City of laguna woods, council meeting. >> mayor mccary: good afternoon everybody and welcome to the monthly laguna woods city council. I’m cawlgt the meeting to order now and if we can have our city clerk read the introductory floats.
>> the clerk: members of the public may provide public comments and testimony during this meeting in person, in writing, or remotely using zoom. The laguna woods city council guide to public participation — which is included in the agenda packet for this meeting immediately following the agenda contains additional information contains additional information on how to provide public comments and testimony.
each speaker will have the opportunity to speak for up to three minutes once per agenda item, unless otherwise stipulated by the city council. Speakers may not yield their time, or any portion thereof, to any other speaker. Speakers are requested, but not required, to identify themselves.
to ensure each speaker is provided with an uninterrupted opportunity to speak for the full time allotted, the city council and city staff are asked to reserve any responses they wish to make to public comments until after each speaker has completed their comments. For public hearings, the city council and city staff are asked to reserve any responses they wish to make to public testimony until after the public hearing is closed. >> mayor mccary: thank you. And ewill have the roll call lease.
>> the clerk: conners, here, councilmember horne, here. Councilmember moore, here. Mayor pro tem lee and mayor mccary. >> mayor mccary: thank you. Pledge of allegiance. >> will all those who can please stand and repeat after me.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Ceremonials.-úliz thank you. And now would move to agenda item 4. Presentation, ceremonial affairs. We have a presentation by the I-5 el toro road interchange project. >> good afternoon, mayor mccary, mayor pro tem lee and councilmembers, orange county transportation authority or octa with me is angela hui.
we really appreciate the opportunity this afternoon to provide you with an update on the I-5, el toro interchange project. Stoned nearly half a mile up and down el toro road, and towards the top of the screen. It includes approximately two miles along interstate 5.
to provide important context for this project, the I-5 el toro interchange was identified by a top priority project by laguna hills, laguna woods and the m-2 approved by the voters in 2006. Several local interchange projects in the m-2 freeway program and is a localized improvement is to be developed in cooperation with the local jurisdictions and affected community.
in the 2025 update unfortunate m-2 next deliver plan, this is due to be environmentally cleared by the end of this year to be shelf ready for future investment. Next slide please. This slide provides initial events, february 20 taken, with 15 alternatives were considered to the completion of the octa led alternative assessment study in 2021, which studied an additional seven alternatives.
so in total, 22 alternatives were studied, highlighting this as a very challenging project, that required a high level of city involvement at every step. In march, 2022, octa and caltrans and all three cities, reached consensus on the two alternatives to move forward to the environmental tase.
so in january 2023, caltrans and octa restarted the environmental vase and fast forward to this year 2026, caltrans has completed the preliminary engineering resulting in the draft project approval and environmental document that was released for public review on july 31st. So this is alternative 1 which are the braided southbound I 5 hook rarms, ramps. Braided means elevated over the existing structure on a braid.
this includes a 2 lane I 5 season el toro, with one lane assigned to el toro west heading towards the coast, using the existing hook ramp while one is designed to oem tro el toro roaa new bridge and then ties into a realigned avenida de la carlottoo. If you have any questions let me know.
includes a potential public street connecting the village at lildz laguna hills development, alternative 2 which is the flyover ramp with a round about. This alternative was evaluated but eliminated because it is inconsistent with state policy. Next is alternative 3, this is called the tsm-tdm torn.
it includes advanced traffic signal improvements and other intelligence transportation systems or its enhancements like traveler information systems or traffic management snern upgrades. This alternative is a stand alone alternative but could also be incorporated with the other build alternative we just saw. This project will reduce traffic congestion, enhance safety, and improve emergency response times.
all of these benefits are tied to being able to being able to travel on the streets and through the intersections kicker. We’ll get into more detail with this next slide. So here the graphic summarizes the benefits associated with alternative 1, 1a, including reducing traffic congestion, and delays by distributing traffic from the existing southbound I 5 offramp to the new broaderred off ramp denoted by the arrow.
a substantial shares of the I-5 traffic headed towards el trow will shift to the new braided offramp, with two right turns shown in blue. This will reduce delays at key intersections so it will take less time to get from point a to point b. The highest benefited intersections with substantial reduction in delay are circled in green.
so as an example, for today’s trip as you see in the map in red, the travel will be 35 to 40% quicker during the morning and afternoon peak periods. A important benefit will be that safety will be is advanced, the most accidents in south orange coifnt, in the past ten years, so that’s south of the 55 freeway.
they are mainly congestion related. So this will enhance safety by reducing congestion in the area. Also with reduced delays, emergency responders, will be able to move through the area quicker shortening response times. Response times increase 33% with congestion, if the travel times are reduced by 35 to 40% the responders will be able to get through quicker.
next angela will share information about the public outreach effort. >> again my name is angela hui, I’m the outreach manager for the project. I’m going to talk a little bit about the outreach program we’ve been engaging in to make sure our stakeholders are staying informed and involved.
during the public review periods we are hosting two public hearings, one in person and one virtually to provide opportunities for the community to loan more learn more about t. The in person public hearing is scheduled for next wednesday at the laguna hills community center. The virtual public hear is scheduled 5 to 7 p.m. Via zoom. Our team has updated project collateral materials, including a fact sheet.
we’ve also mailed out post cards, to the shutdown voinding businesses. These materials are being used as part of our broader community outreach and public information effort.
we have shared these materials r materials with key stakeholders to help for the community and for the community for the continues to have a voice in the selection of a preferred alternative later this year. So with that I’ll hand it back to rose to discuss next steps. >> thank you. So as mentioned, the public review or circulation period closes monday september 14th. Angela also mentioned the two public meetings that are shown here and the selection of the preferred alternative to move forward, is scold for october.
so -- is scold for scheduled fo. Completed either late this year or early next year. That concludes our presentation. We’re happy to answer any questions you may have. >> mayor mccary: okay. We’ll have some public comments and then comments from the council. Oop for public comment. Seeing none, council comments? >> yes, thank you for the presentation.
we’re really glad that the fly-over option is not currently on the table. Because the impact to our residents would have been much more -- much more. The dirt and noise and everything else. So that’s what interests me most, is that they are not impacted so much. And of course our first responders can got to us more quickly.
so thank you for the presentation. Thank you. >> okay, then I’ll just make my comments and then we’ll just go on. So first of all, and I echo councilmember horne’s comment about safety.
so whatever, however we move forward of course our first concern is our residents and making sure that whatever we proceed, the impact is minimized when it comes to the residents. Also, I did receive something in the mail regarding some upcoming events, I can’t remember what it was. So thank you for sending that out there and I have these dates on my calendar to follow up. Thank you. >> I have a couple of questions. First. Plir mic please. >> thank you.
first I would have found this map a lot more helpful if north were actually towards the top of the page. But my understanding for the option that I’m holding in my hand is that the existing southbound on and off ramps would remain essentially unchanged.
but there would be an off bound lane included across el tro to come off towards the villages, and there would be a southbound on bounty wrap at the same place. Okay. And if you put in the cameras and use them to make more intelligent traffic flow, can that be done without any other construction? You said it was a stand-alone alternative.
>> councilmember conners, that would be working on the controls, signal boxes, that type of physical improvement. So minor physical work. The traffic benefit was studied is overall on the average roughly a 9% improvement in traffic versus 35 to 40% with the build alternative. So there is a difference in benefit received. And in addition, the ramps.
>> lastly you mentioned that el toro road had more citizens more than south of 55. Do you have any of those numbers, like is it one more or 5% more or is it twice as many or -- >> councilmember conners, it is pulled from a traffic accident report that the city also has access to but it is significantly more.
it is in the I-5 el toro interchange area is in the top three, south of 55, and main hi congestion related rear end accidents or broadside accidents, those tierps. So with improvement, reducing congestion, that will also enhance safety as well.
>> aside there push back have you received feedback from any teacted property owner? >> councilmember conners I’m only aware of the laguna hills development. I’m not aware of any major discussions of any other properties on the area.
>> if you build this extra lane going across el toro will that take land from the episcopal church? >> at this time and that is shown in the plans that are available for the public right now it shows that there would be potentially some impact to landscaping at the st. John’s church. Also a minor small amount of parking spaces as well. But definitely no impact to any of the buildings or structures onsite. And this is something that caltrans has worked to reduce, the impact as much as possible. >> thank you.
liz councilmember moore? >> there is actually an impact an st. George’s church. Any of these things, there is always whose ox is getting gored. Pardon me. Something that you said earlier, I should have written it down. Parm, I may get a drink of water. Pardon me, I pay get a drink of water.
when you are at the other local laguna hills, I know what it had to do with the traffic. But I wasn’t showing possibility of greater speed, you could have greater speed or you would say more people would drive through, 32 versus 9, could you explain that? Thank you.
>> so councilmember moore, on the average, it ranges between 30 to 40% improvement. What that means is, I’m sorry, what it means is that it could be higher speeds, that relates to a shorter trip time, so we modeled for example the travel path it would take for someone to exit the southbound 85 freeway at the current ramp.
and then make it over to lake forest on the east side. Roughly, it would go there I think it was a 6.9 minute trip to a 4.5 minute trip. So significant reduction in time. I think that adds up over time, that’s one trip, you multiply it by how many trips and so tort.
so that’s where the 35 to 40% traffic improvement comes in, speeds and shorter trip time. >> so the 9% that cynthia was talking about, for a long time I thought we aren’t using our roads efficiently, we discussed this. So you can do it as a stand-alone so there would be nothing which was the 9% or you could do it in addition to.
did I hear that correctly? >> that’s correct. >> councilmember moore: okay, I guess that’s very thought provoking bit of information for me. So I guess I have to think more on -- I want to go to the presentation down there, ear more about it, and we don’t always hear when other people are unheap.
we kind of make sure of reaching out and finding out what they’re thinking. Anyway, this has been going on for a long time. So you can see we all know because I think with that, it was 15, I was thinking it was 13, but it was 15 when we took the trips where we got into buses and went over to the --
wasn’t that -- was that 15? >> oh yeah, I remember that. >> 2015. Okay. Time flies. So anyway. All right, lot of thoughts on this. And you see how there are always tradeoffs on everything. So thank you for taking the time on this. And I guess more thought is required. Thank you.
