[0:29] Are you guys ready?
[0:31] >> You guys ready?
[0:33] >> Ready.
[0:36] >> All right, folks. Thank you for showing
[0:37] up. 6 o'clock, we're going to uh call
[0:39] the meeting to order. Please join me for
[0:41] the pledge of allegiance.
[0:49] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
[0:51] United States of America [clears throat]
[0:53] and to the republic for which it stands.
[0:55] One nation under God, indivisible, with
[0:58] liberty and justice for all.
[1:00] >> Thank you.
[1:03] All right. Roll call. I see all council
[1:05] members are present.
[1:07] Any report out on close session?
[1:10] >> No reportable act.
[1:11] >> Okay. Thank you. Conflict of interest
[1:14] declarations. Do we have any? Seeing
[1:17] none. All right. Agenda reviews and
[1:19] changes, deletions.
[1:21] >> No changes, mayor.
[1:22] >> All right. Thank you. Let's roll right
[1:24] into item B1, presentation, national
[1:26] night out. Recipient is Bo Gastino, one
[1:28] of our sergeants.
[1:32] Yep. Go ahead.
[1:35] Proclamation of the city council of the
[1:37] city of Cloverdale recognizing National
[1:39] Night Out in Cloverdale. Whereas
[1:42] National Night Out is an annual
[1:44] nationwide community building campaign
[1:46] traditionally held on the first Tuesday
[1:49] in August that brings neighbors, law
[1:51] enforcement, first responders,
[1:53] businesses, and community organizations
[1:56] together to strengthen relationships,
[1:58] promote public safety, and foster safer,
[2:01] more connected neighborhoods. And
[2:04] whereas on August 4, 2026, residents
[2:09] throughout Cloverdale joined the
[2:11] Cloverdale Police Department in
[2:13] celebrating National Night Out,
[2:15] demonstrating the strong partnerships,
[2:17] community spirit, and shared commitment
[2:19] that helped make Cloverdale a safe and
[2:22] welcoming place to live, work, and
[2:24] visit. And whereas the success of
[2:27] National Night Out reflects the
[2:29] collaborative effort efforts of the
[2:31] Cloverdale Police Department, Northern
[2:34] Sonoma County Fire Protection District,
[2:36] Cloverdale Ambulance, the Cloverdale
[2:39] Community Emergency Response Team, SERT,
[2:42] the Cloverdale Lions Club, the
[2:44] Cloverdale Police Officers Association,
[2:47] city staff from across the organization,
[2:50] local businesses, community
[2:51] organizations, sponsors, volunteers, and
[2:54] residents whose collective commitment
[2:56] created a welcoming event that
[2:58] strengthened community relationships and
[3:00] celebrated the spirit of public safety.
[3:03] And whereas the city council recognizes
[3:05] that strong relationships, open
[3:08] communication, and meaningful
[3:10] partnerships between law enforcement and
[3:12] the comm community are essential to
[3:14] build building trust, enhancing public
[3:17] safety, and fostering a strong, more
[3:19] connected Cloverdale. And whereas
[3:22] National Night Out serves as a reminder
[3:24] that a safe community is built not only
[3:27] through public safety services, but
[3:30] through neighbors who know one another,
[3:32] community organizations that give back,
[3:34] businesses that invest locally,
[3:37] volunteers who serve, and residents who
[3:39] remain engaged throughout the year. And
[3:42] now therefore, be it proclaimed that the
[3:44] city council of the city of Cloverdale
[3:46] hereby recognizes successful observance
[3:50] of National Night Out on August 4, 2026
[3:54] and encourages continued community
[3:57] engagement and partnership throughout
[3:59] the year to help keep Cloverdale safe,
[4:01] welcoming, and connected. Dated August
[4:03] 12th, 2026. So ordered by Mayor Brian
[4:07] Wheeler.
[4:09] [applause]
[4:13] have any comments for the council?
[4:16] >> Um, I did not make it out to national
[4:18] out, but I saw the photos. It looks like
[4:20] everyone had a really good time. Uh,
[4:22] heard from members in the community that
[4:24] uh, uh, the children had a great time
[4:26] and it's just a wonderful event. So,
[4:27] thank you guys for the wonderful job you
[4:29] do on that.
[4:31] I want to thank you all for putting this
[4:33] on every year and I think our community
[4:35] really enjoys it and I think it's a good
[4:37] time for children to learn about the
[4:39] police force and the fire department and
[4:41] other things of interest that they may
[4:43] look at one year to go into those kind
[4:45] of careers. So, thank you.
[4:48] >> Yeah, Bo, thank you for uh all that you
[4:50] do for the city. Uh, National Night Outs
[4:53] is is a big progressive event for, you
[4:55] know, families and kids alone. And it's
[4:57] great to see that you chose to raise
[5:00] your family here and and be the the the
[5:03] force that we want to see in raising a
[5:05] family in a uh safe neighborhood. So, we
[5:08] appreciate what you do for Cloverdale.
[5:10] Thank you.
[5:12] >> I'm going to reiterate what they said.
[5:13] Thank you for everything you guys do.
[5:15] Community engagement in Cloverdale is
[5:17] what makes us special and knowing
[5:20] generations of your family. Uh thank you
[5:22] for all that you put into it. Thank you
[5:23] for staying here and working hard and
[5:25] showing the community what it's really
[5:26] like.
[5:29] » Uh Bo, thank you. Thank you to uh
[5:32] Cloverdale Police. You know, um you guys
[5:34] are not only the cops in town, your
[5:36] neighbors. Uh you you hook people up and uh talk to them when they need to be
[5:40] talked to. I'm not even going to bring
[5:42] up the rib competition because I think
[5:43] the the new chief of police was a little
[5:46] skewed on that. But anyway, um and
[5:49] obviously one of the cops won, so it was
[5:51] stacked a little bit, but we'll get
[5:53] >> our ex Chief Parker did not win.
[5:55] [laughter]
[5:56] >> As long as Chief Parker, the old chief
[5:57] didn't win, we're cool with that. But
[5:59] anyway, thank you guys for doing what
[6:00] you do. You're always accessible. Um and you know, we transition right into
[6:05] the new chief. I think he's fitting in
[6:06] well, and I encourage uh the community
[6:08] to get out and get to know him. get well
[6:10] get to know our cops that they don't
[6:12] know and al we have a lot of new ones
[6:13] and also talk to the chief. I know he's
[6:15] going to be up. Tomorrow's uh the first
[6:17] day of school for a lot of folks and uh
[6:19] he's going to be pretty visible in
[6:21] there. Get to know the guy. He's going
[6:22] to be huge asset and I think it's uh
[6:24] great for Cloverdale. So once again,
[6:26] thank not only Yubo but the entire CPD.
[6:29] You guys are awesome. Now, can we get a
[6:31] picture with
[6:31] >> Thank you. Yeah. Can I just say a couple
[6:33] thanks? Uh thank you guys for your
[6:34] recognition. Um it always feels good to
[6:37] give out gifts rather than speeding
[6:39] tickets sometimes.
[6:41] So um like council member Marjorie
[6:44] Mortgen said um there were so many
[6:47] people who made this thing possible and
[6:49] I'm just going to she already reiterated
[6:51] it but I'm going to do it again. Um our
[6:54] Cloverdale Police Department, the entire
[6:57] staff uh volunteered their time to make
[6:59] this event possible from dispatchers to
[7:02] Cso to our records to all the officers.
[7:05] It's an all hands-on event. Um, and then
[7:08] we talked about ex- chief Parker. Uh, it
[7:11] wouldn't be possible without his
[7:13] foundation. He he makes it really easy
[7:16] just to kind of follow in his footsteps
[7:17] and our current chief filled that role
[7:19] perfectly. Um, just to go down the line,
[7:22] you had mentioned all the vendors and
[7:24] local businesses that support these
[7:26] small events. I think they donated
[7:28] upwards of uh $1,500 in gifts and gift
[7:33] cards. and our POA donated another
[7:35] thousand dollars to give out to the
[7:37] community. Um, so it's just great to see
[7:39] such a small nit community come together
[7:42] for an event like this. Um, there's so
[7:45] many more people I'm probably missing on
[7:47] this list like ambulance and everybody
[7:49] who came out, but thank you to the
[7:50] community who always supports us. And
[7:52] lastly, like council member Mark Laskkey
[7:55] said, most of us from the Cloverdale
[7:57] Police Department are actually from
[7:58] Cloverdale. So, it actually feels great
[8:01] to do an event like this and give back
[8:03] to the community that raised us. So,
[8:05] thank you guys Yeah.
[9:49] Sorry. We're going to move into we do
[9:50] have the student leazison report. Right
[9:52] now we don't have them, but I would like
[9:53] people if you know anybody, please get
[9:55] on the uh city's website. There's a
[9:58] guide on how to do that. We love having
[10:00] our student liaison up here. The ones
[10:02] we've had are awesome and they're a
[10:03] great addition up here to the DIS. So,
[10:05] uh, please if you know anybody, uh,
[10:07] guide them in that direction. Now, we're
[10:09] going to move into public comments. D1,
[10:11] verbal comments. Any person wishing to
[10:13] speak on an item not listed on the
[10:15] agenda may do so at this time. Pursuant
[10:17] to the Brown Act, the city council is
[10:19] not allowed to consider issues or take
[10:22] action on any item not listed on the
[10:23] agenda. Three minutes are allotted to
[10:26] each speaker.
[10:28] Do we have any public comments?
[10:32] And please, when you come up, state your
[10:33] name for the record, please.
[10:40] Push the little button.
[10:43] >> There we go. Uh, my name is Robert Maddock. I live here in
[10:47] Cloverdale. I am here actually to say
[10:50] thank you to the public employees of of
[10:53] Cloverdale. Um, I had a really difficult
[10:56] situation at my house when my sewer line
[10:58] got cut by a neighbor. We had to replace
[11:01] the entire thing. So, I specifically
[11:03] wanted to thank Kevin Thompson, city
[11:06] manager, for um this being a community
[11:09] where we can talk directly to the people
[11:13] who run it. And it really made a big
[11:15] difference. And I really appreciate the
[11:17] cooperation of the city manager as well
[11:20] as uh Derek Montani, uh Robert Bobby
[11:24] Spagnol, and others in the city staff
[11:27] who really worked with me. I'm on Cherry
[11:29] Creek Road. The other thing I'll mention
[11:31] is when we did the repaving on Cherry
[11:34] Creek Road, we found that there is no
[11:36] road base and it's actually buried with
[11:40] uh yards and yards of river rock. Pure
[11:43] Russian River rock. And if you ever are
[11:46] going to work on Cherry Creek Road, try
[11:49] to save that rock. It's really
[11:50] beautiful. I'm rellandscaping big areas
[11:52] in my yard with it. So, um it's
[11:55] beautiful. probably scooped out of the
[11:57] river back in the day when people just
[11:59] went down there with a bucket and
[12:00] scooped it. Um, but I also uh really
[12:04] just uh in addition to saying thank you
[12:06] for that, want to say I really
[12:07] appreciate our city parks and our new
[12:10] preserve. I've been hiking the trails. I
[12:13] hiked the tank trail this morning uh on
[12:16] that side uh north side. I I like the
[12:19] brand new preserve. So, thanks for the
[12:21] great job you're doing. A lot of people
[12:22] come to complain. I'm just here to say
[12:24] thanks.
[12:36] Hello, Colleen Shields.
[12:40] Council, city officials, and fellow
[12:43] Cloverdaleians.
[12:44] As a 30-year resident of our beloved
[12:46] city, I can't sit idly by without
[12:49] sharing some thoughts about the proposed
[12:51] Esmeralda project. Let me preface my
[12:53] comments by apprising you that I am not
[12:56] anti-growth. I just want to see the
[12:58] right kind of growth in our sweet little
[13:00] town. Safe growth, conducive growth, that positively supports our
[13:06] population and businesses. Growth that
[13:08] follows mandated guidelines. As most of
[13:11] you are aware, there are toxic waste
[13:13] issues of the on the proposed site in
[13:16] question. There are concerns about lack
[13:18] of water issues and I can tell you that
[13:20] I personally know two of our own
[13:22] residents who witnessed toxic waste not
[13:25] being disposed of properly and which was
[13:28] buried on the proposed site. They
[13:30] witnessed this firsthand. That alone
[13:33] should be a red flag. Why then wouldn't
[13:35] you demand current testing and possible
[13:38] subsequent well monitoring? Why then
[13:41] isn't a current EIR required? If things
[13:45] go through as is, we are not doing our
[13:47] due diligence and would not be comparing
[13:50] apples to apples. We need to square up,
[13:54] have integrity, and do the right thing.
[13:56] I'm concerned that the decision five
[13:59] individuals make could negatively alter
[14:02] the landscape of our community and the
[14:04] safety and availability of our precious
[14:07] water supply. This is a huge decision
[14:09] and honestly feel should be up to all of
[14:12] the constituents of this district.
[14:14] Therefore, I propose that this item of
[14:17] business be added to the November
[14:18] ballot. We all choose to live here and
[14:20] don't need to marry the first suitor
[14:23] that proposes. We don't have to say yes
[14:26] because something is better than
[14:28] nothing. We have the sacred
[14:30] responsibility as stewards of this land,
[14:33] this town, this lifestyle to think
[14:35] things through and be wise before making
[14:39] such a decision. We don't have to act
[14:42] out of fear and be tempted by the lure
[14:44] of money, believing that one entity is
[14:47] the panacea for our financial wos.
[14:50] Sometimes waiting for other options is a
[14:53] viable decision. Quite often patient
[14:56] patience truly does pay off. Please
[15:00] listen to our legitimate concerns and
[15:04] truly consider them prior to making any
[15:08] permanent decision. As your constituent
[15:11] constituents, we are owed at least that.
[15:15] Respectfully submitted.
[15:18] [applause]
[15:27] Any other public comment?
[15:45] Good evening. I'm Rob Kazowski. Uh live
[15:47] here in Cloverdale. And uh um first of
[15:50] all, I'd like to speak on an issue that
[15:52] wasn't included in the uh July 22nd city
[15:55] council meetings written comments. Uh
[15:57] those written comments should be part of
[15:59] today's record and warrant your review.
[16:01] Uh they focus on the reasons for no
[16:03] water rate increases at this time. The
[16:06] importance of speaking up is to remind
[16:08] my fellow Cloverdaleians and city
[16:11] leaders that their priorities need
[16:13] regular validation by members of the
[16:14] public. This became evident during the
[16:17] most recent 5-year period of water rate
[16:19] increases. Here are a few examples. One,
[16:21] solar panel to solar panels were
[16:24] prioritized over public works projects.
[16:26] Over inflated and projected savings were
[16:29] used to justify deficit spending, yet
[16:31] future operational parts replacements
[16:34] and maintenance costs for this solar
[16:36] system remain unaccounted for. Smart
[16:39] water meters were prioritized over water
[16:41] capital improvement projects. Faux
[16:43] savings were projected, yet stated
[16:46] benefits remain o undocumented to date.
[16:49] Office air conditioning was prioritized
[16:51] over wastewater capital improvement
[16:54] projects. No benefits for Cloverdaleians
[16:57] was ever identified. The city of
[16:59] Cloverdale assumed long-term debt in
[17:01] 2022, but put it on the backs of
[17:03] residents in the form of massive
[17:04] interest payments. It was an $8 million
[17:07] financial scheme prioritized over pay as
[17:10] you go payments. This irresponsible
[17:13] foray led to deferred water and
[17:16] wastewater public works projects
[17:19] promised to be completed before the
[17:20] 5-year double-digit rate increases
[17:23] imposed on residents water bill since
[17:25] 2021.
[17:27] Even so, some modest progress has been
[17:30] made during the past fiscal year, as it
[17:32] should with a $10 million war chest
[17:36] accumulated during the past five years
[17:39] of water wastewater bills.
[17:42] However, please stop more rate increases
[17:45] over the next 5 years in violation of
[17:47] Proposition 218, where rate increases
[17:49] should be tied to costs related to water
[17:52] infrastructure projects and not for
[17:54] unrelated boondoggles. At the outset, I
[17:57] said city leaders priorities need
[17:59] regular validation by members of the
[18:01] public. However, this has become harder
[18:03] with the lack of subcommittee meetings
[18:04] and a consolidation of four
[18:06] subcommittees into two. For example, the
[18:09] public works subcommittee meetings
[18:11] during 2024 were cancelled six times.
[18:13] During 2025, they were suspended seven
[18:16] times. These are failing grades, not
[18:19] only for public meeting schedules, but
[18:21] also for government transparencies
[18:23] regarding to needed capital improvement
[18:26] projects. Curiously, the first meeting
[18:28] of the public works or infrastructure
[18:30] subcommittee convened nine months later
[18:33] on May 4th of this year. It was held
[18:36] just one day ahead of the two-year
[18:38] budget workshop, giving residents no
[18:40] time to meaningfully participate in the
[18:42] financial future of Cloverdale for the
[18:44] next two-year budget cycle. With that in
[18:47] mind, I encourage you no to higher water
[18:50] bills until we consume the $10 million
[18:53] war chest and look at how much more
[18:56] money this will bring in without
[18:58] completing a lot of the major projects.
[18:59] Thank you.
[19:06] » [laughter]
[19:14] » Angela Cordova.
[19:16] So, I have several things that I want to
[19:18] talk about. First, I receive a
[19:20] threatening text message because I speak
[19:23] out on Esmeralda.
[19:25] That's okay. In our community, that's
[19:27] what Esmeralda brings. A threat against
[19:30] my life. That's a joke.
[19:35] Saying the number won't be traced. Devon
[19:39] has the audacity to send an email to the
[19:41] Dry Creek tribe basically telling them
[19:44] that if they don't cooperate and and
[19:48] support Esmeralda that she is going to
[19:51] oppose their future projects, who is
[19:53] she? She's nobody. She's nobody. But
[19:58] more threats from Esmeralda people now
[20:01] trying to hush the tribe. That is
[20:04] comical.
[20:05] Calling e anti-esalda folks a mob.
[20:09] That's another joke. There's never been
[20:12] a threat made from any anti-esalda
[20:15] person to anybody. There's never been
[20:18] aggression. There's never been violence.
[20:20] There's there's always been public
[20:22] presence and people with legitimate
[20:24] concerns. And it will continue. It's not
[20:27] going to stop. Public records requests
[20:30] in our city have become a joke. It took
[20:35] for me to threaten you with a lawsuit
[20:39] from my attorney to threaten you with
[20:43] public [snorts] complaints to the
[20:46] attorney general, to the state
[20:48] controller, the state auditor, and the
[20:52] grand jury. because this guy thinks it's
[20:56] funny to dictate what the law is. You
[21:00] don't dictate the law. You adhere to the
[21:03] law. So, when you have people in this
[21:05] room who are sitting here today that
[21:07] have requested public records, it's your
[21:10] job as the city attorney to educate your
[21:13] staff that they are violating the law,
[21:17] which is going to cost you a big
[21:19] lawsuit, as you know. And within hours I
[21:23] had my public records on my email within
[21:27] hours of my threat. That's
[21:31] Yesterday this guy months of asking and
[21:36] he thinks it's funny to go over. You
[21:39] could watch the clock. I'm going over. I
[21:41] don't care. He laughs at city hall and
[21:44] says, "Oh, they didn't use the right
[21:46] verbiage."
[21:48] The verbiage was there. you're you're
[21:50] not a dictionary, but that's how you'll
[21:52] be treated. Now,
[21:55] when I finally got my public records, I
[21:58] haven't even gone through them all, but
[21:59] I am looking through them, as well as
[22:01] two other people and an accountant.
[22:04] There's connections with the public
[22:06] money that you're giving, the tax money
[22:10] that you're giving to the chamber. We've
[22:14] already made connections to Michael
[22:17] Yarnney, Steve Cava, Resilient
[22:20] Cloverdale, Rebecca Enis, JDS, DGH,
[22:26] Daniel and Diana Hamzy, Esmeralda, and
[22:30] Devin Zoo, Cloverdale Emergency, and the
[22:33] list goes on.
[22:36] And there's money that's not even
[22:38] accounted for. You know what that's
[22:40] called? failure to oversee our tax
[22:45] dollars that you're handing out.
[22:56] [applause]
[23:01] » Any other public comment?
[23:45] » [clears throat]
[23:47] >> My name is Jennifer Sullivan
[23:51] and I'm a Cloverdale resident.
[23:55] So, why did the city of Cloverdale allow
[23:59] consulting and legal work for Esmeralda
[24:01] be done when Esmeralda didn't have the
[24:04] funds in its reimbursement account to
[24:07] cover that work?
[24:09] On April 8th, 2026, this council amended
[24:14] the city's own budget to authorize
[24:16] $137,000
[24:19] in Esmeralda planning expenses. Expenses
[24:22] the city said would be reimbursed by
[24:25] Esmeralda.
[24:27] Esmeralda's reimbursement agreement
[24:30] required an initial $20,000 deposit. And
[24:34] whenever the balance falls below 10,000,
[24:37] the city shall, not may, it shall notify
[24:40] Esmeralda that additional funds are
[24:42] required.
[24:44] But on october 2nd, 2025, the account
[24:48] fell to $8,482
[24:51] and stayed below that contractual
[24:54] trigger for 77 days. Then on December
[24:58] 18th, another $25,000 in Esmeralda
[25:01] related engineering and legal costs was
[25:03] posted. By December 31st, 2025,
[25:07] Esmerald owed the city $16,523.75.
[25:13] So, what happened? Did the city send the
[25:16] required replenishment notice? If so,
[25:19] why wasn't Esmeralda's reimbursement
[25:21] account replenished during that 77day
[25:23] period? Did the city pay any of those
[25:27] costs before Esmeralda reimbured them?
[25:29] If so, from what fund?
[25:32] For comparison, in a recent developer
[25:35] funded environmental review, San Rafll
[25:37] required developers deposits before the
[25:41] consultant began work. Why isn't
[25:44] Esmeralda being held to the same
[25:46] safeguard?
[25:48] During that April 8th council meeting, I
[25:50] asked whether Esmeralda had paid what it
[25:52] had owed. The answer was they paid
[25:55] everything. Fine, then show us. Produce
[25:59] the 2026 activity statement I have been
[26:01] asking for.
[26:03] Show when the $16,523
[26:07] was paid. Show the replenishments. Show
[26:10] how forleaf West Yoast and legal
[26:12] services and other Emerald costs were
[26:14] paid and reimbursed.
[26:16] I have sent at least eight emails with
[26:19] about these outstanding records that
[26:21] received no city response.
[26:25] Go back and read my emails. When asked
[26:28] to narrow requests, I narrowed them.
[26:30] When asked to clarify them, I clarified
[26:32] them. I acknowledged staff workload. I
[26:36] have been respectful, and I wish this I
[26:38] wish I could say that the city of
[26:39] Cloverdale has treated me the same. A
[26:42] resident should [clears throat] not have
[26:44] to send eight unanswered emails, formal
[26:46] notices, and repeated follow-ups just to
[26:49] obtain records that are public under
[26:51] California law. If Esmeralda paid every
[26:54] penny, show us. If taxpayers never
[26:57] carried a dollar, show us. If the city
[27:00] followed the reimbursement agreement,
[27:02] show us. Transparency is not asking
[27:05] residents to trust you. Transparency is
[27:08] asking is showing them the records.
[27:12] [applause]
[27:21] » Any other public comment?
[27:32] Uh, my name is Paul Perry. Um,
[27:36] I want to go back to
[27:41] we've had a couple town council members
[27:43] back to June June 20 June June 20
[27:47] something meeting when we were here and
[27:52] uh the town council uh established that
[27:59] June 26 I believe is now the city of
[28:04] Cloverdale
[28:06] um survivor cancer day.
[28:10] Am and am I correct in that you guys
[28:13] have said June 26 was going to be when
[28:16] we celebrate the people in Cloverdale
[28:18] that have cancer and how much of a
[28:21] struggle that is for everybody.
[28:23] Well,
[28:25] you know, it took a while to sink in,
[28:28] but when I went home and I started to
[28:30] think about it, it was like, "Oh my god,
[28:34] I mean, you guys are ready to cart
[28:36] launch
[28:38] pass
[28:40] a project on the super fund site where
[28:43] we have no idea how much toxic chemicals
[28:47] are going to be exposed during all this
[28:50] 10 years of construction.
[28:53] and and then put thousands of people on
[28:57] top of that land.
[29:01] It it I mean I hope the new
[29:05] uh
[29:07] hospital that you're going to build in
[29:09] downtown
[29:10] has thinking about maybe tripling their
[29:13] size of their cancer center.
[29:16] I mean this is really really crazy.
[29:20] Something is not right here going you're
[29:23] you got a toxic piece of land that you
[29:27] want to take a 2009 EIR and say we don't
[29:31] have to do it again when they've buried
[29:34] wells they've buried the thing no toxic
[29:37] chemicals were ever removed off this
[29:39] land they were spread and you're going
[29:41] to geologically
[29:44] rip it up spread it all over the place
[29:48] to build new construction uction and
[29:50] think that we're not going to have
[29:51] consequences.
[29:54] Where is every I I've been a structural
[29:57] engineer for 45 years. Every project
[30:01] I've ever developed in the planning
[30:03] phase has a geotechnical report that
[30:07] declares that this site is safe to build
[30:10] on. Where is that report right now that
[30:12] Esmerald is financed? Is it in the city
[30:16] and you're not declaring it? We don't
[30:18] know.
[30:19] uh that geological firm, that
[30:21] geotechnical firm might have just
[30:24] massive uh liability insurance policy to
[30:28] develop land that was a super fun site.
[30:31] Drill it, rip it up, however you want to
[30:34] develop it. There's only two ways to
[30:36] build foundations on land, and that is
[30:39] either deep D9, rip it up, and pack it
[30:44] all back in or drill peers. So all that
[30:47] soil has to be tested and Michael Yarn
[30:51] says we'll just deal with when it comes.
[30:54] That's not the right answer. The answer
[30:57] is to do your diligence.
