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

[1:00] All right, I've got the head nod from our clerk, and the, what is she called a videographer, is that the right terminology? All right, we're ready to go. Let's call our meeting to order. Welcome to our meeting of August 25, 2026. Call the meeting to order. Hope you're all doing well. I'm well rested, and ready to go. And so hopefully we can get out of here in about four hours. All right, roll call, please. Mayor Doing.
[1:26] here. Vice Mayor D. C. Here.
[1:29] Councilmember Spotter-Auto. Here.
[1:31] Councilmember Barrick. Here.
[1:32] Councilmember Diaz. Here.
[1:34] All right. We are all here. Welcome.
[1:37] Please join me in the pledge of allegiance.
[1:44] Go ahead, the allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for
[1:49] witness to the hands. One nation under God in the minimal with liberty and justice for all.
[1:59] All right.
[2:02] On item four of our agenda adoption of the agenda, Mr. Bradley, are there any updates?
[2:07] There are none.
[2:08] All right, I'll look for a motion to adopt the agenda as is.
[2:12] It's the move to the second motion and second to adopt the agenda.
[2:17] All in favor say aye, aye, any opposed?
[2:20] None, that motion passes on to item five approval of the minutes from August 11th, 2026.
[2:27] Any corrections or edits to note, Mr. Bradley?
[2:32] None, I'll look for or for my colleagues.
[2:35] No, I'll look for a motion to approve the minutes of August 11th, 2026.
[2:42] Move to approve.
[2:45] Second.
[2:46] Motion and a second to approve the minutes.
[2:48] All in favor say aye.
[2:50] All right, any opposed?
[2:52] None, all right, we're on the public forum, item six.
[2:56] Members of the public are entitled to speak on matters of municipal concern not on the agenda during public forum.
[3:02] Each person's comment should be limited to four minutes.
[3:05] Each person is entitled to speak on any non-agenda item only once at any meeting.
[3:11] Brief questions by council members for clarifications may be posed and answered.
[3:15] And council members may make requests that items be placed on future agendas.
[3:20] But in accordance with state law, no substantive discussion or action may take place until, until the matter properly appears on the agenda.
[3:29] Who wishes to make public comment to your city council,
[3:35] please?
[3:37] Let's go there, how are you done?
[3:43] Good evening, council.
[3:46] I don't see the water, the response on the agenda, so I'm talking about it tonight in the public forum.
[3:54] Regarding the grand jury, oh, sorry, my name is Michelle Lou Covell.
[3:59] I am speaking here as a resident, not representing the city of St.
[4:07] I have been working on some math because I, this 183% increase that was discussed in the last city council meeting has been on my mind.
[4:20] So I did some numbers.
[4:22] I took the 2011 base rates for both the water base rate and the sewer base rate and compared it to 2026.
[4:31] I then also took water cups only, just analyzing the water usage.
[4:40] I understand there are different tiers and different tier rates like ranges, so I plugged
[4:46] it into Excel and I compared the 2011 rates versus the 2026 rates just for water.
[4:57] And then I took my last bill and noted the gallons that I used which was 17,025 gallons for that month and made sure everything is monthly, not, you know, by monthly.
[5:09] And I compared what my cost would be from 2011 to 2026.
[5:14] So in 2011, my water would have cost $60.33, just the water usage.
[5:20] In 2026, the cost was $401.36, which is reflected in my bill, which is a $561.565 increase from 2011.
[5:37] I also did 2027, just because it's increasing in 2027, that bill would be $433.
[5:45] $3.63, which would be 618% over the 2011 water rate.
[5:54] So it would be $373 more than 2011.
[5:59] Then I analyzed the sewage usage as well, just using the same amount of sewage I had in my last bill and
[6:06] compared it from 2011 and 2026.
[6:09] What's interesting is the base fee doubled or more than doubled from 2011 to 2026.
[6:14] So, I will provide a summary that includes all of this, but basically in 2011, my water and sewer bill would have cost $118, and $7.9.
[6:27] In 2026, my current bill is $543, and $8, that's water and sewage, and that is 457% over 2011.
[6:42] and then in 2027, that same amount would be $581.
[6:49] I'm sorry, I didn't provide this earlier,
[6:51] I just finished this, which is 489% over.
[6:56] Basically, long story short, it's not 183.
[6:59] I wanted to check that number.
[7:01] I wanted to understand where that number came from
[7:03] in the grand jury, and since it was discussed up here
[7:06] last time and trying to show math and understand it,
[7:09] But I really wanted to understand what my water bill looks like back in 2011.
[7:16] And it's a significant increase and I'm sure you all have seen our water is still brown and
[7:23] undrinkable and I'm dealing with it every day and we're buying water.
[7:29] And people are texting me from their businesses still today that they can't use their water.
[7:36] And I just wanted to bring that forth.
[7:39] I'll submit it in a public comment, thank you.
[7:43] Thank you.
[7:45] Also want to know we received public comments in written form from Alan Galbra, David Pruder, Joshua Park.
[7:54] Mr. Galbra submitted several different comments.
[7:57] Any other wishing to make public comment during this period of time?
[8:04] Anything from my colleagues under this item, right?
[8:08] All right, we'll move on to reports by staff, City Council,
[8:13] feature agenda items in AB 1234 reports.
[8:16] Turn to you, Mr. Walsh, to report out our close session from earlier today.
[8:21] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
[8:22] Yes, we had a close session to discuss an outstanding claim from Thompson Builders.
[8:29] And we have no report action from that close session.
[8:34] All right, Mr. McAnne, anything from the staff?
[8:37] Yes, thank you. Good evening, Council.
[8:41] A couple things just to share with the City Council and for the community.
[8:45] One, if you weren't there, you missed quite a show last week.
[8:50] One of our in the series of music series at Lyman Park, dueling pianos, it was really awesome.
[8:58] We've got some more fun coming up on September 5th.
[9:02] And I'd like to have our community services director
[9:07] just remind us that some of the stuff going on
[9:09] for the 150th celebration.
[9:11] Ashley, congratulations on the music series.
[9:13] It was really good.
[9:14] Thank you very much.
[9:15] Good evening, council.
[9:16] Good evening, welcome.
[9:17] Thank you.
[9:18] So September 5th, we have cheers to 150 years
[9:21] out on Liberia Lane and Adam Shrieg.
[9:23] This is a community block party.
[9:25] It's gonna have live music from one to red five,
[9:28] local food and drink vendors.
[9:30] There'll be an interactive kid zone out there.
[9:32] I heard a fair fund slide is going to be out there and will also be ending the night with a drone show.
[9:38] So, that will be all out on Adam Street and Library Lane.
[9:42] Same place as Harvest Festival was last year and is going to be this year.
[9:46] But we hope everybody grabs their dancing booths.
[9:49] There will be some line dancing as we say to your 750 years and continue this ask with Centennial celebration.
[9:55] Thanks, guys.
[9:56] How many drones?
[9:58] There will be roughly 200 drones in the sky.
[10:00] Hi, you need a permit for that in the city of St. Helena?
[10:03] We have the permits that we need for that in approval.
[10:06] All right, cool, that sounds like fun.
[10:08] Thank you.
[10:09] Yeah, thank you so much.
[10:10] Thanks.
[10:11] A couple of things.
[10:11] One just to remind folks that it's summertime and it's fire season.
[10:16] There's fires going all around the world.
[10:18] Yes, indeed.
[10:18] And in our neighborhood, it's quite common during fire season for
[10:26] areas that are affected by fires to reach out statewide and
[10:29] to get resources actually across the country, but statewide for sure.
[10:33] Our chief, John Sorenson, is very well respected in the fire community,
[10:39] and is frequently asked to lead strike teams or to provide different assistance.
[10:44] That has occurred again this year.
[10:46] In fact, he's been out for a bit up in the Trinity Alps area on the Willow Creek fire.
[10:51] He'll be coming back to town later this week, which is great.
[10:54] And while he's been gone, Captain Salachian has been running the department and things have been going fine.
[11:03] They, in fact, went out and helped put out a fire just this weekend, up on Khan Valley Road.
[11:09] It was about an almost naker and a half fire.
[11:12] Anything that could stir it up there can be quite dangerous heading up toward Anguin.
[11:16] Anyway, so fire season is alive and well and our folks are participating both here in the valley as well as elsewhere to help our
[11:24] fellow Californians, so just for the folks in the community, just be aware that that's very dangerous times here.
[11:35] Measure S, the sales tax measure that the council has put on the November ballot is moving forward.
[11:42] There'll be a virtual meeting, a Zoom meeting wherein our administrative services director and
[11:49] And I will be responding to questions that are offered by the public.
[11:54] That's going to be this Thursday, four o'clock via Zoom.
[11:57] And there's lots of information on our city website about measure S, as well as about how folks can participate in that meeting.
[12:07] To Ms. Covell's point, we are wrapping up the response to the grand jury report.
[12:13] I expect that we will have a letter that reflects the city council's direction on all of the matters that you have.
[12:19] provided to us, going out to the grand jury later this week, at which point it'll be available
[12:25] to the public. We'll make sure the council gets a copy of that as well. Lastly, we have
[12:32] a closing window for folks who might be interested in being on the planning commission.
[12:36] We have one opening. We intend to bring applicants to the council at our first meeting in September.
[12:42] So if people have an interest, which I would urge them to do, because it's really a fun group, if you're into planning stuff, and file their application by Sunday the 30th, so just come in right up.
[12:59] That's it, thanks.
[13:01] All right.
[13:03] Nice, Mayor.
[13:05] Cut me off if this is not the right time, but it's just a comment on general issues.
[13:09] I would never catch you.
[13:10] But no, no, no, I think it's a general interest.
[13:13] I just wanted to say that we have been receiving the many reports on discolored water and we are in a lot of discussions about it.
[13:22] So while we haven't reached out with our exact response right now, please know that that is coming soon.
[13:29] and I think most everyone recognizes it's a top priority.
[13:35] That's it.
[13:36] Ten days in a row at the Dorn House of Yellowwater.
[13:39] So can I say that?
[13:42] All right, anything else for my colleagues?
[13:46] All right, so we are now moving on to presentations and public recognitions,
[13:51] a little bit of a bittersweet presentation.
[13:54] We are recognizing Mandy Kellogg for 17 years of service and
[13:58] leadership in the city of St. Alina, I will go to the podium to read a proclamation and we will have cupcakes, I think, around, let's see between the, at the consent calendar.
[14:13] I know Ms. Kellogg is not feeling really well today, so you don't have to get that close to me, but you should come up.
[14:35] Bittersweet,
[14:48] this is a proclamation recognizing and honoring the dedicated service of the Director
[14:52] of Administrative Services, Treasurer, Mandy Kellogg,
[14:58] and I will read all of it.
[15:00] Maybe don't mind. Whereas Mandy Kellogg's career with the city began on February 17, 2009, when she joined the organization as a senior accounting technician embarking on a remarkable 17-year journey marked by continuous professional growth, leadership, and exemplary public service. Whereas through her strong work ethic and commitment to the city, she advanced through numerous key roles, serving as management analyst 2014.
[15:30] Senior Management Analyst 2015, Administrative Services Manager of 2016,
[15:36] Binance Manager 2019, and ultimately assuming the role of Director of Administrative Services on June 7th, 2021.
[15:45] Whereas while serving in her executive role, she demonstrated a strong commitment to personal and
[15:50] professional excellence by earning a master's degree in public administration from Sonoma State University between January 2020 and December 2023.
[16:00] Whereas during her tenure sheet left an indelible mark on the city's financial integrity
[16:06] and strategic operations, playing a central role in delivering the city's very first
[16:11] biennial budget, guiding critical water rate studies, guiding labor negotiations, and providing
[16:19] invaluable staff support and stewardship to the finance committee.
[16:24] And whereas for leadership during the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic and the aftermath
[16:29] the 2020 Glass Fire, modernize the city's infrastructure by transitioning operations to cloud-based systems,
[16:37] a critical foresight that ultimately enabled the city to navigate a 2025 cyber attack with
[16:44] resilience, minimal disruption, and maximum continuity for residents. Whereas her departure at the
[16:53] end of this month marks the conclusion of a distinguished chapter of dedicated public service.
[16:59] leading behind a legacy of sound fiscal management, modernize operations, and dedication to our community, indeed.
[17:08] Now, therefore, I pull during mayor of the city of St. Helena, along with the city council, do hereby express our profound gratitude and deep appreciation to Mandi Kellogg for 17 years of leadership, devotion and invaluable service to the city of St. Helena,
[17:26] and extend our warmest wishes for continued success, health, and happiness in all her future endeavors.
[17:35] Paul Doreng-Ber.
[17:37] All right.
[17:38] You want to say a few words? I'm going to hand off that.
[17:46] This is our own city of St. Helena, special Turley wine.
[17:50] Okay, presented to Mandy Kellogg in recognition of your distinguished and outstanding service to the city of St.
[17:56] Helena from 2009 to 2026, with gratitude and best wishes, that's going to look good on your shelf.
[18:04] I'll put it right here, and you're welcome to say a few comments.
[18:07] And Mr. Mayor, maybe before Mandy does speak, you could open that bottle of wine, I suppose, but I'd just like to say a couple of things if you don't mind.
[18:15] And please,
[18:18] Mandy, on behalf of the executive team, your colleagues, and in fact all of the employees of the city of St.
[18:28] Elaine to those folks who are working with us today and the people you've helped over your 17 years, I just want to say thank you.
[18:38] Mandy has been a very, very good colleague to all of us who have worked for the city of
[18:46] St. Helena.
[18:47] She's extremely professional, highly dedicated, very knowledgeable, skilled, and abundantly
[18:55] competent.
[18:57] Mandy knows St. Helena's budget, finances, and the organization at an outstanding level.
[19:03] No doubt there's, she's the greatest.
[19:06] this single repository of data, both financial and organizational in our city organization.
[19:15] We will all miss her very, very much, both personally and in her capacity as the one who knows the answer to all the questions they get asked.
[19:25] She and her staff have done a very, very good job over the years, particularly in recent years when, as the mayor said, there were many, many challenges.
[19:34] is, beyond her very high financial competence and unwavering integrity, Mandy is nice.
[19:46] She's helpful, she's compassionate, she's fun, she's been a great mentor to many staff
[19:53] both in her department and elsewhere in the organization.
[19:57] She's worn many hats and touched many people.
[20:00] She's an easy collaborator and I've come to learn that she's a very good mom.
[20:07] She's been a top notch colleague and I really thank her for helping me over the last
[20:14] several months and actually a few years ago as well.
[20:19] She's been excellent to work with and I really, really enjoyed working with Mania.
[20:23] I wish your great success, and as the mayor said, much happiness in our next endeavors.
[20:29] Thank you for that excellent comments, and I would agree with everything.
[20:33] I think just the first thing that comes to mind is you are a true professional,
[20:37] always a professional, always approachable whenever I've had questions.
[20:44] And I really want you to know how much I value the friendship.
[20:48] You know, I've been around for a while too, not as long as you have, but a few fewer years, but I do appreciate you, you've been an extraordinary person here that we've all relied on, and you've been an extraordinary friend of me for sure, and I will always remember that.
[21:06] So now you have the mic.
[21:07] I'm
[21:10] not going to say too much because I'm a really ugly cry or so, but I am just so honored to have served this community for the past 17 years and just really value all the friends I've made over the course of that time and all the trust and respect that I've received from each of you and so thank you. I'm really going to miss this place.
[21:29] Thank you.
[21:30] All right.
[21:32] Okay, so say some room for a cupcake, so all
[21:42] right.
[21:44] Okay, we, as I understand it, we don't have a staff briefing or any presentations tonight under item nine.
[21:49] We'll move to the consent calendar 10.1 to 10.9, anyone from the public wishing to pull any consent item at this point?
[21:59] And what would that be?
[22:01] What item?
[22:04] Which one? 10.8, okay, let me look at that, I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.
[22:09] But we'll
[22:15] take that one, any others, 10.1.
[22:32] Is there a motion on the balance of the consent, the consent calendar with the exception of 101 and 10.8?
[22:41] I'll make a motion, is there a motion, an motion at a second?
[22:47] Second.
[22:48] And Mr. Mayor, if I can just add one thing.
[22:50] Yes.
[22:51] On one of the items we made, we omitted one little item, 10.5, the Italian Heritage Month.
[22:58] Yes.
[22:59] We'd also like authority to fly an Italian flag during the period at our library.
[23:08] All okay with that?
[23:09] All okay with that?
[23:11] Who's Italian here?
[23:13] All right.
[23:13] Wish I was.
[23:17] We've got to satisfy the Italians on the council, that's okay.
[23:21] So there's a motion who made the second, Vice Mayor made the second.
[23:26] All in favor of adopting the consent calendar minus 101 to 10.8, say aye, any opposed, any abstain, none.
[23:35] All right, let's go to 10.1, this is consideration and adoption of resolution authorizing amendments.
[23:43] It's number two to the St. Lena contract with West Yos and Associates for the preparation of water management plan.
[23:52] I don't know if you have any specific questions that, or would you like a little bit of a report first?
[23:58] I don't need a report, I just-
[24:01] You have the floor.
[24:02] Okay, thank you.
[24:04] Yeah, I so appreciate all the work that's been done on the water management plan and we did bring it to, we did talk about it in the Water and Waste Water Committee meeting.
[24:12] And I'm just not convinced that we need to put another, and I did speak with staff, another $93,000 toward it.
