[1:53] >> And justice for all.

[1:57] >> Thank you. And now we'll

[1:59] move on to see if

[2:00] there's any changes

[2:01] to the agenda

[2:02] for tonight.

[2:03] >> No changes that I'm aware

[2:04] of, Mayor.

[2:05] >> Okay, seeing none, we will,

[2:06] I'm going to report out. On

[2:11] June 17th, the Town Council

[2:13] held 3 closed sessions. There

[2:17] was a conference

[2:19] with legal counsel

[2:20] on existing litigation,

[2:22] Bourbon Birdie Investments LLC

[2:24] with the Town of Windsor, and

[2:26] then a conference with legal

[2:27] counsel anticipating

[2:29] litigation,

[2:31] initiating litigation pursuant

[2:33] to paragraph four

[2:34] of subdivision D of section

[2:36] five four nine five six point

[2:37] nine. One potential case,

[2:38] conference with legal counsel

[2:40] on existing litigation,

[2:41] Evergreen Windsor. MHP LLC

[2:45] versus Town of Windsor. And the

[2:47] closed session adjourned

[2:49] at 9:12 PM, and there's no

[2:52] reportable action taken. And

[2:55] now we're going to move on

[2:56] to our presentations. Vice

[2:58] Mayor is going to read,

[2:59] read one for us.

[3:04] >> I have a proclamation

[3:05] of the Town Council of the

[3:06] Town of Windsor proclaiming

[3:07] July 2026 as Parks Make Life

[3:08] Better Month. Whereas July is

[3:09] celebrated

[3:10] across the nation as Parks and

[3:11] Recreation Month because lives

[3:12] and communities are better

[3:15] by parks and recreation now and

[3:17] in the future. And whereas

[3:18] parks and recreation promotes

[3:19] physical, emotional,

[3:20] and mental health and wellness

[3:21] through organized and

[3:24] self-directed fitness, play,

[3:25] and activity for people

[3:27] of all ages sorry,

[3:28] all ages and abilities. And

[3:29] parks and recreation supports

[3:30] the economic vitality

[3:32] of communities

[3:33] by attracting new businesses,

[3:35] promoting community

[3:36] revitalization, increasing

[3:38] tourism, providing jobs,

[3:39] increasing property values and

[3:40] generating revenues. And Parks

[3:41] and Recreation creates

[3:43] memorable experiences

[3:44] through fulfilling programs,

[3:47] dynamic events,

[3:48] and new opportunities designed

[3:49] to engage people

[3:51] in their communities and

[3:52] with each other. And whereas

[3:53] Parks and Recreation fosters

[3:55] social cohesiveness

[3:56] in communities

[3:58] by celebrating diversity,

[3:59] providing inclusive services,

[4:00] modeling compassion,

[4:01] promoting social equity,

[4:02] connecting social networks, and

[4:04] ensuring all people have access

[4:05] to its benefits. And parks and

[4:07] recreation sustains and

[4:08] stewards our natural resources

[4:09] by protecting habitats and open

[4:11] space, connecting people

[4:13] to nature, and promoting the

[4:15] ecological function

[4:16] of parkland. Now therefore be

[4:20] it resolved that the Town

[4:22] Council of the Town of Windsor

[4:23] hereby proclaims July 2026 as

[4:24] Parks Make Life Better Month,

[4:25] and in doing so

[4:27] urges all citizens

[4:29] to use and enjoy Town of

[4:30] Windsor parks, trails, open

[4:31] space,

[4:33] facilities and recreational

[4:34] opportunities, including art,

[4:35] history, and culture.

[4:40] >> And here

[4:41] to receive that is Director

[4:42] Lehman and staff.

[4:57] >> Good evening. Thank you,

[4:59] Mayor and council members.

[5:00] Olivia Lehman, Parks and

[5:01] Recreation Director. It is an

[5:02] honor that I get

[5:04] to stand up here with,

[5:05] just a few of our large team to

[5:08] accept this this recognition.

[5:11] The this team is incredible

[5:14] in their commitment and passion

[5:15] to the work that they do

[5:17] in our community. Many

[5:19] of us live in this community,

[5:22] raise our families here. Our

[5:23] parents use the Windsor

[5:24] Senior Recreation Center. Most

[5:25] recently, one of our staff

[5:28] members who is now full time

[5:31] started off in Windsor.

[5:33] preschool program as a

[5:35] preschooler and then came to be

[5:38] a part-time employee and is now

[5:39] full-time. So, we really have

[5:41] come at it with the motto

[5:43] of grow your own. Not only do

[5:45] we maintain great parks and

[5:46] programs

[5:51] within the community,

[5:52] but we also bring a level

[5:53] of commitment and pride

[5:55] to the work that we do. So, we

[5:56] enjoy this month. We get

[5:58] to highlight some

[5:59] of the great people that are in

[6:01] our community doing this work

[6:02] every day, but really,

[6:03] they do it 365 days a year.

[6:04] days a year. The bathrooms are

[6:06] open on Christmas

[6:07] in the parks. The gates are

[6:09] unlocked on New Year's Day.

[6:10] And that's because

[6:11] of the work and commitment

[6:16] of our team. So, thank you.

[6:20] >> Thank you. And now we have a

[6:25] presentation from the Sonoma

[6:27] County Library Windsor

[6:28] Branch.

[6:38] >> Good evening. My name is

[6:39] Deborah Doyle. I'm you're for

[6:40] about the next 15 days,

[6:41] I'm your Windsor Library

[6:44] Commissioner, and I'd love

[6:45] to introduce the director

[6:46] of the library system. This

[6:47] presentation is going to be

[6:48] about Windsor,

[6:49] but it's also going to be

[6:50] about the overall Sonoma

[6:51] County Library System. And this

[6:53] is Erica Thibault, our fabulous

[6:56] library director.

[6:57] >> Perfect.

[6:58] >> Good evening, Mayor, Vice

[6:59] Mayor, council members, and

[7:00] City Manager Davis. It's good

[7:01] to see you all again. I'm gonna

[7:02] give you a little bit

[7:03] of information

[7:04] about what we've been up to

[7:05] in the last year,

[7:07] as well as what's been

[7:08] happening at the Windsor

[7:09] Library. As you all know,

[7:11] Sonoma County Library is

[7:12] comprised of 12 regional

[7:13] libraries, 2 community

[7:15] libraries, 3 special

[7:16] collections, and a library

[7:18] administration center. Our

[7:19] system is formed by,

[7:20] by a joint powers agreement

[7:22] between the 9 cities and the

[7:24] County of Sonoma, and this

[7:26] allows us to provide services

[7:27] to over half a million

[7:28] residents countywide. The

[7:32] Windsor Regional Library, you

[7:33] know, opened in 1996. We

[7:35] recently had a renovation

[7:36] of the library,

[7:39] and I know many

[7:40] of you were there. We bought

[7:41] some new furniture,

[7:42] we installed some new shelving,

[7:43] we painted, we have new

[7:44] carpeting that was courtesy

[7:47] of the City of Windsor, or the

[7:48] Town of Windsor, and it really

[7:49] created a much more open and

[7:51] welcoming space, and we know

[7:52] that our residents and our

[7:54] staff really love it. One of

[7:55] the things that we've also

[7:58] seen, we have 2 closures right

[8:01] now, the Rankin Valley Library

[8:02] and the Sebastopol Library, and

[8:03] we are seeing an increase

[8:07] in foot traffic at the

[8:08] Windsor Library as a result

[8:10] of these closures,

[8:11] about 11% increase. Another

[8:12] interesting thing that we began

[8:13] this summer is lunch

[8:15] at the library, and this is 5

[8:16] days a week. We provide lunch

[8:18] to youth 0 to 18. It has been

[8:19] extremely popular. We're seeing

[8:21] between 30 and 50 children

[8:25] every day that we provide the

[8:27] These are really great numbers,

[8:29] and it just demonstrates how

[8:32] the library is helping families

[8:34] who are experiencing food

[8:36] insecurity. Overall, the visits

[8:39] to the branch, we're seeing an

[8:40] upward trajectory. So, our

[8:41] weekly visits are at 3,172

[8:42] patrons. This puts Windsor

[8:45] near just after Northwest

[8:49] Santa Rosa and before Sonoma

[8:51] Valley Library. As you know,

[8:53] in 2024, the library went out

[8:58] for its sales tax measure. We

[9:00] extended the Measure Y sales

[9:01] tax. This one will start in

[9:07] April 2027. We passed

[9:08] with a little over 68%

[9:10] of the vote. This just

[9:12] demonstrates how the library

[9:13] has responded to our

[9:14] communities and residents and

[9:16] the great support that they

[9:17] have for the library. Last

[9:18] year, we also completed several

[9:22] modernization projects,

[9:25] including the Windsor

[9:26] modernization. We put

[9:28] in a new patio in the

[9:29] Cloverdale Library. We

[9:31] completely renovated the

[9:32] Petaluma and the Healdsburg

[9:33] Library, as well as the

[9:34] Windsor Library. All

[9:36] of these projects were roughly

[9:37] $8 million over the period

[9:39] of a year and a half,

[9:42] and I hope that you have If you

[9:43] haven't had a chance

[9:45] to see the Windsor Library,

[9:47] please do, but also visit

[9:48] Petaluma and Healdsburg. We've

[9:50] also just completed our new

[9:51] strategic plan. This is a

[9:56] 5-year plan that will begin

[9:58] this fiscal year. As part

[9:59] of our plan, we did a community

[10:01] survey and we received over

[10:03] 7,000 responses. This was a

[10:04] historic record high

[10:08] in responses

[10:09] from the community. We also

[10:10] received 15% responses

[10:11] from non-library users,

[10:13] which is really helpful for us

[10:16] to identify those services that

[10:17] we, that we can provide

[10:19] to lure those non-users

[10:20] into the library. We also saw

[10:21] an almost 98% customer

[10:22] satisfaction rating,

[10:25] which is really incredible.

[10:26] And our consultants tell us

[10:31] that this just demonstrates the

[10:32] high level of customer service

[10:33] that our staff provides. As

[10:35] part

[10:41] of our community engagement, we

[10:42] did library commissioner

[10:43] interviews. We did branch

[10:44] visits to all

[10:45] of our branches. We had 3 staff

[10:46] focus groups, 9 stakeholder

[10:48] listening sessions, and 12

[10:51] community listening sessions.

[10:53] One was held at the Windsor

[10:55] Library. One of the things so

[10:58] this is a chart showing the

[10:59] patron satisfaction

[11:00] with our offerings. That first

[11:01] bar is our customer service,

[11:03] and the dark blue is the very

[11:05] satisfied,

[11:08] the light blue is satisfied.

[11:10] So that is our highest rating.

[11:11] At the end of the chart, you

[11:14] see our the concern that

[11:17] patrons have is really

[11:18] over the wait times

[11:20] for holds. And what that is

[11:21] specifically is

[11:23] for our eMedia. So, one of the

[11:25] things people don't understand

[11:26] with eMedia is that they think

[11:27] that we just have endless

[11:29] supplies. But our ebooks are

[11:31] actually license agreements,

[11:32] and we have

[11:34] to purchase them every 2 And so

[11:35] once we, you know, once that

[11:37] ends, we have

[11:39] to repurchase them. They're

[11:40] very expensive. And so our

[11:42] budget doesn't always match the

[11:43] demand for those eMedia items.

