[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:00] 24, 2025, at 6 p.m. at City Hall. May I have a roll call? Council, agency authority, members,
[0:05] doctin, Richie, Silva, Fremile, Quiley, vice mayor, vice chair, Chapman, mayor, chair
[0:12] carp. Here. And there was a notice that there would be a remote by council member Silva,
[0:19] but he is here tonight. So we're going to have to go through that process. So with that, if
[0:26] If you're able, please rise for a moment of silence.
[0:29] Fallen by the pledge.
[0:30] This
[0:43] is a pledge.
[0:44] Yes.
[0:45] Ready begin.
[0:46] I pledge that you can choose to rely over the United States
[0:50] and America into the revolving for which it stands.
[0:54] One nation under God, indivisible,
[0:57] with liberty and justice for our own.
[1:07] Do we have any changes to tonight's agenda?
[1:10] Yes, Mayor.
[1:11] The one change we do have is that we are pulling
[1:12] the closed session item.
[1:14] Okay, so other than a closed session everything remains do I have a motion motion a second all in favor. Alright, so next we will move on to the consent calendar. There's items A through I any member of the council or the public wishing to pull an item.
[1:53] We have a presentation tonight so we're not going into the consent calendar just yet.
[1:57] It's parks and recreation month and there is a proclamation presentation but with us tonight there is our public works director Bruce Mulder and a record manager Elizabeth Cressante.
[2:08] I believe you're in the in the house and you have a short presentation I do believe.
[2:14] All right,
[2:20] you're thinking about that.
[2:22] You had other plans for tonight, didn't you?
[2:40] There you go.
[3:16] Mayor, vice mayor, and council members.
[3:19] This is my first time in this chair, so I'm excited to be here.
[3:23] So I'm Bruce Molder, your director of parks and recreation.
[3:26] And with me is Elizabeth Kursante, a recreation manager.
[3:31] So we are once again here to celebrate July as National Parks and
[3:36] Recreation Month.
[3:37] In addition, as recognized by California Parks and
[3:46] So last year, staff provided you with fairly robust overview of our department and all the things we do.
[3:53] This year, we'd like to take this opportunity to dig a little deeper into some of the fire-reaching impacts Parks and Recreation has on our community and on our local economy.
[4:03] So,
[4:07] we employ 26 full-time staff and over 200 part-time staff to provide programs and events for Vacaville's growing community while we're 100,000 residents.
[4:18] In addition, because we sit halfway between Sacramento and the Bay Area, we also draw people in from all those other areas.
[4:28] Parks and Recreation is about fostering inclusion while engaging and creating a sense of community so we welcome people from all over and all walks of life.
[4:42] Parks and Recreation is a core component of the city's strategic plan.
[4:46] Specifically, goal number three and goalsh enhanced back of those quality of life and promote community engagement and increase equity and inclusion.
[4:56] In a research report published by the Trust for Public Land in 2024, positive correlations
[5:02] were drawn between cities who invested in more parks, trails, and open space.
[5:08] These cities' experience
[5:18] errates for both residential and commercial real estate.
[5:22] The report illustrated that investigative
[5:27] cycle.
[5:28] High quality parks and recreation places attract workers, which attract employers, which
[5:34] which in turn attract more investments and jobs.
[5:38] That parks
[5:48] and recreation promotes community by creating collective spaces for neighborhood
[5:53] gatherings, cultural celebrations and interactions with other neighbors, and it promotes
[6:06] parks
[6:07] and recreation integral to the city's strategic plan.
[6:10] It also has a positive impact on the local economy, according to an app
[6:31] operations and capital
[6:32] spending.
[6:34] So, using this report format, we estimate that Vacaville's Parks and Recreation Department generates over 18 million in economic activity.
[6:43] This underscores that Parks and Recreation is essential to the bite.
[6:51] Parks and Open Space are at the heart of Parks and Recreation.
[6:54] According to a
[6:58] 78%
[7:02] who reside on the West Coast live within a walking distance to a park or recreation facility.
[7:07] Additionally, 86% of the same respondents said that proximity of a parking recreation facility is highly desirable when choosing where to live.
[7:17] The study also found that residents living near a park are more likely to use active means of traveling to a parker recreation facility.
[7:29] So these statistics reinforce that parks and recreation supports the city's strategic plan and efforts to make vacability highly desirable place to live.
[7:38] Our newest park space is phase two of the
[7:46] city also completed work on Nashimesto, Cordero's Park, and Lagoon Valley, archery range and dog parks.
[7:54] Additionally, construction projects are underway,
[7:59] trowel,
[8:04] and I'll now turn it over to Elizabeth who will highlight some of our department operations that lead to a lot of these endeavors.
[8:09] Thank you, Bruce.
[8:12] Our three main community centers listed here, primarily support department offered programs
[8:17] and accommodate external rentals.
[8:20] Three Oaks pictured at the bottom and set up for an event quite lovely I might add, was
[8:26] built in 1973 and retains all of its original aesthetics.
[8:31] As charming as it is, we are continually challenged with modernizing its infrastructure to support current needs.
[8:38] One project in the works is an aesthetic upgrade to the kitchen.
[8:43] The current layout, appliances, and storage are outdated and not desirable for rentals.
[8:49] You lattice, the largest rental space we have, boasted 372 rentals for this fiscal year,
[8:56] with just over 33,000 people coming through the doors.
[9:00] That is about one third of vacables existing population.
[9:05] Also pictured here are the waterslides out Graham Aquatic Center, and while these evoke
[9:10] a sense of fun and excitement, what we want to emphasize is that the pool also offers
[9:16] essential services. Each year, hundreds of children are learning how to swim, which is an indispensable
[9:23] life skill. In addition, we are offering swim lessons for adults as well. Most recently, we
[9:30] We had several participants who shared the experience a traumatic event in their childhood
[9:35] that caused them to be afraid of the water.
[9:39] Their courage in participating in our program has afforded them the ability to now enjoy
[9:45] the water with their children and their grandchildren, with confidence and not paralyzing fear.
[9:51] We also teach CPR, first aid, and lifeguard skills that train individuals, life saving techniques
[9:58] necessary to work both in and out of the water.
[10:02] Many of the staff we employ get into aquatics
[10:05] as an introduction to the medical field
[10:08] of nursing, being a physician or an EMT.
[10:12] So one of the things I want to circle back to
[10:14] with these numbers here on the slide
[10:16] is just imagine the foot traffic,
[10:19] these facilities will get when the population expands
[10:21] by another 20 to 30,000 in the next 10 to 20 years.
[10:25] In an effort to keep up with this anticipated growth in our community, the department continues
[10:34] to build, create, and upgrade parks and facilities.
[10:38] Additional facility improvements that have occurred to promote safety and security are
[10:42] the replacement and upgrades of security cameras at both three Oaks and the Graham Aquatic
[10:48] Center, which we hope to eventually do at all of the community centers.
[10:52] And on the horizon for this year is the installation of bulletproof glass at the Georgie Duke Sports Center front counter.
[11:00] That is to streamline it with all of our other public buildings that already have it.
[11:06] We also plan to purchase and install upgraded AV equipment at ULATIS Community Center,
[11:12] which will enhance the quality of city sponsored events, meetings as well as external facility rentals.
[11:20] The much-anticipated centennial by-park is now receiving literal loads of dirt through
[11:26] the innovative contract with Landify, a project that has already saved the city quite
[11:32] a bit of money in its early stages.
[11:34] This past year, Vacaville performing arts theater invested in a new and improved stage floor
[11:40] that is more durable than the last.
[11:42] It will now no longer require theater staff to block out potential rental dates for
[11:49] annual maintenance and painting.
[11:53] Here we have listed some of our innovations and successes for the last year.
[11:58] Program registration came in at almost 28,000, which is an 8.6% increase from the previous
[12:05] year.
[12:06] And our participant wait lists were at 4,300, which is over 55% increase from previous
[12:13] year. This number really underlines how our existing inventory of facilities and programming
[12:20] spaces hardly supports the existing population, let alone what's to come. Many of the programs
[12:26] and activities we offer are for at-risk populations. Active aging, adaptive recreation, teens, community
[12:35] special events all offer programs and membership models that are free or low cost in an effort
[12:42] to ensure the community has equitable access.
[12:45] This year, we received a digital literacy grant
[12:49] that is allowing us to offer free technology classes
[12:52] at McBride as well as have the seniors receive
[12:56] a free device upon completion of the program.
[12:59] Seniors are learning modern technology
[13:01] designed to keep them connected to loved ones
[13:04] and friends to combat the social isolation
[13:07] this demographic often experiences.
[13:10] staff are also partnering with Solano County Office of Education to offer life skills courses to both the teens and adaptive recreation populations.
[13:20] Participants are learning how to create resumes, they are learning how to balance a modern day checkbook, and they are also learning how to practice cyber security safety and much more.
[13:33] We continue to offer scholarships for qualifying families so they can take part in our programs and essential services.
[13:41] This year we awarded 257 scholarships, which equates to the total of $150,000.
[13:49] The full amount of the scholarships was given out.
[13:53] And we so appreciate that city administration and council see the value in this continuing to offer this resource as we move into the next fiscal year.
[14:02] We
[14:06] know council and many of the folks at home are aware of the wide range of events we do.
[14:10] Two of our proudest accomplishments are the continued execution of Mary-May on Maine,
[14:16] our largest community event, and VacaCon, which we won the award of excellence for from
[14:21] California Parks and Recreation Society.
[14:24] Both events bring out close to 10,000 attendees because they create a safe and fun environment
[14:30] for attendees to gather and celebrate.
[14:33] As
[14:36] our department dives deeper into the public art movement, we have gained even more momentum
[14:42] this year with the collaboration and installation of the Labyrinthine Heart downtown, which was
[14:48] donated by Genentech, as well as visit Vacaville's cows on parade.
[14:53] The Vacaville Arts and Culture Master Plan has received high praise from those who reviewed
[14:59] G'day g'day g'day g'day g'day g'day g'day.
[15:00] We look forward to your input as well as we anticipate the start of future projects outlined in this plan, such as utility box art and activating some of our more public spaces and seeking out collaborations with local businesses and the school district.
[15:20] In our line of work, our motto is creating community. So the more interaction and participation we have, the better. There are numerous ways that folks can at home can support parts and recreation.
[15:31] participation, participating in our offerings, volunteering at an event, quoting a sports
[15:38] team, interacting with us on social media, people can share their photos, and tag us,
[15:45] and obviously give us feedback on their experiences so that we can continue on our growth and improvement.
[15:53] Our department email is here, so jot it down or snap a pic if you're at home.
[15:58] It is important for us to know what the community wants.
[16:02] And you can advocate for what you'd like to see by watching or participating in public
[16:07] meetings like the Parks and Recreation Commission or here at City Council.
[16:11] You can always help by simply spreading the word about what we do.
[16:17] For 40 years, the United States has celebrated Parks and Recreation Month in July to recognize
[16:23] the meaningful and lasting impact this field has on the vitality of community and economic
[16:29] benefit. July 18th is specifically devoted to the people behind the work. Nationwide, there are
[16:36] more than 160,000 full-time park and recreation and hundreds of, excuse me, park recreation professionals
[16:44] and hundreds of thousands of part-time and seasonal workers and volunteers who maintain our counties,
[16:52] local, state and community parks. And as a reminder here in our own department, we have just 26 full-time
[16:58] staff and approximately 200 part-time staff.
[17:02] And how can you celebrate with us?
[17:04] Attend an activity or an event.
[17:06] Visit one of the many parks, recreation areas, or facilities we have to offer in Vacaville.
[17:12] Not just in July but throughout the year.
[17:14] Our programs and services help cultivate lifelong friendships, memories, and family bond.
[17:21] In a nutshell, parks and recreation is for everyone.
[17:24] We are here for you.
[17:26] And that concludes our presentation, so thank you very much for this opportunity to present to you.
[17:34] Thank you to both of you and really we do appreciate you joining the City of
[17:40] Accadil and bringing all your experience. But as you know, you joined a team and I don't know of any other
[17:46] department that has as much of the part-time staff trying to manage all the activities and there's
[17:52] there's something in it for everyone.
[17:54] So, in appreciation and recognition for what the parks
[17:58] and rec do for our city, it's also a lot easier
[18:03] that's no longer community services like it was years ago.
[18:06] What's that?
[18:06] It's parks and rec.
[18:08] So, it's my honor to read this proclamation,
[18:12] whereas California is fortunate to have a variety of park systems
[18:15] that provide countless recreational opportunities
[18:18] for residents and visitors alike.
[18:20] And whereas parks help to preserve and protect the natural and cultural resources of California
[18:26] and offer pleasant surroundings for leisure activities, relaxation and recreation.
[18:32] In safe parks and recreation programs, help prevent social programs, offer positive
[18:36] alternatives for youth, contribute to good health, enhance the desirability of locations
[18:42] for new business and families, stimulate tourism revenues, and generally provide an overall
[18:49] improve quality of life and whereas thousands of
[18:52] vacuable children adults and seniors benefit from the wide range of services,
[18:57] facilities and programs provided by the vacuable parks and
[19:00] recreation department and the city of vacuable recognizes and honors the
[19:05] vital contributions that the vacuable community services commission, employees and
[19:10] volunteers make each and every day to ensure that vacuables, parks and recreation
[19:15] programs and facilities are well maintained, and are a refuge where residents can relax,
[19:22] connect with family and friends, and reduce stress in their daily lives.
[19:26] So now, therefore, it will be resolved that I, John Carly, mayor of the City of Vacuvel
[19:30] and on behalf of the Vacuvel City Council, do hereby proclaim July 2025, Parks and Recreation
[19:36] Month in the City of Vacuvel and urge residents to enjoy and recognize the social, physical,
[19:42] mental and economic environmental and community benefits derived from our parks and recreation facilities, so thank you and congratulations.
[19:51] Thank you.
[20:07] I think the only ask is probably when we're doing park renovations if there ever was a way to do it in the winter time, right?
[20:15] Because summer rolls around and we're rehabbing two of our parks and we have heard a lot back but I'm hopeful that when the construction is done our residents will even further appreciate
[20:26] the long awaited improvements that will be coming and that will be a benefit for our whole community.
[20:31] So thank you.
[20:33] All right, now we'll go ahead and move on to the consent calendar.
[20:36] There's items A through I, any member of the council or the public wishing to pull an item.
[20:44] Seeing them, I'll go ahead and ask for a motion.
[20:48] Motion in a second, all in favor?
[20:50] Aye.
[20:50] Opposed?
[20:52] All right, we're going to go ahead and move on to business from the floor.
[20:56] This is an opportunity for any member of the public to address the council on any item
[21:01] that's not on tonight's agenda that's within our jurisdiction.
[21:06] And please come forward.
[21:11] Thank you, Mayor Carly.
[21:13] I'm extending my appreciation for your very professional and skillful leadership.
[21:19] I know it kind of sounds like I'm blowing smoke here, but you've proven yourself a very
[21:24] We were very, very much appreciated and also that of Councilman Stockton and Freemow.
[21:33] Many of us that talk, it's not lost upon us that the staff spend hundreds of hours
[21:39] addressing issues and of course the council tens to hundreds of hours on issues and then
[21:47] we come up from the gallery and you very patiently listen to our comments which don't
[21:54] I don't have the benefit of the depth that you've put in to each subject and appreciate your patients very much and I encourage the city to continue the way you're leading it right now.
[22:05] Thank you, sir.
[22:06] Thank you.
[22:12] Good evening.
[22:13] Good evening.
[22:17] Yeah, echoing the previous speaker, I too would like to thank members of the council for the amount of time that you spend with a lot of these issues that, like I say,
[22:27] We come up and talk about them and haven't necessarily seen as much as you have.
[22:33] However, let's go to another subject.
[22:37] I know that it hasn't been in the news a lot recently, but
[22:42] something that affects Vacaville very much is California forever,
[22:47] whether we like it or not.
[22:48] California forever is like that rat that's hiding out in your house, it's watching us at all times.
[22:55] back in July of last year, the county staff did a study that showed what the damage
[23:03] California would have to the economics of Solano County and to the cities of the county.
[23:13] California forever never disputed that study. Instead, they pulled their initiative from
[23:19] the ballot immediately after it came out and they went down to ground for a while.
[23:29] In recent months, California forever began to claim out of the blue that they were going
[23:35] to build a shipyard in Collinsville, and it was commented many times how California forever
[23:41] seems to change whatever they intended to do.
[23:44] First, they were going to be the high tech city with high tech industry, and then there
[23:50] were going to be a lagoon with swimming even though we've got all kind of water problems.
[23:55] And now, they're going to be a shipyard.
[23:59] Well, I know a little bit about shipyards, nothing could be further from the truth.
[24:04] Going to the, once again, the county study about the viability of a shipyard in Collinsville,
[24:10] It would cost extreme amounts of money, take many years, and it just isn't going to happen.
[24:18] The SHIPS Act that everyone was talking about would only provide $250 million a year.
[24:25] And it's designed to stimulate existing SHIP builders or SHIP yards.
[24:31] It is not going to provide any sort of contracts that would, in any way,
[24:36] shape or form make it viable to build a shipyard out where there is nothing right now.
[24:43] If any ships at money comes to Solano County, it would end up going, we hope, to
[24:51] Mara Island, because Mara Landrada Company is, in fact, a shipyard news flash.
[24:58] Anyone who says Solano County shipyard, they mean Mara Island.
[25:02] There's nothing ever going to be at Collinsville.
[25:04] So the thing with California forever is that there are nothing more in the words of former Senator
[25:17] Bill Dodd, nothing more than a real estate swindle.
[25:22] It's all it is.
[25:23] They're going to say whatever they got to say.
[25:26] I would like to leave copies of this with the clerk.
[25:30] It's synopsis of what the county staff said about what it would cost us.
[25:36] Yeah, thank you.
[25:37] If you just leave that with our staff.
[25:45] Good evening.
[25:46] Good evening.
[25:47] My name is Dylan Nielsen.
[25:49] 26 years old, been a resident of my entire life here in backville.
[25:52] I live over on Louisiana right around this corner right here.
[25:56] So on May 5th, around 1030 in the evening, my fiance and I were in bed getting ready to fall asleep and heard a huge crash.
[26:03] I heard people outside, I went out to investigate, and a huge, I wouldn't even call it a branch.
[26:08] It's the size of a tree that came down nearly missing our home.
[26:14] And took out our front fence along the way with it narrowly striking two people in their dog.
[26:21] If this projectile was 45 degrees to the right, we would be in a whole different ballgame on where we're at right now.
[26:29] Now, it was to the point where a neighbor around the corner had heard it from his backyard
[26:35] and came rushing around.
[26:38] Good news is, back to real great public works response the next day came out to care
[26:43] for us, let us know the steps to take for myself and for my landlord Bob right here.
[26:49] This tree has, you know, dams of sidewalk, public works did a great job putting in some
[26:54] asphalt fixing in some of the cracks. The sidewalk is even bowed. This tree is doing, you know,
[27:00] damage all over the place.
[27:04] Now, we're getting a response, calling it an act of God. We're almost
[27:07] two months post past this. Now, it's being called an act of God and now there's nothing they can do
[27:14] about it. Where the city is doing for us, per se. After putting in the claims, taking the proper
[27:19] steps being very patient. So this is why we're here today. I would love for all of you guys to put
[27:25] yourself in our shoes and just imagine, you know, if this was your home or if it was your vehicle
[27:32] and AAA or Geico or someone looked at you in the face until you was an act of God and then now you're
[27:38] stuck with the mess. We've been very patient and I hope I'm not coming off, you know, in a very rude
[27:44] manner. I just want to bring it to light as to what's happening now. Again, we've been
[27:49] very patient. There's jagged edges left over. We're trying not to touch the crime scene,
[27:53] leaving it for everybody that way they can see. If we move something, we don't want to be at fault
[27:59] for anything, but we've been very patient. And I hope maybe something we can take away from this is,
[28:06] what can we do to help? Because being called an act of God right now is, I wouldn't call it ridiculous,
[28:11] But it's, you know, feels like a slap in the face for myself and my landlord with, we felt like we've been very patient, very kind, you know, not willing, you know.
[28:21] Come pounding on the door, but now we kind of feel like we need to bring it to light for you guys to hear and see.
[28:27] That's all the time I have.
[28:28] That's fine. Are you saying that's the trees, the city's tree, or?
[28:34] It was told to us that it was a city's tree, it goes street, dirt tree, then sidewalk, then home.
[28:40] If you wouldn't mind if you could leave your contact information so that one of us will be able to follow up with you.
[28:46] Absolutely, I've got plenty of photos and stuff as well to pass along.
[28:50] That would be great if you could do that.
[28:52] Awesome. I appreciate the time. Thank you Mayor. Thank you everybody.
[28:55] Hold on one second, sir.
[28:57] Are you going to speak on the same issue?
[28:59] I'm going to talk about the claim and the safety matter of that tree.
[29:04] Okay.
[29:05] Are you repeating what the gentleman just said?
[29:08] Okay.
[29:08] Come forward and then I'll get the gentleman who's waiting in the back.
[29:12] I have a property on 119, La Zina.
[29:15] Excuse me.
[29:16] Thank you Mayor, City Council for hearing us tonight and I'd like to see in everything
[29:22] you had there on the Park and Rex.
[29:24] but I've been a resident of a long time in Bakuil 40 years and we have this property over on
[29:31] Laxina my wife really likes that property and we fell in love with it and bought it maybe a
[29:36] little more than what we should have paid but my son lived there for years and he's a member of the
[29:44] police force here in Bakuil and my daughter and son or my other daughter lives here also but that
[29:52] That day they sent me down to do the claim, I filed the claim and they sent me that this
[30:00] This adjuster was going to come out and meet with me, but I got a phone call from her, and she told me to go out and get some estimates for repair. And, you know, this project in itself. And I tried some fence people. It's kind of ornamental fence, and they really didn't want to do anything with it. I got sick for about a week. And then we had, she called back and said,
[30:30] they denied my claim, I didn't even get any estimates into her and I'd like to open this back up to try to resolve this issue, it is a city tree, there's a safety issue there, when it's very strong, these widow makers, it's very dangerous for cars, people, houses, everything, I think you should have your city arborist go out and check that tree out before a real damage happens to you.
[31:00] Thank you very much for hearing this, but I'd like to hear from this claim adjuster that the City Attorney had me notified and I'd like to open this claim back up and make it more reasonable.
[31:16] Do you have any, is it City Tree?
[31:17] Sir, do you have any information or I'm just directed to our City Attorney, we'll just follow up and look into this claim.
[31:24] Thank you very much.
[31:25] Thank you.
[31:29] Sir, thank you for waiting patiently.
[31:34] My name is Keith Lamont.
[31:35] I am a resident in Vacaville.
[31:37] Thank you, Mayor.
[31:38] Thank you, Vice Mayor.
[31:40] It was a pleasure talking to you
[31:41] and pride the other day.
[31:43] I just want to follow up and say,
[31:45] liberty and justice for all.
[31:47] I'm very grateful for the,
[31:48] as a gay man and a resident of Vacaville.
[31:51] I'm very grateful for the decision that was made.
[31:58] There's been a couple of sessions here
[32:00] where I've heard a lot of homophobia, transphobia, some bigotry, even reading the post for pride
[32:09] on social media. A lot of hateful comments and I'm grateful to say, you know, liberty and
[32:15] justice for all. The Pride Festival was an amazing day of queer parents celebrating with their
[32:25] children. Nobody was being indoctrinated. Children's genders weren't being reassigned. It was nothing,
[32:33] but love, effectiveness, and purposeful advocacy. So I just want to thank the City of Acoville
[32:40] for the valiant efforts and staying late that night to make this decision. And I'll continue to be
[32:48] a voice for vulnerable communities. And I'm grateful to be an advocate in the City of Acoville. So thank
[32:55] Thank you very much.
[32:56] Thank you.
[33:00] Seeing no one else, I'm going to go ahead and close business
[33:02] from the floor.
[33:03] And we will move on to city manager.
[33:06] I think we're going to step into our first public hearing.
[33:09] Thank you, Mayor.
[33:10] Members of the council, this first public hearing
[33:12] is a resolution approving the landscaping,
[33:15] landscaping lighting maintenance assessment districts
[33:17] for fiscal year 2025, 26.
[33:20] We have Brian McLean, your public works manager,
[33:22] and public works director, get it wrong all the way
[33:26] tonight and Jacob Allred, your Assistant Director of Public Works.
[33:30] Thank you, George Ann.
[33:31] I had two jobs this morning or this evening already.
[33:35] I like the parks and director job, though, so maybe we'll switch.
[33:39] Tonight's presentation will be conducted by my right hand in maintenance.
[33:43] Jacob Allred, Assistant Director of Maintenance.
[33:50] Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Vice Mayor and members of the council.
[33:53] As Director McLean explained tonight, we are holding the public hearing for
[33:58] for the annual landscape and lighting assessment district levy.
[34:03] So the city levy is in collect special assessments on an annual basis for neighborhood parks,
[34:08] street landscape areas, drainage and detention basins, open space, and street lighting.
[34:14] And these special assessments are necessary in order to maintain, operate, and service these particular improvements.
[34:31] So special assessments are established under the Landscape and
[34:40] The first step was completed on February 25th where council approved a resolution directing the preparation of the annual engineers report.
[34:48] Step 2 was completed on May 27th when the council granted preliminary approval of the engineers report and set the public hearing for the June 10th council meeting.
[34:58] That item was subsequently duly continued to tonight's meeting and here we are.
[35:02] So this year's Engineer's Report details 139 landscape and lighting districts.
[35:10] The Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 sets a maximum allowable assessment annually of 3% increase.
[35:18] And with that said, the summary of the Engineer's Report is as follows.
[35:24] 98 district levies will be increased, nine district levies will remain unchanged.
[35:29] 16 district levies will be decreased, and another 16 district levies will not be assessed because the improvements in those districts have not been completed or are not anticipated to be completed in this fiscal year.
[35:41] So this item is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act or SEQUA.
[35:47] In fiscal year 2526, the assessment total is approximately $5.17 million.
[35:53] dollars. The general fund subsidy total is approximately $2.1 million and that's made
[35:58] up to two parts. The first part is a 10% neighborhood part district general city-wide
[36:03] use contribution which is approximately $488,000. And the second part is the district funding
[36:11] gap or the shortfall of approximately $1.6 million which continues to be covered by the general
[36:16] fund. The strategic goals associated with this are initiative 2b to manage impacts from growth
[36:23] and initiative for A to ensure fiscal sustainability.
[36:27] And staff's recommendation is by a simple motion to adopt the subject amended resolution.
[36:32] That completes my presentation and Director Brian McLean and I are here to answer any of your questions.
[36:38] Thank you.
[36:38] Thank you.
[36:39] Council Member Stockton.
[36:40] Yes, thank you for the presentation.
[36:42] How many square miles of the city are not covered by a lighting and landscaping district?
[36:46] I
[36:49] couldn't tell you on the mileage, but I could in terms of overall area, about 43% are covered under an LLMD, so the balance of the 57% not being an LLMD.
[37:05] Okay, and that's what the $2 million is for us to subsidize.
[37:08] The 60% that don't have a lighting and landscaping district.
[37:12] to provide the subsidy for the shortfall of the various districts within 43% and there's not all of them not all the districts in particular are in shortfall there's a handful.
[37:24] Typically the older districts which were formed at the very beginning in the 70s and early 80s those are the ones that are typically the ones that have the shortfall.
[37:35] Okay, and there's still being, those areas are still being maintained, though, frequently in the gap.
[37:41] Absolutely.
[37:42] Thank you.
[37:45] My only question really is, is long-term, the deficit is 2.1 million, there's going to have to be another solution.
[37:53] So I'm sure we'll come back in a later time with, you know, how we address that.
[37:57] In the meantime, this meets the objective that will receive the report so that we can move forward.
[38:01] We exactly remember that absolutely concur with you and staff has been continuing to keep in touch with our consultant on this.
[38:10] As you know, back in 2023, we did start a citywide effort that did provide some information related to where potential prop 218 would go on a citywide LMD.
[38:24] that was not well received by the public so it is something that the
[38:28] consultant has told us that we should continue to monitor the macro economic
[38:33] conditions
[38:37] various options along the way. And for example Alamo the Alamo Park
[38:42] that one is one that's subsidized it is in this one that's heavily used by a lot of
[38:48] people around the city. So the local taxpayers that are part of that are meeting
[38:54] the need, but the majority of the city gets the benefit.
[38:57] I think maybe this is the conversation we're going to have to have in the future.
[39:02] I know that's rhetorical, I answer, but Councilmember Stockton?
[39:05] Yes.
[39:05] I was just wondering, how do you prioritize which areas are going to get services at based
[39:11] upon who's contributing, or is it based upon need, or how are you figuring that out?
[39:16] So we're not prioritizing in that manner.
[39:19] We are putting all the effort in across all of the various districts, regardless.
[39:25] So there is no set amount, what happens is the particular budget for a shortfall district
[39:33] goes in the rent and it becomes an issue on the budget line in which the assistance
[39:40] director here, Jacob Aldrin has just gone through, become the shortfall item and so that's
[39:45] part of that two million dollars, 2.1 million dollars in the shortfall.
[39:49] No park is left out and said background media is left out, make sure that the park staff are putting everything into it and providing that highest level of service across all the districts.
[40:04] And if just due to the deficit spending, if this was an area that we were unable to supplement in the future, would that come back to council to make determinations on how that money is spent and what it goes toward?
[40:16] or would staff make that decision?
[40:20] That would be a city council decision, absolutely.
[40:23] Thank you.
[40:25] Council Member Fremont.
[40:27] Yes.
[40:27] Thank you.
[40:28] So in my notes, I was reading and it says, it's important to note that many of the city's
[40:35] districts continue to face funding challenges, and then I'm just going to cut it.