[24:19] My view is that we can spend the $30,000 or whatever's left on the contract and wrap it up.
[24:28] I think it will still be helpful, and I know we have a lot to work on, so I just did not want to, yes on that one.
[24:36] All right, I want to note that we receive public comment from Joshua Park in Michele Covell.
[24:41] Is there anyone else wishing to make public comment on item 10.1, other than what I've announced.
[24:48] All right, I'll close public comment and bring it back to the council.
[24:51] Any other thoughts or comments, Mr. Diaz?
[24:56] Yeah, so I'll support this tonight, but I just want staff to consider building a hard cap on meeting attendance billing.
[25:05] We've seen this one escalate quite a bit, in terms of the amount that we're paying for the contractor to attend the meeting.
[25:12] So if we can put it into the orders moving forward, set it signing, this way we can keep these curbs somewhat.
[25:20] I think there's probably a good discussion about how those meetings look and do they really need to be there all the time.
[25:27] But if we can start to address that in the future, that's going to be well received here, but other than that, I would support it.
[25:33] So other comments, Councilmember Spada-Roto.
[25:38] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
[25:41] I too am going to be supporting this evening, but going forward, I would like when we are
[25:45] looking at different organizational changes within the staff looking at a way to make sure
[25:53] that this is going forward, we can avoid things like that.
[25:55] We have somebody specifically set to be on these certain kinds of projects, so we don't
[26:01] lined up with contact or problems and meeting issues.
[26:07] All right, other comments?
[26:12] It's Barrett.
[26:13] I'd love to hear more from the vice mayor on why
[26:20] what specifics are the concern?
[26:22] Because I know she's really dug deep with the Water Committee.
[26:28] So I'd love to hear more color before I decide.
[26:33] Thank you.
[26:35] Well, maybe we can give Joe a chance to sort of because we're in a little disagreement,
[26:41] so maybe counter it.
[26:44] But it's a report that I thought it initially, like two weeks ago, I thought it was mandatory,
[26:49] but it's actually not a mandatory report for our town, our size.
[26:52] We decided to do it.
[26:55] We've looked at it and received it in the Water and Wastewater Committee, and I don't
[27:02] I don't believe there's much new in the report, it's a compilation of things, and so it seems like a lot of time to be doing that, it's two years in the work, so it sort of seems like by the time it's done, it's going to be obsolete, so it's becoming harder to, I think it's served a purpose, and there's been work to synthesize things, but it seems like it's, to me, time to wrap it up, I think a lot of the money is for, I think, biweekly,
[27:33] meetings with staff and coming to our committee, which I don't think we need that much going to the ATSC, I just think it's time to wrap it up.
[27:46] Right, Mr. Leach.
[27:50] Yes, Council Member.
[27:52] Do you have a question that you'd like me to answer?
[27:54] I tell me why you support putting more money into this.
[28:01] So we've completed five chapters of a nine chapter study.
[28:07] The remaining chapters are dealing with recycled water, which is pretty critical, also implementation
[28:14] of a variety of alternatives and options as well as financing.
[28:20] So those are some of the critical chapters remaining.
[28:22] And I think what we've discussed in the Waterways Water Advisory Committee is utilizing
[28:27] in this study for spring boarding into financing options and alternatives, not just for
[28:33] these projects, but other projects, other capital projects.
[28:36] So again, it's not a mandatory study for similar to systems with 3,000 connections or more,
[28:43] where you have an urban water management plan that's a requirement.
[28:46] This is not because we have less than 3,000.
[28:49] But it's a similar type of content to help us advance significant projects and funding for those.
[28:59] So I think we've had some conversation via email today about the nature of we can scale back some of the meetings.
[29:07] But I think there's value in the consultant providing chapter reviews to the Water Waste Water Advisory Committee as a first line of vetting.
[29:15] that particular chapter before we bring, you know, it's going to be a several hundred page document, not as significant as the street's master plan, but, you know, a significant size and to be able to have a single draft for that only sees the light of day during a public comment period. I think there's some advantages to getting that initial feedback.
[29:37] Thank you.
[29:38] All right, many other comments from my colleagues?
[29:42] I think one of the things I did note is that there are a number of meetings with the GSA, whether staff, or going to the GSA meetings.
[29:50] I would encourage the staff members from West Yos to really maybe spend some time with Lester Hardy.
[29:57] There's a lot of information there.
[29:59] He's...
[30:00] In attending all those, he's actively involved in that. I would start there first, that would help reduce some of the meetings. I think he has a really good insight as to what is going on there. I think, I think for the public and for me in particular, the one area that I feel a little uncomfortable with is what is the practical use of a report at the end of the day. And it's still maybe that's why folks are sort of not seeing the, you know, the light at the end of the tunnel. How will this be used practically in our community?
[30:29] And so that does raise questions for some about, well, we're spending a lot of money on meetings.
[30:35] Okay, what's going to happen here?
[30:36] How is that going to help, for example, help us deal with the policy debates that we're having, the issues about water neutrality and those kinds of things?
[30:45] That's where I thought we would be leading in terms of just a practical usage other than just sort of documenting what the current baseline is, current state of affairs.
[30:56] And maybe there's still some room there to maybe hone in on that.
[31:02] At least it wasn't clear for me in the staff report.
[31:06] You're going to have a usage, several hundred page document, talk
[31:14] again about the practical
[31:16] usage of the report.
[31:18] How will the help deal with some of the issues that we're dealing with now that are current?
[31:23] So a couple things that I wanted to touch on, part of this project includes the consultation
[31:30] and a report done by Ludorf and Scominini, who is also the ground water consultant for the GSA.
[31:38] They were instrumental in development of the ground water sustainability plan with the county.
[31:44] And so they are also serving as a kind of liaison with our project with the folks of the GSA.
[31:53] So that's, I mean, that we're using an economy of scale and
[31:57] similar consultants that are experts in groundwater in the area.
[32:00] So that's kind of one point.
[32:02] The other is in the end, again, back to the purpose of the plan.
[32:06] The purpose of the plan is to be able to have a document that I'm not sure we've done this before.
[32:13] is looking at all of the water resources available to the community.
[32:17] Again, because recycled water is new, how that integrates and the options to use that as an invaluable resource now,
[32:26] that's kind of one of the main critical components of the plan.
[32:30] What do we do with this? Do we just get it to customers?
[32:33] Or are there other greater beneficial uses of that asset for the benefit of a larger community?
[32:41] So that's just an example of one of the chapters that they're going to spend a fair amount of time looking at, but in the end, it's going to have an implementation strategy on items costs that we can take to and use for development agreement negotiations, updating of an impact fee program.
[33:02] And so there's some real specific tangible items that this document can feed into.
[33:06] All right, and that helps me.
[33:09] I think we need to focus more on the strategies and not have a, you know,
[33:12] there's a fear that we're going to get a cookie cookie cutter documented.
[33:15] So this is the state of affairs and in the same way.
[33:18] And like, yeah, we all know that.
[33:20] Okay, now what?
[33:21] Yeah, this is on the strategy in terms of how we manage our water supply and
[33:27] our three different sources of water.
[33:30] And sort of some of the policy issues in terms of how we're using water.
[33:33] where we need to use more or less napah water, more or less ground water, more or less
[33:43] balcony water, those kinds of things and how those all tied together would be helpful.
[33:48] I'll look for a motion.
[33:54] Motion to adopt.
[33:57] Second.
[33:58] And I do think Mr. Diaz raises a good point.
[34:01] I think we should sharpen the pencil as much as we can on those meetings.
[34:04] All right.
[34:04] Motion in a second by in the Spatterotto, yes.
[34:08] Okay, all in favor, say aye.
[34:10] Aye.
[34:11] Aye.
[34:11] Any opposed?
[34:13] No.
[34:13] We have a no.
[34:14] No.
[34:15] All right.
[34:15] We have another no.
[34:16] Motion passes, three to two.
[34:19] All right.
[34:20] Now we are on to 10.8 and this panel let you introduce the item before we open for public comment.
[34:31] Great.
[34:31] Thank you.
[34:34] So this item relates to an assembly bill, AB 1383, which is moving its way through the state assembly.
[34:49] It relates to a provision of the California Public Employees Retirement System.
[34:56] and raises concerns to many cities throughout our state.
[35:08] The particular legislation would create some new formulas that would be available
[35:17] both through PERS, so the public employee retirement system, which leads to pensions for retired employees.
[35:28] These changes would be specific to members who are in the safety units.
[35:33] And safety includes police officers, as well as firefighters, that group of employees not broadly to all employees.
[35:43] And this would roll back change provisions of a wildly successful piece of legislation that is, I don't know, 10, 15 years old,
[35:58] which is the pension employee's pension reform act of 2013.
[36:07] So PEPRA is a really a milestone act in the world of pensions in California.
[36:17] Prior to PEPRA, there were a variety of pension formulas which were very generous
[36:24] and were seen to be financially very challenging for many communities.
[36:34] Pepper rolled those back and eliminated a number and then set out a whole new set of formulas for pension benefits for employees, not just safety employees, but all employees in California.
[36:49] And the purpose of PEPRA was really to address what was becoming at the time a real pension pending catastrophe with just tons of unfunded liability and pension contribution obligations to cities that were increasing double digit every year and leading to very difficult decisions for city councils.
[37:20] and really bringing financial sustainability to question for many communities, depending on the nature of the community.
[37:29] So Pepper was very, very helpful.
[37:31] It reduced, it sort of leveled the pension world, still provides pensions,
[37:38] but reduced some of the very generous pensions that had been in place,
[37:44] made it easier for folks to deal with those things.
[37:47] AB 1383 would, as I mentioned, rule some of those backs.
[37:52] It would establish new formulas for safety employees and would require in some cases some adjustment to existing formulas for some employees.
[38:03] Many of the things in the assembly bill are not mandatory, they're not automatic, but they would open up
[38:14] the ability to negotiate through labor contracts and negotiation for more rich contracts.
[38:20] And so as you know, sometimes there's a bit of a me to type of approach that occurs.
[38:27] And so of one agency has a formula that might be richer than another agency.
[38:32] There can be a tendency to want to track that and it can become an issue through negotiation.
[38:37] and negotiation occurs in a discretionary fashion, but it does become a difficult setting
[38:47] when you've got agencies that have different formulas.
[38:55] So this is not any knock on our safety employees or any of our employees.
[39:00] In fact, we've got outstanding police and fire departments and really good staff.
[39:06] And so I think the concern that I and others have is that it is just one, in my view, unnecessary.
[39:15] Two way to expensive for St. Helena, and in my view, way to expensive for just about every city in the state.
[39:26] We've already know where this goes, we've seen this before.
[39:31] PEPRA addressed it, and I think we should urge the legislature to retain PEPRA and reject this, which is why the League of California Cities recommends that we discuss the item and why I think it's important to bring it to you and present the letter which we urge both the mayor, or not the mayor, the governor vetoes the matter if it gets through the legislature.
[39:57] We're also urging the legislature to not support the matter.
[40:04] So with that, they happy to answer questions.
[40:06] If you have particular questions about what it might mean for us, it's kind of difficult for us to say we've done some number crunching, I'm sure Mandy could give us a ballpark, but it would really just be that because there's many, many things that go into play here.
[40:21] And the legislation's not set yet.
[40:22] All right, let me open it for public comment.
[40:42] Good evening mayor and city council members.
[40:44] My name is Ayers Solana, and I am the president of the St. Lena Police Officers Association.
[40:49] I'm here tonight to ask you to not support the letter asking the governor to be the AB 1383.
[40:54] I know one of the biggest concerns with this bill is the cost, and I understand that.
[40:58] But I want to talk about something that I think is just as important.
[41:02] What does this job do to an officer after doing it for 20 to 30 years?
[41:06] And while I'm here representing our police officers, I also want to point out that this bill affects our firefighters, too.
[41:13] We support AB 1383 for both.
[41:16] Police work is hard on the body, officers work nights, weekends, holidays, overtime and long shifts.
[41:22] Every day and officers on patrol their safety vest and equipment can add about 35 pounds for an entire shift.
[41:30] Think about carrying that extra weight for 12 hours a day, year after year, for 20 to 30 years.
[41:34] an officer can spend hours sitting in a patrol car wearing all of that
[41:39] equipment and then with no warning have to jump out and run after someone or
[41:43] go into a physical fight. If a suspect runs that officer has to run after
[41:47] them and if someone fights that officer has to control that person. If there's an
[41:52] emergency that officer has to respond. The job doesn't get easier just because
[41:56] you're getting older and I'm not saying that a 57-year-old officer can't do this
[42:00] job, they can, but after 25 to 30 years of carrying that extra weight, working graveyard
[42:05] shifts, losing sleep, dealing with stress, chasing people and getting into physical fights,
[42:10] your body isn't the same as it was when you were 25.
[42:14] That's just the reality.
[42:15] So when we talk about how much AB 1383 could cost the city, I think we also need to look
[42:20] at what it could cost if we don't make this change.
[42:23] We can look at the cost of allowing an officer to retire at 55, but we also need to look
[42:27] at the possible cost of keeping that officer on patrol into their late 50s.
[42:32] When an officer gets hurt on duty, that has a cost to.
[42:35] We could be talking about workers' comp medical bills time off over time to cover that shift.
[42:40] Or an officer who may not be able to come back to full duty.
[42:44] So yes, allowing an officer to retire at 55 may cost the city more, but
[42:47] keeping that officer working until 57 can have a cost to.
[42:51] It may just show up somewhere else.
[42:53] More importantly, we're talking about someone's health.
[42:56] This job takes a toll on people, officers deal with stress, lack of sleep,
[43:01] traumatic calls, and physical injuries.
[43:04] Some officers don't even make it to retirement, and the officers who do should have the chance to actually enjoy it.
[43:09] That's why 55 versus 57 matters.
[43:13] It doesn't mean every officer has to retire at 55, it means they have the choice.
[43:17] If someone has already given 25 to 30 years of their life to this profession,
[43:21] I don't think giving them the option to retire at 55 is unreasonable.
[43:24] At the end of the day, I just ask that you look beyond the number on the financial report.
[43:29] Think about what those extra two years mean.
[43:32] Two more years of nights, weekends, holidays away from family.
[43:36] Two more years of carrying that 35 pound of equipment every shift.
[43:40] Two more years of stress, two more years where if somebody runs that officer still has to run after them.
[43:45] And two more years of putting their body at risk getting hurt, that's the reality of this job.
[43:49] On behalf of the St. Lena Police Officers Association, I'm asking you not to send a letter asking the Governor to be though, AB 1383.
[43:57] I'm asking you to support giving officers who have spent their career serving this community the choice to retire at 55.
[44:03] And while I stand here representing our police officers, we also stand with our firefighters and support this bill for them as well.
[44:09] Thank you.
[44:10] Thank you.
[44:18] Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council.
[44:21] My name is Tyler Nyberger, President of the St. Helena Professional Firefighters Association.
[44:27] We respectfully ask the council not to approve the letter requesting that AB 1383 be vetoed.
[44:34] The city's letter raises concerns about pension costs, budget deficits, infrastructure, and
[44:39] other priorities.
[44:41] We understand those concerns and also want St. Helena to remain financially sustainable.
[44:45] However, a complete fiscal analysis must consider more than a pension contributions.
[44:53] It should also consider the cost of requiring firefighters to perform the physical demanding
[44:57] job into their late 50s.
[45:00] Including workers compensation claims, injuries, extended recovery periods, disability retirement,
[45:05] overtime, and employee recruitment and retention. Older and longer serving firefighters face
[45:11] greater injury risks. This, the years between 55 and 57 are not two more years behind a desk.
[45:19] It's carrying patients, heavy equipment, working an extreme heat without adequate sleep,
[45:24] and continued exposure to smoke, carcinogens, trauma, and unpredictable emergencies.
[45:30] The city's letter states that every additional dollar spent on pension obligations is unavailable
[45:35] for other essential services.
[45:37] We ask the council to recognize that every dollar spent on an avoidable injury, workers'
[45:42] compensation claim, forced overtime shift, or disability retirement will also be unavailable
[45:47] for those services.
[45:48] Those costs must be evaluated alongside any pension impact.
[45:54] Because we were unable to obtain St. Helena's actual cost estimate, our friends down its Napa City Firefighters Association provided figures they received from CalPERS.
[46:03] Their projected for roughly 150 safety employees is about $2,000 per employee per year.
[46:11] St. Helena only has a fraction of that number of safety employees enrolled in CalPERS.
[46:16] The small portion of our department enrolled in CalPERS was placed into a 2% at 57 formula because of a large,
[46:24] clerical error by the city.
[46:27] Where our police department counterparts were placed in a 2.7 at 57, no fault to them.
[46:33] AB 1383 would not automatically provide us with a higher formula, but it would allow services earned beginning in 2027 to reach its full formula at age 55.
[46:44] This meaningful step towards correcting the city's major mistake has also received the support of our local state representatives.
[46:53] This is also deeply personal to our families.
[46:56] We spend at least one third of every year at the firehouse, approximately 122 full days, or more than 2,900 hours before overtime, callbacks, training, strike team assignments, and major emergencies are added.
[47:13] Over a 30-year career, that equals to roughly 10 complete years spent at the firehouse and away from our families.
[47:21] We miss one of every three nights, not to mention weekends, birthdays, anniversaries, holidays, school events, and ordinary family moments.