[31:00] Do a new EIRI. Find out where this site
[31:04] is in 2026
[31:06] before you rip up the land
[31:09] and expose all everybody to these
[31:13] chemicals in Clodale
[31:15] and figure out what the right way is to
[31:18] build this land. not let Michael Yarn
[31:21] and uh and and and Devon Zoo have their
[31:24] Esmeralda Disneyland dream.
[31:29] Okay. And then there's
[31:33] uh I I just I I've in the time that's
[31:37] passed this summer. Um I have multiple
[31:41] friends in Cloverdale that have all two
[31:44] of them died last week
[31:46] and it's just it's it's shocking to see
[31:49] this pain. I have one more friend Ross.
[31:52] Everybody must know Ross and his dog.
[31:55] He's really really sick and they can't
[31:58] cure him. I mean, it's just awful. And we're it it is such an awful life
[32:03] for these people to be exposed to this
[32:05] cancer and end their lives this way. I
[32:08] I'm my my wife and I, we drive them down
[32:11] to their their their doctor's
[32:13] appointments and bring them back and and we just come home and we're we're we just can't believe it.
[32:19] And it's everywhere here. And we want to
[32:22] expose thousands of more new clover
[32:24] aliens to a super fun toxic site without
[32:29] doing diligence of a new EIR
[32:32] and finding out what's the right way to
[32:34] build this site.
[32:38] >> Thank you. [applause]
[32:45] » Any other public comment?
[32:54] Good evening, Lance Via. I do have some
[32:57] concerns about the Esmeralda site. Like
[33:00] I said before, I own the property just
[33:02] to the south Esmeralda. I can see where
[33:07] a couple of the sites were and there's a
[33:09] reason why nothing grows on those sites.
[33:14] A lot of toxins out there. the Twinkie
[33:16] even. Nothing is growing out there. Had
[33:19] my uh my well tested. Water's good now,
[33:22] but I'm really concerned about my kids
[33:24] when they start digging all that stuff
[33:26] up. Is it going to run into my well? Is
[33:29] the dust particles going to come up onto
[33:31] my house? And who's going to who's going
[33:33] to pay for my kids hospital bill? It's
[33:36] going to be as Moralda. I'm really
[33:38] concerned about this. Thank you for your
[33:41] time.
[33:43] [applause]
[33:50] public. Any other public comment?
[33:54] Okay, I'm seeing none. We'll move into
[33:56] written comments. Written public
[33:58] comments on items not on the agenda
[34:00] submitted in accordance with the public
[34:02] comment submission procedure below will
[34:03] be listed in order received. Uh written
[34:06] comments are on the Cloverdale Agenda
[34:07] Center. Um you have access to all the
[34:10] ones that came in. Um, so please if you
[34:12] need to see the written comments that
[34:13] came in for this agenda, they are on
[34:15] there. Uh, moving to presentations. E1,
[34:18] receive a presentation on the measure DD
[34:21] street rehab program.
[34:23] Thanks, Mayor. Uh, Derek is sick
[34:25] tonight, so I'm going to take this one.
[34:27] Um, Mike, there's Can you I think
[34:29] there's a presentation. Um, so this was
[34:33] a request to bring back what we've been
[34:35] talking about what we're going to do
[34:36] with measure DD. We've kind of committed
[34:39] that we're going to use a majority of
[34:41] that money to repair streets. We've been
[34:44] working through what we think are the
[34:45] worst streets. We have a list that we'd
[34:47] like to present to the council. Um and
[34:50] so we one of the our main goals out of
[34:53] this is to try to get some
[34:55] prioritization. We've listed them and
[34:58] kind of what we think uh could be a good
[35:00] priority list, but we'd like to get some
[35:03] input on that. There's two things going
[35:06] on here. We're going to be grinding and
[35:08] repaving
[35:10] um certain streets. And so the
[35:12] assessment of those streets doesn't
[35:13] require a full reconstruction and we'll
[35:16] go through those second. But the streets
[35:19] proposed for grind and repave are
[35:21] Jefferson Street from 4th to School
[35:24] Street. Uh it's approximately n 39,000
[35:28] square ft of of new pavement. And
[35:30] everyone knows Jefferson Street is in
[35:32] terrible and all of these are in
[35:33] terrible shape. So that's really why
[35:35] they're on here. Franklin Street from
[35:38] 2nd to First Street, it's about 8,700
[35:40] square ft². South Street, uh, from the
[35:43] dead end to Cloverdale Boulevard, it's
[35:45] approximately 15,000 ft² of new
[35:47] pavement. And Hill View, um, from Tarman
[35:50] to Cloverdale Boulevard. So those are
[35:53] ones that are probably a little cheaper
[35:54] because they're not a complete redo. Um,
[35:57] but they're just a a grind and repave.
[36:00] So that's Mike, is that you? So you have
[36:02] that list up there. Yeah. So, you can
[36:04] see the list and the order that we're
[36:07] proposing, but we're interested in
[36:10] getting some uh some input on the the
[36:14] order.
[36:19] We can go through all of them and you
[36:20] guys can think about it and then we can
[36:21] come back if that's easier.
[36:23] >> Yeah, let's do that.
[36:23] >> Okay. So, maybe you can advance the
[36:27] slide, Mike.
[36:31] The next section is the full
[36:32] reconstruction.
[36:34] And so this is more expensive, but
[36:37] they're in the condition after our
[36:39] assessment that they need um a complete um reconstruction.
[36:46] So we've got uh I think that
[36:49] I don't think that's the right list, but
[36:52] yeah,
[36:55] keep going.
[37:00] So I think you keep going if you can
[37:02] Mike. The first one is Mayor Way. Mayor
[37:05] Way from Hillview Drive to Brookside
[37:07] Drive. It's approximately 14,000.
[37:12] Okay, we'll keep working on it. I'll
[37:14] just read them out. Um Tarman Drive, the
[37:17] dead end to dead end, that's
[37:19] approximately 25,000 square ft of new
[37:22] pavement. Hill View. Um did we mention
[37:25] Hill View already?
[37:26] >> Yeah.
[37:27] Okay. So, this is the second portion of
[37:29] Hill VU from Clark to Tarman.
[37:34] Uh, Rosewood Drive from Clark to Tarman.
[37:37] It's about 24,000 square ft. There will
[37:40] be also where where needed there'll be
[37:43] ADA improvements. So, when we do a
[37:46] certain amount of work, we have to do
[37:47] the ADA as well. Um,
[37:51] hey Eric, can you come up? Maybe I can
[37:53] just ask you what
[37:55] one of the streets requires the the
[37:58] potential tree removal and there's some
[38:00] pretty big sycamore trees. We're going
[38:02] to try to see if we can put root
[38:05] barriers in there, but just as a
[38:08] consideration that that could
[38:09] potentially be Do you remember which one
[38:11] that was, Eric?
[38:13] >> Rosewood.
[38:14] >> Yeah, I think it was Rosewood and then
[38:16] perhaps a section of um Hill View as
[38:20] well.
[38:22] So that's what we came up with. I mean,
[38:24] if you want to add more streets, that's
[38:25] now's the time to do that. Or we can
[38:27] just try to go through each one or try
[38:30] to prioritize. If you're happy with the
[38:32] prioritization, we can proceed with
[38:34] that. As these move forward, we'll be
[38:36] bringing um awards of bid. So you'll see
[38:39] them again. You'll see the contract and
[38:41] all that with the insurance. So I'll
[38:44] just leave it there and maybe Mike will
[38:46] start with the first. So this is the
[38:48] street rib. This is the grind and
[38:50] repave.
[39:04] » He said a lot of technical difficulties
[39:06] and Zoom is also down. It's all kind of
[39:08] failing at the same time here.
[39:15] » Um,
[39:17] >> yeah, that that's good.
[39:20] random pave treatment scope. So,
[39:25] » there's four. Yeah, four of them.
[39:46] So, we are going to start on Franklin
[39:48] that could potentially be done this
[39:50] summer. We're pretty far along on
[39:52] Franklin, just as a as a note. So,
[39:54] that's
[39:54] >> I didn't get to see it.
[39:55] >> Probably that one is already kind of in
[39:57] the design. So,
[40:00] that probably would just be number one
[40:01] by default because we've already done
[40:03] work on it.
[40:13] That works, Mike. That's fine. It It
[40:15] lists some.
[40:25] » So, do we need to I mean, we're I know
[40:27] we're waiting on slides. Do you want to
[40:30] >> This is the the ones I just mentioned
[40:32] for the grind and repave which is the
[40:34] cheaper um fix. So again, Franklin is
[40:39] already underway. So that's probably
[40:41] just naturally number one because we've
[40:43] already decided to design work on that
[40:44] and we're hoping to get that done this
[40:46] summer.
[40:47] The other three, if you know, if you're
[40:50] okay with the order, we can just, you
[40:55] know, give this a blessing and move on.
[40:57] Uh, and then we'll be we're going to be
[40:59] working hard to get bids out to get
[41:01] these done as as quick as possible. Um,
[41:04] if there's any particular reason that
[41:06] you want to change the order on these,
[41:08] let me know. Or we can just go with
[41:10] Franklin first and work our way down.
[41:16] >> Evan, you want to finish out this
[41:17] presentation or each section, go by and
[41:19] see what council ask because we've got
[41:21] so many different like lists here and
[41:22] see what their priorities are. How do
[41:23] you want to work it? Well, maybe we can
[41:25] just look at this list and if we agree,
[41:27] we can then move to the full
[41:29] construction reconstruction.
[41:32] >> I like the list.
[41:35] >> Go ahead.
[41:43] » I'm sure you Yeah, we'll get to the
[41:45] public in one second.
[41:47] >> Comments on that.
[41:49] >> My whole comment is because the mayor
[41:51] and I both wanted triplet done. Um, I'm
[41:54] kind of wondering why triplet was left
[41:56] out.
[42:01] » We could put triplet in if that's what
[42:03] the request is. Um,
[42:06] we didn't think there was consensus for
[42:08] triplet. And I mean, I'm seeing head
[42:11] shaking.
[42:12] >> From what I remember, triplet was not on
[42:14] the top list. It was on the list, but
[42:16] not one of the top.
[42:16] >> We can add it though. We can add it
[42:18] right now if there's consensus for that.
[42:22] I think it's kind of important to add it
[42:25] because um one of my neighbors was
[42:27] concerned like if there's a fire and
[42:29] there's 99 apartments getting everybody
[42:31] out and we would need to use triplet and
[42:34] have that barricade unlocked and it's
[42:38] just like such
[42:40] >> it's in bad shape for sure. Agreed.
[42:47] » But I'd like to continue Kevin with
[42:49] these. Sorry. I'll get and and I we can
[42:51] add triplet. Yeah, it it is in
[42:53] disrepair, but I'd like to see the list
[42:56] that we we have. Are you in agreement
[42:58] with the other list on the if we add
[43:00] triplet on there?
[43:01] >> Definitely.
[43:01] >> Okay. And council member,
[43:03] >> yeah, I I agree, but I have questions on
[43:05] like Jefferson Street, right? It just a
[43:07] grind and repave section and that
[43:10] street's historically isn't there like a creek that runs under there and it
[43:15] continually undermines that street. I
[43:18] would wonder if we if we're going to get
[43:20] geological studies to, you know, I I
[43:23] hate to throw good money at bad money.
[43:25] >> Yes. Um there is a creek under there
[43:28] somewhere. Um
[43:30] we did get kind of a ballark.
[43:33] >> It needs to be done, but it just needs
[43:34] to be done, right?
[43:35] >> It could be more expensive when we get
[43:37] >> Well, yeah, it's definitely going to be
[43:38] more expensive because we just I don't I
[43:40] don't agree with grinding and repave
[43:42] portion of it where it's going to fail
[43:44] in five or 10 years. It's I think we
[43:46] should
[43:47] go to the go to the base, fix it from
[43:50] the bottom up.
[43:51] >> Yeah, I mean certainly some of these
[43:53] streets can switch over once we get we did do an initial assessment. We had
[43:58] a ballpark figure on all of these um by
[44:01] a local contractor who went looked at
[44:03] all of them, but it it wasn't an
[44:04] in-depth so there may be things
[44:07] Jefferson may go down to the next
[44:10] category as a complete redo. Um but if I
[44:15] think we just want to get consensus that
[44:17] these these streets Yeah.
[44:19] >> And then a full reconstruction.
[44:22] Um you're saying Tarman gets a full
[44:24] reconstruction and obviously a lot of
[44:27] those pipes are old underneath there for
[44:29] compaction. So, are we doing just the
[44:31] top or what what's our you know that needs to be vetted out as well if
[44:35] we're going to do compaction and some of
[44:37] those pipes are you know 40 50 years old
[44:40] if they're clay asbestous laden and
[44:42] they're not going to hold out that's
[44:44] another thing that we need to do a
[44:45] deeper dive on.
[44:46] >> We have to discuss that and it's a
[44:48] possibility in the Tarman area that the
[44:50] pipes um when when we get that
[44:54] assessment we'll be back. Maybe there's
[44:55] other funds that could be used to do the pipes. Uh there's impact fees. I
[44:59] don't know.
[45:00] >> And just and just the overall u impact
[45:04] for the community, especially on Tarman,
[45:06] it's not very wide street. And when we
[45:08] go to start paving that street, you're
[45:10] talking probably over a hundred vehicles
[45:12] that are going to be misplaced. So that
[45:14] that's just going to have to be a little
[45:16] bit of a community outreach on our part
[45:18] to make sure that uh that's vetted out
[45:20] as well.
[45:21] >> I do. And we're learning on First
[45:23] Street. We learned a couple lessons on
[45:25] that. So we're going to continue to get
[45:27] better. We're going to use the measure
[45:29] DD signs and give people as much notice.
[45:31] We knock on the doors, ma do mailers, do
[45:36] everything to make it people as aware as
[45:39] possible that what's going to happen in
[45:41] front of their house.
[45:45] Uh, thank you for this report. Looking
[45:47] at the top four that we have for the
[45:49] gran and repave. I'm glad to hear
[45:50] Franklin's already started because we
[45:52] were supposed to start that a while back
[45:53] and I knew that Dererick was working on
[45:54] it. So, I'm glad to hear that it's
[45:55] moving forward. I would agree with the
[45:57] Jefferson South and Hillview in that
[45:59] order as you have it posted on the
[46:01] agenda. Uh as for the portion of
[46:04] Jefferson Street they're talking about
[46:05] from Fourth Street to School Street, the
[46:08] uh creek is to the south of that
[46:10] portion. However, you don't know what
[46:13] you're going to encounter. So, I think
[46:14] that we we plan for this but or hope for
[46:17] this and plan for the worst and that's
[46:18] what we're going to find out. Uh when it
[46:20] comes to Franklin and Jefferson South
[46:22] and Hillview, these are very highly
[46:24] trafficked areas. They're getting
[46:26] probably a thousand cars a day each. And
[46:28] so it it's pretty amazing how many cars
[46:30] travel on these roads and how many
[46:32] people it affects.
[46:33] >> Uh when it comes to South Street, that's
[46:34] your entrance into the Charmand. And so
[46:37] that is terrible. That one probably has,
[46:40] you know, 1 foot to 18 in uh differences
[46:43] in elevation. And so I'm glad to see
[46:45] that's finally getting done. And then
[46:47] the Hill View from Tan to the Boulevard,
[46:49] that's always been terrible since the
[46:50] 60s. So that's good. Uh when you go into
[46:53] the full reconstruction, that area has
[46:56] it's needed it for a long time as we've
[46:58] discussed from day one.
[47:00] I would actually switch that order
[47:02] though.
[47:03] >> Um I would go
[47:05] uh with Hillview, Tarman, Rosewood,
[47:07] Mayor if you look at the way that we are
[47:10] trafficked uh and the amount of people
[47:12] it uh will take per day.
[47:15] So Hillview is number one. Okay. Arman
[47:18] 2, Rosewood 3, mayor four is the
[47:21] direction I would put on those.
[47:22] >> Okay. If there's
[47:23] >> And as for triplet, um I don't dis I
[47:27] don't disagree that it needs to be on
[47:28] our list and it is on our list, just not
[47:30] on the top four. And so it should stay
[47:32] where it is and when it it gets in line,
[47:34] it's next. And it's due to traffic
[47:36] patterns and things like that. Okay.
[47:40] >> Yeah. Thanks, Kevin. Um I see that, you
[47:44] know, I like the Hill View. I would like
[47:45] to see Hillview completed all the way
[47:48] from the boulevard down. And also a
[47:51] couple questions, you know, and and this
[47:53] goes along with what council member
[47:54] Laskkey said is is grind and and and
[47:57] repave. What's the duration of that? You
[47:58] know what I mean? I want to make sure
[48:00] that these are being fixed for as
[48:03] longterm as we can get. Um, prior to me moving to Cloverdale and
[48:08] then getting to Cloverdale, these some
[48:10] of these that are on our list have been
[48:13] complained about by the town. You know
[48:15] what I mean? Whether it's Jefferson,
[48:16] whether it's I mean Hillview, these have
[48:18] been whether you're on social media or
[48:21] you're just talking to people in town,
[48:23] these are streets that desperately need
[48:24] it. And it's highly traveled streets.
[48:27] And in my opinion, you know, these we're
[48:29] finally getting we've got DD in there.
[48:31] We've got some money and we're making
[48:32] progress on it. I want to see this move
[48:34] forward pretty quickly. I would love to
[48:36] see some of these streets and we are
[48:38] doing that. Um but um and the other
[48:41] thing is is when we do Yes. It's going
[48:44] to disrupt cars. It's going to disrupt
[48:47] parking.
[48:48] But that's where Cloverdale is going to
[48:50] have to kind of partner with us and and
[48:52] give us a break here. If we're doing the
[48:54] roads that have been complained about so
[48:56] many times and we're finally doing them,
[48:58] give us a break. There may be a few days
[49:00] where you're going to be put out on
[49:02] parking a little bit. Work with us.
[49:03] We're going to work with you on that. We
[49:05] can't we're not going to be able to
[49:06] accommodate every car and parking for
[49:08] everybody, but we are going to have your
[49:10] street done. That's our that's our goal
[49:12] here. This is we've been pushing this
[49:14] for a couple since I came on council,
[49:16] and I'm glad to see it moving forward. I
[49:18] agree with the vice mayor's uh um list
[49:21] on the the complete redo on that. I
[49:24] would like to see that list go Hillview
[49:25] and and whatever you came up with. That
[49:27] was one. I didn't have time to write it
[49:28] down. But, uh, we are moving forward
[49:31] and, uh, you know, we do have a we do
[49:34] have a a turnaround coming up on council
[49:36] and I hope they continue to push this
[49:37] through because this is a priority for
[49:38] the city of getting these fixed. We we
[49:40] gave you our word. We're going to do it
[49:41] and that's what we're working on right
[49:42] now. So, bear with us. We may have you
[49:44] park different. We may do different
[49:46] things, but work with us. We'll work
[49:48] with you.
[49:50] >> Kevin, just one more thing for you or
[49:51] Derek, whoever gets to this. when you're
[49:53] working on Jefferson Street uh between
[49:56] school and fourth
[49:58] >> Mhm.
[49:58] >> there's an area that doesn't have a curb
[50:01] and the worry that I had a few months
[50:04] back was that we're going to have to do
[50:05] some type of imminent domain uh for
[50:07] these driveways because there's a a
[50:09] large I believe it's like a olive tree
[50:11] or something out on the sidewalk where
[50:12] it would be things along those lines.
[50:14] And I really want want to make sure that
[50:16] hopefully we don't have to do that.
[50:17] Hopefully we don't have to worry about
[50:18] ADA and things in that area. And as much
[50:20] as I appreciate it, that's someone's
[50:21] land and that's a big fight that I don't
[50:22] want to have to have and I don't want to
[50:24] uh have to make some community members
[50:27] mad with that. So, if we can look into
[50:28] that before we really start that project
[50:30] that we're doing our due diligence and
[50:32] preparing the the community properly
[50:35] with that one.
[50:38] >> I just want to add that uh the full
[50:40] reconstruct list does include sewer,
[50:42] water, and storm drain where necessary.
[50:45] Um so that was part of what they were
[50:48] Yeah. Thank you.
[50:50] Thanks, Mayor. If I may, a quick
[50:53] question. Uh, City Manager Thompson, uh,
[50:56] what is the time frame that you'd expect
[50:57] for these four projects
[51:00] as proposed?
[51:02] >> Well, um, I don't exactly know. I mean,
[51:06] we're getting Franklin done and I know
[51:08] Derek is working hard. We've got extra
[51:10] help now with Eric, so we want to get as
[51:13] much done this summer and just get it
[51:15] all lined up. So, I I don't have a great
[51:17] answer for you, but I can get back back
[51:19] to you guys for
[51:20] >> some of these might start this year.
[51:22] >> I think it's the interruption would be
[51:24] the winter and then they would pick up
[51:26] in the spring.
[51:27] >> Correct.
[51:27] >> Um and it looks like if you know the
[51:29] with these four projects, you know, if
[51:31] they were to um you know, one or two
[51:34] this year, the other two can get done
[51:36] next year. So, um I think uh one of the
[51:39] questions I would have just um
[51:42] uh around a contingency amount for
[51:45] unexpected circumstances if um there
[51:47] were to be um I guess it's maybe like
[51:50] our fourth choice could get just pushed
[51:52] a little farther, but um you know, the
[51:55] fact that the DD money is rolling in
[51:56] consistently,
[51:58] that push out's not going to be too far
[52:00] out. So, um I mean it looks good that
[52:03] these are lined up if if um you know I
[52:06] guess uh I like them and uh u excited to
[52:10] get working on the next bunch. So, looks
[52:12] like it's all going to kind of happen
[52:13] pretty quick.
[52:14] >> We generally put a 10% contingency in
[52:16] the when we award the bid um in the
[52:20] contract, but what I'll do is maybe
[52:22] we'll just keep this on the radar and
[52:24] I'll keep you guys updated either
[52:26] through my weekly or we can reagendize
[52:28] this for a later
[52:30] >> later. Sounds great. Yeah, it looks
[52:31] like, you know, even if there was
[52:32] something um you know, with some
[52:34] underwater flows or, you know, some
[52:37] other circumstances that we can run
[52:39] into, the delay is not going to be um
[52:42] that great. So, I like it. Thanks.
[52:45] >> I have a question. Um two of us said
[52:47] triplet, vice mayor said no to triplet.
[52:50] So, where does triplet stand?
[52:51] >> We're putting triplet on the list.
[52:53] >> We're going to what?
[52:54] >> Triplet is
[52:55] >> Oh, yes.
[52:55] >> Yeah. We we'll we'll put triplet on
[52:57] here. We'll have Derek take have the
[52:59] contractor take a look at it, start
[53:01] working on getting estimates and
[53:04] >> yeah, so that would be
[53:05] >> Thank you.
[53:06] >> triplet would likely be a next year
[53:09] summer
[53:10] >> endeavor.
[53:12] >> Maybe the next step is we'll try to get
[53:14] some time frames and I mean one of the
[53:18] we we the money is rolling in but some
[53:20] of these are going to be really
[53:20] expensive.
[53:21] >> Okay.
[53:22] >> So that's what I was just going to
[53:23] comment is you're you're talking 10
[53:26] years worth of list. This isn't just a
[53:27] next year thing unless we're going to be
[53:29] going and and borrowing money
[53:31] >> borrowing money against it.
[53:33] >> If you try to do pay as you go, this
[53:35] list is going to take us my lifetime.
[53:37] >> So, we have to think about other ways to
[53:39] handle this. It's just the way it is.
[53:40] >> Well, we're I think we're getting we're
[53:42] getting slowly there. We got streets. I
[53:44] think what we keep this maybe in the
[53:46] next couple agendas ahead.
[53:48] We talked about the borrowing the money.
[53:50] I think we kind of want to do a payo,
[53:52] but let's um we did get some ballpark on
[53:55] these and we were pretty encouraged by
[53:57] the ballpark figures from a local
[53:59] contractor. So again, there's just so
[54:01] many unknowns as Council Member Alaski
[54:03] said. So, um you know, maybe we come
[54:06] back and say these ones are easier, they
[54:09] need less in-depth work. Let's knock
[54:12] those out. or well, my point is I'm I'm
[54:15] glad that we've got some kind of
[54:16] consensus on what we're doing and we'll
[54:18] just keep the tabs on the money and come
[54:20] back and report back on the progress.
[54:24] >> Thank you.
[54:26] >> Any other comment up here? Any comment
[54:28] from the public on this item?
[54:32] >> Please come down if you could.
[54:38] [snorts]
[54:40] First off, thank you for finally
[54:42] addressing this issue. I've heard a lot of complaints from different
[54:45] people over the years. Um, who are the
[54:48] people who have bid and have you chosen
[54:50] a a company to do it?
[54:53] >> No, each project will go to formal bid
[54:56] and then as we award the bids, the
[54:58] council actually has to approve those
[55:00] bids. So, we're just trying to get a
[55:01] list together. We did have like a
[55:03] [clears throat]
[55:03] >> So, you're not to the bidding part?
[55:04] >> No, no, no. Each each project will come
[55:07] back to council with a dollar amount and
[55:09] they have to award the bid ultimately.
[55:11] >> Okay, great. Thank you.
[55:20] » Uh Daniel Frankston, I know Derek's not
[55:23] here and um I know the issue of bonding
[55:25] out the double D money is something
[55:27] that's going to be possibly addressed at
[55:29] a future agenda. Um, I believe it was
[55:31] requested back when the bonding issue
[55:34] first came up in June or May that we see
[55:38] a map. There were a series of maps with
[55:41] a one-year bond, 5year, 10-year bond.
[55:44] And what I had requested and I believe
[55:46] other council members as well would be
[55:48] to see what the progress would be if you
[55:50] do the pay as you go because ultimately
[55:52] you're looking at was it 20-year payback
[55:55] period? Well, what would the streets
[55:57] what would the accomplishments be if
[55:58] they were done one street at a time over
[56:01] period uh pay as you go? And the other
[56:03] thing that I think would be really
[56:05] helpful is if there were a page on the
[56:07] Cloverdale net website that address
[56:10] specifically doubled the the revenues
[56:12] that's coming in and the proposed
[56:14] expenditures. That way people could know
[56:16] as they go. They could say, "Oh, I see
[56:17] where I am on the list." Because I hear
[56:19] people all the time saying, "How come
[56:20] Mayor's on the list and San Antonio is
[56:23] not on the list, etc." And there are
[56:24] valid reasons for it, but I think it'd
[56:26] be very helpful for the public if there
[56:27] were a page where people could access.