[40:39] It says, over time, they've become fiscally imbalanced, and so I just wonder if you
[40:46] If you could just take a guess at it, is that as a result of City Council's not acting on this in the past being kicked down the road or is it just, you know, I mean, can we continue to take out of our general fund correct to subsidize this to this year $2 million.
[41:03] So, is it a lack of councils taking, you know, responsibility and getting it caught up and figured out where it needs to actually be because the maximum allowable increases 3% of your correct.
[41:18] It's a great question and a primary question that we answered in that 2023 analysis.
[41:26] It really goes back, the cliff notes on this is in 2015, the California Supreme Court
[41:32] came down with a San Juan Capastron ruling related to water rates.
[41:37] There couldn't be a separation of one sector of payers paying X and another sector of
[41:47] rate payers paying why for the same service.
[41:51] Everybody had to pay the same.
[41:52] And so what happened when that ruling came down
[41:56] is the water reason, which the city was picked
[41:59] the city itself, so the parks,
[42:01] through the operating budgets of various parks,
[42:05] the city's rate went up better rate.
[42:10] And so water comes around.
[42:12] So as the water
[42:20] is, that have a smaller
[43:50] councilmember Wiley.
[43:52] Thanks for the information and looking at those charts of all the different things.
[43:56] I mean there's such a wide disparity of the things that people pay and I know it's all based
[44:00] on a certain formula, but it's just really odd and I know the ones that are just going
[44:05] on now are so much more than in the old one.
[44:08] But at the last time we had a study such about CFDs, they talked about that CFDs could be used
[44:13] for LL, it be MDs, do you see that happening possibly in the future or not really?
[44:18] So I actually was surprised to hear about that too, so that is something an option that
[44:25] we're investigating.
[44:26] Okay.
[44:27] And then the second thing just came up because the earlier comments.
[44:32] So in the landscaping districts, trees are an issue, especially when they're so big and
[44:39] then they upheave the sidewalks as well.
[44:42] And so in my district down around South Town today when I was walking, I mean there's redwood
[44:46] trees in the landscaping.
[44:48] So I was still putting great big trees in or are we not putting redwood trees in we're not putting redwood trees
[44:54] Thank you. Thank you. All right. That's it
[44:58] Kalesman, we're stalking
[45:01] Is it safe to say that the majority of the areas that do not have lighting and landscaping also don't have CFDs? I couldn't answer that. I have to research that a little bit for Councilmember. Okay. Is it fair to say that the majority of the new homes being built have both CFDs and lighting and landscaping fees that they pay in perpetuity? On the face of it, yes. Thank you. That's it.
[45:29] As a public hearing, I'm going to go ahead and open up the public for any comments.
[45:44] Good evening, again, Mr. Mayor.
[45:46] I do recall the presentation in 2023, and I expressed my reasons for objecting to a
[45:53] citywide tax that would say take a mellarus or a community service district fee, and then
[46:02] just kind of equal it out all over town to Councilman Wiley pointed out.
[46:08] So my mellarus would go away and then we'd spread it out to people that live on the tree streets or up north or north or
[46:16] where many of us moved because we we wanted an older neighborhood. We didn't want these extra fees being added to it.
[46:31] The fill off my train happens the
[46:38] opposition to this we have a general fund and I guess we
[46:43] What I thought a general fund was is apparently not what it is today, but definition has changed
[46:53] from denotative to a new connotative definition to mean, well, that's money that we don't use for anything in the city.
[47:00] We charge fees for everything in the city, and therefore that general fund is there generally for something else.
[47:06] Maybe it's the walking around money that counts men have for their districts, I don't know.
[47:11] But this shortfall, my impression, when I look at my property tax, is for city services.
[47:20] That's what it appeared, but if it isn't, then those citizens of town really need to know that the general fund is not for maintaining their city and their neighborhoods, that it's for some other thing that hasn't been defined.
[47:35] So when I hear that, well, we have to make up for a shortfall in lighting and
[47:39] landscape,
[47:42] I'm a little bit confused because we have the community service districts.
[47:47] We have the Melaroo's neighborhoods.
[47:49] Those people bought their property, their house, with the understanding.
[47:54] They'd be paying for lighting and landscape, that's what the whole thing is for.
[47:59] And let me caution you, this is going to be read, also addressed in a very bad bill called SB5.
[48:07] I've read through that, so that man I had to go back and read the Melaroo's,
[48:11] the Williams and ACT, et cetera, I realize this state has gotten itself into a lot of difficulties
[48:18] with some frivolous spending, some ideological spendings, instead of focusing on the responsibilities
[48:25] what local government has. And let me also warn you about SB 5, Mr. Mayor, if you want to maintain
[48:31] local control, you better hope it doesn't pass, because it's going to be another SB 330 where they say
[48:37] to the city, you have anything to say about this.
[48:40] So I'd like you to reconsider that.
[48:42] Very carefully, thank you.
[48:44] Thank you.
[48:49] I'm gonna go ahead and close the public comment
[48:51] on the public hearing.
[48:52] And I'm not sure if you can respond to that,
[48:55] because part of it may not be understood
[48:57] what is an LLMD and how's it formed around the neighborhood?
[49:01] This design to maintain the service beautification
[49:05] of a neighborhood.
[49:08] That's a great summary, Mayor.
[49:10] Through the development process, when a new neighbourhood comes in, part of that requirement
[49:16] that the city has is to either annex into an existing LLMD, allowing a landscape maintenance
[49:23] district, or create a new LLMD.
[49:26] And we've had some of those come to council over the past few years as these new developments
[49:31] come in.
[49:32] The district is formed around those housing units, that particular neighborhood on a new
[49:40] district, and it particularly would have, for example, a neighborhood park.
[49:46] And so the neighborhood park and the lighting, so the landscape medians, all of those get
[49:52] wrapped into that lighting and landscape assessment district.
[49:55] An engineer's report created by a certified engineer in that field goes through a significantly
[50:03] complex calculation to understand what the costs are to maintain those particular facilities.
[50:11] We call them facilities of parks, lighting, landscape, mediums, and a fee is derived.
[50:18] Again, all consistent with that 1972 lighting and landscape assessment district.
[50:22] And that's part of the attachment that is in your packet on this particular item.
[50:27] It's the engineers report.
[50:29] So now you have a district formed.
[50:31] You have people who come in and buy the homes on their tax bill from the county.
[50:38] They pay a levy now.
[50:40] That's part of that representative of that district.
[50:44] Those funds are collectively pulled together into that particular XYZ district.
[50:51] those funds then are utilized by public works maintenance to perform the maintenance of the park, the lighting, the landscape, the contracting out for our landscaped contractor to perform weed abatement, or excuse me, weeding, litterbook, a kind of thing to maintain the particular district.
[51:13] And then that's the every year we come through, we go through the process, the engineer goes through and updates the information based on
[51:20] budget changes, cost of inflation, et cetera, and that's why every year you get to consider this particular item as it comes before you for each district.
[51:31] So each of the districts are paying into to maintain their particular areas.
[51:36] Again, the, just for clarity, the shortfall areas are the older area town.
[51:44] If my opinion is that there is the foresight to look out many, many years, decades into the
[51:52] future to see that you have a hockey stick kind of pattern in terms of CPI versus the
[52:01] cost of doing things, they just diverged, you're just not collecting enough at that 3% at
[52:09] that top, that 3%, every year, to be able to stay ahead of the cost of labor, of materials, of water, et cetera.
[52:19] And so they start diverging, you get this shortfall.
[52:22] The newer districts, they're well set.
[52:24] The engineers have for many, many years now, they have that foresight.
[52:29] So, and we're, again, we're not the only ones who have this problem.
[52:32] City of Fairfield has also gone through tumultuous times related to.
[52:38] their LOMDs, it's not a vacable thing in terms of the shortfall districts and the concerns
[52:46] around them.
[52:47] If I heard you write, the increased cost of water gets rolled into that and those
[52:51] were factored in differently all those years ago.
[52:54] Yes.
[52:55] Right.
[52:56] Because we used to not have to pay the high price because it was our water and now we do.
[53:00] Correct.
[53:01] The state kind of did that to us as well.
[53:03] Yes.
[53:05] Councilmember Stockton.
[53:06] Yes, thank you.
[53:07] For that last explanation, because more than one thing can be true at once, right?
[53:13] So when people do go to buy a new house in a new area, and the affordability is affected by fees like this, but they're making that decision, totally understand just like if there are folks that want to avoid paying these costs, they look for homes in other areas.
[53:27] So thank you for going into that adept. Thank you for the analysis. I'd like to make a motion that we adopt the subject amended resolution request a roll call vote.
[53:37] Second.
[53:39] All right, so motion and I think Richard you second it. I know you did as well. So roll call.
[53:48] Councilmember Stockton. Yes.
[53:51] Councilmember Richie.
[53:52] Yes.
[53:53] Councilmember Silva.
[53:55] Yes.
[53:56] Councilmember Fremont.
[53:57] on some member Wiley? Yes, Mr. Chapman? Yes, Mayor Carly. Yes, and hopefully in the future
[54:04] we'll have a way to solve this because that is against the general fund and it was never intended
[54:10] but we've been subsidizing it for years and it's just an increase to the point where it's no
[54:15] longer a small amount. That's a large amount so thank you. We're going to go ahead and move on
[54:20] to the second public hearing item B. Thank you, Mayor. Members of the council. This next item
[54:25] is a continuation of the public hearing from May 13th to consider adoption of bi-monthly
[54:30] water and sewer rate adjustments proposed in accordance with California State Proposition
[54:34] to 18 requirements. We have Justin Cole, your Director of Utilities, Larissa Morris,
[54:40] and management analysts, and our consultant from Will Dan here to present the item.
[54:50] Good evening again. Good evening Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members. We have a updated presentation
[54:57] and some options associated with that based on some of the feedback and questions that we got at the last meeting.
[55:03] So I'll have our project manager for utilities to lure some more us kick this off for us.
[55:12] Good evening mayor, vice mayor, council members.
[55:15] Our goal tonight is to provide additional information and clarification on the proposed water and sewer study, our rate adjustments.
[55:25] We'll begin by reviewing some history and background of the water and sewer funds.
[55:33] Current fiscal year expenses for the water fund were projected at $25.8 million.
[55:39] On-going operation and maintenance expenses make up 32% of this total, while capital improvement
[55:45] project transfers make up just 2%.
[55:48] Project funding was reduced by over 70% fiscal year to manage costs and balance the budget.
[55:54] As fiscal year 25 revenues were projected at 24.5 million, resulting in an anticipated deficit of 1.3 million.
[56:04] The Water Fund has previously experienced similar funding challenges forcing the department to manage expenses by scaling back or delaying necessary infrastructure projects.
[56:16] Dilling funding of necessary projects has resulted in significant system replacement needs due to aging pipeline and other infrastructure.
[56:24] Each year, that planned replacements are delayed, reduces the reliability of the system,
[56:29] resulting in increased breaks and outages.
[56:32] This map illustrates pipeline replacement need showing water lines in the city by installation date.
[56:38] Focusing on the oldest sections of the system, which require replacement most urgently,
[56:43] and are most likely to require emergency repair, the red lines represent water lines installed prior to 1955,
[56:50] and the orange represents water lines installed between 1955 and 1975.
[56:56] These two segments total over 370, 2,000 feet of pipe.
[57:03] Most of these older lines have a life expectancy of 70 to 105 years.
[57:08] And if we were to replace all of these lines today with eight inch lines that are currently
[57:12] required by city standards. It would cost approximately $170 million. This highlights the need
[57:21] for adequate planning and funding to address these replacements which are crucial for system
[57:26] reliability. An additional benefit to replacing aiding pipeline is the higher capacity required
[57:33] to meet current city standards, increases flow for fire protection, which results in increased
[57:39] safety for the community.
[57:44] This slide shows historical and projected water capital improvement
[57:47] or CIP transfers with projected CIP needs. The black columns represent historical water
[57:54] CIP transfers. The blue column represents CIP transfers under the proposed scenario 1 and
[58:01] the green represents CIP transfers under the proposed scenario 2. The red trend line shows
[58:10] Those 1% of replacement costs for underground assets on a 100 year replacement schedule,
[58:15] assuming a 3% future inflation rate.
[58:19] The upper-dash yellow trend line shows 2% of replacement costs for
[58:24] vertical assets on a 50 year replacement schedule in addition to the replacement costs for the underground assets.
[58:32] As you can see on the left side of the graph, system maintenance had been deferred for
[58:36] over 10 years to balance the budget, and the 2% allocated for the current fiscal year transfers
[58:42] falls significantly short of the need. At a minimum, it's recommended to budget 1% of replacement
[58:49] costs per year. These targets were developed based on current dollars and retroactively calculated
[58:54] for prior years based on historical inflation.
[59:01] As shown, inflation during and after the pandemic
[59:04] accelerated costs, and most utilities deferred rate increases during these years because of the difficult time.
[59:12] The proposed rate options bring the utility to a more sustainable path, but it doesn't make up for previous
[59:19] deferments.
[59:22] This chart takes a closer look at the proposed water CIP transfers during the rate study period.
[59:28] Annual rehab or replacement projects are necessary for proper system maintenance and reliability.
[59:33] This trend line is a good minimum budget target for the department.
[59:38] As it represents 1% of replacement costs for existing underground assets based on the 100 year replacement schedule with a 3% future inflation rate.
[59:49] As mentioned, the upper line represents projections if the department were to target budgeting replacements of vertical assets on a 50 year replacement cycle.
[59:58] in addition to
[1:00:00] Let's move to the underground assets. Because CIP transfers are not projected to reach this level, we could expect that this gap creates the need to seek financing for future pump station, treatment plant and tank replacement expenses.
[1:00:18] My apologies.
[1:00:22] Targeting CIP transfers. Oh my goodness.
[1:00:29] Sorry.
[1:00:31] Targeting CIP transfers between these two projected trend lines allows the department
[1:00:36] to be able to replace underground assets on a regular basis, and be able to obtain financing in the future for facility rehab and replacements.
[1:00:47] Well, Chrome 6 funding is front loaded scenario one.
[1:00:51] Under scenario two, the city could still meet compliance, although it is lesser.
[1:01:00] So Chrome 6, although this is not the only factor, Chrome 6 compliance contributes to the need for a significant initial increase.
[1:01:07] and there are potentially serious consequences that come with not having an approved compliance plan.
[1:01:13] Such as reduction in available water supply, state intervention, fines, risk of legal action,
[1:01:20] that has potential to be much more costly than the state action, and
[1:01:26] challenges obtaining financing and grant funding.
[1:01:29] Staff are actively working on exploring all available solutions, including treatment options at well sites,
[1:01:35] One pilot study for ion exchange has already been completed and we're preparing for an additional pilot for reduction,
[1:01:42] coagulation, filtration, and filtration treatment.
[1:01:45] Well, exploration of which the department is actively working with a consultant on modeling where we can expect to find
[1:01:53] Chrome 6 within the geologic formations, planning for the North Bay Regional Treatment Plant Surface Water Expansion,
[1:02:01] new well construction that avoids Chrome 6, which is what we're planning to do with
[1:02:06] four new well sites, blending of different water sources, and non-potable or industrial
[1:02:12] water expansion to lower system, main system demand.
[1:02:19] This chart shows historical available supply and projected firm capacity.
[1:02:25] The dark blue represents service water and the light blue represents well capacity.
[1:02:30] The yellow trend line here shows historical max state demands from the city and what is
[1:02:36] being projected by west shows engineers based on the general plan.
[1:02:40] Like the number of service connections demand is growing at approximately 2% per year.
[1:02:50] Looking back in history, available supply has decreased due to past deferred maintenance.
[1:02:57] From capacity needs to exceed projected demands.
[1:02:59] The risk of demand exceeding firm capacity is that we'd have a challenge water supply if maintenance issues do occur.
[1:03:08] The proposed rate scenarios front load chrome six related projects and supply related projects are already underway.
[1:03:15] Replacement of supply and additional supply being added is shown on the graph in future years.
[1:03:21] Both ONM and development funds are used for
[1:03:24] replacement of and additional supply which are needed to maintain a reliable water supply.
[1:03:31] Without adequate rate increases, the department will be unable to fund these projects and future supply will become uncertain.
[1:03:42] Moving into the sewer fund, current fiscal year expenses were projected at 39 million.
[1:03:47] Similar to the water fund, ongoing operation and maintenance expenses make up 31% of the total.
[1:03:52] However, capital improvement transfers combined with loan repayment for the previously completed tertiary project
[1:04:00] result in a more significant 20% of the expenses for this fund.
[1:04:05] Although a larger amount of funding is available for sewer projects,
[1:04:10] transfers remain relatively flat to manage expenses and maintain a positive fund balance.
[1:04:18] Sewer is in a better position as there have been more significant previous rate increases to fund major projects,
[1:04:24] such as the easterly plant expansion and the tertiary project as required for regulatory compliance.
[1:04:31] The red trend line again is a target for 1% replacement costs of underground assets on 100 year replacement schedule,
[1:04:39] assuming a 3% future inflation rate.
[1:04:42] And the yellow trend line is a target for 2% replacement costs for lift stations and
[1:04:46] the wastewater treatment plant based on a 50 year replacement schedule in addition to the underground assets.
[1:04:54] The projected CIP expenditures for sewer meets annual rehab and renewal for the sewer collection system.
[1:05:01] And the early increases in project funding are due to lift station rehabilitation.
[1:05:08] Because projections don't exceed the upper target, future years will require financing for
[1:05:13] the wastewater treatment plant and lift station replacements.
[1:05:21] That brings us to current actions taken on the rate study.
[1:05:24] So from mid-2022 through the end of 2024, the department has worked with
[1:05:32] Wilden on the current rate study in the proposed scenarios. This year two
[1:05:36] scenarios were presented at the council meeting on February 25th and
[1:05:40] staff received direction to proceed with the recommended scenario. The final
[1:05:45] rate study report was repaired based on this direction and we were returned on
[1:05:50] in March 11th to present the recommended scenario in detail.
[1:05:54] At this meeting, the report was accepted and the public hearing date was set for May 13th.
[1:05:59] Staff received approval to proceed with the noticing required for Prop 218.
[1:06:04] Notices were mailed on March 24th and community meetings were held in late April and early May.
[1:06:10] On March, on May 13th, the public hearing was open, public comment was received,
[1:06:15] protest sports were received and counted by the city clerk.
[1:06:18] and it was determined that a majority of the protest vote did not exist.
[1:06:23] Counselor requested additional information and continued the public hearing to June 10th.
[1:06:28] And on June 10th, public hearing was continued to this meeting, which brings us here today.
[1:06:34] I will turn it over to Chris Fisher from Muldan to go into a little bit more detail on the analysis.
[1:06:46] Thank you, Laura.
[1:06:46] So Chris Fisher with Muldan, financial services here again this evening.
[1:06:50] And I'm going to go through and again just kind of describe summarize the process we've been through and some of the high points and some of the the key outcomes of the analysis. So we, you know, the primary goal was to take a look at a lot of data gathered a lot of data from the city related to budget, past historical data expenses, fun balances and projections of system, system needs and develop a five year plan.
[1:07:20] to kind of ensure ongoing stability for both of the utilities.
[1:07:24] I wanted to make sure within that, we're providing funding for operations and maintenance and various capital projects.
[1:07:30] There's a kind of went through some of that just a little bit earlier.
[1:07:34] We want to make sure that we're able to provide funding to repay outstanding loans at debt free to the two utilities.
[1:07:40] The water debt will retire pretty quickly, I think next year's the final payment on the semen's loan.
[1:07:45] And then the sewer utility has three SRF loans related to the tertiary project, those will.
[1:07:51] That's pretty significant as Lewis mentioned, that's about $7 million a year in repayment for that debt.
[1:07:57] We want to make sure that we're maintaining reserve funding as best we can.
[1:08:01] And we'll see in the analysis that we did make some trade-offs there to try and limit rate increases as best we could.
[1:08:07] And then ultimately, recommend any rates that are recommended would have to be compliant with Prop 218.
[1:08:14] both in terms of being based on the cost of service,
[1:08:17] as required under Proposition 18,
[1:08:19] and that we adhere to this process
[1:08:21] that we're in now of conducting a public hearing
[1:08:24] and mailing notices that hearing
[1:08:26] and allowing for a protest process.
[1:08:32] So we developed a couple of scenarios.
[1:08:35] You know, as there was a kind of summarized,
[1:08:37] and the previous slide summarizer,
[1:08:39] all of these factors, all of these costs that we wanted to cover,
[1:08:41] and really the overriding factor
[1:08:43] is that rates had not been increased in almost five years
[1:08:47] for water, and even longer, almost 11 years, I think it was for sewer.
[1:08:51] So we wanted to make sure that the scenarios could address all of these capital needs
[1:08:56] that, as was mentioned, have kind of been backlogging a little bit, as well as to address the
[1:09:01] Chrome 6 project.
[1:09:02] So we developed two scenarios for evaluation.
[1:09:04] The first recommended scenario meets all of those needs, the deferred capital projects that
[1:09:11] have been on the books, as well as current project to capital needs, as well as the Chromium
[1:09:16] six projects in the earlier part of the projection period.
[1:09:19] The second scenario defers some of the necessary basic water capital projects and
[1:09:26] defers the chromium six projects a bit, but still meets those and then provides for
[1:09:33] capital or repayment of debt and operating and maintenance costs.
[1:09:37] The sewer fund was not changed in either of these two scenarios at state put.
[1:09:41] So you see under scenario one there, the capital, total capital project list, totaled about $96 million.
[1:09:48] Suror was about $58 million and you see in scenario two, the total capital project list, totaled about $81 million for water.
[1:09:54] So there's about a $14 million reduction in the capital plan and the sewer remained the same.
[1:10:04] So to kind of provide a little bit of historical context here is where the city of Vacaville's rates reside currently.
[1:10:12] You see all the way over there on the left, the green bar representing back of bill, is the second lowest of all of the rates that we looked at for all of those cities that you see there.
[1:10:22] Davis all the way up to Petalova, Sonoma, Santa Rosa.
[1:10:26] And again, that's partially a factor of rates not having been increased in a while.
[1:10:31] And this does represent a bill for an average residential customer.
[1:10:35] of this is a bi-monthly amount, 2,400 cubic feet of water over a bi-monthly billing period.
[1:10:40] And that $2,400 was arrived up by looking at actual city data and doing the analysis
[1:10:46] to figure out what an average residential customer uses in terms of their metered water
[1:10:51] use.
[1:10:52] The next couple slides provide a little bit of history on financial performance.
[1:10:59] Larissa touched on this a bit as well.
[1:11:00] the past couple of years, both utilities have had to manage their costs on reduced revenue,
[1:11:06] and you see, so this is water, the blue bars represent the revenues, and the red bars represent
[1:11:12] the expenses. So you see in 21-22 fiscal years, things looked okay, the revenues were more than
[1:11:18] expenses, and so the black line representing the reserves as a percentage of expenses grew.
[1:11:24] And then starting in year three, the trend flipped, and expenses now are outpacing
[1:11:30] The revenues and that continues, it's estimated to continue in fiscal year 24 and 25 and now you see that reserves as a percentage of expenses now declining to just 9% in the fifth year.
[1:11:41] So we'll go to take a look at sewer and you'll see pretty much the same trend.
[1:11:46] First two years revenues were positive in terms of other terms of expenses and the reserves were growing.
[1:11:53] and then in year three, the trend reversed, and now the expenses are outpacing revenues and the reserve balances declining.
[1:12:01] So very similar picture, which as Larissa mentioned requires some budgeting and some decisions are making on an annual basis to make sure that the revenues are used on a priority basis for the best uses.
[1:12:18] So, let's take a look at scenario one, again, as described on that brief film.
[1:12:24] The previous slide it prioritizes the Chromium-6 treatment projects as well as the other capital
[1:12:29] system rehabilitation and replacement projects.
[1:12:34] This scenario will enhance the likelihood of compliance with the Chrome-6 mandates.
[1:12:40] If, in fact, and there's been discussion in the past couple meetings, the city is looking
[1:12:44] at legal options in terms of challenging this change in the allowable levels of Chrome
[1:12:49] 6 and the requirement to do these projects.
[1:12:51] If that were successful, the city could reduce future rate increases.
[1:12:54] So if they could be adopted tonight, and then in year two, year three, if it was found
[1:13:00] that those projects weren't needed, then the city could choose not to implement those
[1:13:04] increases in those years.
[1:13:05] So that is discretion that the city could retain.
[1:13:08] The revenues do meet SRF loan agreement requirements.
[1:13:11] So, for the outstanding debt, for the tertiary debt, as well as the semen's loan, there's a requirement that the utility maintain a dollar and 20 cents of net results for every dollar of repayment of debt that needs to be made.
[1:13:23] So, this does ensure that those covenants are indeed complied with and in fact, in the case of the water utility, it exceeds or the Sir utility by the third year, it will exceed 1.5 times, which will enhance credit worthiness for the city.
[1:13:41] in the event that you decide to go out and pursue other low interest funding
[1:13:45] opportunities. So that was a goal as well.
[1:13:51] So here's just a lot of numbers up here.
[1:13:53] There's kind of a few things just to really pay attention to. What this is,
[1:13:56] is a net result. Net results over the five-year period, the existing plus the
[1:14:02] five-year protection period for both the water and sewer utility. The water
[1:14:06] utility is above the kind of gray line in the middle there. And the thing
[1:14:11] to really show the operating results. Starting in year 3, 2028, start to trend upward and
[1:14:16] you see the days cash on hand and the cash balance trending upward by that point.
[1:14:21] In the first couple of years, you see it gets pretty low. And year 2, we're down to just
[1:14:25] over six days cash reserve on hand. So that's well below the targeted level of 180 days.
[1:14:32] And then year 3, or 2027, year 2, I should say. We start to pick back up, year 3 picks
[1:14:38] up again, and then by the fifth year, we're at just about 180 days.
[1:14:42] So right at that target, reserve level of 180 days.
[1:14:46] Sewer fund looks a lot better.
[1:14:48] Kind of a different picture.
[1:14:49] We're actually spending down cash on hand, again, to mitigate any rate increases.
[1:14:53] You see the cash on hand starts at about 400 days, and we let that drift down and spend
[1:14:58] that money on capital problems.
[1:15:01] We're just above 180 days in the fifth year. So, again, we're just about at the target just a little above. So, that's what the net results would look like with the recommended scenario one.
[1:15:14] And this is a snapshot of the capital plan. And again, there's water. And then in the middle, there's waste water. And then at the bottom is some of the two. And really the top line in each of those sections is key because those are projects that we're paying for directly from revenue.
[1:15:32] the news generated by rates or by cash that the utility has.
[1:15:36] Grant funding is different, doesn't affect the rates,
[1:15:38] and diff funding is from development impact fees
[1:15:42] and specified and has to be used in a restrictive manner,
[1:15:46] just for growth or rate of projects.
[1:15:47] So those are, they don't really affect rates either.
[1:15:50] So you see about $96 million in total capital
[1:15:53] for the water of that, just under 70 million of it
[1:15:56] is funded from cash from rates.
[1:15:59] from the wastewater utilities,
[1:16:00] you see a total of about 58 million in capital projects.
[1:16:04] Of that amount, 44 million is funded with cash from rates.
[1:16:12] So based on the scenario one,
[1:16:15] this is what the five year path of rates looks like
[1:16:19] at three different levels of use.
[1:16:21] So we have the blue line in the middle
[1:16:22] being that same typical average residential customer
[1:16:26] using 2,400 cubic feet of water by monthly basis.
[1:16:31] and then we have a low use customer using 10 units of water, 10 cubic feet,
[1:16:37] 100 cubic feet, and a high user using 40 units or 400 cubic feet of water.
[1:16:42] So the medium user bill goes from about 10 to just over 275 in the first year.
[1:16:49] And as we've talked about earlier, that's that big jump is necessary to really try and
[1:16:53] start to make up that ground from years of no increases.
[1:16:57] And the need to really fund this backlog of capital projects.
[1:17:00] So that's about a $65 jump in the first year and then each year there after it jumps up $15 then 14 and then 12 each of the last four years and then you see for the low user, the gray line there using 10 units, the increases are less significant.
[1:17:15] Again, so it goes up from 174 to 209, still the biggest jump in the first year and then
[1:17:21] goes up, you know, $10, give or take a dollar each year for the rest of the period and
[1:17:27] then the high user, the 40 units of water per bi-monthly period, again, same pattern, the biggest
[1:17:34] jump in the first year and those changes leveling off each of the four years after that.
[1:17:43] So we also took a look at what would that scenario one look like if you were to strip out the Chromium-6 related costs.
[1:17:51] And so the blue lines recommend the recommended scenario that the scenario one without any change.
[1:17:56] And those are the same numbers, the rates that we just looked at on the previous slide starting at 2-10 per bi-monthly period.
[1:18:03] And then 2-75 in the first year and then 2-90 all the way out to 3-28 in the fifth year.
[1:18:08] And so you see some reduction each year, so that the rate at the end of the fifth year is about $8 less and you see it's less, it is less in each of the years there and you see the amount on the bottom, the difference is about $22 in terms of the increase in the first year and then about $18 difference in the increase in the second year and then the amount of that difference gets smaller each of the years out to the fifth year.
[1:18:35] So, it does mitigate the increases, but again, that eliminates also the Chrome 6 projects,
[1:18:43] which is another facet to talk about.
[1:18:48] So the second scenario that we developed was a scenario 2, which differs some of the
[1:18:54] capital projects and moves the Chrome 6 projects out a bit.
[1:18:59] So it does smooth, as we'll show here on some of these future slides, it does smooth out
[1:19:04] The rate increases over the five year period and it does prioritize complete nose chrome six projects during the production period, but just moves us back a bit.
[1:19:13] The tradeoff is that the initial reduction in rates does increase risk in terms of cash on hand and the ability to address projects and have reserve cash in case of emergencies and could result in a need to come back sometime within the five year period and look at rates again.
[1:19:30] Then it also takes out some of the rehabilitation and repair projects early on to reduce the
[1:19:37] initial costs.