[47:30] Working from age 55 to 57 means approximately another 243 full days or nearly 5,850 hours away from our families.
[47:43] The city's letter characterizes this legislation in supporting a single interest.
[47:47] Respectfully, St. Helene's firefighters are not simply a special interest.
[47:51] We protect this community around the clock and in our health, retention, family stability, and
[47:56] An ability to retire with dignity directly affect the public safety services.
[48:00] St. Helena replies on it, relies on it.
[48:04] Fiscal responsibility and fair treatment do not have to be opposing goals.
[48:08] On behalf of the St. Helena Professional and Firefighters Association, we respectfully ask that the council not approve the letter to request that AB 1383 be vetoed.
[48:16] Before taking a final position, we strongly encourage the council to obtain St. Helena's actual projected costs directly from CalPERS.
[48:23] And this decision should be based on verified actual local numbers and
[48:27] a complete actuarial of financial and human cost, not general assumptions.
[48:32] Thank you for your time and consideration.
[48:33] Thank you.
[48:40] I've seen anyone else wishing to approach the podium?
[48:44] Close public comment, bring it back to the council, about going on there.
[48:48] Anyone want to weigh in on this or start a conversation?
[48:59] I'll start.
[49:00] Yeah, okay, I see Mr. Diaz or Mr. Barrick, long to go ahead and Mr. Barrick.
[49:05] Well, the other Mr. Diaz, right there.
[49:07] So, powerful testimony, this bill obviously will have an impact on every municipality in County.
[49:17] In the state, I've reviewed the bill both here and at my day job, because we're facing the same thing.
[49:24] So I just want to say that it's a really tough decision to make.
[49:31] However, personally I stand on the side of our firefighters and our police officers.
[49:39] I'm prepared to vote no on this and not move this forward and support this bill at a state level.
[49:50] I think a town like ours, right, we have an ethos in the same way, health care, we believe in certain things here, family, health care, I think health care for all, we believe in protecting our town and taking care of those who serve the city.
[50:11] I think this falls squarely in line with those ethos, and it's easy to talk about it, but it's another thing to vote that way, and I'm prepared to do so.
[50:21] All right, others wishing to comment this, yes?
[50:24] Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor.
[50:26] So I'm getting great testimony.
[50:30] I think really what I need to hear is the actual cost, because for me, if this is not material for a small town, then it's a different discussion.
[50:40] but not having those numbers right now makes it very difficult.
[50:43] I know we received some here, but if there's a way to, I don't know what the timing is on this,
[50:51] but if there's a way to get that information and revisit this, I don't know if that's a possibility or not,
[50:57] that would help me understand how much of a, how much this is going to impact the city and our finances.
[51:05] If it truly is only $2,000 per employee per year,
[51:10] I think that's something to look at, but I'm kind of in the same boat.
[51:16] I support our public safety workers and I would, if this is not material, then we need to know that.
[51:23] All right,
[51:27] I smell or I don't know any other comments.
[51:30] All right, here we are, let's test it with a motion, that's how you usually test things with a motion.
[51:39] I'm looking straight ahead.
[51:40] I will make, I will make a motion.
[51:43] How do you make, no, go ahead, I'll say something.
[51:44] I just want to add a little bit, if I may.
[51:48] A little bit, great.
[51:50] We're already beyond, we're past time, so keep it brief, yes, go ahead.
[51:54] Yeah, yeah, so there are just to note that there are costs that first that are unknown.
[52:01] But there are potential costs through the legislation that are kind of twofold.
[52:06] One is the very minor minimum cost that I think folks are talking about, which is an adjustment.
[52:12] The more significant is the exposure to bringing back formulas that go forward.
[52:19] And so the legislation brings those back, and they don't implement them, but they make them available for negotiation.
[52:27] Today in since 2013, they've not been available because the legislature found that they were financially challenging.
[52:34] and they repeal those.
[52:37] And so the matter that is the easy part going from 50-70-55, that's one point.
[52:47] It's the other aspects of the bill that are just really untenable from a financial standpoint for cities to consider.
[52:55] If the legislation was changed to address components, that's a different thing, that's not what this legislation does, that's not how it's approached.
[53:02] And that's why we oppose it.
[53:03] The matter of supporting, compensating, respecting folks involved in different aspects of work.
[53:10] There's no doubt about that.
[53:11] There's other ways to do that, in my view, this legislation is not the way to do it.
[53:16] All right, with that, I would like to make a motion to send the letter, how do I say that?
[53:26] Or, yeah.
[53:26] Yeah, so we have a recommendation to send a letter to the legislature opposing us and
[53:32] asking for action by the legislature to oppose, and then if it makes it through for the governor to veto.
[53:39] All right, is there a second?
[53:41] Second.
[53:43] Okay, there's motion in a second, any further comment or discussion?
[53:48] Of course, thank you.
[53:50] Thank you.
[53:50] My comment would be that I like, but our city manager had mentioned about how we don't necessarily need to have this bill in order to help the police officers or fire department in certain ways because there is more to this bill than just what meets the eye.
[54:08] So I think we're recognizing how much we appreciate our firefighters and our police department.
[54:15] But we want to do what's right by them, that's also right by our town.
[54:18] And not necessarily what's put into this bill.
[54:23] Thank you for that.
[54:25] You have the comments?
[54:27] I just say that this bill has been revised already in session from actually twice from the first iteration.
[54:40] that's gone through the legislative process and we'll get to shortly the Governor's desk and
[54:49] it's been whittled down quite significantly from the first proposal. So we might not be looking
[54:55] at things. It would have been very helpful to council members, Diaz points, to have some semblance
[55:04] of impact, I think we'll find it to be small in general, but regardless, we'll take
[55:12] a vote.
[55:15] All right.
[55:16] Let's have a roll call.
[55:20] And everybody's made it.
[55:21] Let's, before we do that, just repeat the motion.
[55:23] So we're all clear what the motion is.
[55:27] Let me do that.
[55:27] Please, just briefly.
[55:30] The motion is to approve, sending the letter as written to the requesting that the
[55:40] The legislature not pass the AB 1383, and if it does pass, that the governor vetoes it.
[55:48] All right, so we all understand what it is, roll call please.
[55:51] Vice mayor D. Z.
[55:52] Yes.
[55:52] Councilmember Spadarado.
[55:54] Yes.
[55:54] Councilmember Barrick.
[55:55] No.
[55:56] Councilmember Diaz.
[55:57] No.
[55:58] And Mayor Domingue.
[55:59] No.
[56:00] The motion fails.
[56:02] All right, what do we want?
[56:07] We have cupcake time.
[56:09] Correct?
[56:11] You are going to remind me.
[56:12] Cupcake time.
[56:13] Alright, we're going to take a brief break and we're going to celebrate a little bit, open
[56:17] up that bottle of wine and eat some cupcakes, maybe not open up the bottle of wine.
[56:21] We'll look at the bottle of wine.
[1:06:06] We're gonna get started. All
[1:06:29] right, we're gonna reconvene.
[1:07:09] All right,
[1:07:33] we're back on the agenda. We're gonna do our public hearings now.
[1:07:38] And you can introduce the item 11.1, please.
[1:07:41] Great.
[1:07:42] Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Councilmembers.
[1:07:44] This is a public hearing on ordinance,
[1:07:50] or three ordinance, is actually one that would modify provisions of our zoning code regarding accessory dwelling units.
[1:07:58] And then amendments to other sections of the municipal code regarding water and waste water service.
[1:08:05] There's been a lot of discussion around this, accessory dwelling units are quite popular in St.
[1:08:11] Alina, and they serve a whole variety of purposes in town.
[1:08:16] There's been a lot of discussion over the years about how to improve our regulations so
[1:08:22] that they are more specific to conditions in St. Alina, and
[1:08:27] that they are responsive to needs of our community and ideas that are design community.
[1:08:34] you comes up with to address things so things evolve.
[1:08:37] We've also had a number of changes in state law which change regulations and so there
[1:08:43] been a number of changes that have happened to these provisions over the years.
[1:08:48] And in the recent, I don't know, year and a half or so, there's been a ton of conversation
[1:08:53] between planners and folks in the community about how to improve things in our regulatory
[1:09:00] world.
[1:09:01] So, Lisa and Jackie have done a very good job of listening to folks and making changes and they're going to explain what they have come up with.
[1:09:11] The Planning Commission has had several hearings and listened to folks too and so that's been a very constructive and collaborative effort.
[1:09:20] And then Mario is involved on the other side of things and that's in the water and wastewater world and so there are some provisions that today are a little bit complicated.
[1:09:27] We're trying to make them less complicated and there's some provisions that are I don't know strict and we're trying to make them
[1:09:33] Maybe a little more flexible. So I think you'll hear about all that in a second.
[1:09:39] All right. I see we have a presentation
[1:09:43] It should go about four minutes
[1:09:49] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Oh, I thought you were leaving that behind Mandy
[1:09:57] Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and good evening members of the City Council. Tonight staff is presenting a
[1:10:03] A coordinated package of ordinance amendments addressing accessory dwelling units,
[1:10:07] junior accessory dwelling units, also known as ADUs and JADUs, and related water and sewer utility requirements.
[1:10:14] As we navigate through the presentation tonight, I'll begin with the ADU ordinance amendments and
[1:10:18] the policy changes choices that are before the council.
[1:10:22] And then I will turn the presentation over to Mr. Mario Traverso from Public Works to discuss the utility amendments.
[1:10:29] Next slide, please.
[1:10:32] Tonight's hearing will focus on the three separate ordinances before the council.
[1:10:37] One is addressing ADUs and JADUs.
[1:10:39] One is addressing water service laterals and one is addressing sewer laterals.
[1:10:45] For the ADU ordinance, staff would like to highlight two policy choices for the council's
[1:10:50] consideration.
[1:10:51] The principle difference between those options is how the city chooses to treat local public
[1:10:57] transit for purposes of transit-related ADU-high allowances.
[1:11:02] And I will explain that in more detail in the next few slides.
[1:11:05] Next, please.
[1:11:07] I'd like to draw your attention to the overhead.
[1:11:10] This ordinance was developed following a planning commission study session that was held in April of this year.
[1:11:15] As seen on the left, the overall input from the public and the commission was to reduce unnecessary barriers to ADU development.
[1:11:23] Simplifier ordinance, retain clear and objective standards, and re-evaluate the utility requirements that can add unnecessary costs to development of ADUs.
[1:11:34] On the right side, you can see how those requests have been incorporated into the ordinance.
[1:11:39] In summary, the proposed ordinance responds to that direction in several ways, including increasing the maximum ADU size to 1200 square feet.
[1:11:48] Simplifying design standards, removing annual rent reporting requirements, and relocating detailed utility requirements to Title 13.
[1:11:58] Next slide.
[1:12:01] The proposed amendments before you generally fall into three categories.
[1:12:05] First, they're the changes required by state law, which cover several topics, largely over processing and procedural requirements.
[1:12:13] Second, there are clarifications and organizational changes intended to make the ordinance easier to administer.
[1:12:19] And third are several areas where the city retains local policy discretion, including the definition of public transit.
[1:12:28] Next slide, please.
[1:12:34] So before discussing the planning commission's recommendation, I would like to briefly explain the state framework because the transit issue can be otherwise confusing.
[1:12:44] State law generally allows ADUs, detached ADUs, to be built up to 16 feet in height.
[1:12:51] And it provides additional height provisions up to 18 feet or 20 for certain roof pitch situations.
[1:12:58] When a property is within one half mile walking distance of a state defined meter transit stop or high quality transit corridor.
[1:13:07] The same provision extends to parking, parking that properties are within half a mile of state-defined public transit are exempt from requiring off-street parking, where it might otherwise be required.
[1:13:20] City of St. Lena does have public transit, including the vine shuttle and vine transit, which provide both fixed route and demand responsive services.
[1:13:29] However, they do not meet the state criteria that trigger the additional height allowances and parking reductions.
[1:13:37] And as a result, the state transit related allowances do not currently apply in our city.
[1:13:43] Nor are they expected to in the near future.
[1:13:45] I tend the Napa Valley transit meeting seems like our routes aren't changing anytime soon.
[1:13:52] So that leads us to the policy question before you.
[1:13:54] Should the city recognize local micro transit,
[1:13:57] it, including the Vine Shuttle as a form of public transit for purposes of providing
[1:14:02] a comparable height allowance provided by the state law.
[1:14:06] Next slide, please.
[1:14:10] With that framework in mind, the Planning Commission recommended treating rideshare services,
[1:14:14] such as Uber and Lyft, which are privately owned, as forms of public, local, micro transit.
[1:14:21] However, the Commission also directed that this broader local definition should not apply
[1:14:26] additional height provisions, because ride share services are generally available throughout
[1:14:31] the city, the practical effect of the recommendation was to eliminate the local ADU parking requirements
[1:14:37] city-wide. For height, however, the ordinance would continue to rely on the state transit
[1:14:42] criteria, which, as previously noted, St. Helena does not currently have, so the transit-related
[1:14:48] height allowances would not apply in the city.
[1:14:53] The Planning Commission recommended ordinance
[1:14:55] before you implement the outcome directly, no local ADU parking, transit-related
[1:15:00] Right remains tied to state criteria. Staff also has prepared an alternative ordinance for the council's consideration this evening. This alternative ordinance option reflects the draft that was presented by staff by both at both the public study session and the Planning Commission Public Hearing. This alternative retains the Planning Commission's parking policy, no local off-street parking requirements for A to use citywide, but the difference is in the treatment of height. Under the alternative ordinance, local microtransit,
[1:15:29] such as the Vine Shuttle would be recognized as public transit for the purposes of the transit-related
[1:15:35] high allowance. Qualifying properties therefore could utilize the 18-foot allowance or up to 20 feet
[1:15:42] where additional height is necessary to align the roof pitch with the primary residence.
[1:15:47] The alternative retains the one-half mile walking distance standard used in the state framework.
[1:15:52] Although their provisions of the ADO ordinance would remain the same as under the planning
[1:15:56] Commission's recommendation and I do want to emphasize that this is a local policy choice
[1:16:01] is not required by state law. This would be going above and beyond.
[1:16:07] So with that, next slide please.
[1:16:11] I would conclude the ADU portion of the presentation. The companion utility amendments are intended
[1:16:17] to establish a more consistent framework. For determining when existing water and sewer infrastructure
[1:16:24] The legislature can continue to serve new development, including ADU's, and I will turn the presentation over to Mr. Traverson.
[1:16:31] Thank you for that excellent brief report.
[1:16:34] Thank you, Miss O'Neill.
[1:16:36] Good evening, Mayor and councilmembers.
[1:16:39] The purpose of the Title 13 amendments are, next slide, please.
[1:16:47] The purpose of the Title 13 amendments is to establish a more consistent and technically based approach to the existing utility infrastructure.
[1:16:55] Rather than automatically requiring a separate or replacement connection simply because additional development is proposed,
[1:17:03] the amended and proposed ordinances focus on whether the existing infrastructure has adequate capacity and is in acceptable condition from a health and safety perspective.
[1:17:14] Ultimately, if the respective systems are adequate, they can continue to be used for additional development.
[1:17:20] If the systems are deficient, public works can require the necessary repair replacement or upgrade.
[1:17:28] This is an updated approach to address utilities for citywide development rather than just for ADUs,
[1:17:35] and creates a more effective, efficient, and equitable process and set of standards across the city.
[1:17:42] Next slide, previous slide.
[1:17:44] Regarding water service, the ordinance establishes circumstances that trigger review of the existing water service, including substantial development, major remodels, projects exceeding the specified construction cost threshold and expansion of a property's functional use.
[1:18:05] The evaluation looks at the existing service and meter size, available pressure, existing
[1:18:12] and proposed demand, applicable fire flow or sprinkler demand, and the material and condition
[1:18:19] of the service.
[1:18:22] Again, if the existing system is adequate, the applicant can move forward without additional
[1:18:27] improvements.
[1:18:28] The intent is to require the infrastructure that is actually necessary to serve the project
[1:18:33] rather than automatically requiring a new or additional service connection.
[1:18:40] Next slide, please.
[1:18:44] Regarding sewer service, the amendment follows the same general approach, but
[1:18:49] the evaluation is based on the physical condition of the sewer lateral.
[1:18:53] When one of the triggering development activities occurs, the applicant provides a video inspection and
[1:18:59] condition report to determine if the existing lateral is sufficient,
[1:19:03] including a review of its diameter, material, connection to the public sewer, and whether there are cracks, offsets, root intrusion, or other deficiencies with the infrastructure.
[1:19:18] If the existing lateral meets the standards, it can continue to serve the property.
[1:19:24] As we coordinate across planning and public works with regard to ADUs and JADUs,
[1:19:30] the proposed ordinances also allow connection to the existing utilities.
[1:19:36] Again, to bring this full circle, the purpose is to use adequate existing infrastructure
[1:19:43] where possible while correcting deficiencies were necessary.
[1:19:47] And with that, I'll turn it back to Ms. O'Neill for the recommended actions.
[1:19:52] Thank you.
[1:19:54] To reiterate, three separate ordinance actions before the council this evening.
[1:19:59] For the 80 ordinance staff is asking council to select either the planning commission recommended ordinance or the local micro transit alternative presented this evening.
[1:20:08] Council is also being asked to introduce and waive introduce the water service lateral ordinance and the sewer lateral ordinance.
[1:20:17] And staff recommends introduction of these ordinances with second readings tentatively scheduled for September 8.