[11:45] But it's still, you know,

[11:46] it's still a very, you know,

[11:48] high satisfaction. There's just

[11:51] a desire from the community for

[11:53] more funds put towards those

[11:55] eMedia resources. And what we

[11:57] did this fiscal year

[11:59] to increase the budget

[12:00] for that is we looked at some

[12:02] request funding that we had,

[12:08] and we allocated funds

[12:09] to our digital media. And we

[12:11] purchased permanent licenses

[12:12] for many of our long-term

[12:14] backlist titles. So last year,

[12:18] we had very high numbers as a

[12:20] result. Whenever you open a new

[12:22] library,

[12:23] we see incredibly high demands,

[12:25] or when you reopen the library.

[12:27] We had just over 1.4 million

[12:28] visits. We also had a

[12:31] circulation of 4.4 million.

[12:36] which is very high. As you can

[12:38] see from the chart,

[12:39] the dark blue is the physical

[12:41] media,

[12:43] and the orange is the digital.

[12:45] Our physical media has kind

[12:46] of stayed relatively stable.

[12:48] Our digital circulation has

[12:49] increased exponentially. But we

[12:51] still are having very high

[12:54] circulation despite those

[12:55] library closures. Out of 100

[12:59] library jurisdictions, The

[13:01] Sonoma County Library is 6th

[13:03] in terms of our Libby, which is

[13:06] our main eMedia platform,

[13:08] and also in terms of Link+.

[13:10] So, Link+ is a service where

[13:11] you can request items from

[13:15] over 70 libraries

[13:16] around the state of

[13:18] California. So, we are 6th

[13:19] in the state, and there's 181

[13:21] library jurisdictions,

[13:23] and we are 11th in size. So

[13:24] that just goes to show how

[13:26] supportive how much the

[13:27] community supports the library

[13:30] and how active they are

[13:32] in reading. And now I'm going

[13:35] to turn it over to Deborah, who

[13:36] is going

[13:37] to give you some information

[13:39] about what's going on at the

[13:40] Windsor branch.

[13:45] >> We'd also like

[13:47] to thank the town of Windsor

[13:48] and the Friends of the Library

[13:50] for being so generous in terms

[13:51] of how we renovated the library

[13:52] a little bit. It's still too

[13:55] small. I think everybody knows

[13:57] that it's still too small, but

[13:58] for now, It's

[13:59] in very good shape. And as

[14:01] Erica said, the circulation and

[14:05] the visit numbers are going up

[14:08] when the other branches are

[14:09] closed, but they stay up,

[14:11] which is the interesting thing.

[14:12] So, once they discover the

[14:14] Windsor Library, the numbers

[14:15] are actually staying up. So,

[14:16] from July 2025 to June 2026,

[14:21] the Windsor Library had a total

[14:27] of 127,104 visitors. Averaging

[14:29] approximately 10,500 visitors a

[14:31] month. I think that's amazing.

[14:33] In the same time period,

[14:34] we checked out a total of

[14:35] 170,000, 171,000 physical items

[14:37] and offered 519 events

[14:41] with a total overall attendance

[14:43] of 8,363 people. We've got tai

[14:44] chi and yoga for adults. We've

[14:48] got knitting for adults. We've

[14:49] got book buddies. If you

[14:51] haven't signed up

[14:53] for the summer reading, please

[14:54] do so because the kids and the

[14:55] adults get prizes. The Read

[14:57] for the Dog program is one

[14:59] of the best programs ever.

[15:00] Just watching it gives

[15:02] everybody

[15:03] in the room a smile,

[15:04] and it allows the children who

[15:06] may be a little nervous

[15:07] about reading to actually read

[15:09] to a dog. And it's just,

[15:10] it's so good

[15:11] for them and so good

[15:13] for everybody. It's a great

[15:14] after-school hangout

[15:15] for teens. The story times for

[15:17] the kids and their caregivers,

[15:18] we usually have 50 to 60

[15:19] attendees per story time, which

[15:21] fills up that conference room.

[15:23] It absolutely fills up the

[15:24] conference room. And then

[15:25] there's a Build Club

[15:27] for teens. And let's see, in

[15:28] June, we had, alone, we had

[15:30] 11,818 patron visits. So, it's

[15:31] truly an amazing thing. And the

[15:33] Summer Lunch at the Library,

[15:35] which she's mentioned,

[15:39] is really a very special thing.

[15:40] It started a long time ago

[15:42] with a grant

[15:43] from a major foundation in

[15:44] San Francisco, and the

[15:45] California Library Association

[15:47] kind of started with it. And it

[15:48] has grown and inspired states

[15:50] all over the country to make

[15:51] sure that the kids who don't

[15:53] have enough food can eat

[15:56] something, and sometimes their

[16:00] parents even kind of come in

[16:02] to take advantage of it. And

[16:03] one

[16:05] of the other special things

[16:07] about this is that we have

[16:08] teens who are also working

[16:10] in the program. So, the teens

[16:12] are the ones that are actually

[16:14] organizing the things

[16:15] for the kids to do

[16:17] during the lunch

[16:19] at the library, and so it's

[16:20] really a wonderful community

[16:23] event. I,

[16:25] as I was the commissioner for

[16:26] 6 years, Mike Neely also

[16:27] deserves a special thanks. He

[16:29] was a member,

[16:30] he was my appointee

[16:31] to the oversight committee.

[16:32] And that's one

[16:33] of the special things

[16:34] about the library funding. We

[16:35] have an oversight committee

[16:36] that takes a look

[16:38] at how we spend the sales tax.

[16:39] And we think that's very

[16:40] important. So, they provide a

[16:42] report annually about

[16:47] how they think we did,

[16:49] what they think we should do

[16:50] in the future. So those

[16:51] oversight committees are

[16:52] incredibly important. And I'd

[16:53] also like to thank the

[16:54] Library Advisory Board, which

[16:56] is, again, civilians who are

[16:57] appointed, who then are out in

[17:00] the community and tell me and

[17:01] tell Erica what they think that

[17:04] the community of Windsor wants.

[17:06] So, all in all,

[17:08] the library system and the

[17:09] Windsor Library are doing very

[17:10] well, and we appreciate you

[17:11] taking the time

[17:12] to listen.

[17:13] >> Thanks so much.

[17:14] >> Thank you very much.

[17:16] >> Um, questions?

[17:18] >> Any questions?

[17:19] >> I would like

[17:20] to say something about Chair,

[17:21] former Chair Deborah.

[17:23] >> Hold up for a minute. Do you

[17:24] want

[17:25] to do this next little stage?

[17:26] Yeah, and I'll invite you back

[17:27] up. Okay, let's do this. But do

[17:28] we have questions regarding the

[17:30] presentation?

[17:31] >> No?

[17:32] >> Okay, so please stay up,

[17:34] please. Yes, we're going

[17:36] to move on to item 7.3. No,

[17:39] Deborah. Stay up here. Don't

[17:41] go. Stay right here. So, it is

[17:44] my pleasure to recognize

[17:46] Deborah Doyle for her

[17:48] outstanding service as a member

[17:49] of the Sonoma County Library

[17:50] Commission representing the

[17:53] Town of Windsor from 2020 to

[17:54] 2026. Deborah has been a

[17:56] tireless advocate

[17:57] for libraries at the local,

[17:59] state, and national levels.

[18:00] Her leadership has helped

[18:02] strengthen library systems

[18:03] expand public support,

[18:05] and promote access

[18:06] to lifelong learning,

[18:08] and helping secure vital

[18:09] funding for the Sonoma County

[18:11] Library System. Throughout her

[18:14] service to Windsor, Deborah has

[18:15] generously shared her

[18:16] expertise, passion,

[18:17] and thoughtful leadership

[18:19] to help advance library

[18:20] services to our community. Her

[18:21] commitment to public service

[18:24] and ensuring that libraries

[18:25] continue to thrive has made a

[18:29] minimal meaningful and lasting

[18:32] impact. On behalf of the Town

[18:33] Council and the residents of

[18:34] Windsor, thank you, Deborah,

[18:36] for your 6 years

[18:37] of dedicated service,

[18:38] leadership, and advocacy. We

[18:39] are grateful for you and wish

[18:40] you all the best in your future

[18:42] endeavors. I know you're not

[18:45] disappearing, right?

[18:47] >> I'm honored. I know I'm not

[18:48] disappearing.

[18:49] >> Good. So let me,

[18:51] let me give you this. Do you

[18:59] want to say a few words?

[19:24] >> She's so diffident. So, I,

[19:26] I just want to say that I was a

[19:27] new library director when I was

[19:29] hired at Sonoma County

[19:30] Library, and I'm so,

[19:32] so grateful that I had

[19:34] Commissioner Deborah Doyle as

[19:35] the chair of the commission

[19:37] at that time. She really

[19:40] provided an enormous amount

[19:41] of leadership and guidance

[19:42] to me,

[19:43] and I couldn't have done it

[19:44] without her. She also has

[19:46] mentored and coached me not

[19:47] only in my role as director

[19:49] but also at the state and

[19:50] national levels. She roped me

[19:51] into advocacy work and even

[19:52] though she's leaving the

[19:54] Commission, I know that I will

[19:58] continue seeing her

[19:59] in our dual roles

[20:01] in advocacy. So, thank you,

[20:02] Deborah, for all of your hard

[20:03] work and all the things that

[20:05] you helped me accomplish.

[20:14] >> Just briefly, because you

[20:15] have so many other things

[20:16] to talk about tonight,

[20:18] it's truly an honor to be,

[20:20] to be to have been your

[20:22] commissioner. I've been

[20:24] involved in libraries

[20:25] for a long time, but I also

[20:27] knew that when I came up

[20:29] to see my dad, that one

[20:30] of the things that we were

[20:31] going

[20:33] to be doing when I was up

[20:34] from San Francisco was going

[20:35] to the library, cause Dad had a

[20:36] library card. He moved up here

[20:37] as the town was incorporating

[20:38] and loved this town. And so, I

[20:40] hope that I have done him

[20:43] proud. And my mom was a

[20:45] teacher,

[20:48] and I hope I've done her proud.

[20:49] There are all kinds

[20:51] of things going on We are so

[20:53] lucky in California

[20:54] in so many ways, and one of

[20:56] those ways is because we don't

[20:58] have as much censorship. We

[21:00] have a Freedom to Read bill

[21:02] that passed our legislature and

[21:03] that Governor Newsom signed a

[21:05] couple of years ago. That

[21:07] doesn't mean there isn't some,

[21:08] and that doesn't mean that we

[21:10] shouldn't be helping people who

[21:11] are facing it. And so, I'm

[21:12] grateful that this town is

[21:13] supportive of the freedom to

[21:15] read and loves its library.

[21:19] >> Thank you again. Perfect.

[21:27] Okay, we're going to move on

[21:28] to our upcoming,

[21:30] upcoming town events.

[21:31] Councilmember Leep, you want

[21:33] to start

[21:35] with the first 2?