[1:19:38] And again, at any time, you're deferring capital projects and rehabilitation projects.
[1:19:41] There's some risk that you could have system degradation or potential failure, which would
[1:19:47] potentially reduce future reliability and the ability of the city to deliver the water service
[1:19:54] without interruption.
[1:19:57] So here's what the scenario to change in the capital plan, there's no change in waste water, again that's in the middle of the waste water capital plan that's to summary the same dollar amounts, same total dollar amounts.
[1:20:09] You'll see at the top water now the total capital plan is $81 million and that was $96 million before and the cash funded portion of that is about $60 million.
[1:20:20] And so, reduction of about $14 million in the capital improvement plan.
[1:20:26] So, the impact to the results, you'll notice that, again, the same slide we looked
[1:20:31] at before water at the top, and then below the gray solid line is sewer, which is unchanged.
[1:20:37] Again, there were no changes to sewer.
[1:20:39] So you see the net operating results, again, increasing gradually through the five-year period,
[1:20:46] and the cash balance increasing, but not at the same pace.
[1:20:50] So you recall, we ended the five year period at about 180 days.
[1:20:53] It was 178 days worth of cash on hand.
[1:20:57] Under scenario two, we end that five year period with about 112 days of cash on hand.
[1:21:02] So we lost about 60 days of cash in reserve by reducing the rates and reducing and changing the
[1:21:10] financial plan here.
[1:21:14] Here is another look at what the five year path of rates looks like,
[1:21:19] Similar to what we looked at before, we have the average user represented by the blue line, the high-use customer represented by the green and the low-use with the gray, but these are the rates that would be recommended under the scenario two.
[1:21:31] So you see the increases are less in the early years than they were and there'll be a comparison slide that shows this coming up.
[1:21:39] But so you might recall the medium user, the average user went from 210 to about 275 under the previous scenario.
[1:21:44] now it only goes to $2.50 on a bi-monthly basis.
[1:21:48] But then the increases in the later years are a little bit more under the scenario than
[1:21:54] they were under scenario one because they're smoothed out a little bit over the five-year
[1:21:59] period.
[1:21:59] So that reduced increase in year one is made up over the subsequent four years.
[1:22:05] So we end up the fifth year at $323, we were at $328 before.
[1:22:09] So we end up about $5 less on a bi-monthly period as compared to scenario one.
[1:22:19] So let's take a look at the difference or kind of comparison between the two scenarios.
[1:22:24] So this is the slide that we looked at before, the comparison of Vacaville to neighboring agencies.
[1:22:31] So the existing is still shown there all the way to the second last to the left there, $210.
[1:22:37] dollars, and you see scenario two, the first year is $250, an under scenario one, it's $275.
[1:22:44] So really both in the same lane between Fairfield and West Sacramento, but it is $25 different,
[1:22:52] and still either scenario is well below the $357 average represented by that black line,
[1:22:59] which is the average of all the comparison agencies we looked at.
[1:23:01] But
[1:23:04] this is a comparison between the two scenarios of the changes and kind of re-states what I described a little bit earlier in graphic forms.
[1:23:13] So you see under scenario one, that first year increase is about $24 more than scenario two.
[1:23:23] And then you see starting in year two, the scenario two increases, start to make up some of that ground.
[1:23:28] So, as I indicated by the end of the five year period, it arrives at just about $5 less than the scenario one by monthly bill amount.
[1:23:43] And this just breaks this now down into a monthly look.
[1:23:45] So we've talked a lot about by monthly because the city does bill on a by monthly basis.
[1:23:50] So we thought it might be helpful from a monthly standpoint.
[1:23:53] The change in the first year, under scenario one is about $32 under scenario two, it's about 20.
[1:23:58] And then you see each of the years after that, the amounts, the amount of the increase on a monthly basis, as opposed to a bi-monthly basis, again just to provide some visibility of what it might look like on a monthly rather than bi-monthly basis.
[1:24:19] Go ahead, go ahead. Larissa was going to talk a little bit about just some comparisons in terms of the cost of water to some other sources of water.
[1:24:26] To
[1:24:31] help illustrate the value that customers are receiving we wanted to create another cost comparison
[1:24:37] So if you compare a single-use bottle of water, it's approximately a dollar fifty a bottle
[1:24:43] Which would equal about five and a half dollars per gallon for a water delivery service at the low end
[1:24:52] You're looking at about seven dollars for a five dollar five gallon bottle of water
[1:24:56] which is about $1.40 per gallon, but then you also have to consider any rental and delivery fees.
[1:25:04] If you were to utilize a water bottle refill station, you're looking at about $0.50 a gallon, which is a better value.
[1:25:12] And then for the city water delivered to your house, the current rates are a fraction of a cent per gallon.
[1:25:22] The one unit of water, so we're talking about 24 units of water for the average by a monthly
[1:25:31] customer, one unit of water is equal to 750, 748 gallons of water.
[1:25:37] I'm, yes, one unit, 748 gallons of water.
[1:25:41] So for the proposed rates, we're looking at that increasing to a fraction of a cent to just
[1:25:47] over one cent. And this range includes the fixed cost for the meter charges as well as
[1:25:55] the consumption. And the range also displays the difference between the 5-8s, 3-4s and 1-inch
[1:26:02] meter size. So taking all of that into consideration, the water that you're getting delivered to your
[1:26:08] house by the city is still the best value out of all of these sources.
[1:26:15] So finally, we're here at
[1:26:16] recommendations on alternatives. So for the staff recommendation, staff recommends that
[1:26:25] council adopts and implements the scenario one rate set out by Wilden in the water and
[1:26:30] wastewater rate study and as identified in the prop 218 notice. An additional alternative
[1:26:37] is number two, where council can adopt scenario one rates from the wastewater rate study but
[1:26:44] But implement rates at the scenario 2 level.
[1:26:48] With this option, Council would retain flexibility by adopting the maximum possible rates set
[1:26:53] out in the Prop 2-18 notice, but setting the effective rate at the lower deferred maintenance
[1:26:58] rates specified in scenario 2.
[1:27:01] If Council selects this alternative, staff's recommendation is to adopt the scenario 1 rates,
[1:27:07] but implement the increase at the scenario 2 rates, rather than add a different rate that
[1:27:12] It was not examined in the water and wastewater rate study because the rate charged the resident
[1:27:17] should be based on data and analysis performed by Wildin for legal sufficiency purposes.
[1:27:23] The third option is another alternative where council can adopt and implement the scenario
[1:27:29] two rates set up by Wildin in the water and wastewater rate study because the prop to 18 authorized
[1:27:36] adoption of rates up to the amount set up set in the public hearing notice.
[1:27:40] Councils authorized to adopt and implement the new rate that is lower than what was specified in the original notice.
[1:27:49] We are happy to take any questions and comments.
[1:27:54] It's a lot of information there.
[1:27:57] I wanted to be very careful.
[1:27:59] Well, I appreciate it because we've been through many discussions in the past.
[1:28:05] Council Member Silver.
[1:28:07] Thank you for a very thorough data driven presentation.
[1:28:12] One thing I didn't quite get out of that and other meetings was, if we elect to do a deferred maintenance option,
[1:28:21] when would that deferred maintenance be implemented?
[1:28:24] It would be like, you're towards the end of the five year cycle, where it would be start off from the beginning.
[1:28:31] Thank you for the question.
[1:28:32] So the deferred maintenance would begin initially.
[1:28:34] So the funds come in, there is a priority project list that's set.
[1:28:38] They include Reservoir Rehab, Well Rehab, and Pipeline Rehab projects.
[1:28:45] So based on the amount of revenue we see, we can put the money towards those projects.
[1:28:49] And whatever we can't fund will be deferred to the following years.
[1:28:54] Thank you.
[1:28:56] You guys remember Wiley?
[1:28:58] Thank you for the information.
[1:29:00] Could you go to slide 27 or 21?
[1:29:02] They both have that chart about the percentages, and I wanted to look at that again.
[1:29:06] Because you kind of mentioned it, but we didn't say much about it because I'm really surprised
[1:29:10] at the percentages.
[1:29:12] So this is done on 24,000 CCFs, but the rate in the corner goes from 10 to 24.
[1:29:22] I wish it went from 10 to 23 because I wonder how many 24s are in that slide.
[1:29:27] Because it looks like 67% of the people would have a much lower rate than even is shown here.
[1:29:35] Like on this one shows the 174, whereas in all the other slides, you showed the 24.
[1:29:41] So 66% of the people will have less than what you showed on almost all the other slides.
[1:29:47] So in that 10-24 CCF, are most of them toward the low end or they evenly distributed so
[1:29:52] summer in the 24. Do you understand what I'm saying? Because 24 is in both of them, so...
[1:30:00] So is it true that 67% of the people will have the lowest gray line raise rather than the blue line?
[1:30:09] So I think I follow the question. So yeah, the 24th, it's really above 24 and that third category. So it's really 24 above 24 to 40. And so this rate, the blue line is really starting with the 24 to 40. Then correct. Yes. Okay. And so a lot of the letters we got were people.
[1:30:31] I'm you know on a single low income. I have don't have very much. I don't spend very much anyway
[1:30:37] So a lot of the people who have concerns won't have as big of a
[1:30:42] Increase as it looks if you're if using the numbers that you just say
[1:30:45] Here's what the average is but the average is really for only
[1:30:50] 24% of the people not 67% that's correct
[1:30:53] So I just wanted to point that out because I'm really glad that you put that on there and then
[1:31:02] Secondly, I wanted to ask about how this is all related to pipe size because we didn't talk about this here.
[1:31:11] Do all the people pay this rate or do some of them pay more if they're in newer houses and they have to have bigger pipes?
[1:31:22] So this graphic is an average, so it takes in kind of the generalization of what an average customer would pay.
[1:31:29] The actual bill that you would pay is dependent upon the meter size that you have at your house.
[1:31:35] We have five-eighths, three-quarters and one-inch meters, and there's a different rate charged for the level of service provided, depending on what meter you have at your residence or business.
[1:31:44] And so you were saying the newer houses that are going in have to have a bigger than five-eighths.
[1:31:49] Yes, our newer standard meter is a one-inch meter, and their one-inch meters are required to meet the fire flow sprinkler installations that are required at newer homes.
[1:31:59] So, basically, still, 66% of the people will have a lower rate than we have been talking
[1:32:06] about as the average rate, and some people will have higher than that.
[1:32:11] And people who irrigate are going to be in that highest number, that's why I get on
[1:32:16] my water bill, you're in the highest user area, you want to do something about it, but we
[1:32:20] have grass and we irrigate, so that's where we are.
[1:32:23] Okay, I have one more question.
[1:32:24] I really, it's really appreciated the last slide that you showed this time that talked
[1:32:30] about the cost of the water if you buy a water bottle, have it delivered, and or it.
[1:32:36] So thank you for including that because basically the water is free, but you're paying for
[1:32:42] the delivery.
[1:32:43] And that's what we have to pay for the pipes and all the workers and all the CIP projects
[1:32:47] because the actual cost of the water is just a minuscule part of what we pay, correct?
[1:32:54] That actual cost of the water covers everything.
[1:32:57] It covers the pipes, the treatment, the chemicals, salaries, benefits, electricity costs.
[1:33:02] Right, so we're paying for the whole package, the liver to our home on demand.
[1:33:07] For less than a penny a gallon.
[1:33:08] Yes, yes, so thank you.
[1:33:12] Council Member Stockton.
[1:33:14] Yes, thank you.
[1:33:15] For the presentation, I just want to confirm slide 27 is actually the rates for scenario number two, correct?
[1:33:26] That's correct.
[1:33:26] Okay, can you go to the chart for scenario number one?
[1:33:32] So it looked like those went up $20, $20 and then roughly 10, 10, 10, 10, the following three years, this one is going to be
[1:33:41] different. Yeah,
[1:33:48] and so the
[1:33:50] 67 point whatever percent you're saying are going to be that gray line because
[1:33:57] there's four there's four percentages
[1:33:59] is with three lines.
[1:34:02] So essentially the top two, zero to 10 and 10 to 24
[1:34:05] represented by that gray line.
[1:34:07] The gray and the blue together.
[1:34:11] Sorry, the gray and the blue together.
[1:34:14] OK, so the zero to 10, this is what I was trying to get
[1:34:17] toward.
[1:34:17] The zero to 10 CCF is the gray line.
[1:34:22] Correct?
[1:34:23] Is that what you're saying, sir?
[1:34:24] OK, and then the 10 to 24 is the blue line.
[1:34:32] Well, the blue line is the categories on the, they're different.
[1:34:36] So the blue line is just 24, the categories up in that, that box is the full range.
[1:34:42] So how many, you could say, the first
[1:34:47] two categories, that the 0 to 10 and the 10 to 24.
[1:34:50] So what is the 10 to 23, what percentage is that of the bi-monthly users?
[1:34:58] It's, the, the labeling should be just, it's, it's the combination of the 30.97 and the 36.59.
[1:35:04] nine, the total of those.
[1:35:07] And then the third category really should be above 24,
[1:35:11] from 24, you know, 24.001 up to 40.
[1:35:16] How do you want to say that?
[1:35:17] So it's above 24 up to 40, if that makes sense.
[1:35:21] So 24 is not in both categories.
[1:35:23] Right, right.
[1:35:24] So that's just a labeling.
[1:35:26] Yeah.
[1:35:29] So scenario number one is significantly higher
[1:35:32] than scenario number two.
[1:35:33] It is a particularly in the first year, right?
[1:35:42] I'm going to go ahead and over to the public for a comment on this here.
[1:35:57] Council, a couple of things, one is a comment.
[1:36:02] My impression was that our rates were in good control because we always had an outstanding
[1:36:07] utilities department.
[1:36:09] Again, not blowing spoke just the way it was.
[1:36:11] I had a lot of operations with them when I was in the fire service investigator.
[1:36:15] And I think it was 2003 or 2004 that the city just finished the expansion of a brand new wastewater treatment with a capacity to take care of future growth and just about when they're ready to turn that switch on the state of California said, oh by the way we just changed the standards that's my segue into my next question and brought it up before it was brought up that the federal EPA has a standard for hexavalent
[1:36:45] and then the state of California has one tenth of that value for exevalent chromium where to get the number.
[1:36:53] About 10 years ago, the League of Cities sued the Department of Water Resources because they tried to stick this thing in before.
[1:37:02] They withdrew the standard because they didn't have evidence for it.
[1:37:07] I went to their website, I have found no peer-reviewed studies as to where they came up with this standard
[1:37:14] of one-tenth of what the FedEED EPA.
[1:37:18] Now, hexavalochromium is not something you want to monkey with.
[1:37:21] But as Paraclesis says, dose makes the poison.
[1:37:26] Chico, some years ago, kid died from drinking too much water and a fraternity dare.
[1:37:32] So it's the volume, the content, the amount that makes the difference.
[1:37:37] So I'm still not satisfied that we know what's the state doing.
[1:37:42] Where do they get this number?
[1:37:43] They pull out the air like high-end trend did with the diesel-particular standard.
[1:37:47] You made it up, he lied.
[1:37:51] Now the question is, if there was absolutely no growth, and I'm all for growth.
[1:37:56] But if there was absolutely no growth in the city of Vacaville,
[1:38:02] would our current resources meet our current demand?
[1:38:09] So why are we expanding the system?
[1:38:11] If it's for growth, then those people that want to build here and expand here should be
[1:38:17] paying for that new infrastructure.
[1:38:20] We used to call it impact fees.
[1:38:22] Now, I don't think it's been segregated out.
[1:38:25] So do we need that and who's paying for this expansion?
[1:38:30] And as far as I really like preventive maintenance, I've done app-raz replacement programs, etc.
[1:38:38] But if our service life was engineered for 100 years, I don't think we should be authoring to start replacing it at 50 years.
[1:38:47] There were two numbers put up there, just going to opinion so if you could address those issues, I appreciate it.
[1:38:52] Thank you.
[1:38:54] Thank you.
[1:39:02] Good evening.
[1:39:03] Good evening, Mayor.
[1:39:06] Vice Mayor, City Council members and City staff.
[1:39:10] Leo Escarsica, White Sands Drive, commenting on the staff report supporting this agenda item.
[1:39:17] A question regarding the capital cost to improve five of the city water supply wells
[1:39:23] to comply with the state mandated MCL for hexavalent, Chromian 6 of 10 parts per billion.
[1:39:32] In table five of this report, water CPI only four wells are listed for chromium treatment.
[1:39:40] Chromian 6 treatment, well number 9, well number 14, number 15, and number 16.
[1:39:47] Perhaps I misread the table.
[1:39:50] So if I could have clarification on that, that would be great.
[1:39:54] If I recall correctly, the cost for regulatory compliance has been noted as $36.73 million.
[1:40:03] dollars. However, there is also an added expense to the city in the legal challenge against
[1:40:10] the updated maximum contaminant level. Those costs to date and future expenses are unknown
[1:40:18] to the public. I am urging the city council to reconsider this legal challenge on the bases
[1:40:25] that the Vacaville utility department's mission is to provide reliable, safe, and high-quality
[1:40:31] drinking water. Likewise, the state water resource control board mission is to ensure the
[1:40:37] highest reasonable quality for waters of the state. The water board relied on the state
[1:40:44] office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, which mission is to perform health risk assessment
[1:40:51] and develop public health goals for drinking water contaminants in California. The state of
[1:41:00] I mean ingested hexavalent chromium and cancer in July 2014, establishing a maximum contaminant level for
[1:41:11] a hexavalent chromium of 10 parts per billion.
[1:41:15] In closing, I offer a suggestion.
[1:41:18] City council members have expressed concern for those residents that will be impacted by the rate increase.
[1:41:24] city council, consider moving forward with a cannabis business model, a portion of the city tax revenue generated would then assist those in need.
[1:41:35] I thank you.
[1:41:36] Thank you.
[1:41:43] Good afternoon, two quick counter-observations.
[1:41:46] The first being that while it is wonderful how much cheaper city water is than bottled water, I have never taken a shower with bottled water.
[1:41:56] I have never taken a shower with bottled water when I wasn't in the field.
[1:42:01] I also have never watered my lawn with bottled water.
[1:42:06] I would also like to point out that on this list here, I myself, I have three teenagers, well two, one about to be a teenager.
[1:42:14] So I'm well above the green line.
[1:42:17] However, the city's most vulnerable population to this, for the most part, is going to be under that gray line.
[1:42:26] where they're on a fixed income, their usage is lower, so it's going to affect them in a different way than it's going to affect me.
[1:42:35] And I urge the City Council to strongly take into consideration those people as opposed to myself.
[1:42:42] I am in my 40s, I'm working, I can absorb a hit like this.
[1:42:47] A lot of the elderly population in the city cannot.
[1:42:49] So, if you're going to consider how this is going to affect me and my family, I would ask you instead to consider how it's going to affect the elderly and retired as I can take this hit, they cannot.
[1:43:01] So, thank you for your time.
[1:43:03] Thank you.
[1:43:15] Good evening, everyone.
[1:43:19] You know, I've been following this since May, maybe a little bit before May, and what jumps out at me is the sewer rate
[1:43:29] increase hasn't been since 2014 and so the water department here seems to me
[1:43:40] with the rate of expansion this city has grown since 2014. It's like how come
[1:43:52] this has never been addressed, where's the anticipation when we're seeing the growth rate
[1:44:01] of this area.
[1:44:02] We're located in the prime commute part of California between the Bay Area and all,
[1:44:09] and so now we're coming up with these water and sewer rates and
[1:44:18] it's a nice chunk of change.
[1:44:21] So with that said, then this analysis started 22, 2022, and it's taken two years, 2022 to 2024.
[1:44:38] It just seems to me like the Water Department has let the residents down by not anticipating
[1:44:48] the growth and basically the state's requirements.
[1:44:58] That was some...
[1:45:00] First and foremost on my mind. And then the second item I'm I've seen that we have this lawsuit pending and there's multiple cities throughout the state that are fighting. I guess it's that requirement for whatever that element is in the water. When is that is that in court right now and do they have or do they even have a court date for that because part of the
[1:45:29] The presentation was that they would, whatever the outcome was on that court day is that it could affect our rates, our rates could be lowered.
[1:45:41] So does anyone know what's going on with that, when, where the process, that court date is in the process of all of this?
[1:45:49] That's all I have, thanks you guys.
[1:45:51] Yes, thank you.
[1:45:57] Go ahead and close the public comment portion of this hearing and bring it back.
[1:46:02] There are several items that you may be able to address if possible, so give it your best.
[1:46:10] Thank you mayor, I took some brief notes here.
[1:46:12] So the EPA does have a total chromium of 100 parts per billion.
[1:46:18] The state of California has adopted a hexavitant chromium of 10 parts per billion as an MCL.
[1:46:25] So it is one-tenth, and it's specific to hexavalent chromium that was enacted in October of last year, and we have two years to get in compliance with that.
[1:46:34] Several comments, questions related to growth.
[1:46:37] This is not related to, I guess the monies that are going to collect it through this rate study go to the operating expenses and maintaining our existing facilities.
[1:46:48] The development impact fees that the gentleman mentioned are related to growth inducing costs.
[1:46:53] So pipelines associated with new developments, the developers do pay their fair share through that development impact fee process.
[1:47:03] The service life of the lines after 50 years, I think the concept there is that we're not replacing all those lines this year.
[1:47:11] We put in less than $1 million into our capital transfers this year.
[1:47:17] I think Larissa said it would be $170 million to replace those lines.
[1:47:20] So, at that rate, we'd have 170 years to get those lines replaced that were built before
[1:47:27] 19, I think it was 75 on the slide.
[1:47:30] That's the inadequacy that we see here is that we need to start now on those lines that
[1:47:35] are over 100 years old and we do have lines in the system that are over 100 years old and
[1:47:38] start replacing those lines so that the lines that are 50 years old today that we can have
[1:47:43] that money 50 years from now to replace those lines when they come to.
[1:47:48] The one gentleman spoke to the wells, the correct we have just four wells that we're going to look to treat Chromium-6 at.
[1:47:55] The fifth well is an older well, and the plan is to just mothball that facility.
[1:47:59] It doesn't seem like a worthwhile investment to put millions of dollars into an aging well that may not reap the benefits of several years of service after putting a bunch of brand new Chromium-6 treatment into it.
[1:48:17] The legal challenge, there's some costs and date, I think I'll defer to Melinda.
[1:48:22] I know that it's later this year, but you may have some more specifics.
[1:48:25] I don't mean to put you on the spot.
[1:48:27] Yes, no worries.
[1:48:29] So there is a case, it's filed in a federal court in Fresno County.
[1:48:33] And they're anticipating a hearing sometime late fall.
[1:48:37] That's, it hasn't been said yet, but that's the expectation.
[1:48:40] I think we speak to the cost.
[1:48:44] So at this point the city hasn't contributed any funding.
[1:48:47] That could change later, but at this point there's no cost to the city as far as dollars.
[1:48:53] Staff time yes.
[1:48:55] Great.
[1:48:56] Yeah, thank you.
[1:48:57] And I know that as you speak to five additional wells, I think you're looking in the future.
[1:49:06] What's the expertise to make sure that we don't hit Chrome 6?
[1:49:11] So we hired Newdorf and Scalamine certified geologists, they're the ones that produced the Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the Salano Subbasin, which we are part of, and taking all the information they have from all the wells within the counties, the cities, the irrigation districts, and doing an overlay of the different layers, it's not as simple as just going down and Chromium is at 100 feet to 200 feet or it's deeper or it's shallower, it migrates in different areas, depending on where you're at in the county.
[1:49:39] like Dixon for whatever reason has concentrations, we have concentrations.
[1:49:44] And then you go further east and Chrome 6 kind of dissipates.
[1:49:48] So they're working on a strategy to identify areas that have a high likelihood of not encountering Chrome 6 when we drill.
[1:49:56] But they'll tell you just as I'll tell you today is the only way you know is putting a hole in the ground.
[1:50:00] Okay, Council Member Silver.
[1:50:03] Thank you. So I wasn't here when this last item, this item last came up, but I don't want
[1:50:11] thing that came up. You know, some of them mentioned about different alternative funding
[1:50:16] sources. You know, cannabis specifically, that's something that council decided, wasn't
[1:50:21] a priority this particular year. The, and I don't think we also don't have a cost benefit
[1:50:28] analysis so I think a lot of times people in the community think that oh we
[1:50:32] start selling cannabis that that's going to be a cure-all for everything we
[1:50:36] don't have any data to support that one way or another so the financial
[1:50:41] assistance program can you elaborate a little bit more on that comment I know
[1:50:44] that's come up in many conversations about those who may have some type of
[1:50:48] financial hardship before the utilities so
[1:50:52] we currently do have a low
[1:50:55] income program this is not necessarily geared towards seniors and we
[1:51:00] We cannot have other classes of customers subsidize a class of customers such as seat
[1:51:07] and years because it could be seen as discrimination.
[1:51:10] However, if they do meet the income requirements based on the PG&E care program, then they can
[1:51:16] apply for this discount program.
[1:51:18] We currently, like in the current fiscal year, in the past few fiscal years, we have fun
[1:51:23] and set aside that are non-rate revenue.
[1:51:27] And so these are things such as our cell tower leases
[1:51:30] that we can use towards that program.
[1:51:34] And generally, we have about $400,000 of available in funding.
[1:51:38] The way we've determined the low income discount,
[1:51:44] which is $8 a bi-mentally billing period,
[1:51:47] is taking the data that PG&E has provided,
[1:51:50] based on everyone that is eligible for that program through PG&E,
[1:51:54] and dividing that by the amount of available funding.
[1:51:59] So, it is currently not being utilized to capacity.
[1:52:03] That is something that we could potentially take a look at,
[1:52:08] but we run the risk of running out of funding
[1:52:10] or not being able to serve everyone,
[1:52:11] which is why we developed the low income discount program
[1:52:15] as it currently is.
[1:52:16] Thank you for allowing me.
[1:52:17] And where would, so even currently,
[1:52:19] whether it's whatever council decides to do with this item,
[1:52:23] where would residents go to find more information about that?
[1:52:27] Information is available on our website.
[1:52:29] They can also call our utility billing department.
[1:52:33] That information is available on our website,
[1:52:36] but also just to state it in case anybody wants to take it down.
[1:52:40] The phone number is 707-449-5128,
[1:52:45] and they'd be happy to help you out.
[1:52:46] there is an application that you need to fill out and then, of course, you have to show proof of
[1:52:52] enrollment of in the PG&U program which would generally require you to submit a copy of your bill and
[1:52:57] once you have done those things and they are able to verify that they will set you up on
[1:53:02] on that discount program.
[1:53:04] Thank you. And then just in my comments on this particular item is that
[1:53:09] you know, it sounded like council or some council members were in favor of
[1:53:14] Option one, but then different things or concerns came up.
[1:53:19] I believe that would have safe drinking water.
[1:53:21] I believe that we need to be in compliance with something that's already been set.
[1:53:25] Whether we agree with it or not, for the state of California, there's a lot of other huge,
[1:53:31] unintended consequences that I think will result to that if we are out of compliance.
[1:53:36] And we are fighting, quote unquote, fighting back in the ways that we do in the sense that we're a part of litigation,
[1:53:42] which limits our ability to discuss these items further.
[1:53:47] I know, I think a couple of us on Council here have had discussions with elected members to
[1:53:53] state elected members to see if there's different avenues to support that, but here we are.
[1:54:00] So I think when the first two options came up, one of my concerns with option one was that the initial rate increase was perhaps two cost burden for
[1:54:10] those who are most financially burdened and so, you know, if council is not in support
[1:54:16] of that, I think we should move forward option, the second option, I forget what the technical
[1:54:22] term was, but option two, where it's kind of more scaled out over, again, the concern about
[1:54:27] that is that we are deferring maintenance, which is kind of in this, which has exacerbated
[1:54:31] the situation that we're in now from, you know, just prior decisions based on what was going
[1:54:37] on at the time. So I think we have to be careful about not being in compliance and about
[1:54:41] a tremendous amount of unintended consequences. You know, if chroma-6 is known to cause lung cancer,
[1:54:46] if we don't address that, you know, you can imagine the amount of the lawsuit second comes towards
[1:54:54] us for not doing our best to be in compliance and keep our community safe. So I think that,
[1:55:00] you know, again, if council's on supportive one, we've got to go with two to be in compliance.
[1:55:03] Thanks.
[1:55:05] Councilmember Stockham, or excuse me, free mail?
[1:55:08] Yeah, thank you.
[1:55:10] So I'm looking at this, I'm looking at scenario one at the end of 2030 and scenario one for the top user to be $416.
[1:55:25] The next level, 328, the next level 200, the lowest level, 251.
[1:55:29] And in scenario two, it's basically about a $5 difference at the end of the day.
[1:55:36] So it's not a significant amount of money between scenario one and scenario two at the end of at the end of 2030.
[1:55:43] Is that sound about right?
[1:55:47] That's correct.
[1:55:48] The biggest difference is in that first year jump.
[1:55:51] So that it's kind of evened out over the five year period.
[1:55:53] But we end up just about at the same place at the end of the five years, as you mentioned, about $5 less.
[1:55:59] And I would agree with something that somebody said earlier, this isn't as a result of development coming in because the developers are paying all of these costs up front.
[1:56:10] This is more along the terms of everything, all the infrastructure that's here and the infrastructure that's needing repair, these types of things.
[1:56:20] But man, I just look at this and I think about, I mean, that's a really big jump from $251 to $416 for some people.
[1:56:32] I would agree with somebody said, I can afford it, I can absorb it, but I also know that there's a lot of elderly in the community and others that can afford it.
[1:56:45] And I just, I'm not trying to point a finger at anybody and nobody feels this way,
[1:56:51] but I just ask how did we get here?
[1:56:53] Because, you know, we haven't had a rate increase in 11 years and now five years.
[1:56:57] And so, where was the planning back then for this?
[1:57:00] You know, who was looking forward to our future of where we're at now?