[56:29] They could just see what's going on,
[56:31] where things stand both financially and
[56:32] in terms of construction and future
[56:34] construction plans. That's all. Thank
[56:36] you.
[56:37] >> And uh Mayor, if I may, just wanted to
[56:39] reiterate on um Daniel Frankston's
[56:41] comment. I just want to confirm that was a 10-year pay as you go option
[56:45] to be considered as well.
[56:51] » The longest period
[56:54] Yeah, I would definitely like to see a
[56:56] 10-year pay as you go option as well.
[56:58] >> If I if I may, I think we did discuss
[57:01] the the borrowing the money and doing
[57:04] the bonds, but I think once we had the
[57:05] local contractor take a look at the
[57:07] streets we identified, we were
[57:09] encouraged at the at the cost and we
[57:11] thought that maybe the payo would be
[57:13] better
[57:13] >> pay as you go option.
[57:14] >> Um that I think that was what we did,
[57:16] but we can still bring back that
[57:18] discussion if we want to. I I support
[57:20] the pay as you go option.
[57:23] Kevin, I would definitely request that
[57:24] we bring back what the advisers had
[57:26] showed us for the for the bonding
[57:28] because that the percentage was so low
[57:30] right now that it was actually cost
[57:32] effective to bond out versus pay as you
[57:35] go because of the cost of construction
[57:37] going up. I'll contact them and get
[57:39] updated numbers and bring that back.
[57:47] » Seeing none, any other comments from the
[57:49] public on this item? Seeing none. Right.
[57:52] Thank you. Are you done, Kevin, on that?
[57:55] >> Yes. Thank you.
[57:56] >> Okay. Thank you.
[57:59] >> Uh consent calendar. All items under the
[58:01] consent calendar will be considered
[58:02] together by one action of the city
[58:05] council unless any council member or
[58:06] member of the public requests an item be
[58:08] removed and considered separately. Do we
[58:11] have anybody?
[58:12] >> I'd like to pull item F4.
[58:15] >> F4.
[58:18] >> And I would like to pull item F1.
[58:22] I would request to pull item F3 and F5.
[58:25] >> So, so the entire consent calendar,
[58:28] let's just work our way down from F
[58:30] starting at F1.
[58:38] » I mean,
[58:38] >> I can actually do a motion to if you'd
[58:41] like for F2 and get that one out of the
[58:43] way. That would be done. That's the only
[58:44] one that's not pulled.
[58:45] >> Okay, let's do a motion. Get F2 approve
[58:47] F2.
[58:48] >> Um, sorry, I meant F5. I wrote the wrong
[58:51] one down. Sorry.
[58:53] >> So, then I would make the motion to move
[58:55] uh to [snorts] approve F2 and F4.
[58:58] >> So, not F4.
[58:59] >> Second that.
[59:01] >> Take it to a vote. Approving F2 or
[59:05] >> Thank you, Mayor. F2 and F4.
[59:08] >> F4.
[59:09] >> All in favor say I.
[59:10] >> I.
[59:10] >> Oh, no. F2 and F4.
[59:12] >> F5 was pulled.
[59:14] >> No.
[59:14] >> Pulled by you.
[59:15] >> Yeah. I was pulled.
[59:17] >> Is F4 pulled?
[59:18] >> No.
[59:19] Item F2 and F4.
[59:21] >> Still active. That's the motion.
[59:23] >> All in favor say I.
[59:24] >> I.
[59:25] >> All oppose say nay.
[59:28] >> So So mayor, we got to move now to the
[59:30] public hearing out of order. Oh um just
[59:32] because it's around 7 o'clock and we're
[59:34] supposed to do that exactly at 7 and
[59:36] then we can come back to the um the
[59:39] items from consent that were
[59:41] >> we are going to move into item G and
[59:43] come back to the consent calendar and
[59:45] the items that are pulled. Uh we are
[59:48] going to move into G1 and it is public
[59:51] hearing to receive community input
[59:53] regarding district boundaries for
[59:55] districtbased elections.
[59:57] >> Thank you, mayor. Um I'll be brief. I'm
[59:59] not sure if Zoom is is back up running.
[1:00:02] It is. Um so in a minute, our the city's
[1:00:05] uh demographer is online and is going to
[1:00:07] walk through the mapping software we
[1:00:10] have. Um just a brief recap as the
[1:00:13] council knows in response to
[1:00:16] really check. Are they the EWWE erb?
[1:00:20] That's the only person on there.
[1:00:21] >> No, let me see.
[1:00:23] >> That's why I didn't promote you yet.
[1:00:24] >> Um,
[1:00:26] uh, uh,
[1:00:29] >> WWE,
[1:00:32] >> it's not the I'll text them one sec. But
[1:00:35] um
[1:00:39] so as the council knows in response to
[1:00:41] demand letter and very un sort of
[1:00:44] unfavorable past legal decisions um the
[1:00:47] city council uh adopted a resolution of
[1:00:51] intent to transition to district-based
[1:00:53] elections where individual council
[1:00:55] members will be elected from individual
[1:00:58] districts not citywide. Um there will be
[1:01:03] you know this election in November will
[1:01:05] continue to be at large. All three
[1:01:07] members will be elected at large but in
[1:01:10] 2028 and thereafter it will be uh by
[1:01:13] districts. So there will be a period of
[1:01:15] time um where some members on on the
[1:01:18] council are elected at large and some
[1:01:20] are elected by districts. Uh but by 2030
[1:01:24] everyone will be elected by districts.
[1:01:27] Um,
[1:01:28] so one one question that we want
[1:01:31] direction from the council on on tonight
[1:01:33] is whether or not to uh transition well
[1:01:38] proceed with a directly elected mayor.
[1:01:40] That's an option for a general law city
[1:01:42] and that's something that the council
[1:01:44] can do as part of this transition
[1:01:45] process. Um why we ask for that
[1:01:48] direction tonight is if you have a
[1:01:49] directly elected mayor, you would then
[1:01:51] have four council members elected from
[1:01:54] districts. If you have uh no directly
[1:01:58] elected mayor and it continues to be
[1:01:59] just someone elected by the council,
[1:02:02] then we need five districts. So, we want
[1:02:04] the council and the public to know how
[1:02:06] many districts they should be drawing.
[1:02:08] Um
[1:02:09] that is the main uh point I would add.
[1:02:13] The other thing is just the the
[1:02:15] sequencing of election. Normally when we
[1:02:18] go through this process, people are
[1:02:19] really focused on the districts, but we
[1:02:21] also need to decide which districts will
[1:02:24] get elected when. So, because there's
[1:02:26] three atlarge council members going to
[1:02:29] be elected in 2026,
[1:02:32] in 2028,
[1:02:34] um if there is no directly elected
[1:02:37] mayor, that would mean two districts
[1:02:39] will be up for election then and three
[1:02:41] will be up in 2030. If you decide to
[1:02:44] proceed with a directly elected mayor in
[1:02:47] 2028,
[1:02:49] it would be one person elected from a uh
[1:02:53] district, one of the four districts, and
[1:02:55] then the mayor. Um, and then in 2028,
[1:02:58] the other three districts. Um, one thing
[1:03:00] I forgot to mention about the directly
[1:03:03] elected mayor. It can be either under
[1:03:05] state law, you can have a directly
[1:03:08] elected mayor, um, who is elected by the
[1:03:11] voters for either a two-year term or a
[1:03:13] four-year term. So, you don't need to
[1:03:15] decide that tonight. uh that is
[1:03:18] something you can decide later on in
[1:03:20] this process, but we really do want
[1:03:23] direction on whether or not you want uh
[1:03:25] to proceed with a directly elected
[1:03:27] mayor. Um in in the staff report, I
[1:03:31] don't have the number directly right off
[1:03:34] hand, but you see it's a it allows the
[1:03:36] districts to be, you know, a couple
[1:03:38] hundred people bigger per district if
[1:03:40] you go with a directly elected mayor
[1:03:42] because you're dividing the city by four
[1:03:44] rather than five. Um
[1:03:48] so um uh the consultant is having to re
[1:03:53] uh log back in so he should be on and
[1:03:55] then after tonight maybe tomorrow but if
[1:03:59] not by Monday there will be uh links to
[1:04:03] this online tool where the public and
[1:04:05] council members can draw maps. Um, and
[1:04:09] there will be both an electronic tool
[1:04:11] and good old-fashioned PDF that you can
[1:04:14] print out. The PDF you'll see does have
[1:04:18] population
[1:04:19] um areas, but it can't be, you know,
[1:04:22] it's one piece of paper, so it can't be
[1:04:23] as granular granular. The uh online
[1:04:28] tool, it's is much more specific, and
[1:04:30] you'll see you're able to um uh do that
[1:04:35] as you go. uh it will it will adjust as
[1:04:37] you go. So our our next public hearing
[1:04:40] is scheduled for um September 9th uh
[1:04:44] which uh we are required to publish all
[1:04:47] of the maps that might be considered
[1:04:49] than 7 days ahead of time. So maps um
[1:04:52] will be published on this website uh no
[1:04:55] later than September 2nd. We really
[1:04:58] encourage you to submit maps um by
[1:05:01] August 31st because that gives the
[1:05:03] demographer
[1:05:05] um time to check and say, "Hey, you you
[1:05:07] missed you drew a map of five districts
[1:05:09] and you left out, you know, this area.
[1:05:11] What do you want to do?" Like to make
[1:05:13] sure you can get a proper map in. It
[1:05:15] gives them a little bit of time to do
[1:05:17] that. Um and uh with that I know Mike is
[1:05:22] do you see if Justin is able to have log
[1:05:26] back in?
[1:05:29] >> Let's see. Are we waiting on a
[1:05:30] presentation here?
[1:05:31] >> Yeah.
[1:05:47] on the EW.
[1:05:53] » So, Alex, are we just waiting on
[1:05:54] >> Yeah.
[1:05:55] >> WBB to
[1:05:56] >> or
[1:05:57] >> I don't think that's him.
[1:05:59] >> Okay.
[1:06:00] >> So, one thing I mean, we can
[1:06:03] take public comment if you'd want. One
[1:06:04] thing I'd notice if we're not able to do
[1:06:06] this tonight, there will also be PDF
[1:06:09] instructions on the website of exactly
[1:06:11] how to use this online tool. Um, and it allows you to draw the maps. it will
[1:06:16] address, you know, it's you drop each district's a different color and it
[1:06:20] will automatically adjust the population
[1:06:22] as you go um and let you know when you
[1:06:25] are above uh the target population
[1:06:28] because
[1:06:30] um the goal is to have equal districts.
[1:06:32] They're allowed to be different by a
[1:06:34] certain amount, but to have equal
[1:06:36] districts. Um so with that, maybe I'll
[1:06:39] see if there's any questions from the
[1:06:41] council at this point.
[1:06:44] >> Thank you, Mayor. Um really
[1:06:46] [clears throat] just going to kind of
[1:06:47] come back to um alternatives.
[1:06:51] Um and this is a question for our city
[1:06:53] attorney. Um can you relate to us in the
[1:06:57] public the status of any current or
[1:07:00] denied or past bills that would uh limit
[1:07:03] this to a certain population?
[1:07:05] >> Yes. So there there was a piece of
[1:07:07] legislation proposed this year um that
[1:07:10] would set a cap. I believe it was 50,000
[1:07:13] or smaller um that has died so it will
[1:07:16] not be adopted list legislative cycle.
[1:07:19] Um there's another piece of legislation
[1:07:23] uh that is still alive or at least it
[1:07:26] was you know two weeks ago um that would
[1:07:29] sort of in some ways strengthen the the
[1:07:31] CV and make it harder for for local
[1:07:34] agencies that more complicated process
[1:07:37] that was alive still two weeks ago. Um,
[1:07:40] so it doesn't mean that in the future,
[1:07:43] um, the legislature won't create a a
[1:07:46] carveout for small cities. They haven't
[1:07:48] yet and they won't do it. It's clear
[1:07:50] that won't happen this year.
[1:07:53] >> Um, just based on how long this has been
[1:07:56] going on and they haven't done it yet.
[1:07:57] You know, I don't have a lot of faith
[1:07:58] in. So my thoughts on this you know is
[1:08:00] that u you know the direction is that we
[1:08:03] or the recommendation let's say is that
[1:08:05] there's not much that we can do to fight
[1:08:07] this unless we had large large bank
[1:08:09] account and still even then you know it
[1:08:11] might just be burning our money so um I
[1:08:14] think you know adopting it sends a
[1:08:17] signal you know so I think if if that's
[1:08:19] going to be the record it would be a
[1:08:21] good idea to um express our feelings as
[1:08:26] a council um I think we
[1:08:29] express our letters uh to you know
[1:08:31] Senator Magcguire, I would say Assembly
[1:08:33] Member Chris Rogers and uh Damon Connley
[1:08:36] as well. Um, I think that we should get
[1:08:39] on the record and and express our our
[1:08:42] dissatisfaction if if our council does
[1:08:44] feel that way that uh, you know, maybe
[1:08:46] that we can get some momentum with some
[1:08:48] other cities that are sort of kind of
[1:08:50] pushed into this and um, if the
[1:08:52] discussion around the numbers is um, an
[1:08:55] issue of equity, you know, that that
[1:08:57] might be the case for a city of, you
[1:08:59] know, uh, over 50,000 or maybe 40,000.
[1:09:03] Uh but for a city of 9,000, I think it
[1:09:06] causes um some some harm to the quality
[1:09:09] of our council. So um that's my thoughts
[1:09:12] on this before proceeding.
[1:09:14] >> And certainly if if that's the direction
[1:09:15] we could bring back a separate item at
[1:09:18] the next hearing for you to approve or frankly at a sooner meeting just on
[1:09:22] consent for you to approve a a letter to
[1:09:25] >> and is is that something that you would
[1:09:26] be able to assemble and
[1:09:28] >> absolutely if that's the direction of
[1:09:30] the council
[1:09:31] >> send a letter opposing this. Yeah, let's
[1:09:33] do it. Let's put that on a future
[1:09:35] agenda.
[1:09:35] >> Can we talk about it first? Okay. I I
[1:09:38] think this is something we have to do
[1:09:40] and if we had done it sooner, we
[1:09:42] wouldn't have to pay the money to
[1:09:45] attorney. So, why waste more staff time
[1:09:48] on this? We're stuck doing it. So why
[1:09:50] are we writing to uh Assemblyman Rogers
[1:09:54] and other people, you know, just like
[1:09:57] cut our losses and just go ahead and get
[1:10:00] the job done because we don't have any
[1:10:02] choice. So writing letters to people to
[1:10:04] me is a waste of staff time.
[1:10:07] >> Any other comments?
[1:10:08] >> So as we move towards districts that
[1:10:11] this is going to go through, are all
[1:10:12] cities in Sonoma County district-based?
[1:10:15] >> Uh not all yet. Uh they have come from
[1:10:17] most of them. I I believe Sebastal and
[1:10:19] Katad still are at large, but the rest
[1:10:22] of the cities have had that transition
[1:10:24] in the last couple years.
[1:10:25] >> And Sebastul and Katadyat are on par
[1:10:28] with our uh
[1:10:28] >> about our same size,
[1:10:29] >> same size,
[1:10:30] >> give or take.
[1:10:31] >> Okay. And as we move forward with this
[1:10:35] to, you know, quote unquote avoid
[1:10:36] litigation for the city and
[1:10:39] [clears throat] people start, you know,
[1:10:40] want to get involved and start drawing
[1:10:41] maps. So I would say access to people
[1:10:45] who don't have access is going to be a
[1:10:48] big issue. So I I would think that uh
[1:10:52] maybe we do some kind of presentation
[1:10:54] with you know PDFs, people who can fill
[1:10:57] them out manually versus online or let
[1:11:01] the uh library have access to uh a
[1:11:06] certain page so some people can go get
[1:11:08] help from uh the library librarians and
[1:11:12] go that way. So that we just need to do
[1:11:15] public outreach to know to let people
[1:11:17] know why this is happening and how to go
[1:11:20] about it.
[1:11:21] >> That's a a great comment. Um the the PDF
[1:11:25] uh
[1:11:27] I forgot to mention, you know, someone
[1:11:29] can get physical copies from city hall
[1:11:31] if they want of the PDF. Um we can look
[1:11:34] into giving some copies to the um
[1:11:38] library as well so they have those on
[1:11:40] hand if people want want to get those
[1:11:42] there.
[1:11:46] Yeah, we also have a computer in the
[1:11:47] city hall li uh lobby that they could
[1:11:49] use as well and get get assistance from
[1:11:52] uh our front desk. Uh out of out of
[1:11:54] California, how many cities have been
[1:11:56] successful in going against the
[1:11:58] litigation, fighting this attorney and
[1:12:00] winning? I
[1:12:01] >> I'm not aware of any.
[1:12:03] >> And at this point, how much money do you
[1:12:04] think it's going to cost us just for
[1:12:07] that litigation where we're at right
[1:12:09] now? um because I think there's a
[1:12:11] minimum on how much he has won.
[1:12:12] >> So he if because we went through this
[1:12:14] process and adopted the um
[1:12:18] uh our resolution of intent, state law
[1:12:21] caps the amount of attorneys fees that
[1:12:23] we would have to pay this person who
[1:12:24] submitted it. Um in the law it's $30,000
[1:12:29] adjusted for inflation which that was
[1:12:31] back in 2018. So it brings it to about
[1:12:34] $40,000. And then um there's also a cost
[1:12:38] for the demographer of I forget the
[1:12:39] exact amount. Let's say 25,000. So it
[1:12:42] comes out to about $65,000
[1:12:45] or so.
[1:12:46] >> And if we don't move forward and we push
[1:12:48] this into the just the beginning stages
[1:12:51] of litigation.
[1:12:54] Um it would be costly. I mean I don't
[1:12:56] the litigation where it becomes costly
[1:12:59] is that the the plaintiff's fees are
[1:13:02] going to be way higher than 40,000.
[1:13:04] Right? They're they're going to say, "I
[1:13:07] spent a million dollars on this." And uh
[1:13:10] you know, they might those will get cut
[1:13:12] down, but they'll have more attorneys
[1:13:14] fees. They'll no longer be subject to
[1:13:15] the cap given the very low likelihood
[1:13:18] where it's really just paying the person
[1:13:21] more money.
[1:13:22] >> And that's my point that I want to make
[1:13:23] sure the public knows that this council
[1:13:25] doesn't want this to happen. It's
[1:13:27] terrible for our community. We all
[1:13:28] understand and agree that we don't want
[1:13:31] or need districts. It's going to hurt us
[1:13:33] in every way in my opinion. Uh but we
[1:13:37] don't have a choice at this point and
[1:13:38] hopefully in the future that changes,
[1:13:40] but right now we have to go through it
[1:13:43] because we don't have the money in
[1:13:44] general fund to sit and fight it when
[1:13:45] you're talking about millions within
[1:13:46] months and that's the sad part. So, our
[1:13:49] hands are tied and we're moving forward
[1:13:51] with something. And I hope everybody uh
[1:13:53] doesn't hold this one against us, but
[1:13:55] actually kind of supports us and pushes
[1:13:57] back against your state to do the right
[1:13:59] things with the laws that they are
[1:14:01] moving forward or not moving forward
[1:14:03] with like they had the ability to do and
[1:14:05] they didn't. So, this is where we need
[1:14:07] our community also to reach out to Mike
[1:14:10] Maguire and Chris Rogers and Damon
[1:14:12] Connelly and anyone else that you can
[1:14:14] reach out to. Uh, and I'll just add one
[1:14:17] thing that the demographer uh told us an
[1:14:20] example when we had a meeting with him a
[1:14:22] few weeks ago of a small district that
[1:14:25] got one of these letters had an open
[1:14:27] seat on the the board and they wanted to
[1:14:29] show, hey, don't don't come after us.
[1:14:31] Look, we have an open seat that we'll
[1:14:33] try to get someone here. They went
[1:14:36] through this process, did all this uh,
[1:14:38] you know, advertisement of trying to get
[1:14:40] people to to fill out. No one uh
[1:14:45] submitted a ballot. No one submitted to
[1:14:47] be appointed. There was no interest in
[1:14:48] being appointed. You know, sort of the
[1:14:50] whole purpose of the the redistricting
[1:14:53] is that you're trying to get people who
[1:14:55] are maybe otherwise not being elected
[1:14:56] and no one even submitted to be
[1:14:58] appointed. Um and this same plaintiff
[1:15:02] sued them for taking too long in
[1:15:04] starting the process. they lost that
[1:15:07] because there's a a deadline in state
[1:15:09] law and they had missed it and uh you
[1:15:11] know they end up having to pay a lot
[1:15:12] more money because of that.
[1:15:15] >> All right. So we do have we know there's
[1:15:18] still a there's a glimmer of hope with
[1:15:20] the bill. There's still one alive.
[1:15:21] Correct.
[1:15:22] >> It it would the one that's live does not
[1:15:25] >> lower it down. I think if there's any
[1:15:27] hope it's in the future that the
[1:15:28] legislature might change it and make
[1:15:30] allow us to switch.
[1:15:31] >> Just wanted to make sure that was clear.
[1:15:33] And as far as sending a letter to the
[1:15:34] folks, I think that's a good idea. We've
[1:15:37] got to say Cloverdale's at the table and
[1:15:39] this is what we're thinking. We oppose
[1:15:40] it. But is it going to go through?
[1:15:42] Probably. I agree with the vice mayor. I
[1:15:44] agree with this is going to this is
[1:15:46] going to jack Cloverdale all up on this.
[1:15:48] You know what I mean? But it's something
[1:15:50] that Cloverdale also can't afford to
[1:15:52] fight and burn all this money through
[1:15:54] when ultimately it's probably going to
[1:15:56] happen. So the option is to just go
[1:15:59] ahead and send the letter, which I'm in
[1:16:01] agreement on that. I think that's a good
[1:16:03] idea. Uh have the city send a letter up
[1:16:05] say we oppose it and then continue on
[1:16:07] with whatever direction you not need
[1:16:09] tonight cuz we're going to be
[1:16:10] >> Mike. I believe he's on now. Do you see
[1:16:14] if you can promote him and then uh
[1:16:16] Justin will just walk through this uh
[1:16:19] software now.
[1:16:27] » Good evening. Um I have to apologize.
[1:16:29] Um, I went on to the meeting and
[1:16:31] everything just restarted and
[1:16:34] I really have to apologize for tonight.
[1:16:37] Um, but it's a pleasure to be here to
[1:16:40] with you. And if I can just uh share my
[1:16:44] screen for a second,
[1:16:46] uh, what I'm going to do is walk you
[1:16:48] through the uh, tools that we have for
[1:16:52] the districtricting process.
[1:16:55] And so I want to emphasize that we have
[1:16:58] a lot of different tools available to
[1:17:00] members of the community to draw their
[1:17:02] own maps.
[1:17:04] And a lot of the different tools are
[1:17:06] really designed to highlight
[1:17:08] different kinds of participation for
[1:17:10] those of you who'd like to submit your
[1:17:12] maps in different ways. So to start off,
[1:17:16] we have maps that basically have
[1:17:19] just the streets, the major roads, and
[1:17:22] other features. So, these are really
[1:17:24] aimed at if you want to draw your
[1:17:26] community or your neighborhood.
[1:17:28] You don't have to worry about
[1:17:30] >> Justin, are you able to zoom in on your
[1:17:32] screen a little bit?
[1:17:33] >> Sure.
[1:17:39] Uh, these maps are neighborhood maps, so
[1:17:41] they show you some of the roads and
[1:17:42] streets. And all we'd ask you to do is
[1:17:44] use a color like a highlighter or
[1:17:46] colored pencil or even just a Sharpie
[1:17:50] and draw an area that you think
[1:17:52] represents what a community of interest.
[1:17:56] Um, this is really the most basic way
[1:17:58] that we can understand what your
[1:17:59] neighborhoods and communities are. We'd
[1:18:02] ask you, you don't have to worry about
[1:18:03] your population numbers on these maps.
[1:18:06] You can just use them to show us what
[1:18:09] your neighborhoods are.
[1:18:11] On the back of this form or perhaps in
[1:18:13] your email when you send it to us, you
[1:18:16] can describe what your neighborhood or
[1:18:18] communities are.
[1:18:20] For those of you who want to go a little
[1:18:22] bit more in detail, we do have maps that
[1:18:25] have our total population numbers on
[1:18:27] them as well. This tells you, for
[1:18:30] example, that there are seven residents
[1:18:32] living east of Redwood Highway and north
[1:18:35] of First Street.
[1:18:37] This is kind of the next step up. If you
[1:18:40] want to draw not just your neighborhood,
[1:18:41] but try to figure out whether or not
[1:18:43] there's enough people to represent a
[1:18:45] district or to constitute a district,
[1:18:48] you can color this in or add your
[1:18:49] populations together until you reach the
[1:18:52] target population of a balanced
[1:18:55] population district. Again, we'll take
[1:18:58] anything. Even if you don't have a
[1:19:00] population balanced district and you
[1:19:02] just want to show us where your
[1:19:03] neighborhood or community is, we can
[1:19:06] take it on this map as well. Both of
[1:19:08] these maps are available in English and
[1:19:10] Spanish. And we also have a link on the
[1:19:14] city's website to our interactive web
[1:19:17] viewer where you can zoom in and see
[1:19:19] more detail than a paper map allows, but
[1:19:22] it also has these population areas on
[1:19:25] them. So these are not quite census
[1:19:27] blocks. They're made up of several
[1:19:29] census blocks kind of bounded by what we
[1:19:32] think are um major or more important
[1:19:35] streets to the extent that we can do
[1:19:37] that.
[1:19:39] And then for those who want to go a
[1:19:41] little bit further, we do also have an a
[1:19:46] system online where you can draw your
[1:19:48] own districts from scratch.
[1:19:51] uh this tool which is called Dave's
[1:19:53] redistricting.
