and I see the public safety component, but I know there's

[1:15:18] something that we've been talking for years now, the planning portion of it, and

[1:15:25] the council update to be the city-wide emergency. I think that needs to come out to the priority.

[1:15:33] It's something that I know for the last six years I've been here, been asking, and our

[1:15:39] Mayor Pro Tem has been asking way before I came to council as well. So I would like

[1:15:43] to see that coming to the top of the goals and hopefully get that achieved within

[1:15:50] in that time period that whatever it is,

[1:15:53] we just want to have a milestone that we can just shoot for.

[1:15:57] That's great, because that is in motion

[1:15:59] and we will be issuing an RFP shortly.

[1:16:02] So perfect, thank you.

[1:16:03] Perfect, thank you.

[1:16:06] That's my ransom.

[1:16:07] Thank you.

[1:16:08] So I appreciate Council Member Vargas

[1:16:12] for bringing up the emergency preparedness plan

[1:16:14] because that was something that I wanted to see added

[1:16:16] as a priority.

[1:16:17] I understand that you are working on it.

[1:16:19] I just feel like it would be nice if we have a visual.

[1:16:22] I've been asking for that since I got on the council.

[1:16:25] So we're a couple of city managers in, in terms,

[1:16:30] and I actually asked that the fire chief earlier today

[1:16:32] if they were playing a role in it as well.

[1:16:34] So I think that's very important.

[1:16:37] I definitely support Councilman Ariolas' request

[1:16:42] to add the crime prevention as a strategy

[1:16:45] and I think that will help us to kind of drill down

[1:16:49] into some of the things we've been talking about

[1:16:51] in regards to lights and cameras and things like that,

[1:16:55] that basically would help to demonstrate

[1:16:58] that we're actually serious about that.

[1:17:00] And then I also support the staff recommendation

[1:17:03] in regards to where we move the homeless

[1:17:09] new strategic plan.

[1:17:10] I attended Councilman Ariola's town hall

[1:17:14] And although a lot of people, when we ask a question of like, do you feel safe,

[1:17:19] their responses were in regards to homeless people being in the park.

[1:17:23] But I do think it's more of a quality of life issue.

[1:17:27] And so I definitely would support moving that to the quality of life from,

[1:17:34] which is what you've done, but it's also still under public safety.

[1:17:36] So it's kind of listed twice.

[1:17:37] I just wanted to let you know that I do support that for obvious reasons.

[1:17:43] And I think you captured pretty much everything that we talked about, and we've already completed the governance policies.

[1:17:54] So I think not only did you capture it, but we've already been able to move ahead.

[1:17:59] So I appreciate you for bringing this, and I think it was pretty comprehensive.

[1:18:05] My only other point would be or question, I guess, and for the public, we only had so many dots.

[1:18:11] That's why there's a lot of things that look like it looks like we didn't care about youth or whatever

[1:18:15] But we only had so many dots to prioritize. So I want to be clear about that

[1:18:20] But it's really hard is there a way to break out the

[1:18:25] It says, you know five for Valley Link infrastructure, whatever

[1:18:28] And so it's kind of hard for people to look at that to see what our real priority is and I didn't take a picture of the

[1:18:35] Post-it picture. Is there a way for you to break that down further just for the record?

[1:18:40] I think the overall plan is fine, but for the record it's really hard to see

[1:18:45] How much value link or infrastructure because those are different things I?

[1:18:51] Can go through and check if the report did a further breakdown

[1:18:55] But I may be able to get the notes offline and we can certainly do that if that's that council's pleasure

[1:19:01] Yes, I just thought it would be good to see like the difference, but thank you very much everything else

[1:19:06] I have no problem with

[1:19:08] I guess I'm the last one.

[1:19:11] I have something.

[1:19:11] Go ahead.

[1:19:12] Make sure my little thing is.

[1:19:14] Go ahead.

[1:19:14] Go ahead, Tim.

[1:19:15] Sorry.

[1:19:16] Thank you.

[1:19:17] So as it was already noted that we only had so many dots.

[1:19:21] I do have concern though for the things that as far as being able to capture the things

[1:19:29] that are already in motion.

[1:19:30] I know that it was already said things were in motion such as the emergency preparedness

[1:19:34] plan.

[1:19:34] I'm not sure how close we are to the end of that in motion for years, but maybe we'll

[1:19:42] have an update on that soon.

[1:19:44] But as far as the other things that were already prioritized in the past, so are we just eliminating

[1:19:50] them?

[1:19:51] Are they just show up in other areas such as youth, such as the labor agreements that

[1:19:56] we talked about, such as the workforce, affordable housing that was set on priorities

[1:20:01] from past councils, most of us up here, but so how do we handle that? Are we put

[1:20:07] in those to the back burner? Are they on some kind of in waiting list? So when

[1:20:11] council did their exercise and I get that you had limited number of dots, you

[1:20:15] are trying to identify what the highest priority was. Again, if you want to put

[1:20:20] all of these as a priority, then I will come back and recommend what the

[1:20:25] impact is and what maybe needs to fall off, because there's a significant

[1:20:29] and impact if all of these items were kind of making up that 10% that you saw because

[1:20:33] that's going to impact the 90% day to day. So the idea was try to find your highest

[1:20:40] and best items and then have us move forward. There may be ways where we can work through

[1:20:46] these through council items. But again, I want a caution council to be very strategic

[1:20:51] and methodical about what you bring forward to staff because you may find that there's

[1:20:57] like seven things that you want to be as priorities,

[1:20:59] but in a council item, if you give me more work,

[1:21:02] something's gonna fall off the list.

[1:21:05] And so we have very limited bandwidth

[1:21:07] and many of the staff that are working on this

[1:21:09] are the same staff.

[1:21:10] So I just kinda wanna set the table with that.

[1:21:14] It's at council's discretion tonight

[1:21:15] if there is something that got a one or a zero

[1:21:18] and you wanna elevate that to a priority,

[1:21:20] then council needs to vote on that tonight.

[1:21:22] So it's just a matter of what it looks like.

[1:21:25] So, first of all, maybe we should have 11%, not 10%, but a side note from that.

[1:21:32] As far as youth, maybe that's engulfed and wrapped in the measure V, seeing things in

[1:21:38] the ground.

[1:21:39] I mean that's a huge category just to say youth.

[1:21:42] So what has been that focus, like the workforce, affordable housing, I don't know if that

[1:21:46] could be wrapped into, I don't know, something else, part of quality of life that we've

[1:21:50] been talking about and we've had some things in place and some things are supposed

[1:21:54] to come back to us.

[1:21:55] Do those just get shifted and we don't look at those for the next year?

[1:22:00] So that's just what I'm asking as far as the things that's already in motion.

[1:22:03] So is there a way to capture in a list of things that may even have a zero on here

[1:22:09] that we're actually working on, like the emergency plan that we have preparedness plan?

[1:22:15] Do you receive a list of council items that have been scheduled and that are being worked on?

[1:22:21] So in addition to this list of priorities, there are about 25 other council items that

[1:22:27] staff is actively working on.

[1:22:28] So some of the things that you had mentioned like, for instance, the emergency plan, that

[1:22:33] is definitely on the list and there will be an RFP issued and we will hire a consultant

[1:22:38] to implement that plan or help the staff implement that plan.

[1:22:42] But those are on your council items list.

[1:22:44] So those are in addition to this discussion tonight.

[1:22:47] These items here that you have, unless the council wants to elevate those to a very specific

[1:22:52] goal with specific objectives, you can find other opportunities through council items or

[1:22:58] through other projects like Measure V to elevate those.

[1:23:00] So while I get optically, you don't want the community to think that these are not

[1:23:04] important.

[1:23:05] This was just a summary of an exercise, but I hear what you're saying.

[1:23:09] And it's not just for the community, it's for all of us to make sure that we're

[1:23:14] on the same page.

[1:23:14] but if we had that even list of counsel, other things,

[1:23:18] then it would be clear that all the things

[1:23:19] that we're trying to capture,

[1:23:21] but as far as like the Valley Link,

[1:23:23] why all five of us put our dots there

[1:23:25] because it's important,

[1:23:26] I'm not really sure how passive that goal is.

[1:23:29] In being that, are we actively pursuing things

[1:23:32] for Valley Link, or are we just supporting?

[1:23:34] You know, as it says, work with regional well authority

[1:23:36] and other partners for these initiatives.

[1:23:39] Are we just periodically writing letters,

[1:23:41] saying yes, we have approved,

[1:23:42] Or is that something that the city staff is really actively putting time in?

[1:23:48] Do you know what I mean?

[1:23:49] Because it said as the number one, it's the number one goal for economic development.

[1:23:54] So again, this is what council had reflected as important.

[1:23:57] Staff is in terms of support.

[1:23:59] What does that mean?

[1:24:00] That means that we attend the regional rail committee meetings.

[1:24:03] That means that when there are policy issues that we feel like we need to weigh in with Michael Tree

[1:24:08] and the rail authority, we do so accordingly.

[1:24:11] if there are community events that we feel that Tracy needs to be represented at, we do

[1:24:17] attend those and we do help to market those to the community. So it is an active involvement,

[1:24:23] but would I say that we're strapped for time in doing that? Probably not, I think we can

[1:24:28] manage through, but I think what's important, and I heard this at the workshop, was that

[1:24:33] infrastructure is valley link, it's our roads, it's our traffic issues, it's making sure

[1:24:39] if we can front money to get infrastructure done, roads widened sooner rather than later,

[1:24:45] that that was a really important piece to this dialogue, and Andrew might be able to

[1:24:50] clarify what that really looks like.

[1:24:54] Yeah, so it, sorry, I'm going to struggle through this, but...

[1:24:57] No problem, sorry.

[1:24:59] So in the reports, God, we actually had some things where we're collapsing some

[1:25:06] of the fee areas of the city where we might be able to have some nexus and have some

[1:25:10] money that we can move around a little more freely to advance some of those roadway projects.

[1:25:16] We're also looking at moving some projects forward on Core Hollow for some of the Ponderosa

[1:25:23] project and the like.

[1:25:24] So grants, you know, we go with Council to Washington, D.C. for doing EDA and other

[1:25:30] types of grants for some roadway improvements.

[1:25:32] So I think it's in the list here, but those are all some of the things that we'll

[1:25:35] do with infrastructure to try to advance.

[1:25:37] The other would be signal timing through town and those types of things,

[1:25:42] just efficiency of moving people through the city as well.

[1:25:45] So those are some of the items on infrastructure.

[1:25:47] Okay, thank you.

[1:25:48] And lastly, have a question regarding the timeframe.

[1:25:52] So this is our strategic priorities for one year, but it's for fiscal year.

[1:25:57] So fiscal year ends June, right, of 2020.

[1:26:01] So a new council will be seated in January.

[1:26:04] So now it's far at, well, December, technically.

[1:26:09] So, and it's been done different ways.

[1:26:11] When I first came on the council, we had meetings.

[1:26:14] We treat every time a new council was seated.

[1:26:16] And then we'll pick the priorities for the next coming couple of years.

[1:26:21] And with our protocols and everything we've set it for,

[1:26:23] is it annually that we'll be doing?

[1:26:26] I don't think you specifically set the frequency.

[1:26:30] Okay, so my request here was to be that whatever these strategic priorities that we set them

[1:26:37] to go through the physical year of 2020 so that it will go through the end of this council

[1:26:44] so that there's no overlap and that the new council with that seated in January and

[1:26:49] December in January or whatever it can meet and set the priorities as of 2021.

[1:26:55] That's already happens every time.

[1:26:58] Sure.

[1:26:58] And so I mean because these just covered this just covers it so I'm hoping that we can get some kind of

[1:27:05] Consistency set in motion with the councils as they see it

[1:27:08] So then they meet and they set the priorities going forward

[1:27:11] And so it's it's part of protocol that I'm adding that I'm requesting for the priorities as they're set

[1:27:20] If there's council consensus on that we certainly can make that clear

[1:27:24] That's a member area. Thank you. I want to highlight a point that

[1:27:28] that Mayor Pro Tem made related to our prioritization of valley infrastructure and traffic.

[1:27:35] And I think that in quality of life, goal two, I really want to highlight when it was

[1:27:40] done during the workshop, the highlight wasn't just valley link, the highlight was infrastructure.

[1:27:46] And I would remind everyone, this is in the context of this is the day after we had

[1:27:49] a discussion about the Katera apartments.

[1:27:52] So I think all of us, we were really clear that all of us wanted to focus and

[1:27:55] prioritize reducing traffic and enhancing infrastructure

[1:27:58] for the city.

[1:27:59] And I don't really quite see that strong language in goal two.

[1:28:02] And I really want to make that very clear for, at least

[1:28:05] that was what I took away from our workshop,

[1:28:10] was that all five of us were very committed to enhancing

[1:28:13] infrastructure, especially as our population is growing,

[1:28:17] with the goal of really reducing that traffic.

[1:28:21] So maybe we can kind of reword goal two

[1:28:23] to really make that clear, but I think that's exactly what Mayor Pro Tem was trying to get

[1:28:28] at is, you know, I do see the Valley Link has its own goal, but I think it's a really

[1:28:33] important that we prioritize infrastructure and reducing traffic.

[1:28:37] And that kind of just jogs something else.

[1:28:40] So I do notice that we kind of have two homelessness points.

[1:28:47] Mayor Pro Tem also brought up that we had talked about affordable housing.

[1:28:50] A few months ago we had a special workshop on housing and diversifying housing in our

[1:28:56] town.

[1:28:57] I would maybe suggest that we consolidate the two homelessness goals and add a quality

[1:29:05] of life so you're still at three under quality of life to reevaluate housing for our town.

[1:29:15] So clarification on what where you referred to goal number two because under economic

[1:29:19] development that's where the valley link is there another one I was looking at quality

[1:29:23] of life.

[1:29:23] or the quality of life one, okay.

[1:29:25] That was related to infrastructure and traffic.

[1:29:27] Right.

[1:29:29] Okay.

[1:29:30] Anyone else?

[1:29:32] I just wanted to,

[1:29:33] I never did get whether it was yes or no,

[1:29:35] or if for lack of-

[1:29:36] I'll second through your request,

[1:29:37] because what I hear you asking is that,

[1:29:39] we know what our practice is,

[1:29:41] but you want to memorialize it as part of our protocols

[1:29:43] so that we actually,

[1:29:46] when a new council is seated that this happened,

[1:29:48] that we do this workshop to educate.

[1:29:50] And I think that kind of speaks to

[1:29:52] councilman's ariolas point when he you know first got on trying to get caught up

[1:29:56] on things that were done in the past that he wasn't aware of so I would

[1:30:00] Absolutely. It's pretty much our practice, but I would support putting it in writing as

[1:30:06] part of our protocols.

[1:30:08] So can we be more specific? So you want to do this every two years? You want these goals

[1:30:13] to go through December 2020? I want to be clear on what the direction is.

[1:30:17] It was a two-part request. And so the first part request was that these goals go through

[1:30:21] December of 2020, so then we don't have a lapse of priorities when the new council

[1:30:26] comes on, because if this just goes through fiscal year June, then you have six months.

[1:30:31] I mean, it can be overlapped, but I think if we were more directive.

[1:30:34] And then part two was that for the memorial to memorialize to make sure it's protocols.

[1:30:41] I would support that.

[1:30:43] Just to be clear, so that amendment to the council protocols would be a separate item.

[1:30:49] It has to come back as a separate item.

[1:30:51] I just want to make sure.

[1:30:52] To actually add it to that.

[1:30:53] Just to be clear.

[1:30:54] So that would be an amendment.

[1:30:55] Is that what you're saying?

[1:30:56] Yes, it's an amendment that would have to be by resolution and it would come back as

[1:31:00] a separate item.

[1:31:01] Okay.

[1:31:02] Thank you.

[1:31:03] So if I may, I'd like to kind of read back what I've heard from counsel so far and then

[1:31:09] read if there's consensus for the counsel.

[1:31:12] So under safety, I heard include emergency preparedness and crime prevention for economic

[1:31:20] development to add incentives to bring to target jobs and that I'm not dressing

[1:31:27] that language up but that is what I heard from Councilmember Areola. Quality of

[1:31:31] life, stronger language with respect to the infrastructure perhaps swapping out

[1:31:35] the word facilitate to the word advance which is a little stronger and then

[1:31:41] also on the homelessness piece to incorporate housing into that as well

[1:31:47] And I'm thinking affordable housing is that accurate that was my intention. Yes, okay

[1:31:51] And then I also heard a recommendation

[1:31:54] That and of course I teed this up to move the homelessness item under safety to make sure that it's under one category of quality of life

[1:32:02] And then I also heard Mayor Pertem say these goals should go through December 2020

[1:32:07] And that we should also memorialize this in our protocols, which we'll come back to as a separate item

[1:32:13] So, pleat reactions and is the council on board with those recommendations?

[1:32:19] I am, yes.

[1:32:20] I know, I haven't spoken.

[1:32:21] I just have a quick thing.

[1:32:23] And I'm fine, but with the homelessness, I mean, I know we had had this in the back

[1:32:27] or in the past that being it can be in two different categories.

[1:32:32] I mean, like it or not, you know, vagrancy and stuff.

[1:32:35] And I know one lady was talking about it here.

[1:32:37] It is a public safety issue and we've had some public safety problems.

[1:32:41] For example, drug use, you can talk about some of the other types of violations that

[1:32:49] we have heard.

[1:32:49] So taking that in public safety, it's a quality of life issue.

[1:32:54] Sure, crime is a quality of life issue, but I think it bounces in both categories.

[1:33:00] For example, quality of life, having people camping in our parks is a quality of life

[1:33:06] issue.

[1:33:07] But it's also a public safety issue when you look at some of the stuff that's left behind

[1:33:12] Or you can look at the public safety issue when you're looking at some of the outbreaks that we've had in San Diego and San

[1:33:18] Francisco and

[1:33:21] Some other cities so you see what I'm saying. Can you have those in two categories or?

[1:33:28] So my I think my initial proposal was to and I agree we need to absolutely address all of those

[1:33:33] to consolidate the two just to make it clear I'd be very comfortable putting

[1:33:37] that under public safety my initial my my original ask was that we add a goal

[1:33:44] for housing so whether that's affordable housing and I would I would leave that

[1:33:49] to staff city manager would you I think that housing would fall under

[1:33:54] quality of life so would you prefer that just to be its own separate goal

[1:33:58] to address affordable housing because we already have had at least one

[1:34:01] workshop on that. So I'd assume that we've had some progress. So what are your

[1:34:06] thoughts, City Avanager? No, we absolutely can do that, but I would just need to

[1:34:11] make sure that's the consensus of the Council to add that under quality of

[1:34:15] life. I believe that that makes sense. I agree with that. I'm good with that. Where

[1:34:20] I think I'm unclear is where the full Council is on the placement of

[1:34:24] homelessness. I suggested public safety. I agree with that. I'm okay with

[1:34:28] leaving it in both, as the Mayor mentioned,

[1:34:31] it's quality of life issue and can be also

[1:34:33] a homeless public safety issue.

[1:34:36] So I'm okay with leaving it under both.

[1:34:39] I think it's two sides to the same coin.

[1:34:41] So I think both categories would probably be,

[1:34:44] I looked at both two to consolidate,

[1:34:45] but I think that the focus should be

[1:34:47] in both in two different areas

[1:34:49] because it's two different teams

[1:34:50] that's really looking at the issue

[1:34:52] from different directions.

[1:34:55] And my two cents, crime prevention,

[1:34:57] And I think public safety is always my priority of government is to keep its residents safe.

[1:35:03] So a crime prevention strategy and how they're going about doing that, meaning our chief

[1:35:09] or police department would be relevant and I don't think it adds too much.

[1:35:16] So am I seeing at least three or more nods that it's okay to live in two places?

[1:35:20] Yes.

[1:35:21] Okay, very good.

[1:35:29] Okay.

[1:35:30] City Manager, what else do you need?

[1:35:32] Are you good?

[1:35:33] I believe I have the direction. I think in addition to what I had read earlier

[1:35:39] We're going to add affordable housing and its own goal under quality of life

[1:35:42] And I heard that homelessness can live in both quality of life and safety. That was amenable to the council

[1:35:48] Right anybody disagree and it's not a motion just direction. So the direction that

[1:35:55] You want are you clear? I have the direction and you will see this again

[1:35:59] And we'll codify that we'll bring it as a consent item. Just a button that up. All right. Well, thank you

[1:36:04] That's one part of the item the second part is to approve the minutes where that is a motion from them. Oh, okay

[1:36:11] Yeah, you're right. Sorry about that

[1:36:13] All right, I can have motion. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes on item 3

[1:36:20] B B D isn't David. Yes, sir. All right seconded second by councilmember ariel. I can roll call, please

[1:36:27] Yes.

[1:36:27] Councilmember Vargas?

[1:36:28] Yes.

[1:36:29] Councilmember Areola?

[1:36:30] Yes.

[1:36:30] Councilmember Ransom?

[1:36:31] Yes.

[1:36:32] Mayor Pro-Chem Young?

[1:36:33] Yes.

[1:36:34] And Mayor Rickman?

[1:36:34] Yes.

[1:36:35] All right.

[1:36:36] Moving right along here.

[1:36:37] Item 3E, receive an update on City Water System Master Plan and Water Reliability.

[1:36:42] If we get a staff report, please.

[1:36:44] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[1:36:45] Members of Council.

[1:36:47] The item before you tonight is an update on our Master Plan and the Water Reliability.

[1:36:54] We have all of the master plans are coming back to council in the spring and summer of next year.

[1:37:00] We're bringing water to you because the water is one where there's a lot of outside forces that can impact that.

[1:37:08] So we have Elizabeth Dreyer here who's going to do a presentation particularly focused on some things like water reliability,

[1:37:15] some of the challenges, the Bay Delta plan, and then also what the city is doing about it.

[1:37:20] So, Elizabeth, here's the remote.

[1:37:22] If we could have the PowerPoint, please.

[1:37:30] Thank you, Andrew.

[1:37:32] My name is Elizabeth Dreher, I'm with West Yoast.

[1:37:35] I'm the project manager for the City of Tracy

[1:37:39] Citywide Water System Master Plan update.

[1:37:43] We last prepared a water master plan for the city in 2012.

[1:37:48] And the overall objectives of the master plan

[1:37:51] are to evaluate the need for water system facilities,

[1:37:55] improvements to meet existing and future needs and with our current master

[1:38:01] plan update we are sort of at a milestone point in the project right now

[1:38:06] where we have preliminary evaluation of future water supply needs and the future

[1:38:12] water demand projections so that's what I'll be presenting tonight. First I want

[1:38:19] to provide a little bit of kind of background on where the city has been

[1:38:23] with its water use over the years.

[1:38:27] This graphic shows approximately the last 40 years of water use in the city.

[1:38:33] The bars on the bottom show the different water supplies.

[1:38:38] The orange is your surface water supply from the Central Valley Project, which is delivered

[1:38:45] through the Delta Mandoda Canal and treated at the city's John Jones Water Treatment

[1:38:49] Plant.

[1:38:50] The blue bars are showing the treated surface water supply that you receive from the Stannis-Loss River

[1:38:56] from the South San Joaquin Irrigation District.

[1:39:00] And the green bars show the local groundwater supplies that you've used over the years.

[1:39:07] The supplies are shown in acre feet per year,

[1:39:09] and it shows that obviously over time the water use has increased.

[1:39:15] The maximum water use occurred in 2007 and the demand or the water use was 19,176 acre-feet per year.

[1:39:27] And since then, the last 10 years or so have been pretty interesting here in California.

[1:39:35] The drought occurred from about 2011 to 2017 that imposed a lot of mandatory statewide conservation

[1:39:44] and increased water use efficiency throughout the state.

[1:39:49] Also in 2008, there was the Great Recession, which severely impacted development projects,

[1:39:56] and so that also resulted in demands reducing and leveling off.

[1:40:04] So in the last 10 to 15 years, the water use has stayed about the same.

[1:40:10] Again, with the drought, the worst of the drought was in 2015, 2016.

[1:40:16] There has been a little bit of a rebound in demand since then, and the current demand

[1:40:21] as of 2018 was about 16,000 acre feet per year.

[1:40:27] What I've also shown in this graph, just for some perspective, is the historical population

[1:40:32] of the city, and that's the red line that's on the top.

[1:40:35] So while the water demand over the last 40 years has maybe a little bit more than doubled,

[1:40:42] the population has more than quadrupled.

[1:40:46] It's gone from about 20,000 people back in 1980 to just over 90,000 people right now.

[1:40:55] And it's an interesting comparison because you can see although the population has quadrupled,

[1:41:00] the water use has not.

[1:41:03] And that's because, several reasons, there's new plumbing codes and plumbing requirements

[1:41:10] for water-efficient fixtures throughout the state.

[1:41:15] Irrigation systems are more efficient than they used to be.

[1:41:18] People are more aware of the need to conserve water, and so people are more efficient

[1:41:24] in their water use.

[1:41:25] And there's also been a shift in land use within the city.

[1:41:29] There's a lot more residential than there used to be.

[1:41:32] And so that sort of skews the water demands down based on the comparison to population.

[1:41:41] So one way of looking at it is the per capita water use number for the city.

[1:41:47] And based on the overall number, about in the early 1980s, the overall per capita water use was about 300 gallons per capita per day.

[1:41:58] And in recent years, it's been 160 gallons per capita per day.

[1:42:04] So that means basically the average use per person is about half of what it used to be,

[1:42:10] which is what ties the population and the numbers together.

[1:42:17] Now I want to kind of look towards the future as we look with the Watermaster Plan update.

[1:42:22] Development is continuing within the city, consistent with the city's general plan.

[1:42:26] plan. You just have to drive around town and see the recent and the ongoing development,

[1:42:32] Cordis Ranch, the International Park of Commerce, the Ellis Project, the Tracy Hills Project.

[1:42:38] And there's also a lot of additional planned future development per the general plan.

[1:42:44] Some of the major ones are the West Side Ranch specific plan, the West Side Industrial,

[1:42:49] east side industrial, several urban reserve areas, and then also various

[1:42:54] infill projects throughout the city. And so those two graphs are kind of

[1:42:58] showing the areas that are proposed for future development and infill.

