[0:06] Good afternoon. The Hillsboro City

[0:08] Council meeting is now called to order.

[0:10] Um, city clerk, may we please have the

[0:12] roll call?

[0:13] >> Thank you, Mayor Cole Adams

[0:15] >> present.

[0:17] Crow

[0:18] >> present.

[0:18] >> Ragdale

[0:19] >> present. Cole

[0:21] >> present. Um, do we have any um conflicts

[0:24] of interest from the council um on any

[0:26] items that are on the close session item

[0:29] agenda?

[0:32] Seeing none, let me announce the um

[0:34] items on close session agenda.

[0:37] Item A, conference with legal council

[0:40] existing litigation, town of Hillsboro

[0:42] versus all persons interested in the

[0:44] matter of the proceedings for resolution

[0:46] adopting maximum rates for water service

[0:48] charges.

[0:50] Item B, conference with legal council,

[0:52] anticipated litigation pursu pursuant to

[0:55] government code section 54956.9,

[0:58] print D, print 2, one or more potential

[1:01] cases. Item C, conference with legal

[1:04] council, existing litigation,

[1:07] county of San Mateo, town of Hills,

[1:09] Hillsboro at all versus the state of

[1:12] California, San Francisco Superior

[1:14] Court, case number CPF25-519270

[1:20] lawsuit regarding vehicle license fees.

[1:23] Item D, public employee performance

[1:25] evaluation title city attorney.

[1:29] Do we have any um public comment on on

[1:32] any of the close session items?

[1:35] >> No, mayor call. Thank you.

[1:37] >> Thank you. And we will now adjourn to

[1:38] the close session in the administrative

[1:40] conference room. The regular city

[1:42] council meeting will resume um at 6 p.m.

[1:45] Thank you.

[1:55] » Good evening everyone. The Hillsboro

[1:57] City Council meeting is now called to

[1:59] order. The time is 6:04,

[2:04] July 13th.

[2:06] Um, city clerk, may we please have the

[2:08] roll call.

[2:09] >> Thank you. Adams,

[2:11] >> present. Schwang

[2:12] >> Crowig,

[2:13] >> present. Braxdale,

[2:14] >> present. Cole,

[2:16] >> present.

[2:16] >> Thank you.

[2:18] >> City attorney D, is there a report from

[2:20] close session?

[2:21] >> Thank you, Mayor Cole. Just wanted to

[2:23] announce for the public that the council

[2:24] did convene in close session a little

[2:26] earlier today to consider four items. Uh

[2:28] with regard to item C on the close

[2:30] session agenda regarding the existing

[2:32] lawsuit against the state of California

[2:33] regarding vehicle license fees. I wanted

[2:36] to note that the council did provide

[2:37] unanimous consent uh to to the city

[2:39] attorney to dismiss that lawsuit um in cooperation with the county of Samale

[2:45] and all of the cities within the county.

[2:47] Thank you.

[2:50] » Thank you. Um, I see I skipped a very

[2:53] important part of our uh evening. Please

[2:56] join me as we pledge allegiance to the

[2:58] flag.

[3:15] Thank you.

[3:22] Okay. Um

[3:26] we have a couple of proclamations. We're

[3:29] honored to present two uh proclamations

[3:31] this evening before we get started with

[3:33] the meeting. And um our first

[3:35] proclamation, we're honored tonight to

[3:37] have um the Rethink Trash um Rethink

[3:41] Waste Trash Art Contest. It's an

[3:44] individual fourth grade um uh

[3:46] competition contest. And tonight, I

[3:49] would like to invite South School

[3:51] student Reef to the podium to receive

[3:53] the certificate certificate in

[3:55] recognition of his efforts. We are so

[3:57] happy to have the opportunity to

[3:59] recognize you again, Reef, this year.

[4:02] And this time as the first place winner

[4:05] in the individual fourth grade category

[4:06] for your art piece. Quite impressive.

[4:10] Cardboard crew reef. Um could you tell

[4:13] us a little bit about this piece

[4:15] before? Hi council. My name is Reo

[4:18] Sagera. I am the um education specialist

[4:21] over at Rethink Waste. Um before I re I

[4:25] let Reef speak about his wonderful

[4:27] project, I wanted to give you a little

[4:29] bit of background about our contest. So

[4:31] each spring, Rethink Waste hosts our

[4:33] annual trash to art contest, which is

[4:35] open to all third through fifth grade

[4:37] classes and individual students in the

[4:40] Rethink Waste service area. The contest

[4:43] challenges students to give trash a new

[4:45] meaning by creating artwork from

[4:47] material collected from everyday life

[4:49] which would have been recycled or thrown

[4:51] away. Three winners and two honorable

[4:53] mentions were recognized by Rethink

[4:55] Waste this year. Tonight we are honoring

[4:57] our first place winner of the individual

[4:59] fourth grade category. Please join me in

[5:02] congratulating Reef from South Hillsboro

[5:05] Elementary School.

[5:07] >> All right.

[5:12] So Reef has a couple of things to say

[5:14] about his project. So Reef, could you

[5:15] introduce yourself?

[5:17] >> My name is Ree. I'm in fourth grade

[5:19] going into this.

[5:22] >> I go to South School.

[5:25] >> Perfect. And what was your inspiration

[5:26] for your project?

[5:28] >> Um, my inspiration comes from lots of

[5:32] movies and books that I um watch or read

[5:36] that have um like these ships.

[5:42] » Inspirational ships. And what was your

[5:44] process and what materials did you use

[5:46] to make this?

[5:47] >> Um, I used cardboard for the hole, paper

[5:50] for the sails.

[5:54] um

[5:56] string to for for

[5:59] the ropes, bottle caps, um toothpicks,

[6:03] hot glue, and tape.

[6:04] >> Awesome. Can you pull that up?

[6:09] >> Perfect.

[6:09] >> Wow.

[6:17] » That one is a Chinese junk boat.

[6:25] This one's a Viking ship.

[6:32] » Uh, this one's a gallion.

[6:36] >> So detailed. Congratulations.

[6:38] >> Congratulations. Um, we we have a

[6:40] proclamation for you and I've asked Council Member Adams to read

[6:45] the proclamation for you. Well, it was

[6:48] such a pleasure to give you this award

[6:51] this year, Reef. We're so proud of you,

[6:53] but uh maybe his grandfather can help

[6:56] me. He's sort of like a Rory Mroy. He

[6:59] did it two years in a row. Uh you were

[7:03] the number one winner last year as well.

[7:06] So, I was very impressed when I talked

[7:08] to you about how much research you had

[7:10] done on this and how many drawings you

[7:13] had done. And I did share uh this

[7:17] photograph at a convention uh I attended

[7:21] for the environment in Austin, Texas.

[7:25] And uh people from other companies uh

[7:28] were very interested in following suit

[7:31] and doing trash for art. So you are

[7:35] really changing things across the

[7:37] country and we're so proud of you. So

[7:39] let me read the certificate of

[7:41] recognition. The city council of the

[7:44] town of Hillsboro extends congratulatory

[7:47] reg rec recognition to Reef C. Macdonald

[7:51] fourth grade South Hillsboro Elementary

[7:53] School as the first place winner of the

[7:56] 2026 Rethink Waste Trash to art contest

[8:00] individual fourth grade category for his

[8:03] piece cardboard crew. You are to be

[8:07] admired and commended for your efforts.

[8:11] Thank you, Reef.

[8:12] >> Thank you.

[8:18] » Keep up the good work.

[8:22] » We're going to take a photograph.

[8:25] Yeah, I'll join you.

[8:33] » Yes.

[10:01] Thank you.

[10:09] » Congratulations again. We're very proud

[10:11] of you.

[10:18] Okay. Um our next uh presentation is a

[10:21] proclamation to some Crocker alumni.

[10:25] This is such a brilliant idea. When

[10:28] these um

[10:30] students, well, these alums from Crocker

[10:33] reached out to me. I was like, what a

[10:35] brilliant idea. Why didn't I think of

[10:36] that? So anyways, um these are students

[10:40] who reached out to me several months ago

[10:42] and asked if we could do this very

[10:44] special proclamation for William H.

[10:46] Crocker School class of 1976 day on

[10:51] August 8th, 2026, which is what we're

[10:54] going to proclaim this evening. Whereas

[10:57] the William H. Crocker School class of

[11:00] 1976 has reached the remarkable

[11:03] milestones of its 50th reunion,

[11:06] celebrating five decades of enduring

[11:09] friendships, shared memories, and

[11:12] lifelong accomplishments.

[11:14] And whereas the members of the class of

[11:17] 1976 have made meaningful contributions

[11:20] to their families, professions,

[11:22] communities, and society, reflecting the

[11:26] values and education instilled during

[11:28] their years at William H. Crocker

[11:31] School. And whereas the bonds formed

[11:35] among classmates have withtood the test

[11:37] of time, demonstrating the lasting

[11:40] impact of education, community, and

[11:44] shared experiences.

[11:46] And whereas the 50th reunion provides an

[11:49] opportunity to honor the achievements of

[11:51] the class of 1976

[11:53] and celebrate the legacy they continue

[11:56] to leave for future generations.

[11:58] And whereas this reunion serves as a

[12:01] statement to the importance of

[12:03] preserving the history and traditions of

[12:06] William H. Crocker School while

[12:09] inspiring continued pride among its

[12:12] alumni.

[12:14] Now therefore be it resolved that the

[12:16] city council of the town of Hillsboro

[12:19] does hereby proclaim August 8th, 2026

[12:24] as William H. Crocker School class of

[12:28] 1976 day in the town of Hillsboro and

[12:32] encourage all alumni, families, friends,

[12:36] and members of the community to join in recognizing the class of 1976

[12:41] for its enduring spirit and

[12:43] contributions over the past 50 years and

[12:47] to celebrate this historic union with

[12:49] pride, gratitude, and hope for many

[12:52] years of continued connection. signed by

[12:56] me, Mayor Cole, on July 13, 2026.

[12:59] Congratulations. We have some alums in

[13:01] the audience.

[13:07] I think it's just amazing um first of

[13:09] all that you guys have stayed so

[13:10] connected and I was so honored when I

[13:13] read that email that came a couple of

[13:15] months ago and um thanks to our city

[13:18] clerk Lisa Nush and the staff for

[13:20] helping me put together this

[13:22] proclamation. So, we have uh three

[13:24] Crocker alumni present tonight, Leslie

[13:27] Goldstein, Art Michael, and Jimmy Robert

[13:30] to receive this proclamation. Thank you.

[14:45] Oh, yes. They can can be Yeah.

[15:01] You're welcome.

[15:04] Congratulations again, Reed. That's

[15:05] awesome.

[15:09] See you next year.

[15:17] The next item on our agenda is the town

[15:20] updates

[15:22] and that will be presented by our by

[15:26] assistant city manager Mandy Brown.

[15:29] >> Okay, not nearly as exciting as either

[15:31] of those presentations.

[15:34] >> Um, this is a little exciting. Um, you

[15:37] may have noticed that there is a no left

[15:40] turns in the El Camino construction

[15:42] zone. causing some delays and having to

[15:44] reroute. Um there is signage posted and

[15:47] HPD is conducting enforcement. Lots of

[15:50] warnings going out. Um so just make sure

[15:53] to plan your route accordingly. Um I

[15:55] know we're all getting used to the new

[15:57] normal of the El Camino construction.

[16:01] Uh Concord Deans, thanks to everybody

[16:03] who attended and I just wanted to share

[16:05] some wonderful photos from their website

[16:06] from their 70th anniversary show. Uh, so

[16:09] showing the best of show winner and then

[16:11] the sport show winner. And I'm sure um,

[16:14] council member Krollic can add on to

[16:15] this during her comments as well.

[16:19] Back to Rethink Waste. They are doing

[16:21] another swap event. This one is back to

[16:23] school themed. So, at their offices, um,

[16:26] just trying to get gently used school

[16:28] supplies. So, if you have anything to

[16:29] donate as you're getting ready for the

[16:31] school season, um, this is a great

[16:33] event.

[16:35] And this is a new contest that I'm sure

[16:38] our resident artist extraordinaire will

[16:41] be um winning, dominating, whatever she

[16:44] does. Uh so this is a sticker design

[16:46] contest. So to design a sticker for

[16:49] Rethink Ways to Giveaway at their

[16:50] upcoming events. Um and so a new

[16:54] category uh for all of our young

[16:56] residents to submit in.

[17:01] Uh we had this um announcement more

[17:03] recently. It's also uh in full detail uh

[17:06] in the weekly newsletter as well, the uh

[17:09] bulletin. Uh just reminding folks that

[17:12] the nomination period uh begins today,

[17:15] Monday, July 13th.

[17:20] We we get getting a lot of chicken

[17:22] calls. Um just kind of questions of is

[17:25] it allowed? I hear chickens. Um so just

[17:28] a reminder that chickens are permitted

[17:30] in town. Um, but you do need to have a

[17:33] permit. Um, and there are restrictions

[17:35] on the location of the cage. Um, the

[17:38] level of noise, they need to be

[17:39] contained in the cage. Um, and so if you

[17:42] have any questions, um, Marcel

[17:43] Stevenson, our new code enforcement

[17:45] coordinator, um, would be more than

[17:47] happy to help as he is very wellversed

[17:49] in this topic, especially as of late.

[17:53] Upcoming agenda items, we're going to

[17:55] have a busy August. Um, we're beginning

[17:58] with a study session at 3 o'clock. uh

[18:01] with a more robust discussion on the

[18:03] town hall site plan and alternatives uh

[18:06] that will be discussed also later this

[18:08] evening um as well as some other uh

[18:10] subdivision grading permits um and uh

[18:14] some project or this is a tenative just

[18:16] for um giving you a preview for what we

[18:19] have uh planned so far

[18:24] and then we have our final screen with

[18:26] the emergency repair resources um as we

[18:29] get through the end of

[18:31] Thank you.

[18:32] >> Thank you,

[18:34] city manager Brown. Thank you. Um, city

[18:37] assistant city manager, no worries, dog.

[18:40] You're still good.

[18:44] Um, the next item is public comments on

[18:46] items that are not on the agenda. Um,

[18:48] city clerk, do we have any items that

[18:50] are not on the agenda?

[18:54] » Let's see. I was just going to give it a

[18:55] moment and Zoom. Um, not seeing any

[18:58] raised hands. Uh, no public comment.

[19:01] Thank you.

[19:02] >> Okay. So, no no public comment. Um, I

[19:06] will now close public comment and we'll

[19:09] move on to the announcement of conflicts

[19:11] of interest from the council. Do any

[19:13] council members have any conflicts of

[19:14] interest on items that are on the agenda

[19:17] that needs to be disclosed.

[19:20] >> Council member Kwick, I apologize. I was

[19:22] meaning to talk to you earlier today.

[19:23] Item 11 on the agenda on consent, which

[19:26] means you can remain in your seat and

[19:27] just note it for the record that you're

[19:29] recusing yourself, involves Strawberry

[19:31] Hill. And I know when the uh contract

[19:33] was originally approved, you did recuse

[19:35] yourself. So, I would just think it's

[19:37] prudent to probably continue that

[19:38] practice for now.

[19:41] >> Thank you.

[19:42] >> And that's item 11. Okay. Any um no

[19:48] conflict from the council?

[19:52] Any would any of my colleagues like to

[19:54] uh remove any items from the consent

[19:56] calendar for further discussion?

[19:59] >> Number seven, please.

[20:03] » Number seven is removed for further

[20:05] discussion. Any other items from the

[20:07] consent calendar to be removed by the

[20:09] council?

[20:11] Does anyone from the Oh, I'm sorry. Um,

[20:13] Vice Mayor Rexdale,

[20:14] >> I just have a comment on item eight. Um,

[20:17] but I don't need it to be removed.

[20:20] >> We will remove it for now. part of the

[20:22] comment. Um, let me see. No, actually,

[20:26] we'll keep it if you'll just make the

[20:27] comment and we'll approve that. But, um,

[20:29] let me ask if we have anyone from the

[20:31] public who wishes to remove any items

[20:35] from the consent calendar.

[20:38] >> Thank you. We'll give it a moment on

[20:40] Zoom.

[20:43] I'm not seeing any raised hands. Thank

[20:45] you.

[20:45] >> And, Madame Mayor, could we remove

[20:47] number 11 since I'll have to recuse

[20:49] myself for that, please? Okay.

[20:51] >> Actually, uh, Council Member Kurlic, if

[20:53] we keep it on consent, you could stay in

[20:55] your seat and then when you approve the

[20:57] consent calendar, you'll just vote yes

[20:58] on the consent except for your recusing

[21:01] from item 11.

[21:02] >> Got it. Thank you.

[21:04] >> Um, no one from the public, no public

[21:07] comment to remove any items. Okay. in

[21:09] which case um I will move forward to um

[21:13] remove item seven and um we let's start

[21:17] with a comment on item eight so we could

[21:19] include it.

[21:21] >> Uh yes, thank you. I just wanted to

[21:22] comment item number eight is a letter

[21:25] authorizing a letter for the mayor to

[21:26] sign in support of a since watered down

[21:30] law but it's something um for our um uh

[21:35] town to respond to public records act

[21:38] requests. Um, and I just wanted to get

[21:40] in everyone's um, uh, head that this is

[21:44] something that I think should be on our

[21:45] legislative platform the next time it

[21:48] comes up. Uh, I'd like it to be um,

[21:51] proposed in there as well to um, you

[21:54] know, a broader protection for the work

[21:57] that our um, staff has to do to respond

[22:00] to these requests. And my understanding

[22:04] on that item is that it's making a

[22:06] switch to um business days as opposed to

[22:10] five days. Correct. Five business days.

[22:13] Is that the specific um distinction?

[22:15] >> Business days instead of calendar days

[22:17] >> instead of calendar days.

[22:19] >> Correct. Okay. So, you're asking that we

[22:21] should think about potentially adding it

[22:23] to uh

[22:24] >> I think I think we should should talk

[22:26] about when we get to the legislative

[22:28] platform just have something in there

[22:30] that um a little broader just while

[22:33] recognizing the importance of the first

[22:35] amendment and the openness of government

[22:38] to whatever can be done that the city

[22:41] clerk association supports we should

[22:43] support because it is a lot of work for

[22:46] um all towns.

[22:47] >> Okay. It does not change um item eight

[22:50] just the comments for for the future.

[22:52] Okay. Thank you.

[22:53] >> Yes. Thank you. In which case we will

[22:55] proceed with um we'll get a motion to

[22:58] approve items 1 2

[23:01] 3 4 5 6 8 9 10

[23:07] 11 12 13 and remove item seven.

[23:14] Do we have a second for the motion?

[23:18] Second.

[23:20] >> Okay. Thanks. Okay. Motion by Council

[23:24] Member Schwang, seconded by Council

[23:25] Member Adams. And um city clerk, may we

[23:28] have the votes, please?

[23:30] >> Thank you. Adams,

[23:32] >> yes. Schwang Crowig,

[23:35] >> yes. But I recuse myself for item number

[23:37] 11.

[23:38] >> Thank you. Ragsdale,

[23:39] >> yes.

[23:40] >> Cole,

[23:41] >> yes.

[23:41] >> Thank you.

[23:42] >> The consent calendar is approved. 50.

[23:44] Um, with the recusal of council member

[23:48] Crowley of for item 11. All right, we'll

[23:50] go back to item seven that was removed

[23:52] by council member Krik. Would you like

[23:54] to start your comments?