[1:19:55] I'll go to the main start the main page
[1:19:57] here. This is a website that lets you go
[1:20:01] create maps and draw um really down to
[1:20:04] that block level detail.
[1:20:07] On the district's website, you'll see a
[1:20:09] link to our template. Just for the sake
[1:20:11] of example, I'm going to start with this
[1:20:13] template here.
[1:20:15] And we'll zoom in a bit so we can see
[1:20:17] more detail.
[1:20:19] make our screen a little bit bigger.
[1:20:23] Um, what we have on our what we have
[1:20:26] here is our template map. The template
[1:20:28] is basically the starting point where
[1:20:30] everybody can change from. You'll see
[1:20:32] here in the description, it gives you a
[1:20:34] little bit of instructions on what to do
[1:20:36] when you finish and a place where you
[1:20:38] can kind of write in and describe your
[1:20:40] map when you're done. The way you use
[1:20:43] Dave's redistricting is you always start
[1:20:45] by creating an account.
[1:20:48] So basically it's really simple. You can
[1:20:52] sign up or you can sign up here. It's
[1:20:55] really simple. You just need your name,
[1:20:57] email, address, and to create a
[1:20:59] password.
[1:21:01] Once you have that, you'll be able to
[1:21:02] sign into your map
[1:21:05] and you'll be able to find the link to
[1:21:08] this web template on the city's website.
[1:21:12] And when you click that link, the first
[1:21:14] thing you'll do is you'll make a copy of
[1:21:16] the map. You see our template here is
[1:21:19] read only. That's so that everybody
[1:21:22] starts with the same blank map. To start
[1:21:24] your own, you can duplicate your map.
[1:21:27] Create yes to create a copy of it.
[1:21:30] And the copy you can then draw your
[1:21:33] districts how you choose. The easiest
[1:21:36] way to do that is simply start by
[1:21:38] selecting the district you want to
[1:21:39] modify. For example, select district
[1:21:41] three here.
[1:21:43] And then you can use this paintbrush
[1:21:45] tool to color in an area.
[1:21:47] [clears throat]
[1:21:49] Now you see some of these areas are
[1:21:51] quite large. So let's say we want a
[1:21:53] little more detail.
[1:21:56] We can select our block to shatter each
[1:22:00] of these precincts into many different
[1:22:03] blocks.
[1:22:05] And then we can paint just by clicking
[1:22:08] or holding the mouse key down the blocks
[1:22:11] in and move them into that district.
[1:22:15] You can see on the upper left on left
[1:22:17] hand portion of the screen as we move
[1:22:20] blocks into this district the population
[1:22:23] increases and we can even see what our
[1:22:25] deviation our difference from perfect
[1:22:28] equality is.
[1:22:30] So, in this case, we're over our ideal
[1:22:32] population, but that's okay because
[1:22:34] we're just demonstrating what this tool
[1:22:36] can do.
[1:22:38] If we don't like what we did, we can hit
[1:22:40] the eraser and we can erase blocks. We
[1:22:43] can uncolor them.
[1:22:46] Once we're happy with our district, we
[1:22:48] can hit we can click this little lock to
[1:22:52] prevent people from modifying,
[1:22:54] accidentally erasing, or adding it to a
[1:22:58] different district.
[1:23:01] Let me just add a couple of blocks. You
[1:23:03] always do the paintbrush tool before you
[1:23:05] hit the blocks. So, in order to move
[1:23:07] them into that district. And you can see
[1:23:09] as I go, I'm me adding people to this
[1:23:12] district here.
[1:23:16] In addition to coloring in individual
[1:23:19] blocks, you can we can also turn on
[1:23:23] using this little layers button. We can
[1:23:25] label our precincts and our blocks with
[1:23:30] our total population.
[1:23:32] Just collect the total population and
[1:23:34] close it. And now as we see, we'll we'll
[1:23:38] add
[1:23:40] hit apply.
[1:23:42] And you can see as we zoom in here,
[1:23:44] we'll see the total populations of each
[1:23:47] block on the map as we zoom in. So, 135
[1:23:51] people in this block bounded by
[1:23:53] Cloverdale, Tarman, and Cloverdale
[1:23:56] Boulevard right here.
[1:23:59] Um, when we're thinking we're ready to
[1:24:02] go, we want to go to this tools button
[1:24:05] where we can use the find unassigned
[1:24:07] precincts. These are precincts that
[1:24:10] we've failed to assign to a district.
[1:24:12] It's a really good check to make sure if
[1:24:14] you missed any small or, you know, uh,
[1:24:17] blocks that you may not have seen on the
[1:24:19] map.
[1:24:21] There's also a check to find
[1:24:23] non-ontiguous districts. Non-ontiguous,
[1:24:27] of course, being districts where all the
[1:24:28] precincts or all the blocks are not
[1:24:31] touching each other.
[1:24:34] In addition, if you go into the
[1:24:35] statistics menu, you can see all the
[1:24:38] districts side by side with their total
[1:24:40] population deviations. And it'll give
[1:24:43] you that total deviation that we want to
[1:24:45] keep under 10%.
[1:24:47] It'll even tell you here that my
[1:24:49] population deviation is too big. So,
[1:24:51] this is not a map that we could adopt.
[1:24:56] When you're ready to finally submit your
[1:24:59] map, you can do one of two things. You
[1:25:02] can either go to share map right here
[1:25:05] and copy this URL
[1:25:09] or you can get the URL from the web
[1:25:12] browser itself up here. Either way,
[1:25:14] it'll link to the same address.
[1:25:18] You'll then email this map, this link to
[1:25:21] the map to our email address
[1:25:24] districtricting@ci.cloverdale.ca.
[1:25:27] us.
[1:25:29] Keep in mind that if you don't email
[1:25:31] your map, we don't know the map exists.
[1:25:34] And that's actually protection because
[1:25:35] if you're working on a map and you're
[1:25:37] not ready to submit or you're not ready
[1:25:39] for final changes,
[1:25:41] we don't want to take your map too
[1:25:44] early. This by by emailing it to us,
[1:25:47] you're letting us know the map is ready
[1:25:49] to be viewed, ready to be drawn in.
[1:25:53] We'll also ask you when you email your
[1:25:54] map if you could describe what you were
[1:25:56] trying to do and any issues or anything
[1:25:59] that you would like the board and the
[1:26:01] community to know.
[1:26:03] Anything you submit as part of this
[1:26:05] email is part of the public record so
[1:26:07] the council and the rest of the
[1:26:09] community will see it. Our commitment is
[1:26:12] also to draw in all the maps that we
[1:26:14] receive. So whether or not your map is
[1:26:16] population balanced, whether or not your
[1:26:19] map uh meets all the legal requirements,
[1:26:22] we will draw it in. And that's precisely
[1:26:25] why we also have a deadline for the
[1:26:28] maps. That's a couple of days before the
[1:26:30] posting deadline, August 31st.
[1:26:34] This is to make sure that if there are
[1:26:36] issues with the map, we have an
[1:26:38] opportunity to reach out to you to make
[1:26:40] sure um to address any issues or to make
[1:26:43] sure that the map that you're submitting
[1:26:45] is the map you want to submit to the
[1:26:47] council.
[1:26:49] Um and so those are the basic tools we
[1:26:53] use um in terms of that we have
[1:26:55] available to the community to draw. Um,
[1:26:58] in addition on that web viewer that I
[1:27:00] mentioned earlier, we'll post all the
[1:27:02] maps we receive and it'll be a way to
[1:27:04] view the different maps side by side and
[1:27:07] I'll show you that when we look at our
[1:27:10] maps at the third public hearing.
[1:27:14] Um, so I I just want to there any
[1:27:17] questions about uh the web tools? Um,
[1:27:20] anything I can go over in more detail?
[1:27:24] I'll just say before as we're thinking
[1:27:26] about that, we also do have a PDF that
[1:27:29] goes step by step through this process
[1:27:32] as well as two YouTube videos, a five
[1:27:35] minute overall uh like kind of
[1:27:36] introductory video and a 20 minute video
[1:27:40] in more detail. Uh both of those videos
[1:27:43] provide kind of more of a stepby step. I
[1:27:45] know I when I first started using the
[1:27:47] tool relied a lot on that video kind of
[1:27:50] pausing
[1:27:52] finding the tool doing something and
[1:27:54] then coming back. Um but this tool
[1:27:57] especially the Dave's redistricting DRRA
[1:28:00] tool offers a lot of power to be able to
[1:28:03] go into that level of detail.
[1:28:07] So thank you.
[1:28:11] >> Hey Justin, I have one quick question.
[1:28:13] Um, is there going to be a link to this?
[1:28:16] Like I said, and you probably mentioned
[1:28:18] a thousand times on this, but a link to
[1:28:21] one the tutorials that you said for for
[1:28:24] the public. That was kind of, you know,
[1:28:25] it's a lot to take in right there. A
[1:28:27] link to the tutorials or the YouTube so
[1:28:29] when they do decide to get in and draw
[1:28:31] their maps that um they have the they
[1:28:33] have the tools to do it.
[1:28:35] >> That's a great question. Our expectation
[1:28:37] is that after tonight, we're going to be
[1:28:39] posting um all of the tools on our
[1:28:41] district-based election website. That
[1:28:44] will include links to all of the
[1:28:46] materials I mentioned, including the
[1:28:48] YouTube videos and the PDF.
[1:28:52] >> Perfect. Thank you, sir.
[1:28:58] Yeah, Justin, I got I have a question
[1:29:00] for uh did you say the maps have to be
[1:29:03] contiguous or they can they don't have
[1:29:05] to be?
[1:29:06] >> So, the maps do so I'll I'll tell you
[1:29:10] answer in two parts. For legal adoption,
[1:29:13] the maps must be contiguous.
[1:29:16] So, for example, if a map were to cross
[1:29:19] this unincorporated part of the city, um
[1:29:22] >> that's my next question. that would not
[1:29:24] be a map the council could legally
[1:29:26] adopt. However, for submitting draft
[1:29:30] maps, we w we will take anything. If we
[1:29:34] realize there's a problem like that,
[1:29:35] we'll reach out to the submitter because
[1:29:38] we'll have the email address from that
[1:29:40] submission to make sure that they know
[1:29:42] they're submitting a map the council
[1:29:44] can't adopt or shouldn't, you know,
[1:29:46] can't legally adopt. So once we submit
[1:29:49] and if we know like probably that area
[1:29:52] where you're showing is going to be
[1:29:53] annexed into the city and those
[1:29:55] residents would they automatically go
[1:29:57] right into that district that's touching
[1:29:59] them or encompassing them?
[1:30:01] >> So that is actually a good that's a
[1:30:04] great question. Um you'll actually
[1:30:05] specify in the annexation um order which
[1:30:09] district they will vote in. Um I don't
[1:30:13] believe there's a lot of residents in
[1:30:15] this area right now. Um, so basically
[1:30:18] the order could put them into the
[1:30:20] southern district or potentially
[1:30:22] depending on the lines into the district
[1:30:24] to the north. Um, I've, you know, um, it
[1:30:27] just, you know, whatever makes the most
[1:30:29] sense for the city. Um, the annexation
[1:30:31] order would specify that.
[1:30:33] >> Okay. So, basically, we're we're looking
[1:30:35] to get the footprint of Cloverdale
[1:30:38] uh, represented in that map. So, what
[1:30:41] kind of what I'm going at is the people
[1:30:42] that are going to be annexed in, are we
[1:30:45] going to have to pay an additional cost
[1:30:47] for that at a later date once that
[1:30:50] >> we there won't be um they even though
[1:30:54] that might upset the population
[1:30:57] evenness, we don't have to do it yet. We
[1:30:59] will in the future after every census
[1:31:02] have to go back through this process.
[1:31:04] Not all it's a little different at that
[1:31:06] point but there there is a after each
[1:31:09] dis you know census you got to go
[1:31:11] through this process and the population
[1:31:13] may or may not have changed.
[1:31:16] Sometimes cities are just adopting the
[1:31:18] exact same maps. Sometimes even if
[1:31:20] there's no population change you decided
[1:31:22] hey let's redo how we drew things.
[1:31:26] And and for any annexation, as long as
[1:31:29] the annexation is under 25% of the
[1:31:32] city's population, uh it doesn't trigger
[1:31:35] a mid decade redistricting.
[1:31:38] So if there's no residents or very few
[1:31:40] residents in an annexation area, then it
[1:31:44] doesn't trigger a redistricting. It just
[1:31:46] the order as part of the ordinance
[1:31:49] specifying the annexation, it will say
[1:31:51] the the new residents will vote in
[1:31:54] district 4 or district 3 or whatever it
[1:31:56] is.
[1:32:03] » I have a question for attorney Alex
[1:32:05] Moog. Um suppose somebody has like a big
[1:32:08] house and then they decide they want to
[1:32:11] downsize and they're on the council and
[1:32:13] they move into another district. Does
[1:32:15] that mean that they can't be on the
[1:32:17] council or what?
[1:32:18] >> Correct. So, it's it's the same thing as
[1:32:20] if you moved out of the city. If you are
[1:32:23] on the council representing district 1
[1:32:26] and you move within district 1, that's
[1:32:28] fine. If you move to district two, you
[1:32:31] have to give up your seat
[1:32:34] or wait until your term is over to to
[1:32:37] move.
[1:32:45] Do we have any questions from the public
[1:32:47] on this?
[1:32:51] » Could you please come down and uh
[1:32:58] Wow, that'll teach me to leave early at
[1:33:00] the last meeting. Um, uh, Alex, I think
[1:33:03] your response on Prop 28 to me on Prop
[1:33:06] 218 to me was confusing as I don't see
[1:33:10] how using water bill money for office
[1:33:12] air conditioning is a valid use of water
[1:33:13] infrastructure projects. And tonight,
[1:33:16] your comments on this are even more
[1:33:18] confusing um, on the redistricting for
[1:33:21] which I have a few thoughts. First, Mr.
[1:33:24] more concerned. I'd love you to not give
[1:33:26] up. Don't give in. Send these letters.
[1:33:29] Uh, one of the comments I heard as
[1:33:30] growing growing up was have a spine and
[1:33:32] fight this. This seems a bit ridiculous
[1:33:35] to me, this whole notion. Um, I had a
[1:33:38] little bit time this afternoon. I
[1:33:40] noticed that uh, Antonio Gonzalez was
[1:33:42] named president of the Southwest Voter
[1:33:45] in September of 1994, and he has sued
[1:33:48] over a 100 cities and school districts
[1:33:50] using the California Voting Rights Act.
[1:33:52] and he's been busy or that organization
[1:33:54] I think he's gone now. They've
[1:33:56] transformed a lot of these at large
[1:33:59] election systems that have worked well
[1:34:00] for places like Cloverdale into these
[1:34:03] district areas. Um according to their
[1:34:06] website, this organization has been
[1:34:08] instrumental in setting up an academy to
[1:34:10] train organizers, activists, and
[1:34:11] candidates running for office as well as
[1:34:13] other elected offices. And these guys
[1:34:15] are based in Texas. So, why are we not
[1:34:18] standing up and fighting against an
[1:34:20] organization from um outside our state,
[1:34:24] let alone outside our county? Um I was
[1:34:27] wondering if there's other help besides
[1:34:28] the local folks because in April 2026
[1:34:32] during the same month, I believe you
[1:34:35] received a threatening letter from the
[1:34:37] these activists. The US Supreme Court
[1:34:39] issued a ruling in Louisiana versus Cala
[1:34:42] striking down Louisiana's
[1:34:44] redrawn maps and ruling that the Voting
[1:34:47] Right Acts did not compel the state to
[1:34:49] create these kinds of maps. So this
[1:34:52] ruling also obviously applies in places
[1:34:54] like California uh not just Louisiana or
[1:34:57] Virginia where this is happening right
[1:34:59] now. So again, I encourage the council
[1:35:01] to send the letters and I would ask how
[1:35:03] does this mapmaking help us? Uh, can the
[1:35:06] California Supreme Court help us in
[1:35:08] fighting this? We need to take a stand,
[1:35:10] not just roll over like um I guess Roner
[1:35:14] Park and uh other cities in our county.
[1:35:16] Can the bigger Supreme Court help us?
[1:35:19] And do you need a million dollars to
[1:35:21] fight this? What is the amount of money
[1:35:23] you need to fight this? Don't just say,
[1:35:25] "Oh, I'm sorry. We got no money. Uh, we
[1:35:28] got $10 million in the water enterprise
[1:35:30] department." So, there you go. Thank
[1:35:32] you.
[1:35:35] Just really quick, Alex, who was the
[1:35:37] Southern California city that it cost
[1:35:38] them 1.4 to fight and they settled at
[1:35:40] that amount to lose?
[1:35:42] >> Well, I I don't remember off the top of
[1:35:44] my head that cities who have fought have
[1:35:46] spent a lot of money and all lost. So,
[1:35:49] Santa Monica went all the way to the
[1:35:51] Supreme They won at uh they lost at the
[1:35:54] trial court, won at the Court of Appeal,
[1:35:57] lost at the Supreme Court, spent
[1:35:59] millions of dollars. Um,
[1:36:02] no one has has won fighting this. This
[1:36:05] is your legislators need to do their
[1:36:06] jobs.
[1:36:12] » I just have a question. I don't
[1:36:13] understand how this works. What if
[1:36:15] >> Could you please state your name for the
[1:36:17] record and step up?
[1:36:20] >> What happens if there's no candidates or
[1:36:24] >> the the question was what if there were
[1:36:26] no candidates?
[1:36:27] >> They took one or two districts. Yeah,
[1:36:29] that that's a real possibility. Um the
[1:36:33] council would then need to appoint
[1:36:34] someone to serve in that seat. They
[1:36:36] would need to appoint someone from
[1:36:38] within the district, that particular
[1:36:40] district.
[1:36:46] » Good evening everyone. Regina Berry, I
[1:36:49] realize this is like a very odd thought
[1:36:52] and request and question. What about all
[1:36:56] of the citizens that aren't within the
[1:36:58] city limits? Is there any way legally
[1:37:01] that we could create several
[1:37:02] unincorporated Cloverdale districts?
[1:37:05] They don't pay city taxes, you might
[1:37:07] say. What if there were some sort of
[1:37:09] flat fee to be registered to be able to
[1:37:12] vote?
[1:37:14] Is that in any way something that we
[1:37:17] might be able to work toward because we
[1:37:21] have so many people that are part of
[1:37:23] this community that aren't within the
[1:37:24] city limits. Under state law, you have
[1:37:26] to be a resident of the city to vote in
[1:37:28] city elections.
[1:37:30] >> Okay. So, there's no potential for us to
[1:37:33] create unincorporated districts that
[1:37:36] could vote on city matters. Absolutely
[1:37:39] not at all. Okay. The law has spoken.
[1:37:42] It's worth a thought.
[1:37:52] » Any other public comment on this item?
[1:38:00] Thank you, Robert Maddock. Again,
[1:38:02] Cloverdale. Uh, I am an attorney. Um,
[1:38:06] and I am actually admitted to the United
[1:38:09] States Supreme Court. Uh, so I can
[1:38:11] comment on that. Uh, I would say it
[1:38:14] would be economic suicide for this town,
[1:38:18] the city to try to fight this. Um, it's
[1:38:21] great if someone else wants to, you
[1:38:23] know, contact uh Mr. Bezos or someone
[1:38:26] like that and see if we can get a hund00
[1:38:28] million fund. I think that would be
[1:38:30] great. I will volunteer to write an
[1:38:33] amicus brief for that. However, in the
[1:38:35] meantime, I beg you not to waste another
[1:38:39] penny on this because it is an absolute
[1:38:42] waste of taxpayer dollars. I have worked
[1:38:45] within the public uh sector as an
[1:38:48] attorney uh for my entire attorney
[1:38:50] career and I have negotiated contracts
[1:38:53] in multiple counties in this area,
[1:38:55] multiple agencies. I have discussed this
[1:38:57] specific issue with Sonoma County cities
[1:39:01] and it is undeniably something that can
[1:39:04] only be changed by either the United
[1:39:07] States state supreme court ruling on
[1:39:09] this specific issue and the case out of
[1:39:11] Louisiana does not address this specific
[1:39:14] issue. um or our legislaturators
[1:39:18] need to develop a backbone as the uh
[1:39:20] vice mayor uh and I believe the mayor
[1:39:23] also described and and actually stand up
[1:39:26] for this because it isn't right. This is
[1:39:28] a small town. We don't need this shoved
[1:39:30] down our throats by a bunch of out of
[1:39:33] town and out of attorney or out of uh
[1:39:35] town and out of state of attorneys. Um,
[1:39:38] I would like to start a group called uh
[1:39:40] lawyers against lawsuits, but uh I will
[1:39:42] save that for another day. Um, because I
[1:39:45] think these kinds of things really
[1:39:47] become tools that just are used by
[1:39:51] people to manipulate and actually don't
[1:39:54] accomplish what the original and I think
[1:39:56] justified basis was for. On the actual
[1:39:59] issue of uh redistric redistricting,
[1:40:03] what I will say is from what I've seen
[1:40:04] in other cities, a small city like this,
[1:40:07] if you go with five districts, you are
[1:40:08] going to have more problems with trying
[1:40:10] to find council members and you also
[1:40:13] have to redistrict more often. It only
[1:40:15] takes one large apartment complex in a
[1:40:17] town like this and now your numbers are
[1:40:19] thrown off and you got to redistrict.
[1:40:21] Uh, I also think that in a town like
[1:40:24] this, a strong mayor who's elected for
[1:40:26] four years and provides steady
[1:40:28] leadership is a positive thing and I
[1:40:31] support that. Um, I absolutely support
[1:40:34] Cloverdale. Love this town. Wish it
[1:40:35] could stay the same way the council is
[1:40:38] now, but it can't and uh let's be
[1:40:41] realistic about it. I also do support
[1:40:43] sending a letter. I do think that's a
[1:40:45] worthwhile use of uh my taxpayer money
[1:40:49] uh to fight that. And if uh you want an
[1:40:51] advocates brief support, give me a call.
[1:40:58] » Any other public comment on this item?
[1:41:01] Seeing none. So, Alex,
[1:41:04] we've done a lot here. So, we want
[1:41:07] >> we What
[1:41:08] >> direction for tonight? What do you need?
[1:41:09] >> Direction from the council on whether or
[1:41:11] not to have a directly elected mayor.
[1:41:15] Okay.
[1:41:15] >> So we know to communicate to the public
[1:41:17] whether they should be drawing four or
[1:41:19] five districts.
[1:41:20] >> Let's bring it to council. Council, go
[1:41:22] ahead.
[1:41:25] >> So a question for the city attorney. Uh
[1:41:26] is that is absolutely not uh possible
[1:41:30] that we could do two at large?
[1:41:33] >> It is not. So the government code
[1:41:35] establishes what forms of government are
[1:41:37] allowed for a general law city which
[1:41:39] Cloverdale is. And that's not one of the
[1:41:41] options that is provided.
[1:41:44] >> Okay. And in what type of city is that
[1:41:45] allowed?
[1:41:47] >> Uh you do like a hybrid.
[1:41:48] >> Theoretically a charter city. It has
[1:41:51] more uh authority over their form of
[1:41:53] government. Uh but you know Cloverdale
[1:41:55] is not a charter city. So we'd have to
[1:41:57] become that first.
[1:41:59] >> Um the way that I I would you know hear
[1:42:01] the rest of the council thoughts, but I
[1:42:03] would be open to a two-year uh at large
[1:42:06] mayor. Definitely not a four-year. Um
[1:42:10] but um I'm open to uh five separate
[1:42:12] districts as well.
[1:42:16] I would definitely be open to a two-year
[1:42:18] mayor and I think it um the only you
[1:42:22] know like one positive thing coming out
[1:42:23] of this would be the voters would be
[1:42:26] able to elect their mayor and I I think
[1:42:30] that would be a positive thing but I
[1:42:31] would only want that for two years
[1:42:33] because if the mayor's not somebody
[1:42:35] that's working out you don't want to be
[1:42:37] stuck with them for four
[1:42:43] Well, seeing seeing that districts might
[1:42:45] be a uh you know a problem in the
[1:42:49] future, I would do four districts and
[1:42:51] one mayor.
[1:42:56] » Did council member ask you, did you have
[1:42:57] a preference on the two or fouryear term
[1:42:59] for the mayor? That's what we're here.
[1:43:02] >> Okay.
[1:43:06] Sorry, I'm just kind of keeping track of
[1:43:08] everything. Um, I definitely am in favor
[1:43:12] of the atlarge mayor and knowing how the
[1:43:17] mayorship works. I think that two years
[1:43:19] you're just starting to actually get
[1:43:21] your feet wet and understand the job.
[1:43:24] So, I would be up for a four-year mayor.
[1:43:29] » I'm the same way. I agree with uh Mr.
[1:43:31] Mack down there. Um, I can tell you if
[1:43:34] you've if you've sat here, one year is
[1:43:36] not long enough. Two years is not long
[1:43:38] enough. You need uh you need the four
[1:43:41] years to do it. Um, and to be effective
[1:43:45] and uh really grasp everything that you
[1:43:47] need to do. There's a lot going on with
[1:43:48] this uh with this chair here. So, uh I'm
[1:43:51] in favor of the four districts and the
[1:43:54] um at large mayor on a four-year term.
[1:43:59] >> Thanks. So, so what I heard to recap is
[1:44:00] I heard unanimous uh support for the
[1:44:03] mayor position, although I think two
[1:44:05] members or at least one member would
[1:44:08] only support it on the basis of a
[1:44:09] two-year, but there was a majority for a mayor plus four years. So, we'll
[1:44:14] proceed with the four-year, excuse me,
[1:44:17] with the directly elected mayor in the
[1:44:18] four districts. Um, and the council can
[1:44:21] make a final decision about the length
[1:44:23] of term, you know, when the ordinance
[1:44:25] comes before you'll have that number in
[1:44:27] it and you can change it at that point.
[1:44:29] And is that something that we could hear
[1:44:30] from the public?
[1:44:31] >> Absolutely. So that we can change that
[1:44:33] in the future, too. So there's no need
[1:44:35] for a final decision on that right now.
[1:44:38] >> All right.