[21:36] >> Certainly. Thank you,

[21:38] Mayor. The first announcement is

[21:46] for Summer Nights on the Green

[21:47] concert series on Thursday,

[21:48] July 16th, 2026. That's, day

[21:49] after tomorrow. Actually, I

[21:50] guess it's tomorrow at the

[21:51] Town Green. The band is

[21:53] Freestone Peaches. The farmers

[21:54] market starts

[21:56] at 5:30 PM and concert begins

[21:57] at 6 PM. Did I say 5:30?

[22:00] >> You did.

[22:02] >> That's weird. It doesn't say

[22:03] that. A farmers market starts

[22:07] at 5 PM and the concerts begin

[22:08] at 6 PM. Then the Family

[22:09] Movies on the Green, Tuesday,

[22:11] July 21st. The movie is Cars,

[22:12] one of my favorites. New LED

[22:14] screen, new start time. Movie

[22:15] begins at 7 PM. Movies continue

[22:18] on Tuesday nights on the Town

[22:19] Green through August 4th,

[22:20] 2026.

[22:24] >> All right, and we have

[22:25] Volunteer Day coming up on

[22:26] Saturday, July 25th from 9 to

[22:28] 11 AM at Los Robles Park. Join

[22:30] your neighbors and help

[22:31] beautify our community.

[22:33] For details and to RSVP,

[22:34] please contact Parks and

[22:36] Recreation at 707-838- And then

[22:37] we will be having National

[22:39] Night Out Tuesday, August 4th

[22:40] from 6 to 8 PM at the Windsor

[22:44] sorry, at the Town Green

[22:48] Market Street, presented by

[22:50] Windsor Police Department.

[22:51] This is a free family-friendly

[22:52] event which features emergency

[22:53] vehicles, games,

[22:55] and safety information from our

[22:56] first responders and local

[22:57] resources.

[23:01] >> Saturday, September 26th is

[23:02] the Windsor Day Parade. The

[23:03] parade is Fly Me to the Moon.

[23:06] That's the theme. The parade

[23:07] begins at 10 AM. Parade entries

[23:09] are due September 4th.

[23:10] For entry and parade details,

[23:13] visit kiwaniswindsor.org. As

[23:18] always, the Sunday Farmers

[23:19] Market every Sunday through

[23:20] December 6th, 9 AM to 12:30,

[23:22] and that's on the Town Green

[23:23] Market Street.

[23:26] >> Thank you, everyone. Town

[23:27] Manager, do you have a report

[23:28] out or report?

[23:30] >> Thank you, Mayor Reynoza.

[23:32] John Davis, Town Manager. 2

[23:34] items tonight. So first,

[23:38] as some of you are aware,

[23:40] we've started the process of

[23:42] reviewing and updating the

[23:43] station area plan. The team

[23:44] in Community Development has

[23:46] been working hard on that. So

[23:47] we'd like to invite everyone to

[23:49] the station area plan community

[23:50] meeting,

[23:52] which will be this coming

[23:53] Monday, July 20th, from 5 to 7

[23:55] here at Town Hall. There will

[23:57] be some refreshments.

[24:01] And this is an opportunity

[24:02] to share your ideas

[24:03] about the future

[24:04] of the downtown. So, we'd love

[24:05] to hear from you. Translation

[24:06] services will also be available

[24:07] if needed. Also,

[24:08] before you go, if you want

[24:09] to take a moment to complete,

[24:10] there's a brief anonymous

[24:11] 4-question survey at the back

[24:13] of the room. If you want

[24:14] to take that and leave it

[24:16] for us, it only takes a few

[24:17] seconds and it will help inform

[24:18] the plan. Secondly, just,

[24:22] there's been a lot

[24:23] of talk this week about the

[24:24] Windsor Creek Elementary

[24:25] School site. Lots

[24:27] of questions, and I wanted

[24:28] to call out that Director

[24:29] Streeter did a great

[24:30] presentation last night

[24:32] at the Planning Commission

[24:33] meeting just regarding process

[24:34] and trying to answer some

[24:35] general questions about, you

[24:36] know, what things may look like

[24:38] regarding that property as

[24:40] things go forward. And so that

[24:41] is that video is posted

[24:47] to the town website. The town

[24:49] actually has a special page

[24:50] dedicated to the Windsor Creek

[24:52] site,

[24:55] so you can find the video

[24:56] of the presentation there, and

[24:57] I encourage anybody that has

[24:59] questions about the process

[25:00] to watch that. That concludes

[25:01] my report. Thank you.

[25:02] >> Thank you very much. Now I'd

[25:03] like

[25:04] to ask if there's any conflict

[25:05] of interest to declare

[25:06] for tonight's meeting. Seeing

[25:09] none, we're going

[25:10] to go ahead and move on

[25:12] to our public comment section.

[25:13] So, any members

[25:14] of the public wishing to speak

[25:15] to the council on any consent

[25:17] calendar items or any item

[25:18] that's not listed

[25:20] on the agenda may do so

[25:22] at this time. Pursuant to the

[25:24] Brown Act, the council is not

[25:25] allowed to consider issues or

[25:26] take action

[25:27] on any item not listed

[25:28] on the agenda

[25:30] during this period. So, we have

[25:31] 3 minutes. We have a new clock

[25:32] up here, to my right,

[25:34] and then the timer's, I think,

[25:38] still over there. Anyways, you

[25:39] have 3 minutes. so please,

[25:40] if you want to speak,

[25:41] go ahead and start lining up

[25:42] at the podium. Anyone watching

[25:44] from home, you can email us at

[25:46] owncouncil@townofwindsor.ca.gov

[25:48] at any time,

[25:51] and that email goes to all

[25:52] of us up here,

[25:54] including the town manager.

[25:56] Thank you very much. And if you

[26:04] wish

[26:05] to state your name and address,

[26:06] you may do so,

[26:08] but it's not required.

[26:09] >> Okay. Good evening,

[26:11] council members and Madam

[26:13] Mayor. My name is Jesse

[26:14] Valerie. I live in the

[26:16] Oakfield neighborhood. I'd

[26:18] like to make a comment on the

[26:19] Windsor Creek Elementary site.

[26:21] I'd like to ask how the town

[26:23] evaluates cumulative impacts

[26:24] and determines what is

[26:26] considered safe. We know each

[26:28] project undergoes environmental

[26:30] review under CEQA and traffic

[26:32] analysis, but my question is,

[26:33] how safe how is safe actually

[26:34] determined? What data,

[26:36] assumptions,

[26:38] and standards are being used to

[26:40] conclude that the cumulative

[26:41] impacts on traffic

[26:44] infrastructure and emergency

[26:45] evacuations are acceptable.

[26:47] Are those analysis based on

[26:49] today's conditions and the

[26:50] current number of approved,

[26:52] proposed,

[26:53] and under-construction

[26:54] developments, or are these

[26:56] projects still being evaluated

[26:59] largely

[27:00] on an individual basis? Using a

[27:02] conservative estimate of 2

[27:03] vehicles per household, the

[27:05] Armando Rizzulo development,

[27:06] the Mill Creek project,

[27:08] the existing Oakfield

[27:09] neighborhood, And Windsor

[27:11] Mobile Country Club represent

[27:14] roughly 860 homes and

[27:15] approximately 1,700 vehicles.

[27:16] If the proposed Gallaher

[27:18] project is approved,

[27:20] that number grows

[27:21] to approximately 1,200 homes

[27:22] and nearly 2,500 vehicles

[27:24] relying on essentially the same

[27:28] road network. At what point

[27:30] does the town determine that

[27:32] the cumulative impact has

[27:33] reached a level that requires

[27:35] reevaluation? Is there a

[27:36] capacity threshold for our

[27:37] roads and evacuation routes,

[27:41] and if so,

[27:42] are we approaching it? As

[27:43] someone who lives

[27:45] in the neighborhood,

[27:46] I already see cracked

[27:48] sidewalks, limited parking,

[27:49] speeding traffic, and

[27:50] infrastructure that struggles

[27:51] to serve today's residents.

[27:52] So, my concern isn't simply

[27:54] about growth, it's about

[27:56] whether our infrastructure and

[27:57] emergency access are keeping

[27:58] pace with that growth. Growth

[27:59] is important, but so are public

[28:01] safety and thoughtful planning.

[28:04] I respectfully ask the council

[28:06] to help residents understand

[28:08] how these conclusions are

[28:10] reached,

[28:11] what evidence supports them,

[28:13] and how the town ensures that

[28:14] the cumulative impacts are

[28:15] being fully considered before

[28:17] additional density is approved.

[28:19] Additionally, I urge the

[28:20] council to vote

[28:22] against rezoning the Windsor

[28:23] Creek Elementary site for

[28:24] residential when that is

[28:26] presented. Thank you.

[28:42] >> Hi, Council. Good evening.

[28:43] My name is Melanie. I live

[28:44] in the Oakfield neighborhood.

[28:45] I'm here tonight representing

[28:46] myself and many of my neighbors

[28:47] opposing the rezoning. There's

[28:48] a lot of reasons why we

[28:49] oppose, but I'll keep,

[28:52] I'll keep the focus

[28:53] on the ones that matter most.

[28:54] Density and access. The

[28:55] Oakfield neighborhood is small.

[28:57] With Condie Lane being the only

[28:58] road in and out. A 360-plus

[28:59] unit development is too dense

[29:00] for this site,

[29:02] especially stacked on top of

[29:03] Coral Creek's 100-plus units

[29:06] already in development.

[29:07] Together, that's over 400 new

[29:08] families funneling through one

[29:09] access point. wildfire

[29:11] evacuation. The single road

[29:13] bottleneck is not a

[29:14] hypothetical risk. Most

[29:15] Sonoma County residents have

[29:17] evacuated for wildfire

[29:19] at least once. Many know what

[29:20] it feels like to be stuck

[29:21] in gridlock, fearing

[29:23] for your life, unable

[29:25] to move. This was my experience

[29:26] living on the edge of Coffey

[29:28] Park during the 2017 Tubbs

[29:29] Fire. Adding hundreds more

[29:30] households to a neighborhood

[29:32] with only one way out isn't

[29:33] just a planning problem, it's a

[29:35] public safety problem. traffic

[29:36] and parking. Look

[29:37] at what's already happening

[29:39] at Shiloh Terrace. We don't

[29:43] have

[29:45] to guess what it looks like, we

[29:46] can just see it a few blocks

[29:47] away. The housing math isn't

[29:49] adding up. Between Heritage

[29:50] Park, Cascadia Burbank

[29:52] Housing, Cora Creek, and

[29:53] Shiloh Crossing, there are

[29:55] already 346 units proposed or

[29:56] in development nearby. The

[29:57] already constructed

[30:00] developments, Shiloh Terrace

[30:01] and Redwood Views, are both

[30:02] currently struggling

[30:03] to fill vacancies,

[30:05] and no survey has been

[30:06] conducted

[30:07] to demonstrate demand

[30:08] for another 360+ units on top

[30:10] of that. In addition, the

[30:11] Windsor's low-income housing

[30:12] quota has already been met.

[30:14] Open space. Windsor is already

[30:15] short on parks, and the

[30:19] Oakfield neighborhood does not

[30:21] have a park. The field on this

[30:22] property is the only green

[30:24] space we have. Once it's paved,

[30:27] it's gone. My partner and I

[30:30] built our lives in the

[30:31] Oakfield neighborhood,

[30:32] believing the school site would

[30:33] remain zoned for public use.