[1:43:06] Another

[1:43:06] thing that's happened in the last several years is several new water system

[1:43:09] facilities have been completed. The recycled water pump station and

[1:43:15] pipeline work has been completed in Lammers Road and is continuing on

[1:43:20] with the additional phase. That will bring recycled water from the wastewater treatment

[1:43:25] plant up onto the west side of the city to serve developments on that side.

[1:43:32] Two potable water pump stations have been completed at the John Jones Water Treatment

[1:43:36] Plant. One is to serve the Tracy Hills development and the other is to serve other city development

[1:43:43] in the main part of the city. There's a new potable water tank and pump station

[1:43:48] at Cordis Ranch, that'll be serving that area, and also if you notice, if you're driving on 580

[1:43:55] by Tracy Hills, there's a new potable water tank and pump station that's being constructed there

[1:43:59] as well. So all of these facilities will help to deliver water supplies to the existing and

[1:44:06] future users in the city.

[1:44:12] The other thing we're looking at for the master plan is that

[1:44:15] That recent legislation, primarily Senate Bill 606 and Assembly Bill 1668, they were

[1:44:22] both passed in 2018, and it's created new statewide water efficiency standards, also

[1:44:30] known as kind of the umbrella of is called making water conservation a California way

[1:44:35] of life.

[1:44:36] And this legislation is establishing new water efficiency standards throughout the state.

[1:44:43] Those standards will apply to indoor residential use, outdoor residential use, commercial,

[1:44:50] industrial, and institutional irrigation, and then also water loss standards.

[1:44:56] The Water Master Plan will be taking these standards into account.

[1:45:00] As we develop the future water demands.

[1:45:05] The other thing that's happened over the last few years is unprecedented drought conditions,

[1:45:12] especially in 2015 and 2016, and that has, that really led to unprecedented supply cutbacks

[1:45:19] and of course the mandated statewide water conservation that we all experienced.

[1:45:25] The other thing that came out in 2018 was an update to the Bay Delta water quality control

[1:45:30] plan, and that potentially impacts the availability of city surface water supplies, particularly

[1:45:36] in dry years.

[1:45:39] Specifically, it restricts the use of flows in the Stanislaus River until 40% of unimpaired

[1:45:45] flows are rededicated for water quality and in-stream fisheries, which for SSJID,

[1:45:52] who is one of your suppliers of your surface water, potentially reduces the average annual

[1:45:59] supply by about 10 to 25 percent and the dryer flows potentially by up to 64 percent.

[1:46:08] The SSJID supply was previous to this, was thought to be a very reliable supply and it

[1:46:14] has been very reliable even through the drought years, but this new Bay Delta plan could

[1:46:20] change that in the future.

[1:46:24] So looking at all these different factors, we have come up with a projected kind

[1:46:29] of supply versus demand picture looking forward.

[1:46:32] This graphic is showing supply versus demand

[1:46:36] for three hydrologic conditions in the three bars.

[1:46:40] So the first bar is showing normal year conditions.

[1:46:43] The second bar is showing single dry year conditions.

[1:46:47] And then the third bar is showing multiple dry year

[1:46:49] conditions.

[1:46:51] And then each of the colors in the bars

[1:46:53] are the different water supplies.

[1:46:55] So the blue is your existing water supplies, which again

[1:46:59] is your surface water supply from the CVP as well as SSJID and groundwater.

[1:47:06] And you can see as you go from a normal year to the single and multiple dry years that

[1:47:11] that blue bar gets shorter, especially in the single dry year.

[1:47:15] And that's because of the projected cutbacks in the surface water supply availability in

[1:47:21] a single dry year and to some extent the multiple dry year.

[1:47:25] The single dry year is sort of the worst case because it's assumed to be like an extreme dry year in one year.

[1:47:33] The multiple dry years are below normal years over a series of years, but they're not as severe as that one single dry year.

[1:47:41] So usually the critical case is the single dry year.

[1:47:46] The other thing we're showing on here in terms of supply for the single dry year and multiple dry year is what we call ASR.

[1:47:53] And that is aquifer storage and recovery.

[1:47:57] And that's a system where we use the groundwater basin

[1:48:00] and we basically store away excess surface water

[1:48:06] that we have in wet years and we can store it

[1:48:08] in the groundwater basin.

[1:48:09] And then we were able to pull it out in a dry year.

[1:48:12] So that's why we're showing a supply coming out

[1:48:15] in a single dry year and a multiple dry year.

[1:48:18] The city currently has one ASR well, well eight,

[1:48:21] which was designed and intended for this purpose and additional ASR wells are

[1:48:27] planned to expand on that program. The green bar that's showing up in the

[1:48:33] multiple dry year case is the semi-tropic water supply and that is a

[1:48:39] program that the city is involved with. Basically it's a storage

[1:48:44] bank for groundwater down in Kern County and so it's a a deal where you work

[1:48:51] with the state to basically send water down there when you don't need it and

[1:48:56] then when you do need it you can you're you basically can withdraw it so it's a

[1:48:59] it's a groundwater bank so you store it away when you have it and when you

[1:49:03] need it you can pull it back and so we are showing that we would be able

[1:49:07] to pull water back in a multiple dry year over multiple years so that's

[1:49:12] what that bar is. But with those, with again just the blue bars and the orange and green

[1:49:18] bars, we're still below what we are projecting as future projected demand. And let me talk

[1:49:26] a little bit about the demand line. So the bottom dashed line is the 2018 water demand.

[1:49:31] That was at 16,228 acre-feet per year. The next dashed bar across is the projected

[1:49:38] projected potable water demand at buildout of the general plan.

[1:49:42] We're projecting that to be about 34,000 acre feet.

[1:49:46] And then the line on the top is the projected total water demand, which would be potable

[1:49:51] and recycled.

[1:49:52] Again, at buildout of the general plan, we're projecting that to be about 39,000

[1:49:57] acre feet.

[1:49:58] And so then to close the gap between our existing supplies and what we need to

[1:50:06] meet the future.

[1:50:06] We're looking at recycled water as our primary way of closing that gap.

[1:50:14] And it's recycled water used in two different ways.

[1:50:16] One is the direct use of recycled water for irrigation of landscaping.

[1:50:21] So instead of using potable water, we would use recycled water.

[1:50:25] And that's the 5000 acre feet, the purple bar that's on the very top.

[1:50:30] And then we're also proposing to use recycled water as an exchange.

[1:50:34] And so that's the gray bar that we're showing in between on all three bars and by recycled water exchange

[1:50:42] we are proposing to work negotiate a an arrangement an exchange agreement arrangement with the state

[1:50:53] to be able to

[1:50:55] Discharge treated recycled water to the Delta Mendoza canal

[1:51:00] And it would be discharged just downstream of the city's John Jones water treatment plant.

[1:51:06] And for the amount of water that gets discharged into the DMC,

[1:51:11] the city would then be able to take a like amount of water from the Delta Mendoza Canal,

[1:51:16] treat that at the city's treatment plant, and be able to use that for potable supply.

[1:51:21] So it's a way to basically use the recycled water in a way where you could basically trade it

[1:51:27] it for water that you could then treat and use for potable needs.

[1:51:32] This program is, we're not doing this right now, it needs to be negotiated with the state,

[1:51:38] but there have been initial conversations with the state about this and it looks to

[1:51:44] be a feasible arrangement moving forward and it has been done by at least one other

[1:51:52] agency in the state to have this sort of arrangement. What's good about this

[1:51:58] deal is it's that supply is local to you, so you're not really depending on

[1:52:03] another agency to have that supply. It does have to be approved by the state

[1:52:08] for the exchange agreement, but that supply is yours and it's wastewater

[1:52:14] that gets created at the city and then you're turning around and using it

[1:52:17] again.

[1:52:20] So again, the message here is again that we are experiencing reduced reliability

[1:52:28] of the CVP and SSGID supplies, particularly in the dry years, and we will need additional

[1:52:35] supplies to meet that demand. And we're looking at the recycled water exchange and

[1:52:40] the recycled water for irrigation as a key way of doing that moving forward.

[1:52:44] So just to sum up, the city does have a very strong portfolio of available water supply sources.

[1:52:54] And the city's residents have done, and the businesses have done a great job in conserving water

[1:52:59] and improving their water use efficiency.

[1:53:02] But the city's future supply reliability will be impacted by drought and climate change and environmental issues.

[1:53:09] And we know that additional reliable water supplies are becoming more and more scarce in California.

[1:53:17] So the city should be pursuing a recycled water exchange and other potential new water supplies as they move forward, I

[1:53:29] think.

[1:53:31] Yes, the next steps that we'll be taking with the water master plan, we are, I said these numbers are preliminary.

[1:53:37] We will be completing the water demand and supply evaluation and then also looking at future water supply needs.

[1:53:45] We'll be looking at current and future water infrastructure and looking to see what improvements need to be made to meet those future demands.

[1:53:54] And we're currently anticipating completion of the water master plan by late spring of 2020.

[1:54:00] And thereafter, the master plan would go through environmental review,

[1:54:05] and then the recommendations would be implemented.

[1:54:10] And I think that's the end of my presentation.

[1:54:16] Thanks, Elizabeth.

[1:54:17] So, Council, as you can see, we wanted to highlight some of the issues that were out there.

[1:54:23] To say that we're coming back with you, but we also wanted to have some of the solutions there as well.

[1:54:29] We'd be happy to answer any questions you have.

[1:54:31] All right. Thank you both very much. Very thorough.

[1:54:34] Mayor, I have a point of clarification. I didn't want to interrupt during the presentation.

[1:54:40] So if I understanding well, you're saying you will come back to us on the spring of 2020 with your study

[1:54:51] and a recommendation to start to create a policy or just what is the intent?

[1:55:01] I'm dating the master plan and the study of the master plan but is your intent to just

[1:55:08] bring us recommendations so we can create policy on the water usage?

[1:55:13] What we're doing with this, and I'll take a stab, is we're actually implementing what

[1:55:19] you just saw relative to the solutions in the master plan.

[1:55:22] What will come before you is approval of that update.

[1:55:25] We're going to be socializing this with all the development community as well, particularly

[1:55:30] because there's a number of water studies for projects that have to happen.

[1:55:34] So this is kind of an update to let you know that the state, there are new regulations

[1:55:38] and things from the state.

[1:55:40] We're implementing these in the master plan as a way to shore up that gap.

[1:55:44] And that's what will be for you in the spring of 2020 is approval of the master

[1:55:49] plan.

[1:55:50] I will say that we had a discussion, we're going to be going out and pursuing

[1:55:53] this contract agreement amendment if you will with the state even now because this

[1:56:00] is such an important element for our build out so we're going to be doing that

[1:56:03] if it's kind of a check-in with you all that this is what's out there this is

[1:56:07] what we're doing so we will be doing that as well. And then last point of

[1:56:10] clarification before coming back to the mayor and so the importance of that

[1:56:17] agreement with the state is to create the credits back so we can as we pump

[1:56:22] water back into the delta, we are receiving water back the set amount that we're dumping

[1:56:31] in, correct?

[1:56:32] Yes, that's correct.

[1:56:34] In fact, as Elizabeth highlighted, the master plan currently identifies about 5,000 or so

[1:56:40] acre feet that we would be using as the direct exchange.

[1:56:45] Our request to the state is to dramatically increase that number.

[1:56:49] Remember, the recycle water is dependent on the treatment plant of the wastewater and

[1:56:55] ultimately we're going to go to 21MGD at the wastewater treatment plant, so there's a lot

[1:56:59] of capacity that we'll be able to use if we do this exchange with the state.

[1:57:04] So that's our request from the state.

[1:57:06] Thank you for the clarifications.

[1:57:08] Thank you, Mayor.

[1:57:09] All right.

[1:57:09] Thank you.

[1:57:10] All right.

[1:57:11] At this time we'll open up for the public.

[1:57:12] Anybody from the public wish to address Council on this item?

[1:57:15] Mike

[1:57:30] Sandu, Tracey, California. As far as I understand, this recycled water city of

[1:57:38] Tracey can pump in either to the ground or dump in Delta Mundo Tocanao and get

[1:57:46] credit back. Don't forget the last drought we had. We told our homeowners not

[1:57:52] to water their lawns and that just happened a few years ago and all this

[1:57:58] water we could use for our homeowners. And in the years where there's no need, there

[1:58:08] are a lot of people out there on open bidding, they would buy that water from the city of

[1:58:13] Tracy. They can, all that could be bid it out. And only places whose have done this

[1:58:23] is already successfully they're already dumping water from a distro series and

[1:58:30] third lock delport water district that's your local water district they got the

[1:58:35] state permit they already have the experience and they've been already

[1:58:38] dumping it and getting credit back for their water thank you thank you Mr.

[1:58:43] Sandio anyone else they

[1:58:53] none bring it back to cancel is that a quick question

[1:58:57] for Ms. Ramirez. So it looks like it's coming back in late spring for the master plan update.

[1:59:06] However, water law is an incredibly complex issue. So do you anticipate that we'll have

[1:59:12] the agreement with the state for the recycled water exchange by the time that we're returning

[1:59:16] the master plan update or no?

[1:59:19] Likely not, and we, as you stated, water law is actually highly complex and heavily regulated.

[1:59:27] We do work closely with outside counsel from Downey brand, actually their Sacramento office,

[1:59:33] one of their key partners who's been representing the city on water issues,

[1:59:37] and in front of the state regulatory agencies for a number of years, I want to say 10, 20 years.

[1:59:42] But I know that agreement is currently in progress and likely will not be finalized by the spring

[1:59:49] of 2020.

[1:59:50] Okay.

[1:59:51] But that will be included in the master plan update, at least the progress towards that

[1:59:55] particular goal?

[1:59:56] Yes.

[1:59:56] Cool.

[1:59:57] Sharma can answer that too.

[1:59:59] Okay.

[2:00:00] We already met with the state on this issue. We had a very successful meeting, but there

[2:00:05] will be multiple meetings and a lot of requirements from the states before we have this agreement.

[2:00:10] Okay, thank you. Thank you, Council Member.

[2:00:15] Thank you, Mayor. I want to first thank staff

[2:00:19] because I have met last week and again today I appreciate Coole and Ms.

[2:00:28] Haryama for taking the time to walk me through this process like councilmen

[2:00:34] I realize when water and water laws are extremely complex very difficult but we

[2:00:40] must get it right because the future and the well-being of our community

[2:00:44] depending on this. And not to be over dramatic, not to be, you know, but how we grow, how we

[2:00:53] able to exist and the quality of life of our citizens depend on getting good policies and

[2:01:02] good recommendations into the next steps. As I share with the staff today, we're still

[2:01:10] paying the consequences of the last drought.

[2:01:14] We're still removing the trees and chivalry.

[2:01:17] We still have medians in areas where we have no plants,

[2:01:23] no trees, and we need to figure out how to find money

[2:01:28] to bring those landscape up to what they used to be.

[2:01:33] So with that being said, I also learned,

[2:01:36] And correct me if I'm wrong, if I want to just go over some of the conversations I done.

[2:01:44] So mainly for the public to know that if we are not successful in getting this right, there

[2:01:51] are consequences to, if possible, if a drought it will come next year.

[2:01:58] The state could cut our water supplies between 70 and 80 percent.

[2:02:03] Is that correct?

[2:02:05] Perfect. So with that being said, the recycled water, it's now have a larger play until they

[2:02:14] to lay in our future. And I'm glad that you guys are embarking into this endeavor all about

[2:02:21] updating our master planning for water. But I think that after the spring and after the

[2:02:29] update of the planning. We, the City Council, if it's not this one, the next one, should

[2:02:35] look into making policies of when and how that recycled waters use. Other cities have

[2:02:41] done that. Other cities, for example, besides getting credit from this day, they utilize

[2:02:49] all the recycle water for the usage of landscaping,

[2:02:58] medians, or parks, or to sell back to our neighbors.

[2:03:03] We are lucky to have different agencies.

[2:03:07] And I'm going to mention we did receive the letter from BBID.

[2:03:11] Okay, I'm going to stop it real quick.

[2:03:13] Are we jumping into 3F when we're talking about recycle water?

[2:03:16] No.

[2:03:20] I think the letter might be referring to three.

[2:03:22] I believe the letter.

[2:03:24] I'm just talking about item 3E.

[2:03:26] Can I continue?

[2:03:27] Yes, please.

[2:03:28] Just be cautious.

[2:03:29] Absolutely.

[2:03:30] Thank you, Mayor.

[2:03:31] So with that being said, I'm going to go back to what I was trying to refer is the policies.

[2:03:37] As we do master planning and we do standards with everything,

[2:03:41] And we supposed to, I think, we should look into policies to make sure that the city is

[2:03:49] protected, to always have the ability to serve our community first.

[2:03:56] So updating the plan is great.

[2:03:58] Creating policy is the next step to make sure that our resources are available for

[2:04:04] whenever the need arise within our community.

[2:04:09] So, with that being said, is that a step, and that's what I was asking before.

[2:04:17] The step is updating the plan, come back to council in the spring,

[2:04:22] make the recommendations, creating policy. Is that correct?

[2:04:28] Yes, I think as it relates to the policies, as Mr. Sharma mentioned,

[2:04:33] we're having discussions with the state.

[2:04:34] right now we don't have a permit to do the exchange.

[2:04:39] And so what we want to make sure that we're careful

[2:04:41] about having policies about how to maybe prioritize

[2:04:44] or other things related to that exchange

[2:04:46] without yet having the state approval,

[2:04:49] we want to make sure that that's not inconsistent.

[2:04:53] And so I think the only thing that the correction there

[2:04:56] or clarification would be that once the state

[2:04:59] either approves the exchange or we have a good sense,

[2:05:02] start to work on the policies about how do you prioritize or do deal with the excess recycled

[2:05:09] water?

[2:05:09] Perfect. And how likely it is for our community to use a full portion, it looks like by the

[2:05:21] drawings that we have surplus right now, is that correct? Or recycled water?

[2:05:35] Do you have a surplus?

[2:05:38] Or not?

[2:05:40] Right now we are not using any recycled water. So once the recycled water project is constructed,

[2:05:49] then we will be starting using it for legacy fields and percentia fields and sports complex.

[2:05:56] But also we do have permission from the state to use the recycled water,

[2:06:06] and that is the change in place of use of recycled water.

[2:06:14] So right now our treated water effluent or recycled water goes to the old river.

[2:06:21] State has allowed us to use for the irrigation purposes within the city.

[2:06:26] But the state order requires us also to make some water available to some other irrigation districts as well if we can't use it.

[2:06:36] So it's a little bit complicated at this time.

[2:06:39] So we already have the state order asking us to use this water

[2:06:45] within the sphere of influence area.

[2:06:49] And our goal will be to use that water by the city first

[2:06:53] and then go to the other agency which is listed in the state order.

[2:06:59] For example, WSID or BBID.

[2:07:03] So, cool. We don't really know yet what that will look like. It seems like we don't know

[2:07:10] yet how much recycled water we will be using or not, and if we will have eventually after

[2:07:17] it's constructed a surplus or not, and we don't know yet what the state is going to

[2:07:26] obligate us to make sure that we provide our other water agencies or not so all

[2:07:33] that will come sounds like it it will come and spring and it's more

[2:07:38] conversation to happen yeah correct yeah right now we are concentrating on

[2:07:43] the completion of the project we have and once we have it then we'll start

[2:07:47] using it and then we'll be looking into how much infrastructure we have to

[2:07:52] which park, how much they left. But then also the state order complicates a little bit that

[2:07:57] this water should be used within the influence area. But they have only allocated us right

[2:08:02] now the order we got from the state is for about 6,000 acre feet. But once we get more

[2:08:09] orders that may have some different places of use as well.

[2:08:13] Well, I love that you guys are being proactive, moving us forward and trying to just look

[2:08:19] ahead. So thank you for bringing this item up. Thank you, all of you, for a very well

[2:08:28] written staff report. And I look forward to hearing this item again and see where we are

[2:08:33] in the spring. Thank you, everybody. Thank you. I have a few questions, but just I'm

[2:08:42] just trying to wrap my head around why if the laws and everything around water and everything

[2:08:48] is complicated and we may not have that by spring of 2020. The purpose of even letting

[2:08:53] us know this now is what, what are we trying to, I mean I know you're just giving us information

[2:08:58] but you're just letting us know that you're coming back in the spring with water plans.

[2:09:04] Is there something that needs to happen before that besides to talk with the state

[2:09:08] which may not happen? Well as I mentioned, we're actually dealing with the state now

[2:09:14] And so, part of it was making sure that you're aware and the community is aware of some of the challenges with reliability,

[2:09:22] but also that we are working with the state and we believe there's a way that we can shore up the gap.

[2:09:27] Those bars that you saw are for build-out.

[2:09:29] And so, while Tracy has a multiple sources of water, we've always been very proactive,

[2:09:35] this is just coming to you in addition with that to say, there's some challenges out there,

[2:09:39] But we have a solution for it and we're moving forward with the negotiations or discussions with the state now

[2:09:45] Okay, do we have any set things in place of how often we actually review our city-wide?

[2:09:52] Water plan water system master plan. It was done in 2012. I know that there's an urban one

[2:09:58] That's to do every five years. So it's not due till 2021 for us

[2:10:02] But do we have a set time period that we're looking at this or is just as needed?

[2:10:07] So typically what we do with the master plans is sewer water storm road public

[2:10:12] facilities alike there's been a couple that have come forward to you all to

[2:10:15] increase the costs you know there's engineering news record goes up every

[2:10:19] year but about every three to five years we try to do a little bit more of

[2:10:24] an exhaustive review to say what are there's some things that there are

[2:10:29] any changes for example development assumptions change if there's less

[2:10:34] homes being built or that kind of stuff through the re-zonings and that, we try to incorporate

[2:10:38] those in more intensive changes about every three to five years and stuff.

[2:10:44] Okay, so we're like about eight years since the last one.

[2:10:47] Fees have gone up, but this is one where we're actually doing a bit more of a comprehensive.

[2:10:51] And also I think one of the other reasons is that from October 2012, things have changed

[2:10:58] a little bit. Like for example, we were relying very heavily on south San Joaquin County Irrigation

[2:11:05] District water. And for example, for Corpus Ranch, we took almost, we already purchased

[2:11:12] about 1,280 acre feet. And we do need additional 780 acre feet from them. And that was our

[2:11:20] plan in 2012. So now things have changed. SSJID doesn't have that 780 acre feet

[2:11:27] of water available to us anymore. So that water is gone. Plus the water which we are getting

[2:11:33] from SSGID was 100% reliable and now that can be reduced to 64% less than what we have.

[2:11:42] So basically out of 1000 acre feet we can have only 3600, 360 acre feet. So those are

[2:11:50] changes, so our sources are getting scarce. So that is another need to update it. And

[2:11:58] normally that never happened before, and we are very comfortable. So with this master

[2:12:04] plan update, we will be updating the other sources, what we have and what we don't.

[2:12:08] Okay. Because I didn't notice on the slide where it says for SJID potentially reduces

[2:12:14] average. I mean, is that most likely? I mean, just potential. And there's a potential

[2:12:18] for a lot of things because it's a huge number.

[2:12:22] The SSJD, we were negotiating with them.

[2:12:25] We wanted to have additional water from them

[2:12:26] and they don't have that water available anymore.

[2:12:31] OK, but by spring, we probably will

[2:12:34] know what that potential really is, or maybe will we know?

[2:12:39] Will we be more fine-tuned by then?

[2:12:40] No, that one is very clear.

[2:12:42] We don't have it.

[2:12:44] But by spring, we will finalize this document,

[2:12:48] bring it back to you.

[2:12:48] So we are trying to assess it, what impacts are, and what we know right now.

[2:12:55] And if things change between now and spring, definitely we'll bring it back to you as well.

[2:13:00] And I guess I wanted to say that all the master plans, this one included is a 30-year lookout, right?

[2:13:06] So in spring, we'll have more information. I don't know if we'll have all the information,

[2:13:11] but we'll have certainly the discussions that we have from the state.

[2:13:14] We think this solution going forward will certainly help us.

[2:13:18] We can't predict exactly what's going to happen with water reliability with the state,

[2:13:24] but we can do things on our side to help insulate from anything that might happen in the future

[2:13:29] so that we can build out to our general plan potential.

[2:13:32] Okay, so I guess just a clarification for myself.

[2:13:35] So because they have pulled that back definitely,

[2:13:38] that makes the potential that our overall supplies will be reduced.

[2:13:42] that's what that's what that line actually means that is correct thank you

[2:13:46] now I got that and so for what other options do we have besides what we're

[2:13:52] negotiating for I mean I know this is solution but we're talking about the

[2:13:56] recycle water as an option if they're if the state will allow us to exchange but

[2:14:01] what other what other sources do we have seeing that we have a strong

[2:14:06] portfolio I'm not sure what all that is and I don't even pretend to be a

[2:14:09] a specialist in water?

[2:14:12] Yeah, actually in 2012 we thought that we have a very strong portfolio.

[2:14:16] I think we still believe we have it.

[2:14:19] But at that time the water which we are getting from CVP,

[2:14:24] that is Central Valley Project, that is from Delta Moda Canal,

[2:14:28] that was 100% reliable.

[2:14:30] Rebel means if a state or US Bureau cannot reduce our supplies,

[2:14:38] But they did that one. They reduced their supplies during drought. So now what's

[2:14:43] happening is it's very difficult to get reliable sources of water. So all these

[2:14:49] sources we have, they are not that reliable as we thought in 2012. However,

[2:14:56] However, recycle water is a reliable source.

[2:15:00] We have a control over it, and that cannot be taken away by anybody else.

[2:15:04] And we have some control on ASR well, that is, we have a control.

[2:15:11] SSJID, we thought we have full reliability from them, and that reliability is gone.

[2:15:17] So reliability is going, has been what we had in 2012 is not there anymore.

[2:15:25] And it's in a changing situation in the water throughout California.

[2:15:32] To clarify, that's in times of drought, I want to clarify.