[1:44:42] » Yeah. Is there any public comment on the
[1:44:44] uh on the um term of the mayor? Do we
[1:44:48] have any public comment on that?
[1:45:00] The only comment I really have on that
[1:45:02] is that I always felt like it was our
[1:45:04] job if as we rotated the mayor that it
[1:45:08] was our job when we were mayor to
[1:45:12] engage with the newer council members
[1:45:14] and show them exactly what it entails
[1:45:17] and what it takes. If you elect a mayor
[1:45:20] and you're stuck with them for four
[1:45:22] years and you don't like them or they're
[1:45:24] then you're stuck with them.
[1:45:27] It's that simple. But if you rotate
[1:45:30] mayors, then everybody coming up has an
[1:45:34] opportunity to learn about what this is
[1:45:37] that you guys are doing and the service
[1:45:40] to our community. So, an elected mayor
[1:45:43] is sort of stupid, I think, in a small
[1:45:46] town. That's all I got to say.
[1:45:49] >> [applause]
[1:45:56] » Colleen Shields. I'm concerned of the
[1:45:58] lack of experience of an elected mayor.
[1:46:00] I too like how you're groomed, how you
[1:46:03] learn, how you gain your experience.
[1:46:05] You're there for each other. You have a
[1:46:07] groove. You're working together. I I
[1:46:10] really like how you guys have been
[1:46:12] running things as far as that goes. So,
[1:46:14] if it's works, don't fix it. uh is my
[1:46:18] philosophy.
[1:46:20] >> Thank you.
[1:46:31] Susie Cummings. Um I think with this
[1:46:34] small of a town that the four districts
[1:46:37] is going to work out better that you're
[1:46:38] more likely to get people from each
[1:46:41] district. Um the only concern I have I
[1:46:44] do like the idea of an elected mayor. I
[1:46:47] the only concern I have is that four
[1:46:50] years it may make it hard to find
[1:46:53] somebody who can dedicate four years to
[1:46:56] some to that difficult of a job. And
[1:46:59] that's my only concern is that um if you
[1:47:02] can find somebody who will do four years
[1:47:04] I think that's great but it might be
[1:47:07] hard to find somebody. So you might end
[1:47:09] up with two years.
[1:47:12] Perfect.
[1:47:14] [snorts]
[1:47:24] Evening. My name is Dana Star. I grew up
[1:47:27] in a town um under 8,000 people, very
[1:47:31] similar to this. uh my whole life living
[1:47:34] there and it continues to this day is a
[1:47:38] district of four sections with an
[1:47:42] elected mayor and they are doing four
[1:47:46] years but I am rather fond of this idea
[1:47:50] that the shorter period allows
[1:47:53] for um mixing it up not mixing it up
[1:47:56] because it's just to mix it up but
[1:47:58] because in two years somebody can go oh
[1:48:01] I think I want to run again for another
[1:48:03] two years because I'm getting the swing
[1:48:06] of this. I I can see where I can go or
[1:48:09] they can go, you know, I don't really
[1:48:11] want to do that and let somebody else
[1:48:15] run. Um, but I I can say also that with
[1:48:19] even the four district
[1:48:22] division that there were sections
[1:48:24] particularly in the poorest section of
[1:48:26] the town that nobody would run.
[1:48:30] And so they they had to find a way to
[1:48:33] find to get somebody to sit for that
[1:48:35] neighborhood. And that would be even
[1:48:37] worse if you had the five that I can
[1:48:40] share. Thank you.
[1:48:47] Any other public comment on this? Okay,
[1:48:50] seeing none. Alex, are you good with
[1:48:52] your direction on that? Okay.
[1:48:56] >> Okay. Yeah.
[1:48:58] >> Through the mayor. Could you explain the
[1:49:00] process and timeline just a little bit
[1:49:01] so that everybody can understand how
[1:49:03] quickly this really is going? So, we
[1:49:04] need your involvement here.
[1:49:05] >> Yeah. So, um we uh initially under state
[1:49:09] law have 90 days to do this whole
[1:49:11] process. Uh we agreed with the
[1:49:14] plaintiff. They gave us an extension for
[1:49:17] an extra 45 days. Um so the schedule,
[1:49:20] thanks Mike, is up there. The next
[1:49:22] public hearing is September 3rd. So at
[1:49:24] that meeting you'll look at the maps
[1:49:26] that have been submitted. You can submit
[1:49:28] some. The uh consultant will also submit
[1:49:31] some to make sure we have some that are
[1:49:33] legally okay and you can pick which ones
[1:49:36] you like. You might find one that you
[1:49:38] all know this is the one we want. You
[1:49:40] may not be ready to make a decision.
[1:49:43] Then you may um also think hey we like
[1:49:46] this map but could you do X or Y to it
[1:49:49] to try to change it? you know, move it
[1:49:50] over, include that neighborhood, you
[1:49:52] know, those extra blocks over there. Uh,
[1:49:55] so there's then an opportunity for more
[1:49:56] maps to be submitted before the fourth
[1:49:59] public hearing. At the fourth public
[1:50:01] hearing, uh, the council would make a
[1:50:04] decision. This is the map we want. Uh,
[1:50:06] this is the order of the districts are
[1:50:09] going to go for election and we would,
[1:50:12] uh, the council will conduct the first
[1:50:14] reading of an ordinance at that meeting.
[1:50:17] uh so vote and and you know introduce an
[1:50:19] ordinance at that meeting and then at
[1:50:20] the fifth public hearing um you would
[1:50:24] then uh adopt that ordinance and it
[1:50:26] would be done. So uh the schedule's up
[1:50:29] there. Um we have a little bit of
[1:50:32] flexibility in case something comes up
[1:50:33] and we need to move a meeting, you know,
[1:50:35] two weeks, but we don't have uh tons of
[1:50:38] time.
[1:50:41] >> Thank you, Alex.
[1:50:44] >> All righty. Alex, could we ask if he
[1:50:48] could make like six maps so that if we
[1:50:50] don't want to make a map, we have like
[1:50:52] six to choose from?
[1:50:53] >> Yeah. So, he he um the uh consultant
[1:50:56] will be making three to five maps, I
[1:50:59] believe, is the number that are
[1:51:01] compliant. Depending on the a city of
[1:51:03] our size, you may sort of just run out
[1:51:05] of compliant ways to do it. So, there
[1:51:08] may only but he will be producing some
[1:51:10] maps as well. So even if no one from the
[1:51:12] public or no council members do maps,
[1:51:14] you will have maps to look at and choose
[1:51:17] between.
[1:51:18] >> Thank you.
[1:51:24] » Could you please come down?
[1:51:35] » Regina Barry, quick question. Um, you
[1:51:37] may you may have addressed it earlier.
[1:51:39] the maps that as we as the public
[1:51:42] create, they will all be accessible to
[1:51:44] everyone else so that if they want to
[1:51:45] click on them.
[1:51:46] >> Yeah. So, they will all be available on
[1:51:49] the website at least 7 days before the hearing.
[1:51:53] >> All righty.
[1:51:55] See no other comments. Let's move back.
[1:51:57] And I apologize. We're going to move
[1:51:59] back. What? Oh, you have one. Sorry. So,
[1:52:02] Alex, what based on that comment,
[1:52:05] [clears throat] is it just the voting
[1:52:07] public of registered voters in
[1:52:09] Cloverdale can only do district maps or
[1:52:12] it's anybody?
[1:52:13] >> Anyone can submit a map?
[1:52:14] >> Okay.
[1:52:15] >> Um, and the council can
[1:52:18] take a look at it.
[1:52:22] >> We we will we don't check if you're a
[1:52:24] registered voter any map will be
[1:52:25] submitted and then it's up to the
[1:52:27] council to decide what map ultimately to choose.
[1:52:38] back into our uh consent calendar. And
[1:52:41] the active ones we still have left is
[1:52:43] F1, F3, and F5. So, let's start with F1.
[1:52:47] The one that I pulled, Kevin, could you
[1:52:49] go ahead and just go over that right
[1:52:51] quick?
[1:52:51] >> Yeah, Susie is gonna give us an up.
[1:52:55] >> Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council
[1:52:57] members. Um so the water and the sewer
[1:53:01] leak adjustment policy. The water policy
[1:53:04] that is um items one through three is
[1:53:09] exactly what our water policy currently
[1:53:11] is. What we have uh or what we are
[1:53:15] proposing is that we add a commercial
[1:53:19] sewer charge adjustment. That would be
[1:53:22] like the two that you've seen in the
[1:53:24] past year and a half where if the sewer
[1:53:29] if the the businesses are charged based
[1:53:32] on the number of units of water that's
[1:53:35] used a single family resident it they
[1:53:38] have a a flat fee for their sewer. So it
[1:53:40] wouldn't affect it wouldn't affect a
[1:53:42] single family. It wouldn't affect a
[1:53:44] multif family. it would only affect um
[1:53:47] one of the businesses that
[1:53:50] their sewer is being charged based on
[1:53:53] the number of units of water that's
[1:53:55] being used. We're proposing that if they
[1:53:58] can prove with pictures, uh, receipts,
[1:54:02] um, that the water went into the ground,
[1:54:06] did not go into the septic, um, it
[1:54:08] didn't have to be treated, that we would
[1:54:11] not charge them, we would charge them
[1:54:13] their regular average rate and not
[1:54:16] charge them the additional um,
[1:54:20] units of it's it's a sewer rate, but
[1:54:24] it's only water that's being they're being charged by the number of
[1:54:28] units of water. So, um number four is um
[1:54:33] just proposing
[1:54:35] that we change that so that I don't have
[1:54:38] to bring these back.
[1:54:44] » Okay. Any questions?
[1:54:47] >> Nope. I think it's pretty
[1:54:48] self-explanatory and um you know, in the
[1:54:51] past we've just kind of you know, it's
[1:54:53] no harm, no foul situation. The sewer is
[1:54:55] not used. We're not charging for it. So,
[1:54:57] pretty straightforward.
[1:54:59] Would like to make a motion.
[1:55:03] >> Good.
[1:55:03] >> I'm good.
[1:55:04] >> Okay. Do I have a motion for F1?
[1:55:07] >> Uh, yes. I'm sorry, Rob. Apologize. Yes.
[1:55:10] I have public comment on this item.
[1:55:17] » Rob Kazlowski. again. U first of all,
[1:55:19] I'd like to thank uh the city for its
[1:55:21] one-day response and stopping a water
[1:55:23] leak next to our home um with one day
[1:55:26] within it being reported. So, that was
[1:55:28] pretty phenomenal. The guys came out on
[1:55:29] a Sunday. Um then they completely fixed
[1:55:32] it with new parts and asphalt within a
[1:55:34] couple of days. So, kudos to the water
[1:55:36] team. Um so, I really appreciate that.
[1:55:38] But on to the issue at hand. I think the
[1:55:40] city is asking for an amended water leak
[1:55:42] policy. My fear is in order to give
[1:55:44] money back to businesses and instead of
[1:55:46] holding them accountable to fix the leak
[1:55:48] right away. If it's a residence, usually
[1:55:50] you see the leak and you you you get
[1:55:52] help or you fix it right away. Uh
[1:55:55] meanwhile, I've been unable to secure
[1:55:56] through the public records requests
[1:55:59] process the city's water loss tap
[1:56:01] reports for 2020 through 2025. Uh the
[1:56:05] required 10-day turnaround response time
[1:56:07] is now approaching 65 days. Uh that was
[1:56:10] request was submitted back on June 7th
[1:56:12] and it's and counting. Now I just got a
[1:56:15] quick note while I was sitting here that
[1:56:17] it I might be getting the reports
[1:56:19] tomorrow. Um but historically there
[1:56:21] appears to be a huge amount of water
[1:56:23] consistently around 5 million gallons
[1:56:26] annually that's reported unmetered. This
[1:56:29] is high quality potable water that could
[1:56:32] be build. Yet residents are being asked
[1:56:34] to subsidize this lo with proposed
[1:56:36] higher water rate increases. And uh the
[1:56:39] last batch of publicly available city
[1:56:41] water audits cited outstanding leak
[1:56:43] issues such as customer metering
[1:56:46] inaccuracies as well as build uh build
[1:56:50] meter accuracy. And this was an audit
[1:56:52] done by the AWA and I'm hoping to see
[1:56:54] what that shows in 2021 through 2026. So
[1:56:58] if I get those tap reports over the next
[1:57:00] couple of days, we can look at that and
[1:57:01] see if there's been improvement. Um but
[1:57:04] I won't belver the point about no double
[1:57:06] digit rate increases. But, uh, I'd like
[1:57:08] to see us fixing these things before we
[1:57:11] keep raising rates. If we can bill for
[1:57:13] another even a part portion of the $5
[1:57:15] million in unbillable and it's high
[1:57:18] quality potable water, that would be
[1:57:20] great. Anyways, thank you very much.
[1:57:25] » Okay. And just just a followup, the
[1:57:28] water is capped at a $460. So even a
[1:57:31] business that if they leak $130,000
[1:57:35] gallons, the most that they're going to
[1:57:37] get a break is $460. It's a one time
[1:57:41] just like everybody else. The sewer is
[1:57:44] the difference. They're charged
[1:57:46] differently. And if they're not actually
[1:57:49] using the sewer, I don't they're already
[1:57:51] paying for the additional water. I don't
[1:57:53] I think it's fair that we um write off
[1:57:57] the additional sewer.
[1:57:59] Thank you, Susan.
[1:58:02] Okay. Uh,
[1:58:03] >> any other public comment?
[1:58:06] Okay, seeing none, do I have a motion
[1:58:07] for F1?
[1:58:09] I'd
[1:58:10] >> like to make a motion to adopt a
[1:58:12] resolution entitled the resolution of
[1:58:13] the city council of the city of
[1:58:14] Cloverdale adopting a water and
[1:58:16] commercial sewer leak adjustment policy.
[1:58:20] >> Have a second.
[1:58:20] >> Second.
[1:58:21] >> Okay. Did you get the first and second?
[1:58:24] >> Thank you.
[1:58:25] >> All in favor say I.
[1:58:27] >> I. All oppose say nay. Motion passes
[1:58:30] 5-0.
[1:58:32] >> Now
[1:58:34] the other active one we're coming back
[1:58:35] to is F3. Consider adoption of
[1:58:37] resolution approving a contract with DC
[1:58:39] Electric Group Inc. or Traffic Single
[1:58:41] Improvements at the Cloverdale Boulevard
[1:58:43] and Citrus Fair Drive approving a
[1:58:44] measure DD budget amendment and
[1:58:46] authorizing city manager to execute the
[1:58:48] contract.
[1:58:51] >> I can just give a brief report. Uh we
[1:58:53] recently had trouble with the light this
[1:58:55] the traffic signal. We had our DC
[1:58:57] Electric come out and the components in
[1:58:59] there are literally 40 years old. They
[1:59:02] can't get new parts. This budget
[1:59:04] amendment would allow us to upgrade
[1:59:07] including um right now it's in in
[1:59:10] pavement um signals or maybe I'm getting
[1:59:13] that wrong. Uh sensors, sorry. It does
[1:59:16] replace that with camera sensors so that
[1:59:18] it knows if there's uh bicycles or
[1:59:21] pedestrians. So, it's it's pretty
[1:59:24] straightforward. It really needs to be
[1:59:25] done. It's our last. All the other stop
[1:59:27] lights have been upgraded. This is the
[1:59:28] last one and it did fail recently for
[1:59:32] over 24 hours. And so that's why we're
[1:59:34] asking to approve this budget amendment
[1:59:36] so that we can get it fixed and it's
[1:59:38] being proposed with DD money.
[1:59:43] And uh yeah, I did pull this item. I had
[1:59:45] a couple questions. Um
[1:59:48] at the time of the failure, were we able
[1:59:50] to go to like a red flashing light
[1:59:53] option?
[1:59:55] It did go to a red flashing light. Um
[1:59:57] and then um just would like to know what what is the history of the issues
[2:00:02] pre prior to this incident with that
[2:00:04] light.
[2:00:05] >> I don't know that we've had a lot of
[2:00:07] trouble with it. I don't fully know
[2:00:09] that. I do know that when they came out
[2:00:11] to look at it, you Oh, this also
[2:00:13] provides a battery backup which it
[2:00:15] doesn't have for when power outages. Um
[2:00:18] I guess yeah, two thoughts on this. I
[2:00:20] mean, one, um, if you know, the backup
[2:00:23] is the red flashing lights, I think
[2:00:25] that's still a functioning stop
[2:00:27] >> light.
[2:00:28] >> Um, and then the the bigger question is,
[2:00:30] um, you know, around the cameras. Um, do
[2:00:33] we use cameras similar to that anywhere
[2:00:35] else in the city?
[2:00:38] >> Let me see if I can explain this because
[2:00:39] I'm not an expert, but there's sensors
[2:00:42] in the pavement and that's the old way
[2:00:44] to under identify if there's a car
[2:00:46] there. This replaces that with a camera
[2:00:48] and it's more sensitive and it picks up
[2:00:51] pedestrians
[2:00:53] and bicycles where the the older ones
[2:00:56] that were in the pavement didn't didn't
[2:00:59] do that. And so it's really the modern
[2:01:00] technology. I don't think it's even that
[2:01:02] modern. It's been used for quite a
[2:01:04] while.
[2:01:04] >> I mentioned this, you know, in regards
[2:01:06] to the questions on um south of the
[2:01:09] boulevard. Um, you know, people have
[2:01:12] some issues with the the traffic lights
[2:01:14] down there and um, you know, Sanelmo
[2:01:17] does use AI and I'm wondering if this is
[2:01:20] similar to that or do we use cameras at
[2:01:22] all anywhere else? Currently,
[2:01:25] >> I believe we use cameras on the south
[2:01:27] bec that's a a new light. And we did
[2:01:30] upgrade the one on First Street. And I'm not 100% sure that there's cameras
[2:01:36] in there, but any modern signal does use
[2:01:39] the cameras. And so I I will ask about
[2:01:42] the AI because you mentioned that before
[2:01:45] and that sounds like a really good
[2:01:46] solution. Um, so I'll definitely bring
[2:01:50] that up.
[2:01:50] >> You know, with any issue of any any use
[2:01:52] of cameras, um, you know, there's always
[2:01:55] an effect, you know, there they could be
[2:01:57] effective in in monitoring traffic, but
[2:02:00] um, you know, the issue of surveillance
[2:02:01] comes into play. And, you know, that's
[2:02:04] something I just don't want to
[2:02:05] necessarily just um, adopt too too
[2:02:09] easily without fully fully understanding
[2:02:12] um, the circumstances behind that.
[2:02:16] My understanding of this, it is not for
[2:02:18] surveillance at all. It's not a flock
[2:02:21] camera system. It's really just to
[2:02:24] replace those in pavement vehicle
[2:02:26] detention detection loop um systems. I
[2:02:29] don't know chief if you have anything
[2:02:31] about this, but not to put you on the
[2:02:32] spot.
[2:02:33] >> Hey Kevin, I think that I think that
[2:02:34] also the uh lights that we put in the
[2:02:36] last four years down there on the south
[2:02:38] end of town by 7-Eleven and and uh
[2:02:41] Sinclair and all that are camera
[2:02:43] operated.
[2:02:43] >> They are. And I guess that th those
[2:02:47] still our public is having trouble with
[2:02:50] the camera system.
[2:02:53] I I sense that. I mean, I'm not asking
[2:02:55] you for an answer to that, but
[2:02:56] >> Oh, it's it's true. We've been trying to
[2:02:58] adjust the south interchange for over a
[2:03:01] year now to get to get it where we need,
[2:03:04] you know, the turn the turn was a big
[2:03:06] help there where you can turn when it's
[2:03:09] um yellow. So, um this one's a little
[2:03:12] more straightforward. That's an offset
[2:03:14] intersection. It's it's, you know, it it
[2:03:17] functions well um in terms of the the
[2:03:19] lights and everything, but we may have
[2:03:22] not gotten the timing exactly correct
[2:03:24] yet, and we're continue to to look at
[2:03:26] that. This one's a little more
[2:03:27] straightforward. Y
[2:03:28] >> um I mean, we were really told by DC
[2:03:30] Electric that they couldn't find they
[2:03:32] couldn't get the parts to repair what we
[2:03:34] had. So, that's the situation it is. Um,
[2:03:36] you know, I just look at the cost of the
[2:03:38] spending and it looks like something
[2:03:39] that could be kicked down the road. If
[2:03:41] it's continual problem in the future, I
[2:03:44] could be happy to entertain bringing it
[2:03:46] back.
[2:03:48] >> Okay.
[2:03:49] >> Any comments?
[2:03:53] » Yeah.
[2:03:54] >> Uh, to your point, Andre's the uh uh the
[2:03:58] pricing I'm speaking as a as an
[2:04:01] electrician now. pricing looks uh in
[2:04:04] line with the scope of work. Uh to your
[2:04:07] point on the cameras and modern
[2:04:09] technology, the camera serves as a uh
[2:04:14] basically as a contact, right? It it
[2:04:17] opens when nobody's there. When somebody
[2:04:19] appears, the camera sees it, just like
[2:04:21] your uh your ring ring door camera, what
[2:04:24] have you. Mhm.
[2:04:25] >> And I believe it's just a closed loop
[2:04:26] system where the camera picks somebody
[2:04:28] up and is able to, you know, change the
[2:04:31] >> similar change in and and and
[2:04:35] >> Yeah.
[2:04:36] >> green light, red light type of thing.
[2:04:37] So, if you've ever been through Calr
[2:04:39] oneway uh traffic control, like right
[2:04:43] now on Highway One out at the coast,
[2:04:44] they have that and there's no sensors.
[2:04:47] It's a camera and it just picks you up.
[2:04:49] It follows you all the way through and
[2:04:52] picks you up on the other side. And if
[2:04:53] there's no other reading, the cameras
[2:04:55] turn, right? That's the way they're able
[2:04:56] to do the the oneway traffic control.
[2:04:59] >> It's like a sensor.
[2:05:00] >> Technology is closed loop and the camera
[2:05:02] is just like a contact.
[2:05:03] >> Totally understand that. Yeah, I just
[2:05:04] see that technology not really producing
[2:05:06] the results on the south side of town.
[2:05:08] So, I'm just doesn't seem like
[2:05:12] >> something to jump on. If there was, you
[2:05:13] know, that that worked on the south side
[2:05:15] of town, I could see implementing it,
[2:05:16] but don't want to create another traffic
[2:05:18] jam with a system that is not working
[2:05:20] currently.
[2:05:25] Um, yeah, we've had we've had some
[2:05:28] issues. We've had DC Electric out come
[2:05:29] and look at those things uh on the south
[2:05:31] end of town and I know we've
[2:05:33] [clears throat] had to adjust them. They
[2:05:34] were uh I think they got it figured out.
[2:05:37] I couldn't believe they were affected by
[2:05:39] rain and with El Nino coming up, God, I
[2:05:42] hope they're not affected by rain or
[2:05:43] we're going to have traffic jams. But as far as I don't want to create, I
[2:05:48] don't want to kick something down the
[2:05:49] road. I know. And if we can't have
[2:05:52] parts, this thing completely fails on
[2:05:54] us. And now that's one of our main
[2:05:55] entrances into Cloverdale. And then we
[2:05:57] also have people picking up kids. School
[2:05:59] starts tomorrow. We've got a traffic jam
[2:06:02] down there non-stop. So I think we
[2:06:05] should go ahead and we we get the theory
[2:06:08] of the cameras, the contact, the you
[2:06:10] know, running you through and all that.
[2:06:11] And I think that those need to be fixed
[2:06:14] um so we don't cause issues down there.
[2:06:18] and DC Electric also knows how to fix
[2:06:21] has come in and adjusted the ones on the
[2:06:23] south end of town still working on it.
[2:06:25] So, they're going to have the knowledge
[2:06:26] to do these and get it installed
[2:06:27] properly. So, I'm 100% on board with
[2:06:30] this one.
[2:06:30] >> I mean, what what DC told us was they
[2:06:32] could get it to work, but they couldn't
[2:06:34] promise that it was going to work for
[2:06:36] very long and the parts were hard to
[2:06:37] find and so we're just trying to get
[2:06:39] ahead of it.
[2:06:41] >> One more comment. So based on uh
[2:06:44] [clears throat]
[2:06:45] DC Electric says the price assumes ex
[2:06:47] existing conduits are accessible, free
[2:06:50] of debris and in good working order. I
[2:06:52] would uh I would maybe strike that and
[2:06:54] ask them to mandrill the conduits to
[2:06:56] justify their price.
[2:06:58] >> Can you say that again?
[2:07:01] >> Oh man.
[2:07:04] And I would I would support further in
[2:07:06] investigation into this before uh maybe
[2:07:08] we bring it back.
[2:07:10] >> If that's what's your suggestion, I
[2:07:12] would support that.
[2:07:13] >> I would for for me I would just say just
[2:07:15] strike that one and just ask them to
[2:07:17] mander the conduits to justify their
[2:07:19] price. I think the price is in line with
[2:07:21] the scope of work.
[2:07:27] » Would that be an amendment or would we
[2:07:28] bring that back to the council?
[2:07:30] >> Well, with the way that it's going right
[2:07:31] now, it would have to be amended and
[2:07:32] brought back. And so that was going to
[2:07:33] be my question is is this going to
[2:07:35] create a safety hazard or an issue if
[2:07:37] they fail before we're allowed or able
[2:07:39] to fix these things if we don't have a
[2:07:41] special meeting if something happens.
[2:07:45] >> It's hard to know. I mean, I'm just
[2:07:47] going off of what DC Electric told us,
[2:07:49] which is, hey, we got it working, but
[2:07:51] it's it's fragile and it's old and we
[2:07:54] can't guarantee it's going to stay
[2:07:56] working for very long.
[2:07:57] >> I do want to acknowledge the concerns
[2:07:59] from mayor and vice mayor on this. um
[2:08:02] just that the uh the the backup was that
[2:08:05] it was a flashing red light. So I I I
[2:08:07] don't you know we haven't experienced a
[2:08:09] full breakdown. I don't want to just um
[2:08:12] think that everything is going to be a
[2:08:13] worst case scenario necessarily.