[30:35] The neighborhood felt safe and

[30:36] community-oriented the kind

[30:37] of place to put

[30:38] down roots and start a family.

[30:39] With all these points I've

[30:40] mentioned. we are wondering if

[30:42] we made a mistake. the bottom

[30:43] line is we're asking the

[30:45] council

[30:46] to not approve a rezoning of

[30:47] from public use

[30:49] to high-density residential.

[30:52] Thank you for your time.

[31:04] >> Good evening, council.

[31:05] My name is Kevin Scanlon,

[31:07] currently a 29-year Resident

[31:08] of the town of Windsor,

[31:11] Windsor Creek residential and

[31:13] elementary school neighborhood.

[31:15] I've been

[31:16] in the government realm for

[31:17] over 40 years and an educator

[31:18] for 27 years. I was a volunteer

[31:19] for 16 years at Windsor High

[31:20] School. Well,

[31:21] after nearly a 2-year journey

[31:22] to save the Windsor Creek

[31:23] Elementary property

[31:24] for the town use, Windsor

[31:25] Unified School District

[31:27] Superintendent and his board

[31:28] continued to align themselves

[31:29] with Gallagher's company and

[31:30] disregards the town's desire

[31:32] to keep the property. as public

[31:33] for use of the Town of

[31:34] Windsor. Gallagher the other

[31:35] night filed this application

[31:37] to build seeking a 7-building,

[31:39] 4-story-high,

[31:41] 370-plus unit area. We again

[31:44] thank the Town Council and

[31:46] Town Manager and Town Attorney

[31:52] for their efforts

[31:54] to absolutely try

[31:55] to do the right thing

[31:56] in the negotiations With

[31:58] Windsor Unified School

[31:59] District over the Windsor

[32:00] Creek Elementary site.

[32:02] Windsor Unified School

[32:04] District has been amassing

[32:05] their funds for over the last

[32:06] 22 months via the Santa Rosa

[32:08] City School debacle,

[32:11] pre-kindergarten,

[32:13] transitional kindergarten

[32:14] programs, Quail Acres seed

[32:16] monies, their $100 million

[32:17] budget,

[32:18] and now their second attempt

[32:19] at securing bond monies, which

[32:20] are significantly less than

[32:21] their failed bond attempt in

[32:23] 2024, we again think is very

[32:30] suspicious. As Windsor

[32:31] Unified School District was

[32:32] wheeling and dealing, they

[32:34] forgot their primary mission

[32:35] to educate their students.

[32:37] Windsor Unified School

[32:38] District has 8th graders

[32:40] graduating at a lack

[32:41] of conversational Spanish level

[32:43] from Cali Cameca. Windsor

[32:45] High School seniors are not

[32:46] being tested for their overall

[32:47] proficiency leaving the school.

[32:49] Now, someone discovered phonics

[32:50] actually works at Mattie

[32:52] Washburn, but that was

[32:55] after it was resurrected into

[32:57] the curriculum this past school

[32:58] year. Recently, the school

[32:59] board decided to use more

[33:00] of our tax dollars

[33:02] to provide a 4-year contract to

[33:04] the superintendent and his

[33:05] business officer to the tune

[33:07] of $314,000 a year and

[33:08] $240,000 a year respectively.

[33:09] The state of California this

[33:12] year alone will cost us $128

[33:16] billion statewide

[33:19] for the education system. The

[33:20] governor just wiped out the

[33:21] state superintendent position

[33:23] starting in January 2027, and

[33:25] there will be an education

[33:28] commissioner who will directly

[33:29] report

[33:31] to the governor and no longer

[33:32] to the public. The per student

[33:34] cost was raised

[33:36] to an unsettling amount of

[33:37] $27,000 a year

[33:38] with no known reason or level

[33:39] of success based upon our cost.

[33:41] It has been said who you

[33:44] associate with is an example

[33:45] of your character. Well,

[33:46] Windsor Unified School

[33:48] District and School Board has

[33:49] proved that their association

[33:51] with Gallagher Builders says a

[33:52] lot about the Windsor Unified

[33:53] School District and School

[33:55] Board character.

[33:59] Superintendent Decker has the

[34:00] power and control to back out

[34:01] of this whole situation

[34:02] with one signature. However, he

[34:04] doesn't possess the fortitude

[34:05] to do the right thing nor have

[34:06] the loyalty

[34:07] to this town or its students

[34:08] of the district,

[34:09] especially as he commutes out

[34:10] of town and district

[34:11] at the end of his

[34:15] >> Please wrap up.

[34:16] >> Thank you. In summation,

[34:17] the decisions of the Windsor

[34:18] Unified School District and

[34:19] school board will one way or

[34:21] another affect our town

[34:22] forever,

[34:23] yet the educational level

[34:24] of success remains

[34:25] in a stifled state

[34:26] of improvement. Thank you very

[34:28] much.

[34:29] >> Thank you. Anyone else

[34:32] from the public? Okay, I'm

[34:33] going

[34:34] to close the public comment.

[34:35] And now moving on to items,

[34:36] 12, which is our consent

[34:37] calendar items. We have the

[34:39] 12.1, approval of minutes

[34:41] from June 17th. 12.2,

[34:43] acceptance

[34:45] of municipal well improvements

[34:46] for the Los Amigos shallow ASR

[34:48] water supply wells installation

[34:50] and testing project. 12.3,

[34:52] Los Amigos monitoring well

[34:54] installation and development

[34:56] drilling service agreement.

[34:58] 12.4, adopt

[34:59] of an ordinance amendment

[35:00] Title 5, Chapter 3, skating

[35:02] park regulations. 12.5, Town

[35:03] of Windsor management policy

[35:05] for fiscal year '26-'27.

[35:06] 12.6, the Youth Park and

[35:09] Recreational Commissioner

[35:12] appointment. 12.7, appointment

[35:17] to the Sonoma County Library

[35:21] Commission. And 12.8, ratify

[35:23] check register number 645. Do I

[35:24] have a motion or and, or any

[35:25] comments?

[35:30] >> I make a motion

[35:31] to move the consent calendar,

[35:32] and I do have one comment if I

[35:33] can.

[35:35] >> I'll make a second.

[35:36] >> Okay, great. I just wanted

[35:38] to make a comment that item

[35:41] 12.3 comes from capital funds

[35:43] and not I mean, I'm sorry,

[35:45] it comes

[35:48] from the water funds,

[35:50] which is not a capital fund.

[35:52] It is a enterprise I'm sorry,

[35:54] enterprise fund. Sorry,

[35:56] enterprise fund and not the

[35:57] general fund.

[36:00] >> Roll call vote,

[36:01] please.

[36:02] >> [CALLING ROLL]

[36:14] >> Thank you. And now we're

[36:15] going to move on

[36:17] to our public hearing, 13.1,

[36:18] amendment to the Town of

[36:20] Windsor Zoning Code, Title 17

[36:21] of the Municipal Code.

[36:44] >> Okay, good evening, Mayor

[36:45] Reynoza and council members.

[36:46] I'm Kim Jordan. I'm one

[36:47] of the planners in the

[36:48] Community Development

[36:50] Department. And tonight, we'll

[36:52] be discussing zoning code

[36:53] amendments for housing element

[36:55] implementation and compliance

[36:56] with state housing law. You'll

[36:57] be considering Planning

[36:58] Commission's recommendation

[37:00] to the Town Council. So

[37:01] tonight, we'll be going

[37:05] over a little bit of background

[37:07] and what the amendments

[37:09] actually are, how they're

[37:10] implementing the housing

[37:13] element. Some feedback requests

[37:21] regarding some optional items

[37:22] relating to ADU,

[37:23] separate conveyance and

[37:25] definitions,

[37:26] the environmental review

[37:27] required, findings

[37:29] for approval, and tonight's

[37:30] recommended action. So a little

[37:33] bit of background. In August

[37:36] of 2023, the Town Council

[37:39] adopted the town's General

[37:40] Plan Housing Element. That was

[37:41] after approximately 2 years of

[37:43] a public process that involved

[37:46] multiple public meetings

[37:47] with the Planning Commission

[37:50] and Town Council and multiple

[37:51] opportunities

[37:53] for community engagement.

[37:54] After Town Council's adoption

[37:56] of the housing element,

[37:57] it was certified in August of

[38:00] 2023 by the Department of

[38:02] Housing and Community

[38:03] Development. In November of

[38:06] 2024, the Town Council adopted

[38:10] an updated zoning code that was

[38:12] a housing-focused zoning code

[38:13] that was funded by the state.

[38:15] And then, as we know,

[38:16] there are always ongoing

[38:17] changes

[38:20] to state law that the town has

[38:23] to deal with, and that all

[38:24] those often involve needing

[38:25] to amend our zoning code. In

[38:27] June 23rd of this year,

[38:33] Planning Commission held a

[38:34] public hearing and adopted a

[38:35] resolution recommending that

[38:37] Town Council adopt The

[38:38] amendments to the zoning code

[38:39] that we'll be discussing this

[38:41] evening in order to implement

[38:42] the programs that are included

[38:44] in our housing element and

[38:45] to implement state housing law.

[38:47] So, the zoning code text

[38:49] amendments we'll talk

[38:50] about tonight, they fall

[38:52] into a couple of categories.

[39:01] The main category is to

[39:02] implement housing element

[39:03] programs. The town's housing

[39:04] element includes about 41

[39:05] different programs that the

[39:07] town agreed to implement on a

[39:12] certain schedule when the town

[39:13] adopted its housing element.

[39:14] So those have already been

[39:15] reviewed by the town throughout

[39:16] its public,

[39:17] the public review process

[39:21] for the housing element,

[39:23] and they're included in our

[39:24] certified housing element. The

[39:25] 4 specific programs that we're

[39:27] trying to implement as part

[39:28] of these amendments are H-2,

[39:30] which is use of sites from

[39:31] previous housing element

[39:32] cycles. H7,

[39:33] which has a variety

[39:35] of programs related

[39:37] to accessory dwelling units.

[39:38] One of them is that the town

[39:40] continues

[39:41] to update its zoning code

[39:43] to be consistent

[39:46] with state law. H26 is

[39:47] to update our zoning code

[39:48] to be compliant for

[39:50] transitional and supportive

[39:51] housing requirements,

[39:53] and H27 related

[39:58] to residential care facilities.

[39:59] And then we're also back

[40:02] to talk to Town Council as to

[40:04] whether or not they're

[40:05] interested in allowing ADUs to

[40:06] be sold separately as

[40:09] condominiums. Each time we

[40:12] bring the ADU ordinance back

[40:14] to Town Council

[40:15] for consideration,

[40:16] we ask if the Town Council

[40:18] would like to allow ADUs to be

[40:20] sold separately as

[40:21] condominiums. So, we'll be

[40:23] talking

[40:24] about that again this evening.