[1:57:07] And it just seems like there's a big jump, you know,
[1:57:12] So when we could have had a 3% increase starting back 11 years ago and we wouldn't be having this conversation today probably.
[1:57:20] So that's the thing that troubles me is kind of like who's in charge for the last 10 years to where we overlook this.
[1:57:30] And I know there's a lot that are factored in there with COVID and
[1:57:34] our fuel prices being extravagant over the top which causes a lot of our chemicals to be over the top.
[1:57:40] And PG&E raises our reach by 25% or 20% and then another 20% and we don't have any say over that site.
[1:57:48] I get all that but I'm just thinking how do we get the people that can't afford this, how can we get them any relief under Proposition 218.
[1:58:01] So I know I'm just rambling on, I'm not trying to sit here and talk to hear myself talk but it frustrates me.
[1:58:08] And I just think, you know, I mean, it's a big, it's a big jump, you know, it's just a big jump, so I'll stop with that.
[1:58:16] And you don't have to respond, I'm just rambling, I'm sorry.
[1:58:20] That's what you're calling the answer for, and you can share your thoughts.
[1:58:23] Yeah, Councilmember Stockton.
[1:58:28] Yes, and thank you, Councilmember Fremow for bringing that up.
[1:58:32] I definitely think if we had a crystal ball, there's probably lots of things that would go back and change.
[1:58:35] What I do appreciate is that staff did identify the current status of where we're at right now.
[1:58:40] I know that you're doing your best to try to get us in a better situation.
[1:58:45] So since we've looked at the past, I guess for me, what I want to know is,
[1:58:51] what are we going to do moving forward so that we don't have a similar situation like this happen again?
[1:58:58] That's really what I want to know.
[1:59:00] I mean, I think we have a really clear understanding of where we're at right now.
[1:59:03] But what reassurance is the staff have or ideas the staff have to provide reassurances to the community that we're not going to find ourselves in a similar situation, you know, five, 10 years down the road once whatever decisions made today.
[1:59:19] I appreciate the question Mr. Doctin, and I won't speak to the sins of the past administrations.
[1:59:28] We have a problem, and it's a hit being the bearer of bad news, but this can't has been
[1:59:35] kicked down the road for whatever reason.
[1:59:37] Going forward, our plan is to basically monitor this as we move forward.
[1:59:43] This should be done every five years, just to reassess, not necessarily to say, oh, we need
[1:59:49] to raise rates, but to reassess your rates to see what your spending plan was, what your
[1:59:53] revenues actually are coming in, because these are all projections.
[1:59:56] You have a CPI built into these, you have water sales.
[2:00:00] All of those can change, and that change can either be to the good or to the bad, and reassessing that every five years, and presenting it to this council to say, this is what the last five years have done, this is where your utilities department stands today, we are either healthy or not, and we need to either raise rates or we can hold steady. So what is the cost to have that assessment done to the city?
[2:00:27] So initially, when we brought Wilden on board, I believe we look, it was somewhere around 40,000,
[2:00:36] We've had some additional work being done because there was an extended period of time that we have contracted for these services.
[2:00:45] And then in addition, the mailing of the notices costs about an additional $50,000.
[2:00:53] So about $100,000 to have this done every five years or so, and we may be able to avoid that.
[2:00:59] I would ask, regardless of what happens today, I think that needs to be codified in a policy.
[2:01:05] that we do that every three to five years
[2:01:09] or whatever staff recommends is an industry standard
[2:01:12] for something like this to make sure we don't
[2:01:13] find ourselves sleeping on this.
[2:01:16] I mean, I know that there's a multitude of reasons
[2:01:19] that these things slip through the cracks, I get it.
[2:01:21] We are balancing plates on sticks sometimes
[2:01:24] with even our feet, feels like,
[2:01:26] with all of the different stuff.
[2:01:28] It makes it really difficult to keep track of everything
[2:01:31] even for you and for staff.
[2:01:32] So if we codify it in some sort of policy, then maybe that would help us stay on top of it in the future
[2:01:39] I am I am really
[2:01:41] Concerned about the amount of money like I get it. It is it is what it is
[2:01:46] First scenario number one. It looks like the increases rate from over the five-year period go up
[2:01:53] Depending upon each one anywhere from you know rough calculations are $7,618 and $165
[2:02:00] dollars. You know, I know that you go through and you break things down, you know, how it
[2:02:11] makes the most sense with the usage and stuff, but I also, I'm also curious to know, you
[2:02:16] know, how many of our families that live in a home versus people who rent an apartment
[2:02:22] versus, you know, some of those, some of that information is helpful for us when we're making
[2:02:28] in some of these decisions because renters versus homeowners, I mean, people are really
[2:02:33] struggling to be able to afford houses in Vacaville, let alone keep them.
[2:02:39] So I don't know if there's a way that you can look at that based upon the water bill and
[2:02:43] you know, kind of cross referencing the address so that we know if it's an apartment complex
[2:02:48] versus a home and where those homes are located.
[2:02:51] But it would be interesting to know the level of usage that's happening, which green line
[2:02:55] and represent a family of three or a family of five
[2:02:59] or an apartment unit or something like that.
[2:03:02] So I think that would be helpful moving forward.
[2:03:09] Well, I think in a very similar way,
[2:03:10] the way we do budgets start forecasting.
[2:03:12] So there's a cost to do this to 18 process,
[2:03:15] but you could be looking at this in three-year cycles,
[2:03:18] so you're projecting how we're looking,
[2:03:20] how we're looking, starting to look like a cliff.
[2:03:23] Clearly, it's hard to look at this 11 years later
[2:03:26] and sit there and think that somehow, I know where you stand on this is like this should
[2:03:31] have been done a long time ago. It's not, but here we are. So, Council Member Richie.
[2:03:39] Thank you.
[2:03:41] Hold on a second, Jay.
[2:03:47] There you go.
[2:03:48] There you go.
[2:03:49] Thank you.
[2:03:49] I really appreciate your comments.
[2:03:51] I'm passionate about shared.
[2:03:54] You know, I look at what we're doing here. We're legal cities working hard. We're part of
[2:04:00] I want to make sure our efforts aren't for loss.
[2:04:03] There's a huge cost, we didn't really cover that much in the cost to get the existing
[2:04:09] woes we're going to utilize in a Chrome 6 repaired, is it like $39 million?
[2:04:14] I don't remember, $31 million inflation is going to come.
[2:04:19] You know, I like the option to scenario because it's going to give us the latitude to make adjustments.
[2:04:26] because I'm hopeful that the efforts we're doing to make sure that we are part of the lawsuit
[2:04:32] pushing grind on the state to hopefully relieve this fee, and then that'll be like a release
[2:04:37] valve because of that happens saying any year and a half or two years from now, it's within
[2:04:42] that five-year period, and we can see a reduction of all the fees, but it won't put us behind,
[2:04:47] is that correct?
[2:04:49] That's correct. Option two does give you that flexibility.
[2:04:51] ability.
[2:04:52] I mean, I think two years, seriously a lot of changes in California, hopefully people
[2:04:57] that are appointed are gone, elected around.
[2:04:59] So people could shift, and their ideas and policies, procedures gone there, could shift.
[2:05:04] And people who are listening to a pay attention, maybe they should reassess how we got this place.
[2:05:08] So I think just taking that into account, hopefully it's going to benefit us, to where everyone
[2:05:13] we're doing the legal cities, and working together as a region to help fix this problem,
[2:05:18] that could put a pressure off that and then make up that gap a lot faster.
[2:05:22] So I know it's more, I mean, I'm supportive of option two.
[2:05:26] It's of course option two, choice one, I don't know, but that's fair.
[2:05:32] So you're saying the second preference, I'll turn it up.
[2:05:34] Yeah, Vice Mayor Chappell.
[2:05:37] Thank you.
[2:05:38] Thank you for the presentation.
[2:05:43] I mean, it was 101 all the way.
[2:05:47] didn't leave any area for to be questioned. I was going to, I like, well, first of all,
[2:06:01] first of all, being a compliance, standing compliance. It's very important. I mean,
[2:06:07] I don't even have to put blinders on for that. That is a known, known.
[2:06:10] the I agree with option two however you have mentioned in option two click
[2:06:23] will you break that down that is we will still go with option what's written
[2:06:28] option one however for the rate the rate to be set would be lower because that was
[2:06:36] option two correct that's correct so you're blessed to blend the two
[2:06:44] And option two will give us more flexibility later on than option three, so I'm totally
[2:06:52] against option three.
[2:06:55] And so I agree option two, in my opinion, based upon your presentation, and what we know
[2:07:03] and the lawsuit that is out there, not knowing when it's going to be addressed, I think this
[2:07:12] It's the best one for the people of Lacka Bill.
[2:07:15] In just a quick clarification, since you brought that up,
[2:07:19] it's a good point.
[2:07:21] The city of Lacka Bill could adopt any rate
[2:07:26] in these scenarios and set the amount separately
[2:07:31] at any time, correct?
[2:07:34] I believe so.
[2:07:36] Well, deferred to Melinda.
[2:07:37] Yeah, you can set any rate up to the maximum
[2:07:39] that was in the notice.
[2:07:40] and but you can implement it at a lower level.
[2:07:43] So there's flexibility with whatever, but I just wanted to make that clear.
[2:07:48] Yes.
[2:07:48] Okay. This would be a good time for a motion from someone.
[2:07:52] I'll make, oh, well, create a motion now a second and a few guys.
[2:07:57] My motion was adopted.
[2:07:59] The scenario two was actually, alternative one, adoption scenario one rates,
[2:08:04] implement rates proposed in section two.
[2:08:07] Okay. We have a motion.
[2:08:08] Second.
[2:08:08] by smear seconds to roll call. Sorry just to clarify it's in the staff report it's
[2:08:15] item two option number two. Yes so to be clear it's a second preference alternative
[2:08:22] so you're adopting scenario one but you're implementing an alternative rate. I just want
[2:08:28] to verbally communicate so everybody knows what they're right. There's a lot of twos and
[2:08:32] threes and threes. Okay so we have a motion second roll call.
[2:08:36] Councilmember Stockton?
[2:08:38] No.
[2:08:38] Councilmember Richie?
[2:08:40] Yes.
[2:08:40] Councilmember Silva?
[2:08:43] Yes.
[2:08:44] Councilmember Fremont?
[2:08:45] No.
[2:08:46] Councilmember Wiley?
[2:08:48] Yes.
[2:08:49] Vice Mayor Chapman?
[2:08:50] Yes.
[2:08:51] Mayor Crowley?
[2:08:52] No.
[2:08:55] It passes with the, with the,
[2:08:58] the serial one with the reduction of the rates to the preference alternative number two.
[2:09:04] So, thank you for that, and hopefully the public will understand that this could be adjusted in any time in the future, depending on public discounts, besides.
[2:09:15] I have one more question.
[2:09:18] So, our school district, one of our school districts had comments about this.
[2:09:24] I request with council support that our staff work with the school district, they have different funding mechanisms to get their budgetary needs every year.
[2:09:32] I have a meeting with Mr. Santa Patron in this couple of weeks.
[2:09:35] We would have done it sooner, but with graduation vacations, it couldn't happen before this meeting.
[2:09:39] But we've already been in communication.
[2:09:41] Thank you.
[2:09:42] That's a good point.
[2:09:44] All right, thank you very much.
[2:09:46] And we'll move on to business.
[2:09:48] Thank you, Mayor and members of the Council.
[2:09:50] This first business item is a discussion of general plan policies in city park standards,
[2:09:55] alignment of carol way and inclusionary housing in the east of leisure town growth area specific plan.
[2:10:00] We have your community development director, Aaron Morris, Albert Enoll, senior planner and team to provide a presentation.
[2:10:33] Good to go.
[2:10:40] Good evening, Mayor.
[2:10:41] I'm Richard the City Council.
[2:10:44] Albert Enoll here to present item before the City Council related to the use of leisure town specific plan and general plan policies and city standards.
[2:10:52] here to assist with this presentation we have the city's consultant with M.A.S.
[2:10:56] Kathy P's, as well as our Director of Community Development, Aaron Morris.
[2:11:04] We felt that it was appropriate to provide some background for the discussion of this item.
[2:11:09] We're talking about the East of Leisure Town specific plan.
[2:11:12] And this is a specific plan within the East of Leisure Town growth area.
[2:11:17] There's 1,317 acres within this growth area.
[2:11:21] 669 have already been approved and annexed into the city limits.
[2:11:26] There are 648 acres that are still located in Solano County, unincorporated.
[2:11:32] And so it's the subject is about those 648 acres.
[2:11:36] In April and October of 2023, the city received requests from three different landowners to
[2:11:42] develop those properties.
[2:11:45] With approximately 5,000 units, there were on three sites.
[2:11:48] the Racins, Chen, Donaldson, and AMP children investments properties.
[2:11:53] Upon receiving these requests, we evaluated them and then conducted three public outreach meetings,
[2:11:59] one with Maplewood, one with Lockpad and then the general public at large.
[2:12:04] What we had heard from those community meetings were related to traffic impacts,
[2:12:09] affordable housing, community amenities and a variety of different other topics.
[2:12:14] And those topics were used to craft what are called guiding principles.
[2:12:18] And those guiding principles were presented to City Council on April of 2024.
[2:12:23] And the guiding principles are intended to grab a snapshot of what City Council wanted to see with the development of a specific plan in this growth area.
[2:12:33] And so that's what was adopted and that's what staff has been using to move forward with this project.
[2:12:39] So following City Council's direction in April 2024, we began building a team consisting of consultants to develop the very first step, which is the crafting of a draft land use plan.
[2:12:50] That would show how land uses would work in this growth area.
[2:12:55] Upon drafting that land use plan, we soon found out that there was a difference of design between the developer team.
[2:13:05] And so what we found out when working on this draft land use plan was that the developer
[2:13:09] team was looking to propose some development concepts that are there were inconsistent
[2:13:14] with city policies and development standards, but we also found that there were inconsistent
[2:13:19] with city council's original direction found in the guiding principles.
[2:13:23] So this is not something that staff can move forward with without city council direction.
[2:13:27] So that's why we're here tonight is to obtain city hopefully obtain city council direction
[2:13:31] on three particular topical areas.
[2:13:35] Of course, I'd like to provide mapping graphics
[2:13:37] that show the context.
[2:13:39] These are two growth areas that were identified
[2:13:41] in the 2015 general plan.
[2:13:43] So we're looking at the east of Lijitong growth area.
[2:13:47] And these are the three property owners or properties
[2:13:49] that are located in that growth area.
[2:13:51] And you'll see a large chunk in the center of that
[2:13:54] is that 600-plus acres that have already been annexed
[2:13:57] into our city limits.
[2:14:02] On to the policy issue.
[2:14:03] So, there's three policy issues that we're going to be covering tonight.
[2:14:07] The first is related to neighborhood parks and community parks.
[2:14:11] And our general plan, as well as our park and recreation master plan, we have policies
[2:14:16] that require minimal sizes for neighborhood parks and community parks to be able to meet
[2:14:21] specific side standards for amenities and to serve the community.
[2:14:25] For neighborhood parks, it's a minimum size of six acres for community parks, it's a minimum
[2:14:29] minimum size of 10 acres and the applicants are proposing smaller parks, smaller
[2:14:34] neighborhood parks around 2 to 4 acres and smaller community parks around 6 acres.
[2:14:39] There's an affordability mixture of housing types that was required to provide or create
[2:14:46] something for this larger development and staff is going to be out talking about general
[2:14:52] requirement of 10% of the units to be identified for affordability.
[2:14:57] Applicants are proposing.
[2:15:00] To address this particular guiding principle by only dedicating a six-acre piece of land. And
[2:15:06] the third topic that we'll cover is the alignment of Curlway. We do have some policies,
[2:15:11] some reference documents that identify potential alignments, and we have some ideas on how
[2:15:17] to reserve areas to the north. And this is different than what the applicants are proposing
[2:15:22] to do for their proposed alignments. And we'll cover that with some graphics also.
[2:15:26] So on to the first topic, parks is a pretty big topic for the city and for staff, parks fulfill a variety of different functions.
[2:15:37] They provide breathing space in neighborhoods, so it doesn't appear so close together, they promote healthy lifestyles.
[2:15:44] There are also places to play explore and relax.
[2:15:48] For this reason, there are specific policies that guide how parks need to be developed for new development within the city.
[2:15:55] It's identified in the city's constitution which is the general plan as well as the 2021 parks and recreation master plan
[2:16:02] That was adopted by city council
[2:16:05] And those both of those are really the larger documents that provide policies and standards for how to address adequate parks
[2:16:12] Because of this history and these policies that are in this existing document
[2:16:16] That was the reason for one of the guiding principles, which is one C that's on the screen in front of you
[2:16:21] And what that says is that when we're working on developing a specific plan, we need to include interconnected public open space components and or conservation plans and adequate parks and recreation facilities to turn key parks shall be provided.
[2:16:39] We underlined adequate parks and recreation facilities because that's really what this boils down to.
[2:16:45] So the city staff references our general plan and our parks and recreation master plan
[2:16:53] as to what constitutes adequate parks.
[2:16:57] And so on the screen in front of you is an indication of what are, quote, the minimum
[2:17:03] standards that are expected to be provided to the city when we're looking at new development
[2:17:08] coming into the city.
[2:17:09] These are the minimum standards that are necessary in order to be able to serve future residents.
[2:17:14] your neighborhood parks are intended to be a minimum of six acres.
[2:17:18] They can be up as large as nine acres. Your community parks minimum of 10, but they can be as large as 40 acres.
[2:17:25] And the reason why they have those sizes is because there's a variety of different amenities that are necessary to be programmed within those parks.
[2:17:30] Again, these are minimum designs that are necessary to be able to serve future residents.
[2:17:37] I won't go into every single detail in there. Our staff report also covers all of these specific details.
[2:17:46] So what we found while working with the developer team on the discussion about parks is that developer team wanted to go a little bit of a different route where they wanted to provide smaller parks around two to four acres for neighborhood parks and six acre community parks.
[2:18:01] What we found as a result of this request was that it was going to be meeting a amendment to our general plan as well as an amendment to the parks and recreation plan.
[2:18:08] And the reason behind this is because we have findings within our municipal code that say projects have to be consistent with our general plan and to move forward with a deviation without amending our general plan would eventually move a project forward that would be inconsistent with our general plan, which we can't make that finding for.
[2:18:26] The developer's justification is identified as an attachment within the staff report.
[2:18:30] They're also here tonight that can help provide some additional context for other reasons for it, but we broke it down in a more simplified manner, is that what they're finding is their requirement for trying to address missing middle is resulting in a higher density type of layout within the eastern area.
[2:18:48] And what they're finding is that because of that higher density layout, there's a need for more smaller parks that are dispersed throughout the area to serve the larger population.
[2:18:57] and what they're hoping will provide convenient access to open space and
[2:19:01] recreational amenities throughout the development. These next illustrations are
[2:19:06] just illustrations. They're not in any means intended to convey this is the
[2:19:10] permanent layout of how these are going to go but we felt that it was necessary to
[2:19:14] show a difference between park sizes only. So on the left side option A shows
[2:19:19] development layout of the green spaces which are those parks that provide
[2:19:23] minimum size. This is the Donaldson property. So there's two square parks that are six acre
[2:19:28] in size and then there's a rectangular-looking park on option A that shows 10 acre parks.
[2:19:34] And then option B shows a different layout where they're smaller parks.
[2:19:38] Same goes for the Racins 10 property. The left exhibit shows parks that meet the minimum size
[2:19:44] standards and the right side. It's hard to tell on this one but there are smaller parks and the
[2:19:50] The roundabout of the option B in the very center, there's a parker butting that, as well as a smaller park up against the creek and then a portion that's along the eastern edge of the development.
[2:20:02] And then for the A&P children, investments property, this is again another illustration that shows a park that meets the minimum sizes for all the programming that we're hoping for, and then smaller parks that would be smaller.
[2:20:13] Again, indicating that these aren't, there's still a lot of work to do on a draft lane.
[2:20:18] These plan, you may see completely different layouts later on based off of what City Council
[2:20:23] provides for direction, but we felt that it was at least helpful to provide some
[2:20:27] illustration between larger parks, which is smaller parks.
[2:20:32] All right, so staff's recommendation on this one is just outright compliance with our existing
[2:20:37] policies.
[2:20:38] And there's a number of reasons why.
[2:20:40] We have found that smaller parks just increases maintenance, increases a cost to the city that
[2:20:44] that we weren't aware of, where we're having to send staff to multiple different parks,
[2:20:50] smaller parks to offload, to spend more time, and really the savings comes and if you're
[2:20:55] able to send staff to one particular park that's a larger size, they can spend all their
[2:20:59] time all there instead of having to offload and load up or at different areas.
[2:21:05] But the other thing that we found out is that when you have smaller parks, they preclude
[2:21:08] a variety of different amenities that are necessary for those large parks, and that was
[2:21:12] identified on the previous slides.
[2:21:16] We've got some experiences from other projects, so part
[2:21:20] of the reason is we've got these standards identified with an internal plan in parks
[2:21:23] and recreation master plan, but we've also learned from previous experiences, and so
[2:21:28] Salton is a pretty good example where we're not afraid of the idea of developer-built parks.
[2:21:34] Magnolia Park is a park that was built by a developer, and they received park credits
[2:21:38] It was a fantastic park and I think it's almost under construction out there right now.
[2:21:43] So that was an example of how a developer was able to meet the requirements within the
[2:21:48] general plan.
[2:21:49] But there's a particular item out there that you'll see is a southbound park, it's a very
[2:21:53] small park.
[2:21:54] And the nice thing about that is that it's a demonstration of how you can have a project
[2:21:58] that meets our minimum standards within our general plan but then goes above and beyond and
[2:22:03] it provides a public benefit.
[2:22:04] And that's what's out there in the South Town development is there is a small pocket park where they were able to say we're going to meet our standards and Magnolia Park, but we're going to go above and beyond and provide more.
[2:22:15] And so in that particular case we found that no fee credit was given for that smaller park because it was the developer's a testament, a testament to provide additional benefits.
[2:22:26] A different lesson that we learned in Venomillo's park was that there's a I think a seven-acre
[2:22:32] park that was originally allocated for in that specific plan and the lesson learned
[2:22:36] in that particular situation was that the city probably could have been done a better
[2:22:40] job with negotiating with an development agreement for the developer to build the park and
[2:22:46] that particular development we didn't negotiate that instead we offered opportunities of you
[2:22:50] can either build it or you can pay the park development impact fee.
[2:22:53] And so, that park is not built as a result of that, but some of the other things that we realized from that is that park, when it was dedicated to the city, was received in substandard design, meaning it wasn't graded flat, it wasn't prepared for the city by the time we received it, and so what we're learning here is that not only should we be looking for parks that meet our minimum standards, but we should all should be negotiating for parks that are developer built, but yeah, that are developer built, and that they're built
[2:23:23] early in in the process and that was one of the things that we were able to put into practice for North Village where that particular development, the City Negotiate and got the park to be built at least at starting construction at 50% and the developer is funding all the construction for all that.
[2:23:39] So we're not afraid of the idea of developers building parks.
[2:23:44] One last example I wanted to share with the council was in Roberts Ranch and their
[2:23:49] stroller park.
[2:23:50] So, going back to the idea of how do you measure a project's benefit?
[2:23:55] So compliance with our minimum standards that are identified in our general plan and
[2:23:59] our parks and recreation master plan.
[2:24:01] That's not a benefit.
[2:24:02] That's the minimum standards that are going to be receiving new land within our city.
[2:24:07] We have to have our minimum standard to meet the community's needs.
[2:24:11] How do we measure the public benefit?
[2:24:13] Robert's branch did that.
[2:24:15] So, and Robert's branch they provided a park to meet the compliance with the general
[2:24:20] plan along the eastern edge of the development that's right along the road tracks and those
[2:24:23] are currently being built by the developer now, it's a developer funded park.
[2:24:28] But the developer went one step beyond that and what they did was they identified the installation
[2:24:33] of five stroller parks throughout that development.
[2:24:35] That was an example of them going above and beyond and providing a public benefit for the city.
[2:24:42] No fee credits were given for those smaller parks.
[2:24:44] This was just something that the developer was able to do when it was able to provide that connectivity.
[2:24:49] And so the stories that we're trying to paint with this particular picture is that,
[2:24:53] staff's observation is that if we require minimum compliance with our existing standards,
[2:24:59] and we get the base design figured out, then we will know what the measurable
[2:25:04] will benefit will be beyond that.
[2:25:07] What else is the developer able to provide for the community that is a benefit to the community?
[2:25:12] That concludes my portion of the presentation.
[2:25:13] Here to cover the affordability component will be our director Aaron Morse.
[2:25:19] Thank you, Mayor Carly.
[2:25:20] Members of Council, thank you, Albert.
[2:25:22] So going back to when the guiding principles were adopted by the council in April of 2024,
[2:25:28] or guiding principle for a identified the need
[2:25:32] to establish an inclusionary housing goal
[2:25:34] to ensure integrated mixed income neighborhoods.
[2:25:37] So I do wanna be very clear with the council and the public.
[2:25:39] There was no specifics given.
[2:25:41] It wasn't 10% or 5% or how specifically
[2:25:46] the inclusionary housing would be provided.
[2:25:48] But the idea was that working with staff
[2:25:50] that a developer would establish a goal or a strategy
[2:25:52] with the desired outcome of ensuring
[2:25:55] integrated mix income neighborhoods.
[2:25:58] So as we touched on earlier this year with the inclusionary housing study session, there
[2:26:03] are a variety of ways for private developers to produce affordable housing as part of
[2:26:08] a new development in some cities and in some projects paying in Luffy.
[2:26:14] That does not guarantee those homes are built in that neighborhood or that they're built
[2:26:18] anytime soon but is a way to contribute toward affordable housing.
[2:26:22] It does not necessarily contribute toward this development having a mixed income neighborhood.
[2:26:28] Another option that is often used is a developer will dedicate bear land to a city.
[2:26:33] And that's something that there is actually bear land all over the state of California that has been dedicated to cities for affordable housing.
[2:26:39] And then the real challenge is how do you turn that bear land into actual homes?
[2:26:44] And so that's a second option.
[2:26:45] A third option that some developers employ is to construct off-site affordable housing.
[2:26:51] That was not really germane to the goal for this particular project.
[2:26:55] And then the reason why staff is recommending that the strategy that we all develop together
[2:27:00] include on-site affordable housing is because that would be how the mixed income integrated
[2:27:05] neighborhoods could be achieved.
[2:27:06] So we're going to go to the next slide.
[2:27:08] The developers, this is the reason why this is a council is that we've had very productive
[2:27:12] discussions.
[2:27:13] We've had very hard to heart discussions, but ultimately, at this point, one of the three developers is proposing something that could potentially help for affordable housing.
[2:27:23] And that is the Donaldson-Ramos site, they're proposing to dedicate a six acre site that could be developed into deed restricted affordable housing.
[2:27:30] The other two developers are not proposing anything related to the goal.
[2:27:35] We don't believe that right now these proposals meet the guiding principle, it's hard to put the burden of the affordable housing on just one of the three and again it's not clear how we have mixed income neighborhoods if the housing is on one site in one part of the development.
[2:27:50] The other concern that staff has about the dedication of bear land absent other other contributions is that land does not guarantee construction of housing within a reasonable time.
[2:28:00] And the third final point on this slide that waiting to build affordable units can create community division and neighborhood opposition, I think this council has lived through that in multiple projects, not just affordable housing, but also market rate housing like the South Town apartments.
[2:28:14] It's very hard for and even the Victory Gardens project that the Planning Commission approved on appeal.
[2:28:19] It's very hard for neighbors to understand that affordable housing was planned all along when it takes 20 or 30 years for that housing to be produced.
[2:28:26] So this is why staff doesn't feel at this time what the one of the three developers is proposing is really aligned with the guiding principle, and that's why we wanted to bring this to the council for some consideration and I'll wrap up with my final slide, my two more slides.
[2:28:40] Part of my staff's concern that this project do its part and also achieve these mixed income neighborhoods is that the city's obligations to produce deed restricted affordable housing just increased with every time we go through our housing element.
[2:28:53] And as I alluded to earlier, there's a lot of bear land dedicated for affordable housing.
[2:28:57] In Vacaville, we've had up to three entitled affordable housing projects on bear city land.
[2:29:03] They just cannot be developed because there's no money to develop them.
[2:29:06] It's a very competitive to get funding to build housing right now.
[2:29:10] Staff, in discussion with the developer, it's mostly been what all do you think you can do to help achieve this goal.
[2:29:17] So, we've put out there that if the developer was able to come up with a strategy that could ensure that 10% of the units within the overall development were affordable,
[2:29:26] before it will possibly at different affordability levels, I mean that would certainly ensure mixed income neighborhoods.
[2:29:32] I do just want to be very transparent with the council.
[2:29:35] This 10% is not a magic number, it's not a fixed number, it is to give the council somebody to think about.
[2:29:40] So at present, the Donaldson Ramos property is proposing a six acre site that could generate
[2:29:47] kind of a round number about 150 units in one spot within the development.
[2:29:52] So if the council was good about the 10% or some percentage idea, 10% of the current proposed
[2:30:00] Unit count would be 438, and so that could happen in a variety of fashion, whether it's apartment complexes or whether it's single family homes at affordable rates, that's sort of what's on the table here. And the last slide is going to Kathy to talk about the transportation circulation issues.
[2:30:20] Good evening. The next couple of slides, I will be talking about the potential alignments for Carole Way. Carole Way is planned as a two-lane facility that would provide
[2:30:32] in North South connection and provide a reliever to the Leisure Town, Jepsen Parkway.
[2:30:40] That would be a parallel facility.
[2:30:43] So we are looking tonight for Council direction to determine connections on the Northern and
[2:30:48] South Southern areas of the specific plan.
[2:30:52] So the middle area has either been built or is under construction or plan by approved projects
[2:30:59] that Albert had alluded to earlier next slide.