>> my question is: did you say we have 22 alternatives? >> so mayor pro tems lee, over the course of time of the years we have looked at 22 different alternatives. Now there’s currently the one additional ramp alternative and then there is the one tsm-tdm signal type alternative so there are two.
>> right now we have two, okay. This project wore mainly concern about the -- of the congestion and also the accident factor. Is it correct? All these things trying to improve the congestion and also try to make design more safely and to reduce the accidents? >> that’s correct.
the primary purpose is to reduce congestion and then that in turn will improve reduced accidents and also improve response times. >> councilmember lee: so as far as I feel, that the city’s concern would probably I’m more mainly concerned about the noise factor during the construction and also the response time. Because that would make quite a bit of difference to our residents.
so of the two alternatives that you have, they both have the factors built in to reduce those things. >> with the -- so with the alternative 1 which is the new ramps addition, that takes a look at noise permanently and also looks at trair temporary n.
there would probably be more temporary construction noise associated with adding the new ramps than there would be modifying signals and so tort. But all of that is taken into-k, and construction noise is not a good neighbor.
construction noise would be dealt with to make sure it stays below a certain level, and a lot of time tree way related construction even though these are not adding ways to the ramp, that takes place at night because traffic is in issue. Any detours are scheduled at night or when traffic is a lot less. So we take that into consideration.
>> councilmember lee: what about the length of construction period? >> at this point, we are really early in the project so our approximate construction time is about four years. >> councilmember lee: thank you. >> with this alternative tree, is there any other eminent domain that is going to affect businesses besides the landscaping at st. George’s? >> with alternative 1 with the ramps, the braided ramps, there would be properties that would be needed for the project.
we octa we’ve implemented we’re going on about completing 90% of our m-2 freeway program and throughout all of those projects, we have tried to minimize any eminent domain actions by working with the property owners to reach an agreement on the purchase.
even if we have to initiate eminent domain, to maintain the schedule, we always seek to reach an agreement. So I think actually, so that’s where we are with that. For the properties that are needed, we would do an appraisal, contact the owner with an offer, and then enter the negotiation phase.
>> so they’ve sort of been in limbo all this time, thought knowing which alternative you’re going to pick and whether it’s going to be them or not them and how to plan and what to do. But for the -- the third alternative, you still need to take businesses, eminent domain that way? Or is it one that’s not taking any? >> it would be very minimal if any property that would be needed for the third, alternative 3.
>> mayor mccary: any other council comments? No other comments? Any comments on zoom? >> I don’t see any comments on zoom but I think we had some audience members who had questions.
>> foifd any of the boards about the coming meetings so that the village is aware? >> yeah, the laguna woods village has been notified, they put it in their last two, I believe at least two but maybe friday e newsletters as well, so they’ve been getting the information identity that way. >> we want a good turnout for them. Thank you. >> mayor mccary: so our recommendation then is -- >> there is no action required. Just informational.
and I think the idea and rose can correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the idea is octa will be back in the fall to talk about the preferred alternative selection process. >> that is correct.
at the conclusion of the public comment period on september 14th, caltrans and octa will be reviewing all the comments and then coming back in the fall. >> mayor mccary: thank you. So the next idea with the council’s approval we have another presentation by the jpia. And it’s item 9.1. I would like to move that down to 4.2, so that we can have both our presentations done and our guests can leave if they need to.
is that okay with council? So we’re moving item 9.1, coalition to protect community services, and from ocarrier joint powers insurance company, joint powers. >> sorry, having some issues with the mic here. There we go. I think I got it. How is that, coming through clearly? >> mayor mccary: no.
>> oh, okay, I’m trying out your fancy podium here. How about that? Okay, excellent. Quick question. How do I advance the slides? Oh, okay, awesome all right, well I can do that.
mayor and council, good afternoon, my name is alex malor, I’m the risk development director with the california insurance authority and thank you for allowing me to come and speak to you today about a alleviate advocacy legislative effort coalition to protect community services. Next slide please. So just by way of background, I know most if not all of you are familiar with who and what we are at the jpia but we are your municipal self insurance pool.
we provide your liability coverage, workers compensation coverage, as well as some other lines of coverage. And we have about 127 members throughout the entire state. Most of those are small to medium sized cities. We also have some jpa’s and special districts. Our membership spans the entire way down to the border, in the south, and as far north at mono county. Next slide please.
and just as a quick retresher, what we do is provide insurance coverage to our members. We also manage any claims or litigation resulting there claims that we cover. We also make available all kinds of different risk management services that we provide to our members so that we can come alongside you and make available resources and services to
hopefully help you more effectively manage risk and by managing risk, more effectively, we can try to avoid claims. In that same vein we also offer lots of training and kind of our overarching goal is to help members protect their people, property, and treasury. Next slide please chris.
these are the different coverages we offer, we have two pooled programs, our liability program and work ores compensation program. By pooled I mean, every agency that peerpts in these programs, when they experience a claim, the cost of those claims are shared across the entire pool.
property and special events those are what we call group purchase programs so rather than claims being pooled, we go out to the insurance marketplace and we policy that covers every member that chooses to participate in each of those programs. Next slide chris. So now we get into the rely good stuff. This is why I’m here today. Local governments in california are experiencing a major challenge when it comes to the costs of liability claims.
and so what you see here on this graphic is the cost of liability claims if our primary and excess program from 2016 through 2025. And so I’d like to just point out here that kind of the low water mark in terms of claims was in 2018. During that claim year, we paid out approximately $26 million in claims.
and you can see that as we kind of move through the years here we get through 2024, and we’re expected to pay out almost $112 million in claims. Yes please. >> thank you. Sorry for interrupting. >> no, please. >> are these numbers, these are the total amount of dollars paid out.
has there been a corresponding increase in number of claims, or have the number of claims remained relatively study and it’s only the dollars per claim that is increasing? >> fantastic question. So let me clarify two things. The figures here are what is called total incurred. Which means that this is the sum of dollar amounts that we have paid out already.
and dollar amounts that we have got roarved for reserved meaning that we expect to make those payments. In temps of terms of frequency,s been a modest increase in frequency but really the major issue is that we’re seeing claims are simply costing more and more.
a claim that advertise ore six years advertise that 75 or fives ago, the issue is really the severity and cost of claims. It really isn’t for example. Fr. So the california association of joint powers authorities has done an analysis of industry-wide data. This is something that began back in 2024 and concluded recently.
they collected data from cities, counties, schools, and other public agencies in the state to really try to look at and identify what the extent of the problem is. Next slide please. And so they surveyed approximately 2,000 agencies, most of these were school districts but they also had a fair amount of cities and counties as well. Next slide please chris. And so this is what they found.
and I think you will agree, when you look at the figures here, some of the numbers are quite startling. And this tracks with what we’re experiencing.
so you can see that for the agencies that participated, again, 2018 was kind of the low water park in terms of cs, it was $363 million and then 24-25, that rose to $1.22 billion. And so this is really important. Because when the cost of claims increased, the amount of money that pools like us have to charge to our members in premiums so that we can continue paying claims, that increases, too.
and then that of course means that government agencies that participate in our programs have fewer funds to spend on public safety, senior services, to builds parks and murray grounds and to do really all the important things that you do. So I think it’s really important to point out here that this is not just an issue of risk pools complaining about the cost of clairms claims increasing.
this is something that is really affecting you. And so this is some interesting data. You can also see that the projections for the future are quite alarming, also. If the current legal environment and social trend trends continuo persist, this analysis predicts that by 27-28, the agencies that participated will be paying out approximately $2 billion in claims. And so it’s quite substantial.
next slide please chris. So I think I’ve defined what the problem is, your question is probably why is this occurring? And there is really two reasons for this. The first is that california has a legal environment that is very plaintiff-trendily.friendly.
there is something called joint and several liability, which is basically this idea that if there are multiple parties that are responsible for damages caused to one party, if one of those responsible parties cannot pay, then the other party has to pay for all of the economic damages experienced by the party that was injured even if that party is only 1% responsible. And with public agencies, we see this a lot.
and so let me give you one example. Let’s say there is a vehicle accident in a city and the driver was 99% responsible for that. If somebody was injured and they have medical costs, maybe they don’t have the ability to work in the future, they obviously suffer damages. And they should be compensated for those.
if the driver who was primarily responsible for that person being injured, if they didn’t have insurance, or if they didn’t have much insurance, or if they don’t have assets, if they don’t have the ability to pay, the plaintiff only has to prove that the city is 1% responsible and the city gets to pay 100%.
and so this is a major problem we have. So the legal environment is one of the reasons why costs are greatly increasing. The other is called social inflation. Which is kind of an interesting social phenomenon. And social inflation is basically a collection of social factors that are driving the cost of claims up.
as you can see on this graphic, session inflation includes things like an aggressive plaintiff’s bar, courts and juries who generally favor plaintiffs, generally the public distrusts government, more these days than in the past. And there is also something called third peter litigation financing which is really, really interesting. This is basically where investors will fund plaintiffs claims.