[40:25] And then there's a variety of

[40:26] technical corrections and

[40:28] clarifications we'd like

[40:29] to make

[40:31] to the zoning code as part

[40:32] of our large update that we did

[40:33] in 2024. So, to talk about the

[40:38] housing element programs, H-2,

[40:42] use of sites from previous

[40:44] housing element cycles, there's

[40:45] language that we're proposing

[40:46] to add to Article 2 residential

[40:47] and Article 3 related to

[40:55] commercial sites. rights that

[40:56] says that when a project site

[40:57] that was included

[40:58] in our previous RENA cycles,

[41:00] the 4th and 5th cycles,

[41:02] includes a certain amount

[41:04] of affordable housing,

[41:07] that development is allowed

[41:09] by right. And those sites are

[41:10] shown here. They're located

[41:12] on Shiloh Road

[41:13] on the north side

[41:14] between basically Business

[41:16] Park Court and Old Redwood

[41:17] Highway. So, there would be

[41:20] specific language,

[41:22] which is included in the packet

[41:24] that allows those projects,

[41:25] if they're proposed,

[41:26] to be developed by right.

[41:28] That's not a significant change

[41:31] to what's allowed now. Right

[41:32] now, residential is allowed as

[41:33] a permitted use

[41:35] in those zoning districts,

[41:36] and then residential in a

[41:38] mixed-use project is also

[41:39] allowed by right. And then

[41:41] there's site plan and design

[41:42] review required

[41:45] for those projects. So, it's

[41:48] not a substantial change

[41:50] to include that language

[41:52] in the zoning code in order to

[41:53] implement that housing element

[41:54] program. The next housing

[42:01] element program is H7, is to

[42:03] promote accessory dwelling

[42:04] units. So, we're making minor

[42:05] updates to our ADU and junior

[42:06] accessory dwelling unit

[42:08] sections

[42:11] of our zoning ordinance

[42:12] to implement changes

[42:14] in state law. They're mostly

[42:16] minor language changes related

[42:17] to how we define square footage

[42:19] that's counted and building

[42:21] height changes that have

[42:22] occurred. We also needed

[42:24] to add a section that deals

[42:25] with what is the appeals

[42:26] process if an ADU is denied.

[42:31] However, the towns never denied

[42:37] a permit for an ADU, so.

[42:43] It seems moot, but HCD does

[42:44] want to see that

[42:46] in our zoning code. And the

[42:48] process is that should an ADU

[42:50] permit be denied, it is a

[42:51] one-stop appeal process that

[42:53] goes to the community

[42:55] development director

[42:56] at a public hearing. H-26,

[43:03] we're required to add

[43:04] transitional and supportive

[43:05] housing to our zoning Code and

[43:06] treat it the same way that we

[43:08] treat other housing

[43:10] developments, single-family and

[43:11] multifamily housing. So, if a,

[43:15] if a supportive housing or

[43:18] transitional housing project

[43:20] was submitted to the town,

[43:22] we need

[43:23] to treat them the same way with

[43:24] the same permit requirement,

[43:27] that we would treat

[43:28] single-family or multifamily

[43:32] housing.

[43:35] So, if transitional housing

[43:36] was supported and it's proposed

[43:38] in a single-family home, and

[43:40] that single-family home would

[43:42] be allowed by right, we have to

[43:43] allow that transitional or

[43:45] supportive housing

[43:46] to be allowed by right. So,

[43:47] in order to do that,

[43:49] we are just indicating

[43:50] in the use table that it has

[43:52] to be consistent

[43:53] with the government code. And

[43:54] then we would look at,

[43:56] we would refer to,

[43:57] is it a multifamily project?

[43:59] If it is,

[44:01] what is the permit requirement?

[44:02] And that's how we would process

[44:03] that application. And then

[44:09] you're just seeing this,

[44:10] we're listing

[44:11] for supportive housing

[44:12] since multifamily projects are

[44:13] in let me stop here. So,

[44:19] in a commercial district,

[44:20] supportive housing would come

[44:21] in the form of multifamily,

[44:24] and since multifamily housing

[44:25] Is a permitted use. Supportive

[44:27] housing has to be identified as

[44:28] a permitted use

[44:29] in a commercial district. So

[44:34] that's what you're seeing

[44:35] in this table. Residential care

[44:39] facilities, where we needed

[44:41] to amend, we needed

[44:42] to add a definition of family

[44:43] to our zoning code. So, we've

[44:45] done that. And the same thing,

[44:49] we need to treat residential

[44:50] care facilities the Same way

[44:51] that we treat multifamily

[44:52] projects. So, for a large

[44:56] residential care facility,

[44:57] they're required to get a minor

[44:59] use permit because that's the

[45:01] same permit requirement that,

[45:02] that we have for multifamily.

[45:03] Small residential care

[45:05] facilities are treated the same

[45:06] way as single-family,

[45:09] single-family projects,

[45:11] so they're required

[45:12] to just be permitted

[45:13] by right. So that's what you're

[45:15] seeing in this use table.

[45:19] Planning Commission

[45:20] recommendations. Planning

[45:22] Commission recommended that

[45:24] Town Council adopt the

[45:25] amendments that we just

[45:27] reviewed. There were a couple

[45:29] of feedback requests that we

[45:30] had from the Commission, and

[45:32] these are the feedback these

[45:35] are the recommendations from

[45:36] Planning Commission that we're

[45:37] going to talk about now. So,

[45:39] in our updated zoning code,

[45:40] it was amended

[45:41] to allow a developer to receive

[45:43] a density bonus or an incentive

[45:44] when a project included a

[45:46] community healthcare facility.

[45:48] But the definition of a

[45:51] community healthcare facility

[45:52] wasn't included

[45:54] in the zoning code. So, when we

[45:55] asked Planning Commission if

[45:58] they could provide a definition

[46:00] of a community healthcare

[46:02] facility. So, this is the

[46:04] definition of community

[46:06] healthcare facility that

[46:07] Planning Commission recommended

[46:09] be in the zoning code. So, this

[46:11] is what we're asking as a

[46:12] feedback request from Council

[46:14] if they agree

[46:15] with this definition. So, a

[46:17] federally qualified healthcare

[46:18] facility is a community-based

[46:20] clinic that receives federal

[46:21] funding to provide

[46:23] comprehensive primary care

[46:28] in medically underserved areas,

[46:29] and they treat all patients

[46:32] regardless

[46:33] of insurance status or ability

[46:34] to pay. And they offer a

[46:36] sliding scale based

[46:38] on income,

[46:40] and they include primary

[46:41] medical care,

[46:43] preventive health and dental,

[46:44] mental health, substance abuse

[46:46] treatment,

[46:47] and visiting nursing services

[46:48] for the homebound. So, they

[46:50] could include any

[46:53] of those services. So that is

[46:55] the definition Planning

[46:57] Commission recommended,

[46:58] and we're asking Town Council

[47:00] to consider this evening.

[47:02] Windsor has one federally

[47:03] qualified healthcare center,

[47:04] and that is Alliance Medical

[47:05] Center on Old Redwood

[47:07] Highway. And then the second

[47:08] feedback request we have and

[47:09] recommendation from Planning

[47:11] Commission is whether or not

[47:12] ADUs should be allowed

[47:14] to be sold separately from the

[47:15] main house as a condominium.

[47:16] So, Government Code Section

[47:18] 66342 does allow ADUs to be

[47:21] sold separately as

[47:25] condominiums. Historically,

[47:26] Town Council and Planning

[47:28] Commission have asked that we

[47:30] not move forward with that and

[47:31] asked that we wait and see what

[47:34] other communities do.

[47:35] Sebastopol recently adopted a

[47:39] separate conveyance ordinance

[47:41] for ADUs, and Santa Rosa is

[47:42] considering one. So, we thought

[47:43] it was time to bring this

[47:45] forward and draft some language

[47:48] and see if Town Council wanted

[47:49] to consider it. This is what we

[47:50] call an opt-in requirement,

[47:53] meaning that the town has

[47:55] to adopt an ordinance

[47:56] to allow ADDUs

[47:57] to be sold as condominiums.

[47:58] So, if the town council doesn't

[48:03] want to do that at this time,

[48:04] you would simply make a motion

[48:06] to not include that particular

[48:08] provision that we're talking

[48:10] about tonight. Let's see. And

[48:11] then the advantage to it,

[48:16] the sale of ADUs as a

[48:17] condominium provides a

[48:19] mechanism that allows a lot

[48:21] of the concerns that Planning

[48:22] Commission and Council have

[48:24] expressed previously

[48:25] to be addressed, such as how is

[48:27] maintenance and access and open

[48:29] space and parking addressed?

[48:30] How do we address some

[48:33] of those issues? So, the draft

[48:37] condominium ordinance requires

[48:38] creation of a home or property

[48:39] owners association or a similar

[48:42] entity, and in order

[48:44] to qualify for an ADU

[48:47] Condominium. The way the

[48:49] ordinance is drafted, it has to

[48:53] be a legal parcel that was

[48:54] created 5 years prior

[48:56] to application for the ADU.

[48:57] The parcel has to include an

[49:01] existing single-unit dwelling

[49:03] and detached ADU. The ADU

[49:05] that's being converted has

[49:09] to be physically detached

[49:10] from the dwelling, and it's not

[49:11] sharing a wall or roof

[49:13] with the primary dwelling. And

[49:14] only one detached ADU

[49:15] on the site can be converted.

[49:17] And then the ADU condominium is

[49:18] required to include separate

[49:19] utility connections

[49:24] to the public main

[49:25] for water and sewer for both

[49:26] the ADU and the single-family

[49:27] home. They have

[49:35] to pay utility connection fees,

[49:36] and if there's no direct access

[49:37] to a public or private street,

[49:38] they have

[49:41] to include an access easement.

[49:45] And then also included

[49:47] limitations post-approval.

[49:48] So, if somebody did go through

[49:51] the ADU condominium conversion

[49:53] process, after that process was

[49:55] completed,

[49:57] no new ADUs could be

[49:59] constructed on the new parcels

[50:00] that were created

[50:01] through that process. And then

[50:02] the lots that created cannot be

[50:05] further subdivided

[50:06] by this section. And then we

[50:09] included a sunset date of

[50:13] December 31st, 2029, unless the

[50:17] Town Council chose

[50:18] to extend it. We really don't

[50:19] know what the interest is. And

[50:22] as you know,

[50:23] we haven't done this before.

[50:25] So, we really, you know,

[50:26] we kind of wanted

[50:27] to put our foot

[50:28] in the water if Council was

[50:30] interested and see how the

[50:31] ordinance worked and what the

[50:34] interest was. And then there

[50:37] are a variety of technical

[50:39] corrections and cleanups that

[50:40] we need to do. There are some

[50:42] pricing requirements. We wanted

[50:43] to amend the inclusionary

[50:45] housing section

[50:47] to remove the requirement

[50:48] to default just to HCD's

[50:49] affordability requirements

[50:51] because sometimes the financing

[50:53] for affordable projects has

[50:55] different affordability levels

[50:56] that it needs to meet. And so

[50:57] subject to director approval,

[50:59] they could use those other

[51:01] affordability requirements. We

[51:03] did a minor amendment

[51:04] to change a title of a section

[51:06] to better reflect its contents.

[51:07] We added construction trailer

[51:11] to temporary use permit because

[51:12] that's one

[51:14] of the main uses that happens

[51:16] under that. We made some minor

[51:17] clarifications to tree

[51:23] preservation and protection.