[23:56] >> Yes. Um, so this is the city council

[23:59] handbook and thank you so much to Lisa

[24:02] and Mandy for all their hard work on it.

[24:04] And I know us and I know that we could

[24:06] worry each one of these things to death.

[24:08] So I'll try and just make this really

[24:09] brief and clean. So, um, and I emailed,

[24:13] uh, Mandy earlier. So, on, um,

[24:18] item 7.4B,

[24:21] it's the process of, um, after public

[24:24] comment and then it's the time for the

[24:26] council members to express their

[24:27] thoughts on the issue and engage in

[24:28] discussion. Um, the first, it does say

[24:32] that that, uh, the matters return to the

[24:34] city council for deliberation. I suggest

[24:37] that that be a bullet point because the

[24:39] first bullet point is the council

[24:41] members can ask questions and you sort

[24:43] of overlook the discussion part. Does

[24:46] that make sense? Um that's a suggestion.

[24:50] >> I'm sorry. Item four.

[24:51] >> Could you repeat that? I'm so sorry.

[24:52] >> 7.4B.

[24:54] So 7.4.

[24:56] So this is when the items come back to

[24:59] the council for discussion and

[25:01] deliberation. I think it's a really

[25:03] important point that we don't deliberate

[25:05] or opine or share our thoughts until

[25:07] after public comment. Um, just look

[25:11] because the bullet point is that we can

[25:14] ask questions. It seems to me as

[25:16] important a bullet point as asking

[25:18] questions is that now is the time for us

[25:20] to share our thoughts or deliberate.

[25:23] Does that make sense?

[25:24] >> Yes. Are you suggesting an amendment um

[25:27] to ask questions and deliberation?

[25:29] >> Yeah. that we make a bullet point of the

[25:31] deliberation sharing thoughts. It's time

[25:34] for uh what does it say? Let me see. Um

[25:40] >> it says city council deliberation

[25:42] >> matters return to the city council for

[25:44] deliberation. I think that should be a

[25:47] bullet point and then they can ask

[25:48] questions like that the process is that

[25:51] we deliberate and ask questions. We

[25:52] don't just ask questions. I know that's

[25:54] the pickiest of all of my suggestions.

[25:56] So typically we start with questions for

[25:59] clarification and then we do

[26:01] deliberation. So should we just flip

[26:02] that from A to B?

[26:04] >> We have the question part before public

[26:06] comment and now this is back to the

[26:09] council for deliberation. So it's to me

[26:11] it's more important that this is the

[26:13] deliberation part of the process. It's

[26:15] not actually the we can ask questions

[26:17] again but this is when we deliberate.

[26:20] This is when we can share our thoughts

[26:21] and opinions and deliberate. Um, it is

[26:24] also appropriate to ask more questions

[26:26] when he comes back the second time. Is

[26:28] that correct, city attorney?

[26:32] » Are you following our thinking up here?

[26:35] >> Yeah, mayor. I'm just wondering if um

[26:39] because we do have the questions portion

[26:41] at 7.2B.

[26:44] Um, and then under 7.4, maybe 7.4B

[26:49] could say the city council may ask

[26:51] further questions.

[26:53] that.

[26:54] >> Yep. That would be great.

[26:55] >> Thanks for your editing. Appreciate

[26:56] that.

[26:57] >> No, le I can always pass this ball to

[26:59] Leslie. She'll like it.

[27:00] >> So, should we also switch to item B to

[27:04] item A? In other words, first the city

[27:05] council may ask further question and the

[27:07] next bullet point should be the city

[27:09] council may then deliberate. Okay. Yes.

[27:12] Um, council member Adams. So, wouldn't

[27:15] it be easier to just combine asking

[27:18] questions and deliberate because you

[27:21] don't know if you're going to be asking

[27:22] a question or it's part of the

[27:24] deliberation. So, if we put it in one

[27:27] bullet point, then that's what we're

[27:30] doing. We're uh the matter is returned

[27:32] to the city council for further

[27:34] questions and deliberation

[27:36] and it's just done.

[27:40] >> Does that amendment and edit work for

[27:42] you? Um

[27:43] >> yeah that's I just you know if you're a

[27:45] new council member you're looking it

[27:46] sort of looks like oh now I answer more

[27:48] I asked more questions I just want to

[27:50] make sure that what we are communicating

[27:53] to new council members is the process is

[27:56] presentation questions public comment

[27:59] sharing thoughts and opinions that

[28:01] that's the

[28:02] >> and the sharing of thoughts and opinions

[28:03] include more questions

[28:05] >> exactly more questions of course

[28:07] >> okay um I support um council member

[28:10] Adams um minor amendment to That does is

[28:13] that do we have um is do we have

[28:16] unanimous support from the council to

[28:17] make that edit that amendment

[28:20] >> just through the mayor to get

[28:22] clarification. So that would be

[28:23] combining A and B. Yes.

[28:25] >> Which I'm happy with. I would add the

[28:27] word further and and just make sure to

[28:29] keep the word may. So

[28:31] >> correct.

[28:32] >> Yes. Thank you.

[28:33] >> Um does is the staff following what

[28:36] we're talking about over here?

[28:39] >> Yeah. I think. Yes.

[28:42] >> Okay. Okay. And then my next comment was

[28:45] at 9.1.

[28:47] The handbook states that the mayor

[28:48] appoints to commissions, but I think our

[28:50] process has been that the appointments

[28:52] then go to the council for a

[28:53] confirmation vote. And Mandy said that

[28:56] this was correct. This could be

[28:57] clarified in the initial sentence. So,

[29:00] do you have a a recommendation for that,

[29:02] Mandy? The clarification.

[29:07] Um, we can just add that at the regular

[29:10] meeting a council will the council will

[29:12] affirm with a vote the selections from

[29:14] the mayor. We I mean we can come back

[29:16] with language unless you want us to word

[29:19] smith it now. But I I understand the

[29:21] intent of just clarifying that the full

[29:23] council makes the the ultimate decision.

[29:27] >> Thank you. the the mayor shall appoint

[29:30] the uh members to various committees and

[29:33] boards and the full council shall

[29:35] approve that appointment. Correct? Is

[29:39] that the intent of this conversation?

[29:43] >> Yeah, I'll say as affirmed by the full

[29:45] council at the regular meeting in

[29:46] December or January. So, I'll move that

[29:48] to the end of the sentence and we'll

[29:49] make sure that it's clear that it's a

[29:51] full council action.

[29:52] >> Okay. So, that's just edited.

[29:53] >> January January. January. Yeah.

[29:56] >> All right. And uh 9.3 this is my next to

[30:00] last. The so the appointment process for

[30:02] the subcommittees seems to be a little

[30:03] vague and I think that what we have been

[30:05] doing is that the mayor or another

[30:07] council member when we talk about

[30:09] subcommittees proposes a member or

[30:11] members to serve and then the council

[30:13] either virt.

[30:17] So it's just it's just vague. I just

[30:19] thought we should clarify um

[30:23] our appointment process for

[30:24] subcommittees.

[30:27] So perhaps just adding a sentence

[30:29] indicating that it's approved by the

[30:31] full council at a at a regular meeting

[30:32] or at a council meeting.

[30:34] >> Correct. Which we have done um right

[30:38] making it.

[30:39] >> Yes. To codify it.

[30:40] >> Gotcha.

[30:42] >> Um and then the final thing that I'm

[30:46] just puzzled on and maybe Christopher

[30:47] can clarify. So 11.3 says that we can

[30:52] speak as an individual and we can write

[30:54] a letter I guess or an email and send it

[30:56] to the full council. It just makes it

[30:59] sound as if any council member could

[31:00] write a letter to the council expressing

[31:02] their opinion on an issue that will come

[31:04] before the council and that seems uh

[31:07] antitheical to what you have tried to

[31:10] drum into our little brains that we when

[31:13] all possible not take a stand on an

[31:15] issue. So, I just I mean, if I write to

[31:18] everybody and say, "Hey, I just want you

[31:19] to know that I'm really against gas

[31:21] powered leaf blowers, then can I get up

[31:23] here on the deis and vote?"

[31:25] I just didn't understand that.

[31:27] >> Yeah. No, it's a great question. Uh,

[31:28] council member Kwick, in looking at it,

[31:30] I think the way it reads is that

[31:32] basically, yes, you as individual

[31:34] council members, you've earned your

[31:35] title as a council member at the ballot

[31:37] box. Uh, you always have the right as an

[31:40] individual to state your position or

[31:42] opinion on something. Um, what this is

[31:45] really getting at is that if the council

[31:46] hasn't taken up the issue yet, but you

[31:48] have a strong position on a certain

[31:50] topic that yes, you can take a position

[31:52] as long as you're making it clear to the

[31:54] public that the council hasn't taken up

[31:56] the issue, it's really my position, not

[31:57] the council's position. But to your main

[32:00] question, um, you are totally correct

[32:02] that in the and it's only in the land

[32:04] use context. So when due process kicks

[32:06] in, and I teach this in ethics, due

[32:09] process kicks in where there's a life,

[32:10] liberty, or property interest.

[32:12] Obviously, what's before you is not life

[32:13] or liberty. It's property. And so, it's

[32:15] land use decisions. And so, everyone who

[32:17] owns property has a right to due

[32:19] process, which basically means that they

[32:21] have a right to uh impartial decision

[32:23] makers up until the time that you've

[32:25] heard all of the evidence and gathered

[32:27] all of the information until that close

[32:28] of the public hearing, then you could

[32:30] take a position on a land use issue. So,

[32:32] I think this language and we can make it

[32:34] a little clearer that yes, you always

[32:36] can take a position on an issue, but

[32:37] when it's a land use issue, don't until

[32:39] the close of the public hearing because

[32:41] you you need to legally um because of

[32:43] due process. But every other type of

[32:45] issue, not land use related, you could

[32:47] take positions on. I will say that some

[32:49] council members hesitate even doing

[32:51] that, but totally at your discretion

[32:54] because they think if I haven't heard

[32:55] from the public, should I really be

[32:56] taking a position on the issue until

[32:58] council takes it up and we hear, you

[32:59] know, community members come and give

[33:01] public comment. Um, but council members,

[33:03] if it's a non-land use issue, can always

[33:06] take individual positions,

[33:08] >> I think. So, I tried to read this as

[33:10] somebody who was just newly elected or,

[33:12] you know, and so I think if that could

[33:14] be clarified, well, that would help us

[33:16] who are already elected too, I think.

[33:17] Yeah, we can add something here that

[33:19] just says yes, you're always allowed to

[33:20] take an individual position. Make it

[33:22] clear that you're not taking a position

[33:23] of the council. Um but but exception

[33:26] land use context, you're going to want

[33:28] to avoid that until uh the actual public

[33:30] hearing in the chambers. And I can we

[33:32] can make that clear.

[33:34] >> This is something that needs further

[33:36] clarification. We also have Vice Mayor

[33:38] Rexdale have some question.

[33:39] >> Uh yes, I didn't read this as writing

[33:42] letters to each other. I read this as

[33:45] like a letter to the editor or a letter

[33:47] in support of an assembly bill or

[33:50] national bill where we are allowed to

[33:53] represent ourselves.

[33:54] >> That makes much more sense.

[33:55] >> Yes. I didn't because Yeah. writing to

[33:57] each other is a whole a whole another

[34:00] thing. Yeah.

[34:01] >> Yeah. and we wouldn't do

[34:02] >> and and for further clarification, there

[34:03] was an issue and still ongoing um in our

[34:07] community and it did somewhat involve

[34:09] some land use issue um where the um

[34:14] board of supervisors were discussing

[34:15] this. I spoke as a physician, not as a

[34:18] council member or mayor and I made that

[34:20] very clear in the record and that is

[34:22] understood. You can as an individual

[34:25] outside of your role as a council member

[34:28] to opine on that. Correct.

[34:30] >> Correct. Do you always uh maintain your

[34:32] individual rights regardless of your

[34:33] council member status? So yeah, if you

[34:35] wanted to just use your professional

[34:36] title can do that.

[34:38] >> Okay, just for clarification. Okay, so

[34:41] um maybe we can just tighten the

[34:43] language here to be clear. We're not

[34:46] recommending communication with each

[34:47] other as council members, which we're

[34:49] not allowed to do because of the Brown

[34:51] Act.

[34:51] >> And then we'll also add something in

[34:53] here about due process as well. But yes,

[34:54] to your point, yes, this is really about

[34:56] speaking to the community, not to each

[34:58] other.

[34:59] >> Correct. Okay.

[35:01] >> Yes. Um, council member Trunk. Um so uh

[35:05] bringing back to 9.3 about the standing

[35:08] subcommittees and ad hoc subcommittees

[35:11] uh is it appropriate in this paragraph

[35:14] to be able to add on to the time

[35:16] timeline and the reason I ask is that

[35:19] oftentimes when you have a subcommittees

[35:21] or ad hoc um depends on the the type of

[35:25] the meetings uh it can conceivably go on

[35:29] for a couple months or two a six month

[35:31] or so or maybe longer depends on the

[35:33] type of a project and what I have seen

[35:37] over the years is that um there's no

[35:40] reporting back. So is there is there a a

[35:44] way that we can incorporate in that and

[35:46] to see what is appropriate to to have a

[35:50] timely update of some sort to the full

[35:54] council or to the public at the public

[35:56] meetings?

[36:01] In other words, is there a legal

[36:02] requirement as to how often to report to

[36:05] the full council?

[36:06] >> Yeah, I'd say for subcommittees, there's

[36:08] no legal requirement to report back, but

[36:10] keep in mind, subcommittees don't have

[36:12] any indep independent authority outside

[36:14] of the council. So, you might need to

[36:15] come back to the council to report back

[36:17] and get some direction. Um, but if the

[36:19] council wanted to include something here

[36:21] that gave a timeline, a general timeline

[36:23] as to when uh reporting back should

[36:25] happen to the council, that would be at

[36:27] the council's discretion. I would like

[36:29] to hear um thoughts from uh my council,

[36:32] vice mayor. Um yeah, I

[36:34] >> I like the idea of uh just using maybe

[36:36] um and we'll give periodic updates at um

[36:39] to the rest of the council on public

[36:40] meetings, something like that,

[36:42] >> right? I mean, for all it takes is that

[36:45] it could be just informing the public

[36:48] and the rest of the council that they're

[36:50] meeting, they're making progress,

[36:52] they're giving the directions to the

[36:55] staff, right? and then is going to come

[36:57] back at certain times for updates or

[37:00] reports. But I think that that is going

[37:02] to help us sort of frame it in some way.

[37:05] Oftentimes it depends on the dynamic or

[37:07] it depends on the nature of the project

[37:10] that it could take longer but it's also

[37:12] good for the public and also for the

[37:14] coun the remaining council to understand

[37:16] that there are challenges or what not.

[37:18] So it just in that vein that I think

[37:21] that it would be really uh for clarity

[37:24] everyone is on the same page about the

[37:26] timeline.

[37:26] >> So do you have any specific

[37:27] recommendations or amendment to that

[37:30] paragraph? Should we put a time once a

[37:32] year update or just keep it

[37:35] >> I think Leslie put it

[37:37] >> just periodic updates. Yes.

[37:39] >> Okay. Yeah.

[37:40] >> There's agreement on that. So that's

[37:43] just an editing issue. It's not a real

[37:45] amendment. It's just clarification of

[37:47] what's written down. Correct.

[37:50] >> Okay.

[37:52] >> I have go ahead

[37:54] >> as to not handcuff the council there

[37:56] too. The the periodic updates could be

[37:58] put in there and at the formation of the

[37:59] committee you could also give direction

[38:01] as to what the timelines might be

[38:03] because it might be different for

[38:04] different committees depending on what

[38:05] type of project it is. And you could

[38:07] also state at that time too that that

[38:10] update may come from staff, it may come

[38:12] from a consultant or it may come from

[38:13] the subcommittee itself just to give

[38:15] yourself some leeway.

[38:18] I think that the periodic updates

[38:21] covers it.

[38:24] >> Okay. Um yes. Um Council Member Adams,

[38:27] you have

[38:27] >> Thank you, Madame Mayor. This was also

[38:30] an item that I wanted to pull. I have

[38:33] three issues I'd like to ask my

[38:36] colleagues to address. Uh the first one

[38:38] is uh a bugaboo of mine. And I have a

[38:41] wonderful book called using common

[38:44] English in legal

[38:47] documents and I'm happy to share it with

[38:50] anyone. Uh if you look at 8.3

[38:54] voice votes

[38:57] uh in a roll call vote uh if a roll call

[39:00] vote is not requested or required votes

[39:02] shall be by vo voice a eyes naz or

[39:07] abstain. And we have then over in 8.9

[39:11] where we talk about the answer is yes. I

[39:14] would like us to force sooth to wit uh

[39:19] change to modern English and just say

[39:22] yes, no or abstain. It's a picky point.

[39:26] But the more we are using common

[39:28] language, the more we're inviting our

[39:31] constituents to believe that we want to

[39:33] communicate with them uh in ways that

[39:37] they communicate with one another. So

[39:39] I'd like you to consider just changing

[39:41] that at point 8.3.

[39:45] >> Changing 8.3 to yes, no, or abstain.

[39:49] >> Yes.

[39:50] >> What if we did I slash yes, nayno, or

[39:53] abstain? Just so if somebody does say I

[39:56] or nay, they're not out of compliance.

[39:59] >> I don't think they'd be out of

[40:00] compliance, but I think we don't want to

[40:03] encourage eyes's and nays. So I say nay

[40:06] to that. That's just my joke for the

[40:10] moment, but that's just my opinion. Um I support that opinion. I think it's uh

[40:15] recommendation to move to modern

[40:16] English. Sounds makes sense.

[40:19] >> Yes. Um, Vice Mayor Rex,

[40:21] >> I'm I'm fine either way, but I would be

[40:24] concerned because we all do so many

[40:26] meetings that as long as Christopher

[40:28] says it's okay that if someone says I

[40:30] that counts as yes, um then I'm okay

[40:33] with changing it. But I just think

[40:35] sometimes we we fall back into um uh

[40:38] what what we've been doing for years or

[40:40] what we do in other in other meetings

[40:42] because sometimes you're in another

[40:43] meeting, you don't want to be the only

[40:44] person saying yes when everyone else

[40:46] says I. So, um, just making sure that if

[40:50] we do that change, which I'm in favor

[40:52] of, if someone says I or nay, that

[40:55] legally counts as yes or no.

[40:57] >> Yeah, I would take the position we all

[40:58] know what yes and no means. And yes, if

[41:00] somebody challenged us because somebody

[41:02] said I versus nay, uh, I will take that

[41:05] challenge and argue that to a judge.

[41:09] >> Uh, thank you for understanding that.

[41:12] >> Well, these Yeah,

[41:14] >> I think the intent I'm sorry, go ahead.

[41:16] Have you had more comments?

[41:17] >> Yes. The next one is 8.1 right of floor.

[41:22] And this has been confusing as a new

[41:25] person. I have uh gotten my copy of

[41:28] Robert's rules of order and I have

[41:31] searched for through the mayor. I have

[41:34] had uh former mayors, not the one I'm

[41:37] married to, tell me there is no through

[41:39] the mayor. I've been in other meetings

[41:42] where people are making their name plate

[41:46] stand up to gain recognition. I would

[41:50] like for us to think about our process.