and they do this so they can hopefully get a favorable outcome, and then collect. And so thn all of these different social issues you see here taken with the current legal environment, these are really the factors that are driving up claims. Next slide.
let me alo pause for a second and just check and see if there are any questions? >> I had one but I’ll save it for the end. Because I think you’re going to cover it. >> yes, okay, thank you. And so at the jpia, we have established a coalition, it is the coalition to protect community services. And our coalition has three different policy goals.
this is essentially our platform and we would like three things. We would like to establish proportionate liability for economic damages. Meaning that if a city is 1% responsible for a person being injured, we pay 1%, so that is the fishes thing we would like. I think it’s also really important to point out here that we’re talking about public entities only.
we are not asking for the entire legal system to be changed. And so this would not teact private teact private business. This is for government agencies only. The second thing that we would like and this has been done to reasonable levels of success in other states, is we would like to see some kind of reasonable tort caps.
meaning that we would like to see a limit on the amount that individuals can recover when they file claims. And I think this is really important to just comment on.
we brief that it is very important that if an individual is injured because of the actions or inactions of a public agency, they should receive financial compensation for that. But the financial compensation that they receive, it should be -- right, it should be reasonable, and it should be something that is proportionate to the fault of the entity that caused it.
and so we would like to see some kind of reasonable caps there and then the last policy goal we would like to strengthen design immunity. Design immunity is a statutory immunity that governments in california have that essentially makes them immune. If design plans for roadways or other public infrastructure were approved by the council. It’s a fairly strong immunity as it stands right now but we would like to strengthen that even further.
because as I mentioned one of the biggest challenges we have, and some of the most expansive claims, are often these roadway design claims which the agency wasn’t really involved but because the plaintiff is able to get the court to say they were 1% responsible, you then have to pay the entire amount.
and so that’s our platform and so those are our three policy objectives. Them slide please. -- next slide please. These are some of the agencies that have joined our coalition. So far I believe we have about 57 members. We would like to add the city of laguna woods as well. Next slide please chris.
you may also see that there are other efforts ot there, there are other coalitions right now that have similar goals. And so we really have two storer coalitions, one is through the california association of joint powers authorities and the others is californians for protecting local of the serviceh is being held up by another risk pool prism.
so you may ask why aren’t you entirely aligned with them, why do you have a separate coalition? And the reason is that because we are laser focused on trying to advocate for reforms for local government agencies only. Cjapa and prism, they are also interested in trying to help counties and schools. And so our policy goals are somewhat aligned but also different.
so that is why there are multiple dinnering coalitions. Next slide please chris. And so I’m just kind of close by bringing it back to this. We really teal as though the system in california is broken. We really feel like reform is greatly needed.
and some of the pictures you see here, I think justify and explain why that is. Taxpayer funds should be used to provide public safety, senior services, parks and playgrounds. They should not be used to provide excessive verdicts and they social should not be used to enrich plaintiff attorneys. Next slide please chris.
so what we’re asking of you today, we would like to add to your logo to our coalition letter. You’re probably aware that the current legislative session ends at the end of this month. And so we’ve been working with the state senate and state assembly. And we’re hopeful that a package of reforms might get passed in the current session, if it doesn’t happen we are are commid to trying to effect change moving forward as well.
next slide please chris. And so that’s what I’ve got for you today. Just want to thank you for your support and time and I assume you might have some questions. Yes please. >> I did have one question. I was at the annual meeting last month. And there was a great presentation on the budget and about the finances.
>> yes. >> and one of the things that came up is that there are cities that apply to become a member and they are refused, because they have a higher rate of claims. >> correct. Correct.
>> could you elaborate on that just a little bit? >> we are very focused on admitting members who understand the importance of proactively managing risk. And claims are a very good indicator of whether a particular agency is in fact doing that. In the past we used to be a lot more liberal in terms of admitting new members to the pool. These days we are a bit more conservative.
as costs are rising, as the financial reserves that we have are dwindling, because of that, we want to make sure that the new agencies that we admit dot pool are a net benefit. And so we’re very rigorous about making sure that the agencies that we admit meet that specific requirement. >> okay so you actually do a risk assessment? >> we do, yes.
>> okay, thank you. I don’t have any other questions. >> I have a couple of questions. I had no idea at a -- I’m glad you came and made this presentation. >> oh, good. >> when you said that people are investing in the outcome of plaintiffs cases, my ears lit up.
I’m wondering who else can invest in plaintiffs’ cases. Is this -- can they do like calshe, these betzing platforms? >> this is interesting. This is kind of an industry that occurs within the shad shadows,e isn’t an industry that knows exactly 0 this works. My understanding it is primarily hedge funds who are doing this.
and so it’s kind of seen as an alternative investment vehicle, right? So similarly to how certain opportunities might diversify their investments, this is seen as just another way something else that they can invest in so that they can generate income. >> I think maybe we should try to discourage that as well. >> so yes. That is something we would like, also.
>> because I mean if they’re investing in plaintiff’s outcomes wouldn’t it be possible to -- we live in such a lit image lit image litigious society, that they could put a city into bankruptcy. >> sure. >> that is very concerning. Thank you so much. >> I move that we add our name.
we need to open for -- we need to have some public comments first. Do you have a question? So we’ll open for public comments, any comments from the public? Yes please. >> I’m just sort of oours curious why this is structured as a joint powers authority. That is a very important instruction for something like ocpa.
lake treft and fountain valley were listed, those are two cities I’m familiar with and I suggest you talk to any cities you might recognize and have some relationship with, to see how it’s going and what -- this is very interesting but also kind of strange to me. All right. Thank you. >> mayor mccary: thank you.
any other public comments? >> the joint powers insurance authority has been around for a long, long time. Because companies like state farm and allstate, don’t write coverage like cities needs, not in our case but in many police officer liability or bad intersection design or inadequate street lighting or things like that.
we have a lot of risks that homeowners don’t have. And so this is a risk management pool where every city that is a part of this joint powers agreement contributes a certain amount of money like a premium every year based on the size of the city staff, the size of the city budget and their claims history.
and so the jpia takes these funds and they use it to administer the claims. Because they have a staff of people who know all about these kinds of liability. And though also offer to the participating organizations, a lot of classes in risk management and how to -- how to handle personnel matters so you don’t get sued for hr violations
or how to handle workers comp cases so that the workers teal protected or -- teal protected or if there’s an accident never to stand and the crowd by the accident and say I always thought we should have had a stop sign at there this interse.
so in your question about the jpia how does it work, that’s how it works. >> if I could add to that district clarity, the city is not considering joining a new jpia today, we have been part of since when we incorporated.
this is an initiative of te jpia but it is not in and of itself a separate joint powers authorities, it is just a program we would be signing on to. >> mayor mccary: any other council comments? >> couple other things. One of them I also attended that meeting. And I think one of the numbers, I think is a little staggering.
if I have this correct, the -- if we recall the accident with the lady that had the coffee that was spilled on her, I think that settlement was $3 million. Then there was one recent with tea and it was $50 million. I know your mouth drops because you can’t believe that’s really happened. I’m also of the opinion that I think you’re the largest, are you the largest jpia? >> we are the largest municipal risk pool.
in the state, correct. >> right. You’ve done a great job and we are a moab I think vicky. So I wanted to bring that up. So this issue with the hedge fund things, is there any way, probably not easy to document who gets the settlement, you can debt I.t. All through.
>> I think that’s part of the issue. Which is as it stands right thousand, I don’t believe there are any legal requirements for plaintiff attorneys to indicate whether they have external parties that are helping to fund plaintiff actions.
and so certainly, it would be nice if we could bring some visibility to that process, so the public at least knows when individuals are investing to help fund some of these cases. >> so that would be part of the legislative goal that you have there. >> correct. >> I’m a little confused -- go ahead. >> that is not an express policy goal that we have for this particular session but it is certainly something that is quite concerning. >> thank you.
>> mayor mccary: so the recommendation -- >> I’ll just read the recommendation for the record. The recommendation will be what’s shown as number 2 on the screen here.
authorize the city manager to grant permits to the cjpi archlts and the coalition to protect services, submitted to members of the california legislature and other government officials and to identify the city as a member of the coalition to protect community services. >> mayor mccary: okay, can I get a -- >> motion? >> mayor mccary: do we have a motion? It’s been moved and seconded. All in favor, aye. No opposed. >> thank you very much.
and we will some of us may -- no, we won’t see you in october. >> well, so we do have a conference. Liz management cerches there 7th to the 9th. >> woo know how to get there. We just don’t know how to get from the airport. >> san jose, that might be the easy hessiest raps.
liz thank you now we moe on to the city treasurer report. >> I believe we have public comments, general public comments. >> mayor mccary: we had public comments. >> public comments on items not appearing on the agenda. You can read the introductory on section 5. Liz thank you.
>> the clerk: this is the time and place for members of the public to address the city council on items not appearing on this agenda. As a reminder, each speaker will have the opportunity to speak once for up to three minutes, unless otherwise stipulated by the city council.
please note that, pursuant to state law, the city council is unable to take action on or discuss items not appearing on this agenda, but may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by speakers. The city council may also refer items to city staff for follow up or response, request that city staff report back to the city council at a subsequent meeting concerning items, or direct city staff to place items on a future agenda.
I believe we have one public comment madam mayor. Liz yes, please. Had had. >> mayor mccary: yes, middle east. Please. We have a comment from sue quong. Welcome. >> thank you very much.