[2:08:19] » I agree Kevin on this real quick and I
[2:08:21] agree with with uh Council Member
[2:08:23] Laskkey over there. He's got some pretty
[2:08:25] extensive knowledge on this. I am not
[2:08:28] opposed to striking that what's in there
[2:08:32] and redoing that contract a little bit
[2:08:34] so it gets narrowed down the scope of
[2:08:35] work on that and then actually bringing
[2:08:37] it back at the next meeting if we could.
[2:08:40] >> I would support that.
[2:08:42] >> The amendment you suggested, Council
[2:08:44] Member Laskkey is in the that's in the
[2:08:46] scope of work.
[2:08:47] >> I'm sorry.
[2:08:48] >> The amendment you suggested is would be
[2:08:50] to the scope of work from DC
[2:08:52] >> just that last sentence. I do see that
[2:08:54] he does have contingencies in there
[2:08:56] right now for u for the cost for 6,994.
[2:09:01] So that that might be uh his CYA if the
[2:09:05] conduits do not mandro right there. I I
[2:09:09] imagine he's going to pull out some of
[2:09:10] the existing infrastructure and add his
[2:09:13] uh his cable for the camera. So I'm
[2:09:16] imagine what is that what's the minimum
[2:09:18] size city standards? Inch and a half
[2:09:21] onto it. I
[2:09:21] >> I don't know. Yeah.
[2:09:24] quarter
[2:09:25] >> has not to exceed.
[2:09:27] >> Okay. And then if it's not to exceed,
[2:09:28] then Okay. Yeah. I'm I'm actually fine
[2:09:31] with that.
[2:09:32] >> And
[2:09:32] >> you can leave it as it stands.
[2:09:33] >> For the mayor, if you want to make that
[2:09:35] change, too, we could do that and the
[2:09:37] council could approve that tonight and
[2:09:39] then assuming he agrees, Kevin would
[2:09:42] have the authority to sign the agreement
[2:09:44] with that change. Um is there may be a
[2:09:48] price increase as long as it's within
[2:09:50] the total not to exceed amount. If it
[2:09:53] would create a large impact, then we'd
[2:09:55] need to come back for further approval.
[2:09:57] >> Well, and I I think that's actually
[2:09:59] covered uh council member's concern is
[2:10:01] covered by the not to exceed. So, I
[2:10:04] think that it's actually uh almost a
[2:10:07] moot point at this point. Yeah.
[2:10:10] >> So, I have no more comments. Any more
[2:10:13] comments?
[2:10:14] >> Sounds good. I I support my council on
[2:10:16] this.
[2:10:16] >> Okay.
[2:10:17] >> Public comments. We have Do we have any
[2:10:19] public comments on this item? Go ahead,
[2:10:21] Jennifer.
[2:10:37] » Yeah,
[2:10:47] » what is what is f
[2:10:51] Okay.
[2:10:54] Yeah.
[2:10:58] Thank you.
[2:11:02] » So, I'm going to ad Whoa, that's loud.
[2:11:04] I'm going to admit I'm a total nerd and
[2:11:06] I'd love to contribute to this
[2:11:08] conversation, but I have a P request
[2:11:12] specifically for concerns about traffic
[2:11:16] impact and signal performance results. I
[2:11:18] submitted this public request 125 days
[2:11:23] ago um on April 8th. So maybe that's one
[2:11:28] P request of my three that haven't been
[2:11:30] addressed that maybe could be addressed.
[2:11:34] Thank you.
[2:11:40] » Any other public comment?
[2:11:43] >> Okay, I'm seeing none.
[2:11:45] >> I'd like to make a motion by title only.
[2:11:47] uh adopt a resolution entitled
[2:11:49] resolution of the city council of the
[2:11:50] city of Cloverdale approving a contact
[2:11:52] contract with DC Electric Group
[2:11:55] Incorporated for traffic signal
[2:11:56] improvements at Cloverdale Boulevard and
[2:11:58] Citrus Fair Drive in the amount of
[2:12:00] $69,940
[2:12:02] authorizing a 10% contingency in the
[2:12:05] amount of $6,994
[2:12:08] for a total not to exceed amount of
[2:12:10] $76,934
[2:12:13] approving a measure DD budget amendment
[2:12:16] and authorizing the city manager to
[2:12:18] execute the contract and related
[2:12:19] documents.
[2:12:21] >> Second.
[2:12:23] >> All in favor say I.
[2:12:24] >> I. I.
[2:12:25] >> Post say nay.
[2:12:26] >> Motion passes 5.
[2:12:27] >> All right. And okay folks, we're going
[2:12:30] to take a fivem minute recess right now
[2:12:32] before we get into F5. So bear with 5
[2:12:35] minute recess.
[2:19:25] Got
[2:19:33] to feed my dogs and I want to go home.
[2:19:35] >> Your Oh, they're your dogs now. I'm
[2:19:37] going to tell you
[2:19:48] All
[2:19:57] right, guys. We call the meeting back to
[2:19:59] order and let's move into F5, final one
[2:20:02] on the consent calendar ordinance
[2:20:03] amending Cloverdale Municipal Code
[2:20:05] section 2.04.010
[2:20:08] compensation for council members.
[2:20:11] >> Thanks, Mayor. Uh, I'll just be very
[2:20:13] brief. The council introduced this
[2:20:14] ordinance at the last meeting uh to uh
[2:20:18] decrease the council member compensation
[2:20:21] from $950 a month uh to $300 a month. Uh
[2:20:25] that was uh at the last council meeting
[2:20:28] and there's a second reading tonight for
[2:20:30] adoption.
[2:20:34] » Yeah.
[2:20:35] >> Um I have some arguments against the pay
[2:20:39] cut. It creates barriers for
[2:20:41] workingclass residents. It lowers it's
[2:20:45] lowering the pay makes the position
[2:20:46] virtually voluntary making it nearly
[2:20:49] impossible for working professionals,
[2:20:51] single parents or lowincome residents to
[2:20:54] afford the time away from their jobs.
[2:20:57] It's limiting the candidate pool which
[2:20:59] is going to be really important when we
[2:21:01] break into districts. A reduced stipen
[2:21:04] restricts future candidates mostly to
[2:21:06] retirees or the independently wealthy
[2:21:09] who do not rely on a stipen to offset
[2:21:12] living costs or lost wages. It's
[2:21:14] ignoring the real-time commitment.
[2:21:16] Serving on the council involves long
[2:21:18] hours reviewing complex city agendas,
[2:21:21] attending meetings, and managing
[2:21:24] communications with residents that go
[2:21:26] well beyond a casual volunteer role.
[2:21:28] It's a undoing progress on diversity.
[2:21:32] It's um it helps having an adequate
[2:21:36] stipen helps level the playing field so
[2:21:38] diverse community members can run for
[2:21:40] office without sacrificing basic
[2:21:42] financial stability. The reduction in
[2:21:45] council's stipen represents a negligible
[2:21:48] fraction of the city's budget because
[2:21:50] the total annual savings of $39,000
[2:21:54] amounts to roughly 0.26%.
[2:21:57] 26%
[2:21:59] of Cloverdale's 14.9 million annual
[2:22:03] general fund spending. Um, you know, it comes across like I think it was
[2:22:09] introduced to be um make impactful
[2:22:12] savings, but it really doesn't. It's um
[2:22:15] the cut is a symbolic gesture of fiscal
[2:22:17] responsibility rather than a meaningful
[2:22:20] financial solution. It strips away
[2:22:23] standard compensation while leaving the
[2:22:25] city's structural revenue issues
[2:22:27] completely unressed.
[2:22:29] Um, the Sonoma City Council voted 4 to1
[2:22:32] on August 5,
[2:22:34] 2026 to introduce an ordinance that
[2:22:37] moves their monthly stipen to 950. The
[2:22:41] Sebastapole City Council voted 3 to1 on
[2:22:43] July 7, 2026 to finalize and pass the
[2:22:47] ordinance raising their monthly stipen
[2:22:49] from 30950.
[2:22:52] When it was first introduced at our
[2:22:54] budget meeting, it seemed like it had
[2:22:55] been something that all three of the
[2:22:57] people that were for it had already
[2:22:59] discussed and um kind of did a daisy
[2:23:03] chain on. So, I just think um it's kind
[2:23:05] of like a corrupt thing and I think it
[2:23:07] would be better if we left it the same.
[2:23:11] >> Any other comments?
[2:23:13] >> Um I think Council Member Morgan Stern,
[2:23:15] you made some really good points on
[2:23:18] this. Um you know, I've come to
[2:23:19] understand the benefits of having the
[2:23:22] option for a stipen. I would ask my
[2:23:24] fellow council members to reconsider the
[2:23:26] option to opt out. Um
[2:23:31] and uh just want to
[2:23:34] really go back to our last meeting that
[2:23:38] um there was a um outburst of expletives
[2:23:42] made by our mayor that was quoted in the
[2:23:44] press Democrat and I would like to ask you to really explain what you meant
[2:23:50] uh by the quote it's the white guys or
[2:23:53] it's the guys up here that are doing
[2:23:55] everything they can to make sure
[2:23:56] Cloverdale makes it through. I would
[2:23:58] absolutely love to explain that. That
[2:24:00] was totally taken out of context and
[2:24:02] that was not what was said. What was
[2:24:03] said in the outburst was is and I'm
[2:24:06] going to say it again since the age of
[2:24:08] 10 when I'm continually told up here
[2:24:10] that [laughter] hey, you guys are the
[2:24:12] privileged white guys up here. No,
[2:24:14] that's not it. What we've done is busted
[2:24:16] I've busted my ass since I was 10 years
[2:24:18] old. And uh like I said, I'm going to do
[2:24:21] say the exact same thing. We don't have
[2:24:23] your crony here to re unquote stuff. So,
[2:24:26] um, bottom line is I wish my father was
[2:24:28] here. I've been driving a shovel since I
[2:24:30] was 10 and I've earned absolutely
[2:24:32] everything I got. So, when you say,
[2:24:33] "Hey, oh, these guys with a pension, you
[2:24:35] know how you get a pension? You earn
[2:24:36] it." And that's exactly what I did. So,
[2:24:39] for the misquote in the press, Democrat,
[2:24:41] that's great. If you read that rag,
[2:24:42] that's good. But the bottom line is I
[2:24:44] did not say it's the white guys making
[2:24:46] things happen up here. Totally taken out
[2:24:48] of context and that's completely untrue
[2:24:50] on the record. There you go.
[2:24:52] >> Okay. And I'll just continue my comment.
[2:24:54] Um, the quote was your actual words. You
[2:24:57] did say it was the white guys. Um,
[2:25:00] nobody mentioned race in this
[2:25:02] discussion. And so that's where I'm
[2:25:05] curious about why you brought up race.
[2:25:08] The conversation was about diversity.
[2:25:11] And diversity means diversity of
[2:25:12] opinion. Uh when you certainly see a
[2:25:15] group of three council members who don't
[2:25:19] um delegate in public, it gives a
[2:25:23] perception that there's a group. So um
[2:25:26] I'm going to ask you a question about
[2:25:27] the group that you mentioned as the
[2:25:29] white guys. Um am I included in that
[2:25:31] group?
[2:25:37] » Um it was your actual words, but if you
[2:25:39] can speak on the mic.
[2:25:42] I'm not going to engage with you. Your
[2:25:44] intention was to come here and stir the
[2:25:46] pot tonight like it always is at most
[2:25:47] council meetings. So, that's where I'm
[2:25:49] at.
[2:25:50] >> So, I'll I'll read my I'll read my
[2:25:51] questions. I'll read my questions out
[2:25:53] loud. The questions I have for the mayor
[2:25:56] about his comment about the group of
[2:25:59] white guys when nobody mentioned race
[2:26:01] during the meeting is I wonder am I
[2:26:03] included in that group?
[2:26:06] >> Is council member excuse me?
[2:26:08] >> Sure you are. I don't see anything else.
[2:26:11] I see people up here and I did not say
[2:26:13] that.
[2:26:13] >> So, when you said it's the white guys
[2:26:15] getting everything done, were you
[2:26:16] excluding Council Member Morgan Stern as
[2:26:17] a woman?
[2:26:20] >> These are my question because race was
[2:26:22] never mentioned. And um
[2:26:25] do all members of your described
[2:26:27] grouping live up to the required
[2:26:30] responsibilities of the city council?
[2:26:33] And I would like to see our list of
[2:26:36] responsibilities that our city clerk put
[2:26:38] out in our candidates handbook. And I
[2:26:40] just want to read the responsibilities.
[2:26:42] Um, so this isn't about pay. This is
[2:26:45] about the work that we should all do,
[2:26:46] whether we're getting paid $0, $5, 300,
[2:26:50] or, you know, 950. Uh, the
[2:26:53] responsibilities of our city council are
[2:26:55] to review agenda materials and prepare
[2:26:57] for meetings.
[2:26:59] Review agenda materials and prepare.
[2:27:03] Participation in open and transparent
[2:27:05] decisionmaking.
[2:27:08] open and transparent decision-making
[2:27:12] to listen to residents, businesses, and
[2:27:15] community stakeholders.
[2:27:18] And I just want to call out the June
[2:27:20] 10th meeting uh during our budget
[2:27:22] adoption at 3 hours and 45 minutes and
[2:27:26] 50 seconds. deliberation was done
[2:27:30] not publicly but very visibly
[2:27:34] between council members to push the
[2:27:37] budget forward when we still had another
[2:27:40] meeting to deliberate. So we had half
[2:27:43] this room filled up with members of the
[2:27:45] public that were not listened to and
[2:27:48] deliberation was not done transparently.
[2:27:51] Um, also the other then and and that
[2:27:54] goes to responsibility listed here.
[2:27:56] Number five,
[2:27:58] follow the Brown Act and ethical
[2:28:00] governance requirements.
[2:28:03] And also number four, work
[2:28:05] collaboratively with fellow council
[2:28:07] members and staff. And
[2:28:10] I don't see our council living up to
[2:28:11] those responsibilities. I hope they can.
[2:28:16] So, it's not about pay, but it's about
[2:28:18] the work that we are appointed, elected
[2:28:20] to do that we should live up to do that
[2:28:23] work. And you know, if if cutting your
[2:28:27] pay
[2:28:28] gives you some type of credit, let's
[2:28:30] look at the work that's being done and
[2:28:32] that we should live up to the
[2:28:33] responsibilities that we're here to
[2:28:35] perform for the residents of this
[2:28:36] community.
[2:28:39] And the other question I would have for
[2:28:40] the mayor is, did you vote to raise the
[2:28:43] stipen for your time on council?
[2:28:47] >> Yes, I did.
[2:28:48] >> Okay. And my my final question to you
[2:28:50] is, are you voting to lower the stipen
[2:28:53] now that you don't seek re-election?
[2:28:55] >> No, I was voting to lower the stipen.
[2:28:58] And the my thought precipice behind
[2:29:00] lowering the stipen is we had a council
[2:29:02] member uh after that budget meeting that
[2:29:04] I guess wasn't transparent but was
[2:29:06] scheduled and was open to the public
[2:29:08] went around pretty much and and talked
[2:29:10] to most nonprofits there which I think
[2:29:12] should be uh maybe funded uh they should
[2:29:16] go out and it shouldn't be one of those
[2:29:18] hey I'm going to hold out my hand and
[2:29:19] Cloverdale's got money and and we're
[2:29:21] going to we're going to go ahead and
[2:29:22] fill it with Cloverdale money is is why
[2:29:24] I was like okay no problem. So, as a
[2:29:27] public servant, what I wanted to do was
[2:29:28] like, okay, so if we're going to fund
[2:29:30] some things and we've already committed
[2:29:32] to funding those things, then let's go
[2:29:34] as a public servant and take some of our
[2:29:36] money and let's go ahead and lower us.
[2:29:38] Then we have the money and we can fund
[2:29:40] these nonprofits that were guaranteed
[2:29:41] money.
[2:29:45] » I'm not sure what you just said. It was
[2:29:46] kind of a babble, but uh u you know,
[2:29:48] when you're working on a budget, there's
[2:29:50] no commitment there until it's passed.
[2:29:53] The budget was passed three to two.
[2:29:55] Deliberation was done in private on
[2:29:58] camera and you can see that at the June
[2:30:01] 10th meeting at 3 hours 45 minutes and
[2:30:04] 50 seconds. It was a Brown Act violation
[2:30:06] recorded. So check it out, [snorts]
[2:30:10] you know, and and going to talk to our
[2:30:12] community to find out what the needs are
[2:30:14] and if there's some organizations
[2:30:16] struggling. Is there an issue with that?
[2:30:19] Is it is it beneficial to our community
[2:30:21] to fund organizations that are putting
[2:30:23] $15,000 in their reserves when people
[2:30:26] are not being fed in this community? And
[2:30:29] you and you you you mentioned the food
[2:30:30] pantry at the last meeting. You haven't
[2:30:33] stepped a foot inside the food pantry.
[2:30:36] Uh actually I have and that was while I
[2:30:38] was working with the city and I wondered
[2:30:39] why when we had all the homeless folks
[2:30:41] in town and I was actually working with
[2:30:44] the city picking up trash and mowing
[2:30:45] lawn mowing the parks for the city and I
[2:30:48] actually drove over there and said why
[2:30:50] are you guys is there any way you can
[2:30:53] not and waste this food that you're
[2:30:54] wasting right now because you're giving
[2:30:56] it to folks that you know cannot or have
[2:30:58] the ability to cook it. So what happened
[2:31:01] was almost every Monday, Wednesday, and
[2:31:03] Friday, I would walk down and or
[2:31:05] whenever the food distribution was and
[2:31:07] I'd find boxes of food in the planters
[2:31:11] if I put my hand on them.
[2:31:13] >> Mr. Mayor, point of order.
[2:31:14] >> Y,
[2:31:14] >> we're getting way off topic with this
[2:31:16] and we need to get back in line with
[2:31:18] what the agenda item is, please.
[2:31:20] >> Thank you.
[2:31:32] I think this is a good idea uh based on
[2:31:34] size of our city and our budget that we
[2:31:39] give more money back to the community
[2:31:40] than to ourselves because this is not a
[2:31:42] position to make money on if it's going
[2:31:45] to affect elections. We currently have
[2:31:48] five women and four men that are seeking
[2:31:51] seats. They average from I I think late
[2:31:55] 20s into their 70s. So we have a pretty
[2:31:59] good different demographic. Uh you can
[2:32:02] do it age, race, and gender. And so this
[2:32:05] is a great a group of people that are
[2:32:07] running for election for 2026. And it is
[2:32:10] not based on the pay. So obviously that
[2:32:12] doesn't make a difference. And so I'm
[2:32:14] excited for this.
[2:32:20] So when I when I ran for office, I did I
[2:32:24] did so under the guise that I wanted to
[2:32:27] know where my tax dollars were going. I
[2:32:30] had no idea what the compensation was
[2:32:32] and and that was not a goal for me at
[2:32:35] all. Uh, like I said, I would rather do this for free and make
[2:32:40] an impact and not be here to uh, you
[2:32:45] know, as they say, ride the pine and
[2:32:48] just take the compensation. Uh, it's uh,
[2:32:51] it's a thankless job indeed. And then
[2:32:54] you have to have somewhat of a passion
[2:32:56] to help your community uh, to do this
[2:32:58] job. So, like I said, I I I didn't get
[2:33:01] off the couch to uh
[2:33:05] get any kind of compensation for what uh
[2:33:07] what I can lend to the city. So, there's
[2:33:10] that.
[2:33:18] The last thing I'm going to say is we're
[2:33:21] not here to be supported by the
[2:33:22] community. We're here to support the
[2:33:24] community and do what we can. So, I
[2:33:26] think it's backwards thinking to think
[2:33:27] that we should be uh getting as much pay
[2:33:30] as possible versus uh doing a public
[2:33:32] service like this position is created
[2:33:34] for.
[2:33:37] » I think this whole thing was weaponized.
[2:33:39] You brought it up, Todd, at the budget
[2:33:42] meeting. You got that far away from my
[2:33:44] face when you said it and then our
[2:33:46] attorney over there was smirking and
[2:33:48] smiling like this was all planned out.
[2:33:50] So, I just think let's be transparent
[2:33:52] and let the public know exactly what
[2:33:54] happened. Absolutely. In 2024, I voted
[2:33:57] against this. I've never supported it.
[2:33:59] We should have never been making $950
[2:34:02] and I still don't support it. And so,
[2:34:03] the second that we it was brought back
[2:34:05] to us as a possibility, I brought it up
[2:34:07] again. That's exactly how it worked. It
[2:34:09] was not in your face. It was not
[2:34:11] vindictive. It was that we do not take
[2:34:15] this position in public service to
[2:34:18] profit. We do it to help our community.
[2:34:21] Well, then you should have donated your
[2:34:23] salary this whole two years, but you
[2:34:25] didn't. And you say that you give the
[2:34:27] city $1,000 a month, but you have no
[2:34:29] receipts.
[2:34:29] >> I'm not going to go down said he spent
[2:34:31] $140 on candy. It's all just
[2:34:37] » All right. So,
[2:34:39] go ahead.
[2:34:40] >> Do we have any public comment on this?
[2:34:43] Yeah, come on down.
[2:34:58] All the years that I was on council, we
[2:35:00] got 200 or 300 bucks. That was it. Um,
[2:35:04] it didn't even cover gas to meetings.
[2:35:06] We're in Cloverdale here, long ways from
[2:35:10] a lot of the meetings you have to go to.
[2:35:12] And gas is very expensive. You're
[2:35:15] eliminating a whole class of people by
[2:35:17] lowering this the way it is. Every town
[2:35:20] around here is going to be 950 shortly.
[2:35:23] So, you look at that and you think,
[2:35:25] okay, so what is it that you get if you
[2:35:27] go run for council? Um, I don't know the
[2:35:30] public public really knows that, but you
[2:35:32] get medical. You get your medical paid
[2:35:35] for or most of it paid for. Then you get
[2:35:39] this stipen which in my case was very
[2:35:41] little but you also get the ability to
[2:35:44] turn in receipts.
[2:35:46] Have any of you ever turned a receipt in
[2:35:49] for a hotel, for gasoline, for the big
[2:35:53] uh group things that you guys go to?
[2:35:55] Like when you went down to Southern
[2:35:58] California, did anybody turn in a hotel?
[2:36:00] Was the city did the city pay for that
[2:36:02] hotel when you guys went down there?
[2:36:04] >> I would I would really ask that you uh
[2:36:06] comment on that. Michael, since you're
[2:36:07] in charge, could you tell how many
[2:36:08] receipts I've turned in the last six
[2:36:09] years?
[2:36:11] >> I don't have those records in front of
[2:36:12] me, but I can tell you it's very
[2:36:14] minimal, if at all.
[2:36:15] >> Our hotels are paid ahead of time, like
[2:36:18] Mike P.
[2:36:18] >> So, you have paid
[2:36:19] >> I will state for for conferences. Uh
[2:36:22] council typically uh I mean the the city
[2:36:24] typically through the council's budget,
[2:36:26] which is adopted in their budget.
[2:36:28] >> So, there you go. You did claim you did
[2:36:30] >> I did not I have never turned in a
[2:36:32] single receipt, not for one.
[2:36:34] >> I'm not saying that you turned a receipt
[2:36:35] in. What I'm saying is
[2:36:37] >> reimbured for conference council um is
[2:36:40] we pay for their conferences
[2:36:43] um as far as reimbursement for travel
[2:36:45] which means hotel, airplanes or driving.
[2:36:49] That is what the council typically
[2:36:51] submits their receipts for. We have a
[2:36:52] travel and advance policy. Um but to
[2:36:55] address uh council member Lan's
[2:36:57] question, he has not submitted any of
[2:37:00] those for for tra
[2:37:02] >> but he has stayed in hotels that were
[2:37:04] paid for at
[2:37:05] >> travel or hotels.
[2:37:08] >> Not I'd have to look at the record. I
[2:37:09] can't speak to it without looking but
[2:37:10] nothing has been.
[2:37:11] >> Okay. So I'm not just looking at you
[2:37:14] have any of you guys in receipt credit
[2:37:17] card. We didn't pay for our
[2:37:18] >> anybody.
[2:37:19] >> Correct. It depends on the
[2:37:21] >> run your question by me again. area.
[2:37:22] >> Have you ever turned a receipt for
[2:37:24] reimbursement?
[2:37:24] >> I've turned in one reimbursement
[2:37:26] receipt.
[2:37:26] >> Okay. So, you did even pay for you paid
[2:37:28] for all. Can
[2:37:29] >> we maybe have a question? Finish the
[2:37:32] comment and then the council can answer
[2:37:34] so it's not so much back and forth.
[2:37:36] >> Well, what I feel like you're doing here
[2:37:38] is and if you guys want to give like I
[2:37:41] chose not to turn receipts in. That was
[2:37:43] my choice.
[2:37:44] >> I was running a business. I had, you
[2:37:46] know, I was comfortable. I didn't feel
[2:37:48] like I had to. But by doing this, you're
[2:37:50] eliminating a whole class of people. And
[2:37:52] that bothers me because there's a lot of
[2:37:55] people in this town that I know that are
[2:37:57] very bright, brighter than me, brighter
[2:37:59] than all of you guys who would not run
[2:38:02] just purely because they can't afford
[2:38:04] to. So I I really it really makes me
[2:38:09] think that you're trying to just be the
[2:38:11] three or four white guys up there
[2:38:13] running everything. And that really
[2:38:16] bothers me that you won't give another
[2:38:19] group a chance. If you guys want to just
[2:38:21] say, "No, I'm not going to take it."
[2:38:24] Great. But don't make other people go by
[2:38:26] what you want cuz that's not fair. And I
[2:38:31] just find it sort of disgusting the way
[2:38:33] the game that you guys are playing. And
[2:38:35] the public is really about had it.
[2:38:41] » Any other public comment? [applause]
[2:38:43] Council,
[2:38:46] if I can for the record, just to clarify
[2:38:48] my statement, there is um the
[2:38:50] opportunity for the city will often pay
[2:38:52] for conferences and hotels. Um but it is
[2:38:56] up to the council members for mileage
[2:38:57] reimbursement. There's an entire travel
[2:38:59] and advance policy and I do suggest any
[2:39:01] members of the public or council to
[2:39:03] submit a public records request and we
[2:39:05] can get those records.