[41:54] What do we really want to do uh in terms

[41:57] of it's clear any council member

[42:00] desiring to speak shall first be

[42:02] recognized by the mayor and shall with

[42:05] the exception of responding to public

[42:07] comments confine any remarks to the

[42:10] subject under consideration. That's

[42:12] perfect. It's just I don't know how we

[42:16] really want to do it. Do we want to say

[42:17] through the mayor every time we want

[42:19] your attention? Um my personal

[42:21] experience is yes because often I don't

[42:24] always hear my colleagues as sitting at

[42:27] the very extreme of the deis and by

[42:29] hearing the voice you could say may I

[42:32] speak

[42:34] >> um but I think recognizing using a

[42:36] verbal communication is always very

[42:38] helpful. I often will see um the vice

[42:42] mayor to my left or my colleague to my

[42:45] right, council member Crowley, if they

[42:48] make a notation to me that they have a

[42:50] comment or a question, but I don't

[42:52] always see at the very far end. And

[42:54] especially if I'm not wearing my

[42:55] glasses, I really don't see them. So, I

[42:57] don't want to make it look like I'm

[42:58] ignoring you trying to make a comments.

[43:01] So, I think having a procedure that's

[43:02] just rather formal through the mayor is

[43:05] verbal. It's um it can be heard. It

[43:08] makes me rearrange the order of who goes

[43:10] next. I do think there should be a

[43:12] formal verbal communication that is

[43:14] consistent. Um because any other signal

[43:18] may be missed and be deemed as me or any

[43:21] mayor ignoring your efforts to speak.

[43:25] >> As long as we have a formal way of doing

[43:27] it that we all agree on, I'm fine with

[43:30] it.

[43:31] >> The important thing is just to be

[43:32] recognized by the mayor or the chair so

[43:34] not everybody's talking like I just did.

[43:37] No, no.

[43:39] >> Um, so I don't

[43:41] >> There's one more.

[43:42] >> Okay. Yes, absolutely.

[43:43] >> As a new council member, there's

[43:45] something that uh wasn't intuitive, but

[43:49] seems really clear to me that I think

[43:51] should be included in some way in the

[43:53] handbook, and that is a

[43:57] uh calendarization of the seasons of the

[44:00] things that we do things. For example,

[44:03] coming new to the council, I didn't know

[44:06] what months we do the goals. I didn't

[44:09] know what months the budget is reviewed

[44:11] for the first time. I didn't know uh

[44:15] when we give recognition to our

[44:18] volunteers. I didn't know. It's sort of

[44:21] like Christmas and Easter things that

[44:24] happen every year. I would just like to

[44:27] have those as a preview of when you're

[44:30] prepared for the things that happen

[44:32] every year. And it may not be that it

[44:36] goes in the handbook, but I think it

[44:38] needs to be something that's distributed

[44:41] about how the council functions.

[44:46] » Um that thank you for those comments. Um

[44:48] that sounds like something perhaps our

[44:50] staff could help us like a side um guide

[44:54] in terms of the schedule or the calendar

[44:56] for the year. Understanding

[44:58] certain emergencies may change the

[45:00] schedule but at least on a yearly basis

[45:02] just distributing that to the entire

[45:05] council so we're all on the same page in

[45:07] terms of the calendar.

[45:08] >> Yeah. Whether that be in the handbook or

[45:10] some type of handout that we do that

[45:11] might be something we look at even each

[45:13] year just to keep it on track. But there

[45:15] are yearly things that we do on a pretty

[45:17] regular schedule that we could include.

[45:18] >> Yeah. Thanks. And and Vice Mayor Ragdale

[45:20] has a comment. Yes.

[45:21] >> Um I I love that idea because I remember

[45:24] being a little caught off guard that

[45:26] certain things that happened and I had

[45:27] been watching the meetings um for years.

[45:29] So um and also maybe something that we

[45:32] could hand to candidates. So um they

[45:36] have that in mind as well, especially

[45:38] like February goal setting because um

[45:41] that's not on a normal council day

[45:43] sometimes. Um and then um and the budget

[45:46] that's sometimes different but uh it's

[45:48] very early day so that would be helpful

[45:51] to candidates I would think.

[45:54] >> Yes. Um council I agree that that would

[45:57] be a good one sheet addendum to this uh

[45:59] handbook.

[46:01] >> Um any additional Yes.

[46:03] >> No. Thank you very much.

[46:05] >> Yes. And um so thank you very much

[46:08] council member Krollic for taking this

[46:10] item out. Obviously, we had a lot of

[46:12] tweaking to do and clarification. It was

[46:15] um well selected item to remove from the

[46:18] consent calendar and we'll um

[46:22] should we just bring this back after all

[46:24] those modifications

[46:26] next month rather than voting on these

[46:28] are technical and

[46:30] >> I think I think we have what we need. I

[46:32] mean, if council's comfortable with it,

[46:33] we have what we need for the specific

[46:36] adjustments to the sections that we

[46:38] discussed. Um, and in terms of the

[46:41] calendar, um, City Manager Davis, if

[46:43] you're if you're okay with it, and if

[46:45] council's okay with it, I think we can

[46:47] put something together that's a separate

[46:48] calendar. We have something started that we can circulate. Okay. Separate

[46:53] document. That way, there's a little bit

[46:55] of flexibility there for it to just be

[46:57] its own separate document.

[46:59] >> Okay. And that will be outside of the

[47:00] handbook, obviously. Okay. In which

[47:02] case, um, do we have a motion then to,

[47:06] um, approve item seven, resolution

[47:09] approving the town of Hillsboro City

[47:11] Council handbook?

[47:12] >> So moved as amended.

[47:15] >> Do we have a second to the motion?

[47:18] >> Second.

[47:20] >> Could we please take a roll call?

[47:23] >> Thank you, Mayor Cole. Adams,

[47:25] >> yes. Schwang,

[47:26] >> yes.

[47:27] >> Kurig,

[47:28] >> yes.

[47:28] >> Ragdale,

[47:30] >> yes. call.

[47:31] >> Yes. Item seven is approved. 5-0.

[47:34] >> Thank you.

[47:35] >> Okay. Um

[47:39] I believe that covers everything on this

[47:41] on the consent calendar. We will now

[47:43] move to the next item on the agenda

[47:46] which is a public hearing resolution

[47:48] authorizing placement of sewer service

[47:50] and storm drainage charges, special tax,

[47:52] police protection and fire protection

[47:54] and prevention and the flat charge

[47:56] component of the garbage collection fee

[47:59] for fiscal year 2026 2027 county tax

[48:02] role and that will be presented by our

[48:05] assistant finance director Rich

[48:06] Santiago.

[48:08] >> Thank you. Uh good evening, Mayor Cole

[48:10] and council. Yes, as Mayor Cole

[48:12] mentioned, uh tonight we're bringing

[48:14] forward the resolution authorizing the

[48:16] placement of the special charges, taxes,

[48:19] and fees on the county tax role for

[48:21] fiscal year 2627.

[48:23] And as she mentioned, those are the

[48:25] sewer service and storm drain charges,

[48:28] the special tax for police and fire

[48:30] prevention and protection, and then the

[48:32] flat garbage collection fee.

[48:35] And these are the charges, taxes, and

[48:37] fees uh for the upcoming year. As

[48:39] approved in the May council meeting, uh

[48:41] the annual residential sewer service

[48:43] charge will be $4,386.88.

[48:48] As you recall, this was recently

[48:50] approved through the 218 process. So,

[48:52] this is year one of the 5-year rate

[48:54] series. Uh the annual storm drain charge

[48:57] is $7.34.

[48:59] It's been the same since um the initial

[49:02] implementation in 1994 assessing 4,13

[49:06] parcels. The uh annual safety tax that's

[49:10] also approved on annual resolution um

[49:13] that was when in May it's estimated to

[49:15] about 2.25

[49:17] million towards partial funding of

[49:20] public safety operations. And then

[49:22] finally the flat garbage collection fee

[49:24] shows an increase. Again, there was a

[49:27] 2025 rate study and that annual amount

[49:30] is $42.24.

[49:36] And so our recommendation is to open the

[49:38] public hearing, receive comments, close

[49:40] the public hearing, and then adopt the

[49:42] resolution authorizing the placement of

[49:44] sewer service and storm drain charges,

[49:46] special tax for police protection and

[49:48] prevention and protection,

[49:51] and the flat charge component of the

[49:53] garbage collection fee for 2627 to put

[49:56] on the county tax role and authorize the

[49:58] county tax collector to collect such

[50:00] charges. And with that, I'll take any

[50:02] questions you have.

[50:04] Thank you, Mr. Santgo. Um,

[50:06] do we um have any questions from the

[50:09] council with regards to um the

[50:11] presentation? Any clarifying questions?

[50:17] I would like to open public comments.

[50:20] Seeing none from the council, any um

[50:24] public comments on this item?

[50:26] >> Thank you, Mayor Cole. I have no I'll

[50:28] give well actually I'll give it a moment

[50:32] and I don't see any raised hands on

[50:34] Zoom. Thank you.

[50:36] >> Bring it back to the council. Any

[50:37] additional questions or discussion?

[50:43] » No further discussion on this item.

[50:46] Is there a motion to adopt the

[50:47] resolution authorizing placement of

[50:50] sewer service and storm drain charges,

[50:52] special tax for police protection and

[50:53] fire protection and prevention and the

[50:56] flat charge component of the garbage

[50:58] collection fee on fiscal year 2627

[51:00] county tax role?

[51:02] >> So move.

[51:04] >> Do we have a second?

[51:06] >> Second.

[51:08] >> Um moved by council member Trang,

[51:10] seconded by council member Kwick. Um may

[51:13] we have a roll call, please? Thank you.

[51:16] Adams,

[51:16] >> yes.

[51:17] >> Schwang,

[51:18] >> yes.

[51:18] >> Crow,

[51:19] >> yes.

[51:19] >> Braggsdale,

[51:20] >> yes.

[51:20] >> Cole,

[51:21] >> yes. The motion passes 5. Thank you, Mr.

[51:25] Sant.

[51:28] >> Next item.

[51:32] 15.

[51:37] Yes. 16. Sorry.

[51:42] 15. Yes. The next item is introduction

[51:44] of an ordinance amending section

[51:46] 17.32.030

[51:49] of the Hillsboro Municipal Code to

[51:51] reduce the minimum dwelling size

[51:53] requirements and eliminate the

[51:54] recordation requirements for limited

[51:56] remaining floor area and that will be

[51:58] presented by L Roy. Hello Ree.

[52:01] >> Good evening madame mayor, fellow

[52:02] council.

[52:04] Um this is a pretty um

[52:10] minor change to a small section of our

[52:13] zoning ordinance. Uh previously I've

[52:16] spoken to the council about the concept

[52:19] of eliminating the minimum dwelling size

[52:22] from our municipal code for consistency

[52:25] with one of our programs that was

[52:27] outlined in our certified housing

[52:28] element. The proposal before you tonight

[52:32] includes um two changes to this

[52:34] ordinance. The first is to reduce that

[52:37] minimum dwelling size um for the primary

[52:41] single family dwelling from 2500 square

[52:43] ft to a,000 square ft. And the second

[52:46] change is to eliminate the requirement

[52:49] to record a notice when 500 square feet

[52:52] or less um of available floor area

[52:55] remains. Uh the proposed amendments

[52:59] modernize

[53:00] uh the section 1732030

[53:04] while still preserving the town's

[53:06] established floor area regulations. It

[53:09] still implements um the town's housing

[53:12] element commitments while reducing that

[53:14] size and not entirely eliminating it.

[53:17] There are three components to this

[53:19] section of the municipal code. The third

[53:22] section we propose no change. Um for

[53:25] that we propose to maintain the existing

[53:27] floor area ratio standards

[53:31] for the minimum dwelling size. The

[53:33] current clo code requires a minimum of

[53:36] 2500 square ft for a primary single

[53:39] family dwelling. And as I mentioned as

[53:42] part of our housing element, we

[53:43] committed to eliminating this. Um, in

[53:46] previous discussions with the council,

[53:48] we talked about perhaps rather than

[53:50] eliminating it, setting a reasonable

[53:52] minimum that reduces um the 2500 square

[53:56] feet requirement to something that is

[53:58] more consistent with what HCD would like

[54:01] to see. So the 1,00 square foot

[54:06] threshold is a wellestablished threshold

[54:08] in California housing law. The state law

[54:11] requires that we ministerial

[54:13] ministerially approve detached ADUs up

[54:15] to a thousand square feet. And so staff

[54:18] determined that using that same

[54:20] threshold for a primary dwelling was um

[54:24] a logical objective and easily

[54:27] understandable standard while

[54:29] eliminating that 2500 square foot

[54:31] requirement that was identified as a

[54:33] constraint in our housing element.

[54:37] for the recording um requirement. I

[54:40] spoke to the council about this I think

[54:42] two months ago as it relates to our ADU

[54:46] recording requirement. This is similar

[54:47] but different. Um our code currently

[54:50] requires that property owners record a

[54:54] deed restriction when 500 square I'm not

[54:57] a deed restriction record a document

[54:58] when 500 square feet or less remains for

[55:01] their allowable floor area. The notice

[55:04] was intended to provide information

[55:07] regarding a property's development

[55:08] potential. Um but since this requirement

[55:11] was added to our municipal code, so many

[55:14] changes have come through state law and

[55:18] um staff feels pretty strongly that

[55:21] having this recorded notice which is

[55:24] static once it's recorded it's there um

[55:28] creates a situation that isn't dynamic

[55:31] like the changes to state law are. And

[55:34] because state law is changing so

[55:36] frequently, you know, related to ADUs

[55:38] and SB9 and other housing legislation,

[55:40] that 500 square feet becomes a bit

[55:45] arbitrary. Um, and those notices can

[55:48] become outdated really quickly and can

[55:50] be confusing for property owners. Um,

[55:54] meanwhile, the town reviews a property's

[55:57] allowable F anytime an applicant makes a

[56:00] request to staff or anytime an architect

[56:02] is exploring a potential project. So, we

[56:05] feel that that same information can be

[56:06] provided in a much more dynamic way by

[56:09] working with staff um and communicating

[56:12] about the applicable standards and state

[56:14] laws that are in place at that time

[56:15] rather than an applicant being confused

[56:17] by a recording document that was um made

[56:22] up at a specific point in time. Um so

[56:25] the proposed ordinance eliminates that

[56:28] recordreditdation requirement which

[56:30] would reduce the administrative burden

[56:31] and also the burden on the applicant um

[56:34] but still entirely maintains the town's

[56:37] full authority to review and enforce the

[56:39] applicable zoning standards. And we do

[56:42] feel strongly that it it makes a more

[56:43] user friendly process for a potential

[56:46] property owner or for a property owner

[56:48] to understand the development potential.

[56:53] Um, as I mentioned, there are no changes

[56:55] proposed to the town's F standards. The

[56:57] ordinance retains the existing maximum F

[57:00] calculation, which is 25%

[57:04] for the first acre and 15% of any not

[57:07] let net lot area over the first acre.

[57:11] Um, and I have on the right hand side

[57:13] just an example of the red line. As I

[57:15] said, there are three components. We're

[57:17] proposing to modify one, eliminate one,

[57:19] and keep the third the same.

[57:23] So staff's recommendation is to

[57:25] introduce and wave further reading of

[57:26] the ordinance entitled an ordinance of

[57:28] the city council of the town of

[57:29] Hillsboro amending section 1732030

[57:34] of the m Hillsborough municipal code

[57:36] relating to minimum dwelling size floor

[57:38] area and notice of limited remaining

[57:40] floor area and finding the action to be

[57:42] exempt from squa.

[57:45] >> Thank you uh Miss Ree for your

[57:47] presentation. Do we have any questions

[57:48] from the council?

[57:54] Um, council member Schwang.

[57:56] >> Um, thank you, Liz. I, you know, I

[57:58] really don't have any questions other

[57:59] than I really appreciate that despite of

[58:02] the or

[58:04] with the state laws keep changing that

[58:06] we are able to make some lend some

[58:08] clarity to this and then be able to

[58:11] streamline this so that it's helpful for

[58:13] our applicants and so forth. So, thank

[58:14] you.

[58:17] >> Council member Adams has questions. Yes.

[58:19] I just have a question about uh the

[58:22] difference between ADUs and primary

[58:24] residents. Could someone on a lot I

[58:28] believe you can have three ADUs I think

[58:32] uh and a primary residence could a lot

[58:36] be uh populated by 4,000

[58:42] foot dwellings

[58:46] and nothing bigger than that? No. Um

[58:51] the state law does allow in some

[58:53] scenarios up to three types of accessory

[58:57] units. You're allowed to have um a

[58:59] converted attached, a detached, and then

[59:02] in some cases a JADU. Um there are

[59:05] limitations for attached ADUs. Uh they

[59:08] cannot be more than 50% of the square

[59:10] footage of the primary dwelling,

[59:12] >> right? Um so there are are other

[59:15] limitations in in place

[59:17] >> but haven't we redefined primary

[59:20] dwelling through this minimum was 2500 now the minimum is

[59:27] 1,000

[59:30] correct so

[59:32] um I don't know if um Mr. Diaz wants to

[59:36] speak to this that's something certainly

[59:38] we could we haven't redefined what a

[59:40] primary dwelling is. We're only reducing

[59:43] the minimum size required for a primary

[59:46] dwelling. So if you had a primary

[59:47] dwelling that you know somebody wanted

[59:49] to construct a thousand square foot

[59:51] primary dwelling um then you would be

[59:55] limited in um what you could have for an

[59:59] ADU. It couldn't be more than 50% of

[1:00:02] that which I think would qualify as a

[1:00:04] JADU. So I we would have to you know do

[1:00:06] a case study I think but I think it

[1:00:08] would sort of effectively make a

[1:00:11] property owner choose between a JADU and

[1:00:14] an ADU that was attached.

[1:00:16] >> Could you go back three slides um or

[1:00:18] maybe two slides where you were showing

[1:00:21] Yes. This one

[1:00:23] um

[1:00:25] the first paragraph. Thanks for those

[1:00:27] questions. I also had questions with for

[1:00:29] clarification.

[1:00:31] Net lot area you are speaking

[1:00:34] specifically in terms of slow page

[1:00:37] right? How steep? What what exactly does

[1:00:40] that mean?

[1:00:40] >> No. So the net lot area so this is

[1:00:43] related to the size of the lot. So you

[1:00:45] have um the size of the lot which our standard minimum lot size is half of

[1:00:50] an acre. Um and so this doesn't take

[1:00:53] into account any slope. It's nearly

[1:00:55] merely the square footage of the lot. So

[1:00:59] if you have a a lot that's under one

[1:01:01] acre your maximum allowable F your floor

[1:01:04] area ratio is 25%.

[1:01:07] If your property is larger than an acre,

[1:01:11] then your floor area ratio, which is the

[1:01:13] square footage of structures, and it

[1:01:16] applies to so if you have a twostory

[1:01:19] structure, that square footage counts

[1:01:21] for each floor. So this has to do this

[1:01:25] has to do with the limitation for how

[1:01:27] large your structure can be. It's not

[1:01:29] related to the slope.

[1:01:32] So if it's more than an acre, you said

[1:01:36] it's it's 15%

[1:01:39] of the remaining. Let's say you have two

[1:01:41] acres.

[1:01:42] >> Are you stating does this state that

[1:01:44] only 15% of the remaining one acre can

[1:01:47] be developed?