[1:20:26] Next slide please.
[1:20:28] So that concludes staff's presentation, Mario, Director Mikhail, and I are available
[1:20:33] for questions.
[1:20:33] We can walk through any of the ordinance options, or the utility standards and more details
[1:20:38] if that's helpful.
[1:20:39] Also happy to bring back the recommendation slide if the Council desires to take an action
[1:20:44] this evening.
[1:20:45] Thank you.
[1:20:45] All right.
[1:20:46] Through the Mayor, Lisa Mikhail.
[1:20:47] Yes, please.
[1:20:48] Director of Community Development.
[1:20:49] I just want to highlight that there were a few public comments that were submitted and they
[1:20:54] were available online, generally in support, and some of them were requesting just some minor
[1:21:00] clarification.
[1:21:01] All right.
[1:21:02] We had received a comment from Josh DeBore.
[1:21:05] I'll follow up on some of his questions, Mary Stevenson.
[1:21:08] She did a great advertisement for a lender program here in the Napa Valley.
[1:21:13] I thought that was great, Ryan O'Connell, Michelle Kovale.
[1:21:17] I'm really struggling with this micro-transit concept because I can see, I guess the basic
[1:21:24] If fundamental question is half a mile from what, if you have a demand shuttle, I'm not really following that.
[1:21:29] Are you talking about a hub where a shuttle picks up folks?
[1:21:33] Where is this half mile two from where to where?
[1:21:35] I'm not following that part.
[1:21:37] Yeah, absolutely.
[1:21:38] So if you would like to, can you please go back to slide number seven?
[1:21:46] So highlighted here on the right, this is the service area for the vine shuttle, which is by enlarge the majority of the city.
[1:21:54] So it would be a half mile walking distance to anywhere that the vine shuttle serves or half mile walking distance to vine transit, which primarily goes along 29.
[1:22:05] So anywhere the fixed route or door to door shuttle, we would be expanding this to most of the city.
[1:22:14] All right, that sort of follows the rule.
[1:22:16] I think that that, well, we'll have more conversation about that.
[1:22:21] I'm open to that, but I understand that.
[1:22:23] I was under the impression there would be going to at least someplace,
[1:22:26] somebody's walking downtown to be picked up by a shuttle because it would not make sense.
[1:22:31] I'm still honestly struggling with that concept, but we'll talk about it a little bit more.
[1:22:35] So it's everywhere.
[1:22:36] So there's a potential 18 or 20 foot height anywhere in the city if you if you look at it under your your analysis half mile from everywhere in the city, correct?
[1:22:46] Half mile from everywhere that's within the service area, which is shaded and red.
[1:22:51] Okay, which is everywhere?
[1:22:53] It does, there are some areas, 820 and, you know, woodland areas that aren't served by this, but by and large it is the majority of our developed residents.
[1:23:06] other comments and I will open it for public comment, I just wanted to get that out.
[1:23:11] So what about Mr. DeBoer's comment in terms of his concern that one of the criteria to open up an investigation of either your water or your sewer pipe on your property could be triggered by a threshold of $100,000 of cost.
[1:23:30] Is that, that's a little bit of potential unintended consequence.
[1:23:33] But maybe the intent is not to have any and all construction that's over $100,000.
[1:23:40] Necessarily trigger that or am I wrong there?
[1:23:43] Who would want to take that one on?
[1:23:46] Yeah, thank you.
[1:23:47] The intent is to enforce the requirement, the existing requirement of owners responsibility for
[1:23:56] maintenance of their sewer in a fashion that's proportional to a secondary project or a main project.
[1:24:06] So the $100,000 threshold seemed, it seems appropriate in the sense that the added cost of what it would take to inspect the sewer lateral or fix and sewer lateral components.
[1:24:23] At $100,000, it seemed acceptable.
[1:24:30] All right.
[1:24:33] Do you know offhand roughly what the costs are, all the costs taken together for an inspection
[1:24:39] and, without even the repairs, just getting to that point and doing the CCTV and those kind
[1:24:45] of things roughly and a report by a local engineering company probably, I don't know who would
[1:24:50] do that.
[1:24:51] But roughly what cost are we talking about is that $5,000, $2,000, $10,000?
[1:24:55] Yeah, I can imagine the actual investigation, the TVing, and the report could be under $1,000.
[1:25:03] Okay.
[1:25:04] In most cases, maybe in the $400 range, repairs can be anywhere from $1,000 to a few thousand.
[1:25:14] Significant repairs could be 5,000, a whole new sewer lateral connecting to the street could be in the $10,000 to $25,000 range.
[1:25:26] By the way, if I neglected to say so already, excellent work by the staff and in a really kind of timely period.
[1:25:33] And I actually like the way you've structured the different elements of our code with chapter 13, chapter 17, and having that coordination.
[1:25:42] and not having so much language where it gets almost daunting and confused and going back and forth, that's excellent work.
[1:25:48] I'm very supportive of it, just had a couple questions on those minor issues.
[1:25:52] But other questions before I open it to public comment, clarifying questions, maybe mine weren't clarifying,
[1:25:58] but maybe they were.
[1:25:59] Hopefully they clarified things for others, but yeah, Ms. Batterotto.
[1:26:02] So my clarifying question would be regarding the roof lines.
[1:26:06] So, if you were to say these all these homes in that shaded area within the city of St. Helena,
[1:26:14] the ADU roofline could never, though, encroach over the roofline of the main house, correct?
[1:26:21] Or are you saying it can go up to 1820 feet regardless?
[1:26:28] The ordinance doesn't speak to limiting the height of the ADU, not to exceed the height of
[1:26:34] of a primary residence, the additional 20 feet is if it is needed to align the ADU roof
[1:26:41] pitch with a primary residence, ostensibly I suppose you could have a situation where an
[1:26:47] ADU could be taller than a primary residence.
[1:26:50] And through the mayor, the pleasure of the City Council, if you so chose to add language
[1:26:55] that would ensure that an ADU's ridge does not exceed the primary in any case, we can certainly
[1:27:01] add that.
[1:27:02] All right, let me take a moment to open public comment and as I said we've received a fair amount of really good public comment
[1:27:10] But others wishing to comment now there may be more questions on on some of the comments have come already
[1:27:18] Mr. Devoir
[1:27:20] No, you're going to talk and you sat the furthest away from the podium
[1:27:25] Okay, well, that's important. That's important
[1:27:28] Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council.
[1:27:30] Good evening.
[1:27:31] Yeah, I did email one concern about just the dollar threshold on the sewer lateral because there doesn't appear to be any nexus between replacing your sewer and a random $100,000 project that might have nothing at all to do with water or wastewater.
[1:27:47] water right and so that seems problematic to me just as a matter of law right I mean there's
[1:27:53] got to be some nexus between the condition that's imposed and the requirement to inspect
[1:27:59] your sewer and if all you're doing is replacing windows or putting on solar panels or replacing
[1:28:03] your roof having no water change whatsoever and you could easily spend $100,000 on that then
[1:28:09] this condition just has no nexus whatsoever to that project and so a pure dollar threshold
[1:28:14] that doesn't also mention, and it touches on water in some way, would appear to be unconstitutional.
[1:28:21] But, you know, it's not saying it's not a good idea, right?
[1:28:25] And so, you know, this is just minor tweaks to the language.
[1:28:30] And, you know, it's got to be $100,000 and touch a plumbing device in some way or another, right?
[1:28:36] Just so that there's some connection between the project and the sewer line.
[1:28:41] And to the mayor's question of how much does this cost, it costs a lot, okay, and it may be unnecessary and this is from personal experience where we had our sewer line scoped five years ago.
[1:28:55] And there are roots in our, and we live on grub court next to that giant tree, right, that we are watering that tree from our sewer line, it will cost $30,000 to replace.
[1:29:06] place. That was the quote five years ago. So this is not a minor cost. And if we were
[1:29:12] thinking of spending $100,000 on some random project, that project is now $140,000 probably.
[1:29:20] And add on to that that our street was just repaved. So we can't trench in our street now.
[1:29:26] There's more Torium on digging up our street because it was just repaved. So that would kill
[1:29:31] our project, right, for years because we now have to replace the sewer line that's working
[1:29:37] fine, right, gets cleaned out, you know, there are roots in it, but it works. And so, you
[1:29:42] know, a mandatory requirement to replace a sewer line, anytime you do a $100,000 project
[1:29:47] that's not changing your water flow is a practical problem, right. And so, and since I've got
[1:29:56] I'm in it in 30 seconds left. I do want to talk just a little bit about...
[1:30:00] I think it's just a minute, according to Mr. Bradley, I'm looking at him, but keep going. But in any event, you know, the micro transit notion that, you know, the entire town is now within half a mile of a transit center, and therefore you can have, well, let's call it what this is, right? You can have an 18-foot tall pool house for feet from your fence up to 1200 square feet, right? And my reading of the resolution is actually eliminates the minimum bedroom requirement, right?
[1:30:28] So you don't even have to have a bedroom, and you don't have to have a parking space.
[1:30:33] So this is the pool house facilitation bill of 2026, and so look if that's what we want, great.
[1:30:41] But we should just call a, you know, a pool house, if that's what we want to let people build.
[1:30:47] And if you want to let people go up to 18 feet, or feet from your fence line, that's what this bill does.
[1:30:53] Thank you.
[1:30:54] All right, thank you.
[1:30:57] I call it my retirement house if my daughter will have me.
[1:31:05] Evening.
[1:31:06] Ms. Park, good evening.
[1:31:08] He stole my first comment, which was around the monetary trigger.
[1:31:14] I think in general, codifying a monetary trigger is tricky,
[1:31:18] because what happens 10 years from now, 20 years from now,
[1:31:21] when money is less valuable.
[1:31:24] and also the analogy of, you can easily spend a hundred grand replacing windows.
[1:31:30] Is that an appropriate trigger?
[1:31:33] Logically it seems not.
[1:31:35] But I disagree about the language of we're just codifying pool houses
[1:31:41] because per the state you can do 16 feet period.
[1:31:46] So it's not as if you say, well no, we're not acknowledging the microtransit aspect
[1:31:52] that you automatically can't have the same structure.
[1:31:56] Because at up to 800 square feet,
[1:31:59] you can do anything you want within those state confines.
[1:32:02] So really it's about, how can we begin a conversation
[1:32:06] around facilitating actual housing as well?
[1:32:11] And as Mary mentioned, there are lots of programs
[1:32:14] to help turn ADUs into actual affordable housing.
[1:32:18] and it takes a year to build one.
[1:32:23] How long does it take to build a development?
[1:32:27] Ten years? Easy.
[1:32:31] So it's a valuable mechanism for the town
[1:32:35] and I think that the more simple you make it
[1:32:38] for Paul's comments, the better it is.
[1:32:42] Help incentivize people wanting to make progress
[1:32:46] through housing and this is the lowest hang fruit that we have right now. It's
[1:32:53] rotting on the ground so keep it simple and pick it up. All right thank you.
[1:33:04] Not seen anyone jump to the podium so I will close and okay folks come with a
[1:33:13] game plan. Thanks. Sorry Paul. All right that's right. I just wanted to jump in
[1:33:19] here. And I think Josh Javore's comment letter is 100% accurate. I think the tail end
[1:33:27] of his characterization of a pool house is not accurate. And I think that needs, that's
[1:33:41] your job to, to, to sus out the, the difference there, and I think it's kind of important.
[1:33:50] The, an ADU has to have a bedroom, a pool house is not technically a bedroom and can only,
[1:33:59] can only be 16 feet. I think that needs to be, and I think planning and staff can clarify that.
[1:34:09] I mean, I think the language of this is complicated and sometimes awkward.
[1:34:19] I think on the transit stop, I think it's important for you to understand that for years our ordinance has said that if you have a transit stop, you can go to 18 feet.
[1:34:36] which is a reflection of state law, what's missing in that ordinance language is the understanding.
[1:34:46] And you have to go like three layers deep to understand, you have to go to the state, you have to go to the MTA,
[1:34:52] you have to go to all sorts of places that aren't in our municipal code to understand that we have no transit stop.
[1:35:02] So that piece of code that implies if you're casually, or even specifically reading it,
[1:35:14] that, okay, if I want to build, put a second floor on my garage, that might be a productive ADU.
[1:35:28] And the reading of that code says that if you have a transit stop within a half mile, and everybody who lives in here in St.
[1:35:37] Alina says, hey, I'm a half mile from the post office or from the couple of line stops or the bus stations, but the fact is we have no greyhound station here that the specific rule of transit stop is pretty rigorous.
[1:35:56] and it's an inner city bus stop, so it does not apply here.
[1:36:03] That's an awkward rule that is now up to you guys to kind of figure
[1:36:11] out how do you apply that awkward rule to the reality of living in St.
[1:36:16] Alina. The effort on some of the comments and staff here is to kind
[1:36:24] kind of nuance that to apply to the actual condition of St.
[1:36:29] Alina, where we have the vine service that is quite flexible.
[1:36:39] And we also have Uber and Lyft and different sorts of things.
[1:36:45] And I'm not suggesting how you come to that conclusion, but
[1:36:48] I don't think it's acceptable to not consider the complication and
[1:36:53] discuss it and come up with a path, that is entirely what I'm trying to say.
[1:37:03] So thank you.
[1:45:00] Change his hand that the city will do a rental inspection to ensure there aren't co-enforcement issues, same with, you know, for sale, properties when, when there's a sale, some communities will do an inspection just in its, it's a co-enforcement effort, right? To make sure that things are being held up to that standard. That being said, I think this ordinance is kind of doing two different things, right? One is to deal with kind of the issue of if someone is expanding, we want to make sure there is capacity.
[1:45:29] and really that is Mr. DeVore makes the correct point, I think, that one and two and really part of four are dealing with that issue, and then the other two, the $100,000 threshold, and then the expansion of kind of floor area, those two are really, they're dealing with a separate issue of just as a trigger to initiate inspection.
[1:45:55] So if you wanted to take those out, that's a policy decision.
[1:45:59] There wouldn't be a such a broad spectrum of inspections being done.
[1:46:05] It would be more focused on things that were further burdening our system, and that would trigger an inspection.
[1:46:13] So there are examples in California probably throughout the United States of these kinds of inspections being triggered by something other than a plumbing issue or an impact on plumbing.
[1:46:24] And I think, for example, in Santa Cruz, you have to go through, on a sale, you have to do an inspection, correct?
[1:46:30] And now that's being more had nothing to do with the plumbing, but that's the trend.
[1:46:35] And now there's East Bay mud, now there's a $100,000 threshold for inspections.
[1:46:41] Okay, let me bring it back.
[1:46:43] We all think anybody want to opine on this, I'm in favor of it.
[1:46:47] I'm not sure about the micro transit thing, but yeah, Mr. Barrett, and I'll go to unit.
[1:46:52] Yeah, I actually have some clarifying questions.
[1:46:55] Well, you can have any questions you want in this case.
[1:46:57] Yeah, we're blowing debate now.
[1:47:01] So I want to be clear that the 1200 square foot component on page I think was slide three is not part of this ordinance that that was just reflective on the community outreach and some consensus of some ideas.
[1:47:19] Is that correct?
[1:47:20] So the 1200 square foot is the maximum that is allowed under the state law and this was supported in the study sessions that were held in April and also at the public hearing before the Planning Commission in June.
[1:47:35] So it's supported in state law but not yet ordinance here.
[1:47:39] We've implemented it in this ordinance.
[1:47:42] Okay, so confusing. That page made it seem like if we've already done it, not sure what the-
[1:47:49] So, we implemented increasing the maximum ADU size to 1200 square feet, our prior ordinance limited an ADU to 1000 square feet, which is permissible under the law.
[1:48:00] It's a policy choice that's available to cities, but the maximum that the state law allows for is a 1200 square foot.
[1:48:07] Okay, but what, and we've already done that?
[1:48:10] That is before you tonight.
[1:48:12] Okay, so that was my question, so you are asking us to do that.
[1:48:15] Yes.
[1:48:16] Okay.
[1:48:16] And if I may add as well.
[1:48:18] You may.
[1:48:19] What I found in previous jurisdictions when they start to tear who can get what, when,
[1:48:28] and how mistakes occur both at the local staff level as well as the public.
[1:48:36] And so what we've done in other jurisdictions is just make it an equal bar.
[1:48:41] So, 1,200 square feet is what the state allows and so we've gone ahead and equaled what the state allows and it's been 1,200 square feet as a cap for quite some time I don't envision that changing anytime soon even though we see a lot of ADU laws changing almost every year.
[1:49:02] Further clarification is the removal of the material and roof matching and the mandatory rent reporting also part of this ordinance.
[1:49:12] I'm assuming yes.
[1:49:13] Yes.
[1:49:14] And the mandatory, the, yes, the removal of the current barriers.
[1:49:19] And I do just want to clarify, we had it codified that rent reporting was required and that is not permissible under state law.
[1:49:27] We are still encouraging optional participation and surveys and they are coming in so I think people are
[1:49:35] willing to share that information with us. We just can't codify it
[1:49:40] Great and sorry one one more question
[1:49:44] The laterals both sewer and water so I
[1:49:50] Was aware that the water every new ADU automatically had to get a separate water connection
[1:49:57] Regardless of the main house water supply that was just that's what we have today correct correct
[1:50:03] the sewer
[1:50:05] Is it the same? I
[1:50:07] Do does each ADU need a separate sewer line as well? Our current code requires a separate sewer lateral for the ADU in the house
[1:50:17] Wow, okay, and so the proposal there is to do away with those and
[1:50:22] and evaluate the actual property and try to do the right thing for the actual homeowner, right?