[51:24] Driveways and side access and

[51:27] general the general

[51:29] non-residential minimum parking

[51:32] stall size, and then notice

[51:34] of application cleanup. And

[51:36] then we do have one minor

[51:39] cleanup related to Exhibit L,

[51:41] and you're seeing it here

[51:43] on the screen. It's also

[51:44] at places. We needed to add it

[51:46] should have said general

[51:47] multifamily and non-residential

[51:49] minimum parking stall instead

[51:55] of just non-residential

[51:57] uncovered. So that is the

[52:00] change that we're asking for,

[52:02] for as a clarification. So, if

[52:03] council does decide

[52:05] to introduce the ordinance,

[52:06] we'd ask them

[52:09] to please include amended

[52:10] Exhibit L. And then

[52:15] for the environmental review,

[52:17] this These actions are exempt

[52:18] from CEQA. Public Resources

[52:20] Code Section 21080.17 has a

[52:23] specific exemption

[52:29] for ordinances for accessory

[52:31] dwelling units and junior

[52:32] accessory dwelling units. And

[52:34] then Public Resources Code

[52:35] Sections 21080.085 has specific

[52:37] exemptions

[52:40] for any actions that are needed

[52:42] to implement a housing element.

[52:43] And then we also are using the

[52:45] common-sense rule that says

[52:46] that there is no indication

[52:47] that these actions have the

[52:49] potential

[52:52] for harming the environment.

[52:57] And then in order to approve

[52:59] these text amendments,

[53:01] there are 3 findings that have

[53:02] to be made. One is that's

[53:04] consistent with the general

[53:05] plan and any specific plan or

[53:07] master plan, that they would

[53:08] not be detrimental

[53:09] to the public interest, health,

[53:11] safety, convenience, or

[53:13] welfare, and that the proposed

[53:14] amendment is internally

[53:16] consistent with other parts

[53:17] of the zoning code. The

[53:19] findings are basically the

[53:20] same. In order to implement our

[53:22] general plan and housing

[53:23] element, we do need

[53:24] to make these, and they are

[53:26] consistent and already are

[53:28] included as programs the town

[53:32] is required

[53:35] to implement as part of our

[53:36] certified housing element. And

[53:37] they're also needed to comply

[53:39] with state housing law. And

[53:41] then they're just minor

[53:42] technical clarifications and

[53:44] cleanups. So tonight,

[53:48] we're asking you

[53:49] to hold the public hearing,

[53:50] accept public comment,

[53:51] and introduce an ordinance

[53:53] by title only, and then also

[53:54] accept the amended Exhibit L.

[54:00] And that's the ordinance title

[54:01] for, for ease. And then I'm

[54:05] available for questions. Thank

[54:07] you.

[54:10] >> Okay, thank you very much.

[54:15] Vice Mayor, Council, do you

[54:17] guys have any questions? Who

[54:19] would like

[54:20] to start? I have a question,

[54:21] but I'll let you go.

[54:23] >> I did have some questions

[54:28] about the mental and medical

[54:31] units on a project allowing a

[54:33] density bonus. Is there any

[54:34] limitation to the size of the

[54:41] parcel that might encompass?

[54:45] So, in other words,

[54:46] we have a 15-acre subdivision

[54:49] with a medical building. How

[54:54] could that happen,

[54:56] and what kind of densities

[54:57] could we be looking at?

[55:01] >> So, there isn't. So, what

[55:03] the provision says is that when

[55:04] an applicant proposes a housing

[55:06] project,

[55:08] if they include a community

[55:10] care facility, they can receive

[55:11] a density bonus or an

[55:12] incentive. The intention of

[55:14] that is that the town doesn't

[55:17] have a lot

[55:20] of medical facilities or care,

[55:21] and it was a way

[55:22] to bring medical care closer

[55:24] to that population. That might

[55:27] need it. That was the intention

[55:29] when it was adopted.

[55:31] >> Okay. And there would be

[55:36] in the ordinance,

[55:38] if that facility is vacated,

[55:40] right, we're left with, with,

[55:42] with the increased density.

[55:45] And that's what's been a

[55:47] concern. Well, that'll be a

[55:48] comment rather than a question.

[55:54] >> I just want

[55:55] to add that I had a similar,

[55:56] very similar question because

[55:58] we've seen buildings go up. So

[55:59] my question is, so they,

[56:00] they bring you this permit,

[56:05] they said yes, we'll have a

[56:06] healthcare facility. What do

[56:08] you have

[56:10] in place so that it you know

[56:14] for sure it is going to go

[56:15] in when they open?

[56:17] >> So, I would say Planning

[56:19] Commission had similar concerns

[56:21] and questions and it's

[56:23] discretionary on the part of

[56:24] Planning Commission or Council

[56:25] to grant the density bonus. So

[56:27] those are all, I think,

[56:30] questions that you would have

[56:31] to vet if an application came

[56:33] forward and somebody was asking

[56:35] for the density bonus because

[56:37] they were including or

[56:41] proposing a community

[56:42] healthcare facility. And then

[56:45] the town would need

[56:46] to include that in their

[56:48] affordable housing regulatory

[56:50] agreement.

[56:52] >> How that how enforceable

[56:53] that is and what that looks

[56:54] like, it looks

[56:56] like I don't know. But the town

[56:57] council has the discretion

[56:58] to approve that or not. It's,

[57:00] it's not granted because it's

[57:02] requested. It's over and

[57:03] above state law.

[57:08] >> Okay. Did anyone else have a

[57:09] question related to that? No.

[57:11] Do you have any other questions

[57:13] before I move? No. Okay. Vice

[57:14] Mayor?

[57:16] >> Yes, thank you for the

[57:17] presentation. I have some

[57:19] questions about the ADUs and

[57:20] how so if a family were

[57:24] to want to sell their ADU,

[57:28] they then have to create their

[57:29] own homeowner's association?

[57:35] >> That is correct.

[57:38] >> And then so what would that

[57:39] look like? Because generally a

[57:41] homeowner's association has a

[57:42] board and a whole process. And

[57:44] so if it's just me and I'm

[57:45] selling my ADU, then I have

[57:46] to create a board for it?

[57:49] >> The members, it's so my

[57:52] understanding would be the 2

[57:54] members would be the owner of

[57:55] the single-family home and the

[57:58] owner of the ADU. That's the

[58:00] extent of it. Just like any

[58:01] other condominium association,

[58:03] it's the members of that

[58:04] condominium association. And

[58:06] those are the 2 members

[58:09] of the condominium association,

[58:10] the owners

[58:11] of the ADU and the owner of the

[58:14] single-family residence.

[58:16] >> Okay, and then because it's

[58:19] a condominium,

[58:22] the original owner owns all

[58:24] of the land of the parcel

[58:26] but not the building. Then

[58:28] they're able

[58:29] to sell the building

[58:31] to the new owner, right?

[58:33] >> That is how state law set up

[58:35] ADU separate conveyance that

[58:38] can only be sold Separately as

[58:40] an ADU. I mean,

[58:43] as a condominium.

[58:46] >> As a condominium. And then

[58:47] so for parking

[58:49] for these ADUs,

[58:50] and so if I have an ADU

[58:52] on my property,

[58:53] am I required then

[58:55] to provide parking

[58:56] for that ADU? So do I then,

[58:58] you said there was an easement,

[58:59] so then I have

[59:00] to give an easement like

[59:01] in my driveway for that person

[59:02] to have a parking spot

[59:03] for the ADU?

[59:04] >> That's possible.

[59:06] >> I mean, I think that that's

[59:08] we haven't seen the

[59:09] applications yet, so I think

[59:11] the person that's selling the

[59:12] ADU would have to decide how

[59:13] they're selling the ADU and

[59:14] possibly a parking space

[59:15] in front of it. Okay. I mean,

[59:16] I think they would have

[59:18] to decide what is marketable

[59:19] for sale for the ADU.

[59:28] but this isn't so it doesn't

[59:29] really necessarily address

[59:30] like street parking, right? I

[59:31] mean, I don't

[59:32] I'm just

[59:33] trying to see, like,

[59:34] would I be able

[59:35] to sell my ADU and say, no,

[59:36] all you get is street parking

[59:37] with this ADU,

[59:38] or do I actually have

[59:39] to provide parking

[59:40] from my lot or

[59:41] for that lot?

[59:42] >> Right now, state housing

[59:43] law, for the most part,

[59:44] for ADUs doesn't require,

[59:45] in a lot of cases,

[59:46] onsite parking anyway. If an

[59:49] ADU is

[59:50] within a certain distance

[59:52] of a bus stop, there's no

[59:53] onsite parking required anyway.

[59:55] So it could be that the ADU

[59:56] doesn't need it.

[1:00:00] >> All right, I think that's

[1:00:02] all of my questions. Thank you.

[1:00:03] >> Councilmember Leep, any

[1:00:04] questions?

[1:00:05] >> Yes. Do you have any idea

[1:00:06] how many I guess this applies

[1:00:08] mostly to existing ADUs. Do you

[1:00:11] have any idea how many

[1:00:12] of these units might be sold

[1:00:15] in this situation?

[1:00:21] >> We went back and we did a

[1:00:23] building permit history search

[1:00:25] for detached ADUs. We think

[1:00:27] there might we went back to

[1:00:29] about 2014, and we think there

[1:00:31] might be about 40 detached ADUs

[1:00:33] that could be eligible. We

[1:00:35] didn't and it was just a quick

[1:00:37] cursory search. We haven't done

[1:00:39] an in-depth search, and that's

[1:00:41] what came up initially.

[1:00:51] >> And so, these units would

[1:00:52] End up requiring the legal

[1:00:53] costs of providing

[1:00:54] documentation and

[1:00:56] organizational documents

[1:00:58] for associations and

[1:01:00] for easements and all that sort

[1:01:04] of thing?

[1:01:07] >> It would. I mean,

[1:01:08] alternatively,

[1:01:09] the town can just allow it

[1:01:12] to remain as they are now. It

[1:01:14] was just an opportunity

[1:01:17] to provide them for sale.

[1:01:19] But based

[1:01:21] on past concerns raised by

[1:01:22] Planning Commission and Town

[1:01:23] Council about how do we address

[1:01:25] these issues

[1:01:27] around parking and open space

[1:01:28] on the property and who's

[1:01:29] entitled to use what, town

[1:01:30] staff drafted this ordinance

[1:01:34] based on Sebastopol's ordinance

[1:01:40] because we thought this might

[1:01:43] address some of those concerns.

[1:01:48] >> I'm just trying

[1:01:49] to understand the situation.

[1:01:50] So, I have an ADU, I want

[1:01:52] to sell it to my kids,

[1:01:53] and so there has to be a

[1:01:55] homeowner's association.

[1:01:58] Homeowners' association

[1:02:01] requires some documentation,

[1:02:03] rules, CC&Rs,

[1:02:07] expensive. I'm just trying

[1:02:09] to make sure I understand it,

[1:02:10] that that is all required.

[1:02:11] Easements require legal work,

[1:02:14] documentation, cost, all

[1:02:16] of that.

[1:02:21] >> That is true. That is the

[1:02:23] proposal.

[1:02:26] >> It's an interesting

[1:02:27] experiment.

[1:02:29] >> Alternatively, I mean,

[1:02:31] that is a way

[1:02:34] to provide homeownership

[1:02:35] to another person, family,

[1:02:37] or just income to a property

[1:02:39] owner that could maybe use that

[1:02:40] income

[1:02:42] in a circumstance where it may

[1:02:43] not be possible to subdivide

[1:02:45] the property any other way

[1:02:46] because the property is not

[1:02:47] large enough.