[1:01:50] >> No, it's the calculation that allows you

[1:01:53] to figure out the square footage that

[1:01:55] your home can be. So if your property is

[1:01:59] 2 acres, then you can have 25% for the

[1:02:02] first acre and then 15% for the second

[1:02:06] acre. So um for example, let's see, um

[1:02:10] one acre is 43,560

[1:02:15] square ft. So if you're allowed to

[1:02:17] develop 25% of that, that would be a

[1:02:20] 10,000 square foot home, just over

[1:02:23] 10,000 square feet. And then if you had

[1:02:25] an additional acre, you could only have

[1:02:28] 15% of the floor area for that second

[1:02:30] acre. So that would be an additional

[1:02:32] 6,500 square feet. So it has to do with

[1:02:36] just the square footage of the structure

[1:02:38] that you're allowed to build. So, the

[1:02:40] previous law that states if you are

[1:02:42] going to build a second home, which is a

[1:02:44] state law,

[1:02:46] um I believe what we had in town was

[1:02:48] that you could not it have to be a

[1:02:51] minimum of half the square footage of

[1:02:53] the primary dwelling. So, that nullifies

[1:02:56] all of that is what she's stating based

[1:02:58] on this presentation.

[1:02:59] >> Are you talking about for an ADU?

[1:03:02] >> Well, a second home. You could develop a

[1:03:04] second home without subdividing the lot.

[1:03:06] Oh, like a an SB92 unit project.

[1:03:09] >> Correct. And there was at least in our

[1:03:12] own internal ordinances, it says you

[1:03:14] have to um the second home can be um in

[1:03:19] a minimum half the square footage as the

[1:03:22] primary dwelling. Let's assume your

[1:03:23] primary dwelling is 8,000 square feet.

[1:03:26] Your second home can be 4,000 square

[1:03:29] feet at a minimum. I mean, that's where

[1:03:33] it starts. Based on the recent state

[1:03:36] law, it sounds like those state laws

[1:03:38] have been superseded by what just

[1:03:40] happened. Are you now stating that you

[1:03:42] could just put a second home that's a

[1:03:44] thousand square feet? Does that

[1:03:46] eliminate that previous requirement?

[1:03:50] >> This would have no effect on what is

[1:03:52] allowed under SP9 or subsequently S9.

[1:03:56] Okay. Um, and I would have to look more

[1:03:58] into what the specifics of SB450 are.

[1:04:02] Um, but

[1:04:04] um,

[1:04:08] yeah, I I I know the state laws are

[1:04:11] constantly moving. It's a moving target.

[1:04:13] Maybe we can do an update on that

[1:04:14] sometime.

[1:04:15] >> Absolutely. Yes.

[1:04:16] >> Sometime in the next six months or so

[1:04:18] because it's it would be good to update

[1:04:20] us because residents sometimes ask us as

[1:04:22] if we know, you know, so it's kind of

[1:04:25] good to know. um what new laws from a

[1:04:30] legislative standpoint are sort of

[1:04:34] affecting the changes we have in in our

[1:04:36] ordinances and how that impacts

[1:04:38] residents when they remodel or choose to

[1:04:41] build a build a home. Council member

[1:04:43] Crowley have a question.

[1:04:45] >> I have another hypothetical for you.

[1:04:48] >> So our standard minimum lot size is

[1:04:50] still one half acre,

[1:04:51] >> correct? But under SB9, could someone

[1:04:55] divide their halfacre and and

[1:04:58] potentially sell a 1,000 square foot

[1:05:00] home? Now,

[1:05:02] >> yes, under SB9,

[1:05:05] uh, somebody could subdivide a lot that

[1:05:09] was half an acre. There are lots of

[1:05:11] requirements that have to be met in

[1:05:13] order to move forward with an SP9 lot

[1:05:16] split. Um, but yes,

[1:05:19] >> well, it was my understanding if you if

[1:05:22] you you couldn't have both. You could

[1:05:25] subdivide your lot, but you still have

[1:05:28] to abide by the local ordinance for

[1:05:30] minimum lot size.

[1:05:33] Not

[1:05:34] >> not under SP9. So, under SP9, you are

[1:05:37] allowed to divide a lot as long as each

[1:05:42] of the resulting lots are at least 1,200

[1:05:44] square feet. Um, so if somebody had a

[1:05:47] lot that was uh half an acre, they could

[1:05:50] certainly do an SP9 lot split. There's a

[1:05:53] new requirement that came, I think it

[1:05:55] was under SB450,

[1:05:56] that in addition to the new lots or the

[1:06:00] resulting lots being at least 1,200

[1:06:01] square feet, it has to be at least a

[1:06:03] 60/40 split. So if you had half an acre,

[1:06:06] then each of those lots would have to be

[1:06:08] close to a quarter of an acre. So that

[1:06:10] was a a change that was positive um for

[1:06:13] Hillsboro in terms of the you know if

[1:06:15] you have a 2acre parcel and you want to

[1:06:18] do an SB9 lot split it can't be smaller

[1:06:20] than 40% of the existing

[1:06:21] >> 40% of the existing okay as you can see

[1:06:24] we we still there's so many issues and

[1:06:26] questions maybe this would be something

[1:06:28] that would be worth doing a study

[1:06:29] session

[1:06:30] >> yes happy to come back with more

[1:06:32] information about SB9 and those related

[1:06:34] development standards

[1:06:36] >> um I agree

[1:06:38] >> I just wanted to ask if Christopher had

[1:06:40] anything to add to my question because

[1:06:42] it was clearly I was thinking of a

[1:06:45] developer who wasn't planning on living

[1:06:47] in the home but was planning on making

[1:06:50] something of a little village.

[1:06:52] >> Uh

[1:06:53] >> no, thank you for the question. I I

[1:06:55] think Liz was tracking it in terms of

[1:06:57] the size. So the primary dwelling unit

[1:06:59] has to be everything falls from there.

[1:07:02] So in other words, the ADUs don't get

[1:07:04] larger than that. But let us come back

[1:07:06] and really look at kind of the world of

[1:07:08] land use. Obviously, the California

[1:07:10] state legislature is constantly evolving

[1:07:12] and so let us look at all this and I

[1:07:14] think we can do some sort of uh overview

[1:07:16] of kind of maybe examples of what land

[1:07:18] use would look like in Hillsboro with

[1:07:20] the current rules in place. We're happy

[1:07:22] to do that and bring Todd Leman in for

[1:07:24] that.

[1:07:24] >> Yes. And to to ease your mind, the only

[1:07:27] person who has reached out with interest

[1:07:29] about the minimum lot size is a longtime

[1:07:32] resident who just wants to build a

[1:07:35] smaller home. Um, so there is there is

[1:07:38] interest from a resident in having a a

[1:07:40] home that's less than 2500 square feet

[1:07:42] for purely um

[1:07:46] personal reasons.

[1:07:48] >> Okay. Um I I believe we now go to public

[1:07:51] comment on this and bring it back. I

[1:07:53] know we've had a lot of questions and

[1:07:54] discussion. Do we have any public

[1:07:56] comments on this?

[1:07:58] >> Thank you, Mayor Cole. I don't have any

[1:08:00] speaker cards. I'll give it a moment on

[1:08:02] Zoom in case anybody would like to

[1:08:04] provide comments on this item.

[1:08:08] And I'm not seeing any. Thank you.

[1:08:11] >> Okay, bringing it back to council. Any

[1:08:13] additional questions at this time?

[1:08:17] Okay. Do we have a motion to introduce

[1:08:19] and wave further reading of the

[1:08:21] ordinance entitled an ordinance of the

[1:08:23] city council of the town of Hillsboro

[1:08:25] amending section 17.32.030

[1:08:28] of the Hillsboro municipal code relating

[1:08:31] to minimum dwelling size floor area

[1:08:33] ratio and notice of limited remaining

[1:08:36] floor area and finding the action to be

[1:08:38] exempt from California SQA.

[1:08:41] So moved. Do we have a second?

[1:08:44] >> A second.

[1:08:46] Could we please have the vote?

[1:08:49] >> Thank you. Adams,

[1:08:52] >> yes.

[1:08:52] >> Schwang,

[1:08:53] >> yes.

[1:08:54] >> Kurich,

[1:08:54] >> yes.

[1:08:55] >> Ragdale,

[1:08:56] >> yes.

[1:08:56] >> Cole,

[1:08:57] >> yes.

[1:08:57] >> Thank you.

[1:08:59] >> Okay. 650. Thank you. Thank you, Liz.

[1:09:02] >> I have one additional comment. I I just

[1:09:05] did some back of the envelope math and

[1:09:07] it looks like if somebody did divide a

[1:09:10] half acre and just 40% of the half acre,

[1:09:14] the minimum would still be a little over

[1:09:18] 2,000 square feet. So there's not much

[1:09:19] incentive for someone to just build

[1:09:21] a,000 square foot home and sell the

[1:09:24] Yeah, the land cost a lot of money also.

[1:09:27] Anyways, um items moving on to item 16

[1:09:31] for discussion. long-term financial

[1:09:34] funding updates and that will be

[1:09:36] presented by assistant city manager

[1:09:38] Mandy Brown.

[1:09:40] >> Thank you, Mayor Cole.

[1:09:43] All right, Mayor Cole and Council, just

[1:09:45] be giving a highlevel update of where we

[1:09:47] are in this project. Obviously, we have

[1:09:49] finance director Jan Cook here as well

[1:09:51] if there are any specific finance

[1:09:53] questions.

[1:09:55] Um, but just wanted to give an overview.

[1:09:57] So we'll talk a little bit about the

[1:09:58] revenue generations needs uh that was

[1:10:01] established from the initial analysis

[1:10:04] and reviewing the alternatives. So the

[1:10:06] original recommendations that were um

[1:10:09] authorized by the council for staff to

[1:10:11] uh proceed with and then some additional

[1:10:13] options for consideration.

[1:10:16] So, back in November, the presentation

[1:10:18] on the long-term financial funding

[1:10:20] analysis was presented and some revenue

[1:10:22] needs were identified of $3 million to

[1:10:25] cover the operational budget gap, the $1

[1:10:28] million for the general fund operational

[1:10:30] gap, and then $2 million to safeguard

[1:10:33] against the loss of property tax DLF,

[1:10:36] um, and increasing public safety costs,

[1:10:39] um, especially for fire service. There

[1:10:41] was also a need for $2 million for

[1:10:43] capital projects um upcoming for the

[1:10:46] town um related to some housing as well

[1:10:50] as uh public public building

[1:10:52] improvements.

[1:10:56] So a status of where we are. So since

[1:10:59] those recommendations uh were adopted uh

[1:11:03] obviously we've completed the building

[1:11:04] and planning department for cost

[1:11:06] recovery and that is an estimated just

[1:11:08] under $2 million. And so we're we'll be

[1:11:10] tracking that obviously and reporting to

[1:11:12] council on how how those in those those

[1:11:15] increased fees um are being realized

[1:11:18] financially.

[1:11:20] Um there was an a small increase to CCFD

[1:11:24] to cover the additional finance

[1:11:26] services. Um so that's denoted here. Uh

[1:11:30] and then looking at the agreement with

[1:11:32] CCFD for cost sharing. This is underway.

[1:11:35] So CCFD has a consultant um on board and

[1:11:38] I believe they're expecting to have some

[1:11:40] preliminary results in the fall. Um but

[1:11:43] we'll continue um getting updates from

[1:11:45] them. I know they were doing some

[1:11:46] stakeholder interviews this week for

[1:11:48] that project.

[1:11:50] Uh we also uh uh worked with a

[1:11:54] consultant to do some public opinion

[1:11:56] research for a potential parcel tax

[1:11:58] measure for this ballot. Um it it came

[1:12:01] back that it was not feasible for us to

[1:12:04] uh release that this year. And we're not

[1:12:07] alone. Uh quite a few cities in San

[1:12:09] Monteo County were looking at a parcel

[1:12:11] tax or some sort of revenue measure and

[1:12:14] the vast majority of them are not

[1:12:16] proceeding. The ones that are going

[1:12:18] forward um are usually for a hotel tax

[1:12:21] or a sales tax. Um and even then some of

[1:12:24] those are are borderline. Um there

[1:12:26] aren't really any parcel tax. Uh there

[1:12:28] are a couple transfer tax charter city

[1:12:31] measures going through uh but those are

[1:12:33] really in cities that are in much worse

[1:12:35] financial shape than Hillsboro is and uh

[1:12:39] it's sort of a do or die moment. So uh

[1:12:42] what we were told by the consultant is

[1:12:44] that this is not they've been doing a

[1:12:45] lot more of those calls with um

[1:12:48] disappointing news. Um so it's not

[1:12:50] feasible for this year but it's

[1:12:51] something that we can look to a future

[1:12:53] year as an option for the town. And so

[1:12:55] I'll outline that in um some additional

[1:12:58] alternatives for the council to

[1:12:59] consider.

[1:13:03] So this is just doing a little bit of

[1:13:05] the math um sort of figuring out uh the

[1:13:08] remaining revenue needed. So the

[1:13:10] building and planning fee study is a

[1:13:12] little bit higher than what was

[1:13:13] initially projected by the consultant.

[1:13:16] Um we don't really have a source for

[1:13:18] capital at this point. So there is still

[1:13:20] an outstanding need of revenue of $3

[1:13:23] million if we're using those initial

[1:13:25] assumptions that were used in the

[1:13:26] analysis.

[1:13:30] Then there's a a table in the staff

[1:13:32] report as well. So I'm just going to go

[1:13:34] through and I've sort of put them in

[1:13:35] buckets of what could support ongoing

[1:13:38] operations and what would be more

[1:13:40] supportive of one-time capital needs.

[1:13:43] And so I'll walk through each of these

[1:13:45] seven options.

[1:13:47] The first is staffing controls. Um

[1:13:49] obviously costs staffing is our most

[1:13:52] expensive um cost to the town and so

[1:13:55] just making sure that we are tightening

[1:13:57] up or adding policies to look at each

[1:14:00] vacant position. We have had some recent

[1:14:02] vacancies in town and we are applying uh

[1:14:05] this thought process to those vacant

[1:14:08] positions to look at the classification,

[1:14:10] look at the work that is needed. How

[1:14:12] could we do this as effective as

[1:14:14] possible as possible and be efficient

[1:14:16] with our resources? Um, but this could be something as formal as um

[1:14:22] a policy from the council or as informal

[1:14:24] as a practice uh for staff to implement.

[1:14:27] So, these are all going to be options

[1:14:29] sort of for your consideration. And at

[1:14:31] the end of the presentation, I'll sort

[1:14:33] of ask um are there any of these items

[1:14:35] that you want staff to prioritize? Are

[1:14:37] there any of these options you do not

[1:14:39] like and do not want on the menu of

[1:14:41] options? And so we're just looking for

[1:14:43] some general direction um at the

[1:14:45] conclusion of the presentation.

[1:14:49] The next one is additional fee studies.

[1:14:51] So we looked at the building and

[1:14:52] planning fees. The uh there are some

[1:14:54] engineering fees um also on our fee

[1:14:56] schedule that have not been updated in

[1:14:58] some time. Uh there wouldn't have as

[1:15:00] much kind of bang for their buck, but

[1:15:02] they they are outdated. And so we could

[1:15:05] look at what the cost to provide those

[1:15:06] services are. Um grading permits,

[1:15:09] vehicle impact fees. Those are just some

[1:15:11] examples. And so we could commission a

[1:15:13] similar result to see what we can do um

[1:15:16] to get that cost recovery so that the

[1:15:18] general fund is not subsidizing um or

[1:15:21] being impacted by development related

[1:15:23] services. So really just sort of

[1:15:24] tightening the screws there.

[1:15:29] Uh this was a recommendation that came

[1:15:31] from the long-term financial funding uh

[1:15:34] plan from the the consultant, but it

[1:15:37] never made it to the final

[1:15:38] recommendations.

[1:15:40] Um so the town gets um some measure A

[1:15:43] funds and the majority of them are used

[1:15:46] for the actual capital costs uh rather

[1:15:49] than the operations. And so what this

[1:15:53] um slide with a lot of numbers on it,

[1:15:56] essentially what it says is that there

[1:15:58] is a way to increase the measure A

[1:16:01] contributions to cover operations. So to

[1:16:04] minimize the impact to the general fund,

[1:16:07] but also not impact the actual streets

[1:16:10] program because we do have reserves that

[1:16:13] can only be spent on streets. Uh what it

[1:16:16] is suggesting is keeping the same same

[1:16:19] streets project budget. nothing changes,

[1:16:21] but using those restricted reserves and

[1:16:24] tracking that measure A funding,

[1:16:26] re-evaluating it um to make sure that

[1:16:29] it's not um reducing the program uh and

[1:16:32] the in the project budget overall,

[1:16:34] making sure that the funding sources are

[1:16:36] secure. Um but we think that we have a

[1:16:38] way uh to be able to um help the general

[1:16:42] fund in this area uh without affecting

[1:16:45] the project. And um I did we did run

[1:16:46] this by a public works director and city

[1:16:48] engineer Paul Willis and um he agreed

[1:16:51] that as long as we continue to look at

[1:16:53] those funding sources and look at the

[1:16:55] bids that are coming in and the costs um

[1:16:57] that this is something that that could

[1:16:59] be feasible uh to help with the general

[1:17:01] fund impacts.

[1:17:05] Next one is um these are more for

[1:17:06] capital needs. Um, so we talked about

[1:17:09] the ballot for the revenue measure for

[1:17:12] this November, but that doesn't mean

[1:17:13] that we couldn't uh continue to look out

[1:17:16] to a future year. So, doing a little bit

[1:17:18] more research, looking at some other

[1:17:19] options, especially with a longer

[1:17:21] runway. um looking at education and

[1:17:25] support for additional public safety

[1:17:27] parcel tax, looking at the storm drain

[1:17:29] fee again, seeing how the cities that

[1:17:32] did place measures on the ballot this

[1:17:34] November, how those fared um and what

[1:17:36] they did and see what worked. And so um

[1:17:38] just keeping this on as an option for

[1:17:41] the future.

[1:17:44] This actually came from our goal setting

[1:17:46] session as well is to look at

[1:17:48] establishing um a 501c3. So staff has

[1:17:52] already begun this process. Um and we do

[1:17:55] have a grants management policy to make

[1:17:58] it as easy as possible to award grants.

[1:18:00] Um I will say given the the economic

[1:18:02] climate there are not as many options

[1:18:05] out there um as there used to be. A lot

[1:18:08] of them require a match um and many of

[1:18:10] them are reimbursement rather than they

[1:18:13] give you the money upfront which can be

[1:18:14] challenging from a cash flow perspective

[1:18:16] especially for large grants. So, it is

[1:18:18] something that we monitor. Um, and

[1:18:20] actually CPPG, our legislative

[1:18:22] consultant, also has a grants manager uh

[1:18:24] that keys us into some opportunities

[1:18:26] that may be available. Uh, so we just

[1:18:30] continue to really look for those

[1:18:31] opportunities to to help uh aid capital

[1:18:35] needs as well as general fund. Uh, we

[1:18:37] can also look at partnership with other

[1:18:39] entities on cost sharing or projects. Um

[1:18:42] so just really thinking outside of the

[1:18:43] box of how can we minimize the impact to

[1:18:45] the town.