[1:50:29] Absolutely, that's awesome, really great.
[1:50:34] What about, so I'm speaking for all the folks that have gone through the ADU process in the past?
[1:50:42] What about those folks?
[1:50:44] Do they now have options to disconnect and connect if they wish?
[1:50:52] So, we have discussed that preliminary, or we've started to discuss what the options would be for all the residents who now have two water services and two sewer laterals.
[1:51:06] We will have to come back with answers to that.
[1:51:13] Okay.
[1:51:15] Yes, there is definitely options for combining the water service in a manner that's efficient, but we're in discussions regarding that right now.
[1:51:25] Okay, my view there is, I think that's important, right?
[1:51:30] Because I can see why we want to make those changes and make it easier for future residents in the town to be able to use.
[1:51:37] But we have, you know, justice for the current residents who were following the rules.
[1:51:44] Sometimes I'm sure wondering why do I have to do this, but I guess I have to do this.
[1:51:51] And now we're going paying two water connects, two sewer connects.
[1:51:57] I think we need to look at that and be equitable there.
[1:52:01] I'm not sold on the changes to the roof materials,
[1:52:08] because I think we need to think about not that we haven't,
[1:52:12] but at least I'm thinking about right now what that can do from a look and feel of a town, right?
[1:52:19] You know, you got your neighbors, people like nice places, people like a nice neighborhood,
[1:52:23] And if anything goes, I don't know if you guys remember Vancouver BC in the 80s.
[1:52:32] Suddenly there was painting hot paint houses next to it.
[1:52:37] There was a real problem there that they finally arrested.
[1:52:41] So things will happen when you loosen things too much without any compensating controls.
[1:52:47] Yeah, I'd be happy to speak to that.
[1:52:48] Sure.
[1:52:49] So under state law, ADUs are in two different classifications.
[1:52:54] There's a class one ADU, which is an ADU that's up to 800 square feet, 16 feet in height,
[1:53:00] and has at least four foot rear and side yard setbacks.
[1:53:03] For those, we have no control over any of the architectural requirements,
[1:53:07] including materials and roof materials.
[1:53:09] For a class two ADU, it would be anything that's at that 800 square foot threshold.
[1:53:14] And under a curtain ordinance up to 1,000 square feet under a proposal, it would be the 1,200 square feet.
[1:53:20] So we're talking about ADUs that are between 200 or 400 square feet larger.
[1:53:25] That's when we have the option to have some more control over architectural requirements.
[1:53:32] This goes back to director MacKyle's point where when we start tearing things, we get into more complications.
[1:53:39] It's harder to streamline things.
[1:53:42] You've got a neighbor who's got an 800 square foot.
[1:53:44] They didn't have to have roof matching requirements.
[1:53:47] You want to have an 801 square foot.
[1:53:49] Now you've got roof matching requirements.
[1:53:51] It's a bit more complicated.
[1:53:53] So in some ways, the architectural standards,
[1:53:57] ship has already sailed for the majority of ADUs
[1:54:00] which do come in as class 180s.
[1:54:03] I'll just supplement also.
[1:54:05] So we have seen some of these concerns of inequity, basically, when you've got one neighbor
[1:54:15] who has the ability to do something in right next door just because of a minor increase
[1:54:23] in florear or square footage that they have a different set of standards.
[1:54:26] And again, back to application of efficiency and being correct in your application.
[1:54:33] There's nothing, you know, that we like less than having mistakes happen, so we don't like to have that happen, and it does happen when there's different variations of code to apply.
[1:54:47] So that's our personal professional opinion, but it's again at the pleasure of the council.
[1:54:52] So, and what do we think of the size increase, 1200 square feet.
[1:54:56] It seems like less than 80 and more of a smaller single family home to me.
[1:55:03] That's a big, that's a big, big space.
[1:55:11] All right, open you.
[1:55:12] The vice mayor has a thought on that.
[1:55:14] I have to do my job here, let's have a conversation, okay.
[1:55:17] How about that?
[1:55:18] Well, first I did want to say that just the $100,000 water sewer trigger does feel a little blunt.
[1:55:25] and like it will be quickly very little money but on the it does feel like a big 1200 square feet
[1:55:34] like a home and so I wondered is there especially with the roof height and it does start getting
[1:55:41] into tears but I wondered if if something is bigger above 800 square feet and you want to do the
[1:55:47] higher roof could you do that if it's deed restricted in some way or you know that there are renters
[1:55:55] there, or maybe that's too crazy.
[1:55:57] Oh, and that last point is, when you talk about,
[1:56:02] are they really going to be rented?
[1:56:04] Is there a way to count family in there
[1:56:08] in a different generation as a renter?
[1:56:12] Those are my.
[1:56:13] Yeah, families included as a renter if they qualify, right?
[1:56:17] Yes, and I'll highlight where I believe the state's coming
[1:56:21] from in these amendments that we see a lot of new law and legislation coming forward for
[1:56:27] housing. They want more housing and they want it for families and people to hopefully
[1:56:33] have more affordable units. Certainly, the difference between 800 square feet and 1200 square
[1:56:40] feet is not the same as 800 in 2000. And so the state has had 1200 square feet for
[1:56:46] over a decade now as a standard.
[1:56:50] If the city desires to limit that square footage they can, as long as it's consistent
[1:56:57] with state law, and again, it's at the pleasure of the council.
[1:57:04] Mr. Mayor, if I could just ask for one clarifying point here.
[1:57:08] Councilmember Barrick asked about the water and sewer laterals, whether it's required
[1:57:14] to have two.
[1:57:14] And I think the correct answer is that you must have individual water laterals.
[1:57:21] The code does also say that you must have individual sewer laterals.
[1:57:26] Although you can reduce that and share a common lateral in those cases where you demonstrate that you have adequate sewer service.
[1:57:34] Isn't that correct?
[1:57:37] Thank you, that was where my brain was before.
[1:57:41] Thank you.
[1:57:44] All right, any other comments from my, this bad road, of course.
[1:57:49] Thank you.
[1:57:51] I just want to kind of make a maybe a comment regarding the 1200 square foot ADU.
[1:57:58] And maybe this is a clarifying question, but from what I understand, obviously there are
[1:58:02] step back requirements, things of that nature.
[1:58:05] So you're not going to have a 1200 square foot ADU on a quarter acre property.
[1:58:10] That's where you're going to have maybe like an 800 to, you know, 1,000, whatever square foot, not necessarily 1,200 square foot, second home on, you know, a small property within city limits.
[1:58:22] So,
[1:58:26] if the council approves, you know, the increase to the 1200 square feet consistent with state laws allowance, the setbacks are 4 feet and that's for any ADU regardless of it being 800 square feet, 200 square feet, or 1200.
[1:58:41] Okay. Can I follow up on that? So for the class 2 ADUs, maybe I should start. Class 1 ADUs
[1:58:50] cannot be limited by floor area or lock coverage, but anything that's beyond 800 square feet
[1:58:57] we can look at that additional, that whatever the nexus is beyond the 800 square feet as it
[1:59:04] applies to the floor area lock coverage for the site. So if you have a site that's already
[1:59:10] at their max gross floor area or their max lot coverage, they would be limited to the 800
[1:59:16] square foot ADU. So I think to get into your point, a larger parcel would more likely be
[1:59:22] able to have a larger ADU where a smaller parcel may not be able to go up to that full 1200
[1:59:28] square feet. But in no case can we deny anything smaller than 800 square feet and in no case
[1:59:34] Can we limit the max ADU cap to anything less than 1,000?
[1:59:44] I do appreciate all of your clarifications.
[1:59:46] You know the subject matter very well.
[1:59:49] All of you, so I'm impressed.
[1:59:50] Bye, Scott.
[1:59:51] I keep going back to this huge ADU just for fun
[1:59:55] versus a larger ADU that's taller, that's housing someone.
[1:59:59] And so...
[2:00:00] Is there a way to say it? You know, you can do the extra height on that 1200 square foot thing if it's deed restricted or something like that. So our zoning ordinance differentiates, for the example of pool house, differentiates between an accessory structure and a dwelling unit as does the building code. So if somebody comes in and they want an approval of an accessory dwelling unit, they're applying for an accessory dwelling unit and they be subject to those rules and zoning standards. If they're applying for
[2:00:29] a pool house and not an accessory dwelling unit.
[2:00:33] They'd be subject to accessory, well, our accessory structure zoning development standards.
[2:00:39] There's still no requirement that anyone lives there and that would have to do with deed restrictions, sort of.
[2:00:44] That's correct, and I would say that that's a complicated avenue to go into.
[2:00:52] I think I do want to point out that we are required under our housing element to comply with the state.
[2:00:59] one of our programs is to update this ordinance. If the council desired, we could look at from a policy decision, you know, future considerations of deed restrictions, but I'm not sure if council has anything to add.
[2:01:15] Are you seeing in terms of somebody actually living there?
[2:01:20] It seems like, well, okay, if you're bigger and you want the extra height, you have to have someone living there.
[2:01:27] I see how complicated it sounds really simple until you actually, I would say I'm not sure if you could do that for that, I can tell you as a practical matter, it's not realistic.
[2:01:40] I
[2:01:46] want you to bring back that recommendation slide, and then we can continue to talk in, yeah, go ahead.
[2:01:54] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
[2:01:55] I just wanted to add one point of clarification, and it came through some of your line of questioning around the public transit and some uncertainties.
[2:02:03] There were two inclusions in the staff's alternative, which was the vine shuttle as well as the vine transit.
[2:02:11] They're different.
[2:02:12] And so, if it seems like it was too much when you're looking at the Vine Shuttle, but you like the idea of
[2:02:20] half-mile
[2:02:21] micro transit for the Vine transit line along Highway 29. That's another alternative that's
[2:02:27] maybe a little bit more incremental
[2:02:30] towards that local policy shift if so desire.
[2:02:34] Yeah, I thank you for bringing up that that distinction that is important. That's probably where I'm leaning, but
[2:02:40] But anything else, anybody?
[2:02:43] First of all, are we at a point where we can make a motion one way or another, or are we still needing more clarification and maybe suggested recommendation changes?
[2:02:54] I'm satisfied with some of the answer that brought up some good points, Mr. Barrick.
[2:02:57] I think most of them satisfied me.
[2:03:01] I'm not a big fan of this micro transit policy, but I would be okay with sort of the tone down version of a public transit.
[2:03:09] close to Highway 29 actual place where folks get out of bus, even though that may not be the reality in our community.
[2:03:18] The other thing just seems very bizarre, but Ms. Baderot, do you have something?
[2:03:24] I'm not sure if we, I feel like there is some verbiage maybe that we went to have changed as far as the $100,000.
[2:03:34] what was going to be necessary to pull that trigger for these inspections, maybe the uniformity as far as root height, at least I would like to look into that.
[2:03:44] I don't know if maybe another option might be just throwing this out there. If some of us are comfortable with the half a mile, some of us are comfortable with more of like a mile.
[2:03:55] Maybe we start with a half a mile, see how that goes and then increase it, or should we just go for it and do the full throttle city.
[2:04:06] But I think those are my, yes please.
[2:04:09] Thank you, through the mayor.
[2:04:10] Just want to note, it sounds like the 100,000 notation under the sewer and water considerations are of concern to several people.
[2:04:21] staff's not married to that, and we've been discussing, and it would be acceptable if the council desired to not include section 13.2075D3, or
[2:04:36] There's the other one, 13-04-075-B3.
[2:04:49] And I don't know that I want to jump around too much on this, but if you were going to do that,
[2:04:54] I would probably also amend B4 and E4 to solely refer to the development of an ADU.
[2:05:06] because the expansion floor area is arguably even broader than the 100,000, so that's an option and that would basically be consistent with what Mr. DeVore was recommending.
[2:05:20] All right, we're getting all these issues resolved right here as I speak, Mr. Barrick.
[2:05:26] Mr. Barrick is thrilled by the whole thing.
[2:05:28] Mr. Barrick is wanting to get a rebate for it, all the work you did on this P.D.U.
[2:05:33] this is not accurate for the record anyone else anyone ready to make a motion I
[2:05:46] think we have some of those clarifications you can add some of the points
[2:05:50] that were made by the staff that they're not married to some of these points
[2:05:56] what do you think anybody but I don't know can you make it and I'll say that
[2:06:05] We want the green box with part of the blue box.
[2:06:10] And we definitely want the gold box.
[2:06:12] So I think we could take, I think what the council should do is take the ADU-1 first and
[2:06:22] then go on and I think you could make a motion on the second two after that.
[2:06:29] But as to the ADU-1, is there anything that you would like to, why don't you describe what you would like to change the staff's recommendation, and then I'll see if I can help fashion emotion on that.
[2:06:42] Okay, so I thought what we heard was removing the $100,000 and the-
[2:06:47] So that's as to the second two.
[2:06:50] Okay, second.
[2:06:53] I think, did we choose which, which, so I think, vice mayor, I think the-
[2:06:59] Not the best person to-
[2:07:00] Right.
[2:07:00] I think the issues you've been discussing is, like the 80, like the changes to the ordinance,
[2:07:06] and it seems like the questions are, we're at 1,000 square feet, we move up to 1,200 square feet,
[2:07:12] consistent with state law, and then the matter around the micro transit that would,
[2:07:18] if depending on how you view it,
[2:07:20] permit two extra feet for properties that are subject
[2:07:23] or have ability to access that micro transit wherever you might
[2:07:28] grow that line.
[2:07:29] 200.
[2:07:30] Yeah.
[2:07:32] Okay, well, let's just try that
[2:07:35] and see what happens.
[2:07:36] So I would like to make a motion to...
[2:07:40] Oh my God.
[2:07:45] You can introduce some way first reading.
[2:07:47] You can get the first part.
[2:07:47] Okay, that's exactly it.
[2:07:49] Okay, okay.
[2:07:49] Okay, to introduce in way the first reading of the micro transit alternative and schedule the selected ordinance for the second reading on September 8th.
[2:08:09] There's a motion?
[2:08:12] I'm not sure what the motion is.
[2:08:13] Did it change?
[2:08:15] No, no, I think it might be helpful for you to explain what that motion is because I believe that goes to the ordinance that is presented.
[2:08:27] So that was staff's recommendation, which was that the higher height limit would apply essentially in the entire city with those limited.
[2:08:39] Okay, that's what I wanted, but I think at your right I heard other, it sounds like I heard others, we're not into that, so let's try again.
[2:08:46] And I'm going to make a motion to introduce and wave the first reading of the planning commission recommended ordinance and schedule the selected ordinance for the second reading on September 8th, 2026.
[2:08:59] I'll just, let me see if I can step up.
[2:09:02] If I may.
[2:09:02] No micro transit exception for height is what you say.
[2:09:06] Yes, so that means no, no vine transit, no vine shuttle, no extra height.
[2:09:13] I liked it, but I didn't sound like the others were on board of it.
[2:09:17] I might like it with the second revision of by taking a smaller bite with just up 29.
[2:09:24] I'd be more open to that than the whole town minus three houses.
[2:09:28] Not that I'm trying to affect your motion, just trying to look.
[2:09:31] Okay, well we're trying to help with transit, yeah, we're trying to.
[2:09:33] And I wasn't sure if my, were you guys okay with what I was saying with, I don't think it should go above,
[2:09:38] if there is a mean house, I don't think to move.
[2:09:40] Let the vice mayor make a motion and then we'll go out of discussion if it doesn't work, we'll make another one.
[2:09:47] Go ahead.
[2:09:48] Okay, I'm good.
[2:09:49] So you're going to have to just narrow it out.
[2:09:51] What micro transit part you wish to have?
[2:09:54] I'm going to make a motion to introduce and wave the first reading of the micro transit alternative ordinance for those within.
[2:10:03] And was it a half mile?
[2:10:06] A half mile of fine transit.
[2:10:10] A fine transit, thank you.
[2:10:12] And schedule the selected ordinance for a second reading on September 8, 2006.
[2:10:20] Second, there is a motion and a second further discussion on, or clarifying it, any more?
[2:10:27] Clarify.
[2:10:28] Yep, what am I voting for there?
[2:10:30] Is it just the micro transit and nothing else?
[2:10:32] No.
[2:10:33] So I can-
[2:10:34] Or the whole.
[2:10:35] Wow.
[2:10:36] Okay.
[2:10:36] Go ahead.
[2:10:36] You're voting on the alternative microtransit ordinance.
[2:10:40] It's the entire ordinance of the ADU and JADU section of our zoning ordinance.
[2:10:47] There's a change to the definition of microtransit to only include vine transit within a half mile.
[2:10:55] And Lisa, what would the size of an ADU be the maximum size under this action?
[2:11:02] of the roof clarifications, there could be a friendly second amendment if still chose.
[2:11:11] I think they do still second that, Mr. Diaz, with all of that, those little changes?
[2:11:16] Is it the same as the original option A that, just with the change to the micro transit?
[2:11:23] Yes.
[2:11:23] That's it?
[2:11:24] Yes.
[2:11:24] I have second.
[2:11:28] All right.
[2:11:28] Further discussion?
[2:11:29] I would like to make an amendment to the amendment.