I’ve been at several meetings lately where people have told me that they’ve fallen at the corner of avenita sovilla and aragon right on the corner where you go to the performing arts center. I’ve witnessed this myself, when you’re at night people are going to performances, it’s just dark. And it’s -- they can’t see the curb to step up.
and you now have the lighting responsibility, and you can change it to led lighting, and when you -- I would encourage you to look at that when you start doing the lighting updates. Because it’s needed. And if you could do it all the way up the street past the parking lot. We have hundreds of people crossing that street. And trying to get back and forth.
and they would greatly appreciate having brighter light to be able to do that. The other thing I wanted to ask about, it was very interesting at your last board meeting where you talked about the design for buildings being updated, the promotion of architectural symmetry it is a beautiful style but my question is will this be a little bit more or a lot for
expensive for businesses in the update? So I know people consider that when they think about updating their buildings. So it’s beautiful. Butt I hope we don’t price people out.
the other thing I’d like to talk about is I’d encourage you to allow for muted tile individualization, and can produce a reduce of ironwork if you go for that style. If I was a business owner and required to use this new architectural style I would like to highlight and individualize my shop building as much as possible. So those were just some comments from the last meeting. Thank you very much. >> mayor mccary: thank you. The next, vicky johnson.
>> good afternoon, I’d like to thank the city manager, chris macon for answering a lot of my questions about laguna woods and the county governance and you’ve even taken time to meet with me, suppose by e-mails and writes clearly. I’d like the city council to enact without the expense of a ballot measure.
laguna beach has term limits on the ballot this november. It apparently very strongly received by people doing surveys, collecting signatures and I think it’s been passed, 28 of orange county’s 34 cities have adopted city council term limits and personally I think they are essential for healthy democracy and they invite new members and more diversity.
next, orange county power authority. The orange county power authority is now charging 12 to 15% more than sce, that is $25 per month more for an average residence. In 2024, joined ocpa would have started january, and conclusively so far that would be $1.2 million more, collectively, that the city would be paying for electricity more than ocp charges.
and for its lowest price plan are twice. Lost 45 million out of their $90 million in reserves. And that is just really striekd me. If turt evidence that they’re struggling is this month laguna beach died not to join ocpa. After a really extensively review busy the committee.
portfolio manager that works for the residents of pomegranate people, and it also, that committee had like self people and the other is the president of the laguna beach democratic club. In 2024, these ocpa, that kind of entity, was on the democratic platform. So that president of the democratic club of laguna beach would vote unanimously, no we don’t want to join ocpa.
handout with a reign page report and basically they concluded as they said, that the risks of jockey of joining ocpa, train page on and on particularly about the finances. So I’m glad we tabled discussion. I’m a little unsure that ocpa will come back. You may not have the appetite for it but they have the appetite for you.
no other city has joined since though formed in 2021. Except they pushed out their start days a lot. Please be vigilant, that issue, term limits please and again thanks to chris. >> mayor mccary: thank you. Any response? >> I just want to respond briefly on the issue of term limits. I think they are unwise.
because a couple of reasons. Government is hard and it’s complicated. And we don’t learn it in four years and we don’t learn all of it in eight years either.
and I think in private business you wouldn’t take a can he employee who has finally learned how to do the job and by the time eight years rolls around he as seen what rolls around, fire him because of longevity. Allows us to build relationships with other municipalities and other government agencies which is helpful for us to make decision is. The other reason is it is really unnecessary, laguna woods is not like any of these other cities.
bee are an age restricted community. People don’t usually come on the council until they are 65 or city years old. In each of the last elections we have located a new councilmember. We have turnover and we have fresh ideas and fresh faces coming on to our council and I’d like you to know that that is my thoughts. Plir thank you.
>> I wanted to spoa to the respe idea of the led street lights. Vicky was one of the people that was a big mover and brought this to council.
this has been an issue for 20, 30 years and finally united, charlie prager went ahead an signed an agreement it was all in the works, it was in the goab, this was a done deal already,s to lights will be replaced. And the place you are saying is dark is in the village, not the city which maybe create an interesting difference but anyway all those lights are going to be replaced. So that is an old issue now. Fully thank you. Think other comments? Thank you.
so the them, now we can move to the treasurer report. Go ahead. >> good afternoon. I’ll be reporting the city treasurer’s report as of july 31st, 2026. Total cash and investments for the general fund operating ended at 7.million, the general fund reserves for special revenue funds ended at 2.9 million totaling ending balance at $15,093,6 34.
this 15 million wore broken down to cash and cash requisites, pooled money investment accounts of 8.7 million, which make up tower.9 million and camp investments at 3.7 million. Investments in cds owned at 6,049,000. This totals $15,093,000.
and you might have noticed in the mark lake financial comparison report that there was a decrease in total cash and investments of approximately $325,000. This was mainly due to the city having to pay two shares invoices in the month of july and a large invoice for the city hall refurbishment and safety project phase 5. Project.
trust funds as of july 31st for the other post employment benefits trust account had an ending balance of $168 tow with a net loss of $831. The pension liability trust account had an ending balance of $612,000, with a thet loss of $2155. And this concludes the treasurer’s report for the month of july. We will thousand receive any public comments.
>> mayor mccary: any public comments on the treasurer’s report? Seeing none, the recommendation, do we get a motion to receive and file? Motion and second. All in favor, okay. Motion carries. Thank you. Now we move to the next item on the agenda, as soon as I find the box. Okay, the quarter fiscal report. >> yes. So this is the quarterly financial report as of june 30, 2026.
I just wnd to remind you that these amounts are unaudited numbers and though are not they. We are in the process of accruing other revenues and expenditures as we are receiving them and making further investments. So the general fund had revenues of almost $10 million, which is over our budget.
and mainly, this is due to the business tax that we received, which was $610,000 more than expected. We have also yet to receive the final sales tax payment for the fiscal year. And final franchise fees are also expected in august. The general fund had expenditures are h of $7.7 million which are borrow budget and this is due to less spending across most departments.
transfers in of $153,767 to the general fund from the capital projects fund was maintain to return unspent funds from the completed projects, capital projects, during the fiscal year year. And there were transfers out in the amount of $3.6 million which were made for the s ad p opportunity and capital projects fund.
both transfers are consistent with city council approvals during the fiscal year. The general fund had ending fund balance of approximately $9.8 million. This is still might change though. There is a decrease in unassigned fund balance of approximately $2.1 million for the fiscal year.
this was due to the transfer of capital projects funds, as I said earlier, which is set aside for capital projects currently in progress or for future projects. The general fund and the capital projects fund are combined on the cafr, and both funds bans will wash off when combined. Next, the capital projects fund had an ended with no revenue because this fund is funded by the general fund. And therefore, doesn’t earn any revenues.
expenditures ended at $823,000 for the capital projects fund. This represents several projects which are in progress. The appropriation for such projects will be carried over to fiscal year 26-27. The opportunity balloons ended at almost $3.5 million. As photoed earlier this mainly represents the amount transferred from the general fund. Special revenue funds had revenues of $2.
7 million, however, we are expecting moneys from reimbursable grants which will be received in fiscal year 26-27. Expenditures of $2.8 million are as expected and in line with the budget. And special revenue funds had an approximate ending fund balance of $2.shef million. Interest income received as of june 30th for all funds totaled $552 r h-r 138.
additional is found in your agenda packet. Liz thank you, open for public comments on the treasurer’s report. Public comments. Come, come. I didn’t see you. Did I believe you said some $600,000 was from the cannabis tax revenues.
was an expected or can you elaborate a little bit more? That is for the whole fiscal year? The 600,000? >> the 610,000 is over budget of what we were expecting for the cannabis business tax. >> mayor mccary: okay, any other public comments? Or council comment? >> I would like to comment on the cannabis tax.
that comes in the cannabis money that comes this here, some people are under the misconception that it is put in a special bracket and only used for certainly things. As you can see as part of our revenues, it comes in like property tax, sales tax, franchise taxes, transit occupancy tax and it all goes into theend. It is not separated out for anything. It is spent on everything.
and so there’s been a misconception about that people thinking that they -- that we should spend cannabis money for something. But it’s already combined. With everything else. And we spend it on things that we spend, whether we’re improving our parks or improving our roads or whatever we do, improving city hall. It’s spent on that. So great report, thank you very much. >> mayor mccary: thank you.
think other council comments? I just wanted to he can he echoe are grateful to have the cannabis tax, to fund the projects that are ongoing so thank you. So then there is a motion to -- recommendation to receive. >> second. >> mayor mccary: all in favor, no opposed, okay, carries. Next, on the agenda is the consent calendar.
>> all items appearing on the consent calendar are considered by the city manager to be routine and will be thacted by one vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the city council or city staff requests a specific items be removed there the consent calendar for separate discussion of action.
members of the public may address the city council on any item appearing on the consent calendar at the time the item is considered, regardless whether the item has been removed from the consent calendar. Items that are removed from the consent calendar will be considered after items remaining on the consent calendar. >> mayor mccary: moved and seconded.
all in favor? Aye. Motion carries. The next item on the agenda is public hearings. Item 8.1. I’ll turn it over to our city manager. >> thank you very much. We have two public hearings today, both are related to tease.