[2:15:36] The other is you may have read from some cities in the Bay Area or Tri Valley and even in southern California

[2:15:42] that a process called reverse osmosis where they actually treat the effluent from the wastewater treatment plant

[2:15:50] to such an extent that it's used extensively, I'll put it that way.

[2:15:57] Yeah, actually, the city of San Diego is doing it.

[2:16:00] What they're doing is they're...

[2:16:02] It's clear, waste, right, though you're referring to?

[2:16:05] Yes.

[2:16:05] So out of our toilets, we're there and then we drink it.

[2:16:07] No, but they're doing it, they're technically,

[2:16:09] what they're doing is the city of San Diego,

[2:16:11] they're getting the wastewater effluent,

[2:16:13] putting it in a lake with other water, combining it,

[2:16:17] and then treating it again,

[2:16:19] and then doing a super treatment called reverse osmosis and then they're

[2:16:24] serving it back to the people. So in that sense we are a little bit lucky

[2:16:29] because we have a source close to us, Taldum and Oda canal, where we can

[2:16:33] discharge it downstream somewhere and pump the same amount of water upstream

[2:16:38] somewhere and we can treat it and we will not see any difference if we are

[2:16:43] successful in that endeavor. Can we just send that down south? Yeah, our water will be going

[2:16:49] down south, yes.

[2:16:52] Actually, we met with State, actually. Our first proposal was can we pump

[2:16:57] that water in or discharge their water into Delta Monodak canal upstream of the West

[2:17:02] War treatment plant and State is not ready in the Northern California. If you are in

[2:17:07] the south, they may have allowed us. So they told us, no, it's not a good idea

[2:17:12] to discharge into canal upstream of your treatment plant,

[2:17:17] but we may allow you, they say may,

[2:17:20] to discharge downstream of your treatment plant,

[2:17:23] and then you can pump out the same amount of water

[2:17:26] at your treatment plant, which is coming from the Delta.

[2:17:29] So we're becoming a little bit more creative,

[2:17:32] and we hope we will be successful.

[2:17:35] We got very kind of a positive response,

[2:17:38] but we are not there yet.

[2:17:40] As part of solutions, are we looking at storage?

[2:17:42] because that was one of the things that was talked about before years ago when we were

[2:17:46] talking about water updates, as far as our storage here, especially for droughts. So I

[2:17:51] don't know if we can expand our storage. Do we have any surplus in our storage or how does

[2:17:55] that even factor into that? Because I don't see this as a part of it.

[2:17:58] What we are doing is right now, storage wise will be very expensive and we have to

[2:18:02] invest a lot of money. But ASR, which is the Echo for Storage Recovery Program,

[2:18:07] program, basically which we inject water into the ground when we have surplus water and

[2:18:14] then we take it out the same amount of water from the wells.

[2:18:17] So that program we already have it and we have well number eight which is on 6th Street

[2:18:24] and Tracy Boulevard.

[2:18:27] So we have that equipment installed over there and that's so we inject that water

[2:18:32] during the rainy season and we can pump that water out.

[2:18:36] And if you see those, the graph, and it shows about 3,000 acre feet of water, which we can

[2:18:42] recover it back.

[2:18:44] The question comes up, why only one well?

[2:18:46] Why don't we do all the wells?

[2:18:48] And that is a question we looked into it.

[2:18:52] The problem is, state has given us a permit, and they are allowing us to use the only

[2:18:59] SSJID water to inject into the ground.

[2:19:02] the water which we get from south sand in irrigation district. They don't allow us to

[2:19:07] use the DMC water to inject into it. So when the water is coming from SSJID from the east

[2:19:15] of Tracy, basically we shut down our treatment plant because the system totally has to be

[2:19:23] shut down and the water has to go through all the areas, all the zones and all the

[2:19:29] reservoirs we have in the city. So, imagine that the amount of water we are getting from

[2:19:34] ASAID, we have to serve the existing city, we also have to inject it, and we don't have

[2:19:40] that water from them. We don't have enough water to serve it. So we can only have only

[2:19:45] one well for ASR well, and we can't have 10 wells, and we can't inject that water

[2:19:52] unless our permit is applied by the state, and there's a possibility they may revise

[2:19:57] it, but it's a difficult task and it will take a lot of time. We don't know. So at this

[2:20:03] time we have only one well which is allowed and we are using it to the maximum extent.

[2:20:08] So the aquifer storage, aquifer storage and others will maintain, we will still maximize

[2:20:13] that. That's not changing in the master plan. So that's still going to be one of our options.

[2:20:17] We are using that one.

[2:20:23] Yes. So thank you very much for bringing this very complicated issue back to us.

[2:20:32] I don't know, Cole, if you remember, we had this very lengthy discussion years ago when

[2:20:37] we were approving Tracy Hills and I was concerned about do we have enough water and I was reassured

[2:20:43] that all of these different resources were available so that when we approved projects

[2:20:48] we knew that the water would be available.

[2:20:50] We talked about groundwater, well water, you know, all the different sources.

[2:20:54] And so I do understand that the 2018 legislation has changed a little bit, well, a lot of bit of that.

[2:21:03] But I just want to understand what kind of the danger is.

[2:21:12] So I feel like I got mixed feelings from this report.

[2:21:16] It's like the supply is strong.

[2:21:18] It says, you know, we have a strong portfolio of available sources.

[2:21:21] But then I kind of feel like there's this huge risk factor that maybe we're not really talking about.

[2:21:27] So I want to look at the first graph where we show the different sources, SSJID,

[2:21:36] which is primarily the majority of the source we use now,

[2:21:41] which looks like we started using that as our primary source about 2005 as indicated earlier.

[2:21:46] And then 2012 was the last report to current.

[2:21:50] So, our historical water use based on population to current is about the same and in some years

[2:21:58] is lower but now we've exchanged the, we were using SSID but now you're telling us that

[2:22:05] may not be as available depending on the drought years.

[2:22:09] What I'm trying to be clear about is how much of the other categories we actually can access.

[2:22:22] So I do see your supply and demand chart.

[2:22:24] But when we're looking at the surface water versus what we can get from the wells and so on and so forth,

[2:22:35] But how much can we actually, if SSJID is not available, what is actually, how much acre

[2:22:44] fee can we compensate from our other resources, if that may?

[2:22:48] Tell me if that's too complicated of a question.

[2:22:50] Let me try to make it simple if I can.

[2:22:53] If I can go back to the projected future, what supply versus demand graph, that will

[2:22:59] be, if I can have the overhead.

[2:23:06] So I see thirty four. That is a power point, please.

[2:23:10] It's a power point. Slide seven.

[2:23:19] Can you try it? Go

[2:23:21] backwards, yeah.

[2:23:24] Go ahead. Backwards, yeah.

[2:23:29] Yes. Right. That's where I was looking. Yeah. Okay.

[2:23:33] So let me try to make it simpler. So if you look into the normal

[2:23:37] year, the first graph, first vertical graph,

[2:23:41] And we have a water supply of 26,588 acre-feet.

[2:23:51] And if you look into the top bar we have, that is the full build-out of our general plan.

[2:24:00] So, and our need over there is 39,000 acre-feet when the developments within the sphere of influence are completed or built out.

[2:24:09] So we will need about 39,000 acre-feet. So we do have 26,588,600 acre-feet of water.

[2:24:21] Then we do need 7,500 acre-feet of recycled water in a normal year.

[2:24:29] And that will be a recycled water exchange and we have to get approval from the state.

[2:24:34] So in addition to that, if you look into the top, another 5,000 acre-feet will be

[2:24:42] using for irrigation, the landscaping irrigation. So the total amount of

[2:24:49] recycled water in a normal year will be needed, that will be 10, 11.2, sorry, it's a

[2:24:58] 12,537 acre feet and that equates to 11.2 mgd. I'm putting some numbers over here. So

[2:25:15] we have a

[2:25:16] shortage in a normal year but this shortage now gets more complicated when we go to a single dry

[2:25:24] year when we go to the drought year. Our supply is, instead of 26,588 acre-feet,

[2:25:32] reduces to 18,751 acre-feet. This is our best guess. It could be more, it

[2:25:38] could be less.

[2:25:42] And then we are using all the other sources. So we'll be using

[2:25:46] about 12,000 acre-feet of recycled water for exchange, and we'll be still

[2:25:54] using 5,000 for irrigation purposes. So we'll be needing about 17,374 acre-feet for the

[2:26:02] second water.

[2:26:04] Let me take a quick stab to you because some of this is highly dependent on, as Kul said,

[2:26:11] this is the build-out of the general plan. That's a lot of land area that we're talking

[2:26:16] about here, the full build-out, right? Some of this is dependent on if this market

[2:26:22] it stays the way it is.

[2:26:23] We've been talking a little bit about what do we anticipate

[2:26:25] to be the growth over the next five, six, seven type of years.

[2:26:31] And so really all of that plays into this about

[2:26:33] is this an immediate thing that we need to have

[2:26:36] the recycled water, five, a 10 year.

[2:26:40] So a lot of it is highly dependent on the growth,

[2:26:43] on the reliability numbers as we said.

[2:26:46] I don't wanna come off as the sky's falling

[2:26:49] because there is some time out there that we can solve this,

[2:26:53] but I just wanted to clarify that all that is highly dependent upon

[2:26:58] development occurring in the way it has in the past, or that type of thing.

[2:27:02] Okay, thank you for... Can you go back to that slide?

[2:27:07] So I appreciate that. So I guess

[2:27:11] at full build-out, because that's what we're looking at on this project,

[2:27:15] future, right? Full build out. So the difference between what we were told a few years ago, full

[2:27:21] build out was, don't worry, we have plenty of access, but the difference is now this SSJID.

[2:27:28] And the state also, the CVP water, which we get from the Delta Moderna canal.

[2:27:33] Okay.

[2:27:33] That also.

[2:27:34] So the difference is, can you tell me like which, as far as groundwater, so we went through

[2:27:41] this whole exercise and said, well, what if this is not available? What if that's

[2:27:44] not available and it was like, well, we'll go to the groundwater, we'll go here.

[2:27:47] And so I understand that the changes in the loss has significantly changed things so I

[2:27:52] can't hold you accountable for things that weren't in place then.

[2:27:56] I'm just trying to understand when we're looking at these projected and you're showing

[2:28:01] me the shortage, can you show me with more, so I see the existing supply and then

[2:28:08] I see the recycled water exchange.

[2:28:12] but I don't see and I know that it's all in there is can you kind of give me a

[2:28:16] breakdown because the existing supply includes CVP, SSGID and groundwater

[2:28:22] but can you break it down a little bit further? No, I understand the question so

[2:28:26] let's say in a normal year out of let's say single drought year 18,751 acre

[2:28:35] So this includes about 9,000 acre-feet of water from our wells and that is the safe yield from our wells.

[2:28:49] If we probably can have more water but then it will be impacting our sustainability of the wells itself

[2:28:56] and not to make it more complicated, the wells will be going into our new program called GSA

[2:29:04] It's a ground sustainability agency, which we are one.

[2:29:08] So everywhere you get water, it's getting complicated.

[2:29:12] So there's more controls, checks and balances.

[2:29:15] Okay.

[2:29:16] So 9,000 acre feet, we can get more from the whales, which...

[2:29:21] Which is included in this 18,700.

[2:29:23] It's already included.

[2:29:24] Okay, and then there's more,

[2:29:26] but we may not be able to access more.

[2:29:28] When you say there's more,

[2:29:29] but we may not be safe, how much more are we talking?

[2:29:31] I mean we will be drawing down from the over wells and that will be impacting the sustainably

[2:29:37] I just want to know like how much is there if emergency happens as example.

[2:29:44] We can even go even one and a half twice.

[2:29:47] I mean we can go twice.

[2:29:49] And I know it changes from the 9,000 acre feet number for the groundwater is based on a safe yield

[2:29:54] estimate that was done several years ago and so that's thought to be sort of the maximum sustain.

[2:30:10] I'm trying to find out what the could is. What is the acre feed of could take out more? How much more could we take out if there was an emergency year or something like that?

[2:30:19] I don't know that we could put a firm number on that. Again, it's tied to how much you could actually pump from your wells as well.

[2:30:26] So what's the percentage that is safe to take out? I guess maybe that would help me. I can just do some math

[2:30:31] Is there like a percentage that was used to calculate the 9,000 square acre square feet?

[2:30:37] You know, I don't know that there's a simple answer to that. No, okay. All right. I don't want to I'm just

[2:30:42] You know, but a groundwater sustainability agency will be working with our neighbors

[2:30:47] farmers cities and everybody will be

[2:30:51] Doing the same things so we want to make sure that we keep that safe level somewhere over there, too

[2:30:56] And now 1,000 acre feet is that safe yield point.

[2:31:05] Okay.

[2:31:06] Okay.

[2:31:07] So basically where you're talking about is based on this, with all of the changes at full build out, there's really a concern that we need to identify more water sources or storage sources or recharge sources.

[2:31:23] Yes.

[2:31:23] Is that what, so, okay.

[2:31:25] Okay.

[2:31:26] During a drought period, yes, and that recycle water seems to be the easiest one to tackle.

[2:31:34] But as I said before, at build out, the wastewater treatment plan is going to be at 21MGD.

[2:31:38] So there's going to be quite a bit excess and that kind of stuff as well.

[2:31:42] So that's why we're looking at that, to say, okay, this might be the easy solution

[2:31:47] for us.

[2:31:48] Okay.

[2:31:49] And then my final question would be when it comes to the amount of purple pipe we've

[2:31:54] been putting into all the different places. When we reach full capacity as far as like

[2:32:00] actually implementing as much purple pipe as you have planned, does that give more leeway

[2:32:07] in the system? Does that give us more capacity or have you already calculated that in these

[2:32:13] projections that you've presented to us? We already have.

[2:32:17] You have this complete every so everything even so when you do filled build out full build out includes full build out of purple

[2:32:23] Pipe yes, okay, and for the record. I do not support turning the effluent water into drinking water

[2:32:32] I know mr.

[2:32:33] Mr. Sharma said hey, it's probably safer to drink than

[2:32:36] Some of the other water, but it's not the same molecules. It's totally different molecules, but I don't believe it

[2:32:42] But thank you very much. I appreciate your responses. Have you tried it?

[2:32:45] No, but cool offer to drink some.

[2:32:49] You may like it, who knows?

[2:32:51] That's my arrow.

[2:32:52] So I just had a quick question.

[2:32:53] I wanted to point your attention to the same chart,

[2:32:55] the projected future water supply and demand chart.

[2:32:58] So I see the existing supply in a normal year,

[2:33:02] looks like an approximately 26,000 acre feet.

[2:33:06] The 2018 demand is approximately 16,

[2:33:10] so that difference looks like approximately 10,000 acre feet per year.

[2:33:14] So in any given year for a normal year, what are we doing to maintain that water?

[2:33:20] Are we storing it? Is it going to aquifer?

[2:33:22] Is that going to groundwater for that approximate 10,000 in a normal year?

[2:33:27] What's happening with our water there?

[2:33:29] Yeah, you know, what's happening is we are buying these water from different sources.

[2:33:33] For example, we buy it from Bureau of Acclamation, and we buy in accordance with our needs.

[2:33:39] So we will be paying for that one.

[2:33:41] So, same way we buy water from SSJID, and if our needs are less, we don't buy all the water from them.

[2:33:49] So, when we talk about existing supply, it's not local. We purchase what we need in that particular given year.

[2:33:54] Yes. But it does have a permanent supply, which is our own supply for wells, for example, that is already there.

[2:34:00] Okay. So, currently we're not doing anything?

[2:34:02] We are not, yeah.

[2:34:03] Okay. Thank you.

[2:34:04] Sure.

[2:34:05] Cool. So, we have three water supplies, correct?

[2:34:12] So we have CVP, SJID, and groundwater.

[2:34:18] What does cities like, I mean, I know there's some cities have one water supply,

[2:34:22] and what does cities like Stockton, how many do they have?

[2:34:26] Do you have any idea?

[2:34:27] Or a large city, I'm just curious.

[2:34:29] Stockton has a, they've been primarily groundwater for many, many years,

[2:34:34] but they added a surface water supply about five years ago.

[2:34:38] So they have two?

[2:34:39] They have, yeah, they have two now.

[2:34:41] Shouldn't cities like that worry more than us, right?

[2:34:46] I mean, I know it's gloom and doom, but I mean,

[2:34:50] you look at what we have, three, I know a lot of cities don't even.

[2:34:55] I mean, they would love to have what we have,

[2:34:58] and that just goes kudos to our staff

[2:35:02] over and our council over the years making sure that's a priority.

[2:35:06] And when we do have wet years and we do use our groundwater,

[2:35:10] We do replenish it. One of the last time we had a dip into our ground water.

[2:35:13] The

[2:35:18] ground water? Did you say?

[2:35:21] Yes, actually what we do is...

[2:35:24] I don't care what's done. I'm just asking when it was the last time.

[2:35:32] I would say probably

[2:35:35] seven or eight years ago when we shut down our

[2:35:38] water treatment plant and that time either we get water from

[2:35:42] message ID or ground wells. How long do we do that for? I mean what I'm trying to get at

[2:35:47] is just to assure the public, even if our two waters applied for somehow against the mesh,

[2:35:51] we have all this excess ground water that can supply the city for.

[2:35:58] We have been injecting water in our ASR well. Right, but what I'm asking is, how much

[2:36:03] ground water have we ever used at one time? Let's try this. How many wells do we have?

[2:36:08] We have nine wells.

[2:36:10] Out of those nine wells, how many did we diminish, you know, for a year or something because we

[2:36:16] didn't have excess water?

[2:36:18] What do you say?

[2:36:19] Did we ever do that?

[2:36:21] We have used up to six or seven wells, yes.

[2:36:23] And at one time.

[2:36:25] One time, yes.

[2:36:25] At one year.

[2:36:26] And they're all replenished now.

[2:36:27] Yes.

[2:36:27] So we have a, I always think that as our emergency water.

[2:36:31] Yes.

[2:36:32] Whatever happened to, you know, it's kind of frustrating.

[2:36:37] and you know you I sit up here and I look at this and I try to hold my

[2:36:42] composure and you know it's frustrating in the sense that here you have a city

[2:36:47] like Tracy who has planned for the future, planned for a growth and you know

[2:36:53] have the three different water supply and and then you look throughout the

[2:36:57] state and how much this state of California has grown you know hundreds

[2:37:03] and hundreds of thousands of people compare or millions of people whatever it

[2:37:06] may be compared to 20 years ago and our water storage is the same or close to the same.

[2:37:14] Whatever happened in like 2014, I believe we had a proposition for water storage.

[2:37:19] Is there any water storage in the works that would assist cities or central valleys or

[2:37:25] whatever it may be to correct this problem of water shortages?

[2:37:31] Do you know any, because I don't.

[2:37:34] Do you know any?

[2:37:35] I'm just asking because maybe I don't I'm wrong, but we haven't went the last time we had a

[2:37:41] Like a reservoir built. What year was that?

[2:37:45] Yeah, it just it just goes to show you that this is a frustrating part, you know

[2:37:50] This year last year we have trillions trillions of gallons of water, you know fresh water rain snow

[2:37:58] And it's just being sent right down to the ocean and that water is not being used for

[2:38:05] what I believe in 2014, the people of California wanted more storage and we still haven't had

[2:38:12] that storage. So some of the problems that cities are seeing, you know, could be alleviated

[2:38:18] if the state of California would do what it needs to be done is to put more water storage

[2:38:24] out there. I mean, you know, you talk about, and I mentioned, you know, down south as

[2:38:30] a joke, but, you know, we had the twin tunnels and now that's gone. Now they're talking

[2:38:33] about a tunnel, take our water, the delta, down south, which could be alleviated if those

[2:38:40] people up in Sacramento would do what they should be doing is taking care of the residents

[2:38:45] of California and build more water storage. So to me, I know it's kind of sitting on a

[2:38:50] high horse, but it's just frustrating not as the mayor or somebody sitting here, but

[2:38:55] just as a resident of this state that we haven't acted in so long. And here we are

[2:39:00] trying to deal with a problem that could be alleviated if we had more

[2:39:05] storage to catch all that rainwater. But with that being said,

[2:39:10] this is just for the update on the city's wastewater master plan.

[2:39:15] So we're receiving that. And if council doesn't have anything

[2:39:19] further, we're going to move on. Does anybody need a break?

[2:39:21] Like a restroom break or anything before we move on?

[2:39:26] I say good. All right. We'll move on to item 3F.

[2:39:28] staff provide direction to staff regarding negotiating an exclusive negotiating rights

[2:39:34] agreement, ENRA, with private public infrastructure group, LLC, PPIG, regarding the completion

[2:39:41] of a feasibility study to determine the potential monetization of the city's future recycle

[2:39:46] water supply.

[2:39:48] Staff can report, please.

[2:39:50] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[2:39:50] Members of Council and Dermalek, Assistant City Manager, so this item is a request

[2:39:56] to do an exclusive negotiating rights with PPIG for a feasibility study to

[2:40:02] determine if there's any monetization potential for the city's excess

[2:40:06] recycled water in the future. This item is before you because our recently

[2:40:11] adopted council procedures and preparation policies. This item was

[2:40:17] sponsored by councilmember Ransom and you the mayor to have this item before

[2:40:22] for us for a kind of a two-step process.

[2:40:25] And the first step is, once it's sponsored by council,

[2:40:29] we bring the item back to gauge whether or not

[2:40:32] you want staff to pursue, do some more research,

[2:40:36] work on and that kind of thing.

[2:40:37] So that's the first step and that's what we're doing

[2:40:39] tonight.

[2:40:40] The second part of that step is coming back

[2:40:43] with the action item.

[2:40:44] In this case, it would be whether council directs us

[2:40:47] to move forward with the details of an ENRA with them,

[2:40:51] we can come back with some of that details that would come back to you for discussion

[2:40:54] about whether that's what you envisioned or if you have any parameters and that kind of

[2:40:59] stuff.

[2:40:59] So that's kind of why we're here and kind of the steps of the process.

[2:41:05] I should also say that it's been that PBIG has had on and off discussions with the

[2:41:11] city for quite some time.

[2:41:14] What started out, I believe, is a concept to assist the city in disposal of unused

[2:41:19] nuisance recycled water has kind of evolved, I think, over a little bit into these discussions

[2:41:24] that I've had with PPIG staff about this feasibility study. They've indicated to me that they don't

[2:41:32] know if this is going to work or not, but they wanted to look at their own feasibility.

[2:41:37] As I stated before in the other agenda item, there's 21 MGD at the treatment plant that

[2:41:42] will be expanded over the build out, will there be excess likely? Will there be phasing

[2:41:48] and details very much likely as well? So there's a lot of details that we would need to work

[2:41:54] out. So as we learned from the master plan presentation previously, securing that future

[2:42:01] reliable water supply is a top priority for the city. The city is, like I said, fortunate

[2:42:06] to have multiple sources, but that we need to protect those sources. In my discussions

[2:42:11] with PBIG staff, they have indicated that their intent is to complete the feasibility study or due diligence.

[2:42:19] They've stated to me that there's no preconceived idea or expectation that ultimately they'll ever have an agreement with the city

[2:42:27] to actually purchase the recycled water, but that's the purpose of the study.

[2:42:32] They've indicated that they do not want to do anything that would interfere with the city or impact

[2:42:36] or the city securing state approval of the recycled water, as mentioned in the last item.

[2:42:43] Excuse me. They've indicated that they understand that council, if council wishes to move forward,

[2:42:49] that they would then work with staff that coordinate communication with the state regarding recycled water.

[2:42:58] Their staff, PBIG, has indicated that they would cover staff's costs with regard to the feasibility and city's peer review.

[2:43:05] And that they've acknowledged that the city will be developing policies as I heard for the use and potential sale of this future recycled water concurrent with us securing the city, securing those state approvals.

[2:43:18] And that they wish to explore things like even financing options that could advance the city's recycled water infrastructure understanding that the city may also look at some financial options.

[2:43:29] And so I guess it's what I've heard from them is that there's a lot of unknowns at this point,

[2:43:34] excuse me, at this point and that they are looking to do this feasibility to answer some of those concerns.

[2:43:41] I'd also like to mention that the city received two e-mails.

[2:43:46] One was from Irrigation District, BBID, that they are also interested in purchasing if there is excess recycled water purchasing that,

[2:43:54] as well as an email, and I think you all have it as well,

[2:43:58] from an attorney representing Mr. Sandu,

[2:44:02] who is in opposition of this request.

[2:44:05] So,

[2:44:10] should Council wish to proceed with the second step

[2:44:13] in this process, as I mentioned, staff would recommend working

[2:44:16] with these statements that I've made in working with PBIG

[2:44:20] that they've said to us to bring back some of that,

[2:44:23] flush that out as part of the ENRI if the will

[2:44:25] of the Council is to move to that next step.

[2:44:28] staff request council direction regarding this request, and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

[2:44:35] Thank you, Mr. Malick.

[2:44:37] Let's see here.

[2:44:39] All right, for the time we're going to open up for the public comment.

[2:44:41] Anybody from the public put your address council on this item?

[2:44:52] Robert Tanner, 1371, Russia Street.

[2:44:55] Towards the end of this agenda item, there's a paragraph that a

[2:45:00] The former Tracy Worker is acting as a consultant with the PPIG, and it was requested that possibly

[2:45:08] the city as a caution should obtain a formal advice letter from the FPPC on whether the

[2:45:16] state conflict of interest laws and regulations prohibit the city from contracting with PPIG

[2:45:23] after the expiration of the ENR-A.

[2:45:27] I would suggest that this request of the FPPC be done first

[2:45:31] before an ENR-A is ever attempted to be entered into.

[2:45:37] Thank you.

[2:45:38] Thank you, Mr. Tannen.

[2:45:40] You're welcome.

[2:45:44] My extend to Tracy, California.

[2:45:48] It costs about $1,000 to set up a company like they did.

[2:45:52] I can set up a thousand of them in one day.

[2:45:55] Del Porto Water District, who was here, tried to be on the table to get the same thing.

[2:46:04] They're already successful.

[2:46:05] They've done already over 80 million, 80 to 100 million dollars they spend, and they're

[2:46:11] successful getting the water for 20 mile pipeline.