[2:39:06] >> When we went to Sacramento, you put
[2:39:07] everything on a credit card, including
[2:39:09] our hotel and the convention and all our
[2:39:12] food. So there you have it.
[2:39:21] » Go ahead, Jennifer.
[2:39:23] >> So
[2:39:24] what I remember from the last meeting
[2:39:27] where this this conversation came up was
[2:39:29] that it was that like Cloverdale had
[2:39:32] designated it disability month or
[2:39:35] something like that. I can't remember
[2:39:36] the exact name. And Marjorie
[2:39:40] had had said during this meeting like at
[2:39:43] some point that this money makes a
[2:39:45] difference for her. Like I mean she just
[2:39:48] came out publicly and and said this. And
[2:39:53] I don't understand. It's really hard for
[2:39:55] me to like grasp why three members or
[2:39:59] people would like just right in front of
[2:40:02] her face [laughter]
[2:40:04] take that away from her when there is a
[2:40:06] viable option to just give your pay back
[2:40:10] to the city. And I don't know if
[2:40:14] [laughter]
[2:40:14] [applause]
[2:40:15] >> it doesn't make sense.
[2:40:17] >> I don't I don't know. I mean, I feel
[2:40:18] like it's it's it's a it's an easy
[2:40:20] solution. Um, I don't know anybody who
[2:40:23] can live off of $900 or who's going to
[2:40:25] be like, you know, rolling through town
[2:40:27] in like a Porsche or like a Land Rover
[2:40:29] like, "Woohoo! Look at my council
[2:40:31] money." Um,
[2:40:33] I think it it's it's and then the other
[2:40:36] part of it too is there is this this
[2:40:39] impression that it's devaluing what you
[2:40:42] guys do.
[2:40:44] It's devaluing
[2:40:46] how important the work is that you do.
[2:40:49] and you are very fortunate that and it
[2:40:52] is this isn't to say that like that that
[2:40:54] you haven't worked hard but I mean my
[2:40:56] goodness would I love a pension um like to be in that position is a a
[2:41:03] blessed one and it's it has nothing to
[2:41:05] do with like you know you not working
[2:41:07] hard and and all that like it's not
[2:41:10] everybody's in that position for a
[2:41:11] variety of different reasons and like if a single mom wanted to run um yeah I think it devalues what you guys do.
[2:41:21] And I think that the solution to just
[2:41:23] give back your your salary, it's it's
[2:41:26] easy and we wouldn't be all here
[2:41:28] fighting. And I just I don't know what
[2:41:30] else to say, but it it really broke my
[2:41:32] heart because
[2:41:34] yeah, I mean, this is a fellow council
[2:41:36] member and I feel like you guys all
[2:41:38] should be taking care of each other. And
[2:41:40] by doing that, you're looking out for
[2:41:41] Cloverdale.
[2:41:43] [applause]
[2:41:54] I wasn't here to witness what happened,
[2:41:56] but when I consider what other positions
[2:42:01] of this city are making, why isn't why
[2:42:04] aren't other people skimming off the top
[2:42:06] of their salaries?
[2:42:15] Do we have any other public comment?
[2:42:19] Okay, I'm seeing none.
[2:42:22] [snorts]
[2:42:23] Any comments from the council?
[2:42:24] >> Yes, thank you, mayor. Um, just want to
[2:42:29] ask my fellow council members to
[2:42:30] reconsider their vote. Um, I think this
[2:42:34] amount of pay doesn't make us a better
[2:42:36] council members. Um, I think this
[2:42:40] decision doesn't make us a better
[2:42:42] council. Um,
[2:42:46] you know, personally, I did bring this
[2:42:48] issue up to reduce the pay. Uh, when I
[2:42:51] was first on council, I thought that,
[2:42:53] uh, you know, like maybe some council
[2:42:55] members are in this for the money. Um,
[2:42:58] I've come to change my opinion on that.
[2:43:00] It's not because I need the money. Uh,
[2:43:02] but I don't want to limit somebody else
[2:43:04] who does. Uh, I think it's the option to
[2:43:07] opt out is great. If there's um four of
[2:43:11] us that are opting out or give give that
[2:43:13] money back and and and one person needs
[2:43:15] it, it's not going to affect the budget
[2:43:17] that much. Um, I I I could tell you even
[2:43:21] that extra money allows me to do so much
[2:43:23] more work in a month. um you know,
[2:43:26] taking two weeks off to paint a mural at
[2:43:30] Washington Gym, you know, taking two
[2:43:33] weeks off to paint the interior of the
[2:43:34] Graange,
[2:43:36] you know, um I wouldn't be able to do
[2:43:38] that without just that was enough money
[2:43:40] I can go get a sandwich down at Eagle's
[2:43:42] Nest and that's it. And I would work my
[2:43:45] butt off for the next two weeks that
[2:43:47] month to to cover my bills. So,
[2:43:51] >> [clears throat]
[2:43:51] >> um I I
[2:43:54] would just ask my fellow council to
[2:43:58] reconsider their decision.
[2:44:01] Let's amend this to give us the option
[2:44:05] to opt out and give the ability to
[2:44:08] others
[2:44:09] that might need this money to to do this
[2:44:12] role.
[2:44:15] And and that's my ask.
[2:44:17] [applause]
[2:44:24] Um, I do have another comment to make.
[2:44:26] Um, the single raise for one staff
[2:44:29] member completely eclipses the small
[2:44:32] amount saved by cutting the stipens of
[2:44:34] the entire elected council. Performative
[2:44:37] versus impactful savings. Um, I just
[2:44:40] feel like this whole thing's a big drama
[2:44:43] created by the vice mayor and he was
[2:44:46] that far away from my face. When he said
[2:44:48] it, it was meant to hurt. And um I just
[2:44:51] think it it's a huge drama and the
[2:44:54] council needs to come together rather
[2:44:56] than three people constantly deciding
[2:44:58] what the hell's going to happen on every
[2:45:00] issue. It's not right. and it's like
[2:45:03] turned into a dictatorship and then they
[2:45:05] sit there and moralize about it and say,
[2:45:07] "Oh, I worked hard my whole life." Well,
[2:45:10] other people have worked hard their
[2:45:11] whole lives as well.
[2:45:13] >> Yeah.
[2:45:23] » I will gladly make a motion to wave the
[2:45:26] second reading and adopt an ordinance
[2:45:27] amending Cloverly Municipal Code section
[2:45:30] 2.04.0. 010.
[2:45:33] >> Do I need to read the whole thing? Keep
[2:45:34] going.
[2:45:35] >> Just Yeah, just
[2:45:36] >> compensation for council members to
[2:45:38] decrease council member compensation to
[2:45:39] the specified amount per month of $300.
[2:45:47] » Second.
[2:45:49] >> All in favor say I.
[2:45:51] >> No.
[2:45:52] >> I. In favor say I.
[2:45:54] >> I.
[2:45:55] >> No.
[2:45:56] >> All oppose say nay.
[2:45:58] >> No.
[2:45:59] Motion fails. Three to two.
[2:46:04] [applause]
[2:46:15] » Thank you, mayor.
[2:46:17] Um, there was an item that we didn't
[2:46:19] list on tonight's agenda, introducing
[2:46:21] our new assistant city manager, Eric
[2:46:24] Sanders.
[2:46:25] >> We still have other action items on my
[2:46:28] agenda. Yeah, we're
[2:46:33] » the
[2:46:34] >> All right, let's get into next item is
[2:46:37] uh H1
[2:46:39] consider the prior say prior consider
[2:46:43] the prioritized water resiliency
[2:46:45] projects list and its relationship to
[2:46:46] the FY 26 through31 capital improvement
[2:46:49] program for proposed water [snorts]
[2:46:51] rates. Again, ER uh Derek is out ill, so
[2:46:55] Eric has volunteered to um to go over
[2:46:58] this one. This was a request of the
[2:46:59] council, I think a couple maybe last
[2:47:02] meeting or the meeting before to review
[2:47:04] what we've put together as a uh
[2:47:06] potential water uh resiliency list. And
[2:47:10] uh the list some of the projects are in
[2:47:13] this year. I I'll let you talk about it,
[2:47:14] Eric, but um it's it's really a list
[2:47:18] that we want to have at the ready in
[2:47:20] case PG& money comes along as the part
[2:47:24] of the dam removal or other grants. We
[2:47:26] want to just identify these projects.
[2:47:29] And uh I'll just leave it there, Eric,
[2:47:30] if you want to talk about them or
[2:47:32] >> Sure. Thank you. Um first of all, I
[2:47:35] wanted to introduce myself. I'm Eric
[2:47:38] Sanders. I'm the assistant city manager
[2:47:40] here. Thank you. Um, mayor and council.
[2:47:45] Um, Mike, if you could put the
[2:47:48] slide up on there.
[2:47:50] >> Is there a presentation on this item?
[2:47:52] >> It's the one that looks like this
[2:47:54] spreadsheet.
[2:47:56] >> One sec.
[2:47:58] So anyway, while he's getting that
[2:47:59] outenda, I wanted to uh just reiterate
[2:48:03] that this item presents the updated and
[2:48:06] prioritized water resiliency projects
[2:48:08] list that was originally developed by
[2:48:11] West Yos back in 2025 to identify
[2:48:14] projects that would improve the
[2:48:16] reliability and resiliency of our water
[2:48:18] system, particularly given the
[2:48:21] uncertainty surrounding the Potter
[2:48:23] Valley project. And the intent was to
[2:48:26] identify projects that may or may not be
[2:48:29] on the capital improvement plan, but
[2:48:32] projects in general that in the event
[2:48:35] some sort of funding would become
[2:48:38] available that we could just turn to the
[2:48:40] list and say, "Okay, what's number one?
[2:48:43] What's number two? What what are the
[2:48:44] things that we want to do in order to
[2:48:46] bolster our our um our our water
[2:48:49] resiliency?" So, at the council's
[2:48:53] direction, staff prioritize those
[2:48:55] projects based primarily on the timing
[2:48:58] in the fiscal year category in the CIP,
[2:49:03] although I understand some of them
[2:49:04] aren't CIP projects like I said before,
[2:49:08] but they are prioritized by the timeline
[2:49:11] there. You can see in that column 26 to
[2:49:14] 28, you know, and so on and so forth.
[2:49:17] And uh that was sort of was our
[2:49:21] the way that we prioritized these for
[2:49:23] the council to say, okay, if and when
[2:49:26] this funding does become available,
[2:49:29] here's where we start. And if you look
[2:49:31] at the list here, the ones at the top
[2:49:34] are primarily CIP projects.
[2:49:38] Um, and as you go work your way down the
[2:49:41] list, uh, you'll see that the next group
[2:49:44] is for projects that are fully budgeted
[2:49:48] in the previous year and then finished
[2:49:51] projects that have been completed and
[2:49:54] then at the bottom are projects that are
[2:49:58] on the list as uh, priorities. However,
[2:50:01] they have not been budgeted in the CIP.
[2:50:05] So, um, I guess what we're asking
[2:50:08] tonight is for council to receive the
[2:50:10] updated list, review the priorities and
[2:50:12] funding categories, and provide
[2:50:14] direction to staff on whether the
[2:50:16] council agrees with the proposed
[2:50:19] prioritization.
[2:50:21] >> And I think we want to keep working on
[2:50:24] this list. This is kind of a first go at
[2:50:26] it. And um so again, I think really
[2:50:32] as Eric said, not to repeat what you
[2:50:34] said, but you know, as as funding comes
[2:50:36] down, we want to we want to be ready for
[2:50:37] that as best we can, but I think our
[2:50:39] goal really is to have you review it,
[2:50:41] start amending it, maybe we forgot
[2:50:43] something, maybe something should come
[2:50:45] off, but maybe this is like an ongoing
[2:50:47] thing, kind of like the streets.
[2:50:49] >> Um can I add a comment, mayor?
[2:50:54] Thank you. Um, just want to thank you,
[2:50:57] uh, Eric Sanders, assistant city
[2:50:59] manager, uh, for getting this out so
[2:51:01] quick. I mean, this was at our last
[2:51:03] meeting. It was just very recent. So, I
[2:51:05] appreciate the work. Um, and, uh, the
[2:51:08] idea about this list, I think it's going
[2:51:10] to be an evolving list. Um, my thoughts
[2:51:13] behind it, it's an important tool to
[2:51:15] obtain funding and clarify goals to take
[2:51:18] full advantage of funding opportunity
[2:51:20] windows as they can arise. Um
[2:51:24] my my thoughts about the list also is to
[2:51:27] uh reach out to prospective funders or
[2:51:30] uh partners to see how we can improve
[2:51:31] the list because I think that's uh we
[2:51:33] need to make the list that's going to
[2:51:34] work for people that would potentially
[2:51:36] fund or help us find funding. Um that
[2:51:38] would include uh North Coast Regional
[2:51:40] Partnership, you know, potentially PG&E.
[2:51:44] Um you know, even there's environmental
[2:51:46] groups that want to see us
[2:51:49] uh have some water resiliency. um within our our city. So um the thoughts
[2:51:55] about the list that I have um you know
[2:51:57] these are really pertaining to our
[2:51:59] municipality. Um I think you know in the
[2:52:03] future expanding this to um
[2:52:07] uh include uh potential studies of
[2:52:12] groundwater recharge and possibly that
[2:52:16] might be um you know getting a little
[2:52:20] far ahead but I think it's something
[2:52:21] that we need to start working on is like
[2:52:23] you know regional solutions uh with with
[2:52:25] groundwater recharge since we share our
[2:52:28] subbasins with other um jurisic ictions
[2:52:31] and some of them are defined, some not.
[2:52:33] Um I think that you know recharging
[2:52:36] those subbasins would probably be a
[2:52:37] regional effort potentially as well. So
[2:52:41] um I appreciate your work on this.
[2:52:43] >> Thank you. Thank you.
[2:52:46] >> I just want to say that I'm really
[2:52:48] excited about this list. Um I know
[2:52:50] there's more work to be done besides
[2:52:52] this list, but at least it's a move in
[2:52:54] the right direction.
[2:52:58] » Eric, welcome aboard. Thanks for the
[2:53:00] presentation. I appreciate the the work
[2:53:03] hitting the ground running. That's
[2:53:05] awesome. Uh maybe we can look at to
[2:53:08] council member Marquez's uh statement
[2:53:10] there as we go into DD funding. We can
[2:53:13] try to get some bioailes uh for
[2:53:16] groundwater recharge as as an overall uh
[2:53:20] plan for you know our our water
[2:53:23] resiliency. But uh great first steps.
[2:53:26] Thank you.
[2:53:28] We could definitely add that to the list
[2:53:31] and or at least look into uh what it
[2:53:34] would take to get those types of studies
[2:53:36] started.
[2:53:40] » Yeah, welcome aboard, Eric. I'm hoping
[2:53:41] we do a whole uh kumbaya session at our
[2:53:45] next meeting for you. Take some pictures
[2:53:47] for the paper. U however, this list was
[2:53:50] a little history lesson. list was
[2:53:52] created uh when I was working with a
[2:53:55] group to get a department of uh what is
[2:53:58] it fish and what was it fish and
[2:54:01] wildlife
[2:54:01] >> fish and wildlife department of fish and
[2:54:03] wildlife Chuck Bonham was the head of
[2:54:04] the state appointed by Governor Nuomo
[2:54:07] and he was coming here and uh working
[2:54:09] with us and debating with us regarding
[2:54:11] the Potter Valley project uh when he saw
[2:54:14] the predicament that we would be in
[2:54:15] after listening to us he asked for a
[2:54:18] list and that's what this list started
[2:54:19] from they were in no particular order and we did that on
[2:54:23] purpose because of cost and we didn't
[2:54:25] know what each thing would cost or how
[2:54:27] much money he would be willing to uh
[2:54:29] give us in certain ways for grants. Uh
[2:54:32] there was a lot of grant funding with
[2:54:34] reservoir bonds that the state had that
[2:54:37] he gave us zero dollars and nobody was
[2:54:39] getting any bonds or bond money for
[2:54:41] reservoirs. It was all going towards
[2:54:43] rehabilitation of creeks. So what we did
[2:54:46] is we created this list and worked with
[2:54:48] the the state to uh pick out some
[2:54:52] projects. Uh two of the projects that
[2:54:54] we've been funded through him and
[2:54:56] through us at the that committee uh was
[2:54:59] uh purchasing water out of Lake Mescino
[2:55:02] to help supplement us when we are having
[2:55:04] our drought or curtailments or even just
[2:55:06] low on water at the end of the summer.
[2:55:08] And the second one is for aquafer
[2:55:10] recharge and deeper wells and finding
[2:55:12] the geological areas that we can
[2:55:14] actually have those. Uh so those two
[2:55:16] things are not on this list, but that is
[2:55:18] what that was created for. There's some
[2:55:20] good stuff that we can add to this, but
[2:55:22] I really don't want us to be like 1
[2:55:24] through 10 is all we're going to do
[2:55:26] because we need this needs to be a fluid
[2:55:27] document. We need to know if we have
[2:55:29] $150,000 to spend, we can go to number
[2:55:31] eight
[2:55:32] >> and not say we're going to stick that in
[2:55:33] the bank until we can do number one.
[2:55:35] >> So thank you for your hard work on this.
[2:55:37] I appreciate uh making a a solid list of
[2:55:40] what we've already accomplished uh what
[2:55:42] we look forward to doing, but there's a
[2:55:43] couple things that we should add is
[2:55:45] making sure that we are uh completing
[2:55:47] the studies for the water purchase and
[2:55:49] completing the studies for the geologic
[2:55:51] conditions for the aquifer recharge.
[2:55:54] >> Thank you, Vice Mayor. I also wanted to
[2:55:56] point out there is a column on here that
[2:55:59] is titled estimated cost. And even
[2:56:02] though this list isn't necessarily
[2:56:05] prioritized by cost,
[2:56:08] it does have se several categories here.
[2:56:10] Low, medium, and high. And I know that
[2:56:13] the folks over at West Yos put this
[2:56:15] together. I believe the low category of
[2:56:19] cost are projects that cost less than
[2:56:23] 100,000. Medium would be 100,000 to 1
[2:56:26] million. And then the high category
[2:56:28] would be any project over 1 million. So,
[2:56:32] it'd be relatively easy for the council
[2:56:34] to take a look at these and say, "Okay,
[2:56:36] well, you know, we just got a grant for
[2:56:39] 250,000.
[2:56:41] One on here is in that price range. Oh,
[2:56:44] this is medium. Okay, here they are."
[2:56:47] So,
[2:56:48] >> thank you,
[2:56:50] >> Eric. Thanks for uh coming on board.
[2:56:52] Awesome presentation. Uh yeah, we've this list is
[2:56:58] uh an ever ever evolving animal here.
[2:57:00] It's going to be continually updated.
[2:57:02] But the frustration I have with this is when I look at number one on CIP's
[2:57:08] Cherry Creek South Crest Reservoir as in
[2:57:11] design and seems like I've been hearing
[2:57:14] in design for about two years now.
[2:57:18] So, um I know after talking to a lot of
[2:57:21] the folks at the water plant and I know
[2:57:23] they're they're scrambling. They're patchworking things together.
[2:57:26] They need they need some stuff done. We
[2:57:28] need co uh tanks coated. We need contact
[2:57:30] tanks. We need everything to keep it
[2:57:33] running in order. And that's my
[2:57:34] frustration with this. I understand it's
[2:57:36] a funding thing,
[2:57:38] >> but I think priority-wise and and I see
[2:57:40] some of them are high and that's
[2:57:42] probably why they're in design. There's
[2:57:43] a lot of money here. Um this is but like
[2:57:46] I said this has been kicked around since
[2:57:48] the previous uh city manager and it
[2:57:51] seemed like we did study after study and by the time we got to
[2:57:55] the fourth study it was just the same
[2:57:57] one as the first study and it was kind
[2:57:58] of kicked down the road. I don't want to
[2:58:00] see that happen. I want to see actually
[2:58:02] pick some of these off um and actually
[2:58:05] get them completed and put a little more
[2:58:08] oomph into uh West Yoast if we need to
[2:58:10] and say, "Hey, what's going on? Let's
[2:58:12] kick this let's keep this going. Let's
[2:58:14] get it going faster. What how can we put
[2:58:17] pressure on people? How can the design
[2:58:19] go quicker? How can we get this to
[2:58:20] approval and get it going? And that's
[2:58:23] just uh good for Cloverdale across the
[2:58:25] board. Whether it's pressure in zone
[2:58:26] one, Cherry Creek, it's I mean there's,
[2:58:29] you know, the water plan as good as
[2:58:31] anybody, but you know what needs to be
[2:58:33] done. So anyway, thanks for the list,
[2:58:35] but we really need to kick some of these
[2:58:36] down and kind of uh veer away from
[2:58:38] studies if we don't need them, if
[2:58:40] they're being repeated and concentrate
[2:58:42] on the studies we need that are going to
[2:58:43] fix Cloverdale, Menescino water
[2:58:45] purchase. Those are the studies that are
[2:58:47] needed. But it's more studies on these
[2:58:49] continuing projects is just frivolous. I
[2:58:51] mean, just wasting our time.
[2:58:54] >> Understood. Thank you.
[2:58:55] >> Yep.
[2:58:59] Great work. I mean,
[2:59:02] we're we're going to introduce our
[2:59:04] assistant manager at maybe the next
[2:59:05] meeting, but you know, the last three
[2:59:06] weeks, uh, jumping into this and our
[2:59:09] conversations around our water
[2:59:11] resiliency, you know, we had a fire
[2:59:13] potential fire risk a couple weeks ago
[2:59:15] and, you know, jumping on that in the
[2:59:17] middle of the night. Um, just excited to
[2:59:20] seeing this and just, you
[2:59:23] really appreciate it.
[2:59:24] >> You're very welcome. This is my town
[2:59:26] after I grew up here. And uh, you know,
[2:59:29] I care very deeply about everybody that
[2:59:32] lives here in town, all the people also
[2:59:34] that live on the outskirts of town and
[2:59:37] all the infrastructure here. Um, you
[2:59:40] know, I I I'm a product of this town,
[2:59:42] too. So, thank you for that.
[2:59:44] >> Thanks, sir. LFG.
[2:59:49] » You have a comment? So, we'll um
[2:59:52] continue to look for projects, add them,
[2:59:54] and and maybe have this as a periodic
[2:59:56] item on the council um as we amend the
[2:59:59] list and get better numbers and
[3:00:02] um just keep it keep it alive and keep
[3:00:04] it current.
[3:00:06] >> There you go. Who have any uh comments
[3:00:08] on from the public on this?
[3:00:14] [clears throat]
[3:00:14] >> I don't My name is Brian Den. I don't
[3:00:17] think that the estimated cost should be
[3:00:20] prioritized. I think that the way that
[3:00:24] it affects the community should be
[3:00:25] prioritized. That's all I have to say.
[3:00:36] » Hi, Rob Kazlowski again. Um, the only
[3:00:39] thing I can say is folks, please build
[3:00:41] something. Uh Cloverdale aliens have
[3:00:42] paid $10 million over the last five
[3:00:44] years to build up a bank account to
[3:00:47] build the water and sewer
[3:00:48] infrastructure. Uh the tabular graphic
[3:00:51] presented by the city of Cloverdale to
[3:00:54] me is shocking by its level of project
[3:00:56] omissions, deferrals, and cancellations
[3:00:58] or apparent cancellations.
[3:01:01] Uh coupled with demands for another
[3:01:03] study regarding new wells, it's an
[3:01:05] abdication of the plans articulated in
[3:01:07] 2021. Please use that list. look at the
[3:01:10] 2021 list and you'll see that some of
[3:01:12] those presented tonight are on there.
[3:01:15] Um, but anyways, that list was used to
[3:01:18] justify these massive water rate
[3:01:19] increases over the last 5 years and the
[3:01:21] partial replication of those same plans
[3:01:23] offered to demand another round of
[3:01:25] double-digit rate increases through
[3:01:28] 2031.
[3:01:29] The proposed plan is an unwarranted
[3:01:31] money grab, it feels to me, since we
[3:01:33] have the money and uh we're jacking up
[3:01:35] fees in violation of the law abiding
[3:01:37] Proposition 218. And I'll agree disagree
[3:01:40] with Alex on our correspondence on that
[3:01:42] one where water rate increases must be
[3:01:44] tied to the cost of providing those
[3:01:46] water services. Uh considering the
[3:01:49] following table that was just offered
[3:01:50] up. The Cherry Creek Reservoir 59 years
[3:01:53] and rusting has been moved to 2028 for
[3:01:55] completion. A six-year deferral from
[3:01:57] what we've already paid for. A new well
[3:02:00] at the 2023 completion has been uh been
[3:02:03] replaced with a study slated for 2027 or
[3:02:06] 2028. A 5-year delay without a drill
[3:02:08] even scheduled to start that well. The
[3:02:10] Ritter reservoir 38 years in rusting
[3:02:13] with a 2024 completion is now
[3:02:15] unscheduled. We missed that one. The
[3:02:17] backup chlorine tank hailed as critical
[3:02:20] at the time in 2021 was planned for
[3:02:22] completion last year and it has been
[3:02:24] dropped from that list. I don't get it.
[3:02:27] transfer pumps and a ferber tank slated
[3:02:29] for 2025 last year has been renamed Dell
[3:02:32] Webb Foothill it looks like and moved to
[3:02:35] a 2030 completion a 5-year deferral in
[3:02:39] spite of 5 years of residents paying
[3:02:40] double digit rate increases almost no
[3:02:42] critical capital improvement projects
[3:02:44] have been started yet alone completed
[3:02:47] yet the waste water and water department
[3:02:49] surpluses have ballooned to 10 million
[3:02:51] as I mentioned the niceto-do activities
[3:02:54] such as installation of grant inspired
[3:02:56] water meters and nonwater related work
[3:02:59] on a just activated solar system and air
[3:03:02] conditioning of city buildings took
[3:03:03] priority. To me, this is administrative
[3:03:05] mismanagement. Have Cloverdale residents
[3:03:08] been misled in how their water sewer
[3:03:11] payments have been used? Um, I say no
[3:03:14] more to rate increases until the focus
[3:03:16] becomes sharper and promised water sewer
[3:03:18] projects are completed. With bills
[3:03:21] already 62% higher than 2021, please get
[3:03:25] on with rebuilding the city's aging and
[3:03:27] crumbling water infrastructure as
[3:03:29] evidenced by recent water main breaks
[3:03:31] and ongoing leaks. And by the way, the
[3:03:33] leak close to my home was actually on
[3:03:36] the property of the Cherry Creek
[3:03:38] Reservoir. So, there was a leak already
[3:03:40] in that area. Thank you for your time.