[1:02:49] >> It sounds to me like it does

[1:02:52] definitely offer opportunities

[1:02:55] for small home ownership

[1:02:56] to a lot of people,

[1:02:57] wouldn't you agree?

[1:03:05] >> That is the theory and the

[1:03:07] intent behind it, yes.

[1:03:09] >> Thank you.

[1:03:15] >> I have a question regarding

[1:03:16] transitional supporting

[1:03:17] housing. Can you give an

[1:03:19] example of what that would be?

[1:03:23] >> I'm going to read the

[1:03:25] definition because I don't

[1:03:28] like to misspeak about it. So

[1:03:30] supportive housing is permanent

[1:03:31] housing that doesn't have any

[1:03:32] limit on the length of stay.

[1:03:35] And it's, there's typically a

[1:03:36] target population. They could

[1:03:38] be people that had experienced

[1:03:39] homelessness or that they have

[1:03:41] disabilities or they're seniors

[1:03:42] or veterans. And then it

[1:03:44] connects people with the

[1:03:47] services that they need that

[1:03:49] can be on or offsite so that

[1:03:51] they can be successful.

[1:03:52] In that living situation.

[1:03:57] >> So, going back to where you

[1:03:59] identify where you're updating

[1:04:02] the zoning, right,

[1:04:04] where they can be, is there any

[1:04:05] restrictions or does it depend,

[1:04:07] like, can they be

[1:04:12] near a school? Can it be

[1:04:13] near a daycare? What kind of,

[1:04:15] is there any restrictions

[1:04:16] to this type of housing?

[1:04:19] >> What the state has what the

[1:04:20] state requires is they have

[1:04:22] to be treated

[1:04:23] like any other residential use.

[1:04:24] So if somebody submits an

[1:04:26] application and they wanna have

[1:04:28] a supportive housing project

[1:04:29] in a single-family home,

[1:04:31] then the town has to treat it

[1:04:32] like any other single-family

[1:04:34] home. And so

[1:04:35] since single-family homes in

[1:04:37] Windsor are permitted

[1:04:40] by right,

[1:04:42] it would be permitted

[1:04:43] by right. If an applicant

[1:04:45] submitted an application for

[1:04:46] supportive housing and it was

[1:04:47] in a multifamily project,

[1:04:50] that type of housing,

[1:04:52] and that type of housing

[1:04:54] required a minor use permit,

[1:04:56] then they would need to get a

[1:04:57] minor use permit because that's

[1:04:58] how the town permits

[1:05:02] multifamily housing. So,

[1:05:04] these the requirement simply is

[1:05:06] saying that the town is going

[1:05:08] to treat it the same way that

[1:05:09] we treat single-family or

[1:05:11] multifamily housing of this,

[1:05:13] the same type.

[1:05:15] >> Okay. Do you wanna

[1:05:16] >> Is that a change in terms

[1:05:20] of it seemed

[1:05:22] to me supportive housing

[1:05:24] in the past and

[1:05:25] in other jurisdictions,

[1:05:26] it was limited to a number

[1:05:28] of residents. Is that something

[1:05:30] separate or is that eliminated

[1:05:31] now?

[1:05:39] >> Sorry, residential care

[1:05:40] facilities have different

[1:05:42] sizes. They can be up to 7 and

[1:05:44] bigger.

[1:05:46] >> It was permitted if it was

[1:05:49] up to 6 residents in a do you

[1:05:51] think that's still the same?

[1:05:53] >> You are correct,

[1:05:55] Councilmember, that there was a

[1:05:57] limit in order to be permitted

[1:05:59] by right. I don't have that

[1:06:00] section in front of me, but we

[1:06:02] could definitely take a look

[1:06:03] at it.

[1:06:04] But there was there used

[1:06:05] to be the up to, is kind

[1:06:06] of what you're recalling.

[1:06:10] >> So, we do have the different

[1:06:11] sizes for residential care

[1:06:12] facilities,

[1:06:14] but I that's not what I have

[1:06:15] in our housing element for

[1:06:17] supportive or transitional

[1:06:20] housing.

[1:06:23] >> Thanks.

[1:06:24] >> Vice Mayor?

[1:06:25] >> Yeah, I have one more

[1:06:26] question about that. So, can

[1:06:28] you back up to the slide that

[1:06:29] has the minor use permit

[1:06:31] on it? So, so large residential

[1:06:32] house, large residential care

[1:06:35] facility has

[1:06:37] to have a minor use permit.

[1:06:38] You're saying that's also true

[1:06:39] for supportive housing,

[1:06:41] or it just has to be treated

[1:06:44] like any other low-income

[1:06:45] project?

[1:06:48] >> Okay, so for residential

[1:06:50] care facility,

[1:06:52] which is also true for

[1:06:53] supportive I'm gonna go back.

[1:06:59] This is the commercial

[1:07:00] district. So,

[1:07:01] in commercial districts,

[1:07:02] we don't have to include the

[1:07:03] transitional housing. We have

[1:07:05] to include the supportive.

[1:07:09] So, in the commercial districts,

[1:07:12] the permitted and prohibited,

[1:07:14] which is what you're seeing

[1:07:16] here, they reflect multifamily,

[1:07:18] how the town treats multifamily

[1:07:19] projects. So

[1:07:22] in neighborhood mixed-use,

[1:07:24] community commercial, town

[1:07:25] center, town center, It's

[1:07:27] permitted by right. So that's

[1:07:29] how we're required

[1:07:31] to treat supportive housing.

[1:07:33] So that's what you're seeing

[1:07:34] here,

[1:07:35] if that's the question.

[1:07:36] >> Okay, so that's

[1:07:37] for commercial, right?

[1:07:39] Anywhere else?

[1:07:40] >> And then here,

[1:07:41] this is what you're seeing

[1:07:42] in our residential districts.

[1:07:44] And the reason that we haven't

[1:07:46] identified what permit type is

[1:07:48] required

[1:07:49] for the different districts is

[1:07:51] until we get an application, we

[1:07:53] don't know if it would be

[1:07:55] allowed at all or allowed

[1:07:56] by right. So as an example,

[1:07:59] if we got an application for a

[1:08:00] multifamily supportive housing

[1:08:02] or transitional housing project

[1:08:03] in rural residential, it would

[1:08:05] be prohibited because

[1:08:06] multifamily is not allowed

[1:08:08] in rural residential. So,

[1:08:09] until we get the application,

[1:08:12] we don't know what the process

[1:08:17] is. So that's why we're just

[1:08:20] referring

[1:08:22] to the government code.

[1:08:23] >> And specifically, though,

[1:08:24] I want to make sure that the

[1:08:26] government code isn't going

[1:08:27] to say something like, oh,

[1:08:29] because you put consistent

[1:08:30] with the government code,

[1:08:32] which I know we have

[1:08:33] to be consistent,

[1:08:34] but that it's going

[1:08:35] to override any

[1:08:36] of our rural residential or any

[1:08:38] of the other sections that we

[1:08:39] have.

[1:08:41] >> It allows us to be

[1:08:43] consistent

[1:08:44] with state law and just say

[1:08:45] in If multifamily is allowed

[1:08:47] and you submit a multifamily

[1:08:50] supportive housing,

[1:08:52] we're just going to treat it

[1:08:55] the same way. I don't see it

[1:08:57] making us do something that

[1:09:05] >> Does it specifically say in

[1:09:06] the government code that it

[1:09:07] will be treated

[1:09:08] like multifamily,

[1:09:09] or do we need

[1:09:10] to have it written

[1:09:11] into our zoning code

[1:09:12] to say that?

[1:09:13] >> What it says in the

[1:09:14] government code is that the

[1:09:15] town, any jurisdiction, has to

[1:09:16] treat supportive housing and

[1:09:17] transitional housing the same

[1:09:19] way it treats that same housing

[1:09:21] type.

[1:09:24] >> Which is multifamily?

[1:09:26] >> No, which is single-family

[1:09:27] or multifamily.

[1:09:28] >> Depending, right? Yes.

[1:09:30] Okay. Thank you. Any

[1:09:34] other questions?

[1:09:37] >> Mayor, and just wanted

[1:09:40] to let you know, Mike Wald has

[1:09:41] arrived.

[1:09:42] >> Welcome, Council Member

[1:09:43] Wall. So now at this time,

[1:09:44] hearing no more questions

[1:09:46] unless you have one, Council

[1:09:47] Member Wall, I don't know how

[1:09:48] long you've been. Any

[1:09:49] questions?

[1:09:50] >> Nope, I heard all of it and

[1:09:51] I have no questions.

[1:09:53] >> Thank you. I'm gonna go

[1:09:54] ahead and open up

[1:09:55] to public hearing. Any members

[1:09:56] of the public wishing

[1:09:57] to make a comment

[1:09:58] on this item, 13.1, may

[1:09:59] approach the podium and line up

[1:10:01] and state your name if you'd

[1:10:02] like.

[1:10:19] >> Good evening, council

[1:10:20] members. My name is Matt

[1:10:21] Hoist. I'm a local business

[1:10:22] owner focusing

[1:10:23] on the construction of

[1:10:25] accessory dwelling units. I've

[1:10:26] chosen to focus

[1:10:27] on ADUs because

[1:10:28] of the opportunity it provides

[1:10:29] to increase housing supply,

[1:10:30] stabilizing our housing costs.

[1:10:32] And create more attainable

[1:10:34] paths to homeownership.

[1:10:36] Throughout my work, I've sat

[1:10:37] down with hundreds of families

[1:10:38] and discussed their

[1:10:39] homeownership needs, financial

[1:10:40] challenges,

[1:10:42] and long-term goals. These

[1:10:44] conversations are why I think

[1:10:45] adopting AB 1033, which is

[1:10:47] selling your ADU as a condo,

[1:10:48] could be so valuable

[1:10:51] for the town of Windsor. I

[1:10:53] regularly meet parents who are

[1:10:55] trying

[1:10:57] to keep their adult children

[1:10:58] to remain in the community and

[1:11:00] know that they cannot afford to

[1:11:02] purchase a traditional home. AB

[1:11:03] 1033 could allow families to

[1:11:04] both purchase homes together

[1:11:06] that has existing ADUs,

[1:11:07] as you guys were just here

[1:11:09] discussing,

[1:11:10] but also allows parents to go

[1:11:11] ahead and gift their kids part

[1:11:12] of their property and allow

[1:11:14] them to just incur the house or

[1:11:15] the cost of construction while

[1:11:17] still keeping their family

[1:11:18] close and still keeping young

[1:11:20] people a part

[1:11:21] of this community. And I think

[1:11:22] if we don't continue

[1:11:23] to keep young people a part

[1:11:25] of our community. It is going

[1:11:26] to lead to devastating things

[1:11:27] in the future,

[1:11:28] including reduction

[1:11:30] of taxes and community, among

[1:11:31] many other things as well. It

[1:11:33] could also help individuals who

[1:11:35] have been priced out

[1:11:37] of purchasing a home

[1:11:39] on their own. Smaller ADUs can

[1:11:40] buy can provide more affordable

[1:11:41] entry points to homeownership

[1:11:43] while allowing them to build

[1:11:44] equity and remain connected

[1:11:45] in our community. For families

[1:11:48] with aging parents,

[1:11:49] we all know that the cost of

[1:11:51] assisted care and facilities

[1:11:52] are expensive, and because

[1:11:54] of that,

[1:11:56] more and more are deciding

[1:11:57] to go ahead and build ADUs

[1:11:58] on their kids' properties.