I’m going to do a part of this presentation and part of the next presentation and then terry madsen our consultant with clear source financial will be chiming in as well and talking about some of the work that he’s done. Just to introduce this item, so this first item relates to building, planning encroachment and draiding permit fees.
this is an exercise we go every year to evaluate our fees, make sure they are adequately covering our costs and make sure that there is some rational basis to the actual tee being charged. State law allows the city only to cover its reasonable costs for providing services.
terry and his firm have prepared a fee study that analyze et cetera how these building, planning encroachment and grading permit fees would need to be established in order for the city to cover those reasonable costs or effectively to break even. One of the things that I want to mention right off the bat is that terry and his firm’s work that was done for a that the fee so there is no incentive for his firm to identify any specific outcome.
they get paid the same amount regardless of what they find. As we’ve done in years past, we general recommend that the city establish fees at the reasonable cost for providing service.
we suggest you do that primarily if the cost is x and we choose to charge x less some amount, effectively taxpayers as a whole are subsidizing that service. We’ll pulling moneys from the general fund to cover our costs for services some rather than collecting money from the applicant for private construction or private development to pay for their own cost of service. Terry’s going to get a little bit more into that as he goes through the next couple of slides.
>> thank you so much, mayor and members of the city council for allowing me to speak with you this afternoon, it’s nice to see all of you. And this is a topic that’s familiar to many of you.
I will reorient you to the topic in case your you’re curious and looking for a refresher and in case any members of the public are interested in this topic. But busy way of reminder, we’re thinking about fees and service based fees. So primarily, permit processing, review of plans, inspection of construction, and so forth.
so some service provided by city of laguna woods staff or contact service roiders to requestors of service or requirers of specific services and it is typically development related. Our job is to identify what is the city of laguna woods cost of service and you as a city council use that information to make decisions about whether you want to recover that cost of service from the receiver of service or pay for it from some other city resource.
and away what I will mention hes this idea that the state of california has required laguna woods to enforce the regulations of the california building code, california fire code, subdivision pap act entitlement and so forth. -- map ak entitlement and so forth.
the state has also authorized you to recover your cost of providing those services so you can use your general funds for broad community purposes if you wish. Right? So that’s the idea here. We give you this information. You can use it to determine whether you want to recover fees that equal your cost of service and that is what you have historical done as a city council. And just by way of reminder.
cost of service analysis, influenced by the citywide overhead cost allocation plan where we think about your -- the broad services provided in -- by the city in order to provide these outward-facing services that the community sees like inspection services and permit processing services and so forth forth.
when we understand that cost of service, that cost of service is linked to service timer. We understand what is the value of our time, and is this exercise relatively simple? Is this a one hour activity versus something that is much more complex and we’re going to be out there multiple times for hours at a time. Simpler in nature, lower cost of service.
more complex in nature, higher cost of service. The cost of service represents what you are able to collect as a fee. So you can recover up to your cost of service, but not beyond that. Because these are fees and not taxes. The city manager mentioned this but I’ll illustrate it in chart form.
this idea that your cost of service is a cost to the city of laguna woods, it is just a matter whether you are going to cover the cost from general tax collars or recover it from the -- dollars or recover it from the receiver of services.
I do want to recover these costs so I can just my general tax benefits for broad benefit rather than for specific benefit. Next slide. You guys, at laguna woods, you proactively manage fees as part of your annual process, I think through this. And you have experienced, you know, not -- you’ve managed your inflationary pressures well.
so we don’t see a lot of adjustments proposed as part of this analysis. The analysis indicates that your building tease which is the majority of your fees, would primarily adjust by like 1 to 2%, very spall changes. There are two new fees proposed in the schedule. But they are not new requirements. They have been required and the city has collected fees for service.
but it’s used like a miscellaneous charge. And so now we’re identifying those services clearly in the schedule. Planning fees, they are proposed to increase to a lion’s share coast of h h h had chos of service. Everything is consistent with what you have historical been pleasanted. It is updated to flect your current cost of service.
>> I’m going to make two more comments before we talk about other concepts. The first is this is the first time that we have reassessed our building tease since we brought building services in house.
and so what we talked about a year ago, little more than a year ago, when we did that, is that by bringing services in house we would be better to better control the growth in the cost of those services over time. Not that we could avoid raising fees.
because obl, obviously, everythg gets more expensive over time but increasing the building costs which is labor we would be able to better manage it than being beholden to third party service providers, particularly because, and no fault to them, that third party service providers have a profit motivate hoor that motivator that the city doesn’t have. That 1% or less figure is really important this year. In years past, I would agree with what terry said.
we have not seen really wild swings in fees over time. But we have had years where building fees have increased three, tower, tower, five, six,d certainly earlier on in fee studies many years ago though increased by wider margins.
that 1% or less is in alarming part triple to us attributable g able to manage and not have a 5% escalator on the labor rate because of a third party contract service provider. So I think it is -- it is obviously year 1 but this is indicative of what we told you was going to happen, happening. Fees will increase over time but hopefully we can hold down that curve around not increase by quite as much.
second thing on those two new fees, terry mentioned that they are not new permit requirements. One of the things we have tried to do in our fee schedule that makes us a little bit unusual compared to at least a majority of other cities is we use fixed fees except really where the state requires us to use an evaluation based fee.
and those and for new construction. But fixed fees, we obviously can’t yeubt quantify every work or every work that might come through our doors. You see in the fee schedule I think we have a hundred or so fees.
as we identify types of work that we are seeing more frequently, our practice has been to add those fees to our fee schedule. Chiefly because it allows somebody to call our front counter and say what will I cost me in permit fees to city hall a electric vehicle charger, we have a number we can give them.
it is not a, you know, magical question, it varies on based who is asking the question. These two fees terry is correct, we have been using a miscellaneous category for them but we have been seeing enough of this work that we have decided to add a specific line item to it to provide greater certainty for applicants. On the next slide, I want to talk about fear comparison.
I’m going to ask terry to opine on this as well. He works for a number of cities. One of the things that we did this year is we took a look at a couple of the fees that we charge more treblg, water heater replaces, air conditioning replacement units and electric panel change out costs and we
compare the rate we are charging to rates in other jurisdictions. Let me orient you to what we’re looking at. The first four lines under the header, the white lines that have the city names in them, these are th four cities that boarder laguna woods.
and in the columns to the right of those city names we have the cost tat they charge for these types of permits. One big caveat to this is, many of these cities use valuation based tease. And so when -- based fees. So when we reached out to cities to get a cost, it was a -- this might be the cost more than it is, this is the cost.
because it ultimately depends highway that building permit application is filled out and house their counter staff interpret the data on there. So this -- yeah, so a fixed fee, you the come in and you say I want to replace a water heater, under this fee schedule we would tell you that we would charge
$107, plus there is a couple of state fees that we have to charming on the state’s behalf. So we can give you a firm number. In an evaluation based fee structure, typically what happens is, you put on there the total value of the work you’re doing is $2,000 and then the city has some sort of formula on
the back end that takes that valuation and turns it into a permit cost. >> (inaudible). >> yes. It does. And so that’s why I say if you were to call some of these cities, you would probably get a id number than we have here just kind of based on how you traysed the question.
but we -- traysed the question. But we tried to settle on what was reasonable numbers from these cities. And so the first four are those cities and their costs. The line that is marked a on the left-hand side, that row takes an average of those four cities above them.
so the average of neighboring cities is the average of laguna beach and laguna hills. One of the things that I think is pretty clear when you stair at this data long enough is there are always cities that are lower and there are always cities that are higher.
there are always outliers, there are always cities that for whatever reason their cost of service is significantly less. I think that on the whole we compare pretty favorably to the average of those neighboring cities.
I’m not to say that there aren’t cities that charge less and cities that charge more but one of the real reasons and I’ll ask terry to comment on this is that every city does have a different cost of service, right? Cities have varying cost of overhead, cities have varying cost of recovery goals. So how they recover their fees or what they are saying no we’re not trying to recover, that voaz much matters here. Including the times that these inspections tie. Larger organizations tend to have larger overhead.
that overhead gets funneled down to permits in different ways. And so I think that this type of analysis looking at what other cities charge is maybe good as a gut check. But you’re always going to find cities all over the map.
the other row I want to mention before I ask terry to chime in is the very last row that is marked bx. B. If the city cpt exist and this is still unincorporated orange county, their fees are significantly higher right? Instead of $107 for a water heater replacement, the county would charge you $380. Instead of hvac the county would charge you 420. Instead of 120 the county would charge you 356.
that is one area where very clearly there is a benefit for the city being a city. If only because the council is the only other option if we didn’t exist. Terry I’m going to ask you to weigh in on this. >> I had a question before we leave this slide.
this slide here, is this document placed on somebody’s website or is this information that you gather from -- >> this is information we gathered from each of these cities. So we actually reached out to their staff to try to debt them to give us a dollar value for these permits in some cases that was easier, some cases that was harder.
but yeah, this was an internal exercise that we did looking at our three more common fee types. >> my comment was this was not put own some place that john q public, in alisa viijo, versus laguna woods. This is public information -- >> versus in the slide right now, information that anybody could get by calling cities.
there isn’t one like clearing highways of fees if that is the question. This is in the agenda packet but it is in the powerpoint so they can down load that. Would you turn your mic on please? >> pardon me. One question having to do with electric panel.
doesn’t -- who else inspects the electric panel when it’s changed out other than our -- >> that’s really a question for our building official. I believe that we do the inspection, and then if a building as been deenergized, I think there is a clearance that we provide to southern california edison but I think as far as I know we do the inspections for the changeouts.
>> the reason I ask, they shut down, edison would come and change out your whole house to change out your electric package. There is no power there believe me. >> you have to deenergize the building. >> the energizing, having just paid for one, there are close to $5,000. It’s very expensive to do that.