[2:31:06] This gives a little bit of context.
[2:31:08] It shows the overall area and that transportation facilities
[2:31:12] will be needed for the future, including the near-term 2035
[2:31:17] as well as that build out.
[2:31:21] So the first property for Racins-Chen is to incorporate
[2:31:32] There's a proposal, we have two proposals, one that is consistent and one that does not provide a north connection to the Locke pattern community.
[2:31:43] So that's one of the things that we're going to look at next slide.
[2:31:48] So more specifically, this shows the two options.
[2:31:52] Staff recommends option A, as you can see there's a green space that would provide for
[2:31:58] a future connection.
[2:32:00] Now that could be a landscape corridor and there's no guarantee that that would be
[2:32:06] needed.
[2:32:07] There's nothing that would require that to be a connection in the future, but we think it's
[2:32:12] really important not knowing what the plans for the future are is to leave that option in
[2:32:18] case it's needed in the future.
[2:32:22] With the next proposal we have the AMP Children's Investment Property.
[2:32:27] They too have shown us two options.
[2:32:30] One would show an alignment connecting to Leisure Town Road and then the other one would
[2:32:37] end before their parcel and it would just provide a neighborhood access with the loop system.
[2:32:44] Next.
[2:32:45] This is what the two options are as you can see.
[2:32:48] So staff is recommending the option A for a couple of reasons.
[2:32:53] One, it provides a direct route to Leisure Town Road.
[2:32:58] This is consistent with our general plan policies
[2:33:00] that recommend that transportation systems not be circuitous.
[2:33:05] It also would provide a good transit corridor as well.
[2:33:10] And as you can see, option B, it would, Carol way would essentially end right before or after Fry Road, and then there'd be an internal roadway loop, and then eventually neighborhood traffic could get out until easier town road.
[2:33:38] Okay. So here's the game plan after receiving City Council's direction on these three items.
[2:33:44] Our plan is to update the draft plan based off of City Council direction as well as some
[2:33:51] of the concepts that the developer team has it was able to provide to us and possibly return
[2:33:57] to City Council on August.
[2:34:01] Following that direction we would work with community
[2:34:03] members as part of meetings to receive their feedback on the draft plan. We'd also set
[2:34:09] up a send out a notice of preparation that we would be starting the draft
[2:34:14] environmental impact report and looking to receive public comments about what
[2:34:17] things need to be evaluated and incorporated as part of that environmental
[2:34:20] document. And then we would also have some more public hearings on the project
[2:34:24] in the spring and summer of 2026. But this is a crucial step. We do need City Council
[2:34:28] direction on these three topical items before we can move forward with a formal
[2:34:32] draft planning plan that will come before the City Council in August. So we have a
[2:34:36] recommendation for City Council on these particular topical items. Of course, we have
[2:34:44] our traffic engineer team here to talk about any questions that the City Council might
[2:34:48] have regarding circulation. We have the City's park planners that are also here to help
[2:34:53] answer any questions related to those park standards. We also have the developer team, all three
[2:34:59] of those property owners that are here to help answer any questions also present to you.
[2:35:04] to their perspective about these particular topics too.
[2:35:08] Without that concludes our presentation.
[2:35:10] Thank you.
[2:35:12] What I'd like to do also just given the fact that this is a partnership that we've been working with the
[2:35:17] between the city, the development team and council is to hear from the developers who have put a significant amount of time in this.
[2:35:25] Obviously looking at the staff report and their comments, they have a different opinion.
[2:35:31] and would like to give them the opportunity to express their why.
[2:35:34] So any member of the development teams that they want to come forward,
[2:35:38] I'm not going to limit you to three minutes, but within reason,
[2:35:41] if you could share how you can help convey between your comments
[2:35:47] to the staff report, and also what you've heard tonight,
[2:35:51] your reason for being
[2:35:54] polite out there.
[2:35:57] Yeah, yes.
[2:35:59] I'll let you rub yourself up.
[2:36:02] Thank you for the time, good evening, Mayor Carly, Vice Mayor Chapman, and members of the council.
[2:36:07] We appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight and the extra time that you're allowing us to talk.
[2:36:14] Obviously we've been involved in advancing the planning process for East of Leisure Town and
[2:36:19] Donaldson Property in particular, my name's Todd Chambers, the fullest planned community started to induce myself representing the Donaldson property.
[2:36:27] We've been working on things with the city for the past three years, and while the original schedule may be delayed one or two months as noted in the staff report, we feel it's important that the items before you tonight are being presented so you can provide us with meaningful direction.
[2:36:44] Regarding the background of the planning process, I wanted to clarify that the property owners proposing the Easter leisure town specific plan as shown in attachment one includes about 505 acres.
[2:36:53] So the 1300 and 17 referenced east of leisure town is comprehensive with what's existing there today and some other land, but our proposals about 505 between the three property owners.
[2:37:06] The three landowner representatives and city staff been working together comprehensively to plan this area and primarily to address the need of what has been commonly referred to as the missing middle housing.
[2:37:21] housing and other words, more attainable housing is the way we like to look at it.
[2:37:26] As you're aware, the city has a substantial housing inventory and low density and higher
[2:37:31] density housing ranges, but it's lacking opportunities of housing in the more of the medium
[2:37:36] and medium-high density ranges, what we're proposing.
[2:37:40] Our vision and what we believe the city has indicated it desires is to develop the remaining
[2:37:45] lands.
[2:37:46] It's easy to leave your town in a manner that is different from what has been done in large part, traditionally, what has been developed traditionally in the city.
[2:37:55] We want to provide a larger range of housing opportunities for future residents, such as employers of the employees of the biotech industries and Travis Airman.
[2:38:05] In order to accomplish this, we're here to ask your consideration of a few items that will affect how our projects are designed.
[2:38:12] So, touching on the neighborhood and community parks issue, it's appropriate that July is parks and recreation month.
[2:38:19] Coming up, as stated in the staff report, we agree that the availability of plentiful well-designed and well-maintained parks and recreation facilities
[2:38:27] significantly contribute to a higher quality life in Vacaville. There's no question there.
[2:38:33] We're not looking to change the amount of park acres that's required to be dedicated.
[2:38:37] under the city's current general plan policies, or the facilities identified in the parks and recreation master plan.
[2:38:45] Rather, we're asking the city to consider some flexibility in how we allocate the parks and
[2:38:50] related sizes throughout the proposed neighborhoods.
[2:38:53] For example, the overall specific plan area would require approximately 20 acres of community park.
[2:38:59] Given the makeup of properties in the question, perhaps sharing or splitting a 10 acre community park between the Donaldson and
[2:39:06] and ten properties makes sense so that both projects can work towards meeting the requirement in a comprehensively planned manner.
[2:39:13] So in other words, we'd like to have you consider not necessarily one property burdened with all the parkland.
[2:39:20] Allow us to try and share it in that manner on the community park side.
[2:39:26] For the neighborhood parks, we believe that providing some level of parks and neighborhoods there are less than six acres is a benefit to the neighborhood.
[2:39:32] and provides opportunities for residents living in the immediate area to utilize those smaller parks which create cultivates and encourages an environment where neighbors gather and get to know each other versus driving to a larger park that serves a larger area.
[2:39:47] For example, having a three to four acre park in a neighborhood surrounded by homes,
[2:39:51] was fronting the park, encourages residents in that neighborhood to use the park for gatherings, events, or simply leash up your dog and visit with other neighbors and dog owners.
[2:40:00] Another alternative to consider is that the Donaldson property is proposing a substantial community clubhouse amenity for our project.
[2:40:06] The clubhouse pool facilities, recreation components such as playgrounds,
[2:40:11] half basketball courts, pickable tennis courts, and open turf fields, things that are listed in the city's policies for
[2:40:18] what types of amenities and facilities you'd like to see would be maintained by Homer's association.
[2:40:26] So while it's not a public park, it does provide a significant recreational opportunity for
[2:40:30] our residents at no cost to the city, however, we'd like the city to consider credit towards
[2:40:38] park dedication as part of something that would be an amenity to that type of a project.
[2:40:47] Looking at the mixed income and affordable housing issue, we believe the proposed specific plan in missing middle housing options will ensure that a supply of housing of different type size and affordability will be provided in order to meet back of those housing needs for the current and future residents within the community.
[2:41:03] As stated in the staff report, the city has not adopted an inclusionary housing ordinance and the guiding principle states that an inclusionary housing goal should be established as staff indicated for the project.
[2:41:15] and we will ensure integrated mixed income neighborhoods.
[2:41:18] We believe that the city staff is overreaching on this guiding principle by suggesting that 10% of the housing units
[2:41:24] or over 400 units should be provided for different levels of affordable housing.
[2:41:28] Given costs associated with entitlements, infrastructure, the potential for significant development impact,
[2:41:34] the increases that are being considered, services, CFDs, that are burning projects,
[2:41:39] They all add a significant sub and adding in a subsidized housing requirement further moves the proposed projects away from providing lower cost or more attainable market rate housing.
[2:41:52] Those costs are going to be needed to absorb by other residents.
[2:41:55] So if you're putting in affordable housing, the people that are going to be buying the market rate housing are subsidizing the others.
[2:42:00] And it's just going to increase the cost of the market rate housing.
[2:42:04] The Easter Leisure Town-specific plans being disadvantaged as no other master plans in the city, North Village, Lagoon Valley, Brighton Landing, Roberts Ranch, South Town, the Farm at Almo Creek, none of those were required to meet in a affordable housing standard.
[2:42:17] We're open to working towards a solution but not to the level that city staff is outlined.
[2:42:24] I look at affordable housing as an issue, and I think it should be looked at more comprehensively.
[2:42:29] And it's always placed on the home builder or the residential developer to provide affordable housing.
[2:42:35] Perhaps consider businesses that are coming into the city, or employers that are bringing businesses into the city to help provide some affordable housing.
[2:42:43] As people on incomes that would qualify are probably hired by those firms or companies.
[2:42:50] So I appreciate you're the opportunity to speak tonight.
[2:42:53] I know the other property owners want to say a few words, so thank you for your time.
[2:42:56] I'll answer any questions you might have.
[2:42:58] Thank you.
[2:42:58] I might call you back.
[2:43:08] Right.
[2:43:10] It takes a bit for me to get there, but be careful.
[2:43:15] I'm always careful.
[2:43:17] Mr. Mayor, Vice Mayor and council members, it's my pleasure to be in front of you.
[2:43:24] It's been a while, but Todd and I are probably going to overlap on some things, but I'm
[2:43:31] going to take a different approach.
[2:43:34] And that is, I'm going to start out with the background and about 2011.
[2:43:42] This whole project was all laid out and was pretty much all approved and was set aside
[2:43:48] as urban reserve.
[2:43:51] Since that time, it was recommended by staff that all that information be thrown out and we started a new process.
[2:44:05] The process has burdened some, extremely burdensome.
[2:44:16] We're one specific plan. We've been asked to do as one specific plan of three properties.
[2:44:21] We all three agree and we think it's benefit to the city.
[2:44:24] But at the same time, whenever it comes down to doing parks and such as this, they want
[2:44:30] to look at us as individuals.
[2:44:34] Yes, Donaldson and Racons want to share a park.
[2:44:40] We want to do things.
[2:44:41] There's reasons for us wanting to do it.
[2:44:45] Now we're not just trying to be cheap, get away and not building something.
[2:44:51] The goal is, and this is a question I give to you because I feel that we're doing the fight for the...
[2:45:00] the city.
[2:45:02] The goal is, I understand it, is to build workforce housing. You can call it middle, whatever, whatever you want to call it. I call it workforce housing. You want to build it for people that are coming in. But yet, at the same time, you keep throwing burdens at us because there's two things. If you want your workforce housing, then we've got to talk about and do something regarding the
[2:45:31] the cost, the fees, the roadway of Carol going into lock padden and leaving land set aside
[2:45:43] that we don't know if it's ever going to go there.
[2:45:45] All these are all cost and they're driving everything up to where your housing implementation
[2:45:56] that you have requested, that we have all are all in favor of, we're trying to do, we're
[2:46:02] We're trying to build this for you, we've all laid it out, but it's becoming rapidly
[2:46:10] unattainable, rapidly.
[2:46:13] Fees, I'm not going to go into them right now unless you ask me to go into them.
[2:46:18] But fees right now are, you know, you're looking at this all of a sudden coming up with 100-200
[2:46:25] percent fees.
[2:46:26] They don't work.
[2:46:27] You've all been involved in that.
[2:46:29] I didn't get into that in the next session.
[2:46:31] But parks were asking for it to be smaller, not smaller, but more usable.
[2:46:39] We want to do theme parks.
[2:46:41] We want to do things that work for the development and yet provide the city, but, you know,
[2:46:50] and we're more than willing to build them.
[2:46:53] I was more than willing to build the vand in park.
[2:46:58] The plans never got done.
[2:47:00] We were never going to get reimbursed.
[2:47:02] full amount. It never got built, it's not built today, fees have been collected, still
[2:47:10] not built. So that's a problem. We're willing to build parks because they help us sell
[2:47:18] our product. And we're all very much in favor of parks, we always have been. But sometimes
[2:47:28] times we ask the city to look at it, not everything is programmable,
[2:47:33] meaning for baseball, soccer to make money.
[2:47:37] Right now, we're building more homes and more of us gray-haired folks are moving into your town.
[2:47:43] And we're not bringing kids with us.
[2:47:45] The schools and the kids' count is diminishing.
[2:47:50] Some people want smaller theme parks, which would be pickleball.
[2:47:56] I only thought for the first time, looks fun, I need to try it.
[2:48:02] But the bottom line is, you build a programmable park which is designed for soccer and baseball
[2:48:13] so that the Parks Department can make money running out the fields and doing all this.
[2:48:20] We're in a different world today.
[2:48:22] And so we're trying to build to what the market is.
[2:48:26] We know what the market is.
[2:48:27] We spend thousands of dollars to find out what the market is and who we're trying to build to.
[2:48:33] And right now, we would like to build our product to what you want.
[2:48:42] But it looks like we're being pushed into which I'm going to eventually get to.
[2:48:48] but I'll get to it now, to change in our program, and instead of building this workforce housing.
[2:48:58] I think that we're going to be maybe looking at you and saying, all right, if you want the fees,
[2:49:03] if you want the park, if you want inclusionary housing, if you want, and you want, you want,
[2:49:08] you want, you want, fight. Let us build our standard 6, 8, 10,000 square foot
[2:49:16] lots and sell seven eight nine hundred thousand dollar homes and then we can afford and people that are buying those going to
[2:49:23] forward your fees. And you won't have to worry about your schools because they're not going to bring kids because they're
[2:49:27] going to be older folks. That is not what I understood this city wanted. I've been building and working here and made a good
[2:49:36] living out of your city and I love it dearly and I've really enjoyed working here. But to me is starting to get out of
[2:49:43] control, and we do not have a clear guidance on what you really want. And the
[2:49:49] guidance is set up by what staff is telling and working with us with. We've
[2:49:58] been having meetings for two months for Cran out loud and they ask us to give
[2:50:02] our input. We give our input. We don't get any answers back. We've talked about
[2:50:09] fees. We brought up a lot of fees that are in there.
[2:50:12] Hey Rich, I'm going to ask you to come back around, we're not going to talk about the fees right now, but if you could get to any other issue on the property, because I know there's Carole Way or
[2:50:22] Carole Way, alright, I'll just, I'll go down and Carole Way. I don't know why we're laying out and being forced to lay out a project goes into lockpad and that lockpad and people do not care for, and our land is going to set aside.
[2:50:37] And as we set aside land as fewer houses, fewer houses means that we're going to have to charge more for other houses, okay?
[2:50:46] So that's number one.
[2:50:49] Parks, I pretty well mentioned that.
[2:50:51] We want to work together with our parks to make it function and make it work.
[2:50:59] But we want to integrate it with new ideas.
[2:51:02] and we would like to look at it instead of the old ideas of six acre parks that are programmable
[2:51:11] parks. We'd rather look at the smaller ones that make sense for the development that people
[2:51:16] were building to. Inclusionary housing. Inclusionary housing doesn't work for anybody. I've been in this
[2:51:23] business for a long time. We've tried to build it. I've ended up tearing down duplexes because it didn't
[2:51:29] work. The people that ended up using inclusionary housing do not get any benefit for it unless
[2:51:36] they live in it for 30 years. They can't sell it and make a profit. It is set aside.
[2:51:42] So it doesn't benefit them other than for basic housing. So it's not a benefit to them.
[2:51:48] It's not a benefit to the neighborhood does it give them motivation to really take care
[2:51:53] of their property. So that's one of the things that we filed that we didn't care for. They
[2:51:57] didn't take care of it because they weren't going to get a profit out of it like you and
[2:52:01] there were rest of the people that don't know home.
[2:52:04] So this is something that we want to take a closer look at.
[2:52:07] Inclusionary housing hasn't benefit anything and it's a major cost because whatever work
[2:52:13] charged we have got to pass on to the new virus which raises the fees which takes me back
[2:52:18] that we can't afford to build the
[2:52:23] workforce housing.
[2:52:25] So I'll sort of summarize it with that and let's see if there's anything on the short end that I'm missing.
[2:52:36] Now I've hit you here.
[2:52:38] I've hit the main ones without hitting the fees.
[2:52:41] How's that?
[2:52:42] Thank you.
[2:52:43] All right.
[2:52:46] One last developer.
[2:52:59] Thank you.
[2:53:00] Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members.
[2:53:02] Greg Brun with the Wisteria Land Group representing the A&P children's investment property.
[2:53:08] Albert, would you mind putting up this slide for the policy issues for me, please?
[2:53:14] And by the way, I'd be the first in line to buy a ticket to watch Rich Play Picklebow.
[2:53:26] So I'll go through these items based on this slide.
[2:53:31] So neighborhood and community parks, the more successful master plans don't just have one or two large parks.
[2:53:41] They have multiple parks that serve the communities, so I echo Todd's comments regarding that.
[2:53:49] We are not asking to reduce the amount of parks, we're asking to have more flexibility in how we provide the required park spaces.
[2:54:00] When we first started this process, it was under the guys that the city wants to do things differently than what they've done in the past.
[2:54:08] If we comply with what the general plan requirements are, we're doing the same thing that developers have done in the past.
[2:54:16] We're wanting to collaborate and actually do things differently as was requested through the specific plan process.
[2:54:26] We've reached out to builder partners and looked at, let me back up, of our developer group just representing the property owners, not including our consultants.
[2:54:36] We all have collectively over 150 years of development experience in the state of California and actually in the Western United States.
[2:54:44] So we are not carpet baggers.
[2:54:46] We are not people that don't have experience in developing successful projects.
[2:54:53] Todd, with the Lewis companies in Riches, he reiterated about what he's done just in the community.
[2:54:59] I grew up in Vallejo, I've done development in Salano County my whole career.
[2:55:03] My wife and companies that she's worked for are built in Vacaville and in Solano County, so we all come here with a stakeholders mentality of my wife and I live in Solano County.
[2:55:20] So we're here to do projects that we can drive through later in life and be proud that we were a part of, which I know this council feels the same way.
[2:55:33] affordability, mix of housing types.
[2:55:36] Required 10% affordable units, this is the first that we've heard of it when the staff report was issued.
[2:55:43] We've never discussed this in any of our meetings with staff.
[2:55:48] We feel that for us to provide missing middle housing, that in and of itself is providing a portion of the affordable housing that's required in the community.
[2:56:00] Alignment of Carole Wage, Albert, would you mind putting up the two options for the AMP property?
[2:56:07] The reason that we requested option B is that we feel that option A would essentially not only
[2:56:13] bifurcate our project, but would create a speedway through the project that makes it unsafe for
[2:56:21] folks that are wanting to access just one six acre park.
[2:56:25] We're proposing three, two acre parks, which we had a call this morning, which Tom
[2:56:33] Philippi was involved in, I was trying to find out what kind of amenities would a two-acre park afford.
[2:56:42] And Tom shared with us minus the parking lot at the play all park.
[2:56:49] It's roughly two and a half acres.
[2:56:50] We're not proposing that we would do a play all part.
[2:56:54] What we're proposing is that we would do, as Rich was talking about, and what Todd was talking about is that they would be themed parks that would have different amenities for different neighborhoods.
[2:57:07] And if you look at option B, those green lines are piseos that would allow people to have access to the parks without having to cross
[2:57:17] across a collector street, which is proposed for Carol Way.
[2:57:23] So these are some of the things that we had talked about.
[2:57:28] We'll get into the fees in the next segment of the meeting.
[2:57:33] But if you're wanting to provide missing middle housing, and if you're wanting to do things differently,
[2:57:38] we want to be a part of that process and we want to collaborate with the city.
[2:57:43] But the way that things are moving forward, like I said, if we have to do general plan compliant,
[2:57:48] parks, et cetera, you're just going to get more of the same, unfortunately.
[2:57:52] Thank you.
[2:57:53] Yes, thank you.
[2:57:55] Before I have staff making you other response or questions, I'm going to open the rest of this time up to the public, the general public, if anyone wishes to make a comment.
[2:58:06] And these will be limited to three minutes.
[2:58:08] I forgot one of those things.
[2:58:10] Yeah, questions may come back, but I'm going to live it up to the public.
[2:58:17] Get in here.
[2:58:18] Hello Mayor, Vice Mayor and City Council.
[2:58:21] I had a lot of stuff written down, but since hearing some of the developers' ideas, I'm
[2:58:25] a little more open-minded to things that they might come up with.
[2:58:29] But in general, enjoying public parks is one of my passions.
[2:58:34] And I see providing I have felt that a good-sized park is the minimum of six acres like we have in
[2:58:42] the city at this point in the general plan and the parks and parks department master
[2:58:49] plan. But as one of the developers is mentioning about parks that are being themed, perhaps
[2:58:57] there would be something that could be appealing for a senior like container gardening or music
[2:59:04] events. And it could be possibly doable in a four acre park. I'm not sure about a two
[2:59:10] So I hope that we could talk about some good ideas, but keep in mind we need some space.
[2:59:17] The other part of having more good-sized parks in my mind is what the Parks and Recreation Department talks about for programming.
[2:59:28] And it could be something as simple as a camp, which could be four seniors learning of craft.
[2:59:35] left, something that would be doable in a larger space.
[2:59:42] So I wanted to just uphold the city staff for all the work they've done and their guidance
[2:59:48] is really valuable for all the experiences, the mistakes that have been made.
[2:59:53] We don't want to repeat, but we want to make things enjoyable.
[2:59:58] So thanks.
[3:00:00] Thank you.
[3:00:07] Good evening. As a member of John Q. Public, I would just like to remind all of you ladies and gentlemen that these developers came to you. They wanted to build here because it benefits them. They're not here out of the goodness of their hearts. Now, if there's something they come up with that city staff says, oh, okay, maybe that is a better idea, then all right.
[3:00:36] But please do not change what the city requirements are or what the city needs in order to accommodate these people.
[3:00:47] They came to you looking to build.
[3:00:50] You didn't go ask them.
[3:00:53] The other thing is that they're really worried about, you know, I've sat through a lot of council meeting, maybe slept through more of it.
[3:01:01] But there's been a lot of talk about the city is required to get more affordable housing.
[3:01:08] City staff is saying, hey, we need a certain amount of this project is going to be affordable housing.
[3:01:12] I don't care what they're whining about now because, well, back when such-and-such project was built, they weren't required to do that.
[3:01:22] Well, things changed.
[3:01:24] Situations changed.
[3:01:26] These gentlemen know that.
[3:01:27] They're in business.
[3:01:29] Let's not be their patsies.
[3:01:31] They came to you looking to build a project.
[3:01:35] If the city requires a certain amount of affordable housing,
[3:01:39] their smart businessmen, they'll figure it out.
[3:01:42] They're not going to like it, but you gentlemen, ladies,
[3:01:46] gentlemen, should make them do it.
[3:01:47] Because once again, they came to you.
[3:01:50] All
[3:01:56] right, let me go ahead and close public comment at this point.
[3:01:59] And if there's any comments that staff would like to follow up on
[3:02:02] based upon the comments from the developers, but also from the public.
[3:02:07] I think I'll try to start with the easiest issue, which is actually also one of the most sensitive issues,
[3:02:12] which is the interface of the Northern property with Lockpad and from the very beginning council and staff
[3:02:18] talking to the residents of Lockpad and we've been very clear, we've been clear nothing about this plan
[3:02:23] is intended to force any change in Lockpad and it's an unincorporated area.
[3:02:28] People that live there can live there as long as they like.
[3:02:30] They've got their kind of rural lifestyle there, but one of the challenges for this project with these new homes and possibly missing middle densities is how to create a buffer so that this new development isn't right up against this rural enclave.
[3:02:45] So the way that staff use option A is it doesn't force or even construct a road that goes to the edge of lock pad and possibly beyond.
[3:02:54] But 30, 40, 50 years from now, if the lot of pad and area develops, particularly with all this stuff happening north of it, the northeast growth area, this provides an option.
[3:03:05] And the way this initial design is intended to be, it could be landscaped as part of a buffer, but then ultimately that land remains available to be purposed into a road at such time in the future.
[3:03:16] So I just want to clarify, it's not, as Tom Philippi mentioned, an effort to terrorize anyone.
[3:03:21] It really is intended to be that long-term planning to create a robust circulation network in the area.
[3:03:29] A couple other things about the parks, and also we do have park staff here if you really want to get into some of the needy gritty.
[3:03:34] But staff has not expressed any opposition to the concept that the developers came up with early on.
[3:03:39] to, for example, place the community park between the two developer properties,
[3:03:44] you don't see Raymos and Racins Chen, it's really been about the size of that park,
[3:03:50] and whether or not it meets our minimum standards, and whether it can accommodate those features
[3:03:54] that are part of the Parks and Rec Master Plan.
[3:03:56] So that's something that we've been very open to, and there's nothing to that, they would preclude that.
[3:04:02] A couple other parks things, one of the things about the, I keep thinking the theme parks,
[3:04:06] But theme to parks is that the city's parks and work master plan recognizes that neighborhood parks typically serve residents within like a quarter mile and
[3:04:15] community parks are serving a broader audience, but part of why the general plan calls for these sizes that allow these features is that the park is for the folks in this development, but it's also for the folks beyond this development and it's also part of the city's public park offering.
[3:04:29] So, that's where I think staff and developer right now have kind of a difference of opinion is how these smaller themed parks provide that similar equivalent public amenity to vacable residents with the kind of recreational features that are in the parks and the rec master plan.
[3:04:47] And then the other comment that was made, I just think it's important to be very clear about when staff is giving feedback to developer about this doesn't seem to work or this is an issue.
[3:04:57] It isn't based on staff opinion or us trying to decide what's right or good.
[3:05:03] It really has been grounded solidly in the general plan in the adopted guiding principles in the city's development standards.
[3:05:10] And our staff report goes into that in great detail, but I just want to be clear, I've been very careful with my team that we're not arbitrary and
[3:05:16] capricious, we're not city designers, we're not freelancing here.
[3:05:20] We are really trying to make sure that when this project goes to council, we've not missed anything.
[3:05:25] and you're able to feel confident that it complies with policy.
[3:05:29] I think there was one last thing on my last, sorry, I'm not going to order.
[3:05:33] I would like to go in order.
[3:05:35] I think I clarify this earlier, but the 10% number was kind of put out there
[3:05:39] to give the council something to think about.
[3:05:41] At this point, one of the three developers has proposed one inclusionary solution.
[3:05:47] So the question for the council is, is that sufficient?
[3:05:50] Would you like the developers to explore additional options?
[3:05:53] Back when we took the inclusionary study session to you all, you asked for some information
[3:05:57] about further data about starter homes and home ownership and how ownership units can
[3:06:03] build well.
[3:06:03] That work is happening in community development with our consultant to come back to council.
[3:06:08] So if you're interested in continuing the inclusionary conversation, that's the direction we
[3:06:12] would be looking for.
[3:06:14] Whether it's 10% or just continuing the conversation, I think that's where we're at.
[3:06:18] And if there are any other questions that Albert, you're also taking notes.
[3:06:21] to make sure we don't leave anything unanswered.
[3:06:26] There were a couple of comments that I felt might be helpful to at least clarify.
[3:06:32] The general point of view, and I would say that one of the nice things about this whole
[3:06:36] process is that the developer team does have quite a bit of years of experience.
[3:06:40] So it is, it's very nice to be able to work with that experience because it's not a very
[3:06:45] rigid process.
[3:06:46] We can actually have good conversation back and forth.
[3:06:49] I'm sorry to hear that they're feeling that this is a burdensome process.
[3:06:54] Many of these standards are not new.
[3:06:56] The standards for minimum park sizes have been on our general plan for quite some time.
[3:07:01] It's been identified in our parks and recreation element primarily since 2015.
[3:07:06] Even before then, we had a lot of stuff.
[3:07:09] The discussion we're having about parks, it's a high stakes discussion and involves a lot
[3:07:16] of accountability and that's a very tough discussion because it's one of our core items within
[3:07:21] the city's values. The claim has made that we're doing the same thing and I would say we're
[3:07:30] not because what we're doing differently about this process is we are really trying to get
[3:07:37] a project that can meet those minimum standards. We have plenty of experiences in the past where
[3:07:42] we've heard, well we'll do it differently this way or what if we do it this way and it just has
[3:07:46] a panned out. We've got lots of experiences where parks that were dedicated to city just haven't
[3:07:51] been built and their building being built late. Cordero's Park was one of those examples where
[3:07:56] they can get built until 75 80% of the build out. One of the recent successes that I want to be able
[3:08:03] to point back to is what happened in North Village, which was we changed the way that things work
[3:08:08] and it was with the help of this council.
[3:08:10] With applying pressure on the development,
[3:08:13] Cordero's park was built late in the game.
[3:08:15] That changed with area plan two where this council said,
[3:08:20] we're not gonna do that anymore.
[3:08:21] Not only is the park gonna get built
[3:08:23] earlier in the process, it's gonna be built by the developer.