[1:18:49] Uh this is another sort of study that

[1:18:51] could be done and this depending on what

[1:18:53] the results and the uh the will of the

[1:18:56] council is. Uh we could look at our

[1:18:59] capital uh program and use some criteria

[1:19:02] to manage our resources by maybe

[1:19:06] deferring some capital or capital or

[1:19:09] revisiting the prioritizations that have

[1:19:11] been assigned in prior studies. Um, and

[1:19:14] this is this could could buy us a little

[1:19:16] bit of time on some of the bigger ticket

[1:19:18] items. However, it does could lead to

[1:19:20] deferred maintenance, which would be

[1:19:22] more emergency repairs. So, there is a

[1:19:24] cost benefit, but we could look at that

[1:19:26] with fresh eyes and sort of um look at

[1:19:29] the risk uh that would be associated

[1:19:32] with waiting uh versus what needs to be

[1:19:34] done now and just have one comprehensive

[1:19:36] look at it uh to see if there is there

[1:19:38] are any savings that could be realized

[1:19:40] by uh revamping our capital pro. uh

[1:19:43] program. And then again, uh we did have

[1:19:45] public works director and city engineer

[1:19:47] Paul Willis look at this as an option.

[1:19:49] Um and and he was uh happy to do it if

[1:19:52] the council was looking at it, but just

[1:19:53] wanted to keep it on as a as a menu

[1:19:55] option for your for your consideration.

[1:20:00] And the last one, this has actually come

[1:20:02] as a recommendation from FAC um as uh as

[1:20:06] well as I think the council has

[1:20:07] mentioned it a couple times was to uh

[1:20:10] look at the town-owned inventory of land

[1:20:12] and properties and see if there is any

[1:20:15] opportunity to dispose of any of those

[1:20:17] assets. And so what this would what

[1:20:20] staff would recommend is that we'd begin

[1:20:22] with a presentation from uh Christopher

[1:20:25] Diaz on the legal process for the

[1:20:27] disposition of town owned land so we

[1:20:29] understand what goes into that. And then

[1:20:32] we could also um can prepare an

[1:20:35] inventory of all the town owned land.

[1:20:37] Some are slivers, some are larger

[1:20:38] places, some have deed restrictions. And

[1:20:41] so putting all of that together um in a

[1:20:43] package with some agreed upon criteria

[1:20:46] to rank the the opportunities

[1:20:49] um for revenue generation um or for or

[1:20:53] properties that may be more beneficial

[1:20:54] to hang on to for a potential use that

[1:20:57] some department uh may need. Uh so uh

[1:21:00] staff could prepare that as well, but it

[1:21:02] would begin with the sort of legal

[1:21:04] discussion of of that framework and how

[1:21:06] that would work for the disposition

[1:21:07] itself.

[1:21:11] And so a lot of these I've assigned some

[1:21:13] sort of general dollar values, but we

[1:21:16] really don't know until we get into

[1:21:17] them. I was just sort of more a ballpark

[1:21:19] small, medium, large. Um, with obviously

[1:21:22] the the capital uh uh strategies being

[1:21:26] the most potential. Um, but we don't

[1:21:29] really know until we we get in there and start to do some of that analysis.

[1:21:33] Um whereas the fee studies, the measure

[1:21:35] A and maybe some of the staffing

[1:21:37] controls could be an ongoing savings um

[1:21:40] if we were to implement those as sort of

[1:21:42] standing policies.

[1:21:47] So I have this slide up here again just

[1:21:49] for the discussion with all seven of

[1:21:51] them um outlined, but I can go back to

[1:21:53] any of the other slides with the detail

[1:21:55] on them um during the discussion. Thank

[1:21:58] you.

[1:22:01] Mandy Brown, for the

[1:22:02] presentation. Um, any questions from

[1:22:05] this from the council?

[1:22:12] » Yes, Council Member Adams.

[1:22:15] >> Uh, thank you so much. That's really

[1:22:18] great to see uh the whole thing laid

[1:22:21] out. I would still question uh number

[1:22:26] three uh because it isn't so much uh

[1:22:31] that I'm worried about our

[1:22:33] reauthorization or utilization of the

[1:22:36] funds. It's that to qualify for them,

[1:22:40] there are very specific

[1:22:42] uh requirements that they go for roads

[1:22:45] and not for maintenance. So I think I'd

[1:22:49] like to hear from Paul directly about

[1:22:51] that one. Uh because we've talked about

[1:22:53] it a number of times. Uh so that I have

[1:22:57] a little bit of a question about. Uh the

[1:23:01] other is you're absolutely right on

[1:23:04] number five. Uh most many grants require

[1:23:10] that the work be done and then you're

[1:23:13] reimbursed.

[1:23:14] And that can be a real struggle with

[1:23:18] cash flow uh particularly when the

[1:23:22] project may need the money uh out of

[1:23:27] sync with our ability to have it. So

[1:23:30] other than that, it's always good to do

[1:23:32] all these things. And I especially think

[1:23:35] just having an assessment of our town

[1:23:39] owned land. In the budget book, it says

[1:23:41] we have 240 acres. A number of those are

[1:23:45] just triangular slivers that would only

[1:23:48] be uh interested. The only interested

[1:23:51] parties I think would be the neighbors.

[1:23:54] Uh but we have to be really careful as

[1:23:57] you said about what our future needs

[1:24:00] might be. So having just an assessment

[1:24:04] sounds like a good idea to me.

[1:24:06] >> Thank you. Um any additional questions

[1:24:08] from the council? Council member Crowic.

[1:24:14] No, no, this is Well, this is um

[1:24:16] questions for clarifications or comments

[1:24:19] um regarding what's been presented.

[1:24:26] Um I think I I would like um public

[1:24:28] comments just it's mostly um

[1:24:31] clarifications or things we can come

[1:24:33] back to. We're going to have an

[1:24:34] opportunity to discuss.

[1:24:37] >> Okay. Okay. Vice Mayor Rexdale.

[1:24:40] >> Um, so just clarification on um, uh, I

[1:24:46] guess it's with regard to bonds, the

[1:24:49] general obligation bond versus the uh,

[1:24:52] lease revenue bond. So, I I think I

[1:24:55] understand it now, but I just want to

[1:24:57] make sure that the general obligation

[1:24:59] bond, you do need to go to the voters

[1:25:00] and get the twothirds approval and then

[1:25:03] they pay it back um through the parcel

[1:25:06] tax and a lease revenue bond or any kind

[1:25:09] of revenue bond. Um we don't need to

[1:25:12] take it to the voters, but we're the

[1:25:14] ones paying it back, so we need to have

[1:25:16] make sure we have enough money to pay it

[1:25:18] back. Is that correct?

[1:25:22] looking at Jan. Um uh for a revenue

[1:25:25] bond, yes, that is generally correct.

[1:25:27] You're using your um uh sewer, water

[1:25:30] fund, whatever it happens to be to

[1:25:31] essentially pay back that loan. Doesn't

[1:25:33] require going out to the voters. I don't

[1:25:36] have experience with general obligation

[1:25:37] bonds, but my understanding is yes, they

[1:25:38] do have to go to the voters. Um I just

[1:25:40] don't know what context you can actually

[1:25:42] uh pull one, but yes, that your your

[1:25:44] thoughts are generally correct.

[1:25:46] >> Okay, great. Thank you.

[1:25:48] >> Um Council Member Chuang,

[1:25:51] >> thank you. Um thank you Mandy. I I have

[1:25:53] a question regarding the capital uh

[1:25:55] improvements as we are evaluating the

[1:25:58] priorities of the capital improvements.

[1:26:00] Um there's always the balance right? You

[1:26:02] know uh if we're not moving forward with

[1:26:04] the capital improvements the deferred

[1:26:06] maintenance is going to come back to

[1:26:08] bite us. Um so that's always a fine

[1:26:11] line. Do do we have a um and we probably

[1:26:17] do. Do we do we have a list of our um c

[1:26:22] capital improvements for the next 10

[1:26:24] years

[1:26:26] and the priorities of it?

[1:26:28] >> I know we have five. Um I'm sure Pul

[1:26:31] Works has

[1:26:33] 10 years worth of projects.

[1:26:40] » Oh, good evening, Madame Mayor, council

[1:26:42] members. Great question. We do in our um

[1:26:45] capital improvement program have a

[1:26:47] five-year lookout in the uh fiscal year,

[1:26:51] the recently adopted fiscal year um

[1:26:53] budget book, but also um uh public works

[1:26:59] uh keeps a um master plans for uh each

[1:27:05] of our infrastructure divisions, water,

[1:27:08] sewer, and uh storm drain. and uh that

[1:27:13] helps us project and build our capital

[1:27:15] improvement programs up to 30 years.

[1:27:17] Now, of course, things will change and

[1:27:20] we try to update every 10 years or as

[1:27:23] appropriate. Um but those resources

[1:27:27] which are or those plans are posted

[1:27:29] online

[1:27:31] and are a good resource to help us build

[1:27:34] our capital improvement program. Thank

[1:27:36] you.

[1:27:37] >> Um I think I'm going to have you stay

[1:27:40] for a second. My questions are along

[1:27:42] those lines. Um, regarding our storm

[1:27:45] drains, the estimate here, um, that's

[1:27:47] projected from an operational

[1:27:49] standpoint, um, is approximately a

[1:27:53] million dollars a year. That's

[1:27:54] operational. That's not replacing the

[1:27:57] storm drains. So, is it? Because I know

[1:27:58] we have a long-term storm drain program

[1:28:01] with replacements.

[1:28:06] » I'm sorry. I'm I'm not exactly.

[1:28:07] >> Jan knows everything.

[1:28:15] >> Um, great question. We spend about $1.2

[1:28:18] million on Strong Drain, which is the

[1:28:20] capital program. Um, but it is paid for

[1:28:24] by the general fund because there's no

[1:28:26] other source of funding and so it is

[1:28:29] part of the operational budget challenge

[1:28:31] that we have.

[1:28:32] >> Okay. So when you say operational,

[1:28:34] you're referring to the town's

[1:28:35] operational budget, not the amount to

[1:28:38] operate the storm drains maintenance

[1:28:41] issue.

[1:28:41] >> That's right.

[1:28:42] >> Okay. It's mostly replacement. Um and I

[1:28:46] have a few more questions for public

[1:28:48] works. I believe with regards to measure

[1:28:51] A, can we use some of that those

[1:28:55] fundings? Um well funding I should say

[1:28:58] clearly has to go towards street. But in

[1:29:00] terms of the um reserve cannot be used

[1:29:05] in what are the parameters what are the

[1:29:07] legal parameters around that?

[1:29:09] >> Sure. So I'm I mean I don't have the

[1:29:11] full um breadth of what it can be used

[1:29:14] for in front of me but in in general

[1:29:16] measure A funding is uh the intent is

[1:29:19] for infrastructure improvements to

[1:29:22] support transportation.

[1:29:24] Infrastructure improvement. Does that

[1:29:26] include storm drains?

[1:29:30] >> No. No.

[1:29:31] >> Does not. Most of the staff to my left

[1:29:34] shaking their head. It does not improve

[1:29:36] include storm drains. Okay. So,

[1:29:39] infrastructure improvement is roads

[1:29:42] is yes. Streets. Streets and mainly

[1:29:46] streets in the case of of the town. And

[1:29:50] your question about can it be used for

[1:29:52] operations? It can be used for

[1:29:54] operations. A number of cities use it

[1:29:56] almost solely for operations. We right

[1:29:59] now uh fund $250,000

[1:30:02] of that total measure A in the general

[1:30:05] fund. So what this um evaluation would

[1:30:08] do would be to just increase how much is

[1:30:11] going toward the maintenance as compared

[1:30:14] to the capital. But we've done an

[1:30:17] analysis and based on the five-year

[1:30:20] capital plan as well as the projections

[1:30:22] from all the revenues, there appears to

[1:30:24] be adequate money to do that to do both

[1:30:28] as planned. So the five-year street CIP

[1:30:31] plan as outlined by public works in

[1:30:35] connection with transferring a larger

[1:30:37] amount toward these maintenance

[1:30:39] operations, street maintenance

[1:30:41] operations. Those can both be

[1:30:43] accomplished in today's dollars.

[1:30:47] >> Okay. Um so just for clarification,

[1:30:50] you're saying we can increase the amount

[1:30:54] that from measure A towards operations

[1:30:58] that we currently

[1:31:00] move towards operations. Is that

[1:31:02] >> Yes.

[1:31:03] >> Okay.

[1:31:03] >> And we would re-evaluate that every few

[1:31:06] years. you may have heard there's there

[1:31:09] could be changes coming from gas tax or

[1:31:12] other items. So that's we just want to

[1:31:14] keep track of all of those and make sure

[1:31:17] that this um would still hold true. Um

[1:31:20] so we would need to re-evaluate it every

[1:31:22] couple of years.

[1:31:23] >> Okay. Um yeah, I I have a a few more

[1:31:27] clarifying questions on um item seven,

[1:31:31] which is the town owned land. Could you

[1:31:34] just briefly talk to us about the

[1:31:36] surplus land act and how that will

[1:31:38] impact the disposition of town owned

[1:31:41] land?

[1:31:42] >> Yeah. No, thank you for the question,

[1:31:44] Mayor Cole. I think there's probably and

[1:31:46] I'll state that there's probably two

[1:31:48] limitations on the land that the town

[1:31:49] does own. One would be any kind of deed

[1:31:52] restrictions, which I know some exist on

[1:31:54] some of the larger open space parcels,

[1:31:56] and then separate and apart from that,

[1:31:57] um, as you noted, state law kicks in,

[1:31:59] which is the surplus land act. Um, this

[1:32:02] was something that existed in state law

[1:32:04] for, I want to say, decades. But in

[1:32:06] 2019, the state legislature started to

[1:32:09] play with it a little bit more and made

[1:32:11] it more of an affordable housing tool to

[1:32:13] get more housing built in certain

[1:32:14] communities. And so what it does require

[1:32:16] is that yes, uh, when we want to sell a

[1:32:19] parcel of property, um, and let's say we

[1:32:21] just want to sell it on the open market,

[1:32:23] uh, you'd list it for sale. You'd put

[1:32:25] out almost like an RFQ of some sort to

[1:32:27] indicate that we have the parcel

[1:32:29] available. uh if an affordable housing

[1:32:31] provider steps forward and says, "I

[1:32:34] would like to buy that parcel," uh we

[1:32:36] have a 90-day obligation to engage with

[1:32:38] them in good faith to potentially sell

[1:32:40] the parcel. Keep in mind, we don't have

[1:32:42] to actually lower our our price. Uh fair

[1:32:44] market value is allowable. We don't have

[1:32:47] to change the zoning on the parcel and

[1:32:49] so that would be at the request of the

[1:32:50] affordable housing provider and the

[1:32:52] council is fully within their discretion

[1:32:53] to say no. Um but yes, that is the

[1:32:56] general framework of the surplus land

[1:32:58] act. we put something out for sale. If

[1:32:59] an affordable housing provider steps

[1:33:01] forward first, we have a 90-day

[1:33:03] obligation to engage with them in good

[1:33:04] faith. If we get somewhere and we do

[1:33:06] sell the parcel, then that would be the

[1:33:09] state legislaturator's kind of goal with

[1:33:10] the surplus land act. If we don't, let's

[1:33:13] say they can't meet fair market value or

[1:33:14] they realize it's just too problematic

[1:33:16] from a zoning perspective, then if they

[1:33:19] go away, then if somebody else steps

[1:33:20] forward, then we can sell the parcel to

[1:33:22] that other party. But always if the

[1:33:24] affordable housing provider steps

[1:33:25] forward first, that's our first

[1:33:27] obligation. Um there's other exceptions

[1:33:29] within the the law. Obviously smaller

[1:33:31] parcels, parcels provided to another

[1:33:33] government agency. All of those are

[1:33:35] exempt from the surplus land act. And

[1:33:37] there's many many exemptions that I

[1:33:38] won't go through now, but that's the

[1:33:40] general framework of the act. It just

[1:33:42] obligates us to engage in good faith

[1:33:44] with an affordable housing provider.

[1:33:46] >> Okay. Um just for further clarification

[1:33:48] on that law, this parcel, this land

[1:33:53] Let's just for discussion sake say the

[1:33:55] town owns a 4 acre piece of property

[1:33:59] that we may have been using for other

[1:34:00] purposes but we no longer used it and

[1:34:02] it's poor acres that's owned by the

[1:34:05] town. If we want to sell that land to

[1:34:08] get some revenue to offset some of these

[1:34:11] issues we're discussing. We will have to

[1:34:14] list that with the state for an

[1:34:16] affordable housing developer first. they

[1:34:19] have first bid in terms of the offer. Is

[1:34:22] that correct?

[1:34:23] >> Generally correct. Yes. Staff would

[1:34:25] probably get uh an appraiser on board to

[1:34:28] look at the price that we think is fair

[1:34:30] for the parcel and then yes, we'd put

[1:34:32] out word that the parcel is for sale. I

[1:34:34] think one of the requirements is that list or our notice goes to state

[1:34:38] HCD and so that yes, the larger

[1:34:40] affordable housing groups can look at

[1:34:42] the list and see what parcels are

[1:34:44] available. And an affordable housing

[1:34:47] developer is I looked at this this

[1:34:50] morning as I was reading the section is

[1:34:52] defined as

[1:34:54] at least 15% of the units will have to

[1:34:57] be below market rate

[1:35:00] approximately.

[1:35:00] >> I haven't looked at the definition in

[1:35:02] some time but I I think that is tracking

[1:35:04] with my recollection. Yes.

[1:35:06] >> Okay. That that that's I I just wanted

[1:35:08] to understand how that would factor into

[1:35:09] the thinking around here. Um and and

[1:35:12] also I have a few more clarifying

[1:35:14] questions um regarding

[1:35:18] the other options we're looking at which

[1:35:20] is

[1:35:26] with regards to the estimates for the 2

[1:35:29] million um in terms of operational

[1:35:31] budget gap says loss of VLF which is

[1:35:36] I think we're all sort of in queue with

[1:35:38] that it's all over the news and public

[1:35:41] safety and CCFD. Is that mostly CCFD

[1:35:44] cost we referring to or is that some

[1:35:47] other

[1:35:49] cost? It's mostly CCFD cost in general.

[1:35:52] Okay, that's what I thought. Just wanted

[1:35:54] some clarification on that. And um

[1:36:00] Okay. Um Council Member Adams have

[1:36:03] additional questions and then we'll ask

[1:36:05] for public comment and then we'll come

[1:36:07] back for discussion. Yes, Council Member

[1:36:09] Adams.

[1:36:09] >> Yeah. And I'm certainly no expert in

[1:36:11] this, but my understanding was yes, we

[1:36:14] can go ahead and use uh measure A for

[1:36:19] maintenance and operation, but it may

[1:36:22] jeopardize how much money we get in the

[1:36:25] future on measure A if someone were to

[1:36:29] look at it and say it doesn't qualify as

[1:36:32] transportation. So, people have probably

[1:36:35] done it. I just want to make sure that

[1:36:38] what we're doing isn't taking money

[1:36:42] uh out of our pocket ultimately. So

[1:36:45] that's my only caution and I just think

[1:36:47] we need to have real clarity and I I

[1:36:50] think uh Paul's the person who knows it

[1:36:53] better than anyone. So when I've talked

[1:36:56] to him that's the impression I got. So I

[1:36:58] may have been wrong but that's my

[1:37:00] concern. Thanks.