[2:11:33] And send it from 1,200 square feet to 1,000 square feet.
[2:11:40] Will you accept that?
[2:11:42] You don't have to.
[2:11:44] You're not going to support that.
[2:11:45] She's not accepting that.
[2:11:51] So I think there's a motion in a second.
[2:11:53] Doesn't look like there's further discussion.
[2:11:57] Please.
[2:11:58] My friendly amendment was to make it so that the roofs,
[2:12:03] The ADU roof does not exceed the roof level of the main house.
[2:12:09] So you don't wind up with a house here and then the ADU here.
[2:12:15] We can discuss it.
[2:12:17] Well, are you entertaining a men in your motion?
[2:12:23] Well, not really, because I don't understand why it matters, that's why I was going to ask why it matters.
[2:12:26] I think why it matters is just for neighbors, depending on the neighborhood and the neighbors.
[2:12:33] You don't necessarily want somebody with an ADU where they're looking down into your backyard.
[2:12:39] So I guess, even though I appreciate how friendly it was, I'm going to say no, because I see this as just important to affordable housing.
[2:12:50] And so that's why I would prefer to stick with it with the actual motion that I made.
[2:12:54] All right, we have a motion in the second on the floor.
[2:12:57] I think we're all clear about what it is, a roll call please.
[2:13:01] Vice Mayor D easy.
[2:13:03] Yes.
[2:13:04] Council member Diaz.
[2:13:05] Yes.
[2:13:06] Council member Barrett.
[2:13:07] No.
[2:13:08] Council member Spadurato.
[2:13:09] No.
[2:13:10] Mayor Dewing.
[2:13:10] Yes.
[2:13:11] That motion passes three to two, so we were almost there.
[2:13:15] We have two more motions, one on the water service.
[2:13:18] That's where we talk about this potential elimination of the $100,000 threshold to
[2:13:25] instigate, and so well, on this case, it's a water inspection.
[2:13:30] Mr. Walsh, you have something else.
[2:13:32] So I think for that one, the motion's a little easier.
[2:13:35] And I think what it could be is to introduce and
[2:13:49] ordinances with the amendments that for the water service ordinance, you would delete section 13.2.0.075E3, and you would amend subsection E4 to solely reference development of an attached ADU, and then make those same amendments.
[2:14:18] to section on the second ordinance, the sewer lateral ordinance, the section 13.04.075.
[2:14:28] You would delete subsection B3,
[2:14:34] excuse me, am I writing this bad?
[2:14:43] Right.
[2:14:48] Yeah, my reference is to sewer and water were wrong, but for,
[2:14:55] yeah, right, no, I've got it.
[2:14:57] So, first.
[2:15:00] So for a section 13.04.075, you would delete section B3 and amend section B4 to only reference development of an attached adieu. So in each, so in need for the sewer and the water with the effective result, that would be as you would take out the $100 threshold is triggering inspection, and then you would only have inspection for the development of an attached adieu, not for the inspection of floor area more generally.
[2:15:33] So moved.
[2:15:35] Second, any further discussions, motion in the second?
[2:15:40] Any further discussion, do we are we clarified on that?
[2:15:45] Any questions before you vote?
[2:15:49] All right, Mr. Bradley.
[2:15:51] Mayor Dorn.
[2:15:52] Yes, Councilmember Barrick.
[2:15:53] Yes.
[2:15:54] Vice Mayor DZ.
[2:15:55] Yes.
[2:15:56] Councilmember Spadrado.
[2:15:57] Yes.
[2:15:58] And, Councilmember D.S.
[2:16:00] Yes.
[2:16:01] All right, congratulations, we got through it.
[2:16:03] Good job, everybody.
[2:16:07] I can't wait to retire in my 1200 square foot, ADU, and have my daughter live in the house and cook for me.
[2:16:18] Okay, now we have some more work to do, are we all, we have to call the staff for the unified school district to turn on the air conditioning.
[2:16:29] I know I have a suit and tie on, it's probably not helping.
[2:16:31] All right, we're going to move along.
[2:16:33] We have to get going here, let me get my barren straight.
[2:16:37] Good work, good discussion on that.
[2:16:39] Thank you for the public participation.
[2:16:43] All right.
[2:16:46] So I think we're moving to item 13.1, new business.
[2:16:50] We are, and thank you, Mr. McCann will go right there.
[2:16:53] Okay.
[2:16:53] This is the appointment of Susan Case as interim director of the Administrative Services Treasurer.
[2:16:58] Yes sir, Mr. McCann.
[2:16:59] In as much as we had cupcakes earlier, we can't turn back and we need to recognize that our administrative services director will be leading us at the end of this month.
[2:17:13] And we have great need to have some professional help in the areas where Mandy has provided such good service.
[2:17:22] Fortunately, we've been able to find a professional who has experience very much in line with the types of things that we do.
[2:17:33] In fact, she has direct experience with some of our computer programs and different platforms, which is very, very helpful.
[2:17:44] You'll see that Sue Casey, Susan Casey, the individual that we are recommending has broad
[2:17:52] experience with a number of different cities in the North Bay, larger cities, a bit larger
[2:18:01] than St Helena, but in the scheme of things smaller cities and so that's an important experience
[2:18:08] that she brings, lots and lots of experience with different aspects of financial management that we come into contact every day.
[2:18:19] So I think she'd be a very good interim person for us.
[2:18:23] She is a retired, a new attendant, and so you're familiar with that protocol.
[2:18:31] When I can tell you, as it's quite rigid, we've had some back and forth with the folks at CalPERS to ensure
[2:18:38] that we're moving forward correctly with Ms. Casey, both for her benefit as well as for the city's benefit and our city attorney's office has worked very, very hard over the last three or four or five days to help us move this forward.
[2:18:52] It's been a very quick process and Ethan's colleague has done a marvelous job to help us get things consistent with CalPERS law.
[2:19:04] In fact, we're just working on this today to make sure it's correct.
[2:19:08] We ended up with some revised documents which we presented to the council and put up on our website.
[2:19:13] And I'll have Ethan maybe just walk through that.
[2:19:16] It can be a little bit confusing, but I think we have a pretty clear conclusion.
[2:19:20] From my standpoint, I urge you to take action to a point Ms. Casey.
[2:19:24] And I think Ethan can make sure that if you do that, we do it correctly.
[2:19:28] So Ethan, can you explain what you think we need to do here?
[2:19:31] I'm sure I will do it barely briefly as Mr. McCann mentioned, when you hire and retire the new intent, there are barely strict rules to apply, and procedures that you have to follow to ensure that you are not jeopardizing essentially their retirement income.
[2:19:51] And one of those is as part of the process when you hire them, you're supposed to concurrently initiate the recruitment for the position that they are assuming.
[2:20:06] The challenge that we have here is that as we'll cover in the next item, the city is looking to do somewhat of a reorganization where we want to replace the administrative services director position.
[2:20:20] with two separate positions for
[2:20:24] Director of Finance and for HR, IT officer.
[2:20:30] And so that presents some challenges in terms of complying with the CalPERS rules.
[2:20:35] So my colleague who specializes in working on CalPERS issues
[2:20:42] reached out to CalPERS and has been working to ensure that we essentially document what we're doing.
[2:20:48] they understood kind of the direction in which the city is going.
[2:20:52] And that there is some benefit to that and it didn't make sense to go through their kind of somewhat rigid requirements to the letter.
[2:21:01] And so they essentially asked that we document our recruitment reorganization efforts through the staff materials.
[2:21:08] So my colleague Isabel worked on that and put things together, bedded those with CalPERS.
[2:21:14] And so those are the revised items that you have before you, they don't substantively change what we're doing with bringing on this KC, but they are intended to ensure that we are complying with the CalPros rules and make sure everyone's on the straight and narrow.
[2:21:31] So if there's any questions, I'm happy to respond to those.
[2:21:36] Any initial questions?
[2:21:39] Let me open it up for public comment, like public comment on the matter.
[2:21:46] Seeing no one run to the podium, I'll close public comment, bring it back, any discussion?
[2:21:53] I think it seems very straightforward.
[2:21:56] I guess the only thing I would say is there, it says no fiscal impact.
[2:21:59] I guess there would be a fiscal impact to a certain degree downward, I would say, not up.
[2:22:07] Let's see, no actually I think from our budget and standpoints of the position is budgeted and this would be at the same level.
[2:22:14] In fact, I guess you are correct.
[2:22:16] We would have some savings because the benefits are not there.
[2:22:18] Salaries one thing, benefits are not paid so we would have some savings.
[2:22:23] That's why we're keeping you around until when is your time, Mr. McCann?
[2:22:27] All right. I don't think there's any controversy here. Anyone want to make a motion? I'll make a motion. Please adopt the resolution.
[2:22:39] Second.
[2:22:40] There's a motion is second by Barrett and Spadarodo.
[2:22:45] Can't you remember Barrett?
[2:22:47] Yes.
[2:22:47] Can't you remember Spadarodo?
[2:22:48] Yes.
[2:22:48] Can't you remember Diaz?
[2:22:50] Yes.
[2:22:50] Nice to meet you.
[2:22:51] Yes.
[2:22:53] I can't thank you enough.
[2:22:56] Okay, so I'm trying to do you think we should proceed in the order that we're that we're set, Mr. McCann in terms of the two, do you think we can finish both of them?
[2:23:10] I think so, yes.
[2:23:10] Okay, I wanted to leave more time for 13.2, but we'll go there now.
[2:23:18] Great.
[2:23:19] Thank you, Mr. Mayor and councilmembers, I'll just point out that this item, which relates to.
[2:23:25] I met 13 more three actually we have enough time to make to address the vacancy issue
[2:23:31] I guess I'm sorry I wasn't clear there you think we have enough time to get to the the last item.
[2:23:37] I believe we do okay but I'm happy to take 13 so 13 to which is the interim strategic plan related to the Blackburg group report.
[2:23:52] I'll note that we've got three comments that came in as part of the public comment period, a lane
[2:24:01] demand, Kelly Wheaton and Dan Hale, offered comments on our staff report and recommendations.
[2:24:06] I appreciate those comments very much.
[2:24:09] I'll remind the council that back in May, we brought the final report from the Blackbird
[2:24:15] group to the city council and presented that to the community.
[2:24:19] We offer a variety of observations and thoughts and suggested that we'd come back in a couple
[2:24:26] of months, sometime in August, with a preliminary implementation plan for your consideration,
[2:24:32] and that's what we're doing here tonight.
[2:24:35] We've looked at this and have developed an approach that's kind of a two-step approach.
[2:24:42] one is sort of an interim action, and then the subsequent one would be early next year,
[2:24:50] which would be an approach to develop a long-term strategic plan.
[2:24:57] The interim plan is intended to address existing needs, immediate needs, and to seize opportunities
[2:25:03] that I think are before us to do much assessment and development, developing inventories to create
[2:25:11] a foundational work plan and a foundational trove, really, of information.
[2:25:18] That information will be a jump-off spot for long-term strategic planning by City Council
[2:25:28] and staff in future.
[2:25:30] We'll also use that inventory and assessment to determine what we need to do immediately
[2:25:34] with respect to a number of our systems and different controls.
[2:25:42] There's no doubt that there's change in the air.
[2:25:45] The City Council has an election coming up.
[2:25:47] We'll have potentially three new members.
[2:25:49] We'll certainly have at least one new member of the Council.
[2:25:53] The City Manager, the Council will select a new City Manager.
[2:25:57] And we'll also have a new administrative services director or
[2:26:02] finance director in the not-too-distant future.
[2:26:07] This report, in our recommendations,
[2:26:09] billed on the Blackbird Group, Blackbird Group's report,
[2:26:14] and we find that there is much in that report that is good.
[2:26:20] There are a number of areas that we had disagreed with,
[2:26:25] or a number of areas that we thought weren't appropriate for us,
[2:26:28] perhaps at this time, but there's much in there
[2:26:30] that is constructive and good and appropriate for an organization like us and in fact for our organization.
[2:26:37] And so we strongly propose that we move forward.
[2:26:42] There's been just a ton of work done by our staff over the last year around Blackburg.
[2:26:49] So participation in Blackburg, responding to Blackburg, and then in the last six months or so there's been just a lot of very good work by our staff.
[2:27:00] especially on the executive team.
[2:27:03] Knowing that we were developing this plan, I brought the staff together and we had a number of discussions about my thoughts about what we could do, what we should do, what we should explore.
[2:27:14] I put together a little subcommittee of the executive team, which included John Sorenson, our fire chief, Joe Leach, our public works director and Andrew Bradley, the utility player who's involved in almost everything it seems like.
[2:27:31] And they all did a great job in taking ideas that I had and suggestions in sort of a theme and framework and turning it into the document that you see tonight.
[2:27:42] I particularly want to thank Andrew.
[2:27:44] He's done a fantastic job pulling this together.
[2:27:48] A lot of the things you see here are ideas that he came up with or ideas that he developed from a kernel that perhaps I planted.
[2:27:55] But it's really good work.
[2:27:57] I really appreciate it. I'd like to run through some slides to talk a little bit about this.
[2:28:03] We got about, I don't know, a dozen slides or so, so we'll be quick. I'm not going to go into
[2:28:09] great detail because there's lots and lots here and I'd rather respond to questions. But I will say
[2:28:15] that we tried to be complete and anticipate some of the concerns or areas of interest that you all
[2:28:22] might have, and so hopefully we've captured those things.
[2:28:26] I'll also touch on some costs toward the end of this, and then we can respond to questions.
[2:28:36] So in the Blackbird Report, they talked about quite a bit about strategic planning, the
[2:28:42] need for a North Star to be centered, and the need for the City Council to develop a strategic
[2:28:48] plan.
[2:28:49] We don't have a plan.
[2:28:50] We have lots of plans but we don't have A plan and so we hope to help to develop ideas and resources and data that will help us develop that strategic plan in future.
[2:29:06] That's for the future council.
[2:29:08] This is really sort of a temporary approach that is getting us in the right direction.
[2:29:14] Next slide.
[2:29:14] And I see this is really a three-phase approach, which is the beginning with the foundational
[2:29:21] interim plan.
[2:29:22] That's where we will take Blackburg suggestions about looking at standard operating procedures,
[2:29:30] SOPs, looking at different systems and financial controls, best practices, to really inventory
[2:29:40] what we have because we have quite a few of those.
[2:29:44] but we know that we probably have gaps too.
[2:29:47] So we want to look at what we have, collect those things so that they're not siloed
[2:29:52] and so that they're readily available to all of the staff.
[2:29:56] But then also have some consultant help that can help us identify.
[2:30:00] Where we're missing, that's practices where we have gaps. There was discussion in the Blackburg work around potential, the potential for fraud waste and abuse. They were careful to say that they don't believe there is any, but there's potential because there may be some systems or practices that are missing. So we want to engage with a consultant that can, that who specializes in fraud waste and abuse, we already have some proposals from them.
[2:30:29] And to take a look at our practices and give us their observations and their recommendations to strengthen our system.
[2:30:36] Be a variety of other activities in that first foundational period.
[2:30:43] You'll see up there that it talks about executing water quality priority initiatives.
[2:30:49] That's directly to the discolored water that we continue to experience in the community.
[2:30:54] To me, that needs to be project number one to address that condition.
[2:30:58] And we need to develop initiatives and data so we can develop a series, I think, of recommendations to address the source and the continuing presence of discolored waters that jumps right to the top.
[2:31:16] Government transition, I mentioned the elections that are coming and then also just the transitions that are happening at the staff level.
[2:31:23] then ultimately the long-term strategic plan would be the third phase of the development.
[2:31:29] Next slide.
[2:31:31] We see that there are half a dozen goals that I think are practical for this interim
[2:31:36] period.
[2:31:38] And so systems and procedures are the first.
[2:31:42] And that's about, again, the SOPs, the systems, the financial controls, those points.
[2:31:49] Next slide, and actually you can go to the one after it.
[2:31:53] Go ahead.
[2:31:56] Keep going.
[2:31:58] That's great.
[2:31:59] The organizational structure.
[2:32:00] This is where we talk about strategic hires and changing some of our organization.
[2:32:07] There's been conversation around this over the years.
[2:32:11] We've had some experiment with some of this over the years.
[2:32:14] We've gone back and forth.
[2:32:15] My own view is that this is an area I think that Blackburg was right on.
[2:32:20] that there are some areas where we could be more efficient.
[2:32:23] We could provide better customer service.
[2:32:25] We could provide better internal service.
[2:32:28] Most of these are sort of free.
[2:32:30] It's just shifting stuff around.
[2:32:32] There may be some support that's necessary,
[2:32:34] but I can just quickly tell you that administrative services,
[2:32:38] the work that Mandy Kellogg has been doing,
[2:32:40] is administrative services.
[2:32:42] So it's finance, it's HR, it's IT,
[2:32:45] and then it's anything else that I can dump on somebody who's capable.
[2:32:49] That makes it very, very difficult.
[2:32:52] So my suggestion is that we simplify things.
[2:32:56] We have finance. They do finance.
[2:32:59] And we have human resources and we have IT.
[2:33:03] Risk management falls in there as well, but that's a much limited thing for us.
[2:33:07] But HR was a strong recommendation from the Blackbird report for a variety of reasons.
[2:33:13] HR is important. Our staff desires that. They really do.
[2:33:17] But it also has talent training that we don't do a great job at, so this would be an opportunity to really look at how we develop talent, how we keep talent, how we train folks for our own particular needs of the HR rule is extremely important.