[2:46:15] They're dumping into the canal right now.

[2:46:17] now. So why is this company whose experience is only, they know the council members? That's

[2:46:27] the only experience they have in the water. There's local water district who's supplying

[2:46:33] water to every farm here or to the companies. Why are they not given the same choice?

[2:46:41] What is so special about this person that we cannot give them exclusive?

[2:46:48] My dad said when somebody says exclusive, basically that means corruption.

[2:46:56] And anyone asking for exclusive is a corrupt person, and anyone boards on that is a corrupt person.

[2:47:04] I am here today. I will pay the whole amount of this study.

[2:47:09] Do not take water from our kids, our parents, or anyone in this town.

[2:47:16] Whatever the study they're going to do, I will pay for it and I'm not asking a dime back

[2:47:22] or single drop of water back for the money I will give, because I think it's ridiculous

[2:47:29] what's being done when we already know that we can be shortage of water and even asking

[2:47:35] exclusive. If that's the idea that the city wants to do, why not give it to 10 companies

[2:47:41] and let them come back with the best offer on their water if it is ever available. This

[2:47:48] should, the city is in a business to protect people and any water available should be sold

[2:47:55] if it is actually sold to the highest bidder, not a friend. So stop this corruption and

[2:48:04] a corrupt system. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sandio.

[2:48:09] Who else?

[2:48:15] Jim Miller, general manager of PPIG.

[2:48:19] The staff report was misleading. We are not looking to purchase any recycled water from the city.

[2:48:25] What we're trying to do is to see whether or not the water that's not going to be used,

[2:48:29] if it can be monetized to create a new revenue stream for the city.

[2:48:35] So to simplify everything.

[2:48:38] Under the numbers that were just shown, existing use is around 16,000 acre-feet a year.

[2:48:46] Build-outs around 39,000 acre-feet.

[2:48:48] So you're less than halfway.

[2:48:51] If you're at 90,000 people for 16,000, you can be up over 200,000 people to get to 39,000 acre-feet.

[2:48:59] That means you've got more than double.

[2:49:01] With Measure A in place, you can only put in 600 homes a year.

[2:49:05] It's about 2,000 people a year.

[2:49:08] You've got over 110,000 extra people coming in to hit the build-out numbers that they just showed you.

[2:49:14] That's a 50-year build-out period.

[2:49:16] Andrew said 30.

[2:49:17] Either way, you look at it as a long time where the water's not going to be in use

[2:49:22] and there's potential for you to get revenue from that.

[2:49:25] So the idea behind the project is to search whether or not it's conceivable to monetize that stream for the city,

[2:49:33] create a revenue stream for the city, that water's not being used right now, and there's nothing being done with it.

[2:49:39] So there's clarification on that. We look forward to doing this. We're very excited about it.

[2:49:45] We've been doing it for three years trying to bring this to council.

[2:49:49] Thank you, Mr. Miller. Anyone else?

[2:49:56] No one. We're being back to council for discussion.

[2:50:01] Mary Ola.

[2:50:03] So I had a question for Ms. Ramirez.

[2:50:05] So related to this ENRA, what would be the legal distinctions between giving an ERA versus something like an MOU, or would there be any?

[2:50:18] Well, I think an E&RA is a type of MOU in which we, the premise of it is that we are

[2:50:25] in the process of exploring a relationship and exclusively negotiating with this entity.

[2:50:31] It's a type of MOU and our practice has been in the city of Tracy that when we are exploring

[2:50:37] these types of projects or ventures with a private party, we end up entering into

[2:50:46] these types of agreements. Entering to an ENRA would restrict the city from speaking to someone

[2:50:53] else in the same matter, right? It's an exclusive negotiating agreement. Typically we set a term

[2:50:59] and we set parameters about the scope of work and the cost associated with doing that work.

[2:51:06] So as I read what's currently on the agenda, so I get that, but there's a huge difference

[2:51:12] between assessing the feasibility of something versus putting something in the ground.

[2:51:18] So as the agenda is currently written, it seems like the scope of this question tonight

[2:51:24] is limited to a feasibility study.

[2:51:27] Is that correct?

[2:51:28] So when we're talking about negotiations, are you only negotiating or negotiating

[2:51:33] currently a feasibility study or actually putting something on the ground?

[2:51:38] It would be primarily a feasibility study with the intent and the understanding of potentially

[2:51:45] identifying a proposal to put something into the ground, right?

[2:51:49] This is like the preliminary step.

[2:51:52] Sure.

[2:51:52] But because we have, if we say we were to agree to this feasibility study, I haven't

[2:51:57] seen any contract yet, there's no commitment to PPIG to commit them to any project, am

[2:52:04] I correct on that?

[2:52:05] Correct.

[2:52:06] Correct.

[2:52:06] Okay.

[2:52:10] So,

[2:52:13] okay, I'll probably have some questions in a second, but that's all I have for now. Thank you.

[2:52:21] Pro Tem.

[2:52:23] Okay. I'm sorry, my notes jumped to another area. So, looking at this, as you were talking about the ENA,

[2:52:31] it's just exclusively for a period of time. What is the period of time I was trying to scan through here?

[2:52:39] So I don't know if staff from PBIG have done this in other jurisdictions.

[2:52:46] I think we were thinking it might be like six months or otherwise,

[2:52:49] but maybe you can fill in to see if there's what you might need.

[2:52:52] The initial draft of the document that we wrote with you guys two years ago

[2:52:56] suggested a one-year period with a potential one-year extension.

[2:53:02] That seems reasonable to take.

[2:53:04] We're going to go talk to them.

[2:53:05] So basically, we're looking for permission from the city to go investigate, so we go

[2:53:08] talk to all the agencies, find out what is needed to be able to pull this off, what infrastructures

[2:53:14] need to be put in, does that pencil out?

[2:53:17] Is there enough water available to pull it off?

[2:53:20] So it's trying to figure that all out and then come back to you with a proposal

[2:53:23] and say, okay, here we think we have something.

[2:53:25] And here's what it is and here's how it would work.

[2:53:29] And it would probably take us from the time we get the agreement to the time that

[2:53:34] come back to you would be within a year. Okay. Thank you for that. So the how we got here

[2:53:44] from a couple years ago is that this group actually approached I guess many of us

[2:53:50] council, not all the council members at that particular time, and what was

[2:53:54] determined here from the dais to our former staff that said there was that

[2:54:00] But they were going to look into options, different options, whether the city could do

[2:54:05] something with recycled water, hence probably the last presentation.

[2:54:09] But other than that was, you know, whether or not, you know, this group would do something

[2:54:13] and whether there were others that were interested.

[2:54:16] But since that time, it kind of fell through the cracks as our city was going through

[2:54:21] a number of changes.

[2:54:23] However, at this point, since this item has been placed on the agenda in the last

[2:54:28] to dare to, then other entities have approaches such as even letters and calls and emails regarding

[2:54:34] their interest.

[2:54:36] But to date, as far as a council member being approached, I've only been approached by this

[2:54:41] group and hence the conversation because we have given prior direction to actually

[2:54:45] speak with them as an option.

[2:54:47] So I'm interested in looking into things that will help further monetize and have

[2:54:54] streams of income for our city, which is the whole point of being responsible for things

[2:54:59] that are unused. So I think this is, it may be seen exclusive and excluding others, but

[2:55:09] these are, this is what's been approached and has been asked us over time. And so, you

[2:55:15] know, if others want to jump on the bandwagon, that's another story. But this letter that

[2:55:20] asked, will they, from the BBID and the SWSID, will they still be first in line for the city's

[2:55:30] unused recycled water before it would be sold to PPG? So it's already been established that

[2:55:36] it's not, they're not trying to buy water from us, but my question was, are they actually

[2:55:42] first in line now with how whatever the setup is, or is this is an assumption?

[2:55:48] So as, as Cool had mentioned, the only thing, let me back up.

[2:55:53] The city does not currently have a policy of how to dispose of the excess recycled water.

[2:56:00] Cool referred to an order of a change in and place of use earlier from the state.

[2:56:06] I think it was March of this year.

[2:56:07] In there it said the city will be able to use recycled water,

[2:56:12] but it needs to stay within the sphere of influence.

[2:56:15] And it should go, you know, to irrigation districts.

[2:56:20] And I think it mentions a couple of even irrigation districts and stuff.

[2:56:23] It doesn't set a priority.

[2:56:25] It just says that that's what it should go, uses in the sphere of influence and that.

[2:56:29] So that was what we said earlier about we know through this process that we're going to have to come back with you

[2:56:35] to establish some of those priorities and that kind of thing.

[2:56:38] Okay.

[2:56:39] And given that there are other interests, I'm just curious as to, I know we're asking specifically for this.

[2:56:45] And so for whatever the time period, whether it's a year for another renewable once this study has been looked at and maybe there's something that's not feasible from this feasibility study.

[2:56:57] At that point, it could be opened up to other opportunities or the options or what are we looking at when it gets back to the feasibility?

[2:57:05] Does it become exclusively between PPIG and the city?

[2:57:10] So the study, my understanding in talking, the study is for the exclusive negotiating rights.

[2:57:17] But that's really a parameter that we could put in there to say once the study is done or whatever else,

[2:57:23] how does the council wish to proceed with either going out to, however they want to do it.

[2:57:29] How do you want to proceed from there? It could be a separate agreement study or process.

[2:57:35] I just wanted to make sure what the understanding was so that we're clear when it comes back

[2:57:40] to us.

[2:57:40] If it's open like that, open-ended, if it's more closed until after a certain time period.

[2:57:45] If you give us parameters, that's kind of what I mentioned.

[2:57:49] If Council wishes to take that next step with PPIG, those are some of the parameters

[2:57:54] that we could put into this that would spell out that going forward.

[2:57:58] Okay.

[2:57:59] I'm not saying that I'm asking for that, but I just want to make sure what's clear,

[2:58:03] what we're doing and as I said we're here because they've approached us several

[2:58:07] times and this has fallen between the cracks over the years and to bring that

[2:58:11] discussion back here although it was probably would have been a broader

[2:58:14] discussion had it been brought back before but to to give authority to to

[2:58:20] talk to each other I absolutely support that yes thank you so I just

[2:58:28] want to kind of clarify and just reiterate for the public that the way this agenda item

[2:58:36] is presented to us, there's nothing being given away. And there is nobody that's slated to

[2:58:43] be first in line. This was brought to us a couple of years ago and we started the process

[2:58:50] and then it got put to the side. And basically what it was presented to, I'll just talk

[2:58:57] about myself. It was presented as we're looking for different resources. There are

[2:59:02] other communities, Modesto and some other cities. I don't know all the intricate

[2:59:07] details of how they put their process together, but there are other cities that

[2:59:11] have made deals that are actually, they still have a secure water supply,

[2:59:17] but they also, they don't waste any water. They can sell the water to

[2:59:21] whether it be farms or other people in need.

[2:59:26] So just looking at this, I want to be clear that so we receive

[2:59:31] these letters, first of all, it's my understanding no one's

[2:59:34] first in line, I would not vote on something that says we're

[2:59:37] going to be doing a feasibility study that automatically puts

[2:59:40] anything in line, so I'll start by saying that.

[2:59:42] Also, with this feasibility study, will it give us an

[2:59:46] opportunity to look at some things that are going on in

[2:59:50] regards to water being monetized, the pros and the cons, a city version. Will this feasibility

[2:59:56] study give us something to look into in regards to whether there is a city.

[3:00:09] So, I mean,

[3:00:13] so maybe I'll answer that in the sense of this is my understanding and talking

[3:00:17] to PPIG is this is their feasibility study we would likely peer review. But if what I'm hearing

[3:00:22] from councils you want that to be more robust. So should we do are will we do our own to like

[3:00:28] make sure that if it's like, hey, the city needs to do a better job to protect the water

[3:00:34] source. So, you know, will there be something if the direction of council is to go that

[3:00:39] way? Then we can certainly do that. Okay. So what is the intent? Right. So right. Not

[3:00:43] what is the intent? So right now they want to do a feasibility study. You plan to peer

[3:00:47] review it. When this conversation first started happening a couple of years ago, I know

[3:00:54] that one of the reasons why we wanted to look into an ENRA is because there was some,

[3:00:59] I guess, proprietary information being divulged by the company that wants to do it.

[3:01:07] So it was supposedly, or in my understanding, a way to protect their ability to kind of share

[3:01:13] and give us all of that information and still protect their proprietary interests.

[3:01:18] But at the same time we would be able to see full scope of how it would impact our city. Is that correct?

[3:01:25] I mean that's one of the typical elements of an exclusive negotiating rights agreement where you you maintain some kind of confidentiality or proprietary

[3:01:34] Information is protected right and typically as I said, it's exclusive. It's with one party and

[3:01:41] And what upon direction from council to negotiate such an agreement, we would then come back

[3:01:47] to council for council to actually approve that agreement and see the terms set out.

[3:01:51] Okay.

[3:01:52] And then there was this letter from Mr. Milhap.

[3:01:54] I want to confirm.

[3:01:56] So there's no intent to basically enter a contract tonight or this is not an intent

[3:02:04] to enter a contract or circumvent the, basically, the purpose of use, you know, in regards to

[3:02:12] how we're going to use water. And so I just want to be, because nothing has even been,

[3:02:16] no contract's even been put in place, so I just want to make sure that these things

[3:02:22] are addressed if this council does move forward in that direction, that these things are

[3:02:28] addressed in there, that this doesn't give anyone, you know, first rights or whatever,

[3:02:33] but that we're really looking to see if there's an opportunity and it's my

[3:02:36] understanding in my discussion with with the I don't want to call them

[3:02:42] developer with with them today that they don't even know for full scope of how

[3:02:48] it's gonna be may not even work out for anybody so I just wanted to kind of

[3:02:55] put that out there that I don't know this is not my area of expertise I do

[3:03:00] to know some other cities have recently done it.

[3:03:02] I don't know what that looks like long-term,

[3:03:04] but I'm interested in knowing what the pros, cons are.

[3:03:08] And as Mayor Pro Tem Young mentioned,

[3:03:11] other people I got phone calls last night

[3:03:13] and this morning are interested in doing this,

[3:03:17] but we don't have any idea of what it,

[3:03:18] I don't know what it looks like, period.

[3:03:20] So I'll state that.

[3:03:21] And then I do have a question in regards to,

[3:03:25] there was a staff in, it says the attorney,

[3:03:31] suggested, basically, you didn't suggest there was a conflict, but you pointed out that one

[3:03:37] of the contractors has previously worked for the city. Do you already plan to do the FPPC

[3:03:46] letter as part of this, or do you need permission or a request to do that, get that feedback

[3:03:52] before you did that, if it were approved?

[3:03:56] It's not necessarily that I'm looking for council direction.

[3:03:59] I want to just inform council of that and be transparent about that.

[3:04:03] So currently if we get direction to enter into this type of agreement

[3:04:08] or negotiate an ENRA with the entity,

[3:04:11] there doesn't seem to be a conflict of interest

[3:04:14] because there's no financial interest or benefit out of the ENRA.

[3:04:19] However, this is all about good faith negotiations

[3:04:22] and we want to go into this, if Council directs us,

[3:04:27] we'd want this partnership to be up and up,

[3:04:31] and in order for us to know

[3:04:33] whether we can even move forward with them,

[3:04:35] this is one of the elements of that,

[3:04:38] our kind of internal vetting process

[3:04:39] of whether we could actually move forward

[3:04:41] with any kind of project with them.

[3:04:42] Okay, so if this were approved,

[3:04:44] you would actually do that,

[3:04:45] or would the Council need to make sure

[3:04:47] that that was part of the recommendation?

[3:04:49] I would advise to do that.

[3:04:51] Okay. And let's see, pros and cons. And so my last question, Mr. Malik, you mentioned like a peer review would happen. What would that look like?

[3:05:04] So, like some of the other studies that we do, whether it's technical or otherwise, when they're going to be relying on some of our, quite possibly Elizabeth Dreyer from West Coast and that kind of stuff and some of our information.

[3:05:16] So we may have Elizabeth or other look at kind of some of their feasibility as it goes forward

[3:05:21] just to peer review and make sure that all the data and everything else is consistent

[3:05:24] with the information from the master plans and the like.

[3:05:28] Okay, thank you.

[3:05:33] That's my reverberates.

[3:05:34] Thank you, Mayor.

[3:05:39] So I'm going to add a little bit of my history on this.

[3:05:43] In 2015, Del Porter Water came to me with, at that time, our city manager, Troy Brown.

[3:05:54] And about, I want to say, 18 months ago, Del Porter Water came back again to me with, at

[3:06:02] that time, city manager, Randy Bradley, to do the same thing that these folks are

[3:06:09] trying to do today here.

[3:06:11] The only difference that they did not ask for an exclusive ride of negotiation, they were

[3:06:17] asking for the ability of having the opportunity to do the study in conjunction with the CDO

[3:06:25] Tracy.

[3:06:26] In concept, I'm not opposed to the idea.

[3:06:30] I think the visibility study is a good thing to know where we are at and what our recycle

[3:06:37] water will be, the calculation, the math, all that stuff.

[3:06:40] I think it's good to know where we are at, and if we do have a surplus, we should invest

[3:06:47] and see what monetarily can help the community in the city.

[3:06:53] I am not comfortable with the exclusiveness of this, not having an open process.

[3:07:02] For other people, too, they have demonstrated in the past being interested in this.

[3:07:07] And again, every time that it rises up, we have those letters, we have those same people

[3:07:12] saying, hey, I want to participate too.

[3:07:15] So that is the part that doesn't feel right for me.

[3:07:20] That's it.

[3:07:21] In concept, I understand the process and I am four to find out what we are and what

[3:07:30] could be and the potentials of it.

[3:07:33] I'm just not comfortable with how we are going about it.

[3:07:38] So and I'm glad to hear that this is just a feasibility.

[3:07:45] It does not, and I want to make sure, it does not guarantee the CD to enter into a contract.

[3:07:53] So if the group decides to spend all this money and time to do the feasibility study,

[3:07:58] It doesn't give them priority over somebody else that looks like there's a lot of interest

[3:08:06] in another water agencies.

[3:08:08] And I understand that you're looking for direction on that.

[3:08:12] That's not a giving.

[3:08:13] We must make that clear for you to negotiate that.

[3:08:18] And I don't think you have had that direction and you're looking for that.

[3:08:25] So, if the direction is that, I'm okay with it, but if the direction is to give somebody

[3:08:32] a one-up over other people who want to have the same opportunity, I'm not okay with that.

[3:08:41] And I absolutely agree with the comment from the public, if we're moving forward to have

[3:08:47] a financial benefit to somebody that participated in the grant or was an employee over here.

[3:08:57] We must get clarification from the SPPC that we are not violating any of contracts or the

[3:09:07] grants and how they were given to us.

[3:09:10] But I do have a question on the item before we discuss the water supplies, the master

[3:09:22] plan.

[3:09:22] We would not identify then our supplies if we have a surplus or what our water needs

[3:09:32] are?

[3:09:32] You know the volume of recycled water available will be related to the wastewater treatment

[3:09:44] plant capacity.

[3:09:46] So they go hand in hand.

[3:09:49] So right now our wastewater treatment plant capacity is 9 MGD even though some of areas

[3:09:58] is 10.8 but it's 9 MGD is the governing capacity.

[3:10:01] So we will have only what are available at this time will be about let's say about 8,000 acre feet, some losses and so forth.

[3:10:15] So from 9MGD and out of 8,000 acre feet, we will plan to use it for legacy field in other areas when the time goes in and we complete the infrastructure.

[3:10:27] But as the new developments are being approved,

[3:10:32] other waters will be being used and if time

[3:10:34] will come in, then we will be triggering additional

[3:10:40] water, could be water exchange, could be others.

[3:10:43] So at that time also, our

[3:10:47] irrigation needs will be there, and if you look into those, again, that graph

[3:10:51] over there in the middle one when we have a drought, we'll be needing almost about

[3:10:55] if I'm correct I can look into right now.

[3:11:00] So cool if I hear you correctly let me

[3:11:02] translate in my in my mind you're saying that potentially we could use if we

[3:11:09] invest and develop in recycle infrastructure we could be using all

[3:11:14] of it. That is correct if we if we invest right yes with time. Okay so right

[3:11:20] now we are only using in limited parks because of our infrastructures not up

[3:11:25] to par. But if we invest in our infrastructure, what I'm hearing you say is we can potentially

[3:11:34] use all the water. More and more. So because due to the lack of infrastructure, we thought

[3:11:43] the most economical thing is to use only about 5,000 acre feet of water for irrigation

[3:11:49] purposes and then the rest used for water transfer or water exchange and so that

[3:12:00] one for example in a single dry year we'll be needing about 16 MDD of recycled

[3:12:06] water. Right okay for a full build out but that's full build out. So at that

[3:12:13] time we should be having about 16 MDD capacity at the treatment plant or some

[3:12:20] close to that range.

[3:12:21] Gotcha.

[3:12:22] So the both go in hand in hand.

[3:12:24] We have to have more capacity of the treatment plan.

[3:12:26] Then we can have more water.

[3:12:28] And then we have to find where we can use it.

[3:12:30] On top of it, we'll be using for water exchange as well.

[3:12:33] Gotcha.

[3:12:34] So I have a question.

[3:12:35] A little bit complicated, yes.

[3:12:37] I get you.

[3:12:38] So my next question is to the city manager.

[3:12:41] City manager, knowing that I actually had the opportunity

[3:12:46] to introduce delported water to two different city managers in the past, and I was not aware

[3:12:53] of this item until one of our 101s was coming and was being sponsored by two council members

[3:13:01] to be here for discussion. Why we're selecting one over having this as an open process and

[3:13:15] I'm just curious about why we have the privilege of negotiating and giving exclusive rise to

[3:13:22] one and not others.

[3:13:25] Even today in the podium we had a gentleman they offered to pay for all the studies with

[3:13:31] no ass back.

[3:13:33] So why are we doing this in this manner?

[3:13:37] So staff is responding to two council members' requests to bring this item forward.

[3:13:43] This is, as you know, we've talked at Nauseum about that this was a prior issue that was brought forward.

[3:13:48] And there was some expectations that this would come forward and it didn't.

[3:13:52] So we're acknowledging the council members' requests.

[3:13:55] As you know, staff is not making a recommendation but a seeking direction from the council.

[3:14:00] There's a number of paths council can take.

[3:14:01] I've heard conversations around issuing RFPs for proposals in order to create equity.

[3:14:08] There's also, you know, exploration in the agreement which doesn't commit you to anything.

[3:14:14] You know, you're only considering taking them to the prom.

[3:14:17] You haven't decided to take them to the prom yet.

[3:14:20] So again, this is not staff's recommendation.

[3:14:24] We're looking for you for direction.

[3:14:27] And it's really the discretion of the council at this point from a policy perspective.

[3:14:31] So with that being said, can I ask Mr. Miller or Mr. Palmer, are you guys comfortable with entering into discussion, demonstrating a feasibility?

[3:14:43] You guys are investing a lot of money.

[3:14:45] And then I saying we're gonna put it up for the public. So after you did all that study

[3:14:52] We are gonna go to an RFP RFQ. Are you guys okay with that?

[3:14:58] whoever

[3:15:00] If you would like to answer that question, can you come up here to the podium please?

[3:15:09] I don't mean to put you on the spot, I just want to make sure they weren't transparent.

[3:15:13] Can you just make your name please?

[3:15:15] John Palmer, 1032 North Central Avenue.

[3:15:20] It is a good question and we have represented to staff and I want to thank Andrew in his

[3:15:26] of course, voice for his honesty and clarity

[3:15:30] in presenting the item.

[3:15:32] I think we've talked about his staff report,

[3:15:34] had some of the statements.

[3:15:35] I don't think he did that with any intention.

[3:15:37] I want to be very clear that I will not

[3:15:39] lie, cheat, or steal to propagate my project.

[3:15:43] I wish certain staff members would

[3:15:44] give me the same courtesy.

[3:15:46] The staff report from earlier tonight from us, Ghost,

[3:15:50] and things that were represented tonight

[3:15:51] are still not factual.

[3:15:53] I don't want to get into that discussion with you.

[3:15:56] Your question on whether or not we agree to go through a feasibility and due diligence

[3:16:01] and talk to financiers and talk to state agencies, and if we develop a project for you and wrap

[3:16:07] it up in an nice bow, are we willing to walk away from the project?

[3:16:11] If that's the best thing for the community, and that's one thing we've talked about,

[3:16:15] we want the best for the community, and what we've said from day one is we're

[3:16:20] trying to initially monetize in nuisance,

[3:16:22] and we're three years later,

[3:16:23] and you've made no progress on this project.

[3:16:25] And I've heard several times

[3:16:27] that there have been other folks in front of you.

[3:16:30] No one else has set up meetings with staff

[3:16:32] and have put a proposal together.

[3:16:34] We have sat patiently aside for over two and a half years

[3:16:38] to have this moment tonight for a variety of reasons.

[3:16:43] So to say that we'll go through due diligence,

[3:16:46] feasibility, and walk away,

[3:16:47] if that's the best thing for the community,

[3:16:48] Yes, we will consider that, but we also want to understand that if we walk away and maybe

[3:16:53] from our side we address an NRA that if we wrap a project up nicely in a bow, then maybe

[3:16:58] we get compensated for developing that project on your behalf.

[3:17:02] So yes, it's something we will consider if that's the best thing for the community

[3:17:06] and that's something we will consider.

[3:17:09] But again, and I don't want to get into addressing all the misstatements and the

[3:17:13] the unfactual items that were presented tonight.

[3:17:17] That's something that we can discuss in our ENRA,

[3:17:20] and it's items we can discuss with your staff.

[3:17:22] So again, I think Jim Miller did a fantastic job

[3:17:25] in saying we simply want to look at

[3:17:27] whether there is a surplus supply of water

[3:17:29] and excess supply for a period of time.

[3:17:32] And we've represented over and over,

[3:17:34] we're not looking at tying up your water in perpetuity.

[3:17:37] We're not looking at taking away from your ability

[3:17:39] to do your general plan build out.