I don’t think people know how this -- if you haven’t gone into this, all those numbers run up fast. Is definitely involved in it.so- in my situation I had the utility people, and I was thinking there was somebody else who inspected. Because after everything was back together is when the city finally came and did their inspection.
so I kind of wondered -- >> I can get you that answer. I don’t have it off the top of my head. >> I was kind of curious. Didn’t you bring up the oavmentv chargers? -- the ev ev chargers? Your panel, your electric panel having had this experience with what happens there, had to be really careful that the people understand with electric, the
charger you can’t crank it up and just go charging away at a high -- like 50 amps, and you’re damaging your electric panel which is a very expoaive expense appropriation. Having suffered through that I have a particularly bad experience. Anyway go ahead. >> terry will provide some commentary on this as well.
>> yeah, just in case it’s helpful. And I would say that any time we present information like this we caveat the idea that it is intended for illustrative purposes. And it is intended to show you like the flow of the tide. Like a general idea of what you can expect to pay.
because the reality is as the city manager mentioned, if three of you called an agency that set fees based on the value of the project, and you may each have a different value of the project or the permit person pay set a different value. These may be subject to change but you could get an idea of where you stand, I would say that.
looking at this as an outsider’s poaivet, everything here looks within the realm of reasonable. And what might shock you is from an outsider’s perspective, the fact that like let’s say irvine has a low fee for water heater replacement, a high fee for hvac replacing and a large fee for plek panel replacement that doesn’t surprise us, but maybe
irvine has policies in place where they’re deliberately recovering or have time since they have reviewed their fees. There is a number of reasons. We were mentioning you might have a hundred different tease. Amongst those hundred fees, I teal confident if we grabbed one, laguna woods might be to low ends of the spectrum.
if we got the different one you might be at the middle end of the spectrum and if we grabbed the third one you might be at the upper end of the spectrum.
what you’re trying to figure out is, am I totally bizarre? And the answer is no you are not totally bizarre, you ar lined to the region are aligned to the region. >> so moving on from fee comparison. Fads to the resolution that’s in your agenda packet that would update all of these fees, as part of the annual process, we have proposed three new programs as part of this action today.
they are included in an ordinance that is also part of the staff recommendation. These are -- there is a fee waiver program and then there are two fee reduction programs. These are either authorized by state law that we’re seeking to implement, or they are contemplated in the general plan and both is true, they are specific authorized by the state law. Building tee program for veterans with disabilities.
in this case if a veteran was coming into to pull building permits for work in their home that was directly related to accommodating a service-connected disability, in other words, a disability that they are receiving treatment or coverage there, there the va, we would waive 100% of our building permit fees for that permit.
now that would not apply to the fees that the state requires us to charge on their behalf because that is something we to pay regardless. We have no ability to waive them. This is a fee waiver program that is specifically lloyd by state law. Cities are not required to offer it.
but they are able to do so under clean authority in the california health and safety code. As part of this, the ordinance that’s been proposed includes information on how a veteran would prove their vote ran status. And then how they would prove that the improvement that they’re making is necessary to accommodate a service connected disability.
sat a very high level that requires a medical professional to sign a statement to that technicality. The statement does thought require the medical professional to provide any specific information on the person’s diagnosis, illness or condition. Simply to vouch for them that yes, this particular improvement is related to a service connected disability.
a second program, this is a building tee reduction program, similar in nature, would waive 50% of city enacted building permit fees for improvements that a person who is 60 years of age or older is making to accommodate a mental or physical disability as those terms are defined in state law. This is another one that is specifically allowed by california health and safety code.
cities are note required to implement it but can do so if they wish. This one is actually explicitly contemplated by our general plan housing element. There’s a program in there that says we would look at doing over the coerce of that current housing element cycle.
this wouldn’t require fees, the ordinance requires language for those seniors to provide us with that same sort of statement from a medical professional attesting to the improvement that they’re seeking to making necessary to accommodate a qualifying disability. And then the third program this one relates to affordable housing units. This is another one that is explicitly corporated in the general plan housing element.
this would waive 20% of the city enacted building fees for the construction of housing projects in which a certain amount of units are set aside for specified income levels.
so at least 5% are affordability for extremely low income or at least 10% are affordable for very low or low income ore at least 50% are affordable for moderate income. One requirement in addition to this is setting aside those units a builder could simply say sure I’ll set aside tif%. They actually have to record an affordability covenant against the property guaranteeing that that number of units is set aside for the specified income level for at least 55 years.
and again, this wouldn’t apply to stated fees that we charge. In terms of effective date the fee schedule so the updates to the building encroachment and grading fees those fees would take effect october 19 of 2026 the state requires you to provide at least 60 days before fees are effective, and those programs if the city council took the recommended action
today and approved the second reading and adoption at your meeting in september, those fee programs would take effect november 16th of 2026. With that, the staff recommendation today, you’ve heard our staff report, we would recommend opening a public hearing, receiving any public testimony.
after you close that public hearing, our recommendation, remember there’s two parts to this, the first is to adopt a resolution titled a resolution of the city council of the city of laguna woods, california, adopting new and increased or modified building and planning service fees and encroampment and grading permit and determining and certifying that the resolution is not subject to the california environmental quality act pursuant to title 14
of the california code of regulations and 6. Approve the introduction and first reading of an ordinance — read by title with further reading waived — titled: an ordinance of the city council of the city of laguna woods, california, adding section 10.02.050 to chapter 10.
02 of title 10 (buildings and construction) of the laguna woods municipal code pertaining to the waiver or reduction of city-enacted building fees for specified purposes including, but not limited to, purposes consistent with california health and safety code sections 17951.5 and 17951.7 and laguna woods general plan housing element programs h-1.2.5. And h-2.2.2.
; and determining and certifying that the ordinance is exempt from the california environmental quality act with that I will turn it back over to the mayor for the public hearing. >> mayor mccary: we’re open for public hearing. Any comments from the public? Seeing none, two public people, thank you. Seeing none -- >> I’ll move the resolution. >> mayor mccary: ettes been moved. >> second.
>> just to clarify, the resolution and the ordinance? >> yes. Liz any comments? >> yes, I would like to second it and say that I’m really proud that we are doing these programs. I think it’s a wonderful thing. It’s not a million dollars that we can save people. But just every lil bit. You’d like a ramp if you have a wheelchair.
beneficial things for both veterans and seniors. And terry, thank you so much for coming. It’s really nice to see you den. And I remember the first time we did this, permit, we haven’t done it for a long time, the permit fees really went up a lot. I’m glad we do that on a regular basis. Thank you. I second that.
>> mayor mccary: hawfer, it carries. Now we move down to -- >> item 8.2 is electric vehicle charging fees. This is very similar to the last item.
this also relates to fees that the city charges in this case, these are the fees that the city charges for use of the level 2 electric vehicle charging stations that are locating here at city hall. You have only considered these charges once before, we had a discussion, there was ocost of service analysis, done at that time. And fees were established.
our two goals with these fees which are governed under different laws than building tease and the like, our goals is to recover the cost of electricity and other service costs, associated with the city offering these charging stations and also to encourage efficient use of the stations.
there is a rate for energy, and that’s meant to recover cierpd of the first bullet right there, the cost of electricity and service related cost $and then there is a fee that is charged when someone stays at the charging station after the charging is complete. And that is meant to motivate that person to move along and not effectively squat at the time at the charmer long past their needs. You see that happening at charging stations that don’t have that parking rate, where they’re located near workplaces.
a person will charge their vehicle, it will be flurry charged at 10 a.m. But they will leave it until they are done with work. This makes efficient use of the two stations we have. Terry. >> thank you again.
and just in terms of what is proposed for city council consideration, your current energy rate that first idea of what would I pay if I just won’t in and wanted to charge my vehicle and didn’t stay beyond just that normal routine service time, today the rate is 30 cents per kilowatt-hour, kilowatt-hour is what they use to measure the cost of the energy. The proposed rate is 45 cents pour kilowatt-hour.
city manager mentioned there has been several years since your rate has been adjusted and since that time energy rates have gone up considerably offer the last severalty years. I think the average change in energy rate is 7 to 9% per year. This is just accounting for that and accounting for the service agreements you have with your accounting provider and so forth.
this rate aligns well to the region. It’s similar to what laguna woods village charges for similar services and similar types of carnlging stations so it should feel reasonable and rational. Similar to what other municipalities charge and so forth.
and the idea here is that we believe that you could justify legally up to trien cents per kilowatt-hour but to align to the region and avoid confusion we said let’s adjust it to 45 cents per kilowatt-hour which is what the community’s most familiar with in the area. And because these are not comment related fees, the city manager mentioned a development related fee needs 60 days to go into effect.
this is a market rate fee note development related it can go into effect upon adoption if the city council desires. Thank you. >> so we are proposing that the increased energy rate, the 45 cents per kilowatt-hour would take effect tomorrow. We have the ability to make a change in the system that manages it and very comparable.
laguna woods village for their charging stations, they have a member rate which is intentionally discount id for members and there is a nonmember rate which is the functional we’ve which is a public rate, anybody that stops at the station.
and so their public nonmember rate is 45 cents pour kilowatt-hour which is what we’re proposing to set our energy rate to. No change is proposed to the parking rate. That’s been effective, we did some analysis as part of this work to look at whether or not people were actually paying the parking rate in any significant number. If they’re paying it, it means that they are sitting there longer than they should be.
and it was a very small portion of folks that were actually being charged that parking rate. So that says to us it’s doing what it means to do. We’re not looking to be overly punitive and collect thousands of dollars for being there for an extra hour. So there’s a public hearing today.
so we would request that you open the public hearing, receive any public testimony, after closing the public hearing, our recommendation is that you adopt the resolution titled, a resolution chts city council of the city of laguna woods, california, adoptiving increased electric vehicle charging fees for use of city-owned electric vehicle charging stations located at laguna woods city hall 24264 el toro road, laguna
woods, ca 92637; and determining and certifying that the resolution is exempt from the california environmental quality act we do have one correction to make to the resolution, in section 2 we would ask that the september 20th, 2026, date be corrected to add august at which time, 2026.
and with that I would turn it back over to the mayor to open the public hearing. >> mayor mccary: public hearing is now open. Any public comments? Seeing none, public hearing is -- okay, you can go under the public. Public hearing and council comments.