[3:08:27] And it can have themes.
[3:08:28] I think council member Silva had mentioned,
[3:08:30] wanting to see bio manufacturing type of theme on there.
[3:08:33] There's no reason why we can't have our city design parks
[3:08:37] that meet our standards and have theming and create a beautiful place that people can
[3:08:42] go and congregate at. That's the minimum requirement. The developer is proposing to annex
[3:08:48] into our city an obligation to support almost 4,500, maybe around 4,000 residential units
[3:08:54] that comes with infrastructure, landscaping, water, all kinds of law enforcement and fire
[3:08:59] services. Our observation is the least that we could start with is compliance with our
[3:09:04] minimum standards, and then we can work beyond that to create a really awesome project.
[3:09:12] Thank you. In the interest of how we're going to get through this kind of recommendation,
[3:09:17] because I mean, this is a business item, but it almost feels like a kind of staffing
[3:09:23] study where you're getting direction. So I'm going to need the council to be as succinct
[3:09:28] as possible. There is a few different elements. There's park minimums. That's a standard
[3:09:34] that's set by policy. There is the ask for potential inclusionary housing where the
[3:09:41] developers are saying you're asking for workforce housing or missing middle. However, the
[3:09:50] development is asking for what either could be in lieu of fees because right now we don't
[3:09:57] have an inclusionary zoning policy has practiced has been in lieu of fees and will know not
[3:10:04] anything in the case.
[3:10:05] But sometimes there's there's properties that have been donated so that there can be
[3:10:09] development agreements that can provide for fees.
[3:10:13] We may not get the whole answer because this is not a policy discussion on inclusionary housing.
[3:10:18] Carol Wei and I think separate from that is lock patent because that's a sensitive one
[3:10:23] I think they can be appreciated, but so that the council can fairly give direction.
[3:10:28] I think it would be important if the council could actually, without a lengthy explanation,
[3:10:35] just express the direction.
[3:10:37] So I'm going to go in the order of the lights that are on here, Council Member Richie.
[3:10:44] John, I'm going to try to guess.
[3:10:47] I'll work in reverse, saying the last thing on list was the carrowaiding slides 22.
[3:10:52] Is there possible?
[3:10:57] So, just really quickly, I had a conversation earlier, I had a chance to talk to one of the developers Greg, and we had the same point.
[3:11:07] What I saw from that immediately, as we came as reviewing is, okay, best intentions, the city is just trying to the right thing.
[3:11:13] But thinking in reality, what would I do, what most of us, people have turned leaves of town into a freeway.
[3:11:20] It says 45, they're going to 60.
[3:11:23] The path leads just as it's like water.
[3:11:26] They're going to travel was easiest.
[3:11:28] They're going to see two lights.
[3:11:30] As soon as they see that the light turned red,
[3:11:32] they're going to follow the right hand lane,
[3:11:34] and they're going to turn that street into a freeway.
[3:11:37] That street is a 25 mile per hour street,
[3:11:39] isn't turned to a 45 mile per hour.
[3:11:41] Because people have no best interest in that community.
[3:11:44] They're going to bail through the neighborhood
[3:11:46] to get to fry road.
[3:11:47] and Calvary has a zero parking administration.
[3:11:50] There's my cars lined up on each side of the streets,
[3:11:53] creating even a narrow place to drive,
[3:11:55] and kids are gonna get hit.
[3:11:58] It's just the realities,
[3:11:59] leisure towns fast, people don't call the directions.
[3:12:02] They're gonna bail through and not care about the community
[3:12:04] and they'll be wearing their hair.
[3:12:05] So, just for the fact of the design option too,
[3:12:10] requires people to slow down for me as a safety issue.
[3:12:15] It's an easy pass-through, it's going to happen.
[3:12:20] Next, I guess, represents sink, we can move to, oh, in that place, I'll tell you the
[3:12:26] parts all the ones.
[3:12:27] I guess next on the list was parts.
[3:12:31] I remember, in my mind, I remember, civically, Councilman Stockton, I feel like a year ago,
[3:12:39] he reiterated, we want to make sure this project is great.
[3:12:42] This grant is different.
[3:12:45] So I do have a little friction with business usual.
[3:12:49] If we ask them and I've asked them to make this project different,
[3:12:52] how can we use the same guidelines last 20, 30 years?
[3:12:56] So we've got to be open to some kind of direction,
[3:13:01] an alteration of the parks.
[3:13:03] I do believe having, so a two-acre park, I had to just study it.
[3:13:09] A football field is exactly two acres.
[3:13:11] It's right, it's 1.5 acres, the soccer field is two acres.
[3:13:14] If you're going to have built-ins to these parks at two acres, say 4% of the parks and
[3:13:19] have sidewalks built-ins to some amenities, you're only going to have a 60% of that two-acre
[3:13:23] park as we open space.
[3:13:24] That's not enough for a kid, sorry, I covered this up with Greg earlier.
[3:13:28] If we reduce the parks in that area from three to two and possibly expand them to three and
[3:13:34] half or four acres, we've got to figure it out.
[3:13:37] That does enough leeway to have the building amenities plus enough room for this natural discovery play
[3:13:44] So I really think that's important my programming is great
[3:13:47] But kids just they need to figure it out give an open field and let them have fun
[3:13:51] I don't don't tell them we're flying here climb them as a big part of society trying to us programming
[3:13:55] It's let them figure it out
[3:13:57] And that's what open fields do
[3:13:59] the last part
[3:14:01] I heard you talking about the working group.
[3:14:04] The 10%, I would love to be a part of the working group talk about affordability.
[3:14:09] That's something I went on in a very big passion.
[3:14:10] I give her an hour on that.
[3:14:12] I'm trying to succinct when it comes to the affordable housing.
[3:14:17] When I read the staff before, there's nothing in regards to the low density, low density, I get it.
[3:14:21] The medium to low density and the medium density.
[3:14:25] There's nothing describing the lot size.
[3:14:27] The city of California passes a senate bill that's required the lots to have certain fee, so we don't have to fight with that anymore.
[3:14:34] But if we're going to try and do affordable housing, there is a lot of studies in caveats and trying to force
[3:14:40] inclusion and housing to make some affordable, it is hard to work.
[3:14:43] But what we need to do is, those medium to low-density laws, if there are going to be 3,000 square feet, we need to find out how to work with the developers to create homes that are affordable.
[3:14:54] But we don't need to build 2,000 perfect homes
[3:14:57] and call them affordable.
[3:14:59] It's not going to happen.
[3:15:00] We need to get back to the common sense of, I want to rant, tangent about Westwood, all these areas, cottages, townhomes, cluster homes.
[3:15:09] Exam, port of females are great example. We need to figure out how to do homes at 500 square feet, 300 square feet, three bedrooms, one half bath, two bedrooms, one half baths.
[3:15:21] At the current construction cost I looked up today,
[3:15:25] the low range, not everybody's a wolf
[3:15:27] in Viking in our house.
[3:15:29] It's 250 square feet, $2 square foot to 500.
[3:15:34] If they do a $3,000 square foot of light,
[3:15:35] if you do not square foot home, at $275 square foot,
[3:15:39] we can deliver home at 412,000.
[3:15:42] The low limit in our county is 700.
[3:15:46] It's almost half.
[3:15:47] We can get it done.
[3:15:49] We don't have the force, some guideline on people to make housing affordable.
[3:15:54] We've got to be understanding that everyone needs the first house to be tossed
[3:15:57] in a hall. We need an opportunity to move up. Affordable housing is the biggest part
[3:16:01] about what we're talking about. That's affordable. Fortunate to be affordable by a
[3:16:06] guideline, it doesn't allow them to get equity. By being in a house, what happens is if
[3:16:11] you're married, you get to write $12,000 of more interest. You're filing double, it's
[3:16:17] 24,000. They even house for four years. It's only been for they get more introduction.
[3:16:22] They don't get any interest for equity.
[3:16:24] So, it's in the interest.
[3:16:25] So, I'm sorry. Yeah. I mean-
[3:16:27] I love your analogies, because they're good.
[3:16:29] It's just-
[3:16:29] Yeah, I mean, I mean, the-
[3:16:31] So, I see where you're going with that.
[3:16:32] Yeah, the passion is like, I'm all for redirecting, making more community parks.
[3:16:37] I want to make sure it works, but when it comes to housing, it's, it's falling to death years.
[3:16:43] So I'm going to start being more specific.
[3:16:47] Do you have an opinion on the lock pad and-
[3:16:50] I really don't care about that.
[3:16:52] I care about finding houses that people in the community can live and move to that are affordable.
[3:16:58] And it's going to be at a foreign dollar price point that allow people to come out of the community, live here and move up and stay here.
[3:17:05] Now, I don't care about a pass of joy.
[3:17:07] Okay, I'm just trying to do this in the interest of time, Council Member Stockton.
[3:17:13] Thank you, and you can put the timer up for me if you want to, Mr. Mayor.
[3:17:19] I agree.
[3:17:20] I'm in light to be calling out the time.
[3:17:22] Yeah, exactly.
[3:17:23] Well, I'll look down there.
[3:17:25] First off, I want to thank you for your presentation.
[3:17:29] I want to thank you for following the general plan, right?
[3:17:33] I think that the policies, procedures, and plans that we implement should be followed.
[3:17:37] But I also think that it's great that you came to us recognizing that there are some
[3:17:44] Need for reevaluation is to whether or not we should change those plans and that's what we exist to do
[3:17:49] So first off, thank you, okay, so I wanted to say that
[3:17:54] Because amending the general plan if that's what it takes. I think that's what this council should consider to do
[3:18:00] So I'll try to go as quickly as I can I
[3:18:03] I think when I look at the South, the Carol way that goes all the way through, when I look
[3:18:12] at those two options, the community that I'd rather live in is the one with the loot, right?
[3:18:16] It just feels safer, it feels more like neighborhood like, you know, the smaller parks.
[3:18:21] I think we just maybe need some flexibility because it feels like to me that some of the issues
[3:18:26] aren't necessarily one thing in particular, but maybe a combination of those things collectively
[3:18:32] that are creating some of these discrepancies between us getting a really good plan and the
[3:18:37] developers having, you know, something that pencils out for them. So I don't think it's
[3:18:41] necessarily one specific thing or a winner lose on every single issue that was brought up to
[3:18:47] us today. I am concerned about the inclusionary housing goal or ordinance. I know that this
[3:18:58] council has talked about that in the past. I raised the question last time, is the
[3:19:06] goal to provide affordable housing and workforce housing, whatever terminology it is that
[3:19:10] you want to use, or to have mixed income neighborhoods as the goal? I would like council's
[3:19:17] opinion on that because I know we're getting ready to talk about it, but we're supposed
[3:19:20] to give you direction. For me I'm more concerned about setting, you know, making it affordable but not
[3:19:29] to where we have to come up with some magic formula to figure out who gets to live in these
[3:19:35] affordable homes and then have them locked. I think Councilmember Richie explained that really,
[3:19:40] really well. So I'm a little concerned that that's already kind of being used as a negotiation tactic.
[3:19:47] I don't want that involved at all, I fundamentally disagree with that as being something that we should do moving forward for this.
[3:19:54] My council may disagree, that's totally fine.
[3:19:58] I am, see the other one, we talked about the A&P property.
[3:20:04] The parks, Carole Way, and the other one.
[3:20:07] Yes, so the parks, I think what we need is flexibility, right?
[3:20:11] So if I think that what we should do is maybe bring something back so we can change the policy that allows us to do like two to six or something that provides that flexibility and even the overlap that was discussed before, I don't have an issue if there are two developers with bordering properties that want to overlap apart to make it more functional, I think that's totally fine.
[3:20:31] I'm also not against, like I don't want to say for all of them, but like an HOA or a private park, right?
[3:20:39] I think that if some of these parks are niche,
[3:20:43] I mean, we've had developments that have come in
[3:20:45] that are specifically geared for elder populations, right?
[3:20:49] So I'm okay with some of these things
[3:20:52] having been funded and maintained through an HOA.
[3:20:55] That's not to say I want all of them.
[3:20:57] Like I do think a larger park that allows for field
[3:21:00] and kids to play stuff is good,
[3:21:01] but I don't think that all of them have to be that way.
[3:21:04] So again, I just think flexibility.
[3:21:05] ability.
[3:21:08] The future green space caraway buffer zone, I understand what we're trying to do.
[3:21:17] It makes sense, but I also think, let's see if we can work that one out, right? I mean,
[3:21:24] if we, I don't want that to be like a 1992, we're going to put Vaca Valley over the hill
[3:21:30] issue where we force that buffer zone and it just like never happens, right?
[3:21:36] So did I hit all of them, workforce housing, A&P, I think we need to get that inclusionary
[3:21:46] housing ordinance back to council like soon because it's being talked about.
[3:21:50] So if it's being talked about then it's impacting the negotiations and our ability to move forward.
[3:21:54] If they're willing to do the six acre parcel, I'm like I'm personally good with that.
[3:22:00] But I think that that probably requires a different conversation when we bring that stuff back.
[3:22:05] Did I get a more, Mr. Mayor?
[3:22:07] Thank you.
[3:22:08] Okay, thank you.
[3:22:08] Ten seconds to go.
[3:22:11] I tried my best.
[3:22:13] Councilmember Silva.
[3:22:14] Yeah.
[3:22:15] We didn't have opportunities for questions.
[3:22:18] So I just had a question.
[3:22:20] I just had a question for Don Beres, the Economic Development and maybe Tamra.
[3:22:27] Just about any feedback you guys have heard, just based on our numbers we're at with housing needs,
[3:22:35] particularly for our young, inter-level, professional, young professionals that are trying to get the careers kicked off.
[3:22:44] I know we look at arena numbers, but what are you guys here and what are you guys seeing out there from the community?
[3:22:50] Thank
[3:22:53] you for the question, Council Member Gidevin, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members,
[3:22:58] Don Burst, Director of Economic Development Services.
[3:23:02] Council Member, your question is actually pretty timely.
[3:23:05] This morning, I was part of an interview with the consultant team from Strategic Economics,
[3:23:13] who's working with ABAG and MTC, excuse me, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission,
[3:23:18] in the Association of Bay Area Cities, excuse me, Bay Area Governments with their priority production area program.
[3:23:28] We already participate in the priority development area program.
[3:23:32] This new program is very much geared towards cities looking at what industry clusters they have and
[3:23:38] how they can grow their economy by growing those clusters.
[3:23:44] In the interview process this morning, what the consultant's did share with me is that Salano County in general and they're working very specifically in Salano County.
[3:23:54] This work is also happening like in Contra Costa County and other counties throughout Northern California.
[3:24:00] What they did share was that we have a youth crisis when it comes to housing.
[3:24:06] When we look at our numbers of residents, and we look at the percentage of youths in various age groups,
[3:24:13] it's really apparent that in Salano County, a lot of our younger people, recent college graduates,
[3:24:20] don't live in the county because it's not affordable for them.
[3:24:24] So I don't have much more to share other than that's what the consultants shared with us this morning in that interview process,
[3:24:31] that missing middle or attainable housing or workforce housing is what's missing within our county.
[3:24:39] I don't know if Tamera has more to share, but that's what I learned this morning.
[3:24:42] How does that impact our ability to foster economic development in our city and county?
[3:24:49] It is a question that companies asked, I think I might have mentioned in previous council meetings that years ago,
[3:24:56] So, companies located in communities simply because they were affordable or cheap labor, cheap land, cheap facilities.
[3:25:04] That is a longer the case.
[3:25:06] Normally when companies tour through our county now, one of the first questions usually is either about education, or do you have housing for our workforce?
[3:25:17] Thank you, you're welcome.
[3:25:19] Okay.
[3:25:24] Thank you for giving me the opportunity to add a little bit to this conversation.
[3:25:28] I don't have specific information about what those that are in the, considered in the
[3:25:35] workforce housing income demographic, say what they need.
[3:25:40] What I can add is that generally in the affordable housing world, workforce housing is housing
[3:25:49] that's affordable to those that are earning anywhere between 100 and 120% of area median income.
[3:25:56] So when you think about workforce housing or housing that's affordable to the workforce,
[3:26:02] there is still an affordability and an income limit to that housing.
[3:26:07] What we have found at least in looking at feasibility of our down payment assistance programs and funds,
[3:26:14] is that anywhere between 80 and 100% of area median income limits, there's a discrepancy
[3:26:22] between what's available, the average home prices, about 550,000 here in Vacaville and
[3:26:29] what a family earning at that 80 to 100 up to 120% income level can pay towards a mortgage
[3:26:37] So that gap there, if there's not an income limit or a limit placed on even home ownership housing,
[3:26:47] you still might have difficulty with those that you're trying to target when you talk about workforce housing,
[3:26:52] being able to afford homes at that price.
[3:26:55] Thank you, both for your input.
[3:26:58] And then to address the different feedback, I think, like for me, the number one priority is,
[3:27:04] how do we make sure that there is some type of level of attainable housing for residents,
[3:27:10] particularly a demographic that I think we've seen from different data points,
[3:27:14] particularly in our Sloan County that we're losing. You know, it was specifically mentioned
[3:27:19] folks in Biotech. Most of the folks, when I worked in when it was Genentech, many of those folks
[3:27:24] could not afford to live here. And those were middle-aged folks as well. And so they're living outside
[3:27:30] back of the airman. There's a whole different situation in there. One of the apartments that
[3:27:38] were recently completed is the true, I don't know if some can answer. Is it true that the number
[3:27:43] of veterans that required to live there have been reduced? Is that true?
[3:27:49] I just want to make sure I'm
[3:27:50] got accurate. It's not the number of veterans that are there to be reduced. It was the number of
[3:27:55] of vouchers that were allocated explicitly for veterans was defined and then the project
[3:28:02] proponent was going to be advertising heavily to the Air Force base to try and attract
[3:28:08] potential airmen to be able to voucher state remain the same from when it came to council.
[3:28:13] Correct, yes.
[3:28:14] Okay.
[3:28:14] Thank you for clarifying that woman because I think a lot of times we see things that we approve
[3:28:19] these plans, yes things do change but I think one of the things about suggesting a 10%
[3:28:25] And I think the consultant, I forget the number was like 14, 15 or something.
[3:28:29] I think 14% but it suggested a 10% for inclusionary zoning was something that was more comfortable.
[3:28:36] I think if in my mind, if there's some, what I would like to see is that conversation continue to happen because there are developments,
[3:28:43] whether if some aren't working, I need to see the data, I need to see the situation of why that's not working.
[3:28:48] Because when I go to different communities throughout Northern California and other states,
[3:28:52] There's some phenomenal developments going on that are new, phenomenal.
[3:28:56] Four families, four people of all ages.
[3:28:58] So I'd like to see those conversations continue.
[3:29:01] Our teachers, we are losing teachers in our community.
[3:29:04] If we're concerned about the quality of our community,
[3:29:08] and we're concerned about the future, we need educators inset to be able to invest in our community,
[3:29:14] to stop that high turnover, to be able to develop our youth,
[3:29:17] and for them to develop their practice of teaching much more effectively.
[3:29:21] So, for me, that's the number one thing, as far as everything else, everything else I feel can be negotiable around a set number.
[3:29:28] How do we make sure that we have truly attainable housing, both that may be rental and or ownership?
[3:29:36] All right, Vice Mayor Chattano.
[3:29:39] Thank you.
[3:29:42] I'm not going to make many of the developers happy this evening.
[3:29:46] I would like us to adhere to the general plan policies and standards as it pertains to
[3:30:00] I would like to, again, we're finding, or some of my breathing, we have more people spinning
[3:30:11] more time out of doors, taking the advantage of walking. You see more people walking
[3:30:18] their animals today. There are older individuals who are playing pickleball, I want to get
[3:30:26] other one day. However, the thing parts are good, but I think it should be next. I still support
[3:30:36] larger parts. I'm sorry. And then as far as the housing, I'm steadfast, but I'm able to
[3:30:47] to listen and be able to accept mixed housing, inclusionary housing, I love to see that.
[3:31:01] However, this project, this area, it's pushing it further down the road, you know, we need to start making some decisions.
[3:31:10] And I'm hoping with mayor that before we finish this agenda item that we actually give staff direction on how we feel on each one of these.
[3:31:22] What do you think? I know there's others, but that's-
[3:31:24] As far as did you have any other direction?
[3:31:28] Oh, the Carol way.
[3:31:29] Carol way to the parks. You spoke with inclusionary and did you have any comment on the quarter?
[3:31:34] So I think we're trying to do is each give this direction.
[3:31:37] So the majority, you know, the kind of feedback that you can take, so you have clear directions, so did you have it?
[3:31:45] Yes, on Carole way.
[3:31:46] I did look at the design and it does make sense.
[3:31:50] I'm sorry.
[3:31:51] So go around the prop.
[3:31:53] I like option B.
[3:31:56] And I think safety is an issue with that, with option A.
[3:32:02] and option B just looks like it's the way to go.
[3:32:06] That's unpunished.
[3:32:09] All right.
[3:32:09] Did you have any opinion on the corridor in Lockpadon?
[3:32:13] Too much, why?
[3:32:13] The corridor to Lockpadon, right here.
[3:32:16] The alignment of Carillway.
[3:32:18] Oh.
[3:32:20] Again, it's a placeholder for the future.
[3:32:24] On the future.
[3:32:25] I have no.
[3:32:26] I have no.
[3:32:29] Councillor Member Fremont?
[3:32:31] I want to start off with that slide right there.
[3:32:33] I'm not in favor of going into a lock pattern like that.
[3:32:36] I'd rather see us go further to the east and I just think in a long run it would be cheaper, but that's that's the least of.
[3:32:46] So my opinion would be on that would be option B on, on carol way.
[3:32:54] But, you know, I'm looking back on one of these, it says the relative in regard to Van and Meadows Park,
[3:33:03] the developmental agreements executed with all three landowners gave the option to either pay the
[3:33:07] park development which they construct the neighborhood park and receive the park D.I.F. credit,
[3:33:13] all three landowners or subsequent builders that collected have paid the park D.I.F. instead of
[3:33:17] building the neighborhood park. So the fees were collected and we didn't do anything to build those
[3:33:24] parks. But before I say I just want to say you guys do a great job Aaron you know always knock it
[3:33:31] the park and I know that you're hardest for the city and I know that you guys you know really put a
[3:33:35] lot of effort and work into this and I appreciate you guys very much.
[3:33:41] I'm a little bit confused because
[3:33:43] I remember when we were talking about inclusionary housing back a couple of months ago we said well wait
[3:33:51] a minute let's not go to level two. Let's go to our city manager said let's go to one and a half
[3:33:58] And so we voted that night, not to go to two, but to go to one and a half, even though it ended up at two, right?
[3:34:06] So it was a little bit hard to get the brain wrapped around that one.
[3:34:12] But I think that for myself, I would like to see us revisit the inclusionary housing,
[3:34:18] because I think that it puts the cost of inclusionary housing for
[3:34:22] the rest of the people that are moving in that puts the burden on them.
[3:34:25] And I'm not in favor of inclusionary housing.
[3:34:28] I just think that it affects the cost of living for
[3:34:32] everybody else that wants to try to be able to afford to live in that house.
[3:34:36] It's the difference of whether it's $200 a month or $300 a month more.
[3:34:40] Somebody's going to have to eat that.
[3:34:42] So I would really like to see us revisit the inclusionary housing again.
[3:34:48] Because I feel like we were supposed to go to one and a half and we went to two.
[3:34:53] So I know that's something that we've already voted on, but I think that I would personally
[3:34:58] I'd like to have some more conversation on that.
[3:35:01] Would also like to see the City Council direct staff to amend the general plan and parks
[3:35:07] and recreation master plan to allow for smaller parks for a couple of reasons.
[3:35:12] Water is a big issue, you know, and if we're going to build big parks with big grass areas
[3:35:18] with fertilizers and sprinkler systems and all the considerations that go behind that.
[3:35:25] I'm just open to the idea of smaller theme parks where you know you've got some pickleball courts.
[3:35:32] You got more concrete and less maintenance perhaps.
[3:35:35] I know I like grass in my neighborhood park but we also like pickleball.
[3:35:41] I mean they just put a basketball court in my neighborhood park which a lot of people were upset about but I can tell you I've got a bunch of kids that
[3:35:48] that come over to my house from back of hide just about daily and they're really excited about having a basketball court, you know, down the street that they don't have to go, what 12 blocks or what 10 12 blocks away over to orchard to, you know, to play there so I like the idea of maybe diversifying some of our parks and providing some of these other things that other people like to do not everybody has a dog that they want to walk not everybody has grass that they want to walk around
[3:36:18] some people just want a pathway around a park to be able to walk on.
[3:36:23] So I think it's really worth looking at maintenance, what it costs to maintain these parks.
[3:36:29] And I think so my thing is that I think that we should really take a look at the master plan.
[3:36:41] Take another look at inclusionary housing and find out really if that's affordable for us or not,
[3:36:47] Not because I think that puts the burden on people that want to move in there.
[3:36:51] Still taking a look at making these more affordable, making affordable housing through making good choices and not putting a burden of 10% on.
[3:37:02] I think that's way out of line and these parks, we're talking about adding our fees onto parks right now.
[3:37:09] I could be wrong on my numbers, but I think that it's somewhere between adding perhaps another $30,000 on our development fees for
[3:37:17] for future parks, well here's a way to knock some of those numbers back down in my opinion.
[3:37:23] You guys have to excuse me, I'm not super educated in all these areas, you know, I'm just
[3:37:27] speaking off of the cuff, but I think that that's a way to maybe start reducing some of
[3:37:33] the costs of these parks on what they cost to build them, put sprinklers in them, maintain
[3:37:40] them, unload lawn mowers, weed eaters, blowers, all that kind of stuff.
[3:37:44] So, that's my vote for that and that there's one other area in the children parcel and that is the carol way through put.
[3:37:58] Yeah, the carol way through put.
[3:38:00] Yeah, that's what I meant earlier when I was talking about option B, I'm in favor of option B.
[3:38:06] Just because I think knowing that I live up off of North Alamo and the speed limits 25 miles an hour
[3:38:12] and everybody is doing 45 to 60 on that street.
[3:38:16] On a pretty regular basis, I mean pretty much daily,
[3:38:19] and we're gonna get the same thing happening over here,
[3:38:22] and I agree with Councilman Richie
[3:38:24] that it just adds a new level of danger to.
[3:38:28] And people are gonna use it for a bypass
[3:38:30] to get over to Kilkenny Road.
[3:38:34] So yeah, I'm not in favor of a, that's me.
[3:38:38] I'm going to call on Councilmember Wiley, even though your life's not on.
[3:38:44] Thank you.
[3:38:45] Do I need to push the button then?
[3:38:46] No, I will push it.
[3:38:47] I was expecting to come down the road.
[3:38:49] Thank you.
[3:38:50] All right.
[3:38:50] Thanks for the information.
[3:38:51] I will address the key points.
[3:38:53] But I want to say that, you know, our decision tonight is a very important decision because we
[3:39:00] made the decision to open up the urban reserve.
[3:39:04] And we didn't open it up to have more of everything that we've always had.
[3:39:08] We wanted to be very clear, we wanted something that was best for Vackville in the long run.
[3:39:15] And the other thing we are kind of second guessing, how did we get where we were in the water, how did they make that decision, why didn't they make that decision years ago?
[3:39:23] So in 20 years from now, are people going to be looking at our council and say, why did they make that decision, why didn't they do this, how could they have not thought ahead?
[3:39:32] So it is really an important decision and I don't know all the answers, but I want to
[3:39:39] do what's best for Vacaville now and the Vacaville in the future.
[3:39:44] So I think that it's really a big important decision.
[3:39:50] So I will say that in this past weekend we had a big event in Magnolia Park thanks to
[3:39:56] Miss Joan and our South Town Collaborative Neighborhood Association.
[3:40:00] And it was wonderful because there were so many people and this event was for family fun.
[3:40:06] And there were kids all the time, not just from the area but from all over Vacaville.
[3:40:13] Because I asked them, do you live here?
[3:40:14] No, I live by B-Lard, no, I live by Alamo Park, no, I live here.
[3:40:18] So other people do come to the parks, not just the neighborhood.
[3:40:22] We had our event here, there were people playing basketball.
[3:40:24] all the shelter houses were full of people having other parties.
[3:40:28] The Marines were in the open space doing these, I don't know what the Marines were doing,
[3:40:34] but they were in the park too.
[3:40:35] So it was the neighborhood park fully utilized and everyone talked about Vacaville and their
[3:40:43] great parks.
[3:40:44] So I don't want to think what these parks are just for this neighborhood.
[3:40:49] so I have support keeping with our general plan, parks plan.
[3:40:55] I do like to plan about sharing the space and having maybe a pickle bar here and barbecue
[3:41:00] and family thing here, but I do feel like I've been to that little pocket car in South
[3:41:05] town and it's not very useful, so I support the parks, that's number one.
[3:41:10] And number two, looking at Lockpadden, I think we should do the buffer area because maybe
[3:41:19] in 20 years, they want to extend the road.
[3:41:22] And I don't think that we should close that option just because we think Lockpadden
[3:41:26] now doesn't want it, and it doesn't cost anything more to make a buffer zone.
[3:41:30] So that's that thing.
[3:41:32] And then the road illustration really has, is a big decision too.
[3:41:39] And when I initially look at it, I immediately go to B because it makes more sense you're
[3:41:45] not going to have a through way and then people would be going slower because I can see
[3:41:51] them going from fry road to leisure town and leisure town up there and then eventually
[3:41:57] care away as well because I live in that area and I know how people drive on leisure town
[3:42:03] road.
[3:42:03] But we do have, Jackson Road was like that.
[3:42:07] A really a lot of people going through on Jackson Road until Foxboro Parkway went through.
[3:42:13] Now there's a lot of people in Foxboro Parkway.
[3:42:15] My house is right there, I hear them go too fast, I get calls from everyone.