[3:03:45] » Any other public comment on this item?
[3:03:49] >> Okay.
[3:03:50] Seeing none, and once again, thank you,
[3:03:52] uh, Assistant City Manager Sanders for
[3:03:55] bringing it up. Great.
[3:03:58] Any other comments from council?
[3:04:05] Righty, let's move into item I, Council
[3:04:07] Member Reports.
[3:04:11] Thank you, Mayor. Um, council member
[3:04:14] report for Wednesday, August 12th, 2026.
[3:04:19] Um, since our last meeting on Saturday,
[3:04:22] July 25th, uh, we had an event uh, put
[3:04:27] together, this was cooperation with the
[3:04:28] city of Cloverdale and Sonoma County A
[3:04:31] and Open Space. Uh, this was called Unia
[3:04:34] de Kempo. It was our first guided hike
[3:04:37] in Soda Springs Ranch, which was a
[3:04:39] bilingual English and Spanish hike. Uh,
[3:04:42] there was neighbors of all backgrounds
[3:04:44] and ages that participated. Um, do want
[3:04:48] to thank uh Irma, Raquel, and Olivia of
[3:04:52] Sonoma County
[3:04:54] a and open space as well as council
[3:04:56] member Morgan Stern who [snorts] is on
[3:04:58] the citizen advisory committee and
[3:05:01] superintendent Hector Galvan
[3:05:04] as well as um Corey Wattles. Uh I think
[3:05:09] everyone who participated that day
[3:05:10] really had a great time. It was just a
[3:05:12] gathering of community. Um, you know,
[3:05:15] everyone learned a lot about our new
[3:05:17] open space and I think, you know,
[3:05:19] everyone kind of became a steward that
[3:05:21] day that they can go around and take
[3:05:25] their friends and family, kids, parents
[3:05:27] up there and uh teach them about um all
[3:05:30] the different wildlife and trees that
[3:05:32] they they've learned and and really care
[3:05:34] for and appreciate our open space. On
[3:05:36] Tuesday, July 28th, I attended the
[3:05:38] Russian River Confluence Steering
[3:05:40] Committee. Um, we discussed our goals
[3:05:43] for annual gathering coming up later
[3:05:46] this year. Uh, Wednesday, July 29th, I
[3:05:49] met with Caitlyn Vegby of Legal Aid. Uh
[3:05:53] we're working on updating the rent
[3:05:55] stabilization ordinance and creating a
[3:05:57] closure and conversion ordinance to um
[3:06:02] that Caitlyn will draft a model of the
[3:06:04] ordinances and circle back in
[3:06:06] midepptember. So um there's been some
[3:06:08] predatory agencies going after our um
[3:06:12] different mobile home parks in the
[3:06:14] county and so this is a way that we can
[3:06:16] uh strengthen our um ability to hold
[3:06:20] them off. Uh on Wednesday, July 29th, I
[3:06:25] attended a Cloverdale community meeting.
[3:06:27] Uh this was to connect with neighbors
[3:06:29] and share concerns about the proposed
[3:06:31] Esmeralda development. Uh I think the
[3:06:34] one my my biggest takeaway is uh the
[3:06:36] repeated concern I hear uh from
[3:06:38] residents that would like to have a say
[3:06:40] in the decisions made regarding any
[3:06:43] approvals of that project. Uh on Monday,
[3:06:46] August 3rd, I attended the Heelsburg
[3:06:49] City Council and delivered public
[3:06:51] comment to invite the Heelsburg City
[3:06:53] Council to consider appointing a member
[3:06:56] of their council to participate in
[3:06:57] regional discussions regarding water
[3:07:00] resiliency efforts and conversations
[3:07:02] surrounding the proposed Alexander
[3:07:04] Valley Water District. Um that was very
[3:07:07] successful. Council member David Hegley
[3:07:10] proposed the item for a future agenda.
[3:07:12] It was unanimously supported and I can
[3:07:15] confirm that uh the item will be on
[3:07:18] their city council meeting for this
[3:07:21] Monday, August 17th. Uh I will be in
[3:07:24] attendance for that meeting along with
[3:07:26] other regional stakeholders. Uh
[3:07:28] Wednesday, August 5th was the LA
[3:07:31] co-hering. They are the Sonoma County um
[3:07:37] formation commission for uh local um
[3:07:44] the local what what is the LAFCO
[3:07:47] breakdown? It's a local agency formation
[3:07:50] commission. Okay. Um Sonoma County Local
[3:07:53] Agency Formation Commission. So, uh,
[3:07:55] they held a hearing to appeal the denial
[3:07:58] of the proposed Alexander Valley Water
[3:08:00] District, which was denied on May 6th,
[3:08:02] their proposal. Um, during this appeal,
[3:08:07] uh, I did deliver our public comment on
[3:08:09] behalf of the city of Cloverdale. Uh,
[3:08:12] the LAFCO commission voted to continue
[3:08:16] the discussion with the intent that the
[3:08:18] commission will do something other than
[3:08:20] deny. So that does not if they were to
[3:08:23] grant the appeal it would have been 35
[3:08:25] days that they would have to uh submit a
[3:08:28] modified resolution. So um this allows
[3:08:31] uh us and the city of Helsburg to get
[3:08:35] our comments hopefully considered in uh
[3:08:38] that proposal. Um, so the LAFC code did
[3:08:41] form an ad hoc committee with chair
[3:08:43] Susan Harvey and commission commissioner
[3:08:45] David Rabbit uh to draft a modified
[3:08:48] resolution and as information I received
[3:08:51] prior to this meeting, they're still
[3:08:52] awaiting the next steps from their own
[3:08:55] legal counsel regarding how this is
[3:08:58] going to proceed. The staff did not
[3:08:59] expect the decision that was made that
[3:09:02] day. So, uh, we'll be working very hard
[3:09:06] at any any pops up. uh we'll have to
[3:09:10] jump on it and work together to um
[3:09:14] uh respond to to our opportunity there.
[3:09:17] Uh on Thursday, August 6, I met with
[3:09:20] Karen Gaffne. She's the director of
[3:09:22] strategic planning and communication for
[3:09:24] the North Coast Regional Partnership. Uh
[3:09:26] the North Coast Resource Partnerships
[3:09:29] mission is to enhance the watersheds and
[3:09:31] communities of the North Coast region
[3:09:33] through collaborative multi-objective
[3:09:35] planning and project imple
[3:09:37] implementation led by tribes and
[3:09:39] counties. Um so hopefully this will be
[3:09:42] something that we can participate in uh
[3:09:45] work find out about some funding
[3:09:47] opportunities that might be regional
[3:09:48] funding funding opportunities to uh uh
[3:09:52] help us fund our water resiliency. And
[3:09:55] that was one of the benefits of updating
[3:09:56] our list uh is that we can shop it
[3:09:59] around to groups like this that can help
[3:10:00] us out. Um so they will be adding us to
[3:10:02] their email list serve so that we are
[3:10:04] notified of upcoming meetings and
[3:10:05] funding opportunities. On Thursday,
[3:10:08] August 6, uh I attended the Eel Russian
[3:10:11] Project Authority board meeting as a
[3:10:13] member of the public also with uh Vice
[3:10:15] Mayor Lans. uh they gave a presentation
[3:10:19] on the new ill Russian facility nerf the
[3:10:22] which would be the proposed water
[3:10:23] diversion uh there was a modeling
[3:10:26] analysis that was presented uh you can
[3:10:28] check that out on YouTube now in Sonoma
[3:10:30] water uh there's a YouTube video of just
[3:10:33] that presentation alone it's about 25
[3:10:35] minutes and I would say that my biggest
[3:10:37] takeaway from that meeting would be that
[3:10:40] we need to work on creating storage
[3:10:42] options in case of a potential de uh dam
[3:10:45] decommissioning uh especially our
[3:10:47] short-term storage options. So, um it
[3:10:50] was mentioned that doing that as a
[3:10:51] region would be an effective way that we
[3:10:54] don't have a bunch of cars moving at
[3:10:55] different speeds that we can all work
[3:10:57] together on creating storage and I think
[3:10:59] everyone at that meeting on the board is
[3:11:01] in alignment with that statement. Uh
[3:11:04] Monday, August 10th, uh I attended the
[3:11:08] Russian River Property Owners
[3:11:09] Association steering committee for the
[3:11:11] proposed Alexander Valley Water
[3:11:13] District. Uh we discussed availability
[3:11:15] of members and the upcoming Heelsburg
[3:11:18] appointment. [snorts] On Tuesday, August
[3:11:20] 11th, attended the Cloverdale leadership
[3:11:22] committee. Uh we received an update from
[3:11:25] CERT uh citizens emergency response team
[3:11:29] and I did propose uh the creation of a
[3:11:32] subcommittee
[3:11:34] uh to work on advocating for all
[3:11:35] Cloverdale organizations around funding
[3:11:37] needs and staying successful. And that's
[3:11:40] uh you know these these funding needs do
[3:11:41] shift from time to time. So, how um you
[3:11:45] know, maybe our city's funds are spent.
[3:11:47] There's a lot of fundraisers in town.
[3:11:49] Ace Hardware does uh raise a lot of
[3:11:51] money with their roundup. The Grange has
[3:11:53] potential funding or even just u
[3:11:55] advocating for strengthening uh boards
[3:11:58] of directors for some of these
[3:11:59] organizations that will ultimately
[3:12:01] [snorts] help those groups uh stay
[3:12:03] successful. And so I would just say
[3:12:05] upcoming events to
[3:12:09] keep on your radar is the Heelsburg City
[3:12:11] Council meeting on Monday.
[3:12:14] Thank you.
[3:12:17] On July 23rd, I attended a Agon Open
[3:12:20] Space meeting. It was at Steamer Landing
[3:12:23] and um the Pedaluma River Park and
[3:12:26] Friends of the Pedaluma River lectured
[3:12:29] us about long their long-term vision for
[3:12:31] the peninsula. Eventually, they're going
[3:12:33] to have um add more things to it,
[3:12:36] including barbecues. And they um told us
[3:12:39] about their free use of kayaks, canoes,
[3:12:42] and paddle boards, which are available
[3:12:44] for anyone at the Red Barn at Steamer
[3:12:47] Park Landing on Sundays. So, that was
[3:12:50] exciting. Um I also attended the
[3:12:52] wonderful hike that um council member Marquez and Hector
[3:12:58] Galvin put together along with a open
[3:13:00] space. And what I really liked about
[3:13:02] that hike was they did different things
[3:13:04] so that we could introduce ourselves to
[3:13:07] different people and um everybody got to
[3:13:10] know each other and nobody was on their
[3:13:12] phone the entire time and everybody
[3:13:14] really enjoyed the hike and I found it
[3:13:16] really worthwhile. And um I also
[3:13:19] attended the discussion about Esmeralda,
[3:13:22] the event that took place at the
[3:13:24] veterans hall and I thought it was
[3:13:26] really valuable to listen to different
[3:13:29] um people in our community, their um
[3:13:31] concerns about Esmeralda.
[3:13:34] And I also attended the um Chief
[3:13:37] Parker's uh surprise party which was
[3:13:39] really a fun event and a big surprise
[3:13:42] for him.
[3:13:47] on uh good evening council. On August 6,
[3:13:50] I [clears throat] attended my regularly
[3:13:52] scheduled Sonoma Clean Power meeting
[3:13:55] with the board of directors. And if
[3:13:56] anybody's still looking for
[3:13:59] uh transitioning to complete
[3:14:02] electricity, get rid of your gas, they
[3:14:04] uh swim power does have a rebate
[3:14:07] program. So if you're interested in
[3:14:09] that, look up the uh Swimclean Power
[3:14:11] website.
[3:14:13] On August 10th, I attended
[3:14:15] [clears throat] the Sonoma County uh
[3:14:17] transit authority board meeting. Um that
[3:14:21] meeting was basically uh regional updates on their continual
[3:14:26] projects. Uh nothing too much to report
[3:14:29] out on that. Uh [clears throat]
[3:14:32] tomorrow I will uh on behalf of myself
[3:14:36] and my employer,
[3:14:38] we will be donating 36 backpacks to the
[3:14:41] Cloverdale Unified School District to uh
[3:14:43] and we'll present those to uh the
[3:14:45] Superintendent Glenn Cisnero.
[3:14:51] » Uh besides the ones that have already
[3:14:53] been mentioned that I attended, I
[3:14:55] attended the Geyserville planning
[3:14:56] committee. It was a discussion about
[3:14:59] Smart Train uh putting in a station in
[3:15:01] Geyserville and to see if there was
[3:15:03] community support.
[3:15:05] I had a meeting with Sonoma Water to
[3:15:07] discuss different regional concerns and
[3:15:09] ways that we can work together. That was
[3:15:11] another good meeting. Uh let's see here.
[3:15:13] I met with Menino County and Lake County
[3:15:16] supervisors uh to get to discuss the
[3:15:19] Potter Valley project and different
[3:15:21] concerns that they have and ways for us
[3:15:23] to be working together more to make sure
[3:15:25] that we have a a sustainable water
[3:15:28] supply for our domestic water here. And
[3:15:31] then we also had a meeting with the
[3:15:33] Citrus Fair Board in regards to
[3:15:35] Alexander Valley Healthcare and
[3:15:37] Cloverdale and the school district with
[3:15:40] their building of Alexander Valley
[3:15:42] Healthcare. There's a corner that meets
[3:15:44] with all of our underground
[3:15:46] infrastructure and we needed to
[3:15:47] negotiate a few items and so we had that
[3:15:50] meeting uh what three days ago. So
[3:15:54] that's all that had that was different
[3:15:55] from everything else that's been
[3:15:56] mentioned.
[3:15:58] >> All righty. Thank you. Um I've had uh
[3:16:02] had about an hour and a half meeting
[3:16:03] with proposed C or uh candidate for
[3:16:06] supervisor uh Tom Schwendelm. Great
[3:16:09] meeting. had uh some good discussions on the needs of Cloverdale with him. Did
[3:16:13] uh attended the school ribbon cutting
[3:16:15] for the new school on the north end of
[3:16:17] town and the T through uh K uh new
[3:16:20] buildings that were in there. Um had
[3:16:23] numerous constituent meetings and with
[3:16:25] conversations on everything from them
[3:16:28] voicing their opinion on Esmeralda to
[3:16:30] the upcoming elections to you name it.
[3:16:32] uh those those have been very numerous
[3:16:34] and and very uh very informative and
[3:16:37] also attended Chief Parker's uh
[3:16:39] retirement surprise party which turned
[3:16:42] out very well and uh and had the the new
[3:16:45] chief there and uh there was a lot of
[3:16:47] support. It was sad to see him go, but
[3:16:49] we also have a great uh new chief here.
[3:16:51] So uh Cloverdale Police Department's
[3:16:53] rolling right along like they should.
[3:17:01] There's been a lot of talk of the PA RAS
[3:17:03] tonight and I we we fully acknowledge
[3:17:06] that we are behind. Mike, how many do we
[3:17:09] have?
[3:17:12] » We've reached the 100 count already for
[3:17:14] this year. We have approximately 47 open
[3:17:16] Pas. Many of the PAS are multi-pronged.
[3:17:19] So, if I had to be honest with you,
[3:17:22] 200 PAS maybe. Yeah,
[3:17:24] >> realistically from a search parameter,
[3:17:26] but yes, 47 identified numbered PAs are
[3:17:28] open right now.
[3:17:29] >> So, we are we do take it seriously. I
[3:17:31] understand people are are frustrated and
[3:17:33] we're we've come up with a plan. It's a
[3:17:36] little drastic, but this is what we're
[3:17:38] going to try to do is actually close
[3:17:40] city hall for not extended periods of
[3:17:44] time, but maybe one day or certain hours
[3:17:47] of the day. This will allow Mike to get
[3:17:49] some help from the front desk staff who
[3:17:51] he's training to work on PAS.
[3:17:55] Secondarily, we're working on
[3:17:56] potentially getting a U temp. We've
[3:17:59] already contacted the temp um agency. I
[3:18:02] forget the name of it. It's in town
[3:18:04] here. Um so, we are that's our plan
[3:18:07] right now. As Mike's been talking about
[3:18:10] this and I agree with him, we are
[3:18:12] hemorrhaging. We're trying to get it
[3:18:14] under control and we're going to start
[3:18:16] with those two steps.
[3:18:18] So,
[3:18:21] please be patient. I understand we Mike
[3:18:24] is a oneperson department and there's a
[3:18:27] lot of the election just everything. So,
[3:18:29] that that's our plan. So, hopefully
[3:18:30] things will start getting out the door.
[3:18:32] Um, so just want to bring that up. We
[3:18:36] mentioned we had nine qualified
[3:18:38] candidates that we received from the
[3:18:39] extended nomination period. So, that's
[3:18:41] great. nine nine folks newsletter will
[3:18:44] go out tomorrow. Um we did conduct um
[3:18:47] police department
[3:18:49] uh potential trainee interviews today. I
[3:18:52] didn't hear the results but I know
[3:18:53] chiefs uh keep going to interview the
[3:18:55] top candidates. That person will be
[3:18:58] sponsored to go through the academy
[3:19:00] through the city and then ultimately
[3:19:01] onto our PD mayors and councils dinner
[3:19:05] is tomorrow night in Ronard Park. And
[3:19:07] just really lastly, big shout out to
[3:19:10] public works team who refurbished our
[3:19:12] deis. You can see it looks great. Um the
[3:19:16] symbol and all of it. So we did that
[3:19:18] inhouse and really really happy with the
[3:19:20] outcome. Thank you.
[3:19:29] » On future agenda items.
[3:19:32] >> Have uh two requests. Thank you, mayor.
[3:19:34] Um the first one would be to agendaize
[3:19:38] um and I say maybe timely manner when
[3:19:41] we're ready uh for a discussion of a
[3:19:43] potential LAFCO comment regarding the
[3:19:45] conditions in the modified proclamation
[3:19:47] for the proposed Alexander Valley Water
[3:19:49] District. So um
[3:19:52] timeline and their process has not even
[3:19:54] been set yet. So uh I think when when
[3:19:57] it's ready, you know, I can notify uh
[3:19:59] city manager and um hopefully get that
[3:20:02] on the agenda. And I would I would like
[3:20:04] to uh review any comment with my fellow
[3:20:06] council members.
[3:20:11] » I would totally be on board with that.
[3:20:13] The one thing I do want to make sure um
[3:20:15] I've had some comments from some
[3:20:17] different former county councils that
[3:20:19] says that this isn't legal for us to be
[3:20:21] uh being part of the conversation and
[3:20:23] part of the decision-making process. And
[3:20:24] so I want to make sure that our
[3:20:25] attorneys can look into that and make
[3:20:27] sure that we are doing it legally so we
[3:20:29] don't have litigation come upon us.
[3:20:31] >> Absolutely. And uh um yeah, I've been in
[3:20:34] touch with uh you know, Vern and um also
[3:20:38] the property owners attorneys and we
[3:20:40] could actually have all three of our
[3:20:41] attorneys meet and really align on that.
[3:20:43] I I would support that.
[3:20:44] >> Definitely. Definitely agree with it. I
[3:20:45] just want to make sure that we're doing
[3:20:46] the right thing.
[3:20:47] >> Absolutely.
[3:20:50] >> Just for the record, can you reiterate?
[3:20:51] Hey, I think I heard consensus to bring
[3:20:53] back
[3:20:55] whenever we know a proposed comment
[3:20:57] letter on the new LAFCO uh conditions of
[3:21:00] approval for the formation of the
[3:21:01] Alexander Valley Wine.
[3:21:04] >> What we already did, but
[3:21:06] >> yeah. Yeah, it's basically what we did.
[3:21:07] We're just uh when the date that just to keep that um option that we have
[3:21:12] it on the option to put it on the
[3:21:14] agenda. Appreciate the support on that.
[3:21:16] Um, second item would be to request for
[3:21:19] our city attorney to conduct a legal
[3:21:21] analysis regarding potential voter
[3:21:23] consideration of legislative approvals
[3:21:26] associated with the proposed Esmeralda
[3:21:29] development project, including
[3:21:31] procedural requirements,
[3:21:33] election timeline, and costs.
[3:21:39] » Is this to just to clarify to put the
[3:21:42] city to put something on the ballot?
[3:21:44] >> Um, potentially. It's really the um the
[3:21:47] uh to conduct a legal analysis to um
[3:21:51] find out you know I think uh you know
[3:21:53] what is the council's affirmative
[3:21:55] authority under California elections
[3:21:57] code 9222
[3:21:59] and um how does the development
[3:22:01] agreement align with the government code
[3:22:03] 658
[3:22:05] 67.5.
[3:22:12] Yeah, I I mean I could I could just send
[3:22:15] the council. I mean that's a pretty
[3:22:18] simple answer. It will not take long to
[3:22:20] do that. I mean the council can decide
[3:22:23] to put things on the ballot. Um if it
[3:22:26] wants you have to complete environmental
[3:22:28] review before you you do that. Um it's
[3:22:31] too late to put anything on the November
[3:22:33] uh 2026 ballot, but we can put all the
[3:22:36] information in the email for the council
[3:22:37] and I can
[3:22:38] >> Yeah, that that was
[3:22:38] >> drafted in a way that's not um attorney
[3:22:41] client privilege because I know there's public interest take very
[3:22:45] >> Excuse me. Sorry. Sorry for
[3:22:46] interrupting. Um
[3:22:48] >> yeah, I do understand that we would be
[3:22:50] definitely out of time for the November
[3:22:52] election. So, um, an election timeline
[3:22:54] and cost if there were to be a special,
[3:22:56] uh, election conducted and, um, you
[3:22:59] know, I guess with government code
[3:23:01] 65867.5,
[3:23:04] um,
[3:23:06] that could be something that there's a,
[3:23:09] um,
[3:23:11] just if if if if that would be something
[3:23:13] I would like to discuss uh, publicly,
[3:23:16] you know, if we could agendaize that,
[3:23:17] that's the request. Um, I think if we
[3:23:20] all receive information, uh, I don't
[3:23:22] understand how we we, you know, for
[3:23:24] Brown Act, uh, rules that we would not
[3:23:26] be able to deliberate.
[3:23:31] » You certainly wouldn't be able to
[3:23:32] deliberate. I I thought this is
[3:23:33] justformational that you might share
[3:23:35] with your constituents. Um, the council
[3:23:38] can't make a decision to put something
[3:23:40] on the ballot until environmental review
[3:23:43] is done. So, um, you know, until SQA is
[3:23:47] completed. So, Um, as the council knows,
[3:23:50] the applicants in the process of
[3:23:52] requesting that city council approve an
[3:23:55] addendum. So, the council could approve
[3:23:57] that addendum and put the matter on the
[3:24:01] ballot. If the council doesn't want to
[3:24:03] approve the addendum and then decides we
[3:24:06] need to do a full EIR, you'd have to
[3:24:08] wait for the full EIR to be done and
[3:24:10] approved before you could put it on the
[3:24:12] >> um if we do receive information from
[3:24:16] uh yourself, city attorney, uh is that
[3:24:19] information that we'd be able to share
[3:24:20] or publicly
[3:24:22] >> if it's all right with the council? I
[3:24:23] mean, this is just citations to law.
[3:24:26] It's nothing analysis. I think we can
[3:24:28] prepare it in a way that is not attorney
[3:24:30] client privileged
[3:24:34] » because yeah that would be um you know
[3:24:36] my my ask here would really to be put it put put it on the agenda as a
[3:24:39] presentation um you know which proposed
[3:24:42] Esmeralda's which proposed uh Esmeralda
[3:24:46] approvals may constitute ordinances
[3:24:50] um also you know would individual
[3:24:52] approvals need to be submitted
[3:24:53] separately or could they appropriately
[3:24:56] be presented as a single ballot
[3:24:58] proposition. It's a just get get a
[3:25:01] little bit in the weeds there, but um
[3:25:02] that would be the ask if we can
[3:25:04] agendaize a presentation of that uh
[3:25:06] legal analysis.
[3:25:10] » And I'm asking my fellow council
[3:25:12] members. Yes.
[3:25:18] » Okay. Thank you.
[3:25:23] So the the direction was to prepare a
[3:25:27] presentation that will uh summarize
[3:25:30] essentially the the council's options
[3:25:32] for placing uh the Esmeralda project on
[3:25:37] the ballot. Uh what the procedures are,
[3:25:40] what what elements of the approval and
[3:25:43] then what the costs associated with that
[3:25:45] would be.
[3:25:46] >> Yes.
[3:25:46] >> For sake of lawsuit, can we say any
[3:25:48] project? Not the Esmeralda project. any
[3:25:50] development that comes into town because
[3:25:52] I would hate to be sued because we're
[3:25:55] focusing on one and trying to
[3:25:58] >> it's up to um the council. I mean it's pretty generic language this
[3:26:02] particular project because they're
[3:26:05] seeking the development agreement things
[3:26:07] like that. It's not quite the same as
[3:26:09] someone who's just seeking a cup where
[3:26:11] we really, you know,
[3:26:13] >> and that that would yeah, that'd be the
[3:26:15] request. I if you know the legal
[3:26:17] analysis can be done that, you know, we
[3:26:18] can do this as a specific project. I
[3:26:22] think that's my understanding we can.
[3:26:25] >> Yeah.
[3:26:25] So that
[3:26:26] >> Okay.
[3:26:31] » You got everything, Mike? Mike,
[3:26:36] » you got any future agenda?
[3:26:39] I don't either.
[3:26:43] >> All righty. We're going to call the
[3:26:45] meeting adjournment at 9:26