[1:37:03] >> Okay. We'll ask for public comments and

[1:37:05] then we'll come back for some final disc

[1:37:07] discussion.

[1:37:10] >> Do we have anyone

[1:37:11] >> on Zoom or in the chambers who would

[1:37:14] like to speak to this issue?

[1:37:16] >> I don't have any speaker cards in the

[1:37:18] room. I'll give it a moment to see if

[1:37:20] there's anyone who would like to raise

[1:37:21] their hand on Zoom.

[1:37:24] And I'm not seeing any raised hands.

[1:37:26] Thank you.

[1:37:27] >> Okay, we'll bring it back to the council

[1:37:28] for further discussion. And I think I

[1:37:31] will Could you Thank you. I was going to

[1:37:33] ask you for that slide, Mandy. You're

[1:37:35] awesome. Thanks. Um, I will start with

[1:37:38] Council Member Crowley.

[1:37:40] >> Oh, thank you. Um, this is an excellent

[1:37:43] presentation. Really, I think it's so

[1:37:45] positive and I I totally foresee us

[1:37:49] having a very um successful cooperative

[1:37:52] effort to get us where we need to go

[1:37:54] financially. Um, so um, thank you for

[1:37:59] looking at staffing controls. No one on

[1:38:01] the council is suggesting that any

[1:38:03] member of our staff is underworked. Um

[1:38:07] it's just a fact that everybody works

[1:38:09] really hard. But we have gone up in

[1:38:12] staffing almost 20% in the past 10 years

[1:38:16] and some of this is you know state

[1:38:19] unfunded mandates but um but we have

[1:38:22] gone up. So, I think it's it's really

[1:38:24] great to look at every single vacancy

[1:38:28] and um and see what we can do. One side

[1:38:31] note, I seem to recall, and this is

[1:38:33] something we could look into, that when

[1:38:34] we went down to a half day on Friday, we

[1:38:36] did used to be open till 5:30 on town

[1:38:39] hall at town hall. Um which maybe we

[1:38:41] give people a little more time to get

[1:38:43] things done. Um the looking for public

[1:38:46] money, especially for our police

[1:38:48] station, I think is a a a great idea.

[1:38:52] um the federal government, the state,

[1:38:54] the county. Um reading the report on

[1:38:59] that's now a few years old on the

[1:39:02] incredible work that our police

[1:39:04] department is doing in square feet that

[1:39:07] is half the recommended uh amount of

[1:39:10] square feet for the work that you do and

[1:39:12] the size of our town and the size of our

[1:39:14] force. So, so hopefully, I mean, we

[1:39:17] really, really need to prioritize a new

[1:39:19] police station and maybe we could get

[1:39:21] some public money to help with that. Um,

[1:39:24] maybe a modest bond in 2028. That could

[1:39:28] be a revenue stream, but again, it's

[1:39:30] going to take a lot of education. Um,

[1:39:33] and uh and perhaps we could even put

[1:39:36] together now a community task force. We

[1:39:39] have some very effective community

[1:39:41] members right here who understand the um

[1:39:44] the finances of our town to just start

[1:39:46] to educate community leaders on where we

[1:39:48] are and what we need from the community.

[1:39:51] Um

[1:39:53] I actually the capital prioritization

[1:39:57] study to me is the lowest priority for

[1:39:59] us because I I I have a lot of faith in

[1:40:03] the the expertise that we already have

[1:40:05] on staff to prioritize our capital. But

[1:40:07] that's just me. Um and the FAC would be

[1:40:11] very very happy to see that town-owned

[1:40:13] land is looked at. The FAC has been um

[1:40:16] asking for this for for quite a long

[1:40:18] time that we look at town owned land and

[1:40:20] see if there's some way that we can

[1:40:22] leverage that. But um you know we've got

[1:40:24] this huge capital project to do here at

[1:40:27] the town hall and I think it's just like

[1:40:30] any other resident in town. We've got to

[1:40:32] tighten our belts and save as much as we

[1:40:34] can and look at every way that we can to

[1:40:37] finance it and it's just kind of an all

[1:40:38] hands on deck effort. But thank you very

[1:40:41] much. I think this is very positive.

[1:40:43] >> Thank you, Council Member Kwick. Um any

[1:40:45] additional um discussion points,

[1:40:48] comments from the council, Vice Mayor

[1:40:50] Ragdale.

[1:40:52] >> Um thank you for the presentation, Mandy

[1:40:55] and um Natalie and Jan also for the

[1:40:58] additional information. Um,

[1:41:01] I think these are all great options. I

[1:41:05] feel that with the staffing controls,

[1:41:08] what you're already doing is is probably

[1:41:11] going to be sufficient when when there's

[1:41:12] an opening. Just double-checking,

[1:41:14] talking to the department head, making

[1:41:16] sure things could be rearranged. And um,

[1:41:18] I think we we can trust your judgment on

[1:41:21] that. I don't see a need to have a

[1:41:23] consultant or anything come in. Um, so I

[1:41:26] would just keep keep that up. Um, and

[1:41:29] then I agree with Council Member Kle

[1:41:31] with regard to number six, the capital

[1:41:34] prioritization. I feel like we're doing

[1:41:37] that all the time. You guys are doing

[1:41:38] that all the time. I don't

[1:41:41] I I never have doubts where we're where

[1:41:44] we're putting our money. Um, and you

[1:41:47] could get the deferred maintenance and uh emergency repair

[1:41:52] costs, which are going to, as we know,

[1:41:54] eat up whatever you've saved. Um, so I

[1:41:57] would trust the continue doing what what

[1:42:00] we're doing on that. And um, I love the

[1:42:03] idea of a parcel tag, some kind of bond

[1:42:07] um, in 2028 and a education effort. It's

[1:42:12] complicated whether council can what

[1:42:15] council can do and can't do. So, um, I

[1:42:17] think getting residents involved in that

[1:42:20] would be fantastic. And, um, and I agree

[1:42:24] with the with the measure A. Um that one overwhelmed me a little bit to

[1:42:29] understand. Um but whatever um can be

[1:42:34] done would be great if it if it doesn't

[1:42:36] sacrifice um potential future measure A

[1:42:40] uh proceeds. Thank you.

[1:42:44] >> Um seeing no additional comments from

[1:42:46] the council. Oh, I'm sorry. Council

[1:42:47] member um Trong, do you have uh

[1:42:50] additional comments?

[1:42:51] >> Just a short comments. Um I do

[1:42:52] appreciate uh very much the staff

[1:42:54] brought this uhformational items to us

[1:42:58] um at any time that we have an

[1:43:00] opportunity to discuss this and to set

[1:43:03] um the priorities and we do see that the

[1:43:05] priorities do flow depends on the

[1:43:09] projects and depends on the timing of

[1:43:12] the projects. Um I do think that the uh

[1:43:16] the issues about addressing the general

[1:43:19] obligations

[1:43:20] um to the um to the safety the public

[1:43:24] safety um is important. The storm drain

[1:43:28] is important that do impact all our

[1:43:31] other um improvements. So um to have a

[1:43:34] serious conversation in that context is

[1:43:36] really helpful. So thank you.

[1:43:40] >> Okay, Vice Mayor Rexel,

[1:43:41] >> sorry I forgot one. the additional fee

[1:43:43] studies.

[1:43:45] I'm very intrigued if we think that, you

[1:43:48] know, we we we promise not to get too

[1:43:50] excited. At least I promise not to get

[1:43:52] too excited. That's going to be the

[1:43:53] amount that for building and planning.

[1:43:55] But, um, if you think it it could be

[1:43:58] worth it. Um, our roads are expensive to

[1:44:01] repair. So, if we're not charging enough

[1:44:02] for the vehicle impact fee, then then we

[1:44:05] should charge more. But, we don't want

[1:44:07] to pay a consultant so much that we're

[1:44:10] um eating up any savings. So um I trust

[1:44:13] your judgment on that. Thank you.

[1:44:16] >> Um so my my um discussion points um let

[1:44:21] me start from the top with regards to

[1:44:23] the operational budget um of the 1

[1:44:26] million for storm drains. It it looks

[1:44:29] like currently we're charging three

[1:44:31] $7.34

[1:44:33] cents I assume per parcel per year.

[1:44:35] That's an annual fee. Is that correct?

[1:44:37] Okay. And we barely we yet we're

[1:44:39] spending a million a year to maintain

[1:44:42] our storm drains. How far into this

[1:44:45] replacement or maintenance are we? How

[1:44:48] many more years do we have to go? I know

[1:44:51] we've been doing this for many years

[1:44:52] now. Do we have any specifics on how far

[1:44:56] we into this process?

[1:45:01] » Thank you, Natalie.

[1:45:04] >> Sure. So the um as I was mentioning the

[1:45:07] uh storm water master plan was last

[1:45:09] updated in 2013 which helped us develop

[1:45:12] this strategic plan of $1.2 million a

[1:45:15] year. Um and we have progressed you know

[1:45:21] I guess it's been what

[1:45:23] >> 13 years. Um now having said that that's

[1:45:27] it was a planning document and um things

[1:45:30] have come up that weren't necessarily

[1:45:32] specifically um uh built out in the uh

[1:45:36] that specific plan and we are due for an

[1:45:39] update but of course um due to budget

[1:45:42] constraints we want to be mindful of

[1:45:45] because it costs money to update a plan

[1:45:46] as well. So um you know I we've we've

[1:45:50] completed all the high priority p high

[1:45:52] priority projects which I'm proud to

[1:45:54] share. Um and the type A high priority

[1:45:58] and then we're we've moved on to type B

[1:46:00] priority and and then next would be C.

[1:46:03] But um

[1:46:04] >> so would you would you estimate we're

[1:46:06] 50% along or or more something?

[1:46:11] >> Yeah, it's hard to uh put put a

[1:46:14] percentage on it. Um

[1:46:17] I would say that we've completed

[1:46:22] it because because it's um it's a the

[1:46:25] priorities are not proportionally

[1:46:29] uh correlated to a percentage because

[1:46:31] higher priority would it be

[1:46:34] >> but but this project is going to be with

[1:46:36] us for at least the next decade would be

[1:46:38] your estimate

[1:46:39] >> forever. forever. Okay. Yeah, that's

[1:46:43] >> Yeah, that's clarity.

[1:46:44] >> If I could add it, it is kind of in

[1:46:46] perpetuity when you look at these types

[1:46:48] of things. What and what we're very

[1:46:49] proud of for public works is that those

[1:46:51] level A priority ones that really,

[1:46:54] >> you know, they they they're some of them

[1:46:56] could be life safety if they're not

[1:46:57] attended to that. We've actually cleared

[1:46:59] all those out. And I think if we did

[1:47:01] take a strategic look, uh, if we looked

[1:47:04] at item six, and I and I agree, I think

[1:47:06] we have capable staff here that can

[1:47:08] prioritize their what they need to do.

[1:47:10] But if we were to look at that, the goal

[1:47:11] would be to keep those from coming back

[1:47:14] into the A category. In other words, I

[1:47:16] wouldn't want to put off something

[1:47:17] that's in the B category for so much

[1:47:20] time that it now becomes one of these

[1:47:21] emergency type things. We'll always have

[1:47:23] water main breaks and things that happen

[1:47:25] once in a while like that. But as far as

[1:47:27] the planned uh capital improvements, uh

[1:47:30] as long as we can keep out of that level

[1:47:32] A stuff, it gives us a little bit of

[1:47:34] breathing room to really prioritize what

[1:47:36] year that capital is going to get done.

[1:47:38] Eventually, it's all going to get done.

[1:47:40] And of course, as these types of things

[1:47:43] go, it is this will be for the for the

[1:47:46] length of the town existence, we'll be

[1:47:49] paying.

[1:47:49] >> Yeah. So, this is this is an ongoing

[1:47:51] project. It's estimating 1.1 into the

[1:47:54] budget from the general fund. So this is

[1:47:55] clearly uh an area where we need to find

[1:47:59] sustainable revenue currently. Are we

[1:48:02] using any from the enterprise fund to

[1:48:06] take care of this or it's all from the

[1:48:07] general fund?

[1:48:08] >> That's correct. We can't use um

[1:48:10] >> enterprise funds. Yeah, it's just from

[1:48:12] the general fund and so and we're not

[1:48:15] asking residents to pay I mean $7

[1:48:19] annually doesn't come close to covering

[1:48:22] the 1.1 million year um expenses. So as

[1:48:27] we think about this I mean that to me is

[1:48:29] such a fixed number I given the and the

[1:48:32] importance that it has in a town and

[1:48:34] given the significance in terms of our

[1:48:35] well-being and health etc. and you know

[1:48:39] it's it's something we can't it has to

[1:48:41] be done and it's indefinite.

[1:48:45] The second um major gap is the 2 million

[1:48:48] which most of it is from CCFD and PO and um you know some from VLF maybe 20

[1:48:53] 30% um and so I think understanding what

[1:48:58] are the drivers of this $3 million

[1:49:00] deficit is critical as you think about

[1:49:02] how to fix it. Um, so I I would like um

[1:49:06] us to really look at those three main

[1:49:09] issues and see what kind of long-term

[1:49:11] remedies we can have around those issues

[1:49:14] that would be more sustaining because

[1:49:16] the problem only gets worse as you

[1:49:18] stated with the storm drains. If you

[1:49:20] ignore it, it's more expensive and it

[1:49:22] impacts well-being and welfare. So um um

[1:49:26] on those on that sort of the overview of

[1:49:28] the three major areas that I see are the

[1:49:31] major drivers of the deficit or the gap.

[1:49:34] Those will have to be um areas that I

[1:49:37] think in terms of a fix have to address.

[1:49:40] >> Right? We're we're we're in good shape

[1:49:43] now, better shape than a lot of our our

[1:49:45] neighbors are, but that 1.1 million, you

[1:49:47] know, over a period of time is not is

[1:49:49] not sustainable. So right be looking at

[1:49:51] the priorities there and as you

[1:49:52] mentioned our CCFD and our public safety

[1:49:54] we've got a lot of stability now that

[1:49:56] our labor contract is is completed. So

[1:49:58] we have some good runway to know what

[1:50:01] the cost will be moving forward. And of

[1:50:03] course we have the study that's ongoing

[1:50:04] now which we should be hearing about in

[1:50:06] October or November to really talk get

[1:50:08] down into the granular issues about cost

[1:50:10] sharing between our partners.

[1:50:13] >> Okay. Um, in terms of other fixes, um,

[1:50:16] let me go through the areas that I well

[1:50:20] I I I think we we probably going to run

[1:50:23] into some issues with item seven even

[1:50:26] because for a couple of reasons. One,

[1:50:28] exploring feasibility of dispos

[1:50:30] disposition of town owned land. Well, we

[1:50:33] can't do that every year to fill in that

[1:50:36] gap. So we may be able to do it once or

[1:50:38] twice and once you've sold the top land

[1:50:42] then you're down back to the same issue.

[1:50:44] So it's not a it's not a structural fix.

[1:50:47] It's it's an intermittent fix. So I'm

[1:50:49] not sure something that's an

[1:50:51] intermittent fix is going to get us out

[1:50:53] of that issue long term. And of course

[1:50:56] you then have to deal with the state

[1:50:58] regarding um a developer um who who will

[1:51:03] develop homes according to our

[1:51:05] ordinances. in it's a very complex

[1:51:07] issue. We do have a handful of land at

[1:51:10] least six of them that are over one acre

[1:51:12] that are developable. The question I

[1:51:15] also had was can and Christopher you

[1:51:18] could perhaps think about this can we

[1:51:20] use land to generate revenues or it it

[1:51:23] can only be sold if we can't lease it

[1:51:26] ourselves. It has to be leased through a

[1:51:28] third party. Is that correct?

[1:51:31] >> Yeah. No, the the town could lease land

[1:51:33] instead of selling it. That's an option.

[1:51:35] But a lease that's more than I think 15

[1:51:37] years is subject to the surplus land

[1:51:39] act. So you'd have to look at what you

[1:51:41] might want to do if you didn't want to

[1:51:43] have to deal with the surplus land act.

[1:51:44] It could be a lease that's 10 years just

[1:51:47] yeah there's options.

[1:51:49] >> So there's a potential the possibility

[1:51:51] of leasing land and generating revenues

[1:51:54] >> potentially. Yes. And I just wanted to

[1:51:57] add on to that too. I mean, some of the land, as we know, is not

[1:52:01] really feasible for development as much

[1:52:03] as it might be purchasable by the

[1:52:05] neighbors that are around it, which

[1:52:06] would also reduce our maintenance cost

[1:52:07] of those lands as well. Right. As soon

[1:52:09] as we sell a piece of property, we're no

[1:52:11] longer responsible for maintaining that.

[1:52:13] So, there's kind of a double thing

[1:52:15] there. But, you are right, land is one

[1:52:17] of those things that they're they're not

[1:52:18] making any more of it. So, whatever we

[1:52:20] have now is what we have to the extent.

[1:52:22] And I would say also because I had these

[1:52:24] same questions on the surplus land. I

[1:52:26] thank Mr. Diaz for educating on us. But

[1:52:29] the, you know, the one big thing to keep

[1:52:32] in mind is that the the zoning always

[1:52:34] remains at your discretion. So it it's

[1:52:37] not just being able to sell something at

[1:52:38] a fair market price, but it's also

[1:52:40] currently we're zoned for single family

[1:52:42] home dwellings. So that a lot of times

[1:52:45] uh that'll always be within the

[1:52:47] discretion of the council, at least as

[1:52:48] we sit here with the current laws.

[1:52:50] >> Okay.

[1:52:52] Um and and I agree with um so I mean I

[1:52:56] think it's worth exploring that further.

[1:52:58] I would really like to know if the town

[1:53:01] can generate revenues from leasing the

[1:53:04] land for other purposes that are within

[1:53:06] state laws that that is something that

[1:53:09] could be explored. Um I agree how we use

[1:53:12] measure A those are guided by state laws

[1:53:15] but uh certainly anything that we can do

[1:53:18] to improve

[1:53:20] um revenues back into the general fund

[1:53:22] for measure A would be uh a top

[1:53:25] priority.

[1:53:26] I'm not a big fan of additional fees. Um

[1:53:29] what I saw what I read in the in the

[1:53:31] report was additional fees for public

[1:53:33] works related issue. I I'm reading that

[1:53:37] and as a resident I'm like, well, isn't

[1:53:40] that what the property taxes? I feel

[1:53:43] like I've already paid for it. I And I

[1:53:44] just have some clarifying questions

[1:53:47] around that area of um the additional

[1:53:49] fees, not building and planning I

[1:53:52] thought was quite appropriate because it

[1:53:54] is a development and it has an impact on

[1:53:56] the current infrastructure. But the

[1:53:58] additional fees that we discussed and I

[1:54:00] reviewed a lot of them centered around

[1:54:02] public works. But maybe I misunderstood

[1:54:04] that and that can be clarified

[1:54:05] >> on the on the public works thing. And

[1:54:07] it's a great point. The these are are

[1:54:09] development fees as well. So these would

[1:54:11] be in the areas of engineering

[1:54:12] associated with development.

[1:54:14] >> Okay.

[1:54:14] >> So here again it it's not a generic fee

[1:54:16] that's spread out amongst everybody

[1:54:18] that's out here. It's just the people

[1:54:19] that'll be utilizing the services.