[3:42:20] But probably it's safer than having them wind through the neighborhood because the issue
[3:42:25] with the option B, they're going to be going fast and people are going to think, oh, I'm
[3:42:30] safe because it's right in front of my house and they're supposed to go slow.
[3:42:35] So I'm going to say I'm for option A, even though I was initially going for option B.
[3:42:41] Because that's Redstone Parkway, that's Foxboro Parkway, that's Jackson Road.
[3:42:47] And I think that's just going to be the road between the two.
[3:42:51] And it's for vehicle miles traveled and it's for efficiency.
[3:42:56] And it's also to keep the park together.
[3:42:58] So, and inclusionary housing, this is the big thing, this is the time to do it.
[3:43:06] If we don't do it now, when we opened up the urban reserve, it wasn't part of it, but
[3:43:11] was that guiding principle says an integrated neighborhood of mixed affordability.
[3:43:17] And it didn't say 10%, so I understand why there might have been some concern.
[3:43:23] And I'm not saying it has to be 10%.
[3:43:25] But I do not want to let go of that at this time because it is so important.
[3:43:31] And that also ties into the park.
[3:43:33] If we have smaller homes, on smaller lots, people want to be outside, and they need to
[3:43:38] be able to have parks to enjoy them.
[3:43:42] Thank you.
[3:43:43] And I'll wrap the comments up as succinct as I can.
[3:43:48] I believe the park minimum standards are great.
[3:43:51] The right city staff has done an excellent job over the years to allow development to conform.
[3:43:56] But the truth is my desire was really to see builders build turnkey parks, right?
[3:44:03] And so ultimately that's what we want.
[3:44:05] We want meeting places and whether we call them themed or not.
[3:44:11] That could be up to interpretation.
[3:44:15] But what is a neighborhood park?
[3:44:16] It's not designed to be a park where all the sports is taking place.
[3:44:22] It's supposed to be for the neighborhoods.
[3:44:24] But when there's six acres, we program them like they're city parks.
[3:44:28] And the truth is, is I have to get in a car and drive out of a neighborhood to get to a neighborhood park.
[3:44:34] I would love to have a two-acre park.
[3:44:36] I'd love to have a place to stop.
[3:44:38] And so part of the challenge is I see it as a portraying to create neighborhoods
[3:44:43] that are more densely populated with different housing types, we need to give development some creativity.
[3:44:52] I remember early on, I said, be creative, surprises.
[3:44:56] And if everything looks the same, there's no creativity, and there's clearly no-
[3:45:00] There's nothing different. And I think everyone has good intentions on this from staff and from development. But I'm interested and curious on how we could actually have something that's exciting for that young workforce. For the youth that are saying, I have nowhere to live. I don't want a big house. I really need just 1100 square foot. I need the portofinos. I need the different kinds of housing. This is, I like that. And if there's more of them and they're more affordable, we begin to start solving
[3:45:29] involving some of our workforce attainable, missing middle, you pick the acronym housing.
[3:45:35] There's other ways to address income issues, but part of the drivers isn't all about deed restriction.
[3:45:43] We have programs for that, but to create that does put the burden on the rest of the development.
[3:45:50] And so we can have different opinions, but at the same time I think most of us would agree.
[3:45:56] How do we help those who can't afford it?
[3:45:59] Part of it is raising the ability for people to have livable and earning wages.
[3:46:05] But at the same time, have more of those housing types.
[3:46:08] So we don't have enough stock in what we're doing.
[3:46:11] And so that becomes the number one goal is to get the housing stock for all those creative types.
[3:46:18] And so that's some of the answers on the inclusionary housing.
[3:46:22] I just think that it's the, it's the, where's the incentive to actually get what we want?
[3:46:27] I believe what we want is more of those types and we have to zone properly and we have
[3:46:34] to incentivize those and a policy disincentivizes the very thing that I think that we're all wanting.
[3:46:42] Carol away, the, as far as the corridor, I've seen too many terminus corridors around town
[3:46:50] in my career, they're everywhere, and they don't get built, they mean well, but it also is a tension
[3:46:59] point within the neighborhood, and then later on the tension is, well, we don't want that to go
[3:47:05] through. I like the idea of identifying the developments that are personable, and sometimes they're segmented
[3:47:12] in ways that create that connection and cohesiveness, and so I don't believe that we need to do that,
[3:47:18] because that puts the burden on developers simply for the future.
[3:47:21] I get it. Could it be annexed in the future? Yes, but I also believe that we've heard
[3:47:26] passionately from the lock pad and community that they really don't want that.
[3:47:31] And so that just becomes that feeling over them that you're just going to do what you always
[3:47:37] do and you're going to annex us.
[3:47:39] The other I think in the children property, if you could go to that on the, if it's up
[3:47:46] there. Option B, for me, my years of experience tells me option A, you build it. The shortcut
[3:47:54] just becomes the throughput traffic. And so you inadvertently take a collector and you
[3:47:59] turn it into a sub-artorial. It's just the way traffic works.
[3:48:06] My profession, you get speed,
[3:48:09] it's not designed for it. I understand it meets the criteria VMT. The reality is is when
[3:48:16] And you're this far away from a freeway, and everyone has a car, BMT becomes a state
[3:48:21] issue in high-dense areas, and it doesn't work in all of our residential areas.
[3:48:25] I think that what you get in this particular design is, I see walkability, I see facades,
[3:48:31] I see smaller meeting points where people don't have to walk three-quarters of a mile to a
[3:48:36] park.
[3:48:37] And so, if it means being flexible, fine ways to be flexible is two acres the minimum,
[3:48:45] probably
[3:48:45] for all minus the parking lots, two and a half.
[3:48:48] And so maybe there's a happy medium in there somewhere.
[3:48:50] But I really don't believe that option B creates harm,
[3:48:56] even if there was busing to go through there.
[3:48:59] It just, I think it's safer and it creates
[3:49:02] a more lived experience on Carole Lake South.
[3:49:07] And I think, and then lastly is appreciate staff
[3:49:13] coming to us because we need to get through this
[3:49:16] because some of this is policy driven and you know obviously part of what
[3:49:21] staff is doing is policy compliance and here tonight I hope that this was an
[3:49:25] exercise we're not all the same and how this plays out we don't we haven't
[3:49:29] answered all the policies but I would support coming back with amended policy
[3:49:34] especially in the parks again I don't even have a park that I can I can walk a mile
[3:49:40] loop and I don't even come across a park so I like the idea of smaller more
[3:49:44] intimate neighborhoods and being creative.
[3:49:47] And I know that there is a couple more comments.
[3:49:51] Vice Mayor Chattano.
[3:49:52] Thank you.
[3:49:53] You brought to mind something.
[3:49:55] I'll stay on that slide.
[3:49:58] Option B, it's what I said I supported.
[3:50:01] I was supporting the routing of the road around not
[3:50:07] the small parts.
[3:50:09] OK, I just need to clarify that.
[3:50:12] Yeah, that's right.
[3:50:13] because you wanted to keep the policy on the parks,
[3:50:17] but you're okay with the routing.
[3:50:19] Yes.
[3:50:19] That'll be,
[3:50:23] and Council Member Stockton.
[3:50:26] Yes, I appreciate everybody's comments
[3:50:30] and I agree that there is a need for clarity.
[3:50:34] I think only with clarity can we really give everyone
[3:50:36] involved realistic expectations about how we're going to move forward.
[3:50:40] So I guess my question is I know that we're just making
[3:50:42] a recommendation today, but I mean,
[3:50:45] Do we just like show a hands on each of these issues so that we get very clear direction to them on what to include or not include moving forward with because I feel like it's pretty ambiguous and I can see why there's a need for clarity because they're almost polar opposing views on some of these issues.
[3:51:02] And so, how do we provide a recommendation today to staff so that they can work with the
[3:51:09] development community and create that clarity and realistic expectations on how to move
[3:51:15] forward?
[3:51:16] Because I feel like the stuff needs to come back to be codified for further conversation.
[3:51:22] But, so, and maybe the way to do this is have staff, I mean, from your perspective, have
[3:51:30] have you received enough input based upon council's direction tonight? What have you heard? Because I have some notes,
[3:51:41] right, I see that's that's staff's recommendation, but what we're getting is is council's input tonight.
[3:51:47] And what I've tracked so far is that the majority of council would like to see flexibility in the parks.
[3:51:51] The majority of Council prefers option B on both of the plans, and the majority of Council with regards to inclusionary housing would like us to focus on, how do we get more missing metal to address that?
[3:52:08] Instead of having a specific percentage that has to be dedicated, focus more on trying to get missing metal housing, work for housing.
[3:52:21] That's what I know, so that's consistent with what I think.
[3:52:25] Thank you for that.
[3:52:25] That's exactly what I wanted to make sure we had.
[3:52:29] And that's the direction that we need.
[3:52:31] Sorry.
[3:52:31] Yes, you can.
[3:52:32] That's why we're so fired.
[3:52:33] So is that lead to a certain percentage in your guys' perception of housing?
[3:52:41] I think that's something that we will be able to work with that developer team on is to figure out.
[3:52:48] Because there is a portion that the Donaldson is committed to, which is six acres, but there is still much more work to do on the draft land use plan that would identify where you're expecting to see some of that missing middle housing throughout the land use plan.
[3:53:02] And that's probably where it's all going to come together, how much of the land use plan is going to show those specific zoning or general plan entities that would lend themselves to more of the missing middle housing.
[3:53:13] So, what we're hearing is, instead of focusing on a percentage for affordable housing,
[3:53:18] get more of that missing middle housing that is more attainable.
[3:53:22] Does that mean no affordable housing?
[3:53:25] Well, as I mentioned, the Donaldson properties committed at least to the six acre site within the property.
[3:53:32] I'm going to answer the question a little bit differently.
[3:53:34] The majority of the council did not support imposing and inclusionary housing requirement.
[3:53:39] I did hear pretty much every council member say that one of the biggest concerns
[3:53:42] is burdening future homeowners, who are the market rate homeowners.
[3:53:45] And so something staff can take from this conversation is a talk to the
[3:53:49] developers I'd like to, but what would it take to do some affordable units in
[3:53:54] a way that in a manner that would not affect those new homeowners?
[3:53:57] And that's something that is actually part of the work we're doing on the
[3:54:00] inclusionary housing ordinance and a separate little silo is looking very much at
[3:54:04] that issue of home ownership inclusionary.
[3:54:06] But again, we heard the majority loud and clear.
[3:54:08] But isn't all, sorry, I'm speaking out loud now, but isn't all costs passed on to the homeowners regardless?
[3:54:16] All the costs of, yes, I mean, yes, that's.
[3:54:22] And so I mean, sorry, sorry guys, and I'll shut up after this, but I just, I have this theme on my mind like where we value parts, right?
[3:54:30] So we're willing to take on that cost as homeowners for a park, but we're not willing to take on some type of additional cost.
[3:54:37] If that's what clearly is being said, the developers aren't going to take the hit, they're going to pass that cost on.
[3:54:43] So we're willing to take that, we value parks, but we don't value people working class, entry level, people.
[3:54:52] And making sure that we actually have facilities, the spaces that are in, that are graying in there, that we make sure they're able to be accessible, this is my comment.
[3:55:00] I appreciate what you're saying to clarify my position is instead of having, you know,
[3:55:08] focusing on the inclusionary policy, I would rather the direction be work with the developers
[3:55:15] to create more housing types that are the workforce, that is the 1100 square foot.
[3:55:21] I lived with, you know, married with two children in just around 11, you know, almost under
[3:55:27] 1200 square foot for years we need more of that and so how can we incentivize the
[3:55:33] portofinos that are intimate so that it is more affordable but it's not
[3:55:39] necessarily doing it through an inclusionary policy it's doing it because we're
[3:55:43] increasing the volume of the things that we do not have and that's what I want to
[3:55:47] focus on and so I don't disagree and I don't want to I don't mean to say it in a
[3:55:51] way that somehow the parks important but the people are not just the opposite it's
[3:55:56] It's just the process of how I feel that we can get there, and I respect it.
[3:56:02] And I think Council Member Richie.
[3:56:05] Probably some of that.
[3:56:07] Something actually, when Council Member Silva called up Tamran and Don, and
[3:56:14] the comments actually, those last comments come forward, Mayor Crowley said, it really touched me.
[3:56:19] So I just did the quick math, it's attainable, the number as of last month in America.
[3:56:28] For people buying houses, it's 55 years old, it's the average purchaser.
[3:56:32] It's moved so far away from affordability, it's crazy.
[3:56:37] That risk of the $780,000 houses is very scary.
[3:56:40] But I did the math.
[3:56:42] Sloan County's AMI 80% number, what Marist talked about, $1,500, we can do it.
[3:56:51] You will qualify for a house at $412,000 at $1,700 square feet.
[3:56:57] at 80% of this slotted county AMI, I did them at the 7.5% 30 or fixed, with 3.5% down.
[3:57:04] They could build a trust fund in lieu of money.
[3:57:07] They could put money to help with the down payment of 3.5% is $14,000 for certain houses.
[3:57:15] After the person moves refinances, it goes back into the till.
[3:57:18] You can make this happen.
[3:57:20] I do this every day in my other job.
[3:57:22] It's available as possible.
[3:57:24] We need to find ways to have people understand they can afford back to feel the new jobs are coming here.
[3:57:30] It can happen at 80% AMI in our city if we just do exactly what Merissette, a leather hard square feet to finance square feet,
[3:57:39] put them in a beautiful community where they are around other people, they can walk to parts, walk to fun, that's what they need.
[3:57:46] Like we can do it and like, I mean, put me in the room with these developers and I won't come out until we're done, like I'm telling you,
[3:57:52] And we won't need a force in A&M, because you're in housing on, we can make them get it done.
[3:57:58] Like, capitals and like, water is going to flow and they'll find a way.
[3:58:01] They won't make money in the city, we'll get it done.
[3:58:04] And that's my point.
[3:58:06] Yeah, thank you.
[3:58:07] Councilmember Freeman.
[3:58:09] Yeah.
[3:58:10] I would like to just on top of what Councilman Silva had to say about parts over people, I completely agree with that.
[3:58:19] I mean, that's why I made the comments that I did about smaller parts or, you know, and I remember a while back, I was listening to or reading something I can't remember, but it was the young professionals that are coming up, they're trying to get their foot in the door and get out on their own and move out of their parents basements and bedrooms and all this type of thing.
[3:58:40] They don't care much about parks.
[3:58:43] They want to live in a three or four or five store unit.
[3:58:47] It's got a wait room in it.
[3:58:48] It's got a couple of pools.
[3:58:49] It's got a place to play pool.
[3:58:51] They want to have some entertainment.
[3:58:53] And if we're building those types of places,
[3:58:57] and we're building a lot of them,
[3:58:58] then that's going to bring the price down, in my opinion,
[3:59:01] and make it a place where the workforce up and coming
[3:59:05] new generations want to live.
[3:59:06] They want to live close to public transportation.
[3:59:09] It's a lot of them don't even want to have a vehicle anymore because the cost and the burden of that is so expensive, so, you know, again, you know, we're not too far from the rail tracks out there, you know, and I'm just thinking way into the future, but these are.
[3:59:23] I think what is important to people is not to the younger generation is not to have a park.
[3:59:28] A lot of people just want to place to take their dogs, where the dogs can poop, right?
[3:59:32] I mean, really, you know, that's what a lot of people use the park sport.
[3:59:36] But I think a lot of this younger generation is more interested in having a place that
[3:59:41] they can call their own than they are in visiting a neighborhood park that adds $30,000, $40,000
[3:59:47] on to the cost of a building permit, you know, so I just wanted to jump in on that.
[3:59:56] And last comment on this, I think, goes to...
[4:00:02] I am glad that we kind of had this discussion to see how it was perceived of our comments. Because I hope that the last hour doesn't mean we're just going to be in the same place where we started. I mean, when you say flexibility parks, are we saying, well, their parks look fine now because they're flexible? Or do we have any other thing for flexibility parks? And did we also just kick in? Now we have to do a general plan.
[4:00:29] the plan amendment to parks, which means that's going to add a lot to the timeline, because if we're saying they're going to be flexible, then we have to do a general plan amendment, which takes time.
[4:00:41] And then our next item is diff, so I think we're going to hear we can't build these because your fees are too high and we just can't possibly build these.
[4:00:50] So I don't want to end up the same place we started at nine o'clock. That's my comments. I don't want to hear we can't build it.
[4:00:59] I appreciate it. I think that they shouldn't build it.
[4:01:03] We'd like to recess. Yeah. What we're going to do now is we're
[4:01:06] going to take a break. I appreciate that. If you received
[4:01:09] everything and just work with the developers and we'll go back to
[4:01:14] let's be creative. Let's let's accomplish what it is that we know
[4:01:18] that we all want together. Everyone's opinion on this council
[4:01:21] is important. I appreciate it. So thank you. We're going to
[4:01:24] stand in recess for tenants.
[4:01:29] The project coordinator in
[4:01:31] and Aaron Morris, community development director
[4:01:32] to provide a presentation.
[4:01:34] Terrific, thank you, Georgian.
[4:01:36] I'll skip the introductions,
[4:01:38] but my right hand here with Gwen coming back
[4:01:42] and being our special project coordinator on this,
[4:01:45] big shout out.
[4:01:46] So good evening, Mayor and Vice Mayor and City Council members.
[4:01:50] Yep, tonight is the first to two informational presentations
[4:01:54] on development impact fees.
[4:01:56] This presentation tonight was gonna focus
[4:01:58] on the basics and the fundamentals of development impact fee programs, and with that, okay,
[4:02:06] going.
[4:02:07] Presentation overview.
[4:02:08] We're going to go over a diff introduction, the role of city council within the diff.
[4:02:14] What's the nexus study, a little bit about fee calculation and capital projects, some diff
[4:02:20] history, diff model reporting, and accounting, and an overview of next steps.
[4:02:25] So
[4:02:28] what is a development impact fee?
[4:02:30] Well, put simply, a diff fee is a tool in the funding toolkit for growing cities.
[4:02:36] With a reduction in state funding, many cities desire new development to pay their own way.
[4:02:42] In other words, to support the proportional impact of that new development so that it is not a burden on a city's services and or infrastructure.
[4:02:53] There are various diff categories.
[4:02:55] They're all separate and unique, and earlier this evening, we went through the LLMD, and if you recall, there were very similar categories as you see here.
[4:03:07] Parks and Recreation, Fire Police, Transportation, General Facilities, etc.
[4:03:11] Each diff category has its own project list.
[4:03:15] Each diff category has its own computation as to the diff fee.
[4:03:20] It's important.
[4:03:22] As it relates to the Fee Mitigation Act, the California Fee Mitigation Act provides strict rules and guidelines concerning Diff programs.
[4:03:32] Diffees are to be levied on one-time fees, charged on new development to mitigate again the impact of the proportional impact of that particular development on the city's infrastructure or services.
[4:03:44] I cannot be used for fixing existing deficiencies, can't be used for operating in maintenance.
[4:03:53] But it's a balancing act.
[4:03:55] The benefits provided through the infrastructure improvements relative to diff fees are balanced
[4:04:02] with the cost of those fees in relation to actually producing a private development project.
[4:04:10] Sometimes those fees can be so high as to make that project infeasible.
[4:04:14] And so it is a balancing act between the benefits that the fees bring and that infrastructure and those improvements and the impact on development.
[4:04:26] Real quick, some examples of projects completed with diff funding.
[4:04:30] Again, this is not 100% diff funding. It's just one of the sources of funding for these projects.
[4:04:37] I'll go back. This is the Pleasant Valley Detention Basin. We'll call that back in December
[4:04:43] of last year. We provide you a screenshot of this. Here are two parks, Cordero's and
[4:04:49] Alpange Park, Jetson Parkway. We're doing construction on phase two right now and we obviously
[4:04:57] phase one was completed in 2019 and DeFees were associated with that. Several of you were
[4:05:05] We're at the opening ceremony for the Public Works Administration Building.
[4:05:09] That was completed with some diff fee funding.
[4:05:13] Major road crossing projects leads your town road on the left and
[4:05:17] Alice and Drive on the right.
[4:05:21] A development impact fees are adopted by City Council.
[4:05:23] This is your role, this is the quintessential to your role.
[4:05:28] We follow, staff follows your footsteps and following those policies that you set in place.
[4:05:35] either by adoption of policies and standards, general plan, for example, master plans, service standards, strategic plans.
[4:05:46] Also, we follow your lead in terms of Council's consideration and adoption of capital improvement programs.
[4:05:53] And finally, the review and development of impact fees through Nexus study processes will look like the process we're in right now.
[4:06:01] Those are all part and parcel of Council's role in evaluating DIF programs and those DIFs.
[4:06:12] Using a transportation project, as an example, this slide illustrates the intersection of
[4:06:18] actions for consideration which come before the Council relative to the DIF.
[4:06:24] I'm using a transportation project in this slide, at the very top, you'll see that there's the general plan
[4:06:30] and the transportation element that City Council approved going back to 2015.
[4:06:37] Later, there are studies that are performed by staff and our consultants, service level policies that have been adopted through the general plan, are applied by City staff.
[4:06:48] City staff are going through the process right now and evaluating the transportation diff and those programs, creating a project list of those lists of particular projects within that
[4:07:00] transportation, DIF category, creating the cost estimates, et cetera, that feed into,
[4:07:05] again, this process which we're in right now, which is the DIF update and adoption process.
[4:07:14] Council approves also our CIP projects, our CIP budget, annual budget, as well as the city budget.
[4:07:23] And as soon as we're done with this presentation, the director of finance will be providing you
[4:07:27] do that information on the city's budget as well as the CIP budget, so Council adopts those items.
[4:07:33] Later in the year as we go through, there is adoption of updates to the CIP project.
[4:07:40] The city may gain grant funding, for example, or add in additional project to the CIP.
[4:07:46] Those all come back to the city council for consideration of approval and acceptance.
[4:07:51] City staff go through the process of project planning, design, and delivery every year.
[4:07:57] City Council receives in December the annual deferred court every year.
[4:08:03] And we'll go into a little bit more about that later on.
[4:08:06] And then finally, one of the most present items that City Council sees is our contracting efforts.
[4:08:16] I'm related to capital projects before City Council, we bring basically contracting contracts
[4:08:26] for, for example, in Jefferson Parkway with a developer or excuse me, the contractor contract
[4:08:33] come in that comes before City Council with a bid package that Council ultimately approves
[4:08:40] and considers for approval.
[4:08:42] And then later after that public infrastructure is completed,
[4:08:47] those items come back to City Council again for acceptance of public improvement.
[4:08:52] So those are all touch points where Council has input and relation to the DIFF program.
[4:09:00] We're going to get into DIFF history now, DIFF model on administration and
[4:09:04] accounting, and with that I'm going to hand it over to Gwen.
[4:09:11] Good evening.
[4:09:12] Vagabill Estelle was its first comprehensive development impact fee in 1992.
[4:09:17] issue. That program covered a wide range of facilities impacted by new development.
[4:09:23] Over the years, the city has grown and planning framework has evolved.
[4:09:28] The program has also been updated to reflect new infrastructure needs and policy goals.
[4:09:33] Next slide.
[4:09:35] In 2015, the city adopted a new general plan which emphasized that new development should
[4:09:42] pay their own way. This principle is critical in ensuring that development doesn't financially burden the city or
[4:09:49] compromise levels of service. This general plan update laid the ground work for a more refined and
[4:09:57] equitable approach to impact fees.
[4:10:01] Following the 2015 general plan, we initiated a new Nexus study in 2022,
[4:10:06] which assess the infrastructure needs tied to growth. A major update in the study was the
[4:10:12] the introduction of a tiered single-family housing fee based upon the unit size, which
[4:10:18] better aligned fee levels with the appropriate impacts of different size homes.
[4:10:25] The 2025 refinement builds on the 2022 study.
[4:10:31] It updates project cost and current with the most recent data, and brings the program into
[4:10:37] compliance with AB602, which requires that fees for housing be based upon square footage
[4:10:42] of a unit. This makes this program more legally defensible and teller to today's housing landscape and policies.
[4:10:56] In terms of a diff model, the revenues, those diff revenue fees that the city collects and are identified through the next study.
[4:11:06] The city uses what is called the Pays You Go Model. Under that Pays You Go Model, fees are paid under those diff categories,
[4:11:15] to which a new project is impacting.
[4:11:18] If you look at the in this slide and the upper left,
[4:11:21] you can see the flow of tax as they move down and across.
[4:11:26] And that's where I'm going to walk you through this.
[4:11:29] Project comes in and the project touches various elements of diff categories.
[4:11:37] It touches a storm drainage.
[4:11:39] It touches transportation, open space, and parks.
[4:11:42] projects. Project pays their fees for those particular impacts. Those fees are then essentially
[4:11:51] transferred into the various fund accounts for those specific type of categories of those
[4:11:57] diff categories. In this example, we're going to continue to focus on the transportation
[4:12:01] fees, so it's a transportation impact fee. As it moves through the process and goes from
[4:12:08] from the master fund account for the transportation fund.
[4:12:12] There's a prioritization process that happens.
[4:12:15] And that prioritization process is focused on the strategic alignment with city council goals.
[4:12:20] Again, general plan, specific plans, policy plans that are considered and approved by city council,
[4:12:27] strategic plans that are considered and approved by city council.
[4:12:31] Risk and complexity is evaluated for the project as well as resource availability,
[4:12:35] as well as finally project cost and project balance.
[4:12:39] And what I'm trying to demonstrate at the bottom of this slide is,
[4:12:43] there's not a project 1, 2, 3, 4, or not sequentially all coming in.
[4:12:48] There's a prioritization process based on those particular items
[4:12:52] that are just listed that shifts these projects around
[4:12:56] to allow those projects to move forward.
[4:12:58] I've used this example in the past, for example, Jepson Parkway.
[4:13:02] One of the one of the impetus of Jepsen Parkway was the development east of Leisure Town.
[4:13:09] That was a goal that the City Council had was to produce more of that housing and start to develop east of Leisure Town area.
[4:13:16] You have to have a backbone infrastructure in a roadway network so that you can start to branch off that into those subdivision and developments.
[4:13:24] And so a lot of that was driven and forced Jepsen Parkway to come to the forefront.
[4:13:29] This process, this pay-as-you-go model, allows the city to be able to respond in those timely ways to be able to implement those big projects.
[4:13:40] Again, as I mentioned, the pay-as-you-go model is the industry standard, it is used by most municipalities.
[4:13:46] And on this slide here at the very bottom, these are just example municipalities.
[4:13:50] Again, it's utilized as a predominant model throughout any of the cities that are utilizing
[4:13:59] a DIFF program.
[4:14:00] You can see the City of Fairfields in here, Vleo in Dixon, and various other municipalities.
[4:14:07] In terms of DIFF accounting, the California fee mitigation act specifically defines the
[4:14:13] reporting requirements for agencies operating a DIFF program.
[4:14:16] There are two levels of reporting, annual reporting and fifth year reporting.
[4:14:20] The City of Vacaville produces an annual report based on that fifth year higher requirement.
[4:14:29] So, what the city is looking for in terms of the production of that annual report.
[4:14:34] Again, what you see every year comes to you for consideration is there's a segregation of all of the Diffee categories.
[4:14:41] They're all accounted for separately.
[4:14:43] Current balances for every single one of those Diff categories.
[4:14:47] the amount of fees that were collected in each of those categories down to the project level identification and accounting for every single project which had any dollars spent related to those.
[4:15:00] Diffees on those particular projects. And again, this all comes to you at that fifth level, higher level of reporting pursuant to the state of California.
[4:15:15] Now we're going to talk about the Nexus Study fee calculations and capital projects. Okay. This slide highlights the legal and technical foundations behind the development impact fees. The draft 2025 Nexus Study is our primary supporting document.
[4:15:31] It includes all the assumptions, calculations, and justifications needed to comply with the Mitigation Fee Act.
[4:15:38] To be legally defensible, any fee must propose,
[4:15:44] sorry, must demonstrate a clear connection or nexus between the development project and
[4:15:49] the public facility or infrastructure that the fee will help fund.
[4:15:53] That is why the study ties fees directly to the city's general plan, service levels,
[4:16:00] capital improvement plans and cost estimate.
[4:16:03] It also ensures that each fee is proportional, meaning that a development only pays its fair share of improvements needed to serve it.
[4:16:11] We can't overcharge, but we can't undercharge, or we risk not being able to deliver the necessary infrastructure.
[4:16:22] Now, this slide looks at how fees are actually calculated.
[4:16:26] Most development impact fees follow a consistent network.
[4:16:30] First, we identify which capital improvement projects are needed to serve the future growth.
[4:16:36] Then we estimate the cost of the projects.
[4:16:38] After that, we determine how much of those costs are attributed to new development.
[4:16:43] This is critical because existing residents shouldn't pay for infrastructure required by new growth.
[4:16:50] Finally, we calculate a per unit or per square footage fee that would recover growth related cost.
[4:16:58] This gives us the maximum justifiable fee.
[4:17:01] These inputs allow us to build a fee structure that is equitable, legal, defensible, and financially sound.
[4:17:09] This slide explains how the city identifies capital projects that are included in the development impact fee.
[4:17:16] The process follows a structured five-step approach that's grounded in state law and local policy.
[4:17:22] First, we review adopted plans like the general plan, specific plans and master plans to identify long-term capital needs.
[4:17:32] Next, we make sure the identified projects are consistent with our existing planned level of service.
[4:17:38] This ensures that new development pays for the infrastructure needed to maintain service standards, not to upgrade or improve them beyond what the city has planned.
[4:17:50] Third, we assess how growth is driving demand.
[4:17:54] We only include projects in the diff if there's a clear connection between population or job growth and the need for those facilities.
[4:18:03] Fourth, we confirm that each project qualifies as a capital improvement under state law.
[4:18:09] Diff can only fund capital not operating our maintenance costs.
[4:18:13] And finally, we ensure alignment with city council adoptive policies and directions.
[4:18:18] This process keeps our fees both legally, legally compliant and aligned with the city's strategic priorities.