>> my question is, where do we recover our capital costs for small the electricity and purchasing the charging station itself, and other equipment? >> it’s a good question. We don’t is the short answer. We installed the charging stations with the use of grant funds. And so it wasn’t general fund dollars or some other tax proceeds that went to it. We aren’t seeking to recover that installation cost.
and I think, I don’t think we recover, we don’t set aside an amount for the future. So the drive cents per kilowatt-hour or up to 49 that we could justify, that methodology doesn’t take into account that we will eventually need to replace the chargers some day.
that is intentional on our part because we expect when the chargers reach end of life we will very likely have mobile source reduction funds available for that purpose. That’s one of the pots of money that we used to fund the installation in the first place. And so just out of an abandons of abundance of caution, we haven’t been recouping costs, that would be a more aggressive take on highwayd recover the fees.
definitely justifiable but we will probably note have to dip into general fund dollars for it. >> mayor mccary: any other comments? >> I’ll move the resolution, recommendation. >> okay, all in favor? Aye. Resolution carries. >> thank you very much and thank you terry. >> mayor mccary: okay, thank you terry. Thank you. I brief we’re at item 9.2.
we did 9.1 already. So we’re at 9.2. >> 9.2 is to appointing the delegation to the league of california cities, some years there are votes to cast some years there aren’t votes to cast.
they ask us to assign a delegate, an alternate delegate and a second alternate delegate which is actually perfect this career because there are three councilmembers registered to attend, the mayor, the mayor pro tem and councilmember moore are all planning to attend the conference. So there’s an opportunity for public comments which I think maybe we asked for initially and then the council can decide who it wishes to appoint as the first, second and third.
>> mayor mccary: so we open for public comments, close the public comments. I’d like to volunteer to be the delegate. >> okay, delegate. >> I’ll be the alternate,. >> I’ll be the second alternate. >> the motion is to appoint mayor mccary as delegate, mayor lee asal alternate delegate, as alternate, and I’ll take a motion for that. >> I’ll move the recommended action.
in second. Liz all in favor, aye, so the recommendation carries. Now we are at item 9-- I can’t count. >> 9.3, employees positions, compensation and benefits. This item I’m going to talk about it at a high level. I’m happy to get into more detail on it if you have questions.
the recommendation which is one part a job clarification and one part a resolution would do these things. It would provide an alternative traifg training prerequisite, to receive the stipend. They needed to complete state firearm arms training. Once we got into the mechanics, we have a staff person who already has that certification.
so he’s been using that to set aside the prerequisite, but as we got into training additional people to go through that pca-32 class, the primary challenge that we have run into is they require that the agency that is sponsoring the person to go through the training provide the handgun. And that the handgun be owned by the agency.
and so we are -- this is I want to preface this all by saying that this is all being done out of an abundance of caution. Our staff when they provide enhanced tasing services, they are using crested air guns which don’t contain a training requirement, these are just paint ball guns.
we think there’s a benefit to staff being trained in safe handling of firearms, no matter whether we are using crested air guns. So pc 842, for the person who has it who is on staff now is ex-law enforcement so he received pc 38 training when I e was a police officer. We want to substitute two hours of in person firearms training.
we were able to identify a local range that offers a one hour classroom training followed by one hour of live fire work on the training range or on the range at the facility.
in that case, they rent the guns as part of the training and so the city does note have to purchase firearms in order to put people through that training. So pc 832 your current resolution says that if somebody has that it qualifies them for three years to provide enhanced coyote aizing the in person training the two hours we would require that to be done annually.
the resolution says that will be done at least every 13 months to provide a little bit of flexibility on what we mean by annually. Second, there is some language changed in here that allow -- that when we hire department heads we are able to advance the first 40 hours of paid time off to those individuals. This doesn’t change the overall amount of paid time off that they’re able to accrue.
but it does allow them to start their service with laguna woods with a leave balance. They don’t earn leave in addition to the tort hours until they pass the point though would have already earned the 40 hours worth of leave.
this is meant to avoid a potential deterrent to somebody moving over to the ststledz citf laguna woods, if those occur in short order after they start with us, if they have not otherwise earned that that time off they would be taking it unpaid which is not maybe the best way to start a new job by immediately going out on unpaid leave but we understand that people have preexisting appointments and travel and so
forth. And so again this doesn’t change the total amount accrued, only the time line on which it’s accrued. We also make some classification in the document, that talk about throating holidays and paid time off. The clarification is just clarifying that those hours are accrued on the last day of the pay period that they’re earned.
right now it just says they’re accrued during a pay period but it doesn’t specify exactly what day they’re accrued on. The more significant change in here has to do with monthly benefit allowances.
so a lot of agencies in this public or private, this may cover the cost of health insurance separately or they may contribute an amount towards it. For the city we have historically provided funds for health insurance through what’s called a monthly benefit allowance. So employees receive a flat amount every month that they can put towards health insurance, they have to put it towards that first.
if there is money remaining though can put it towards vision health, dependable flexible savings accounts and based on the hire date of the employees some of the long are term employees have the ability to convert a portion of it to cash.
for 2027, we’ve been looking at health insurance rates and if you think back to june when we did that annual report that the state requires us to where we identify potential scoblgs to hierlg, we identify health insurance as one of those issues. And really I think it’s two things. One is obviously health insurance is going up. Rg is more expensive than it used to be.
but the way that we’ve funded health insurance historical has been contributing that that the amount which is a flat amount irrespective of the number of subscribers on that health insurance. So a person who is single and has no dependents 67s receives e same amount as a person married with children. The reality is the single cost is far less expensive than the married cost if you have children as well.
so what we’re proposing today is what we kind of talked about briefly in june, which is diagnose from paying a oourmt flat amount that is only differentiated by whether an grow is full time or part time to an amount that varies based on the number of people that are enrolled in the city contracted health plan.
so right now, the first two lines, the white lines, we provide $1500 per month per employee, if you’re full time, and then if you are part time it’s $1200 per employee per month. I want to note that there is a third class of employees here which is limited part time employees. Those are ones that work less than 20 hours a wek.
they don’t receive this benefit. The health insurance benefit, monthly benefit allowance is only if you work regularly more than 20 hours a month. Or 20 hours a week.
so what we’re proposing is for employees who either they’re the only one enrolled in a city contracted plan or if they are not enrolled because they have insurance somewhere else that their amount stays what it is now. Either $1500 if you are full time or $1200 if you are part time. For individuals that have two people enrolled in the city contracted ealth plan, so this could be the employee and a disappoints, the employee and a child, those rates would increase.
and then if they have more than two people enrolled in the health plan, that would be this family rate on the far right. The way that the city contracted health plans work, once you hit that family level which is three or more, you can have ten people ensured under it and it’s still the same amount.
so these are the three rates that are already differentiated in the health plans. The way we’ve calculated these rates, the 1500 and the 1200 is just what we’re offering now. We didn’t want anybody to lose in this process.
the two dash party and the family rates, we took an average of the hm oamplet options that are available to staff -- hmo options that are available to satisfy. In bot cases that is what the full time amount is. We did intentionally compare that average to the cost of the lowest cost ppo option.
in this case, the average was higher than the lower-cost ppo option which effectively means that that amount that you see on the screen, roughly 2200 or the 2800, that amount is sufficient to cover a variety of the hmo options and the lowest cost ppo option. So it provides a range of options for employees. There are still plans that wrote be more expensive.
and so right now, if an employee chooses a plan where the premium exceeds the amount that we provide, they pay for that through a peril payroll deductio it gets deducted have their take home pay. More of those plans would be covered for individuals that are on the two party or the family track.
I want to thought that the cost of health insurance, we have some employees who are right thousand, because they have dependents, they are experiencing payroll reductions or deductions of almost $3,000 a month that’s being taken identity of their take home pay to pay for health insurance.
this will not completely alleviate that if they choose one of those higher cost options but it would provide a couple of choices for them that the city would contribute enough to cover the cost of. This is a more significant change here. I will point out that all of the changes that we’ve talked about including this change to the monthly benefit allowance, we can accommodate that within the city’s existing budget. We don’t need to add appropriations to make these changes.
these changes would take effect in january of 2027. Your current budget runs through june of 2027. There is sufficient opportunities to cover this for those six months. But even looking forward, because of the way that we budget our expectations particularly with respect to the educational assistance program and some of the other contingents that we build in, we don’t anticipate that this
monthly benefit allowance change would really have a discernible impact on the future budget. When you look at the number of employees that we have and then you look at the number who would theoretically qualify for the higher amounts, the two-party or family, it is roughly half.
roughly half of staff are either in the single or none category, the other is in the two party category, that coupled with the fact that we don’t have that many employees make this in my mind kind of a negligible financial impact but something that for the employees that are currently taking several thousand dollars out of their paycheck a month would make a significant difference to them.
that obviously has a retention benefit and for hiring it is very common place for cities to outright cover the cost of employees or provide benefits kind of equivalent to what we are considering here so that would make us more competitive on the recruitment side in addition to the retention side. There is opportunity for public comments.
first is to approve a modified job classification for the following city employee position: animal outreach officer; and 2. Adopt a resolution titled: a resolution of the city council of the city of laguna woods, california, repealing resolution no.