[3:17:42] But I will tell you that you didn't build out your 1993 general plan. You've yet to build out your 1982 general plan

[3:17:49] So we're talking about a conceptual build out of your general plan that may never occur

[3:17:55] So those are the kind of things we want to explore with your staff and see if this project has viability

[3:18:01] We might determine that there is no role for a private entity and we'll walk away from the project

[3:18:07] John, thank you for clarifying and for coming and speaking out.

[3:18:16] So without being said, cancel, entering into this discussion of potentially getting into

[3:18:26] an EIA, we're going to be back.

[3:18:29] So before a contract, before something gets so determined, it's going to come back to

[3:18:36] cancel.

[3:18:36] So we're looking to see into the potentials of entering into a, in a, sorry.

[3:18:44] The NRA.

[3:18:45] Thank you.

[3:18:46] Yes.

[3:18:46] Sorry, I'm suffering from a cold, I have a bubble.

[3:18:51] Anyways, so that is something that you will be betting out through the discussions.

[3:18:57] Correct.

[3:18:58] Okay.

[3:18:58] And this issue, this exact issue right now of, you know, making sure that there's

[3:19:02] provisions for making sure that the city is not binding itself in the future.

[3:19:08] And I think what Mr. Palmer mentioned about like in the event if any of the

[3:19:12] information gathered by the city would be used by someone else they'd be

[3:19:16] compensated. I mean this is exactly the type of this direction we need in order

[3:19:20] to negotiate an ENARA. Yeah so and again I want to apologize to the group

[3:19:26] for waiting for two and a half years.

[3:19:31] I know there are other groups.

[3:19:32] We had a lot of changes.

[3:19:34] A lot of things have been no fault of any one person,

[3:19:38] but sometimes it's what we're at.

[3:19:42] And again, I'm not opposed to the idea and the concept.

[3:19:46] I'm just a little uneasy about how we go into the process.

[3:19:49] With that being said, and with all the clarifications

[3:19:52] given, I see myself being supported of entering into a discussion. Thank you for all the clarifications.

[3:20:02] Yes, thank you. So I don't have the institutional knowledge of the history of the previous proposals,

[3:20:10] so forgive me for asking certain kind of questions.

[3:20:15] My first one was so the option,

[3:20:18] It sounded like there was going to be an option for the city itself to do a peer review in-house study.

[3:20:24] Is that cost, or would that cost be taxpayer dollars,

[3:20:29] or who's going to fund the reciprocal in-house study to peer review any feasibility study?

[3:20:36] So we're really looking, as the staff report said,

[3:20:39] looking for direction from council for that next step in the ENRA,

[3:20:43] but we would suggest that as we would with other developers,

[3:20:45] They have a cost recovery agreement and cover the cost of staff and other things that we'll work with them on

[3:20:50] So it having said that we'd work with them

[3:20:54] But our impression would be that they would cover those costs. Okay, so I I agree with you there

[3:20:59] And then also and in light of the letter that we received from the law officers of Robert Malhaf

[3:21:06] He said again water lobs incredibly complex. It was the most boring class I took in law school

[3:21:11] But can we commit or can I at least hopefully give direction that any feasibility study is going to include a legal analysis

[3:21:20] addressing some of the questions that were brought up because they are two questions. The water code is intense.

[3:21:28] So can we agree on that direction as a council that it needs to include a legal analysis?

[3:21:34] So the scope of kind of the task or the scope of the NRA, what we're hearing is you want

[3:21:41] an element of legal analysis and a peer review, an independent peer review study.

[3:21:48] Yes. And from what I heard from the podium and from what I hear from Councillor Vargas

[3:21:58] regarding the RFP, I think if this has a potential for a large scale project,

[3:22:02] I and I want to make very clear again. This is a feasibility study today. We're not doing anything in ground projects

[3:22:09] So moving forward any large-scale project. I would also support that being an RFP. So that it is fair and equitable

[3:22:15] And then I just had a question related to if if I don't know if mr.

[3:22:20] Miller would like to answer somebody you don't have to is the or maybe our city attorney knows is the exclusive language necessary because of

[3:22:29] of proprietary information, what would be the reason for that particular element of a contract in that?

[3:22:37] It's because it's good faith negotiations, right? It's they want to know that the time, the effort and the resources that they're dedicating to the negotiations are being honored,

[3:22:47] that we're not also just shopping around, right? As City Manager said, they want to know that we're kind of an according process

[3:22:55] and they want to know that they're the only courting one because it is an investment of resources and time and energy.

[3:23:01] And also, you know, be mindful, it's like opportunity costs from a business side, right, that they're dedicating their time to exploring this relationship with us

[3:23:08] and they want that kind of exclusivity to make sure it's kind of worth their time.

[3:23:14] So, and I understand that and I know that they would need the contract in place, you know, you need the legitimacy of the city behind you

[3:23:21] in order to conduct portions necessary to complete the feasibility study,

[3:23:26] and I absolutely understand that.

[3:23:28] So at least with my direction,

[3:23:31] if an MOU would be sufficient without exclusionary language,

[3:23:35] I'd be okay with that.

[3:23:36] If the exclusionary language remains in there,

[3:23:39] I'm very comfortable, I am flexible with the opportunity

[3:23:42] for maybe paying back portions of it just like you stated.

[3:23:46] That would be the direction that I would give.

[3:23:49] And, you know, I'm in support of a recycled water project.

[3:23:52] So I'd like to see them forward, but this again is very limited in scope to a feasibility study.

[3:23:57] So that would be my direction.

[3:23:59] Thank you.

[3:24:00] Can I have some of ransom?

[3:24:01] Yes, very briefly.

[3:24:02] So I definitely would support the legal analysis.

[3:24:05] I'll go there.

[3:24:06] And I guess I was just trying to understand.

[3:24:09] So I want to be clear.

[3:24:10] No one else normally, when there's things going on, we all get, I assume that we all get contact.

[3:24:15] In fact, I've not heard from any other district in the last three years in regards to this project.

[3:24:22] So it would be interesting and I'm sure the city can bring more information when we get there.

[3:24:28] And also just in regards to the exclusive negotiating and just kind of some of the perspective in regards to it.

[3:24:38] We have been down this road before in regards to like legacy fields.

[3:24:43] We held up the fields and just to see the feasibility and at that time there were other people asking to do that

[3:24:50] Coming to the city writing letters asking to do that

[3:24:53] I don't see anyone else asking to do this and I'm really curious as to seeing that other cities are looking

[3:25:01] At this as long as we are not like given away the store

[3:25:06] And we're saying we're going to you know do all of the checks and balances and find out what the pros and cons

[3:25:14] I would hope we can do this quickly, but I'm also reassured that by the time we get to

[3:25:19] this we're going to know a little bit more about the water sources because we may get

[3:25:24] to the end of this and find out there's not even enough water to even have excess water.

[3:25:29] So I just want to say that I support the efforts to minimize any risk as well as

[3:25:38] to make sure that we are doing our due diligence

[3:25:42] and making sure we are in accordance with any laws

[3:25:44] that would not interfere, that would be violated.

[3:25:51] And public-private partnerships are pretty,

[3:25:54] they're interested, they're complicated,

[3:25:56] they're not always appropriated, I was appropriate.

[3:25:59] So we've seen some that have gone really bad

[3:26:03] in regards to water in Stockton.

[3:26:05] But as Mr. Palmer said, you know, they're willing to check it out.

[3:26:12] If it doesn't work, then they will be willing to walk away from it if it's in the best interest of the community.

[3:26:18] And I appreciate that you publicly stated that because you know we like to go back to things that people say.

[3:26:23] I appreciate you publicly stating that the best interest of the community is what's going to be exercised here.

[3:26:29] So I just wanted to kind of echo some of the other sentiments and say that I would support

[3:26:37] what was presented in order to protect the community's interest and move forward.

[3:26:42] Thank you.

[3:26:44] Rodin?

[3:26:44] I do.

[3:26:45] Thanks.

[3:26:46] So I'm not sure what all we need support for as far as making sure that if, in fact,

[3:26:51] we do go another direction after the scope, everything is done and then that there will

[3:26:56] be some type of reimbursement.

[3:26:57] because if that's needed, then I definitely support that.

[3:27:02] I also want to just make sure because see these letters,

[3:27:04] even though this has legal things that will be included

[3:27:07] in the scope, the thing is really clarifying what the ask is

[3:27:11] because these letters are in a response to something different

[3:27:14] as has been clarified by Mr. Palmer as far as they're not

[3:27:18] asking to buy but to help monetize the system

[3:27:20] for the city of Tracy, which is different

[3:27:23] than the letters are addressing.

[3:27:25] So I don't know if we need to do your feasibility study

[3:27:30] if that will look at both ways

[3:27:32] because it seems like even what other people are asking is buying,

[3:27:36] which is something different.

[3:27:37] So I don't know if it will show that string,

[3:27:39] would that naturally show that potential type of option

[3:27:43] because it's very different, two things.

[3:27:45] I think the core issue is that the proposal is to conduct

[3:27:51] a feasibility study in order to,

[3:27:53] regarding the monetization of the recycled water. I think some of the letters

[3:27:57] that we received are speaking to the actual sale of water. So keep in mind

[3:28:03] it's obviously a for-profit venture and the letters are speaking to well

[3:28:08] trying to restrict how that for-profit venture could potentially function. So

[3:28:13] that's why it's kind of it is somewhat interrelated and all of those

[3:28:18] issues can be looked at during this feasibility study by staff with the help of outside council.

[3:28:28] Okay. Thank you. And my last statement is what I had said earlier also that since this has

[3:28:34] first been brought up more than two years ago, only one prior to this week has ever

[3:28:41] approached me as a council member, and usually different entities reach out to several of us

[3:28:45] on the council. And so it's kind of a, we have a me too kind of adding on it. It feels like.

[3:28:51] And so maybe there's been other discussions behind the scenes as one person did say they were approached by past staff.

[3:28:58] And they said, sure, they will be interested. But we do appreciate, I do appreciate proactivity and being proactive in trying to bring

[3:29:08] resources to our city and trying to help increase our bottom line. So thank you.

[3:29:15] All right. I'll wrap it up. And council did a good job of

[3:29:24] getting to the minutiae of this,

[3:29:26] but I just want to agree. I mean, it's been, what, two, three years, and no person has ever

[3:29:31] approached me about it except for, you know, the individual sitting here. I know when

[3:29:38] it was talked about coming on council last time, it's the same kind of arguments.

[3:29:42] and then no ENA or no contract or no MOU and yet we still haven't heard anything.

[3:29:51] So again to this day I had only one person that ever came up to at least me as individual council member or mayor and asked

[3:30:00] And again, this has been two, three years. And in regards to, like, the ENRA, and RNA is

[3:30:08] in the binding in the sense that, you know, if you look at the history of Tracy, or in

[3:30:13] the last ten years, and how many ENRAs have we have done, there have been several that

[3:30:18] we have done with the ENRA, with an individual, and usually, and at least all the ones I

[3:30:26] I can remember it's always been one entity comes up and it wasn't a huge line.

[3:30:32] And there's times that through the NRA, through they spent their money, they did the feasibility study and it has come to the council and we have denied it.

[3:30:41] And that's one of the, you know, things about the NRA.

[3:30:45] It's not, and it's just because you get into it doesn't mean the project is yours.

[3:30:49] It's that simple. So when you have individuals accusing councilmembers up here of favoritism

[3:30:57] or that, you know, you are going to take things away from the end of it. There's no taking

[3:31:04] it all right here. And kind of, I think, Daniel or councilmember Ariel has said it

[3:31:08] best. It's just negotiation. We're just looking into it. So with that being said,

[3:31:13] intertone of motion. Nope.

[3:31:17] So Mayor, can I just tee up kind of what I heard and then perhaps you could develop your

[3:31:22] motion from that? It appears that there's consensus to negotiate an ENRA with PPIG to complete

[3:31:28] a feasibility study which would be the monetization of future recycled water. That scope will

[3:31:33] include a fiscal, excuse me, a legal analysis. It will also include a cost recovery agreement

[3:31:39] to cover city costs, and then we would subsequently return to council if there was feasibility

[3:31:44] for a larger scale project in which council indicated that they would want to explore

[3:31:49] a potential RFP process.

[3:31:53] Anybody disagree?

[3:31:56] Anybody disagree?

[3:31:58] So if not, we're going to go to that.

[3:31:59] I'm sorry, that last part.

[3:32:00] Can you just repeat that again?

[3:32:01] I don't know how it goes.

[3:32:02] I heard that there was interest in returning to council if there was feasibility

[3:32:06] for a large-scale project, but that you guys would want to explore an RFP process for that.

[3:32:14] That we're saying that we definitely want to do that, or possibly.

[3:32:19] You need to make sure.

[3:32:21] I heard you that you wanted to do that, but I need you to give me consensus that that's

[3:32:24] accurate.

[3:32:25] I mean, what I heard was that we want you to do a feasibility study that would be

[3:32:30] more robust so that we have the opportunity to see if there's a different path to

[3:32:34] to go in, but not to say definitely.

[3:32:36] Because if we're saying definitely,

[3:32:38] we're gonna open up to RFP,

[3:32:39] that's a whole another thing we have to say now

[3:32:40] that we're gonna reimburse

[3:32:41] and they're just going through the process

[3:32:43] of opening up for everybody.

[3:32:44] If a council member wants to make a motion,

[3:32:46] they can exclude that or include that,

[3:32:48] it's up to the direction of the council.

[3:32:51] So why don't we go ahead and do a motion?

[3:32:53] So somebody would like to entertain a motion

[3:32:55] or somebody would like to formulate a motion

[3:32:57] so we can move on and then we can be more specific

[3:33:00] and that our staff has direction.

[3:33:04] I will not mind making the motion as was stated with the recovery.

[3:33:13] If we're going to go to an RFP, they could end up being them or could be somebody else.

[3:33:18] If there's not being them, I can see the group being reversed for it.

[3:33:23] So could you read that motion now?

[3:33:30] I'm more comfortable with that, but if, again, it's the flavor of the council.

[3:33:37] So, now, Council Member Horr, City Manager, when are you going to state what you said, what you thought we heard?

[3:33:46] Let's start with that right there.

[3:33:50] No, what you said in the beginning.

[3:33:51] What I said in the beginning was

[3:33:54] Is there consensus to negotiate an ENA with PPI G to complete a feasibility study for the monetization of future recycled water?

[3:34:02] The scope will include a legal analysis

[3:34:06] City cost will be recovered through a cost recovery agreement and then council needs to provide direction if you want to include

[3:34:13] An RFP process should there be feasibility for a large-scale project

[3:34:18] can I get that could be premature because again you don't know what you're

[3:34:23] going to be presented with yeah I mean if you just maybe we should exclude that

[3:34:27] just take that portion off it okay yeah I offer maybe a provision that in the

[3:34:33] event of allow for reimbursement in the event that the the work or the

[3:34:39] feasibility study completed during the scope of this ENRA informs future

[3:34:44] endeavors that do not involve PPIG?

[3:34:47] That sounds good.

[3:34:48] That's where I was going to go.

[3:34:50] Okay.

[3:34:51] Do you need a motion for that or no?

[3:34:53] Do we also meet?

[3:34:54] I didn't hear you mention.

[3:34:54] I heard in staff report something about a peer review,

[3:34:57] but then I didn't hear anything about a peer review

[3:34:59] in this proposed motion.

[3:35:02] Yeah, I was.

[3:35:02] I think with the cost recovery it was assumed.

[3:35:04] Right.

[3:35:05] Assumed a peer review.

[3:35:06] Okay.

[3:35:07] So do you need a motion with that?

[3:35:08] Or is that just good direction?

[3:35:10] I would like a motion, please.

[3:35:12] Okay.

[3:35:12] Can you say so moved?

[3:35:14] Yeah, you can.

[3:35:15] Wait, you say it.

[3:35:16] Yeah, go ahead.

[3:35:17] Okay.

[3:35:18] So, all right.

[3:35:20] I would move that staff negotiate an exclusive negotiating rights agreement with PPIG for

[3:35:27] the completion of a feasibility study regarding the potential monetization of the city's future

[3:35:31] recycled water supply, the scope of which would include a legal analysis, the city

[3:35:39] cost recovery with a cost recovery agreement and the event the feasibility of the NRA that is not involved PPIG

[3:35:46] There would be reimbursement

[3:35:48] Now second that's rough, but it's what I got

[3:35:51] Calcifer that good now second. Yes. All right. Yeah, I got a second by pro tem in a roll call, please

[3:35:58] So the motion was cost me a bag of aryola aryola consumer aryola. Yes, ma'am young. Yes, that's me a ransom. Yes

[3:36:08] Mayor Rickman. Yes. Alright, move on to item 3G. Thank you everybody that was here for that. Appreciate it.

[3:36:16] Item 3G, a 0.4 applicants to serve on the Tracy Arts Commission.

[3:36:20] Do you want to do that or? It's just Councilmember Ransom and I and we met here, was it last week? Yes.

[3:36:27] I met with several individuals, and we had to pick four, which we had four vacancies.

[3:36:35] So with that being said, do you want to say the names?

[3:36:42] Yes, I can say the names.

[3:36:44] So we interviewed six applicants for four spots, and we, as we explained, there's

[3:36:50] only four spots, and encouraged people to apply for other opportunities.

[3:36:54] And so our subcommittee is recommending Maxie Lee's, Jill Taylor, Margarita Anderson, and Cynthia Rias to be appointed to the Tracy Arts Commission and serve four-year terms beginning January 1, 2020, ending December 31, 2023.

[3:37:11] All right. With that being said, the note to council discussion, we need to open up for public comment. Anybody from the public wishing to address council on this item?

[3:37:17] Seeing

[3:37:21] none, bring it back to council, entertain them, well I guess we have a motion, got a second.

[3:37:27] I said I'll third because you don't make sense.

[3:37:29] Yeah, so get a roll call please.

[3:37:33] Councilman Rainson?

[3:37:33] Yes.

[3:37:35] Is it Mayor Rickman?

[3:37:37] Yes.

[3:37:37] Mayor Rickman?

[3:37:38] Yes.

[3:37:40] Councilman Areola?

[3:37:41] Yes.

[3:37:41] Councilman Vargas?

[3:37:42] Yes.

[3:37:43] Mayor Pro-Jim Young?

[3:37:44] Yes.

[3:37:45] All right.

[3:37:47] Moving on to item 3H, appointment of city council, subcommittee to interview applicants

[3:37:51] to fill three term expressions on the parks and community service commission.

[3:37:57] Good evening Mayor and City Council, Adrian Richardson, City Clerk. On January 31, 2020,

[3:38:03] turns for three parks and community service commissions will expire. Our recruitment was

[3:38:08] advertised beginning November 1, 2019 and will end on December 19. In accordance with

[3:38:13] resolution number 2004-152, a two-member subcommittee needs to be appointed to interview

[3:38:19] the applicants and make a recommendation to the full council. Staff recommends that council

[3:38:24] appoint a two member subcommittee to interview the applicants to fill three term expressions

[3:38:27] on the parks and community services commission that concludes my report.

[3:38:32] All right, thank you. We're going to open up for the public comment. Anybody from the

[3:38:35] public wishing to address council on this item?

[3:38:41] Seeing none, we'll open up to council

[3:38:42] discussion. So we need two member subcommittees.

[3:38:45] I have a question for Adrian.

[3:38:47] But yeah, it's like stereo. Who would like to go first here?

[3:38:52] Sure. Go ahead.

[3:38:54] That's Mayor Earl. That's all yours.

[3:38:55] Is your intention that this be done within the next like two weeks,

[3:38:58] because the holidays are coming up?

[3:38:59] I'm just kind of curious what the timeline looks like for this.

[3:39:01] I'm going to close it.

[3:39:08] I'm going to do that.

[3:39:11] So it has to be before the next meeting.

[3:39:12] Okay.

[3:39:15] By when?

[3:39:17] Prior to the next meeting.

[3:39:18] Okay.

[3:39:20] Okay, thank you.

[3:39:22] And now I say I volunteer since I have not in a little while.

[3:39:26] So who would like to do it? I can if it's within the next like two or three weeks. I can do it

[3:39:31] all right, um, so those

[3:39:33] customer Eula and

[3:39:35] Can't my Vargas anybody have a problem with that?

[3:39:40] Good, I don't have a problem with it

[3:39:41] I mean, I'm I just felt guilty because I haven't done in a long time, but I'm buying for you to do it remember that

[3:39:46] the next one

[3:39:48] Might be at a bad time, but okay, that's fine

[3:39:50] All right.

[3:39:52] So I move to appoint Council Member Vargas and Council Member Ariola as the two members

[3:39:59] of committee to interview applicants to fill three term expirations on the Parks and Community

[3:40:03] Services Commission.

[3:40:05] And roll call please, seconded by Council Member Ransom.

[3:40:09] Mayor Bo-Chun-Young.

[3:40:10] Yes.

[3:40:10] Council Member Ransom.

[3:40:11] Yes.

[3:40:12] Council Member Ariola.

[3:40:13] Yes.

[3:40:14] Council Member Vargas.

[3:40:15] Yes.

[3:40:16] All right.

[3:40:17] Thank you.

[3:40:17] I move on to item 3. I discuss amending the tracing municipal code section 2.08 point.

[3:40:26] You know what? Anybody need to take a quick break or we're good?

[3:40:30] We're good.

[3:40:31] All right. Discuss amending the tracing municipal code section 2.08.080 to require a supermajority vote

[3:40:39] of four members of the city council to remove the city manager or city attorney and provide direction to staff.

[3:40:45] Staff report, please.

[3:40:46] Good evening, Mayor and Members of Council. Kimberly Murdoch, Human Resources Director.

[3:40:51] The item before you tonight is to discuss a recommendation in the 2018-2019 grand jury

[3:40:58] report recommending council consider amending the municipal code to require a supermajority

[3:41:04] vote of four council members to remove the city manager or city attorney. The Tracy

[3:41:10] Municipal Code, Title II, establishes regulations for the appointment and service of the city

[3:41:15] manager. Specifically, 2.08080.B states, removal of the city manager shall be only by a vote

[3:41:25] of at least three members of the council. The 2018-19 San Joaquin County grantee report

[3:41:33] commented on the administrative and fiscal impacts of the executive staff separations

[3:41:38] in 2017 and 2018. The report highlighted concern regarding the separation of the city

[3:41:43] City Manager, Assistant City Manager, and the police chief as, quote, no explanation

[3:41:47] was given.

[3:41:48] And the release of the City Manager following a contentious 3-2 vote.

[3:41:51] The separations drew attention of the media in the newspaper and on major network affiliates

[3:41:57] encouraging transparency and personal matters of executive staff.

[3:42:02] The grand jury felt the impact of the media attention potentially damaged the city's

[3:42:06] reputation as a desirable employer and made candidates reluctant to apply for open

[3:42:10] positions.

[3:42:12] The grand jury also stated the city manager and city attorney should be shielded from

[3:42:16] power politics and shifting alliances by requiring a supermajority vote for their termination.

[3:42:23] To address this issue, the grand jury recommended council amend the city, Tracy's city municipal

[3:42:29] code to require a supermajority vote of four members of the city council to remove

[3:42:34] the city manager and city attorney.

[3:42:36] The supermajority requirement to remove city manager and city attorney is utilized

[3:42:40] by some public agencies such as the cities of Sacramento and Hildesburg. Requiring a

[3:42:45] supermajority vote may communicate a commitment to unifying counsel in employment decisions

[3:42:50] related to at-will counsel-appointed positions. Adopting this policy may enhance the city's

[3:42:55] profile as a potential employer because this requirement may lead to more stability

[3:42:59] in city executive leadership. The more common practice is for public agencies to only

[3:43:04] require a majority vote for employment decisions related to at-will counsel-appointed

[3:43:08] and positions requiring a majority vote to remove the city manager and city attorney

[3:43:13] is consistent with the voting requirements provided for resolutions, orders of payment

[3:43:17] and ordinances for be supported by a majority vote of the council.

[3:43:23] The city council has a full discretion on this key policy issue and may decide not

[3:43:28] to implement the grand jury's recommendation.

[3:43:31] If council does support the implementation of the grand jury's recommendation, SAF will

[3:43:34] return with an ordinance for further council action.

[3:43:40] All right, thank you.

[3:43:42] I'm going to open up for public comment.

[3:43:43] Anybody from the public who has council on this item?

[3:43:54] Robert Tanner, 1371, Russia.

[3:43:56] This is long overdue.

[3:43:58] It would lead to stability within the city manager

[3:44:01] and the attorney's office.

[3:44:04] I think the current city council

[3:44:06] should agree to what the grand jury said.

[3:44:08] Thank you.

[3:44:09] Thank you, Mr. Tanner.

[3:44:12] Anyone else?

[3:44:15] Does anyone want to open up or bring it back to public comment, open up for a council discussion?

[3:44:21] Anybody on the council?

[3:44:23] That's my ransom and I'm talking to you in a while.

[3:44:25] Oh.

[3:44:26] Nope.

[3:44:27] That's my pro tem.

[3:44:28] Thanks.

[3:44:30] So this, I do agree with the recommendation.

[3:44:36] I think that when it goes from three to four, it makes it more.

[3:44:41] Well, we can't make it for cause, but I think that in such high-level positions of our city,

[3:44:48] city manager and city attorney, that it should lean more towards cause,

[3:44:52] and that three can possibly be politicized,

[3:44:55] and four would make it lean more towards that way for transparency and for security.

[3:45:00] So I'm glad that we actually have really two good city managers and city attorneys at

[3:45:07] the moment we have with our cities. So I'm glad that even through the rocky road that

[3:45:12] we have journey to get to this point that it's turned out to be a good end for us. But for

[3:45:18] the stability and the transparency for the future councils, I think that I support the

[3:45:25] recommendation from the grand jury.

[3:45:26] Okay.

[3:45:27] All right.

[3:45:27] Thank you.

[3:45:28] Anyone else?

[3:45:30] Yes.

[3:45:31] Sorry.

[3:45:31] So I just had to take a question.

[3:45:33] So first one, just kind of curious, do you know the numbers related to or proportion

[3:45:39] of cities that have the supermajority versus regular majority on this?