[4:18:31] Okay.
[4:18:32] In terms of next steps, we have a couple more public outreach meetings available to the public as well as our community or our development partners.
[4:18:44] These will be held on July 15th and August 25th, and then City Council meetings coming up July 22nd.
[4:18:53] We'll be talking about development impact fees 102.
[4:18:57] We're going to move beyond the basics and fundamentals and start to get into the intermediate and advanced level, Diff.
[4:19:04] And it's my hope that these two educational courses, informative courses, will help provide
[4:19:13] the basis for you to be able to really understand the program and nuance within the Diff for
[4:19:20] upcoming decisions later on in the fall.
[4:19:24] In August, there will be a Diff Community Facility District CFD Policy Study Session.
[4:19:29] And from that, we hope to have a very robust discussion of various policy elements related
[4:19:36] to these two particular elements, the diff and CFDs.
[4:19:40] What we intend to be able to garner out of those conversations that study session with
[4:19:46] council will then feed into the next piece which would be coming back to city council sometime
[4:19:52] probably in September with a diff-fe-update study session incorporating everything that
[4:19:59] we've heard along the way starting in April of this year from the public, from our development
[4:20:06] community, from you as we go through that policy study session.
[4:20:11] So that finally in October or so, you'll be presented, staff will present you with
[4:20:18] a resolution to consider updating the development impact fee.
[4:20:23] And then finally, in terms of resources related to the diff, there are a number of resources
[4:20:30] that we've been compiling.
[4:20:32] And it's a living, breathing website that we've created.
[4:20:35] It gets updated very regularly, located on the city's website.
[4:20:38] It's the community development page, and on that community development page,
[4:20:41] it's under forms and fees, and then there's a big tile that says diff update 2025.
[4:20:47] 5. Environmental fiscal and strategic goal, there's no impact on the environmental side
[4:20:55] as a result of this action. There is no fiscal impact and as for a strategic goal, this
[4:21:00] particular project touches all five of the City Council's adopted strategic goal element
[4:21:06] to 1-5. The recommendation, there's no required action here. This item is for informational purposes
[4:21:14] And that concludes our presentation and we'd be happy to answer any questions.
[4:21:19] Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
[4:21:23] I don't see any initial questions and I appreciate that there had been some explanations prior
[4:21:27] to this as we're trying to better understand the process so thank you for that.
[4:21:33] I'm going to go ahead and open it up to the public hands and I know that there's developers
[4:21:37] in the room if there's any comments that you want to make.
[4:21:40] This won't be an open-ended, so just try to keep it on point.
[4:22:00] First of all, it's been, once again, I'll repeat it very burdensome process, and we're
[4:22:05] looking at five months to try and get to a conclusion on this.
[4:22:09] And once again, I'm going to repeat myself, and I'll ask the council, what is it that you're
[4:22:18] looking for?
[4:22:18] What is your goal in the type of unit you want?
[4:22:21] If you want workforce housing that I heard you all talking about, we need to look at all the cost involved and not look in cylinders and fees here and parks here and that.
[4:22:34] We need to look at the whole project.
[4:22:36] So what does that bring me to?
[4:22:38] That first of all brings me, and I'll get to the fees in just a second.
[4:22:41] But I don't know why this city does not have a housing element,
[4:22:51] can't even talk, element advocate.
[4:22:54] In other words, we don't have anybody within the city that we can go that is working.
[4:23:01] That's a staff member to try and see to it that these homes that you're looking for are attainable and
[4:23:09] are buildable and unattainable.
[4:23:12] Instead, we're being told that we have got to convince you.
[4:23:15] It's our job.
[4:23:17] I've been told that that is our job as a developer to convince you to lower the fees,
[4:23:23] to make it work for the project that you want.
[4:23:27] That, to me, is totally asked backwards.
[4:23:33] But I wish that you would have somebody that would be an advocate within your city that was on your payroll,
[4:23:39] that was talking to the different parts of your city.
[4:23:44] Saying what can we do to get realistic?
[4:23:48] Vince Bossy who's not here tonight had other commitments.
[4:23:51] But he's been on our behalf submitting questions
[4:23:53] and recommendations and everything else regarding fees.
[4:23:57] And we have gotten out of the 15 or something
[4:23:59] so we've gotten back two or three very minor ones.
[4:24:03] We're not getting anywhere.
[4:24:05] They're not working to try and lower the fees.
[4:24:08] they have is they have clearly stated it is the maximum allowable by law and
[4:24:15] If we want them lower do we have to get them lowered ourselves? We have to convince you
[4:24:20] So that does that mean that that we have to take each one of you and sit you down and go with you maybe two at a time
[4:24:26] over each one of the 64 fees that are there I
[4:24:32] Was going to bring my cups out because I did bring them but I understand that everybody's gone through the the education of
[4:24:38] the cups. That's the money going in and getting transferred out and into the
[4:24:43] big one. So since I've heard you've already been educated I'm not going to bring
[4:24:48] them out. But I am going to try and point out something. New fees are coming in
[4:24:53] because they need evidently more money or they needed quicker. I don't understand
[4:24:58] everything. I'm not the smartest guy in the world. But when I see a cup getting
[4:25:04] requested to get filled, which has an intersection at level C. And it takes two and a half million dollars to improve level C and by their own staff's own rating when it is completed, the work is done, it's finished to open up.
[4:25:24] Do you know what the level is going to be?
[4:25:28] You got to read your own report, level C.
[4:25:31] So, why are we putting in new projects that are going nowhere?
[4:25:37] There's another intersection.
[4:25:41] So, I'm going to go ahead and just cut you off at this point.
[4:25:45] Here's the, I appreciate the comment, but what I do hope is that our process will be
[4:25:52] able to explain where we get from the maximum allowable to what is going to be council priorities
[4:25:59] I would like to get to that point, we have not been able to have that discussion.
[4:26:04] We submit stuff, we're not getting stuff back.
[4:26:06] We don't have anybody advocating on the city side for the housing.
[4:26:13] It's our understanding than the feeling that I'm getting is that the type of housing has no correlation to the type of expenses and cost that the staff is asking us to incur.
[4:26:28] So if you can give me somebody that we can talk to, that would help maybe get in between us, it might help out because we're not doing very good right now.
[4:26:39] And I know a lot of people are going to be very upset at me for saying these things.
[4:26:44] And I'm not as eloquent as Todd will probably come in behind me.
[4:26:47] But the point being is we want to resolve it, we want to build your product, we want to do it.
[4:26:54] But we got to look at costs on every level, and we got to get better cooperation of what we're getting.
[4:27:02] Thank you.
[4:27:02] With that, I'll sit down.
[4:27:04] Appreciate it.
[4:27:05] Anyone else in the public wishing to comment?
[4:27:09] I see head nods.
[4:27:11] We'll leave it at that.
[4:27:14] Good evening.
[4:27:19] Would just like to reiterate, please do not make any changes that do not benefit Vacaville.
[4:27:27] So the developers came to you, this is your gang, let them pay.
[4:27:37] They're not here out of charity.
[4:27:39] Thank you.
[4:27:43] Well, I appreciate this is the intro and hopefully there will be an opportunity in the sessions to come because I know that there's been some comments of items that are in our tiff, for example, that maybe the council may want to weigh in at a future session.
[4:28:00] Because I know that that's sometimes the development community might say, if there's a percentage of what is in front of us may or may not ever be built and it's time for the council to weigh in, then I'm sure that will come to the council at some point.
[4:28:16] Absolutely, Mayor. And just to address Mr. Alexander's comments really quickly.
[4:28:21] Again, as I informed Council, we've had multiple meetings with developers and specifically
[4:28:29] with Mr. Alexander himself, upwards of two hours of meetings.
[4:28:35] Terms of staff not turning around and providing information again, I would encourage you
[4:28:40] to take a look at the website.
[4:28:41] It is rife with information.
[4:28:44] We are rerunning the numbers and as I mentioned earlier, this is an iterative process.
[4:28:51] We started in April with a draft.
[4:28:54] It will not be the same thing that we are going to be presenting to council for
[4:28:59] The very reason that we are having these public meetings with the developers and taking their comment and it's moving the needle.
[4:29:05] We have that July 15th meeting and I hope to be able to
[4:29:10] Settle some of those concerns that Mr. Alexander others have.
[4:29:14] But in any case, the bottom line is we have been doing our due diligence.
[4:29:19] When we come back to council and have those policy discussions and ultimately provide you the fees, you will be able to make those calls.
[4:29:29] Thank you.
[4:29:30] Thank you for clarifying that.
[4:29:33] Along with those, I know we've talked privately prior to this meeting but just to be transparent, I am also interested in seeing what comparable diffives are within our region or anything to that effect.
[4:29:47] just to make sure that we have a full sense of what's going on.
[4:29:50] Thank you.
[4:29:52] Appreciate it.
[4:29:53] It's no action tonight.
[4:29:54] This is the start.
[4:29:55] So we'll go from here.
[4:29:57] Thank you very much.
[4:29:59] We'll move on.
[4:30:00] Item c. Thank you, Mayor. This last item is adoption of the budget. We've got, can, that's me, our finance director and John Colette, budget manager.
[4:30:35] Good evening, Mr. Mayor, vice mayor members of the council. Next slide, please. So just starting off tonight's presentation, the option of the budget was just a brief recap of how we got here and the different meetings that took place getting up to tonight's meeting. So in addition to the quarterly budget updates, we had three study sessions.
[4:30:52] The very first study session was focusing on cost savings measures.
[4:30:56] Really looking at just giving the fact that we were anticipating deficit spending, the cost
[4:31:00] savings measures that we would be putting in place and recommending in order to shrink
[4:31:04] our deficit gap in the upcoming fiscal year.
[4:31:06] The study session number two, we provided an update of where we anticipated the current
[4:31:10] fiscal year to end, an updated five year forecast, and really the positive news with the current
[4:31:16] year was that we are going to receive one time sales tax money, so a boost from that.
[4:31:21] And so although that doesn't impact the forecast that we have of DEF's is spending going forward,
[4:31:26] it does put us in a better position with the reserve going into the next fiscal year.
[4:31:30] Additionally, in that study session number two, there were two items that were brought up
[4:31:34] for council consideration are part of this proposed budget.
[4:31:37] And that was $300,000 for a fire academy in February.
[4:31:41] And then also $150,000 for a city contribution as a speed of member of capsule on a JPA.
[4:31:48] And then prior to the study session number three on June 10th, the draft budget is
[4:31:52] made available.
[4:31:53] And that evening, we presented a summary of the operating budget, the CIP budget, and
[4:31:58] then also previewed ways of enhancing our revenues in the upcoming fiscal year that we'll
[4:32:02] be bringing back for discussion next slide.
[4:32:06] So just an overview of the proposed budget for the upcoming fiscal year.
[4:32:11] And so this is going to be the second fiscal year that the proposed budget is proposing using
[4:32:15] access reserves in order to balance the budget and really by doing so, it allows us to maintain
[4:32:20] or service levels and programs with the community not making some drastic cuts to those levels,
[4:32:26] service levels or programs.
[4:32:28] As mentioned earlier, this proposed budget also implements cost savings measures to address
[4:32:34] our debts that spending gap or kind of narrow that, and then also really the key goal being
[4:32:37] that at the end of the next fiscal year that we're still above our general fund reserve policy.
[4:32:42] And so some of the items that were proposed was a two and a half percent cost reduction from every department,
[4:32:46] pausing a majority of the measure on pilot programs with the exception of the neighborhood cleanup program,
[4:32:51] and the scholarship program, and then reducing our capital funding, no
[4:32:55] inflator to the service and supplies budgets for CPI, and then no full time staffing of
[4:33:04] positions being proposed. In fact, we're actually freezing three positions and then 22 positions
[4:33:08] is right down a fight as part of the cost savings matters to be held or can it delayed for hiring.
[4:33:13] Next slide.
[4:33:15] So this is the proposed budget by the numbers.
[4:33:17] And so for the operating budget, we're looking at a total budget of a little over 301 million.
[4:33:22] CIP budget being $50 million and just to give some context.
[4:33:26] If you were to compare the current fiscal year 2425 budget the council approved a year ago.
[4:33:31] What we're proposing for the upcoming fiscal year is less than 1% higher than the adopted budget for this current fiscal year.
[4:33:38] and for the general fund specifically, it's half a percent higher.
[4:33:40] And so, as we all know, costs have definitely gone up by more than a percent over the past year,
[4:33:45] but this really kind of highlights the efforts that we're taking
[4:33:47] to the cost saving measures to curb expense growth in the upcoming fiscal year.
[4:33:51] Next slide.
[4:33:53] The following slide is the operating budget kind of visually
[4:33:57] and how that looks like by department.
[4:33:58] So I won't go through each one of these, but just that's what that looks like.
[4:34:02] Next slide.
[4:34:03] And this is our five-year forecast that was presented in study session number two.
[4:34:06] No changes here, but this is what we're anticipating with the cost savings measures just for next year.
[4:34:14] So as mentioned in a prior study session, we are proposing cost savings measures just for one year.
[4:34:20] And they kind of see in the outside years that those cost savings measures are removed.
[4:34:24] And so for fiscal year 25, we anticipate ending this current fiscal year with a deficit of about 2.3 million
[4:34:30] between our revenues and expenses.
[4:34:31] And so kind of the way to look at this is the columns are your expenses.
[4:34:35] Revenue is your line's, the line going across, and so you ideally want that line up top to be above your columns, we're currently not there, and that's kind of what is the deficit spending that's been referred to.
[4:34:46] So for fiscal year 26, next fiscal year we're anticipating a little under $9 million gap, and then on average in the outside years about $9 million or 6% and again highlighting, you know, just that we're looking at cost savings measures as part of this budget adoption, definitely the other side is really looking at enhancing our revenues to close that gap.
[4:35:05] As far as the reserves go, we're projecting that we end this fiscal year at 29% our policy calls for a 16 to 25% reserve with a goal of 20%.
[4:35:15] So end of this year will be at 29, it's our projection.
[4:35:19] And at the end of next fiscal year we're at 23% and then once you get into fiscal year 27 kind of assuming this plays out, we'd be below our policy at 13% by the end of fiscal year 27.
[4:35:29] Next slide.
[4:35:30] So in addition to the adoption of the budgets, the other item we're seeking Council
[4:35:35] approval on is approval of the current pay schedule and so this is kind of related to
[4:35:40] the public employee pension reform act where it requires the adoption of a public available
[4:35:45] salary schedule.
[4:35:47] There's some additional legislation as well that requires a call out of executive conversations
[4:35:52] which you'll see on the next slide and then adoption of the salary schedule in the following
[4:35:56] slide and meet these requirements.
[4:35:57] Next slide.
[4:35:58] And so this is the call out the executive salary schedule that I mentioned earlier and with that, I'll pass it on to the assistance and manager to finish up the presentation.
[4:36:07] Thanks, Ken.
[4:36:08] A lot of work goes into the budget both on the staff side and on the council side.
[4:36:12] So I want to thank you, the city council for your leadership and establishing policies and practices that have helped build and maintain a general fund reserve, which we're relying on now that we're deficit spending.
[4:36:21] your strategic investment in the organization and the community as part of what makes
[4:36:27] FACAville the vibrant community it is and the goal of the organization is to provide
[4:36:31] high quality services to the community and we only can carry out that goal because
[4:36:35] we have council support so thank you. We've also had an extraordinary level of collaboration
[4:36:40] with our department heads and staff as we work through the budget process and identified
[4:36:44] areas where we can scale back and delay our free positions to reduce the budget deficit
[4:36:49] it, and just know that you have a really dedicated team.
[4:36:52] The budget team also deserves a big kudos for their ongoing commitment to protecting
[4:36:56] the city's fiscal stability, consistently running projections, identifying trends, and
[4:37:01] trying to find savings in a variety of places while ensuring that we're still able to provide
[4:37:05] the services our community expects and deserves.
[4:37:09] Even though you'll be adopting the budget hopefully tonight, and the budget team will continue
[4:37:13] looking for areas where we can cut costs and improve efficiencies with the longer term
[4:37:17] budget forecast in mind. Next slide. So next steps. The budget team will continue to bring
[4:37:24] you quarterly budget updates and track the progress in terms of deficit spending.
[4:37:28] Because expenses are only one piece of the budget, we also plan to bring forward a discussion
[4:37:32] on enhancing revenues at a future meeting. That will include things can already mentioned,
[4:37:37] setting fees as well as exploring options and feasibility of the sales, possibly a sales tax
[4:37:41] or hotel tax measures, and next slide, and with that, I will turn it back to Ken.
[4:37:50] So the following slide is just as a recommendation, so I won't read all of those, next slide.
[4:37:56] And with that, we'd be happy to take any questions.
[4:37:59] And thank you to the entire team. This is as a reminder to anyone in the audience,
[4:38:05] or watching online. Our budget wasn't as simple as these 12 slides. It's been a lengthy process
[4:38:12] that's the majority of the spring to now,
[4:38:16] and with at least three different sessions.
[4:38:18] So I just want to make that reminder to the public.
[4:38:22] So, I also appreciate the staff's attention
[4:38:25] to looking at how to tighten the belt.
[4:38:28] We know that we need to, and so I do appreciate that.
[4:38:31] Before I open it up to anybody on the council,
[4:38:33] I have any questions?
[4:38:35] Comment, okay.
[4:38:36] I'm going to open up to the public for any comment.
[4:38:41] Seeing that, I'll bring it back.
[4:38:42] Council Member Silver.
[4:38:45] I know, like Mayor mentioned, there's been a lot of different discussion, so just really
[4:38:49] thank you to all the department heads and staff throughout the city about being flexible
[4:38:53] on supporting certain programs and holding back on other ones.
[4:38:56] So I know that's not easy, there's a lot of pride and passion that goes since everything
[4:39:00] that you do and everybody that you support.
[4:39:04] But again, I really do want to appreciate, express my appreciation that there truly is a team
[4:39:11] commitment on how we best serve our residents and our city. So thank you all for the difference.
[4:39:17] You continue to strive to make and the lives of everyone.
[4:39:21] All right, with this, do I have a motion?
[4:39:24] Motion to approve.
[4:39:24] Motion to approve.
[4:39:25] So Councilmember Silva, motion. Do you want a second?
[4:39:29] I'll second.
[4:39:29] Okay. All right. All in favor?
[4:39:32] Aye.
[4:39:33] Opposed.
[4:39:35] Thank you very much. This will get us starting into the next year.
[4:39:38] And with that, do we have any reports on the city manager?
[4:39:41] No reports nightmare. All right, so reports of the city council
[4:39:45] I will first and foremost before I pass it on to councilmember silver to kick us off just say thank you for stepping in
[4:39:55] During this time you've you've certainly been a great help to the staff and your your role and your leadership is in the interim role
[4:40:04] Yes, they say sometimes be careful what you wish for but
[4:40:09] We'll start the next Monday. We're all looking forward to her joining the team, but I appreciate it. I know on behalf of all the Council. Thank you.
[4:40:17] So, Council Member Silver. Likewise, thank you, George Ann. I don't know if you're not going far, so we'll be bother news as needed.
[4:40:25] The two announcements won on Saturday for residents in the Markham area.
[4:40:31] There's going to be four different dumpsters set out throughout the area.
[4:40:35] City staff, our community development team will be out there, helping assist.
[4:40:41] Different residents, collecting some feedback.
[4:40:44] So really looking forward to seeing a good turnout of people kind of doing similar wood council member Wiley put together in district six with district dollars.
[4:40:54] So it will be the last time for a while, so people are expecting this to come and continue every year, likely not going to happen.
[4:41:03] But I also want to express my gratitude to, I'm not sure what department it is, but I know co-compliance is involved in it.
[4:41:10] There's a particular corner along the county street people don't.
[4:41:13] I'm really excited to see residents step up and take more liberty and control of making sure that the place that they call home is respected.
[4:41:23] So they have my full support and legal ways of doing that and so but also want to appreciate staff for finding ways to do that.
[4:41:33] The thing just to let council and the community know on the Salano, sorry, Yolo Salano air quality district management group, there's three funding, three grant requests that were actually approved.
[4:41:48] So, that was like a whole long process, but that included funding to finally complete
[4:41:54] a crosswalk and ADA ramp at Cairo's on Elm, so excited to look at that, see that come
[4:42:00] to fruition, hopefully over the course of the next year.
[4:42:03] Number two, funding for electric EV chargers are to contribute towards that on the, that
[4:42:11] Kolotas Park in County's Vot, so there's some funding that I was allocated to that.
[4:42:15] And then the third one, which isn't directly to the city, but indirectly will help our residents is funding the EV van for boys and girls club to help transport folks.
[4:42:26] So just for everybody to know the funding effort from the collective board from representatives in half of slano and yellow county.
[4:42:34] The emphasis is really looking at how do we mitigate and lower emissions and the efforts to have cleaner air.
[4:42:41] So that's how they prioritize a lot of the request for funding.
[4:42:45] Backable did put in the most requests, so I was happy to see that.
[4:42:48] Unfortunately not enough money to go around, but
[4:42:51] definitely want to thank everybody who put applications and presented that.
[4:42:56] Thanks, thank you.
[4:42:57] Council Member Stockton.
[4:43:00] Yes, I wanted to wish all of the fathers a happy father's day.
[4:43:05] I probably had the best father's day that I've had in my life.
[4:43:09] surrounded by friends and family and my son who graduated high school I know
[4:43:14] there's been lots of graduations and stuff so it's always exciting to see as a
[4:43:18] father to see your kids grow up and and do the things that they they dream about
[4:43:23] doing but also enjoy being with your parents for these types of things while
[4:43:28] they're still here I know that it can be difficult we have fourth of July coming I'm
[4:43:33] hoping people are responsible this year I know that every year there's kind of like
[4:43:36] a big push for safe and sane, not having fireworks and start stuff on fire, please
[4:43:43] don't burn down our city. But I was wondering if the police chief might talk about another
[4:43:48] city council meeting that recently came about and something really amazing that our neighbors
[4:43:54] to the northeast have done for a vacable.
[4:43:59] Chair,
[4:44:03] putting you on the spot. Sorry, chief.
[4:44:06] That's okay, sir. Mr. Mayor, Vice Mayor. Thanks for having me.
[4:44:08] So last Tuesday I was invited to go to Dixon City Council meeting to talk about their initiative to rename a park after Matt Bowen.
[4:44:20] And so after limited discussion went pretty quick, they voted 502 approve it, overwhelming support to do it.
[4:44:31] And then it's kind of a funny story.
[4:44:33] As I was walking out, somebody followed me out and said he's willing to sell his pig to give $7,000 towards the program.
[4:44:43] So they're looking at non-profit ways to fund this, but Dixon City Council is very supportive of renaming a park.
[4:44:53] I'm chief thank you for sharing that and thank you for everything that you continue to do for you know our
[4:45:00] Our department moving forward, I know the anniversary of that date is coming up and it's a somber time for your people. So I appreciate Dixon doing that. I appreciate you being there and your leadership. How can people contact you or Dixon if they want to contribute to make sure that they have what they need to be able to really make this something to honor him? Yeah, so we're trying to put their groups together. There's a lot of nonprofit groups out there right now.
[4:45:29] about the Vacable Police Foundation being one of them.
[4:45:33] There's some outlying groups that we haven't had direct contact with.
[4:45:38] But I know those conversations are going to be having the next week or so.
[4:45:41] Just to try to get the three or four main nonprofit groups to come together
[4:45:46] and see if they can come together to fund this park in the city of Dixon.
[4:45:52] Awesome.
[4:45:53] Well, if you get some sort of fire or if they put out some sort of information with contact.
[4:45:57] Could you please get that to us or distribute it to the city or something so that we can make sure that we can contribute or provide our community opportunities.
[4:46:05] And July 11th is the one year anniversary and we will do just a solemn tribute out in the front steps of the PD.
[4:46:12] Okay. Thank you.
[4:46:13] Thank you. That's all I have.
[4:46:18] That was the running of the torch.
[4:46:21] Yes, my legs are hurting, man.
[4:46:23] We can share with everyone.
[4:46:26] Yeah, so it's a special on the big torch run, we do it annually, just a moment to honor our special on the Beans.
[4:46:32] They come out and join us for segments of the run.
[4:46:36] So again, it was another good year, as I get older and older, it's getting more and more difficult for me to do.
[4:46:42] But I promised that I would try to continue to do it until I retire, so it's a work in progress for me.
[4:46:48] But we all enjoy it together.
[4:46:50] Okay, great. Thanks for hearing.
[4:46:53] Thank you. Thanks, Chief. Council Member Wiley.
[4:46:58] Just a few things that I want to mention tonight.
[4:47:01] And I did mention the park event earlier from our South Town Association.
[4:47:06] And I just really have great things to say about our staff working to build neighborhood associations.
[4:47:12] And then in District 6, several of them have taken off.
[4:47:15] And so Miss Joan is an excellent volunteer.
[4:47:18] Another person that's a great volunteer is Rita Deandre and she also helps put together the Districts 6 Newsletter.
[4:47:25] She's the vice, she's now the chair of the Napa Salano Aging on Council on Aging.
[4:47:32] And she helps in a lot of different ways.
[4:47:34] And I want to say that this Sunday she is going to be honored as the Salano County American Dream Award because she's a naturalized citizen.
[4:47:44] She was born in Finland, and so my Thompson will be presenting her award on Sunday, and I'm going to attend that, and so that's a back of a resident, Rita Deandre, and I'll do a press release so we can put that in the paper or something.
[4:47:57] And then I also, another park thing, we had the Pride event on Sunday, and that was wonderful to have the big park to put it in and the people, and so that was just a great thing on Sunday, and by Vice Mayor presided great.
[4:48:11] And then was there at the kickoff for Creek Walk on this Friday night and the other big
[4:48:18] thing in this council chamber last Wednesday, we didn't have the council member sitting
[4:48:24] here but we had the summer interns and it's a great project with the staff and so there
[4:48:30] were 20 students who were involved with all the departments with the summer interns and
[4:48:36] And they were all selected after we presented information about Sunshine Laws and Brown
[4:48:43] Act and why they need to be involved.
[4:48:47] They took their stand and we actually voted.
[4:48:50] She let it a great job preparing an agenda and all the people put it together.
[4:48:55] And so they discussed and voted on the fireworks item that we did a couple years ago.
[4:49:02] And so they had discussion on that.
[4:49:03] And so they saw how the council works and we had public comment from people so it was a great event last Wednesday
[4:49:10] And that was a shout out to another district six hard worker Alice Freed who put that together and we've done it in
[4:49:17] Sassoon and back of the and the county and so it's just great and so I do appreciate all the work that the staff is doing with the summer
[4:49:25] interns and you've had two weeks down and one week more to go or something so great
[4:49:30] Thank you.
[4:49:30] Great.
[4:49:31] Thank you.
[4:49:31] Vice Mayor Chattano.
[4:49:33] Thank you.
[4:49:33] I like it when she speaks first.
[4:49:35] And then I would like to have to do a fair couple of statements.
[4:49:39] Yeah.
[4:49:40] Okay.
[4:49:40] Speaking of the students involved in summer at City Hall, this year we even had a student to
[4:49:49] be the mayor.
[4:49:50] And I believe they even went through the process of electing the council members that took
[4:49:58] of the seats here, and I have to think.
[4:50:01] Angelina over there, she served as the city manager,
[4:50:05] and we had the, was it Andrea?
[4:50:11] And yes, I was here as a legal counsel,
[4:50:16] and the youth really enjoyed it.
[4:50:18] And you know what's still amazing about that
[4:50:20] is when they began to think on their own
[4:50:23] and come up and ask a question.
[4:50:26] Before councilmember Wiley here,
[4:50:29] She would go over to different students and encourage them to get up then after a while a couple of them got up on their own
[4:50:35] So it it really courage they got encouraged absolutely and so anyway, just I won't talk any longer
[4:50:44] I could but I'll stop there. I was gonna see the interns. Oh, absolutely
[4:50:49] Absolutely, it was great. Oh
[4:50:52] And I'm sorry have to think
[4:50:55] Sheila
[4:50:56] She'll have put everything together and she, of course,
[4:51:02] presided in her role as the city clerk and gave the oath to all of the elective officials.
[4:51:11] That's always good to have these programs.
[4:51:13] Yes.
[4:51:14] The only thing I had to report out, I won't go into any detail for time because it's going to come in the future, is every month the STA water board, they meet.
[4:51:24] The STA is, they're negotiating with how they're going to work with the state on tolling,
[4:51:32] right?
[4:51:33] Most of us aren't used to, if you live in around here having an express lane.
[4:51:37] The nice thing is, is the roads are going to be nice and open and wide with the extra lanes.
[4:51:43] But they're also going to be with specialized types of, you know, normally you could just
[4:51:49] drive through with the card in your car or in the past you didn't even have to have one.
[4:51:54] they would track you. Well, not anymore. And so there's going to be more information coming
[4:51:58] before September when everything goes live. But some of this was reported out through the
[4:52:04] Sloan Transportation Authority, the Agency that's STA. Why is this important? More to follow.
[4:52:11] The board voted to adopt a pilot program for three years. And that is to do not only weekday
[4:52:21] tolling but weekend tolling and so there's pros and cons to all of it all that information is
[4:52:26] available there is some significant benefit for it because it's mostly commuters and commuters
[4:52:31] work in the weekend it allows you know the commute lanes seven days a week instead of five days
[4:52:37] a week and there's some more benefits some more to come with that and also some FAQs and information
[4:52:41] so that anyone who's not used to it won't get caught up into the the fact that in the future when it
[4:52:48] does go live in September, it won't just be a carpool lane for hours, it'll actually
[4:52:53] be required to have the devices and it will be an express lane.
[4:52:57] They're common all over the state, it's finally happening here.
[4:53:00] So anyway, more to come on that, but that's just a report out on STA.
[4:53:04] So with that, thank you to all the staff for the year end budget and making sure this
[4:53:09] happened, and with that, we'll stand in the recess tonight back at them.