[2:33:35] IT, super important, we struggle with information technology, we've got a consultant who does a great job of fixing things and plugging things in and unplugging things, that's great, but we need a strategy, we don't have anyone who can strategize for us, so that's what this would bring us.
[2:33:52] community services, this is an experiment that was started a few years ago looking at the Recreation Department and the Library Department and the opportunity to combine those thinking that there might be some synergy.
[2:34:07] I think that there's probably greater strengths by returning them to their previous condition, where they were our independent departments.
[2:34:15] And so that's what this suggests to dislocate them and have an independent recreation department, an independent library.
[2:34:26] And then in the public works department, we have a number of divisions.
[2:34:29] One of the divisions is park maintenance and my suggestion here is that we move the park maintenance.
[2:34:36] And I see this as sort of a pilot to see how this works, but to move the park maintenance division from public works to recreation.
[2:34:43] So it's truly a parks and recreation department the folks who are responsible for programming are also responsible for maintenance and they have direct control over that it's been a topic that it's been discussed that our parks and recreation commission both the the community services the library and recreation and then the parks and recreation or things that you can see in different towns are done different ways and so there's no right or wrong it's really what works for us.
[2:35:12] I think this is a good opportunity to explore an alternate and see if that's better.
[2:35:17] Public works, I think that we really need to focus and provide support so
[2:35:23] that we can get the things done at a pace and at a degree of thoroughness that the community desires.
[2:35:32] We have a lot of projects.
[2:35:34] You heard from Mario Traverson tonight, he carries a tremendous load of projects.
[2:35:40] We, I think, need to have a division within public works that is focused exclusively on projects.
[2:35:47] So a CIP division, and then similarly, we have the other side of the house, if you will, that is operations.
[2:35:56] And so that's what most folks typically think of as public works, road work and sewer work and storm brain work, park work too, in most cases.
[2:36:06] So I think we need to separate those and have a division chief over operations.
[2:36:11] We've had that in the past.
[2:36:13] This would be more focused.
[2:36:15] It would include a greater role in water and waste water matters as well.
[2:36:19] So all of those operations would be there.
[2:36:21] My own view is that both of these need a very qualified individual to lead them because
[2:36:28] it's not just the basic stuff.
[2:36:31] It's more like how do we solve things.
[2:36:32] And so water, I talked about the discolored water, that's a part of it.
[2:36:37] So we need someone who has the capability to understand those problems and identify solutions and
[2:36:45] alternatives and anticipate the issues that come up with those things from communication to solutions.
[2:36:54] And then in the city manager's office, it's obvious to me after spending some time that there's just not enough bandwidth.
[2:37:00] And I'm not suggesting that we need a deputy city manager or an assistant city manager.
[2:37:07] My own views, I don't think we do, but I do think we need someone who is capable to undertake a variety of analytical assignments.
[2:37:17] I don't know that we have the need for a full time person in that capacity in the city manager's office.
[2:37:23] I think in the city we do, there's plenty of issues in the different departments.
[2:37:26] I would say this is kind of a utility player, someone who can sit in my corner, but be assigned out to work on something in the library or the public works department or elsewhere, and then also do some things for me, which would be great.
[2:37:42] Next slide,
[2:37:47] this goal goes to the fraud waste and abuse, but mostly goes to financial controls and systems more than anything.
[2:37:56] There was a lot of discussion, and I'll be honest, I think a lot of it was incorrect misplaced around failures or inadequacies in our finance world.
[2:38:08] We actually have a lot of protections and proper practices.
[2:38:14] Some of them maybe aren't fully implemented or some of them may not be fully transparent.
[2:38:18] So I think we need to examine those and that's what this goal is about.
[2:38:21] looking at all of our different financial practices are reporting schedules, transparency around
[2:38:29] some of those things, just making sure that data and the studies and the reports that we do
[2:38:33] are available to the public, but also that the best practices around internal controls and systems
[2:38:39] are also in place. So a lot of this is examination again and then action based on what those
[2:38:43] examination is real. Next one. CIP and infrastructure.
[2:38:51] This then again goes to the
[2:38:53] discolored water. You'll see that repeatedly in our goals and you see it at the
[2:38:58] very top. I just really think we need to focus a lot and get this thing resolved.
[2:39:05] And then also just a better job of reporting on what we're doing, the progress
[2:39:09] that we're making. There's a lot of different projects going on and I just don't
[2:39:13] I don't think that it's not a need to brag, but it's just a share that we're getting stuff done, both from enterprise capital projects of water and waste water, general fund.
[2:39:25] There's a lot going on, we should share that with the community, and we need to do a better job of coordinating and communicating.
[2:39:33] Preventing maintenance is an area too that had a lot of focus in the Blackbird report.
[2:39:40] There's no doubt that we can do a better job of tracking a variety of maintenance needs.
[2:39:46] So that we're less reactive and more proactive, that we're better informed about things.
[2:39:51] We get things on a proper schedule and cycle, so we can repair them before they go bad at night.
[2:40:00] And then just a better practice of reporting, communicating and
[2:40:06] reporting on our various infrastructure activities,
[2:40:11] those that go well and those that don't go so well.
[2:40:15] This is one scenario that really is not touched on in the Blackburg report.
[2:40:20] It's an area that seems to me that is right for conversation.
[2:40:26] It has a potential to get a lot of attention.
[2:40:29] I think people be very interested in this, but I think we ought to explore it.
[2:40:33] We're not to solve it, but I think starting would be good.
[2:40:36] And so the first part, I don't think anybody disagrees with, make things go faster and
[2:40:40] better and more smoothly in the permit processing.
[2:40:43] And that's all kinds of different things, part of what we were just talking about with ADUs.
[2:40:48] Make our regulations more clear, more consistent, be more helpful.
[2:40:53] And I think we should do that and we should identify those areas where we may have bottlenecks,
[2:40:59] and fix them.
[2:41:00] So make them go away.
[2:41:03] The other few here are maybe a little more controversial.
[2:41:08] And that's to explore some of the big issues that just continue to linger.
[2:41:14] So some study sessions around affordable housing.
[2:41:17] We've had conversation about, do we have a housing strategy?
[2:41:21] What is that housing strategy?
[2:41:23] A lot of people point to the housing element, say there's our strategy.
[2:41:26] That's not our strategy, that's an element.
[2:41:28] The strategy needs way more focus and agreement.
[2:41:34] Landry strategies come into play as well.
[2:41:37] The status of the downtown specific plan is important to talk about water issues and
[2:41:44] the water neutrality policies are also things that are out there.
[2:41:48] I think there's a great need to try to have some conversation about those and then take
[2:41:53] action to address them.
[2:41:55] The urban limit line and the sphere of influence feasibility analysis, this is an area that I think is important to pursue.
[2:42:06] The sphere of influence, we've already had some conversation about that.
[2:42:10] That presently is being reviewed by Lafko.
[2:42:13] And that's the area that the city might grow into in the not too distant future, and so we're looking at that.
[2:42:21] That urban limit line is a different kind of conversation, so that's looking within our city limits at land that is presently outside the urban limit line and just having a conversation about does it make sense to perhaps consider moving that line to basically allow more property to be available for development.
[2:42:39] Part of this is spawned by just the need for development, which is in my mind, selective
[2:42:50] development of an appropriate nature and scale, I think, is good and would help us in a
[2:42:56] variety of ways in the community from vitality to financial strength.
[2:43:01] The other is around housing, which goes back to the housing strategy.
[2:43:04] We have 12 opportunity sites, and those are two of them, hotly contested.
[2:43:13] They introduced land use densities in an area that are different than what's immediately surrounding them.
[2:43:21] The thought of expanding the urban limeline makes the pie bigger,
[2:43:26] provides more sites that may be suitable for housing, could relieve the pressure on areas that may be more finite.
[2:43:34] and just helps us to sort of chart our future as we move along.
[2:43:43] I don't know what the last one's about, so we'll skip that for now.
[2:43:46] How about number six? And then this is about standards and services.
[2:43:51] This is just really about engagement with the community and practices.
[2:43:55] Again, Blackbird touched on this. We hear I hear from folks in the community
[2:44:00] that, you know, communication isn't as great as it should be, it's not as quick people may not be as responsive as it should be.
[2:44:06] So this is just doing, you know, what I think is just good practices, establishing very clear protocols and timelines and expectations for communication.
[2:44:16] The other part, though, is the engagement expectations, and that's like, how do we engage with people?
[2:44:22] So what's our attitude?
[2:44:24] And we should establish an attitude of respect, friendliness,
[2:44:29] helplessness, trying to solve problems, as opposed to just saying here's what the code says.
[2:44:33] But being very proactive, and that's up and down the line, my conversations with staff
[2:44:38] indicates to me that they're hungry for that, to have that empowerment and
[2:44:45] to have the confidence that they're moving forward with pursuing the expectations that have been laid out for them.
[2:44:50] I think if we could do that, that would be very positive.
[2:44:54] And then, different dashboards to reflect the performance, the actual...
[2:45:00] Goals that we have, the performance that we're achieving, where we stand, just so we can actually measure things, we can talk about it, but we want to measure things to be able to demonstrate what that is. And resident engagement, this is an idea that Mayor and I have kicked around a bit, and that's like, to actually get out into the community, have conversations with people, not just here, but to actually have engagement. I think Mr. Park raised that in his communication about, let's have communications that are on our table.
[2:45:29] So you can have, you know, town hall meetings or neighborhood meetings, there's a lot of issues that people would like to share thoughts with and that's really what these parts about, but it all goes into an idea of standards and services, how we communicate, how we engage with the community.
[2:45:45] Anymore here, Andrew?
[2:45:47] That kind of restates what is outlined in the report just about timing, what not sorry, well, almost done.
[2:45:54] Last one, I hope.
[2:45:55] Yes, look at that.
[2:45:56] Questions.
[2:45:57] So, that's it in a big nutshell.
[2:46:01] The plan itself is laid out in greater detail, and I'm sure folks have had a chance
[2:46:07] to study it a bit.
[2:46:09] What would be great would be if you can work your way through and adopt this, or give me a
[2:46:19] thumbs up so we can move forward, particularly around the reorganization ideas and some key
[2:46:25] be hires because we would like to move forward quickly.
[2:46:30] Some of these are more important, more timely, more urgent, frankly, than others.
[2:46:37] I could also say that from a budget standpoint, many of the most of the reorganization ideas are cost neutrals.
[2:46:46] We already have budgeted positions, folks in those positions in some cases, some of the positions are vacant.
[2:46:53] Again, we would change some of them and we'd just be able to move funds around.
[2:46:58] There are two positions that would be additions, that's the HR director and the management
[2:47:04] analyst, and then the consultant costs are a little unknown because we haven't skoked
[2:47:12] that out or we haven't gotten proposals, but just sort of an educated estimate probably
[2:47:18] It puts additional costs around $250,000 to maybe $500,000, $525,000, depending on where salaries fall out and what those contracts might cost.
[2:47:33] We don't have to do all of that, those things which are not budgeted of I would of course bring back and we can have conversation about those.
[2:47:40] And as we press forward, we'll be reporting back on progress and actions and what not.
[2:47:48] That's it.
[2:47:50] All right.
[2:47:51] Thank you for that very interesting presentation.
[2:47:57] I know you've given a lot of thought about it.
[2:47:59] Let me ask a question so that we have some clarification for the community.
[2:48:05] So the BlackBerk report suggests that we do some strategic planning,
[2:48:10] and really that's more community-based, right?
[2:48:13] So sort of visioning, who do we want to be?
[2:48:16] Who are we? Who do we want to be? Where are we going? That kind of engagement, two-way engagement with the community.
[2:48:23] So I think Mr. Hale raised a point about, you know, we seem to be moving in parts of this, the look very internal, probably necessary within the city council, the city manager form of government.
[2:48:37] Those are a lot of decisions that the city manager would make. It just seems like, and I support it by the way.
[2:48:45] But it seems like parts that maybe are more, hey, we need to hear from the community first.
[2:48:54] And maybe it's just an evolution of how we get there.
[2:48:57] And it seems like you've laid it out. You said interim.
[2:49:00] What is your response to that?
[2:49:02] I think there's some merit to the criticism, but I also think that there's some need to move forward in these areas.
[2:49:08] But also keep in mind that we at some point really need to hear from our community
[2:49:13] on the big picture of where we want to be, you talk to your study session, those are more finite areas of the city government like water or housing those kinds of things.
[2:49:26] Talk a little bit about the distinction, I guess, and what your plan is maybe for seven, eight months from now.
[2:49:31] Yeah, yeah. So I think part of it is internal stuff. And so it's gathering data about standard operating procedures and financial controls and processes and all of that.
[2:49:45] So that's internal, how to make ourselves more knowledgeable about what we're already doing, what we're not doing, improving that, making the machine work better. That's internal stuff.
[2:49:57] another part which I find more internal is some is the reorganization so that's like how do we do stuff and so that's moving things around folks may have an opinion about that and I would welcome it I've heard opinions too which sort of influenced this and so I think it reflects a lot from the community I'm sure there are folks who have different opinions like you got it wrong or I didn't go far enough or I didn't think about this.
[2:50:25] open to that too. Some of the other things though, I do agree, they're bigger and so should
[2:50:31] we move the urban limit line? That's a big thing. What's our housing strategy? That's
[2:50:35] a big thing. And so I do think that those will just sort of, they'll work themselves out.
[2:50:42] So if the council says yes, we're not afraid to have that conversation, let's start it. Then
[2:50:47] we'll start it. And we'll figure out what the elements are to have a conversation in a
[2:50:53] comprehensive, complete, welcoming, open session.
[2:50:56] So everybody gets to put their two cents worth in.
[2:51:00] So maybe I see a little bit different,
[2:51:02] that I don't, I don't think we're locking anybody out
[2:51:06] of that conversation.
[2:51:08] I expect that we will be actively including people.
[2:51:12] And even if we're not, I've come to learn that people
[2:51:15] want to be included, and they get included,
[2:51:17] so they will be included.
[2:51:18] So, you know, we're going into it, I think, with our eyes open on that.
[2:51:22] The other thing is, I'll just come back to some of the important things, and
[2:51:28] that's in our infrastructure and our continued delivery of projects.
[2:51:33] I just think we need a framework to make that, to continue to make it successful.
[2:51:38] And to try to improve upon it in those areas that might be a little bit rough.
[2:51:42] You know, we can help get somebody, I hope, who can help us scope things more completely.
[2:51:47] So we're doing things, you know, one time, not two or three times with amendments and whatnot.
[2:51:51] All right, thank you for that.
[2:51:54] Other clarifying questions as we get late into the night.
[2:51:57] Let me open it for public comment.
[2:51:59] And I want to mention that we did, I think you may have mentioned this, we have received public comment from Elaine Demand.
[2:52:05] Kelly, Kelly, we didn't, Daniel, there may be more, but those are the three.
[2:52:08] I read public comment.
[2:52:21] I think one of the biggest problems we've had for a long time is staff, swims, and ambiguity,
[2:52:30] a lot to no fault of their own, just because in terms of organizational structure, what you're supposed to prioritize,
[2:52:38] when it's really unclear often and I think everyone would love to have some
[2:52:45] clear direction and clear guidelines and clear ability and understanding of
[2:52:51] what we're trying to do at a staff level which means then all of a sudden the
[2:52:55] council's job instead of you having to kind of dance around perceived potential
[2:53:02] issues you can say okay great let's go so are there bits and pieces that need to be
[2:53:10] adjusted sure maybe probably but great here we are I mean it seems like it's been a very
[2:53:18] long time coming it's a very succinct list so yeah let's move and make everybody's life better
[2:53:28] and staff's lives easier.
[2:53:31] Great.
[2:53:35] Thank you, others.
[2:53:42] Hi, I'm Deanna Griffin.
[2:53:43] I'm a resident of St. Helena
[2:53:45] and also the Director of Friends and Foundation
[2:53:47] that benefits your public library.
[2:53:50] I do want to thank all of the staff,
[2:53:53] all the council, all of the past long-suffering residents
[2:53:56] and everyone for the efforts that culminate in this proposal.
[2:54:00] This is an interim.
[2:54:02] It's not final.
[2:54:02] It's not even super specific in lots of ways, but my hope is that those of you here on
[2:54:10] Council can consider it and think about which elements are things that you could rapidly
[2:54:15] move forward on.
[2:54:18] As Joshua just said, there's unlikely to be agreement about everything, but perhaps you
[2:54:23] can come to some agreements about elements that can more hastily have the vision of this
[2:54:30] this team, our city, yourselves, come to fruition to a greater facilitation of ease, efficiency, and effectiveness, which is what we're all hoping for in this city.
[2:54:40] All specifically say that it has been an exciting ride to be on the experimental
[2:54:47] community services opportunity.
[2:54:52] And Jim, you pointed out that yes, many cities around our county and our country, our state use lots of different models.
[2:54:58] but looking at how when cooperative empowered individuals who are leading their function areas are also empowered to work together.
[2:55:08] Some of the synergies or efficiencies that once had been touted as needing another level of management to facilitate may or may not be requiring that kind of oversight.
[2:55:19] So I just want to say thanks and please consider the things that can move forward to move forward fast. Thank you.
[2:55:26] Yeah.
[2:55:28] Thank you.
[2:55:35] All right.
[2:55:36] Does it look like we have any more takers?