[3:45:44] The survey I conducted, I was only able to find a couple that were actually a supermajority.

[3:45:50] A majority of them are a simple majority of the council.

[3:45:54] Are you looking kind of in California specifically?

[3:45:57] California agencies, like I said,

[3:45:59] I found Sacramento and Hildesburg,

[3:46:02] but I live or more a city manager potentially,

[3:46:05] but the majority of those are a simple majority,

[3:46:09] not super majority.

[3:46:11] So basically a handful,

[3:46:12] I think California's about 100 cities in there or so.

[3:46:15] And then, so I also think that we have a great city

[3:46:19] manager and city attorney, glad they're here.

[3:46:21] If we do this, you all better not go.

[3:46:23] But my question is related to in the future, how would we reverse this policy decision?

[3:46:29] Would it require three or would it require four to overturn this particular decision?

[3:46:38] The recommendation is to do this by ordinance.

[3:46:41] So an ordinance just requires the vote of three, a simple majority.

[3:46:46] Okay, so despite if we do this theoretically, a future council majority of three could overturn this particular

[3:46:54] ordinance to make it go back to three. Yes. Okay, thank you.

[3:47:02] That leads to another

[3:47:03] question. Can I ask? Well, Council Member Burke. Yes. Thank you. So is there any way

[3:47:09] to put in the ordinance though so that certain things are not effective within

[3:47:14] that particular, you know, after the new City Council so that if in fact

[3:47:19] that it is reversed by a council that it can't be utilized until the next

[3:47:26] seated council? Do you know what I mean? Kind of like a white elephant kind of game thing.

[3:47:32] Like if somebody stole it from you, you can't steal it right back. So just

[3:47:39] did that on Sunday.

[3:47:40] So stole my gift. The municipal code actually does clarify that. So there's a period of time

[3:47:46] after a council is appointed and the city manager is put into a position, there is a window of

[3:47:51] 120 days in which no action can be taken. So that's actually already in the municipal code

[3:47:56] section, subsection C of that same section, so there is a window period after new council

[3:48:04] is seated that the city manager may not be removed for that period of time.

[3:48:09] That is correct.

[3:48:10] I apologize.

[3:48:10] Let me clarify that that's only for the city manager and not the city attorney.

[3:48:14] Okay.

[3:48:14] But that's actually not still helping what I just said.

[3:48:18] What I requested so that if, in fact, it's a supermajority that would be voted

[3:48:23] if we vote that in.

[3:48:25] And then another council decides, well, we want to get rid of somebody.

[3:48:28] So, we're going to just, three of us, we're going to vote to change that right now and

[3:48:31] then we get rid of them.

[3:48:32] So, is it a possibility that as part of the ordinance that if a council so chooses to

[3:48:38] change that rule, that it still cannot go into effect after the next election?

[3:48:46] So that it can't be used as a tool.

[3:48:50] The whole point is if we set it up, that it's for a buffer.

[3:48:53] That's a really creative proposal. I would have to look into that because the government

[3:49:01] code, state law is the source of the process for adopting ordinances. So what you're proposing

[3:49:10] is kind of a modification of the procedure, the process for amending an ordinance. And

[3:49:17] And I would have to confirm that that's legally allowed.

[3:49:22] As I said, the government code is the source for how we adopt an ordinance, the two readings.

[3:49:27] It designates certain ordinances that require a supermajority versus a simple majority.

[3:49:34] And what you're proposing might be infringing on that kind of procedural arena that is

[3:49:41] governed by the government code.

[3:49:43] But we can look into that.

[3:49:44] Okay, because otherwise it seemed like a suggestion more than the ordinance

[3:49:51] Yes, so

[3:49:52] Can you remind me am I mistaken aren't there some ordinances that already require or some of the yeah

[3:50:00] We that already require a supermajority to change or to implement correct. Yes a certain like an origin urgency ordinance

[3:50:08] There's also the sales tax measures

[3:50:10] your budget adoption if I'm not mistaken or there's some budget there's

[3:50:15] different council actions that do require a super majority okay but those

[3:50:19] supermajorities are put in place by some other legislative by the government

[3:50:23] code okay all right so thank you so in regards to this so I had I don't want

[3:50:30] to say I had mixed feelings but it's kind of like you want to make sure that

[3:50:35] that your people aren't so protected that they feel like they can do whatever they want,

[3:50:40] but I don't think that that is the case.

[3:50:43] So my feelings are kind of that this would discourage, you know, politics having anything

[3:50:49] to do with the positions, the positions of leadership, and it ensures that there's

[3:50:55] a clear need to change the direction, and would basically allow or force if there's

[3:51:02] a quote-unquote majority to have to plead their case or prove their case to at least one other person before, you know, any change in leadership is, it happens.

[3:51:16] And I think that's really important because I think it's important to, as much as you can, focus on governance as opposed to politics.

[3:51:24] And I really believe that the stability or the perception of stability, it's important

[3:51:30] to us attracting quality employees.

[3:51:33] It's important to us attracting businesses who want to come here.

[3:51:37] You already hear us complaining about why is Manteca and Lathrop and everywhere else

[3:51:41] getting this and things that we're not getting.

[3:51:44] And there's a school of thought on that.

[3:51:46] But I do think that our council is only as good as the majority of the leaders that

[3:51:50] are seated.

[3:51:52] And if in fact there is a need to remove a city manager, that should be clear or city attorney,

[3:51:59] that should be clear.

[3:52:00] It shouldn't be ambiguous.

[3:52:02] It should be something that we can all get on board with.

[3:52:05] The same as when we hire, you know, the best practice and the rule of thumb is that everybody should be on board.

[3:52:12] You know, that it should be, you should go through the proper exercises to make sure that we all agree you don't want to have a city manager hired thinking,

[3:52:19] and well, geez, only three people are willing to work with me.

[3:52:22] So the spirit of this, I think I can definitely get on board

[3:52:28] with because it would cause, if there is a true issue,

[3:52:31] it would cause a fourth person to be shown what that issue is.

[3:52:38] So that's my two cents on that.

[3:52:40] And I feel that we have really good leadership right now

[3:52:44] and we can trust that's not going to be abused.

[3:52:46] And if it were to be abused, then you just need

[3:52:48] to show that to a fourth person, so that's it.

[3:52:51] Thank you.

[3:52:52] Elmer Vargas.

[3:52:53] Thank you, Mayor.

[3:52:57] I understand now the spirit of some of the council members

[3:53:02] that are forth to this, but I do have

[3:53:08] misfeelings in which, in the matter, we got here.

[3:53:11] And a little bit of background for those

[3:53:13] that don't have long memories.

[3:53:17] There have been occasions where we have had city managers, they have not conducted themselves

[3:53:24] in the matter that they should.

[3:53:27] And it was really hard for people to admit that they were doing not the right things.

[3:53:36] And again, I wish I could speak about the matters, but I'm not allowed to disclose information

[3:53:42] of personnel.

[3:53:43] And this is what actually bugs me, is during the grand jury investigation, information,

[3:53:54] obviously, when you read the report, you can tell that some people spoke about things

[3:53:58] that should or not. It was in closed session and it was personal matters.

[3:54:04] And to those that we respect, the oath that we took to remain silent and to keep that private,

[3:54:11] we were criticized for and it was misleading. I'm not opposed to this

[3:54:22] concept. I'm opposed and I'm just not okay in the matter in which I am forced to do

[3:54:28] this. I think grand jury was a use as a weapon to advance on people's

[3:54:39] political views and it was a misuse of taxpayers' dollars and I wish that you

[3:54:47] know things will be different but it's what it is right now and I have the

[3:54:53] ability to move forward to leave things behind and try to just work to better

[3:54:59] our community. With all that being said I am cautioned on this item because I

[3:55:06] I guess I can speak of one city manager

[3:55:09] because I was not a setting council member.

[3:55:13] I'm gonna go back to, as I was a citizen,

[3:55:18] Leon Churchill, and what happened there.

[3:55:21] And I can speak, correct me if I'm wrong,

[3:55:23] I was not a setting council, I was a citizen.

[3:55:27] And to follow the news, to follow what had happened

[3:55:30] and how it ended up all to be,

[3:55:35] are you okay with that?

[3:55:37] I would keep your comments brief.

[3:55:41] The city did enter into a separation agreement with that individual.

[3:55:45] There you go. I'll stop talking about that too, I guess.

[3:55:49] And I wish, you know, this is the part that when you take the seat and you take your job seriously,

[3:55:56] there are things that we cannot share.

[3:55:59] I would love to share them, but I can't.

[3:56:02] And it's unfortunate.

[3:56:04] it. However, I think some people sometimes choose not to see the wrongdoing because it may reflect

[3:56:12] poorly on them. And so they keep giving people opportunities to repeat mistakes. And to convince

[3:56:24] that fourth member sometimes is near too impossible. So I honestly, I think we're okay the

[3:56:32] where we are. But I will be supported of the rest of the council if that's what the majority

[3:56:38] wants to be. I'm happy that we didn't have no troubles recruiting good people.

[3:56:45] It's completely

[3:56:46] the opposite. The grand jury's statements about not being able to recruit good people

[3:56:52] is proven wrong. Right here is the proof. We have not been more stable and with

[3:56:59] better leadership in a long, long time. So, I think the politics maybe change after that

[3:57:06] a little bit, but I don't think our city manager has any problems right now. Our city attorney

[3:57:15] hasn't either. So, I'm comfortable to state as we are, but again, I want to be a team

[3:57:24] player, and if this is going to bring us together, I will concede to support the majority of the

[3:57:31] council.

[3:57:33] A quick question.

[3:57:34] Yes.

[3:57:35] So would this change in the municipal code, would it affect if we were to hire, say,

[3:57:44] I'm looking further than this step, say we have a new city manager or new city attorney,

[3:57:49] would, is there still like a probationary period, or could say we hire someone that we

[3:57:56] have no background on, and if it's not a good fit, will we still have to do four, is there

[3:58:01] any effect there, I'm just curious.

[3:58:03] The city attorney and city manager are both counsel appointed at will positions, so they

[3:58:09] don't serve a probationary period per se because they're at, they are appointed and

[3:58:12] can be removed at the will of counsel.

[3:58:15] Thank you.

[3:58:18] Well, I guess it might turn here, and you

[3:58:25] know, to me it really doesn't matter either

[3:58:27] way.

[3:58:27] However, you know, you keep hearing Councilmember Ransom, you know, speak of politics, politics,

[3:58:33] and it's only politics if you disagree with her point of view.

[3:58:38] And you know, it's just something, it's just been going on and on, but politics plays

[3:58:44] both ways.

[3:58:45] I mean, politics plays when you can keep somebody and politics about getting rid of someone.

[3:58:51] And in regards to our former city manager, and we discussed this before, you know, what

[3:58:56] you can discuss in the public, whether it's been reported in the newspapers, which is

[3:59:00] fair game, go look at it.

[3:59:02] And you know, how many, if you look at, I'm not saying to this individual what,

[3:59:24] how

[3:59:24] All right, and again, you can even get a simple,

[3:59:29] possibly you can even get a simple majority.

[3:59:31] I'm not saying how that's the way anybody voted,

[3:59:33] I'm just saying look at the circumstances,

[3:59:36] and now you wanna get four individuals.

[3:59:40] Keeping somebody, just keep them

[3:59:42] because you're friends with them,

[3:59:43] is just as political as getting rid of somebody.

[3:59:47] Don't kid yourself, and you know,

[3:59:50] and Council Member Ransom referred to the economy or Manteca.

[3:59:57] Go look in the lab.

[4:00:00] At three years, what other city is than Tracy? And it's the economic development, the sales

[4:00:07] tax, the property tax, what we've got built, the jobs. We led the whole entire San Joaquin

[4:00:13] County, if not the region. So, I mean, if you're going to infer something, at least

[4:00:17] have some facts. And so, even if, you know, you're referring to how many other cities,

[4:00:26] you know, majority of their cities have a majority and there's a reason for that.

[4:00:32] A simple majority, three. And, you know, to bind a future council.

[4:00:38] And plus, really, if another council comes up and they want to get rid of somebody,

[4:00:41] they can go to an ordinance and change it back to three and then get rid of them.

[4:00:44] You know, so, I mean, I prefer to keep it as three just based on, you know,

[4:00:51] experience of what I've seen and you're talking about conduct which is more

[4:00:56] serious than, you know, some people willing to talk about. Okay, if that

[4:01:03] being said, I'll entertain a motion. I do.

[4:01:07] So some things came up. I heard

[4:01:09] Councilmember Vargas and Mayor Rickman say, you know, the things we could

[4:01:13] talk about and the conduct and I just would like to say that is part of the

[4:01:18] issue is if there were reasons for things that have happened, those things were never disclosed

[4:01:24] to the entire council. And every time it came up to let's talk about these things in public,

[4:01:30] it was we can't disclose those things. So that is why I made the point that it would

[4:01:35] allow or at least require you to be able to prove a case as opposed to three people

[4:01:44] saying, well, this is what we don't like. And whatever conduct you all are speaking about

[4:01:49] or things you're saying you can't talk about that I was never privy to is exactly what makes

[4:01:54] me lean this way. At the end of the day, I'm good with the majority of the whatever the

[4:02:01] majority goes with. It's just really this, fortunately for some other communities, this

[4:02:07] is not necessary. This came out of, and people are talking about the grand jury,

[4:02:12] being politicized or used taxpayers' dollars, 19 individual people from all over this county

[4:02:19] who have no ties to individuals here, at least that I know of, came up with these recommendations.

[4:02:26] So that's, you know, like I said, I'm okay with whatever the will of the majority is.

[4:02:32] One second. She's still on the floor.

[4:02:35] Like I was saying, whatever the will of the majority is on this item. Thank you.

[4:02:39] And just I mean, I know what she just said just counsel. We don't need to rehash what's going on in the past

[4:02:46] It is what it is, but council member or no one there. I'll respect you, you know, it's no need to rehash

[4:02:53] It's only

[4:02:55] Hurts more and it's divide us and I'm trying to move forward together

[4:02:58] I really tried to leave things in the past what happened happened and to have better policy

[4:03:04] and a better way to work together.

[4:03:07] But with that being said,

[4:03:10] I'm comfortable the way we have sense.

[4:03:13] I think we can work together,

[4:03:15] and especially when the entire state of California,

[4:03:18] only a handful of cities have supermajority.

[4:03:21] It's, you know, anyways, hopefully we can get there.

[4:03:28] I think a better question

[4:03:29] than how many have supermajorities

[4:03:32] is how many have actually discussed this,

[4:03:34] And if the majority is the problem and they keep shooting down to have a supermajority,

[4:03:41] I think that would be probably a better look into how many have suggested that I have even

[4:03:45] talked about that.

[4:03:46] I think because of the controversy and even the comments up here regarding this, it shows

[4:03:52] and proves for the need for what's been requested of us.

[4:03:56] Now given the fact that someone can, another counselor just overturn it and use it as

[4:04:00] a weapon.

[4:04:00] I know you're looking you could look into that if the council so goes in that direction

[4:04:04] I think that would be good and what and what we're looking at is not even really for our body

[4:04:09] But it's really I mean because there will be a great change over in in next year

[4:04:14] So just by means of two of us are termed out anyways

[4:04:18] And then we don't know what it will look like so we're actually setting things for the future for future councils

[4:04:24] And so I think that I mean I've already said for all the reasons why I thought that we should

[4:04:30] acknowledge what the grand jury has requested of us and suggested of us based on the uniqueness

[4:04:39] of the challenges that the city of Tracy has had. And so I'm not trying to necessarily

[4:04:45] fall in the line with every other city. We need to do things that are good for our city

[4:04:49] because if we were looking at every other city, a lot of what just happened the last

[4:04:53] few years would have never happened. So that's where we are with that.

[4:04:57] Is this a motion in direction?

[4:04:59] And just real quick, and just to correct,

[4:05:02] councilmember or pro tem, look at the city of Manteca,

[4:05:04] look at the city of Stockton in the last year.

[4:05:08] So this isn't something, getting rid of a city manager

[4:05:12] isn't something that's a nuclear option.

[4:05:16] I mean, it just never happens.

[4:05:18] We had two cities, the largest city in San Joaquin County

[4:05:21] of over 300,000, and we had a city of Manteca,

[4:05:24] our neighbor just do the same.

[4:05:25] Right.

[4:05:26] So I've been on council eight years and this is my fourth city manager

[4:05:29] So that's unique to the cities around us. So it's are we talking about criminal conduct or no?

[4:05:35] I'm just talking about what's happening in our city want to make sure

[4:05:39] So do we need a motion or is this direction? Okay, so and I think so I'm leaning I was

[4:05:46] I was also kind of flexible with this one, but I think after our discussion

[4:05:50] I also support the supermajority vote and I think what's important is in that

[4:05:55] We have that that implicit check-in balance that if any future counsel were to try and overturn this

[4:06:02] They would need to put it in a you know

[4:06:04] It would have to be publicly put on the agenda and they come to the public and the public could then have comment about any future

[4:06:09] Counsel that would try and change this rule if they were trying to politicize it to that point

[4:06:13] So actually kind of like having that check-in balance in there. I think it's very equitable

[4:06:17] so with that I would move that

[4:06:21] We amend the Tracy Municipal Code section 2.08.080 to require a supermajority vote of four members of city council to remove the city manager or city attorney.

[4:06:31] A second.

[4:06:34] Good roll call, please.

[4:06:35] Councilman Marriola?

[4:06:36] Yes.

[4:06:37] May I approach him young?

[4:06:37] Yes.

[4:06:38] Councilman Branson?

[4:06:39] Yes.

[4:06:39] Councilman Vargas?

[4:06:42] And the speed of support in the majority, I'll say yes.

[4:06:46] Mayor Rickman?

[4:06:46] Yes.

[4:06:49] All right,

[4:06:57] move on.

[4:06:57] That's 11 o'clock.

[4:06:58] So do we go do we have two more?

[4:07:03] I know I don't want to push it out again to next year 2020

[4:07:06] So I'd say we stay stay anybody everybody cool with that

[4:07:12] 3j consider an ordinance admitting the compensation for the council and mayor in accordance with state law

[4:07:19] Good evening mayor and council. This is a DC to meet us the city attorney

[4:07:22] This item was actually on the agenda at the last council meeting, but was continued due to the late meeting

[4:07:29] This item requests that council consider an ordinance amending the compensation for council

[4:07:33] and mayor in accordance with state law.

[4:07:36] The last time council considered amending the salary for its members was in 2006.

[4:07:42] This item is coming before you because a recently adopted Code of Conduct states that council

[4:07:46] share review salaries every two years.

[4:07:49] Government Code section 36516 establishes the monthly salaries of city council members

[4:07:55] based on the population of cities.

[4:07:57] For a city between, with a population between $75,000 and $150,000, that amount is $600 a month.

[4:08:05] The government code also restricts the annual salary increases to 5% per year since the last adjustment

[4:08:12] and also requires that any changes to salaries not take effect until after an election.

[4:08:18] This means that any changes adopted today would take effect after the November 2020 election.

[4:08:24] Currently, council members receive a monthly salary of $585, the mayor receives an additional $100 a month in recognition of mayoral duties.

[4:08:35] Under the government code, council may increase its salary by an additional $351.

[4:08:41] That is 5% of $585 times 12 years.

[4:08:47] 12 years was the last time the salary was adjusted.

[4:08:50] That would increase the monthly total salary to $936 for council, and the mayor would receive an additional $100, which would total $1036.

[4:09:04] Before you is an ordinance that states that the salaries will be increased to the maximum amount allowed by state law.

[4:09:10] However, the options for council are to either take no action or increase the salary up to

[4:09:18] a maximum of $351 a month.

[4:09:21] And any motion to approve such an ordinance should kind of state what the amount, what

[4:09:28] the increase amount is.

[4:09:30] That concludes my staff report.

[4:09:31] I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

[4:09:34] Thank you.

[4:09:35] We're open up for public commentators and public which address council on this item.

[4:09:38] over

[4:09:44] 10 or 13 71 Russia no offense but previous city councils and the current

[4:09:51] city council I believe don't deserve a 5% for every other 12 years you've had

[4:09:57] city staff layoffs in previous years you've had increases in their contracts

[4:10:04] only in some case some cases two and a half to three and a half percent your

[4:10:09] Your 5% contracts were just approved this past year going, I believe it goes until 2022.

[4:10:17] So it's the first time in a long time that the staff has had a 5% increase to my knowledge

[4:10:23] and I've been looking at that for the last 10 years or better.

[4:10:27] I believe that this 5% then taken for 12 years at that should not be done.

[4:10:34] You should take the average of what the percentages are that you gave the staff during that time frame and then work out the

[4:10:41] Increase from that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Tanner

[4:10:45] No one else Allison

[4:10:56] was Tracy. I echo what Mr. Tanner just said, but I really

[4:11:02] Not everybody on council, but most of the council really don't deserve a raise

[4:11:06] Maybe look at it when we have a new council

[4:11:10] Also, a lot of the council members here, they don't do their homework.

[4:11:15] They don't, and if they do, it doesn't show here.

[4:11:19] They have total disregard to our staff.

[4:11:21] They have opportunities to talk to staff, they have the agenda.

[4:11:25] We're out here, what, to 11, 12, there's been times of one o'clock.

[4:11:28] Council member asked us questions that should have been talked to staff.

[4:11:32] Do your homework, do your work, you serve the community.

[4:11:37] I would say let's review this back in 2022. Let's see what happens.

[4:11:43] Thank you Miss English. Anyone else?

[4:11:48] Seeing no one, who would like to go?

[4:11:52] Oh well.

[4:11:53] Pro Tem.

[4:11:54] Thank you.

[4:11:56] So...

[4:11:57] That's my ransom. You're after her. I've got to get some ransom.

[4:12:00] Okay, so we don't have HR person here.

[4:12:05] I would like to know what has been the staff increases because I know our negotiations have been well beyond five percent

[4:12:10] So what is that?

[4:12:12] So I did ask our HR director what the span of increases were on average over 2012 to 2016 or excuse me 2019

[4:12:22] We I didn't have data going back further and it's on average about two and a half percent

[4:12:27] If you just do the straight math per year

[4:12:30] So, and they vary.

[4:12:32] And it's important to understand that not all employee contracts are created equal.

[4:12:36] Some years they'll get a CPI.

[4:12:39] Some years they may negotiate a bonus.

[4:12:42] It depends.

[4:12:42] So, each year is different.

[4:12:44] But if you want averages, it's about two and a half.

[4:12:47] Okay.

[4:12:47] So that's the averages.

[4:12:50] So not even averages.

[4:12:52] That's since 2012.

[4:12:54] That's the average between 2012 through the current year.

[4:12:58] Sure.

[4:12:59] Okay.

[4:13:00] That looks very different than all of our contracts, things that at least-

[4:13:04] The most recent contract was 4%.

[4:13:08] Okay.

[4:13:08] And then the one before that, because I've only negotiated like maybe like two or something

[4:13:13] like that.

[4:13:13] But we had a lot of things going on with that, but nonetheless I digress.

[4:13:20] So this particular action that's taken tonight, whatever we decide will not take

[4:13:27] effect until January 2021 with the new city council, so it's not this council in any ways,

[4:13:39] right?

[4:13:39] Okay, thank you.

[4:13:40] So, I don't fully think that people understand what it takes to be a council member up here

[4:13:52] and to frivolously insinuate, not even insinuate,

[4:13:57] but to say that different ones do not do their homework.

[4:14:01] I take offense to that for everybody,

[4:14:03] because it takes a lot of work every day

[4:14:05] to actually talk to people,

[4:14:09] to listen to people, to make proactive actions,

[4:14:12] to make this city a better place

[4:14:14] through our volunteerism

[4:14:16] and the transparency of our whole lives

[4:14:20] being out there for for the betterment of our city. So the thing is that it's I've

[4:14:29] had people come to me and try to make an appointment when I talk to me and say

[4:14:31] wait a minute how much do you make five eighty five a month oh my goodness I

[4:14:35] can't even talk to you because it's all the meetings and things that we do they

[4:14:39] don't feel like it's worth my time but it absolutely is because every voice

[4:14:42] doesn't matter here within our city. But for anybody who's sitting up here

[4:14:48] Because as I said, we're voting for people that I may not be here in 2021 because I term

[4:14:53] out next year as council member.

[4:14:55] And so this is looking forward to people who are here to serve.

[4:15:00] And I could pull up the other information on 12 years ago when the last increase was given.

[4:15:07] And the different things that were said at that time, because I've read through different

[4:15:11] things and even newspaper reports back then, because it does limit to the different people

[4:15:15] that you put up here. You don't realize the times that for people to have to take

[4:15:20] off work, to have to take time from their family, to have to schedule vacations twice

[4:15:25] twice a month because we have meetings twice a month already and it's not just coming here

[4:15:35] twice a month because all of us are on commissions.

[4:15:39] All of us on commissions that require daytime, 8 a.m., 8.30, 9 a.m., it's doing the afternoon,

[4:15:47] it's doing the evenings, it's more than just coming as a commissioner and even commissioners

[4:15:52] to have to do other work talking to the community.

[4:15:56] So the reality of it is that I think that

[4:15:59] for those who are here serving

[4:16:01] and trying to make sure that our staff is well compensated,

[4:16:06] well beyond, it has the amount in there

[4:16:09] that everybody's combined together.

[4:16:12] It's just a smidgen of what a lot of the salaries

[4:16:16] actually are within our community.

[4:16:18] And we're making, and these seats are making great decisions for our community.

[4:16:24] And I think that we need to honor anybody who's here.

[4:16:28] It's a quote that would say that a workman is worthy of his hire.

[4:16:31] And I think that we and whoever sits in these seats deserve to be compensated fairly.

[4:16:40] There are many other cities that, and if we want to look just at the next one in Stockton,

[4:16:45] What they gave even part-time for their council members is much more than this.

[4:16:50] I know they're a different type of structure, another kind of city, although their district is much smaller than all of us.

[4:16:57] We are at large, so the entire city is our responsibility, each individually and collectively.

[4:17:06] So anyways, I feel that this is absolutely reasonable and it's not asking for a whole lot.