26-28, and establishing and modifying a compensation schedule and benefits for city employees, including the city manager and other local agency executives as defined in california government code section 3511.1 with that I’ll turn it back ovr to the mayor for public comments. >> mayor mccary: we are open for public comments. Seeing no public comments. Council comments or motion? Okay. >> I move the two resolutions. >> second. Liz moved and seconded for both resolutions. All in favor, resolution carries.
thank you. Now we move to item 9.4. City manager employment agreement. >> and I will be giving the presentation on this. Just as a reminder, this is chris’s own employment contract. So he is not able to represent the city’s interest on this. That’s why I’m giving the presentation.
if you have questions for him, he’ll be speaking on his own behalf on this item. >> and meanwhile, sitting here awkwardly. >> it is a bit awkward. This is the second, mr. Macon’s annual base salary from ray% from $229,569 many 32 to $2 tref,934 many h many 87. This is an increase in the base salary of $18,365.55.
with the added benefits, that would be $21,hoe,030.30. There are contributions as interested in the staff report. The proposed increase is based on the city council’s earlier consideration of the evaluation, the annual performance evaluation of the city manager. And the consideration of other city manager salaries in orange county. The increase would go into effect if approved on august 22nd, 2026.
there is a staff recommendation in towrt parts. The first is already done. You have received an oral report as required by the california government code. The second is to approve amendment number 2 to the the city manager employment agreement with christopher macon and authorize the mayor to execute amendment no.
2, subject to approval as to form by the city attorney; 3. Adopt a resolution titled: and do we have a number for the one that was just adopted yet? 26 -- 34.
adopt a resolution titled a resolution of the city council of the city of laguna woods, california, amending and adopting the fiscal year 2026 through 2027 -- sorry I’m on number 4. Number 3 is a resolution of the city council of the city of laguna woods, california, resolution 26-34, and establishing and modifying a compensation schedule and benefits for city employees, including the city manager and other local agency executives as defined in california government code section 3511.
1 they repealing the resolution that you just adopted in item 9.3. And finally 4. Adopt a resolution titled: a resolution of the city council of the city of laguna woods, california, amending and adopting the fiscal year 2026-27 budget for fiscal year 2026-27 commencing july 1 2026 and ending june 30, 2027, increasing general fund appropriations to provide the compensation and benefits
set forth in amendment no. 2 to the city manager employment agreement. And that concludes my presentation. There is an opportunity for public comments on this and I’m open for questions. >> mayor mccary: public comments, don’t all speak at once. Public comments are closed. So council comments? Or motions? >> I’ll so move.
>> I just want to say I wholeheartedly approve this action, I think chris has been doing a great job for us. I think he anticipates things that are coming down towards us and takes steps so that he woo can be prepared for them and take maximum advantage of all the circumstances in orange county.
and I think owes richly deserves the raise and I move the item. >> I’ll second that. >> I think councilmember moore moved the item. >> you can second. Liz all in favor. Aye. Motion carries. Thousand we’re at item number 10. Council reports and comments.
did you want to read about the council reports and comments, yolie? >> this is the time and place for members of the city council to provide reports on meetings attended including but not limited to, meetings of regional boards and entities to which they have been appointed to represent the city of laguna woods and meetings attended at the expense of the city of laguna woods pursuant to california government code
section 53232.3. Members of the city council may also make other comments and announcements. >> mayor mccary: okay, so the first one is the coastal green belt authority, I have no report, our next meeting will be in september. The orange county fire authority.
>> yes, I was going to ask chief gibson if he would like to come up and say anything. The tire authority hasn’t met this month. >> good afternoon, mayor and city council. Nice to see everybody. Just want to give a little update.
it’s wildfire season right now, getting hotter and drier right? Nothing is affecting us down south, as you know, lots of fires up north and out of state right on the canadian border. We have several ever of of our crew members including a dozer, hand crew and single resources that are up there on the canadian boarder in washington, out there providing our services regionally. We’re proud to have them up there, learning some things and getting some good work jowp and helping them out.
our goal lines out with cal fire to keep 95% of all wild land fires ten acres or less and we’ve been hitting those marks all the time. Maybe two months ago I had one that was 11 acres, but that was in rancho mission viejo. We have meeting our mark, early in the season. We are prepared.
we have done a lot of training and everything is looking really good. And speaking of training, tomorrow we’ll be working along with the sheriffs in rancho santa margarita.
all of our fire agencies will be debting together with them and going over what it’s like for us to work alongside with them and communicate and be able to provide the services to the citizens whenever there are large scale events. And it will be a classroom portion vs.
an outdoor portion where we’ll have our two vehicles backed up to each other and several different stations where we’ll be able to show everybody the communications and all the technology that we provide so that we can work on those incidents and solve problems. That’s all I have for you guys. Is there any questions? >> thank you so much. >> this is actually for chris. I understand we’ve been working on trying to get an infrared fire detection ram ra at one of the high points in our city.
is tere anything you could report about that chris? Good absolutely, chief gibson can comment on it as well. We have been working with mutual number 50 of the towers to locate two wildfire detection >> city manager keane: operated as part of the wildfire detection program as the roof of the south tower. And so there -- we’ve been working with u.c. San diego who administers the program.
we have an agreement ready to bring to you from them and then we have an mou that we’ve developed that is just waiting for approval from mutual number 50. Before we’ll bring it back to the city council for your consideration we’re homing that that will be in september.
and at that point, we’ll invite chief dibz to provide a little bit more information on exactly how those cameras are used, they use an a.I. Component, it is available in their dispatch emergency command center and so we’ll have more information for you hopefully in september. We’re just literally pending the towers giving us their tentative signoff.
>> it’s an amazing program and as of thousand as of february there was 1200 throughout the state. And we have quite a lot of them down here with us. If you google alert cramplet cameras it will take you right to the home page and you’ll see the map of california and you keep zooming in and you’ll find us down there.
it’s a bunch of arrows with the cameras and which way they are facing and people at home don’t have the ability to move the cameras but certain dispatch centers do.
putting them at the towers have a crucial gap that we don’t have that, we’re excited that chris macon was able to provide that for the state and regional to get us somewhere to do it. And what a better place than the nice high vantage point as the towers. >> more to come. >> thank you so much. >> mayor mccary: thank you. Them is the orange county library advisory board. >> I’ll do a quick one.
ending the summer, just highlighting some of the programs they have. They have the fairy gardens, u.c. Master gardeners, came and did the history, and then we had a joint program with bowers for the fall, coming up. >> I have it open the screen. >> wonderful, these are the ones I just commented on. These are the ones coming up.
the continuing the mole gardening presentation, these are going to be next fall. Something on macrame, and fire safety, I think that is the orange county fire authority. So those are three, fire safety program, so those are three items coming up which are in addition to obviously helping and supporting sawl supporting k clubs and the local citizenry
and having access to the books that we know that are available in the county. Great job by them. >> mayor mccary: thank you. Orange county mosquito and vector. >> oh, july meeting was cancelled. Meeting on the schedule tomorrow. >> mayor mccary: okay, thank you. Then the san joaquin hills program.
>> we have been working tore decades on the 22001-91 connector taking traffic from here to riverside. And las vegas, and palm springs, and it’s been an extremely complex administrative task, involving riverside county transportation commission which runs the 91 toll lanes and caltrans. And state department of transportation and the toll roads.
and we now have a contract signed for this work, we had hoached to have ground break. >> ken: -- hoped to have groundbreaking before the end of the year. The hole roads, providing groundbreaking and caltrans that likes to build interchanges and toll roads, though are taking the building. We expect groundbreaking by the end of this year and it’s a three year project.
so it won’t solve the backup on the 22001 but it should make it better. Liz thank you. Next is the south orange county watershed management area. >> I was at the water association meeting and it was an interesting presentation to the bureau h pure water, like a direct potable reuse where they put it back in the aquifer, it is an anticipated program in los
angeles. And there are two major addresses for water. One of them is the sites reservoir which I mentioned before, I took that trip and I showed you the map and everything, that building new reservoirs can be controversial, they are always offsetting something that is an expected by met and pure water program, quite a few years out, very
expensive, I almost feel like it’s $6 billion perhaps, a huge amount of money. But it would change, that would take right now just to end this, ole troa water el toro sends a million grons, if we have somewhere to store it, these are the challenges we want to be aware of.
and in this case in los angeles they would be taking that water, they would be cleaning it up and reusing, putting it to their aquifers there and anyway leave it at that. I have the next one too. I did attend the jpia conference and we did hear that presentation, was very well done.
and I can’t believe, we are in probably the best jpia we could be in. We are the largest one. The others, I’m under the impression that they don’t provide the training. You’re in it. And you share the insurance. But this, our specific one provides training and feedback which helps to keep the cost down.
because we want to correct any practices that are inappropriate or not helpful. >> mayor mccary: okay and so item -- >> I have a comment to make. Liz okay, under other comments and reports.
>> well, I just wanted to make a brief comment to thank mickey for staying to the end of the meeting and people who maim public comments, not necessarily in agreement however your comments are very important, because your voice matters. Thank you very much. >> mayor mccary: thank you. And so item, closed session reports, we don’t have any closed session reports. So the next item is adjournment. So would are adjourned for the next meeting which will be wednesday, september sceent, at 2 p.m, right here in city hall. Meeting adjourned.