[1:54:21] They're already paying for those. What

[1:54:22] we may need to do similar to what we did

[1:54:24] with building and planning is make sure

[1:54:26] we're getting cost recovery to the full

[1:54:28] effect.

[1:54:29] >> Okay. So it's a development impact.

[1:54:31] >> It's development. Yeah. All those that

[1:54:33] we look at would be related to

[1:54:34] development. So they're getting a

[1:54:36] service for a specific service they're

[1:54:37] or getting a service for a specific

[1:54:39] request somebody is making.

[1:54:42] >> Okay. And with regards to um the bond

[1:54:46] measure, I I I just agree. I think the

[1:54:48] timing is is all off. No one people

[1:54:52] don't have money and they don't want you

[1:54:53] to ask them about money right now. So um

[1:54:56] it's it's it's just not the right

[1:54:58] environment to be floating it. But

[1:54:59] perhaps in a few years things will

[1:55:01] change. Um and and I do like the idea of

[1:55:03] item five which is to look at um

[1:55:06] donation and grants and partnerships

[1:55:08] specifically as it relates to rebuilding

[1:55:11] um and we're going to be discussing this

[1:55:12] later rebuilding our police department

[1:55:14] given the fact that there are many areas

[1:55:16] where that can really stand improvement

[1:55:19] especially the seismic improvement. So I

[1:55:21] think um you know we have a town complex

[1:55:25] this you know hall discussion redesign

[1:55:27] but looking specifically at PD and see

[1:55:31] what can be done along those lines but

[1:55:34] thanks again for this in-depth analysis

[1:55:37] wonderful presentation Mandy as always

[1:55:39] thank you so much but I appreciate the

[1:55:42] um detailed study and feedback extremely

[1:55:48] helpful in our thinking. Thank you very

[1:55:50] much.

[1:55:50] >> And if I could just summarize the

[1:55:51] direction just to make sure because I

[1:55:53] know we there was a lot of opinions. So

[1:55:56] we will continue to focus on the

[1:55:58] staffing controls on the fee studies and

[1:56:00] measure A. We'll sort of weigh cost

[1:56:02] benefit and and talk a little bit more

[1:56:05] about that internally. We'll keep the

[1:56:07] potential revenue measure on the horizon

[1:56:09] and evaluate the the work that needs to

[1:56:11] be done there. We'll continue to pursue

[1:56:13] donations, grants, partnerships, and

[1:56:15] we'll bring forward that nonprofit um to

[1:56:17] the council for consideration. Um again,

[1:56:20] with the capital prioritization study,

[1:56:22] it's it seems like it's already been

[1:56:23] handled by public works. So, we'll we'll

[1:56:25] hold on that and then we'll bring back

[1:56:27] um studies about surplus land act and

[1:56:30] town owned land uh for council to

[1:56:32] discuss further.

[1:56:33] >> Okay, Chris, that sounds about right.

[1:56:35] Thank you so much.

[1:56:36] >> And measure A, did you? Yes, measure I

[1:56:38] said we will kind of we'll discuss that

[1:56:40] more internally and see what weigh the

[1:56:43] cost benefit on that as as well as the

[1:56:45] development related engineering fees.

[1:56:48] >> Thank you.

[1:56:50] >> Thanks.

[1:56:52] Next item

[1:56:55] is umformational and we have Liz Roy

[1:56:58] telling us about updates from the city

[1:57:00] council subcommittee for town hall

[1:57:02] complex project.

[1:57:14] Okay.

[1:57:16] Fortunately, this is just an update, so

[1:57:18] you don't have to make any more

[1:57:19] decisions. Um, just as a reminder going

[1:57:23] back since it's been a while since we've

[1:57:24] presented to the council on this, the

[1:57:27] reason for the town hall complex project

[1:57:30] and the town hall city council

[1:57:33] subcommittee is um our housing element

[1:57:36] identified the construction of 16

[1:57:38] multifamily housing units on this site.

[1:57:42] Um, we also identified the need to

[1:57:44] replace the existing police department

[1:57:47] um with a new facility because the

[1:57:49] necessary seismic and structural

[1:57:51] retrofitting of the existing building

[1:57:54] would likely cost more than constructing

[1:57:57] a new building. And then the big picture

[1:57:59] was that the town recognized during the

[1:58:02] housing element review process an

[1:58:04] opportunity to reinvision the town hall

[1:58:07] complex and develop a master plan for

[1:58:10] the redevelopment of the site to

[1:58:11] incorporate the housing that was

[1:58:13] identified in the housing element. uh to

[1:58:16] incorporate the improved public safety

[1:58:19] facilities and then also address needs

[1:58:22] for the town offices, community spaces

[1:58:25] um and other elements that were

[1:58:26] identified by community feedback during

[1:58:29] the housing element process.

[1:58:33] um community input that we've had so

[1:58:36] far. We've held three community

[1:58:37] conversations, conducted one

[1:58:39] communitywide survey in order to inform

[1:58:42] the community of the project

[1:58:44] requirements and discuss the site

[1:58:46] challenges, hear feedback from the

[1:58:48] community. Um and we do have an upcoming

[1:58:52] study session scheduled for August 10th.

[1:58:54] We're excited for that meeting um that

[1:58:57] we'll have a lot more to look at uh than

[1:59:01] this presentation. Um, the council

[1:59:04] remembers that we have partnered with

[1:59:06] EHDD and Red Dot Studio. We brought them

[1:59:09] on to assist with professional design

[1:59:11] services to oversee the program

[1:59:13] development and the site master

[1:59:15] planning. They've um been working with

[1:59:18] town staff and the subcommittee on the

[1:59:20] state site analysis to understand the unique features, the waterline that

[1:59:25] we have running under Walnut um and to

[1:59:28] really deeply understand the needs of

[1:59:29] each department and weigh that with

[1:59:32] community feedback and council

[1:59:33] direction.

[1:59:35] The last presentation that I made to the

[1:59:37] council about this was on September 8th

[1:59:39] in 2025 and it doesn't seem like it was

[1:59:43] that long ago, but at that meeting staff

[1:59:45] provided anformational update um and we

[1:59:49] presented several revised assumptions.

[1:59:53] We had a discussion about the overall

[1:59:56] site footprint, building adjacencies,

[1:59:58] um, Walnut Avenue and um, the challenges

[2:00:02] associated with the large water line

[2:00:04] running under that and parking and and

[2:00:07] project phasing. At that meeting, um,

[2:00:10] the city council directed staff and the

[2:00:12] subcommittee to evaluate creative

[2:00:15] strategies to reduce the project's

[2:00:18] parking demand. um there was a

[2:00:20] significant amount of parking uh needed

[2:00:23] above and beyond the existing parking

[2:00:25] that we have now. The council also

[2:00:27] directed staff and the subcommittee to

[2:00:29] explore parking solutions that avoided

[2:00:32] um the costly uh construction above

[2:00:35] grade or below grade parking structures.

[2:00:38] There were also concerns about

[2:00:39] waterproofing and other um construction

[2:00:42] related complications.

[2:00:44] Um the council also directed to

[2:00:46] investigate opportunities to expand the

[2:00:48] town hall complex through acquisition or

[2:00:51] incorporation of adjacent parcels. And

[2:00:54] then additionally the the council

[2:00:56] directed the subcommittee to identify

[2:00:58] two preferred site plan alternatives for

[2:01:01] presentation to the full city council

[2:01:03] and discussion at a future study

[2:01:05] session.

[2:01:08] That study session, as I mentioned, is

[2:01:10] scheduled for August 10th. So, we're

[2:01:12] excited to bring um that back to the

[2:01:14] full council and members of the

[2:01:16] community to review those two preferred

[2:01:18] site plans. Since that September 8th

[2:01:20] meeting, the subcommittee has met twice

[2:01:22] to review conceptual site plan

[2:01:24] alternatives prepared by the project

[2:01:27] consultants and further refine project

[2:01:30] assumptions. Um at the last meeting, um

[2:01:34] on May 21st, the consultants presented,

[2:01:37] I believe it was seven alternative site

[2:01:40] plans. Uh the meeting minutes from that

[2:01:42] were attached to the staff report. But

[2:01:44] at that meeting um the subcommittee

[2:01:47] discussed the advantages and constraints

[2:01:49] of the various com um site plans and

[2:01:53] there were three members of the public

[2:01:54] who attended this meeting and they were

[2:01:58] also able to provide input and feedback

[2:02:00] about the direction and the

[2:02:02] identification of these two preferred

[2:02:04] site plans that are going to move

[2:02:05] forward.

[2:02:07] Um so as I said there this was just an

[2:02:11] update and certainly um if um the

[2:02:15] subcommittee would like to provide any

[2:02:16] additional detail I welcome that. Um but

[2:02:19] really we wanted to encourage um all of

[2:02:22] the members of the public here tonight

[2:02:24] to attend the August 10th study session.

[2:02:27] But we're hopeful we'll do obviously

[2:02:29] some more um public outreach and

[2:02:32] encourage members of the public to

[2:02:34] attend that meeting. But we're excited

[2:02:36] to finally have something to bring back

[2:02:38] to the community and to the full council

[2:02:40] and hopefully have a robust discussion

[2:02:42] about the alternatives and their merits.

[2:02:47] >> Thank you for the presentation. Do we

[2:02:48] have any questions from the uh city

[2:02:50] council?

[2:02:53] » Um Vice Mayor Rexdale,

[2:02:55] >> not a question, but just being on the

[2:02:57] subcommittee. Um very happy with the

[2:03:00] update and also um the study session

[2:03:02] that's going to be at 300 p.m. Right.

[2:03:04] So, I've just emphasized that in and

[2:03:07] getting the word out so people so people

[2:03:09] know the time and I encourage people to

[2:03:13] attend. Thank you.

[2:03:16] >> Yes. Um, Council Member Adams,

[2:03:20] >> thank you so much, Liz. uh in terms of

[2:03:23] the direction you got from the council

[2:03:26] to uh come back with uh two preferred

[2:03:31] site plans, I thought it was very

[2:03:34] helpful in the materials that you gave

[2:03:36] us uh in our packet to look at what the

[2:03:42] cost would be and the time frame for

[2:03:46] production and the square footage etc.

[2:03:50] So, I'm just asking whether those two

[2:03:54] preferred site plans will have that kind

[2:03:57] of

[2:03:59] very guessy idea because it does

[2:04:03] influence

[2:04:05] uh the reaction that I think you will be

[2:04:09] looking to solicit which is uh how much

[2:04:14] is the appetite for what's being

[2:04:17] presented based on what it might cost.

[2:04:20] >> Yes. Um part of the reason that this was

[2:04:23] scheduled for the date that it was

[2:04:24] scheduled was to ensure that we would

[2:04:26] have um enough information well that the consultant would have enough

[2:04:31] information about um the cost

[2:04:34] assumptions uh for the two site plans.

[2:04:37] We also asked them at the last review of

[2:04:40] those alternatives to provide an overlay

[2:04:43] so that we could that the count full

[2:04:45] council could discuss potential phasing

[2:04:47] of the project as well to understand you

[2:04:50] know could the existing town hall

[2:04:51] facilities stay in operation while a

[2:04:54] portion of the construction was

[2:04:55] happening because we felt that that

[2:04:56] would be an important component of the

[2:04:58] conversation.

[2:05:01] >> Thank you. Any

[2:05:04] additional um questions for

[2:05:08] this ru? Um we'll go to public and um I have um well actually before we go to

[2:05:14] the public, let me ask my question. Did

[2:05:17] the subcommittee um looked at the

[2:05:20] possibility of bifocating

[2:05:23] the redesign of the police department

[2:05:27] from redesign of the town hall

[2:05:30] administrative complex.

[2:05:33] >> Um that was certainly part of the

[2:05:35] discussion. Um, I think the consultants

[2:05:38] will probably be able to explain it more

[2:05:40] eloquently than I can. Because of the safety and seismic needs required

[2:05:45] for a public safety building, it will be

[2:05:48] structurally separate from the rest of

[2:05:50] the town hall facilities even though

[2:05:52] it'll be architecturally integrated. Um,

[2:05:55] so that that will be um so project

[2:05:59] phasing was certainly a component of um

[2:06:02] the review and the discussions. And do

[2:06:05] you know if the consultants um explored

[2:06:07] that in terms of the discussions you

[2:06:10] had?

[2:06:11] >> Yes, they did. And and they can be

[2:06:13] prepared to speak to that at the study

[2:06:15] session.

[2:06:15] >> So they will be prepared to speak to

[2:06:16] that more absolutely

[2:06:18] >> at the study session.

[2:06:19] >> Yep.

[2:06:20] >> Okay. Um any

[2:06:23] Okay, we'll go to public comments. Do we

[2:06:25] have any public comments?

[2:06:26] >> Thank you, Mayor Cole. I don't have any

[2:06:29] speaker cards in the room, but I'll give

[2:06:30] it a moment on Zoom if anyone would like

[2:06:32] to provide comments on this item.

[2:06:37] I'm not seeing any raised hands. Thank

[2:06:39] you.

[2:06:41] >> Yes. Okay. Coming back to the council.

[2:06:43] We'll close public comments and come

[2:06:45] back to the council. And um council

[2:06:47] member Chong has a question.

[2:06:49] >> Thank you. Uh uh Liz just questions

[2:06:52] regarding the consultants because you

[2:06:53] know for uh for police department there

[2:06:59] are that is a specialty in terms of the

[2:07:02] design and the spec and so in having the

[2:07:08] consultants are they working with RPD in

[2:07:11] terms of the specs and then uh and then

[2:07:15] incorporated as a town complex is that

[2:07:17] how that work? Yes, there were were

[2:07:20] months of conversations between the

[2:07:22] consultant and um and PD about exactly

[2:07:26] what their space needs are in terms of

[2:07:28] you know safeolding spaces, meeting

[2:07:30] spaces, um you know all of the spatial

[2:07:34] needs and how those adjacencies work

[2:07:36] together um where they need to have

[2:07:38] secured parking where they don't need to

[2:07:40] have secured parking. So there was a lot

[2:07:42] of coordination between the consultants

[2:07:43] and PD about their needs.

[2:07:45] >> All right. And then uh the follow-up

[2:07:47] question is um will there be up you know

[2:07:51] I'm I'm hopefully I'm not jumping ahead

[2:07:54] but the we just talk about the long-term

[2:07:57] finance in terms of this this town and

[2:08:01] um in terms of the town complex there

[2:08:04] have always been over the years

[2:08:06] different functionality discussions and

[2:08:09] the structures and the cohesiveness for

[2:08:11] the community and for the specific

[2:08:14] departments. So my question is will

[2:08:17] there be opportunities for us to parse

[2:08:19] it out in instead of looking at the town

[2:08:22] complex as a whole um either at the

[2:08:25] subcommittee level or the consultants um

[2:08:28] the opportunity to parse it out

[2:08:30] separately so that we can look at it and

[2:08:33] look at the opportunity for the phases

[2:08:36] to um get the project going.

[2:08:39] >> Yes, absolutely.

[2:08:40] >> Okay. Thank you.

[2:08:42] >> Thank you. Um, any additional comments

[2:08:47] or feedback?

[2:08:49] >> Yes.

[2:08:49] >> Thank you, Liz.

[2:08:50] >> Council member Adams.

[2:08:52] >> Thank you. Just one comment. Uh I I

[2:08:56] don't like to waste paper, but on the

[2:08:59] preliminary plan options

[2:09:02] uh if you could consolidate plan A all

[2:09:07] in one page, plan B which has slop over

[2:09:11] to the next page. It's just really hard

[2:09:14] to make a comparison. And so I would

[2:09:15] also recommend a chart that shows us

[2:09:18] because we go from 24 million to 33

[2:09:22] million and you can compare. Some take

[2:09:24] three years, some take two and a half

[2:09:27] years. Uh and if there were a chart that

[2:09:30] summarized the key features, that might

[2:09:34] be a helpful piece. I really loved

[2:09:37] having the bigger versions of the uh

[2:09:42] plans. uh we don't have any elevations

[2:09:45] yet, but those interesting views of how

[2:09:49] the scale uh fits with different

[2:09:54] uh different buildings that exist right

[2:09:58] now. I think that's what that was. So,

[2:10:02] um if you can consolidate so it's easier

[2:10:04] for us to compare what's happening.

[2:10:06] >> Sure. I are you referring to the visuals

[2:10:08] that were included in the third

[2:10:10] attachment which was the assessment from

[2:10:12] the the PD needs assessment

[2:10:28] » we were we were given a prior study from

[2:10:31] I think 2019 with different consultants

[2:10:34] with regard to the police. I think

[2:10:37] that's what you're referring to. So,

[2:10:39] those plans are not developed by um our

[2:10:43] current consultants.

[2:10:50] So, it's just a referencing point as to

[2:10:52] where we have been and uh the study

[2:10:56] session is going to allow us to look at

[2:10:58] it uh with the latest version of it.

[2:11:00] >> Yeah, absolutely.

[2:11:01] >> That is helpful.

[2:11:02] >> Yes. but noted and we will make sure

[2:11:04] that the information is presented

[2:11:06] clearly and in a way that you can you

[2:11:08] know understand the workflow and and and

[2:11:11] see the plans. Certainly

[2:11:12] >> I I definitely appreciate it. I hadn't

[2:11:13] seen that study before. I had I had

[2:11:16] understood the um you know the seismic

[2:11:18] issues and all that. So it was very uh

[2:11:21] handy to to see those details and I and

[2:11:24] I agree yeah the presentation when when

[2:11:27] the consultants come in I liked all of

[2:11:29] those suggestions. Thank you.

[2:11:30] >> Yes. Yes.

[2:11:33] Okay. Um, any additional comments or

[2:11:36] questions? Okay, this was informational.

[2:11:38] Thank you so much.

[2:11:40] >> Thanks, Liz.

[2:11:45] » Okay, the next item isformational

[2:11:47] updates from the city council

[2:11:48] subcommittee. Well, sorry, that's what

[2:11:50] we just did. It'sformational updates

[2:11:53] from city council items.

[2:11:56] um asking my colleagues to report um if

[2:11:59] there's anything to report from

[2:12:01] subcommittees or boards. Starting with

[2:12:04] council member Adams.

[2:12:07] Thank you, Madame Mayor. Um this is um

[2:12:11] my view at my table in Monteray at a

[2:12:17] very cool restaurant that I don't want

[2:12:18] to tell the name of because I don't want

[2:12:21] it to be overrun with people, but it is

[2:12:23] called the Sandbar. And I just couldn't

[2:12:26] help but tell you that's one one thing I

[2:12:28] did in June. Uh next slide. Uh really

[2:12:33] excited about something that u the Judah

[2:12:37] family contributed. Council member

[2:12:39] Krrolik was instrumental and was there

[2:12:42] and Natalie was there as well. This is a

[2:12:45] healthy snack bar for our public works

[2:12:48] team and uh it's just really thrilling

[2:12:51] to see this kind of a partnership. I

[2:12:53] think this is what we're talking about,

[2:12:55] encouraging more of, but uh finding a

[2:12:58] wonderful family like the Judah family

[2:13:01] uh to support it is a real thrill for

[2:13:04] everyone at public works. Wanted to

[2:13:06] acknowledge that. This is Stephanie

[2:13:08] Judah, a cutting the ribbon. Uh next

[2:13:12] slide.