[4:17:15] And it can't be automatically instituted.

[4:17:18] And I know it's a very sensitive topic for different council people to bring up things here.

[4:17:22] And we're not doing cutbacks.

[4:17:23] We have been giving raises still, whether it's 2.5% over the times.

[4:17:28] We haven't cut anything as far as salary since I know in the last eight years that I've been here.

[4:17:34] So anyways, I just wanted to say that it's a lot of work that goes in for all of us and

[4:17:41] Next council member ransom

[4:17:44] Thank you. I just want to be clear

[4:17:47] Did I hear was 2005? I know I've sat in the audience and back in the Evelyn Holber days and heard pros and cons

[4:17:55] Was it 2005 2006 2006 so since 2006

[4:18:00] There's not been an adjustment to the council.

[4:18:05] I really wouldn't even call it compensation.

[4:18:06] It's a small stipend.

[4:18:10] And I just really, I'm not going to take offense.

[4:18:13] I just, maybe people are just ignorant to the work that it takes.

[4:18:17] You heard earlier people talking about, you know, you have an intern.

[4:18:21] You have this task force you're part of.

[4:18:23] I see Mr. Tanner at almost every meeting today at 3 o'clock.

[4:18:28] I was in the fire authority meeting 8 o'clock a.m. on Thursday. I'm in the San Joaquin partnership meeting

[4:18:34] I'm in the DVI meeting I travel

[4:18:37] On behalf of this council and have to be reimbursed and I think I've gotten a reimbursement

[4:18:43] That's as big as $1,200 for money that I've spent out of pocket in order to serve this community

[4:18:48] This is a job that I would do for free. I love doing this job

[4:18:52] done it for free, served this community for free and has given way more to the

[4:18:58] City of Tracy than the City of Tracy has given to me in regards to investment in

[4:19:02] this community. However, with that said, this is not just, this is not about

[4:19:07] this council. This is about what is fair, it's about what, you know, the, our,

[4:19:14] Ms. Ramirez gave us, you know, an example of what normally happens and

[4:19:19] And it's not to say that every year there should be a 5% adjustment.

[4:19:24] There may be a year where the council says, you know, there shouldn't be an adjustment

[4:19:28] this year.

[4:19:28] Maybe it should be 2% or 3%.

[4:19:32] But what I don't want to see is us to discourage really good people.

[4:19:38] There are some people in this community who would be great on this council, who cannot

[4:19:41] afford to be on this council.

[4:19:43] They cannot afford to take all the time that we take off of our day jobs.

[4:19:46] I think every single member of this council, you see the mayor around town in daytime and evening time,

[4:19:53] you see every single member of this council, Councilmember Areola coming back from his lunch, running from Stockton to Tracy, and then back.

[4:20:02] And then to make an assumption that people show up here not prepared because maybe you don't like the questions that they ask,

[4:20:10] when sometimes I believe, I know that I'll speak for myself,

[4:20:15] sometimes it's important to educate the public

[4:20:17] on why you're making your decisions.

[4:20:20] And things evolve as council meetings evolve

[4:20:22] and things come up that you didn't know about earlier,

[4:20:25] and it's important to make the decision based on

[4:20:28] all factual information.

[4:20:29] So I am in support for the reasons that are stated.

[4:20:36] 5%, was that 30 bucks, something like that?

[4:20:39] And we're not even at the $600 per month, but...

[4:20:46] It would be five percent.

[4:20:48] So under state law, the increase could be up to five percent times 12 years.

[4:20:55] If we went retroactive, or yeah, I wouldn't recommend that we go retroactive if that's what you're saying.

[4:21:02] I would not say it was $300 and something.

[4:21:05] I'm not saying to go retroactive.

[4:21:08] I don't think no one got on this council thinking I'm going to get a retroactive, you know, 5% for the amount of years.

[4:21:16] But I think moving forward, it makes sense to make the adjustment so that this council can just move forward.

[4:21:23] And this shouldn't even be a discussion. It's not a discussion in most cities and I'm in support of it. Thank you.

[4:21:33] Alright, thank you. So I think related to this item, we need to be very conscientious

[4:21:37] of succession planning. And again, it's been stated before, this is not about this council.

[4:21:42] So I mean, as I look here, I'm literally the only person here not running for office.

[4:21:46] And there actually is a scenario when I could be the only person on council at the

[4:21:51] dice next year. That scenario exists. So I think it's incredibly important that

[4:21:55] we really start looking at our future councils

[4:21:59] and that particular succession planning.

[4:22:02] And I've had the opportunity, you know,

[4:22:05] to travel the country and talk to electives

[4:22:07] from all over the country.

[4:22:08] And the way governance has done other communities

[4:22:10] is very, very different.

[4:22:13] And a lot of the East Coast, even state legislators

[4:22:16] are part time.

[4:22:17] So the whole way that's done can be done

[4:22:19] in different ways.

[4:22:20] But the things that I hear over and over again

[4:22:22] in particular is that for many people

[4:22:24] who would like to serve their communities is that compensation can be a barrier for individuals

[4:22:30] from low income households. And I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I think I'm

[4:22:35] the only person up on council who has never owned a home. And again, I grew up in Tracy

[4:22:40] and I know there's a lot of people here who struggle. I've lived that experience. And

[4:22:44] I think it's so important that we may have people in the community who would like to

[4:22:48] run and serve their communities, but because of those barriers of their economic status,

[4:22:53] They may not have the privilege or ability currently to make that commitment, but a difference of the $354 would allow them

[4:23:02] To provide their opinion and lead this community and really diversify the opinions that we have here because for me

[4:23:08] I think having diversity is incredibly important and I think that

[4:23:12] socioeconomic level diversity is also important. So because of that I would support the $351. Thank you

[4:23:22] Um, I guess I'm the only one. I guess I'm the only one. I would say no.

[4:23:28] And this is a couple of reasons one. A couple of reasons why.

[4:23:32] And, you know, you gotta love, you know, politicians.

[4:23:35] You know, nobody ever says they're politicians, right? It's always something else.

[4:23:41] But, you know, it's never about the money, but then when the money comes up, it's about the money.

[4:23:46] me. You know, I just don't feel this way on this council. I'm a, I was a member or the

[4:23:54] chair of council of governments and I still sit on council of governments. And they voted

[4:23:59] themselves $100 per meeting. I was the only one who voted against it. And I still don't

[4:24:05] take that $100. And the reason being the same, the reason being for that is, you know,

[4:24:11] what I volunteered. I volunteered for that committee. I knew what I was getting

[4:24:14] myself into so knowing that and I would have volunteered either way so I didn't take it.

[4:24:22] And why do people run for office? And to say people aren't going to run for office because

[4:24:28] they're not enough money is ridiculous and you look at the history of the city as people

[4:24:33] always ran for office, yes, is money an option, maybe for some, but 300 bucks, I mean really

[4:24:42] is I going to stop somebody from running? I haven't seen it. Now, why did I run for

[4:24:47] the city? It will run for city council at the time because I love the city. The city

[4:24:53] has gave me more than what I have gave it. That is why I'm here. I'm here because I

[4:25:01] love the city. It's my home. And I thought when I ran for office that I could,

[4:25:11] you

[4:25:11] for not my children, just not just my children, but, you know, generations down

[4:25:17] the line. So that's why I ran. And, you know, you talk about, you know, some money,

[4:25:26] you know, say the money you received right now. And I think it's adequate. I think

[4:25:31] that at least what I use the money for is to, you know, reimburse myself or use it

[4:25:37] for all these different types of functions that I go to that I have to buy

[4:25:42] tickets for I use that money to buy that by those tickets and so and again I do

[4:25:52] have a full-time job that I use to pay the bills and take care of my family and

[4:26:02] I am very fortunate you know I also don't take any insurance from the city

[4:26:08] I probably, I don't take anything. I mean, if you look at some of the trips that, you know,

[4:26:16] I don't know, I won't even get there. But to say that we deserve it, to say that we

[4:26:28] rightfully

[4:26:28] deserve this money and that it would make a better out of job that we could be worked so

[4:26:33] hard. You know what, man? This isn't a tough job. I mean, it's tough in the fact that,

[4:26:38] You know you do take some punishment up here and you know public service and you know you do get but

[4:26:44] You know called out and things but that's part of the job

[4:26:47] You want to go see a tough job go see somebody working out a construction site and put in but be a hammering all day

[4:26:53] That's a tough job. Don't even pretend politicians have it have it rough because they don't

[4:26:58] If you want to see what middle-class hard work looks like it's around us every day

[4:27:03] sure the heck isn't us sitting in this seat at 11.30 at night. We do the best we can and

[4:27:10] I think if more people got in politics, not just for the money, but for the caring of their

[4:27:18] community. I mean, hey, look back into the foundations of our country. You know, you

[4:27:24] would have farmers, a lot more farmers, they would leave, go serve their two years in

[4:27:30] Congress four years in Congress, do their time, come back and go back to farming.

[4:27:34] This shouldn't be a career. And with that being said, I'm against any

[4:27:40] pay raise and I think is adequate for what we can, what we use the money for.

[4:27:47] So that's it. Anyone else?

[4:27:50] I have a question. So for staff, so I know that there's been other people who served on council who

[4:27:58] don't do reimbursements and they don't take stipend and they don't have to so I

[4:28:03] want to make sure that there's something written in there though that just like

[4:28:06] for the Semah King Council of Governments there is something it's

[4:28:11] already stated that you don't have to take it but it's already been

[4:28:15] instituted in in place so that they do give that stipend but you don't have

[4:28:21] to take it so is there something where you don't have to take it or

[4:28:25] or would you just have to give it back if you didn't want it?

[4:28:29] I believe that there's nothing prohibiting a council member

[4:28:33] from declining to receive the stipend.

[4:28:37] Okay, so there's nothing that prohibits it.

[4:28:39] So you can just simply decline it, opt out, right?

[4:28:42] Okay, so that's good.

[4:28:45] So with that, unless there's anything else,

[4:28:47] I'll make a motion.

[4:28:49] Do you wanna say something?

[4:28:49] I haven't had the opportunity to speak at all.

[4:28:51] All right, I didn't say your line on time.

[4:28:52] I apologize, good?

[4:28:53] No, that's okay.

[4:28:54] I just want to,

[4:29:00] I'm honestly, I'm very similar to the mayor.

[4:29:04] I get that we have expenses, we have, you know, things that we do.

[4:29:10] But honestly, I don't think at least some of us haven't got into this job to get reimbursed pay.

[4:29:18] I want to say that it has been a pleasure every day.

[4:29:23] And I am feeling privileged to stay here.

[4:29:27] And I try my best to represent you as best as I can.

[4:29:33] I may not always get it right, but I sure try.

[4:29:39] And I honestly, 300 bucks, 200.

[4:29:43] I'm doing this because I took it in as my service.

[4:29:47] This country has given me an opportunity

[4:29:49] that no other country would have given me.

[4:29:52] I'm honored to be here today. I'm honored to be a citizen. I'm honored to be part of Tracy.

[4:30:00] And for me, I don't think it's needed. We're fine.

[4:30:07] Again, if there's extra money, we should save it up for future.

[4:30:12] We're going to have those up and downs in the economy. We're here to serve our community, to volunteer back.

[4:30:20] this is the way I took this job. So for me as a non-needed item and I don't think

[4:30:31] we should just try to take money out of the taxpayers but that is my opinion and

[4:30:37] I will respect the council decisions. I would not be supporting though this item.

[4:30:47] I do. I motion. I do have a motion and I think that I'm council member

[4:30:51] Ariola said it very well as far as barriers that we're trying to help break down to include

[4:31:00] many people who have a love for our city that can't afford to do this job.

[4:31:07] I think you have to have a love to be here for it in the first place.

[4:31:10] But there are other barriers and we're looking beyond just us, but we're looking for others

[4:31:16] that will be coming in the future for our city.

[4:31:18] And so with that, I move that we introduce an ordinance increasing council member monthly salaries by an additional, by an amount, I'm sorry, of $351.

[4:31:30] I would second that, but do we need the clerk to read something?

[4:31:34] Yeah.

[4:31:35] Oh, I'm sorry.

[4:31:36] I'll request the city clerk to read the title of proposed ordinance.

[4:31:39] In

[4:31:42] ordinance of the City of Tracy and Mending Chapter 2.04, City Council organization and

[4:31:47] procedure of Title II administration of the Tracy Municipal Code to add Section 2.04.060,

[4:31:56] Councilmember and Elected Mayor, compensation.

[4:31:59] I move to waive reading of text and introduce the proposed ordinance as already stated.

[4:32:05] Seconded.

[4:32:06] No roll call please.

[4:32:07] Mayor Pro-Chem-Yang.

[4:32:08] Yes.

[4:32:09] Councilmember Areola.

[4:32:09] Yes, I'm sorry to interrupt. Can I get a point of clarification from our attorney?

[4:32:15] Did they need to state the amount or just they didn't oh

[4:32:20] Oh, okay, I said 351 and this takes effect in 2021 for the new council the next council, right?

[4:32:29] Okay. Yes, 2021. Thank you. Yes

[4:32:32] Yes.

[4:32:32] Okay.

[4:32:33] Customer vagus?

[4:32:35] No.

[4:32:36] Mayor Eggman.

[4:32:37] No.

[4:32:38] All right.

[4:32:39] Move on to item 3K, adopt a resolution establishing a 2020 calendar regular City Council meetings

[4:32:45] and workshops.

[4:32:46] The rule called more.

[4:32:48] Staff report.

[4:32:50] You said that twice, didn't I?

[4:32:51] I know.

[4:32:52] Hand, hand.

[4:32:54] Good evening, Mayor and City Councilor Adrian Richardson again.

[4:32:56] In accordance with Tracey Municipal Code 2.04.020, regular meetings of the Council shall be held

[4:33:03] at 7pm on the first and third Tuesday of each month in the Council Chambers.

[4:33:08] Special meetings and workshops may be called by the City Manager, Mayor or a majority

[4:33:11] of the Council.

[4:33:13] The City Council may also schedule special meetings and workshops as it deems necessary

[4:33:17] with dates adopted as part of an annual calendar or announced in accordance with

[4:33:21] all legal requirements. Adopting a meeting calendar allows for proper agenda planning

[4:33:26] and can provide for recess periods, holidays or election days. The resolution attached

[4:33:31] to your staff report includes a 2020 calendar of regular City Council meetings. The calendar

[4:33:37] also includes an extra special meeting workshop on the 4th Tuesday of each month at 7pm.

[4:33:42] This alternative was included for council consideration, given the impact of scheduling

[4:33:47] special meetings and or workshops immediately prior to regularly scheduled council meetings.

[4:33:52] Oftentimes our community population cannot attend meetings that are scheduled prior to 7 o'clock.

[4:33:58] In addition, the extra meeting can be used to take action on items that have been

[4:34:02] continued or carried over from a previous council meeting or require further policy discussion

[4:34:07] because of their complex nature. If the additional meeting is not necessary, the meeting can be cancelled.

[4:34:14] has cancelled certain meetings given conflicts with state and local events of importance such

[4:34:19] as elections, national night out and during holiday periods to eliminate the need to prepare

[4:34:25] and publish an agenda. Council typically takes action on such cancellations a meeting or

[4:34:30] two before the date of that scheduled meeting. The proposed calendar includes cancelling

[4:34:35] the following three regular meetings. January 7, 2020, for a holiday period there are

[4:34:40] currently no urgent agenda item scheduled, March 3, 2020, primary election day, August

[4:34:47] 4, 2020, national night out. Additionally, if it is Council's desire, the resolution

[4:34:53] can be amended to add the cancellation of the November 3, 2020 regular meeting due

[4:34:59] to the general election. If Council prefers not to cancel these meetings at this time,

[4:35:04] the proposed calendar can be amended to reflect that desire. It is recommended that

[4:35:08] Council will consider adopting a resolution establishing a 2020 calendar of

[4:35:12] regular City Council meetings and workshops and that concludes my report.

[4:35:16] Thank you. All right I'm going to open up for public comment. Anybody from the

[4:35:20] public who wishes to address Council? Mobile means.

[4:35:29] Henry Cole, Tracy

[4:35:30] resident. I just wish to urge the Council to cancel the November 3rd

[4:35:35] meeting for the general election. Thank you. Thank you.

[4:35:42] Anyone else?

[4:35:44] All

[4:35:47] right, so no one, bring it back to Council for discussion, Councilman Ariel, you have

[4:35:51] your light on.

[4:35:52] Oh, yeah, I would just be, I would be in support of cancelling November 3rd one.

[4:35:56] And then I had a question for a city manager.

[4:35:59] So this would in effect make it such that we would have three meetings a month.

[4:36:04] And I know a lot of other cities, including in the region, only have one city council

[4:36:07] meeting a month, even for cities that are larger than us.

[4:36:09] So have we assessed how many cities do meetings three times a month?

[4:36:17] So there's a number of cities that use this method as a placeholder just in case they needed,

[4:36:23] and then they canceled the meeting.

[4:36:25] Livermore is an example of that where they hold a regular extra third meeting a month

[4:36:30] in case they have workshops, special meeting needs,

[4:36:33] and typically they will cancel it if it's not needed.

[4:36:36] So they're not wed to it.

[4:36:37] This is just a tool to help counsel be a little bit more efficient with their time if they have carryover items

[4:36:43] It's purely counsel's discretion if they want to choose to do this or not. It's just an option for you

[4:36:48] Thank you.

[4:36:52] Well, okay. I well I am in support of November 3rd

[4:36:56] Just as it just as a point of reference

[4:36:58] I'm assuming that when the one voice trip come up as far as the trick if we do a city one voice

[4:37:04] We'll just be adding that on as

[4:37:06] That's needed if needed

[4:37:08] So we don't have any proposed outlook for that yet.

[4:37:12] We'll be taking that to you probably in February.

[4:37:15] Okay.

[4:37:16] So for the ones, I agree with all the ones that are listed.

[4:37:21] I do have concern for putting three nights a week,

[4:37:25] even if it's just as needed,

[4:37:27] but it still becomes ingrained as a part of Reservation for People's Lives

[4:37:32] and family trips and things like that.

[4:37:35] It's just it's just much more to coordinate because we're looking at

[4:37:39] Not just here, but for future councils coming on

[4:37:43] So I think I think it's a lot. I know that we want to be cognizant of time

[4:37:48] As far as workshops and things like that bringing it earlier in the day

[4:37:52] And so is that really the reason why we're looking at another day instead of just continuing?

[4:37:58] You know or maybe because I know on my calendar have blocked out 5 5 p.m. To midnight every

[4:38:05] twice a month already so I know not to schedule anything before that but I mean

[4:38:09] I could move it back but because there's different there's different reasons

[4:38:14] there's some that say they need to get off work and be here and there's some that

[4:38:16] said they can't stay up late like this and they need to be here earlier so

[4:38:19] they because they go to bed at 8 o'clock so again it's it's counsel's

[4:38:23] discretion you know oftentimes we'll start a meeting at have closed

[4:38:27] session at 5 and then go into a special meeting at 6 and then we're

[4:38:30] still here till 12. So again, it's just a tool for council's discretion. If it doesn't

[4:38:36] work for the council, then we don't use it. Or we can completely eliminate it from the

[4:38:40] calendar. It's, again, just food for thought.

[4:38:45] Okay. And there was one other suggestion that I brought up, because Mr. Evans, I think,

[4:38:49] has brought it up several times. As far as on weekends, our daytime things. And

[4:38:54] I know some councils, because they're full-time, and they're already at City Hall, and

[4:38:59] have it during the daytime. So I don't know if there was any other consideration to set

[4:39:03] aside something that's within that Tuesday, one of our Tuesday time frames, a different

[4:39:09] day, but maybe that same week.

[4:39:12] Yeah, council could certainly entertain a different day and a different time. Absolutely.

[4:39:17] And those are just for thought to be out. I wouldn't recommend three Tuesdays of our

[4:39:22] month or any council months being set aside.

[4:39:27] Thank you. So I think it's ironic that this is the next agenda item when we talk about like our commitment to this community and I do appreciate what you're trying to do.

[4:39:41] I just wonder if we can at least limit the extra meeting to three hours or because it seems like this is a cleanup meeting or you know this is an opportunity to catch things that we might need to,

[4:39:54] that have got left hanging because maybe the meeting went over and we need to counsel it.

[4:39:59] As mentioned earlier, we have all these different commitments for this council in addition to the different committees that we serve on, closed sessions,

[4:40:07] special meetings, workshops, which we've been having a lot because we've got a lot of things of heavy lift that we're trying to catch up on.

[4:40:14] And so I do appreciate that you have a calendar in mind and you want to keep us on track to hit the goals that we want.

[4:40:20] But is it possible that we if we do decide the council majority wants to move in this manner

[4:40:25] Can we limit those meetings to three hours because we already plan vacations and family time and everything around these meetings?

[4:40:33] So that would be my request if that's a desire of the consensus of council absolutely

[4:40:41] Thank you mayor, I think tennis to choose get there quickly

[4:40:45] we should limit ourselves on how much we speak so we can just eliminate the

[4:40:50] meetings all together and do the business at hand on the two days that we have

[4:40:55] assigned per month. The problem is that we are not finishing the agendas because

[4:41:00] some of us speak for 45 minutes and so our agendas are going until midnight. So

[4:41:09] So,

[4:41:12] I see what our CD manager is doing here and hopefully this is a wake-up call that

[4:41:18] we are needing that third meeting because we are talking too much.

[4:41:25] Hey, we just give ourselves a raise.

[4:41:28] They should just give more money, you know, the public should give what they ask for.

[4:41:34] I think this is a lot.

[4:41:37] But I think we should just really look into limiting ourselves how long we speak.

[4:41:50] But if it's what is needed to have the job at hand to completion, I guess we're having

[4:41:57] more meetings.

[4:41:59] Yes, thank you.

[4:42:02] I just think it's really difficult to commit three weeks out of a month.

[4:42:07] I mean, for me, I'm just thinking for my job in particular, I'm a trial attorney.

[4:42:12] I'm in trial once or twice a month, sometimes for weeks at a time,

[4:42:15] and it's been difficult to make those while I'm here,

[4:42:18] because sometimes I'm working 12 to 16-hour days.

[4:42:20] I know it's only relevant to myself,

[4:42:23] but it's easier for me because I've already committed every other Tuesday

[4:42:26] to come a few hours earlier.

[4:42:29] So I would prefer to continue the practice of having a special meeting

[4:42:32] prior to our earlier meeting,

[4:42:34] because it's easier to schedule at least my work schedule.

[4:42:37] I don't have a family, the rest of the council does,

[4:42:40] so I imagine that that takes a huge priority for you,

[4:42:44] but for me, I would prefer to have special meetings

[4:42:47] and workshops before the Tuesday meetings.

[4:42:51] I'll second that, because honestly,

[4:42:53] it's not feasible for me.

[4:42:55] I have a full-time job.

[4:42:57] I cannot come in the middle of the day.

[4:42:59] During the day, I have to work.

[4:43:02] Some of us have jobs and obligations from, you know,

[4:43:08] seven in the morning until five o'clock afternoon.

[4:43:11] Even to get here at five o'clock after a 12, 14 hours worth of work

[4:43:17] and commuting is not easy.

[4:43:19] So I honestly really, I think we should just look again

[4:43:24] into time that we allow ourselves to speak to shorten our meetings.

[4:43:33] We've been trying to do that and it's been a huge opposition, but we cannot, if the pleasure

[4:43:39] is not to add a third meeting, we need to do something different.

[4:43:44] But I agree with Councilman Ariola on adding the third day is just too hard.

[4:43:51] Potem?

[4:43:52] Yes.

[4:43:52] Thank you.

[4:43:53] So that was my original suggestion that we just continue to do it on the same day

[4:43:57] because it's much easier for me as well.

[4:44:01] But not just for me, but I think for future councils as they're planning their their times and their schedules to just do that

[4:44:07] But it's not just I just I do want to speak real quickly. Just it's not just the speech of people

[4:44:14] On the council because the next council will have to grapple with that

[4:44:17] But it's also the number of items that we have and the number of things that's been brought to the council for us to

[4:44:25] Discuss we're a growing city

[4:44:26] we have a lot of items that comes before us. And a few years ago, we had meetings like

[4:44:30] several, a couple of meetings every single week. And so I think it's important that we're

[4:44:36] looking at the content of our agenda as well. So that would help limit what, how much time

[4:44:42] we're spending.

[4:44:43] Can I just remember to answer me or something? No, I'm sorry. Okay, for me, no. I don't

[4:44:51] I'll take and explain it to you.

[4:44:56] What about the days?

[4:44:58] I mean we have...

[4:45:00] You know, we can get the, it's been like this for always. You know, we haven't had a problem finishing our agenda until, what, two, three years ago.

[4:45:10] And it's, I mean, hey, watch, you know, watch the meeting tonight and look how much downtime we have.

[4:45:17] Look how much stuff is, you know, we're not, we're talking about agenda, but we're going off on tangents.

[4:45:21] And that's the reason these council meetings are so long and council or city manager, you know, we discuss this, too, is that, you know, the farther we get behind the more we put on the agenda, you know, the longer we stay up here or we can't even finish it.

[4:45:40] And it comes to a point that as a city manager when you're going to do the agenda item, you know how this council is.

[4:45:50] And if you want to stay at 11 o'clock every single night or midnight every night, you know, keep doing what you're exactly doing because we will be here.

[4:46:00] And these items are difficult.