[2:55:41] Close public comment.
[2:55:42] Bring it back.
[2:55:43] What do you think?
[2:55:46] Ms. Diaz, what do you think?
[2:55:48] You read it to support?
[2:55:49] I'm ready to support.
[2:55:50] I think it's great.
[2:55:52] I actually think there's a lot here, but what we've just gone through on the screen is really exciting actually.
[2:55:58] It's a special time right now.
[2:56:00] I like that everything that was mentioned in the Blackbird study was covered in here.
[2:56:04] I think it's a great starting point.
[2:56:07] I think it's a positive thread.
[2:56:09] We covered staffing and organizational structure process, finance controls, technology,
[2:56:14] and most importantly, the water quality.
[2:56:17] I love that that's in their front and center in the top.
[2:56:20] But I think there are a lot of things we can move forward with holistically.
[2:56:25] This is just a draft.
[2:56:27] I think you've done a wonderful job in putting this together.
[2:56:30] I think it was well laid out, well thought out.
[2:56:32] And I think it gives us a lot of inspiration for what can be down the road.
[2:56:38] I would be remiss if I didn't mention a few areas of observation and points for consideration.
[2:56:47] Significantly, the title interim city manager, we have you, you've come up with this wonderful plan.
[2:56:53] But I think if we're moving all this forward with the interim, we just need to be aware that there are six new positions being created.
[2:57:00] There are three department splits going on, a significant reorganization that the new city manager will inherit.
[2:57:08] And we're a city we need to keep moving forward.
[2:57:12] So that's just a point for consideration because these are a lot of big decisions being made by someone who's going to be here in the short term.
[2:57:21] So I think that's just a point for consideration.
[2:57:23] And also Jim knew I would cover the budget here because I didn't see a budget in there but you've mentioned a dollar figure.
[2:57:29] I think the vote here tonight is really structurally insulated from any sort of cost objection,
[2:57:35] but I do see a way that staff can come back to us with this information.
[2:57:42] So I am in favor of this, and it's really inspirational to see all of this come together.
[2:57:49] We didn't want it on the shelf, we didn't want the Blackbird Report to just go away.
[2:57:53] And so we're three months later and we have something.
[2:57:56] And so I'm really inspired by this, and I think there's a lot here that we can move forward right away, and I think it's a good plan.
[2:58:08] All right, excellent comments.
[2:58:11] How about Ms. Barrett?
[2:58:13] Yeah, second, what Council Member Diaz said, we definitely should support this.
[2:58:23] We're not all going to agree on anything, but I would suggest that we have a special session to get more in the details.
[2:58:30] It's hard to talk about all the details specifically in a short period of time, but these are very substantial areas here that I'd like to delve in more and hear more of the staff's thoughts, not just from Jim, but from the directors of the proposed changes and get their rationale and maybe have some input.
[2:58:51] But I'm sure my colleagues would like to have that too on certain areas.
[2:58:56] I'd like to see that in the process instead of just firing it off.
[2:59:01] Because we will have new city manager and new employees that those integration points.
[2:59:08] And it could be that you don't want things going too far down the road that somebody
[2:59:13] news going to come in and have to have to curtail back.
[2:59:18] So there is some delicacy there, but there's no reason to not go forward with it.
[2:59:26] All right.
[2:59:28] Nice, Mayor.
[2:59:28] Yes.
[2:59:29] Please.
[2:59:30] I wanted to say thank you.
[2:59:32] I think the presentation and report really hit the mark.
[2:59:36] So first of all, thank you to Councilmember Barrack, who kind of started us off on this with
[2:59:42] the Transformation Efficiency Study a while ago, I thought it was amazing to see so much
[2:59:52] of what was in that study be included here and then it actually went beyond it.
[2:59:58] So, to some things that we-
[3:00:00] We've talked about for a decade that we had, you know, like, you know, suggestions that are around for a decade by a lot of people and they seem to make sense. And you've incorporated it. So anyway, I thought it was great. I guess I'm more like, hey, go, go do it. I as is how I'm feeling. I'm feeling that good about this. It was hard for me to see where it seems very operational.
[3:00:28] So I was maybe having a harder time seeing where it could go too far and it felt to me like
[3:00:36] They're that kind of caught that balance of hitting the operational stuff that is almost harder to argue with and then not delving into the
[3:00:43] North Star strategy, which would be left for the city manager. So I thought a good job was done on that so
[3:00:52] Yeah, the one thing I had is you know a couple of areas on
[3:00:57] On the HR position, I sort of was just one I feel strongly about and so I kind of wanted the details on that is it really going to be a strategic person as opposed to someone processing a lot of paperwork on some of the bigger stuff I do wonder if maybe that's too soon like all of the really big strategic land use stuff should that be a hell if you want to push anything back and maybe incorporating more economic development maybe that's not important as important right now in this short term but I thought it was great thank you.
[3:01:28] Thank you very much staff for this report, I think this has been very well done.
[3:01:35] And I know manager McCann had mentioned Andrew Bryanley, Yarsity Clark, thank you very much.
[3:01:41] They're all of this hard work that you guys have put in, it doesn't go unnoticed, obviously.
[3:01:45] But even the community loves it as well.
[3:01:48] My only thing would be, I just would want to kind of echo, I already know this is being
[3:01:53] And I just have the feeling to say, I guess, is the prioritization, making sure we're actually prioritizing certain things we want to get done and actually getting them done rather than getting too excited and trying to attack too many things at one time.
[3:02:06] That would be my only thing.
[3:02:11] American, we have an extension, it's nine.
[3:02:14] Look for a motion to extend to 920.
[3:02:18] I'll make a motion to extend in 930.
[3:02:22] That's the-
[3:02:27] You're cutting into my social hours Mr. Barrett.
[3:02:29] No, I'm just getting my own two.
[3:02:31] There's a motion and a second from somebody.
[3:02:34] Did you have a second?
[3:02:36] Stand in 930, please.
[3:02:38] Roll call, please.
[3:02:40] Councilmember Barrett.
[3:02:40] Yes.
[3:02:40] Councilmember Spadarato.
[3:02:42] Yes.
[3:02:42] Councilmember Diaz.
[3:02:43] Yes.
[3:02:44] Vice Mayor Dixing.
[3:02:45] Yes.
[3:02:45] Mayor Dixing.
[3:02:46] Yes.
[3:02:47] I think my colleagues have given the direction that I agree with wholeheartedly.
[3:02:52] A little bit more detail, but I think generally I'm a thumbs up, two thumbs up, actually.
[3:02:59] I guess I'm really quite impressed by the ambition.
[3:03:05] There's a lot here and it's going to take a lot of thinking and a lot of work by existing
[3:03:10] in staff to sort of organize a lot of this, but I think the Blackbird study hit the mark on a lot of these areas and so we've been given the message and we've taken the message to heart and now we need to deliver on implementing the message so I don't really have any concern, I think I probably will as it rolls out and things slowly come our way as others have, that's just natural, but in general taking the bull by the horns, which you've done.
[3:03:40] One, frankly, is really pretty impressive.
[3:03:43] I'm very pleased with that.
[3:03:45] I think there's just a lot of opportunities.
[3:03:48] I do want to make sure that we continue to keep.
[3:03:51] I really fundamentally have great respect for the council city manager form of government.
[3:03:58] And this is an example where the city manager, you never know what you're going to get in the city manager.
[3:04:03] But hopefully we'll have a city manager who will have that same sort of ambition and
[3:04:09] And look at these things as necessary and sort of fundamental, frankly.
[3:04:12] I don't think there are any surprises here.
[3:04:14] So I'm very pleased by that.
[3:04:16] I think we need to move forward and get better as an organization.
[3:04:21] But I also don't want to lose track of the fact that we need to continue to engage with
[3:04:26] our public.
[3:04:27] We can do all kinds of things, but if the public is like, what are you doing that for?
[3:04:32] We don't have that commitment from the public.
[3:04:34] And a sense of alignment there, we will run a stray.
[3:04:38] Okay, so I think I'm very supportive, and so yeah, good luck next city manager.
[3:04:46] I hope you'd like to.
[3:04:47] Yeah, yeah, I'm just very optimistic, and I think it's a great plan with the reservations and the provisos I have.
[3:04:54] Yeah, I'm very supportive, very optimistic.
[3:04:57] You don't need anything else.
[3:04:59] Any particular areas that-
[3:05:01] I would love to have, you know, you all say, go forward and implement this, come back, report as we progress.
[3:05:10] I think you've heard that from everyone, right?
[3:05:12] And then I will take that as a direction to move forward with commencement of some of the reorganization and the key hires and when we bump into a budget matter will come back, but we'll also come back regularly just letting you know where we stand.
[3:05:26] How do you think the staff will react to performance measures?
[3:05:33] I think they'll react very well.
[3:05:35] All right.
[3:05:35] Yeah, I've spoken with folks who are affected by this.
[3:05:38] Yeah.
[3:05:39] People are excited.
[3:05:40] Okay.
[3:05:40] Cool.
[3:05:41] I remember back in a day in California that this was a topic that was introduced.
[3:05:47] And it was, it was resisted.
[3:05:48] Honestly, I think there was a fear of what that meant.
[3:05:51] And folks, you know, they felt that their job, oh, I didn't,
[3:05:54] If I didn't meet this particular standard, it would affect my employment.
[3:06:00] And so I have to be cautious of that, we're all human beings, relationship oriented.
[3:06:04] I think we'll do well, and it's good to know that the staff is welcoming that.
[3:06:09] All right.
[3:06:10] Great, thank you very much.
[3:06:12] Thank you, thank you, staff.
[3:06:14] All right, all right, now we have one more.
[3:06:16] Yes, so the next item is seeking approval of a resolution to authorize us to recruit for a police officer.
[3:06:29] We have a vacancy that has just come up in our department.
[3:06:33] And so we would very much like to fill that vacancy.
[3:06:38] It takes a long time to get an officer.
[3:06:40] We're usually, we need to go through the academy and sponsor them and it takes time.
[3:06:46] So it's very good to be sort of in front of that.
[3:06:49] Sometimes we do, we sort of anticipate that we may lose someone and we try to start that process.
[3:06:57] So in this case, we're asking for authorization to allow us to recruit for the police officer to fill our vacant spot.
[3:07:04] And the chief is here and he can certainly fill us in on the what and why of that.
[3:07:08] But then, tagged on to this, we've also included a request to modify the position that
[3:07:19] was taken some time ago to freeze the positions and to remove that freeze and allow the city
[3:07:31] manager to fill positions as appropriate, and that requires that there be funding certainly available for that.
[3:07:40] And City Manager would use his or her judgment as to what's appropriate, what positions need to be filled at what level.
[3:07:48] And just in my mind just kind of get back to sort of a normal condition and allow that discretion to occur so that things can move smoothly and efficiently.
[3:07:56] Again, within budget and a good practice is for the city manager to let the council know when there's a vacancy that's come up or when there's a vacancy that's been filled just to alert you to that not so much asking permission but more just keeping you a prize of what's going on in the organization and that certainly would be part of my practice and I'm sure part of any future city manager's practice so recommend that you adopt the resolution allowing us to go forward.
[3:08:25] And Chief Thorpe is here if you have a question about particulars.
[3:08:32] I'm not sure if anyone has just brief questions or they're more substantive about what has been said so far.
[3:08:41] And I'll open it for public comment.
[3:08:43] We'll bring it back that we can ask maybe more questions about the freeze, unfreeze issue.
[3:08:51] Anybody wish to comment on this matter?
[3:08:55] All right.
[3:08:56] Let's bring off close public comment, bring it back.
[3:09:00] I'm supportive of it, I don't know if others have issues about the free, the unfreezing of
[3:09:09] the freeze.
[3:09:10] That's sort of.
[3:09:11] Maybe I can help.
[3:09:13] There were, or there are five positions that I understand that are frozen and they're unfunded,
[3:09:20] they're kind of across the board and different departments.
[3:09:23] At the present time, we have six positions which are budgeted but they're vacant, folks who have left in the last couple of months, and in some cases, we just haven't been able to fill them or in other cases I haven't pursued moving forward to fill them because of some of the things we've just talked about.
[3:09:41] And then in this discussion we just had about real reorganization and different opportunities.
[3:09:51] There are two new positions and so those are also unfunded.
[3:09:54] So we're not talking about a ton, but there are a number.
[3:09:58] I would not expect that the, well, the frozen positions if they were unfrozen.
[3:10:05] I would not expect that those would be filled when they're unfunded.
[3:10:09] we need to address that, and then also, we need to take a look at where those are.
[3:10:16] Some of them, I don't know that those positions are necessary, but it's just what I'm seeking
[3:10:21] is the freedom to be able to react and to fill positions that are necessary appropriate
[3:10:27] and that we are funding for.
[3:10:29] All right.
[3:10:31] Anyone wanting to make a motion, can we do a quick discussion?
[3:10:37] Yeah, of course we could do it either after the motion or you can make the court go ahead now. Yeah. Yeah, I thought I asked questions so yeah, go ahead. So I am so excited about the last item and I want to say go for it. And then I hear.
[3:10:58] I'm just thinking about, well, there, I think there are a lot of vacant positions we've never taken that look, it does that still exist there.
[3:11:11] So I do trust you. Do I entrust everyone into the future?
[3:11:16] I don't know,
[3:11:19] candidly.
[3:11:22] So the good thing about that is that there are performance reviews where you can express
[3:11:26] your trust or lack thereof.
[3:11:28] And then you guys get together every couple weeks and so you can take action if there's
[3:11:32] an issue.
[3:11:33] But yeah, I think I'm comfortable with this or things have changed since February 2025
[3:11:42] when that got put in, there's been talk on the street and in the paper about the audited
[3:11:51] financials, and we've got good news with those audited financials, and looking at them
[3:11:58] it might appear to be so. However, the context with financials is important, and what we'll
[3:12:04] find is that a lot of the good news is because there was action taken, like freezing positions,
[3:12:10] and cutting budgets and not continuing or finishing projects that we wanted to get done and as those numbers come out to the public and this council, I think it will temper some of that and anybody in business and the executive suite will understand, understand that the numbers can tell a lot of different stories, not always the relevant story.
[3:12:38] So, but with that being said, I think perhaps we've tightened too much and we need to invest in the city and so thank you for bringing this up and I'm supportive.
[3:12:58] Well, I guess we could always reinstall the hiring freeze if we need to.
[3:13:06] Yes, I'm going to support the freeze lift.
[3:13:08] I just wanted to acknowledge that we've decided to set the or chart with the city manager in 13.2 and now we're lifting the freeze.
[3:13:18] So now there's a lot of power being given, which is fine because the original freeze as you say was put in place at a different time.
[3:13:26] And so maybe it shouldn't have been there, but who knows.
[3:13:29] So, I am in favor of it, but I just wanted to point that out.
[3:13:35] I'll look for motion.
[3:13:36] I'll make a motion to adopt the resolution.
[3:13:43] Second.
[3:13:44] Motion to the second.
[3:13:46] Further discussion?
[3:13:48] Questions?
[3:13:50] All right, roll call please.
[3:13:51] Councilmember Barrick?
[3:13:52] Yes.
[3:13:53] Councilmember Spadarato?
[3:13:54] Yes.
[3:13:54] Councilmember Diaz?
[3:13:55] Yes.
[3:13:56] Vice Mayor D. Zing?
[3:13:56] Yes.
[3:13:57] Yes.
[3:13:58] That motion passes unanimously.
[3:14:00] Great, thank you very much.
[3:14:01] All right, you're welcome.
[3:14:02] All right.
[3:14:05] Onto the end.
[3:14:06] Council reports.
[3:14:09] Anybody wishing to give a report?
[3:14:12] A quick one, in the Climate Action Committee, there's a meeting on Friday.
[3:14:17] We're continuing to talk about the RCAP Regional Climate Adaptation Plan.
[3:14:23] There are some questions about, it's approval and when it's coming here and what we're locked
[3:14:28] into or not, so we're, anyway, we'll have more on that soon.
[3:14:32] All right, others?
[3:14:36] All right, this meet.
[3:14:38] Sorry, I have one update from the upfalley waste management, and it has to do with the Clover, the Clover language.
[3:14:46] We did get an overview from representatives, and it's a very involved process that they've started.
[3:14:58] They hope to finish.
[3:15:00] The intent is still to close it. The board itself has no impact on this process at all. So we're really just observers at this point. There's six other state agencies that have to weigh in for different pieces, so it might come up in conversations with the community. All right. I think we had a lot of good discussions tonight, Mr. McCann, a lot of interesting policy discussions and work through a lot of issues.
[3:15:27] And I think it may be a record, I don't know, I'm not keeping track, but the number of three to two votes, and alignments changing and shifting, and I actually kind of like to see that, I think it's pretty cool, it's good for democracy.
[3:15:42] People have different views about things, so yeah, that's all good.
[3:15:46] So I appreciate the public's participation.
[3:15:48] I think we have a lot of work on our plate.
[3:15:51] And yeah, don't forget to show up for what September 5th is the next one.
[3:15:56] What we have some parties coming up.
[3:15:59] Tell me again.
[3:16:00] September 5th for the Cheers to 150 years at Library and Adams Lane.
[3:16:05] And then next council meeting is September 8th, 9th, September 9th.
[3:16:09] All right, thank you.
[3:16:10] This meeting is adjourned.
[3:16:11] Good night everyone.
[3:16:12] Thank you.