[2:13:14] If you've ever wondered uh what it looks

[2:13:16] like inside one of our tanks, uh it's

[2:13:19] kind of a Star Wars set basically. Uh we

[2:13:24] are recotating the tank at uh Skyarm and

[2:13:28] I just thought it was an extraordinary

[2:13:31] thing to consider what's going on where

[2:13:33] we can't really see it. So we're really

[2:13:35] proud of that. Next,

[2:13:39] uh I really want to thank our water team

[2:13:42] that was coordinated by water supervisor

[2:13:44] Jeremy McMullen. He's been here many

[2:13:47] times being recognized because uh in

[2:13:50] this instance, for example, a water mane

[2:13:53] break happened at 11 p.m. on June 30th,

[2:13:57] and it was pretty much barely noticed uh

[2:13:59] by those affected because they stayed

[2:14:02] all night and repaired it around 6:00

[2:14:05] a.m. So, great work to our public works

[2:14:08] department in every department. And uh

[2:14:12] here's a little closeup of the kinds of

[2:14:14] work they're doing uh in the middle of

[2:14:17] the night. So we appreciate them very

[2:14:19] much. Next slide.

[2:14:22] And because we appreciate them so much,

[2:14:26] I asked if I could have an org chart to

[2:14:31] know who they were and learn more of the

[2:14:33] names. And I just wanted to share.

[2:14:37] Here's the big version of it. Uh this is

[2:14:40] a picture of everyone and how they fit

[2:14:45] together as a team. And yes, I'm doing

[2:14:48] this to kind of go all the other

[2:14:51] departments to do something similar

[2:14:53] because we really appreciate our staff

[2:14:57] so much. But you're seeing them for such

[2:14:59] a short period of time and learning

[2:15:01] their names is really an important part

[2:15:04] of our interaction as uh members of the

[2:15:08] council. Plus, it's terrific looking.

[2:15:11] Yes, you have to update it as people

[2:15:13] come and go, but it's really a nifty

[2:15:17] thing I'm very grateful for. Next,

[2:15:21] uh I attended for Rethink Wastes uh

[2:15:25] three board meetings in June, which was

[2:15:29] unusual, but uh we made up for it by no

[2:15:32] meeting in July. And we did pass the

[2:15:35] budget for the refreshed educational

[2:15:38] center, which has been renamed the

[2:15:41] community courtyard, which I think is

[2:15:43] much more appropriate than education.

[2:15:46] education's not the most attractive name

[2:15:48] for most people. So, this is really

[2:15:51] exciting. And as you can see, we're

[2:15:53] going to have uh the sort of sail that

[2:15:58] is there now and ripped uh with a a

[2:16:00] wooden structure made out of redwood. Uh

[2:16:04] there will be on the pergola there'll be

[2:16:06] a table area that will be all planted.

[2:16:09] Uh we have redwood tables that are

[2:16:12] coming. It's going to be really

[2:16:13] exciting. Next

[2:16:17] uh telecommunication uh we are working

[2:16:20] thanks to uh uh vice

[2:16:24] not mayor uh vice manager city manager

[2:16:29] my my I really without slides I can't

[2:16:32] talk at the end of these meetings

[2:16:34] telecommunications uh survey we're

[2:16:36] working on some outreach Tobin Clark ad

[2:16:39] hawk ad hawk we're working on a phase

[2:16:42] two an expansion to a subcommittee

[2:16:45] uh commercial activity regulations ad

[2:16:47] hoc committee also met and is working on

[2:16:50] edits. A public works uh commission I

[2:16:53] had a meeting there as well and there

[2:16:55] was no HPF meeting in June next

[2:17:00] and I just couldn't help it. This is

[2:17:04] what summer looks like if you drag

[2:17:07] yourself to San Francisco and try to

[2:17:09] look at the fireworks and but uh this is

[2:17:14] the time of year when we have light and

[2:17:17] we have food and family and fun and I

[2:17:19] just want to encourage everybody to

[2:17:22] enjoy right now.

[2:17:29] Thank you. Um, Council Member Chong,

[2:17:35] » very briefly, um, we in June we host,

[2:17:38] uh, Hillsboro Neighborhood Network

[2:17:40] hosted, uh, it's a speaker series, the

[2:17:43] second series, and we have our own Dr.

[2:17:47] Weinberg talk about defensible space on

[2:17:50] behalf of Firewise. And we also have uh

[2:17:53] United Policy come and talk about um

[2:17:58] emergency preparedness, the policy that

[2:18:00] is available and accessible to

[2:18:02] residents. And there were a lot of

[2:18:04] questions. Uh we also have our city

[2:18:07] manager and our fire chief present. So

[2:18:09] they were able to fill some of the

[2:18:12] questions that our residents have. So we

[2:18:14] do realize that insurance is part of the

[2:18:17] interest that our residents are very

[2:18:20] much um engaged in uh because fair plan

[2:18:24] is not offering a lot of options and um

[2:18:28] so uh we'll continue to uh research on

[2:18:32] this project and uh this topic and then

[2:18:35] hopefully be able to bring in bring back

[2:18:38] uh more interesting subject for our uh

[2:18:41] speaker series. Um and then end of June

[2:18:45] uh we actually have um central county

[2:18:48] fire departments actually hosted a three

[2:18:52] days um three full days of train the

[2:18:56] trainer for cert um we have about 30

[2:18:59] students who or 30 participants uh who

[2:19:03] are at the the at the end of the weekend

[2:19:07] are officially receiving um certificates

[2:19:10] and become an instructors for future classes. So, it's very exciting.

[2:19:15] I think that we're really um building

[2:19:17] the team and then trying to get more

[2:19:19] people engaged in training and also uh

[2:19:23] to be able to teach others um to get

[2:19:26] ready and get prepared. So, uh very

[2:19:28] proud of Central County Fire

[2:19:32] instructors and um uh and we'll just

[2:19:36] continue to, you know, um go forward

[2:19:40] with it. Thank you. And and the other

[2:19:42] thing that I do want to say, I want to

[2:19:44] compliment the youth committees for

[2:19:47] putting on a terrific uh prime events.

[2:19:51] It was well done and it was really just

[2:19:56] nicely incorporated to hear all these

[2:19:58] young people talk about their

[2:20:00] experience. So really appreciate that.

[2:20:05] >> Thank you, Council Member Chuang. Um,

[2:20:07] Council Member Cruic,

[2:20:10] >> I was going to start with Pride. It was

[2:20:12] great and it was great the youth youth

[2:20:13] commission took it over. Um, I would

[2:20:17] like a paper copy of that public works

[2:20:19] org chart. That is great. It's a little

[2:20:22] small to see it on the screen. So, that

[2:20:24] is great. And would love I don't know if

[2:20:27] HPD has updated its roster, but would

[2:20:29] love I know you've got some more people

[2:20:31] would love to see that. That's just a

[2:20:33] request. And just wanted to add on about

[2:20:35] the Judah family's um support of public

[2:20:38] works with the healthy food initiative.

[2:20:40] They not only supplied all the equipment

[2:20:42] to keep it cold and fresh, but um they

[2:20:46] have put together a fund so that public

[2:20:48] works can continue to keep this the the

[2:20:51] healthy food um uh supplied. Um an

[2:20:55] update on Concore. It was really a

[2:20:59] wonderful show. I understand. I was

[2:21:01] actually overseas, but I've seen

[2:21:02] pictures. And next month, Rob Fischer

[2:21:05] will come and give a presentation on the

[2:21:07] concore. Um, we want to welcome Jennifer

[2:21:10] Huey to building and planning, our

[2:21:12] senior planner, and she doubled the

[2:21:15] number of projects that we usually have

[2:21:17] at ADRB. So, the June um meeting was

[2:21:20] quite a robust meeting. Um, and then

[2:21:23] finally, uh, just a quick update on 40

[2:21:26] Baywood. um the state did uh grant them

[2:21:30] their taxexempt um status and now they

[2:21:34] have submitted paperwork to the county.

[2:21:36] So that is moving along. Uh thank you

[2:21:39] very much.

[2:21:41] >> Thank you. Um Vice Mayor Braxdale,

[2:21:46] >> thank you. Um I thought it's summer,

[2:21:49] there's nothing going on, and then I

[2:21:51] went through my calendar, I was like,

[2:21:53] oh, it was it was very busy. So, uh,

[2:21:56] next slide. Um, ebikes. Um, very

[2:22:00] exciting. The, um, the pilot project for

[2:22:04] Sanonteo County where you have to be,

[2:22:06] um, 12 or older to ride an ebike has

[2:22:10] gone to the next stage. Um, it then the last thing, well, second to last

[2:22:14] thing it will be before the Senate uh,

[2:22:17] full the full floor and then hopefully

[2:22:20] gets passed and then it goes to the

[2:22:22] governor. So, stay tuned on that. And

[2:22:24] then today uh in the USA Today, our very

[2:22:28] own Dr. Blake Taylor uh had an opinion

[2:22:32] piece that his mom Nadine helped a lot

[2:22:34] with that's fantastic about the

[2:22:37] realities of uh being a neurosurgeon and trauma surgeon and operating on

[2:22:42] someone with ebike injuries. So, um I

[2:22:45] would say check that out. And um Mandy

[2:22:48] Brown was super helpful updating our

[2:22:51] already amazing website because they

[2:22:54] linked our website uh in the article. So

[2:22:57] we are now nationally known for our

[2:22:59] ebike expertise. So thank you Mandy. Uh

[2:23:04] next slide.

[2:23:06] Um oh I I was able to go to the new um

[2:23:10] the groundbreaking for the Crocker.

[2:23:13] They're putting up a new um

[2:23:15] multi-purpose room. uh they call it

[2:23:18] Crocker Commons, a rendering of it of

[2:23:20] it, the new facilities on the right and

[2:23:22] then the left. I just thought that was a

[2:23:24] cool picture with the equipment that's

[2:23:26] tearing down the old MPR. Um and that

[2:23:29] was the thing I was going to mention to

[2:23:31] the Crocker alums that were here. they

[2:23:33] did before they um took down the old

[2:23:36] murals, they did um it's on their

[2:23:39] website somewhere or on the construction

[2:23:41] website maybe or the school website,

[2:23:43] they did a video of all the old murals

[2:23:46] and so you can stop it and screenshot it

[2:23:48] and send it to your um your Crocker

[2:23:51] alums. So, it is it is pretty cool. I

[2:23:53] know my uh twins enjoyed that. Uh next

[2:23:56] slide.

[2:23:58] And then uh the mayor and I were at the

[2:24:01] prek promotion ceremony. I didn't want

[2:24:03] to put up pictures of kids I didn't have

[2:24:05] permission to show, so it's not that

[2:24:07] great of a slide, but it was it was a

[2:24:09] great day. They are so adorable. They do dances and um they're with their

[2:24:14] parents and they are so they are so

[2:24:16] proud. And this was up at uh Vista Park

[2:24:19] because um they're already starting

[2:24:21] construction at the various locations.

[2:24:23] Next slide.

[2:24:27] uh just some different things that I've

[2:24:29] done that people have already mentioned.

[2:24:31] Uh uh of course our own uh Dr. Weinberg

[2:24:35] did an amazing presentation. Thank you

[2:24:37] very much. Um and then I did watch uh a

[2:24:41] webinar by the state insurance

[2:24:43] commission and I was like I know all

[2:24:45] this already after H&N speaker series.

[2:24:48] So um great job. Uh the youth commission

[2:24:52] really knocked it out of the park and

[2:24:53] they did something different. Last year

[2:24:54] they had live music and this year they

[2:24:57] did an amazing um presentation on the

[2:25:00] history of LGBTQ famous people and it

[2:25:03] was it was really really well done and I

[2:25:05] love that they they're making it their

[2:25:07] own and and shaking it up with what

[2:25:08] their interests and abilities are. I

[2:25:11] loved it. Um, oh, our California

[2:25:13] Association of Youth Commissions, which

[2:25:15] our own youth commissioners started. Um,

[2:25:18] Rohan Dalal and Ana Dal. Um, they're

[2:25:21] doing a virtual summer internship

[2:25:24] program and they have 56 interns and I

[2:25:27] welcome them at their their first

[2:25:28] meeting and u she's taking them all. She

[2:25:32] and her fellow commissioners are taking

[2:25:34] them all up to a day in Sacramento and

[2:25:36] she's arranging meetings and tours and

[2:25:39] it's just fantastic for those kids and

[2:25:42] done all by the kids. Um I attended with

[2:25:45] council member Schwang. We were at the

[2:25:47] resiliency hall at Sano County Event

[2:25:49] Center. They're opening up huge kitchen.

[2:25:53] Uh I think I had a picture of that but I

[2:25:55] have too many pictures. Um and um it's

[2:25:58] amazing and they they not only if in an

[2:26:00] emergency they can feed a ton of people

[2:26:03] who you know lost their lost their homes

[2:26:06] or access to their homes but in the

[2:26:08] meantime small businesses can rent it

[2:26:10] out and um it could be a test kitchen

[2:26:13] for um small businesses especially

[2:26:15] minority owned businesses to um have a

[2:26:18] kitchen space. So it's a fantastic use

[2:26:20] of space. Um and then um the mayor and I

[2:26:24] went to the council of cities dinner in

[2:26:26] East PaloAlto. I did not know they

[2:26:28] didn't have a town hall. They have a

[2:26:30] place to meet, but they don't have a

[2:26:32] town hall and they're just kind of

[2:26:34] spread all over the place. But um they

[2:26:37] are getting some hopefully getting some

[2:26:38] funding from Lorine Powell Jobs um

[2:26:42] foundation and they're working on

[2:26:43] putting together a um town hall. And

[2:26:46] next slide.

[2:26:50] West Light Energy. I've been talking

[2:26:53] about it for so long. Um, Peninsula

[2:26:56] Clean Energy is now West Light Energy.

[2:26:59] Um, you it's it's now everywhere. Quick

[2:27:02] little story. I have no sense of

[2:27:03] direction and so I was typing in

[2:27:06] something or doing something at at the

[2:27:08] stoplight. Um, and I see my uh on my

[2:27:12] Apple Maps and I was I see prior

[2:27:14] locations and it already said West Light

[2:27:16] Energy instead of Peninsula Clean

[2:27:18] Energy. So, they've really worked to get

[2:27:20] the name everywhere and uh it will be on

[2:27:23] your PG bill, the the next one coming in

[2:27:25] mid July. Um, and then they have um I

[2:27:29] love this idea for when you're on a

[2:27:32] board, you know, you get to know the

[2:27:34] people that come present to you. Uh,

[2:27:36] commute.org or Bosa, they each have nine

[2:27:38] employees. So, I know all their

[2:27:39] employees by by name. They all come to

[2:27:41] all the meetings, but um uh West Light

[2:27:44] Energy is about 68 employees, so you

[2:27:47] don't know them all. And they also have

[2:27:48] a remote first policy. So you just know

[2:27:51] the one the people that present to you.

[2:27:53] But they have a quarterly staff retreat

[2:27:55] and each time they invite a board member

[2:27:57] to do a fireside chat and talk about

[2:28:00] your your leadership style, why you

[2:28:02] became involved in public service, but

[2:28:03] also talk about your town because

[2:28:05] there's a lot of towns and um they get

[2:28:08] to know individual towns that way. So I

[2:28:10] thought that was a it was a great idea

[2:28:12] and I was honored to be to be asked. Uh

[2:28:14] next slide.

[2:28:18] Oh, and also Westside Energy back when

[2:28:20] it was PCE. I had mentioned this before,

[2:28:23] but I was able to go to their the

[2:28:25] reception for the best places to work

[2:28:26] award and that is our CEO and the head

[2:28:29] of what we call HR, but head of um

[2:28:33] people and culture and it was a fun

[2:28:35] event up at um the Topgolf and next

[2:28:39] slide might be it.

[2:28:42] Oh, and then just meetings. Um, like I

[2:28:46] said, it's been busy for some reason.

[2:28:48] And, uh, next slide. I think that might

[2:28:50] be it.

[2:28:52] That's it. Thank you.

[2:28:55] >> Yeah, you were quite busy. Um, thank

[2:28:57] you. Um, as stated by my colleagues, um,

[2:29:01] I'm in some of these meetings. Um,

[2:29:03] however, I tend to um the things I tend

[2:29:06] to remember the most are the one-on-one

[2:29:08] conversations I had with a few

[2:29:09] residents, especially regarding um the

[2:29:13] tree the vegetation management that's

[2:29:15] been going on in town by PG&E

[2:29:17] contractors and other individuals. Um, I

[2:29:20] had several outreach from residents with

[2:29:23] concerns or complaints or

[2:29:25] recommendations or suggestions as to how

[2:29:27] some of the vegetation management could

[2:29:29] be handled um could be better handled.

[2:29:32] Um, I know that our Firewise uh staff, I

[2:29:37] mean, Firewise volunteers, certainly not

[2:29:40] staff, the most the most generous of

[2:29:43] residents volunteers were involved this

[2:29:46] past month and probably continues in

[2:29:48] terms of the work they've been doing uh

[2:29:50] regarding working with residents on

[2:29:52] vegetation management for fire

[2:29:54] prevention and fire mitigation. So,

[2:29:56] thanks again. I see Dr. Weinberg is here

[2:29:58] as well. So, thanks uh to Firewise uh

[2:30:02] volunteers who continue to work

[2:30:04] diligently on that issue. Um I yes, as

[2:30:09] uh council member Crowley pointed out,

[2:30:11] we're making progress on the Baywood

[2:30:13] property. It's things are coming along

[2:30:16] have to deal with states and county and

[2:30:18] those conversations continue. Our

[2:30:21] discussion on the Tobin Clark um project

[2:30:24] is making progress as well. We did do a

[2:30:27] presentation last month to the council

[2:30:28] and the residents and we'll continue our

[2:30:31] frequent meetings and moving the ball

[2:30:33] forward. Um CCFD discussions are

[2:30:36] underway regarding our joint

[2:30:38] partnerships especially as it pertains

[2:30:40] to funding. So we'll be reporting to you

[2:30:43] um in the future and hopefully in the

[2:30:45] near future as to where things stand.

[2:30:48] And by far one of my most fun events

[2:30:51] last month was the prek graduation. That

[2:30:55] was certainly a fun meeting to go to. It

[2:30:59] wasn't a meeting, it was a party and it

[2:31:00] was fun with with the prek four year

[2:31:03] olds. I did spend a good amount of time

[2:31:06] in June traveling. I went hiking on a

[2:31:09] all women's trip in Portugal. Lots of

[2:31:12] fun. That's it. Thank you.

[2:31:17] Any um additional

[2:31:20] questions or comments before we close

[2:31:21] the meeting?

[2:31:22] >> Ah, yes. Just really quickly uh because

[2:31:26] our um council mentioned about the

[2:31:28] Semitel event center. The semitile event

[2:31:31] center is our emergency preparedness

[2:31:34] gathering place like if there's

[2:31:36] evacuation that is the ideal place and

[2:31:38] it's is destined to be the emergency

[2:31:42] areas for um because they have the

[2:31:45] kitchen, they have the shower facility,

[2:31:47] they have gathering place, they have

[2:31:49] areas where they can house the larger

[2:31:51] animals. So there's it you now look at

[2:31:55] um event centers in a different light

[2:31:57] because there are multiple layers of u

[2:32:00] functionalities in that. So just want to

[2:32:02] mention that.

[2:32:03] >> Thank you. Um seeing no additional

[2:32:05] comments um this meeting is now

[2:32:08] adjourned. Thank you.

City Council Meeting - July 13, 2026

Transcript