[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

Cloverdale City Council Meeting - August 12, 2026

Transcript