[4:46:02] and you know and when we talked about time limits and that thing that I feel

[4:46:08] bad for is I mean you look at our city clerk she has to double back here at

[4:46:12] 7 a.m. you know is it fair to her because we can't stay on topic or we're

[4:46:17] going off so if we have to do something you know like a special meeting or you

[4:46:25] know we you can pull the council like we've we've have and then council can

[4:46:30] come to an agreement what date that that would be and I think that's worked in

[4:46:33] the past I think it continues to work but you know it is what it is so with

[4:46:40] that being said I'll entertain a motion I would move to adopt a resolution

[4:46:45] establishing the 2020 calendar of regular city council meetings and

[4:46:48] workshops with the exception of the November 3rd meeting and removing the

[4:46:56] removing the November 3rd regular meeting and also removing the fourth Tuesday

[4:47:01] proposed special meeting workshop dates. I'll second that motion. Take a pic of

[4:47:07] Council Member Vargas or Council Member Anson. Yeah I'm just not sure about

[4:47:12] the November thing I thought we were adding it to the list could you say

[4:47:15] excluding it as a regular? It's the general election right now and so we've

[4:47:19] already removed the primary but we haven't removed the general so it's

[4:47:22] currently on the list we're removing it that was my motion. Council the

[4:47:25] meeting that we're good yeah so canceling it just adding the as it as a

[4:47:30] list of the cancellation okay councilmember area local police yes

[4:47:33] councilmember rinsen yes I'm from your vagus me a protein young yes I may

[4:47:38] recommend yes right item number four I'm from the audience anybody wish to

[4:47:41] address council on any items that were on the agenda or I am from the

[4:47:46] audience sorry Adrian I was English I just want to make a comment I made the

[4:47:54] statement earlier at the public audience that something happened October 15th that Nancy

[4:48:02] Young just went on record about releasing ransom. I'm sorry, so was she not receiving money when

[4:48:10] she was counseled. So I went on record on that because to clarify and that's why I turned

[4:48:15] in that paperwork, nothing else. And it has nothing to do with being political or anything

[4:48:20] because this is what they do after the audience speak then they have to come

[4:48:26] back and I'm I feel bad for our city attorney because when they go on

[4:48:30] tangents it should have been stopped because it has nothing to do with Mayor

[4:48:35] Rickman or Councilwoman Vargas has nothing to do with this these things

[4:48:40] has been ongoing and when I make a statement it's always a personal tax

[4:48:45] or is this? Everything that I've come up here since the Mayor's Fund is on record and also

[4:48:53] to go on record, I never pulled the PNR, PRA, okay? And when my husband heard about the

[4:49:01] Mayor's Fund going $300,000, $375,000, $425,000, actually when that was pulled, that's when

[4:49:09] so-seed, so-seed, so-seed, so-seed was on there.

[4:49:12] And that's when I came up on February 20, 2018.

[4:49:15] And when I did that two days later,

[4:49:19] Councilwoman Ransom put a grand jury report

[4:49:22] on me and two other members.

[4:49:24] So this is the thing, bullying people,

[4:49:27] doing things and saying it's political.

[4:49:30] From day one, Councilwoman Ransom has made

[4:49:33] a lot of things political.

[4:49:34] Attacking Councilwoman Vargas, our mayor,

[4:49:37] our city manager,

[4:49:37] when things didn't go her direction,

[4:49:40] not only just me, but other audience.

[4:49:42] So I know there was a code of conduct,

[4:49:44] but it hasn't been heard here because they repeat themselves

[4:49:48] or they attack the audience.

[4:49:49] And as far as calling Councilwoman Yang, Mayor Pro Tem,

[4:49:53] I don't.

[4:49:54] I have no respect for somebody that sits on the diocese

[4:49:57] that lies, lies about a T-shirt,

[4:50:00] makes alleged false police reports.

[4:50:04] I address the council, I come up here and mayor,

[4:50:07] and I did it for Mayor Pro Tem Vargas when she was there.

[4:50:10] She conducted herself at the diocese.

[4:50:13] When I, if people, and as a matter of fact,

[4:50:16] the first grant report said,

[4:50:18] council, you earn your respect.

[4:50:20] You don't demand respect.

[4:50:22] So when people come up here and you don't want to hear

[4:50:25] what somebody says, you come up with their names

[4:50:27] and you personally attack the audience.

[4:50:30] So as far as the code of conduct that you guys have,

[4:50:33] you, on this side, it doesn't adhere to it.

[4:50:36] It never has and it won't but if you praise him, it's something different

[4:50:39] But I did go on record that

[4:50:43] So it see did apply

[4:50:44] 2017-2018 and I did turn that in that's when I went on a record because it was stated incorrect on October 15th

[4:50:53] And no disrespect to counsel woman Vargas when she was up here

[4:50:56] I used to address her mayor potem when she took your place when you couldn't present certificates mr.

[4:51:02] Mayor, it was done publicly and it was done right, and the city was represented right

[4:51:07] in both councils and in public galas, different things I've gone to.

[4:51:14] I have not seen that from this side.

[4:51:16] So I just want to say that some of these statements that are done here is incorrect.

[4:51:23] Has been political, it has always been political.

[4:51:27] When they did the home task force, when George party was here, and I didn't bring

[4:51:32] it because I have a lot of binders and a lot of information with that. It was political.

[4:51:36] They said, Democrat Party, come and support your Democrat Party. Not come and listen to

[4:51:41] the homeless task force. All of everything that I say here is documented. It's not a tax.

[4:51:46] It's all facts. So I just want to say that. Sorry. It's time to go to bed. Merry Christmas

[4:51:52] and Happy New Year.

[4:51:54] Thank you, Mrs. English. Anyone else?

[4:52:03] Yolanda Makanya, Tracy, California. I had a couple of things. One is I don't know all

[4:52:11] the cities that do it, but I think Tracy might look into it. It might broaden and diversify

[4:52:17] our council. Some cities have, like if this city is broken up into beats or different

[4:52:25] sections that it pulls their council members from those sections to

[4:52:30] properly represent those communities. I feel that certain areas of Tracey are

[4:52:38] being under-served, under-represented. As a citizen I would encourage council

[4:52:48] members to come out to the different areas of Tracey, go to the different

[4:52:53] parks, walk the streets, look at all the graffiti, look at all the homeless

[4:52:57] encampments, look at all the garbage near the railroads, and really put

[4:53:08] yourself in the in the citizens who live in that area's shoes and think about

[4:53:15] if I were walking my kids in this area would I feel comfortable, would I feel

[4:53:19] safe and it's why I just I think there's certain parts of Tracy that are being

[4:53:25] very underrepresented represented.

[4:53:31] Oh for code enforcement I've found it very

[4:53:36] frustrated frustrating to call with complaints and they demand addresses.

[4:53:43] is. Certain parts of the city, you wouldn't feel comfortable getting out and trying to

[4:53:50] look for an address. The neighbors come out and what are you doing, why are you looking

[4:53:54] up my address? And so it's hard to come out with an address to give to them. I think

[4:54:01] it's absurd that we have to do that as a citizen. I think I should be able to just

[4:54:05] call and say, hey, in this general vicinity, three houses for me, I'm at 410 Palm Circle,

[4:54:11] whatever the case may be. Can you please send someone out here to take a look at some of these violations?

[4:54:16] I think it's fair that they do their job and that they come out and do that. I would also

[4:54:23] encourage the city to look at their code enforcement policies regarding storing non-ops,

[4:54:33] RVs, trailers, and so forth. I was kind of shocked that we don't have something in place

[4:54:41] where my neighbor could store their non-op RV and just have it filled with junk,

[4:54:48] as well as weeds growing underneath it and all this other stuff. I think that

[4:54:53] policy needs to be looked at and updated. I also would encourage you to give

[4:55:02] code enforcement more personnel. I think they seem a little overwhelmed with

[4:55:08] all of the things that are

[4:55:10] happening, all the issues that

[4:55:13] they have to deal with, as well

[4:55:15] as the growth of Tracy, and that

[4:55:17] would probably help, as well as

[4:55:19] maybe doing some teaming up

[4:55:22] between code enforcement, Tracy,

[4:55:24] police department, and the

[4:55:26] railroad.

[4:55:27] I know when I worked in

[4:55:28] Livermore, we did really cool

[4:55:30] team operations where we all

[4:55:32] worked together to clean up

[4:55:34] neighborhoods, and that really

[4:55:35] seemed to help.

[4:55:36] I

[4:55:40] think that was it.

[4:55:41] Thank you so much.

[4:55:42] Good night.

[4:55:44] How do you say your last name?

[4:55:45] McConnia?

[4:55:46] McConnia.

[4:55:47] What's that again?

[4:55:47] McConnia?

[4:55:48] McConnia.

[4:55:49] McConnia.

[4:55:49] Yeah.

[4:55:50] All right.

[4:55:51] Can you give her?

[4:55:52] Can you give her?

[4:55:53] We can't address you, but we can grab your information.

[4:55:55] I'm going to say we don't have any staff in back.

[4:55:57] They're all, it's midnight, so they all went home.

[4:56:00] But if we can get your information and we'll have somebody to contact you and

[4:56:04] follow up with you, some of that information.

[4:56:07] Anybody else?

[4:56:07] All

[4:56:11] right. See no one step item. Nothing. No. Council items. Mayor I'm obligated since

[4:56:18] I went to a I was invited by the California legal cities to attend their annual leadership

[4:56:27] workshop. That was in Napa and that that workshop sets up the goals where like we did in our

[4:56:38] council retrieve the goals where the California legal cities will work on the rest of the year.

[4:56:49] I wanted to inform the council and the public that the California legal cities leadership

[4:56:57] will be concentrating and working in policies and following bills that will support and

[4:57:06] and address the issues of homelessness, housing,

[4:57:11] pension reform, transportation, infrastructure,

[4:57:16] and sustainable services.

[4:57:18] Those who are the goals that the board

[4:57:20] and all the people attending decided

[4:57:23] that we're following and advocating and Sacramento

[4:57:28] as bills will be going through in the next year.

[4:57:33] And it was a very productive two days conference and learned a bunch and made a bunch of different people.

[4:57:42] Some of the guests that were there was Senator Bell and Senator Glacier.

[4:57:50] And I want to say that also the city of Tracy was highlighted by the California city, California

[4:58:00] legal cities on AB 430A and how that will impact the entire state and how is 911 going

[4:58:10] to be addressed through the entire state.

[4:58:12] So they were a kudosense to the public service and for the passing of that bill.

[4:58:21] That concludes my update.

[4:58:24] I want to wish everybody Merry Christmas and happy New Year's.

[4:58:29] Thank you.

[4:58:29] Council Member Erolah.

[4:58:30] Thank you.

[4:58:31] I just want to say thank you to the community members who came to my town hall, Neighborhood Safety.

[4:58:35] That was very productive.

[4:58:37] We had some great conversations.

[4:58:39] I really think this is going to be the beginning of the conversation.

[4:58:41] I look forward to bringing some policy proposals soon and with that, I just want to say Merry

[4:58:46] Christmas everybody and happy new year, please be safe out there.

[4:58:50] Council Member, I'll start with Merry Christmas to everyone next week.

[4:58:57] I can't believe the year is winding up so quickly.

[4:59:00] And then just real quickly on December the 6th, I think it was, I forgot my date,

[4:59:07] the first Friday of the month.

[4:59:09] We had the ACE Board meeting, and I was there to represent someone can call it as well as Tracy.

[4:59:18] And one of the main items that was discussed was item number seven, adopting a schedule change for the ACE Saturday service.

[4:59:27] And so this item proposed a change in time for Saturday since they started the service.

[4:59:33] And it's really based on input that was taken from the commuters or the ace riders because ridership on Saturday was expanded not just for people who work on the weekend but for a lot of recreation.

[4:59:48] And what they found too is that a lot of people are actually utilizing that service to visit family who are like in San Jose or in the Bay Area versus work.

[4:59:56] And so for that, they're proposing them.

[5:00:00] Train, the commuter train number 101, moving the time from 7.35 a.m. to 6.15 a.m.

[5:00:08] That's even from Stockton. So we'll leave earlier to four people the ability to go to work,

[5:00:13] who does work, who do work on those days. And to come back 104 from 3.50, they moved it to 4.15.

[5:00:20] That's just that time we'll give them a little bit more. And for the leisure commuters 103 to move from 8.40 to 9.15

[5:00:27] because they want to sleep in a little more and go and then to come back later

[5:00:32] instead of coming back from San Jose at five it would actually leave at 7.15

[5:00:35] to just afford them just that extra time and then for a while

[5:00:39] undetermined yet how long introducing a flat rate

[5:00:43] of $14 per person to write on Saturday which is

[5:00:47] a lot less than the current rate and then we're also looking into

[5:00:52] they're also looking into other options for family packages

[5:00:56] is whether for kids to ride free or elderly or discounts or looking at other things that

[5:01:01] they can adapt on the app to be able to just make that more accessible and used by many

[5:01:07] more people.

[5:01:08] And then the advertisement will be coming up soon for that.

[5:01:14] Great, thank you very much.

[5:01:17] So I will start with, I serve on the partnership as representative of the city and we've

[5:01:25] recently made a staff change as a board to the Executive Director, and we're currently

[5:01:29] working on a strategic plan to do a better job at attracting jobs.

[5:01:35] Currently in the past practice of the partnership, what's happened is they've gone to the representatives

[5:01:40] have gone to different trade shows flown all over the country, and it just turned into

[5:01:44] where we were getting reports.

[5:01:46] And so we're working with the new Executive Director to really create an environment

[5:01:51] that would be more attractive and to be more proactive in actually going out to recruit jobs to the region.

[5:01:57] So we're doing some restructuring and we're going to have a couple of meetings where we actually put together different subcommittees.

[5:02:05] And so we have subcommittees, obviously, to put together new bylaws on how that's going to look.

[5:02:11] But we also have a new governance committee that's going to be working with state policies.

[5:02:16] And then we're going to be looking at what infrastructure and things are needed to be more attractive to those jobs who are citizens are currently residents are currently commuting to.

[5:02:28] So that's an update and I'll bring we'll be getting a more information at the next meeting. I'll obviously bring that back.

[5:02:34] I also attended the town hall, the Councilman Arayola put on.

[5:02:41] I just want to thank you for allowing the citizens to come out and speak in regards to that.

[5:02:47] Recently, actually yesterday, the Supreme Court made a decision not to hear the challenges

[5:02:56] to the Martin v. Boise case.

[5:02:58] So that kind of speaks to the sense of urgency with the things that we're working on

[5:03:03] in regards to the strategic plan for the ad hoc committee in regards to homelessness,

[5:03:10] because basically essentially what that does is it forces, instead of the federal government

[5:03:16] making, you know, weighing in, it really forces the different locales to have to figure out

[5:03:21] how to address the situation based to what's going on to their particular communities.

[5:03:26] I do have a request from our city attorney, Ms. Leticia, if you can, do you mind sharing

[5:03:37] a brief update on where we are with the project labor agreements?

[5:03:41] Sure.

[5:03:42] So we have an internal group of staff that are dedicated to working on the negotiations

[5:03:48] for the project labor agreement and includes our assistant city manager Andrew, Malik,

[5:03:52] City Engineer Robert Armijo and our HR Director Kimberley Murdoch and myself along with outside

[5:03:59] council.

[5:04:00] We have met with the Building Trade Council about three to four times.

[5:04:04] The last meeting was actually December 4th.

[5:04:06] We expect to have another meeting, a negotiation session on January 8th, and we are working

[5:04:13] towards coming back to council with an agreement on January 21st.

[5:04:18] Thank you very much.

[5:04:19] I know we originally talked about having that back in December, but I appreciate the update in you letting us know where we are

[5:04:26] My last item. I'm gonna be as brief as possible

[5:04:29] But we've done a lot of work on the council in regards to responding to

[5:04:36] Really getting our governance together getting our code of conduct getting our policies together so that we can really conduct the city's business and

[5:04:44] I think it's it's shameful. It's

[5:04:47] It's not frustrating, it's just shameful.

[5:04:50] Before I even got on this council,

[5:04:52] and if Miss English is in the hallway, I hope she comes in,

[5:04:55] back in 2014, and maybe it's a coincidence,

[5:05:00] on council, I'm in Vargas' very first day

[5:05:02] on the planning commission is when I started facing attacks.

[5:05:06] Things being said, things that were untrue

[5:05:09] on this council, followed by when I was running in 2015,

[5:05:13] there's videos of Miss English coming in saying things

[5:05:17] that were not true based on my work on the Planning Commission and posting things in social

[5:05:22] media.

[5:05:23] And then moving here to this council and really trying to serve this community, it's frustrating

[5:05:28] the disrespect, the unprofessionalism, and then knowing that these relationships on the

[5:05:33] council continue to perpetuate these things.

[5:05:38] And emails and things that are discussed are coming because people are going to great

[5:05:45] lengths to find out, you know, every move that I make, it's almost like being stalked.

[5:05:49] And I just really wish that in this political year that this council would make a commitment

[5:05:55] to the friends that you have that come here and continue to perpetuate things that they

[5:06:02] know that are not true.

[5:06:03] And we do have a right, and I did check with the FPPC as well as with previous attorneys.

[5:06:09] When someone comes here and says things that are untrue,

[5:06:13] we do have a right to correct that information.

[5:06:18] Every time that happens, there's a push to silence that

[5:06:23] and to let it go on.

[5:06:24] And there are so many different examples that can be given,

[5:06:27] but it was on record publicly that over 100 staff hours were used

[5:06:32] in regards to, she said that she didn't pull it,

[5:06:36] but Mr. Richard English, I believe, pulling information in regards to my employer,

[5:06:42] SOAC Community Foundation, and we had to hire temps to go back to old files

[5:06:48] that had things, nothing to do with my service here on this council.

[5:06:52] There's also a record we're talking about 2017, 2018.

[5:06:57] It's very clear on the record.

[5:06:58] Board members have come and said that I asked them to pull their application,

[5:07:02] which was pooled. And so I really resent the continuous intentional mischaracterizations.

[5:07:10] Everyone on this council has a right to run for office and you should be able to do that

[5:07:16] without having people try to orchestrate and mischaracterize things. If there's something

[5:07:21] that needs to be addressed, let's go ahead and address it, let's get on the table,

[5:07:25] let's move forward. If it's something that needs to be done with governance,

[5:07:28] I encourage anyone, if you have something about send it to the grand jury, send it to the attorney general, send it wherever, because I know I wake up and I sleep very well and I wake up knowing that I'm here to do a good job, that I'm not here to do anything that's illegal or immoral.

[5:07:46] And so I encourage you, as just like you did before, you sent 122 pages to the FPPC making

[5:07:55] accusations that, you know, weren't true.

[5:07:57] Send it.

[5:07:57] Continue to send it.

[5:07:58] But to continue to come here, complain about how much time we talk and waste our time with

[5:08:03] things that are not relevant or true, I just really wish and hope that this council

[5:08:08] would commit to all this code of conduct work and all these different things that

[5:08:13] We've said that we're committed to and just truly move forward.

[5:08:16] Thank you.

[5:08:18] And with that, I'm going to say Merry Christmas to all of you

[5:08:22] out there, because we're not going to see you again

[5:08:23] until next until after Christmas.

[5:08:25] Thank you.

[5:08:28] All right, thank you.

[5:08:29] And just to clarify something, yeah,

[5:08:31] we can correct the record, but as we've stated,

[5:08:34] over and over and over and over again,

[5:08:36] per FBPC and per Brown Act and all this stuff,

[5:08:39] for legal case law, it has to be a brief statement

[5:08:44] to clarify the factual information so what that means is if somebody comes up

[5:08:48] here and says something that you don't like and that is not untrue one of the

[5:08:52] remedies that we have is to make a brief statement to clarify the fact a prime

[5:08:57] example of that I who I think does an exceptional job of that is council

[5:09:01] memory areola and he has done it a couple of times as quick states of

[5:09:04] facts boom you move on you know it's it is what it you know we've all

[5:09:14] I don't think anybody's taking more hits than I have.

[5:09:16] I had a former mayor who was after me for two years.

[5:09:19] You know, it is what it is.

[5:09:21] It's, you know, and reprimanding the public,

[5:09:26] you know, up here I just don't think is

[5:09:32] efficient or beneficial to the council as a whole.

[5:09:35] But that's just me.

[5:09:38] Now with that being said, last Saturday,

[5:09:43] Reefs across America were at the Tracy Cemetery and it was awesome in the fact

[5:09:51] that we had hundreds, hundreds of people show up to place reefs on our veterans

[5:09:58] graves. This is the sixth year that we have done that and this year the first

[5:10:03] time we received over 2,000 reefs, which was enough for every veteran in

[5:10:08] the cemetery and I want to thank the ghost our mom Julia Conover and Scott for

[5:10:14] you know bringing this tradition here to Tracy and my daughter Grace who's a

[5:10:19] senior at Tracy High go Bulldogs that you have to say it is a tradition if not

[5:10:25] I get struck somebody will run me over but you know yeah exactly this guy over

[5:10:38] car. It wasn't a bulldog. It was in Stockton. Might have been somebody from Lincoln. But

[5:10:45] my daughter Grace, you know, chose Rees Across America for her senior project this year.

[5:10:52] And, you know, she spoke publicly at the Tracy Cemetery for the first time. So she

[5:10:56] did a heck of a job. And, you know, Karen and I, and everybody's very, very proud

[5:11:01] of her. And it just goes to show you what a great town that we are. You know,

[5:11:07] a lot of people do like to mention the negative, but you look at the positive and you look

[5:11:13] at, you know, and I say it over and over and when it comes time to get something to done,

[5:11:18] it's time to get something to come together, nobody beats our town, you know, Tracy, Tracy

[5:11:25] remembers.

[5:11:28] I want to say Merry Christmas of course, happy new year, happy birthday

[5:11:33] to my wife, Karen, who's sitting in the audience

[5:11:35] with birthdays a day afterwards.

[5:11:38] And real quick question to our counselor before I leave.

[5:11:44] If you're sending text messages or posting on Facebook

[5:11:46] up here on the dais,

[5:11:49] what's the liability that you can create?

[5:11:51] Is that against a code of conduct

[5:11:53] or is that subject to PRAs?

[5:11:57] What's?

[5:11:58] So I don't believe there's any provision

[5:12:00] in our Code of Conduct that addresses social media or texting during a

[5:12:06] council meeting directly, but in terms of kind of liability, you know, I have

[5:12:12] seen in the past those types of communications be subject to public

[5:12:16] records requests. If the content of those messages have to do with the

[5:12:21] public's business and city business, they could be subject to a public

[5:12:25] request. Okay, but if you're up here on the dais and you're I guess we're paid

[5:12:31] being work isn't any of the product we do a pure work product. Depending on I mean

[5:12:36] if I'm talking to my spouse maybe that's one thing different but if I'm

[5:12:40] say posting on Facebook a public media and if people know I'm here and I'm

[5:12:47] making a statement on public media or social media can you. That could be

[5:12:52] subject to a public record request.

[5:12:54] All right, I'm going to be sending you something probably tomorrow that occurred tonight, what

[5:12:59] I want to recount from the meeting.

[5:13:00] Members up here, if that's the case, I want to subject, put it in the record of this

[5:13:04] meeting for the public.

[5:13:06] So it is.

[5:13:06] So for the public.

[5:13:07] Yeah.

[5:13:08] Were you done, sir?

[5:13:09] Yes, go ahead.

[5:13:10] So for the public to know what the mayor is referring to is after the first attack,

[5:13:15] I encourage you to go on to the meetings because these attacks are orchestrated by

[5:13:18] your mayor.

[5:13:19] So on my break, you saw me go in the back and I posted that you should tune into the meeting

[5:13:27] because I think it's really important for the community to see how we're conducting your business.

[5:13:33] So you can submit your PRA.

[5:13:36] No, I won't submit.

[5:13:38] I'm wondering how did you get that information?

[5:13:40] Somebody sent it to you.

[5:13:40] Someone sent it to you.

[5:13:41] So your text is okay.

[5:13:42] Right here.

[5:13:43] Somebody sent it to me.

[5:13:44] I didn't text anybody.

[5:13:45] Oh, someone sent it to you.

[5:13:46] But you got it.

[5:13:47] Yeah, I didn't get it and this is my

[5:13:48] Items these comments are supposed to be brief right it is well

[5:13:52] I'll read it to you

[5:13:53] I suggest you all turn on the council meeting the petty political shenanigans are back the personal tax of no place here

[5:13:59] Only paid the work on behalf of the community

[5:14:01] Should not be moved fall along with the link below and ladies and gentlemen. I mean

[5:14:07] One thing attacking the public attacking other council members because we disagree is is ridiculous

[5:14:13] And we can disagree to disagree and move on, but to say everything is political.

[5:14:19] If you disagree with an individual, it's a political attack or it's accusatory, you know,

[5:14:24] and it's, you saw last council meeting with,

[5:14:30] I'm from the audience,

[5:14:31] you saw on a March 6th with, in March 6th of 2018 by council member Ransom

[5:14:37] who wanted limited public records act, which is, again, against the law.

[5:14:40] So, there's a level or there's a path that shows it's the same thing over and over.

[5:14:47] If the public has a right to do a PRA, you can do it.

[5:14:50] I've had plenty done on me.

[5:14:52] You have a right.

[5:14:53] It doesn't mean you're attacking or accusing.

[5:14:55] You can do what you want.

[5:14:56] Same thing with the First Amendment.

[5:15:00] It's unfortunate that we can't disagree to disagree up here, and it is what it is. But, you know, no ill will.

[5:15:08] You just mischaracterized. I've never requested that the public not be able to do a PRA. What I requested back then,

[5:15:15] and it's already been cleared up and we've watched the video, is that when people are using the PRAs to continue to attack.

[5:15:26] I made a point of clarification that I never requested that people not be able to do PRAs

[5:15:32] that they be listed on the website which they are currently now done.

[5:15:36] You are correct on that. Actually, I got the transcript of it if you want to. You know,

[5:15:41] and she's right, she didn't say, but she said that put people's name on the website on her

[5:15:45] own website.

[5:15:45] I feel you're delving into a discussion of something that's not on the agenda.

[5:15:48] Can we call for the question?

[5:15:50] Yeah, go ahead.

[5:15:51] I move to conclude the meeting.

[5:15:53] I'll second that.

[5:15:54] Can we roll call, please?

[5:15:57] Council Member Areola?

[5:15:59] Council Member Vargas?

[5:16:00] Yes.

[5:16:00] Council Member Ransom?

[5:16:01] Yes.

[5:16:02] Member Tim Young?

[5:16:03] Yes.

[5:16:03] And Mayor Rickman?

[5:16:04] Yes.

[5:16:05] Thank you, everybody.

[5:16:06] Good night.

Regular Meeting

Transcript