[1:11:59] What this ends up creating

[1:12:02] sometimes is an issue when they

[1:12:05] go ahead and pass

[1:12:07] on how the property is going to

[1:12:10] transfer if they have multiple

[1:12:11] children and estate planning as

[1:12:12] a whole. I think AB 1033 lends

[1:12:14] extremely well

[1:12:16] to this and allows them

[1:12:18] to sell it as separate piece

[1:12:19] of property and helps them

[1:12:21] with estate planning. Along

[1:12:23] with that, allows them to have

[1:12:24] security and independence while

[1:12:26] still staying close to families

[1:12:27] and creates more one-story

[1:12:29] homes here in Sonoma County,

[1:12:32] which is lacking. And

[1:12:33] especially

[1:12:34] with an aging population,

[1:12:36] is a great opportunity to

[1:12:37] create some more affordable

[1:12:38] one-story homes. It could also

[1:12:39] give homeowners a great

[1:12:42] financial opportunity as they

[1:12:44] get towards retirement. We all

[1:12:45] know that a lot

[1:12:47] of people haven't saved enough

[1:12:48] for retirement. It allows them

[1:12:49] to sell part

[1:12:51] of their residence, helps them

[1:12:52] to reduce debt,

[1:12:54] supplement their retirement

[1:12:55] income, their savings, or

[1:12:57] to retain a home

[1:12:58] in their old age. AB 1033 will

[1:13:01] not solve every housing problem

[1:13:03] here in the town of Windsor,

[1:13:04] but I think it provides a

[1:13:06] practical and flexible tool

[1:13:08] for Windsor families. I

[1:13:09] respectfully ask the town

[1:13:11] council to adopt AB 1033 and

[1:13:12] expand pathways available

[1:13:13] to homeownership,

[1:13:17] local homeownership. Thank you.

[1:13:19] >> Thank you.

[1:13:27] >> Good evening, Mayor. Let me

[1:13:29] pull this down. Good evening,

[1:13:31] Mayor, council members,

[1:13:34] and staff. My name is Sonia

[1:13:35] Bick Barwick, and I'm a

[1:13:37] lifelong resident of Sonoma

[1:13:38] County and the senior

[1:13:39] engagement manager at

[1:13:41] Generation and housing. I want

[1:13:42] to thank the town staff

[1:13:43] for bringing the opportunity

[1:13:45] to sell ADUs

[1:13:46] before the council. Looking at

[1:13:47] new housing requires thoughtful

[1:13:49] leadership, and I appreciate

[1:13:50] your willingness to consider

[1:13:51] another practical tool that can

[1:13:53] help address Windsor's local

[1:13:57] housing needs. As a parent,

[1:13:58] this issue is especially

[1:13:59] meaningful to me.

[1:14:01] Like many families, I think

[1:14:02] about whether my children will

[1:14:03] be able to afford to live in

[1:14:04] community where they grew up.

[1:14:07] My hope is that they will have

[1:14:08] the opportunity to stay close

[1:14:09] to their family instead

[1:14:10] of feeling like they have to

[1:14:12] move away because homeownership

[1:14:13] is out of reach.

[1:14:15] >> Allowing ADUs to be sold

[1:14:17] separately creates more

[1:14:18] flexibilities for families. It

[1:14:19] can give older adults the

[1:14:20] options to age

[1:14:22] in place while creating

[1:14:23] pathways for homeownership

[1:14:24] for their adult children,

[1:14:25] for first-time buyers,

[1:14:28] and others who want

[1:14:29] to put their roots down here

[1:14:32] in Windsor. I also wanted to

[1:14:33] restate that this ordinance

[1:14:34] will not change what is allowed

[1:14:35] to be built. It only addresses

[1:14:37] whether these units can be sold

[1:14:38] and not just rented. To me,

[1:14:42] this is about keeping families

[1:14:43] connected,

[1:14:44] supporting multi-generational

[1:14:46] living, and giving more people

[1:14:47] the opportunity

[1:14:48] to build their future

[1:14:49] in the community they love.

[1:14:51] Thank you for your thoughtful

[1:14:52] consideration and

[1:14:54] for your leadership.

[1:15:05] >> Hi, Betsy Mal with Flame

[1:15:06] tree Circle. I still have a lot

[1:15:07] of questions

[1:15:08] about the ADUs being offered to

[1:15:10] be sold separately as condos. I

[1:15:11] was following Sebastopol and I

[1:15:12] saw that they had passed an

[1:15:14] ordinance. And so,

[1:15:16] I'm wondering if there's going

[1:15:17] to be unintended consequences.

[1:15:19] to this amendment if it is

[1:15:20] passed. And they did give it a

[1:15:28] sunset date,

[1:15:29] but I'm asking you,

[1:15:30] if you're going

[1:15:31] to consider it, that you may

[1:15:32] make it a pilot program that

[1:15:34] could be canceled or amended at

[1:15:35] any point. I don't really

[1:15:37] understand an HOA board that

[1:15:39] consists of the owner

[1:15:41] of one house and the owner

[1:15:43] of the other house. The house

[1:15:46] is a condo, meaning the

[1:15:48] property or the land is not

[1:15:52] being transferred. So, the

[1:15:53] property taxes stay

[1:15:54] with the main house,

[1:15:57] and if the ADU is sold and then

[1:16:00] improved,

[1:16:01] those improvements go back

[1:16:03] to the property taxes

[1:16:04] on the main house. The I don't

[1:16:06] think the property taxes are

[1:16:07] split. I could be wrong because

[1:16:09] you're not splitting property,

[1:16:10] you're only splitting the

[1:16:12] building. I think that parking

[1:16:16] is going

[1:16:17] to become has the potential

[1:16:18] to become an issue. Who has

[1:16:20] easement if there's just more

[1:16:21] people living in the same

[1:16:22] spaces where there's not enough

[1:16:24] parking? And then you have an

[1:16:26] HOA that consists of 2 people.

[1:16:27] I just see that there's a

[1:16:29] potential

[1:16:31] for unintended consequences.

[1:16:33] So, I ask you to really look

[1:16:35] at this, maybe let Sebastian

[1:16:37] Pools play out

[1:16:39] for a little bit,

[1:16:44] and if you really feel

[1:16:45] like you need to move ahead

[1:16:46] with this, to do it as a pilot

[1:16:48] program so that if there are

[1:16:49] unintended consequences that

[1:16:50] come through, you're able

[1:16:51] to end the program. Thank you.

[1:17:01] >> Good afternoon, Mayor,

[1:17:02] council members, and staff. My

[1:17:03] name is Omar Lopez. I'm the

[1:17:04] policy coordinator at

[1:17:05] Generation Housing. I just want

[1:17:07] to reiterate that

[1:17:08] with these ADUs, we're not

[1:17:10] building anything more than

[1:17:11] what can be rebuilt. Now it

[1:17:12] just allows for selling. The

[1:17:14] City of San Jose has actually

[1:17:15] been kind of leading

[1:17:16] on this. I know Sebastopol's a

[1:17:17] good local example,

[1:17:18] but they are very new. And

[1:17:20] San Jose has already sold 2

[1:17:21] ADUs. So, a lot of sorts of

[1:17:22] these issues that are valid

[1:17:23] issues, we can kind of look

[1:17:24] at San Jose

[1:17:26] for how it's worked out

[1:17:27] for them. And they have kind

[1:17:29] of like the best-case scenario

[1:17:30] where they had an ADU right

[1:17:32] next to the primary unit and

[1:17:33] you couldn't even tell which

[1:17:34] one was which. And they had

[1:17:36] independent driveways. and

[1:17:37] independent parking spots.

[1:17:39] That is the best-case scenario,

[1:17:40] but that is something that you

[1:17:41] as a council can sort of help

[1:17:43] address as applications come

[1:17:44] through. And then I think

[1:17:46] that's it. I hope you guys do

[1:17:48] consider adopting this policy.

[1:17:49] Oh, one last thing. I do

[1:17:52] politely push back a little bit

[1:17:55] on making it a pilot that you

[1:17:56] can cancel at any time. That

[1:17:57] would just create a lot

[1:17:59] of uncertainty. Why would

[1:18:00] somebody wanna start the

[1:18:01] process if the next day the

[1:18:02] thing gets canceled and then it

[1:18:04] goes nowhere. So, I understand

[1:18:05] doing the sunset date. I think

[1:18:06] that's a good way to keep it

[1:18:08] something that you can monitor

[1:18:09] and see how it goes. Thank you.

[1:18:15] >> Anybody else? Seeing none,

[1:18:17] I'm going to go ahead and close

[1:18:18] the public hearing and bring it

[1:18:19] back to the council for

[1:18:20] discussion. I think there are a

[1:18:22] lot of great questions, a lot

[1:18:24] of community good community

[1:18:26] feedback. So where would we

[1:18:28] like to start? Do we want

[1:18:31] to tackle one item

[1:18:32] at a time?

[1:18:34] >> Mayor, could I just ask if

[1:18:35] you have the answer to the

[1:18:37] property tax question that

[1:18:39] Ms. Malice said? So, if the

[1:18:40] land is owned

[1:18:43] by the main owner

[1:18:45] of the property,

[1:18:47] but then the ADU is sold, and

[1:18:48] then it's that ADU is then sold

[1:18:50] again, and in Improvements are

[1:18:51] made upon the condo. I mean, is

[1:18:54] there anything that says it? I

[1:18:55] mean, I would imagine it can

[1:18:57] just keep changing hands

[1:18:59] from its current owner

[1:19:00] to the next owner

[1:19:02] without the say

[1:19:04] of the original owner

[1:19:07] of the main house. But then if

[1:19:09] improvements are made

[1:19:10] to that condominium, then

[1:19:13] because do the property taxes

[1:19:14] go back to the original owner

[1:19:16] because the land is not then

[1:19:17] owned by the person who is

[1:19:19] owning the condo? So, I sell my

[1:19:21] ADU. Somebody buys it,

[1:19:24] they sell it,

[1:19:25] they make a whole bunch

[1:19:26] of improvements, and now the

[1:19:27] property tax has been

[1:19:28] reassessed. Do I pay the extra

[1:19:29] property tax or do they pay the

[1:19:31] extra property tax?

[1:19:39] >> I'm trying to follow the

[1:19:40] because I get the question.

[1:19:41] It's the now I own the

[1:19:42] property, so now the

[1:19:45] reassessment, am I responsible

[1:19:46] for it, or is the next owner

[1:19:48] of the condo,

[1:19:50] would they be responsible? And

[1:19:52] I don't know, Kim, I have not

[1:19:55] looked at the condo sale as far

[1:19:56] as the selling of the condos

[1:19:58] regarding the property tax. I

[1:19:59] think that the ordinance was

[1:20:01] focused on the sale, but not

[1:20:02] the potential unintended

[1:20:03] consequences

[1:20:05] of who's paying the property

[1:20:06] tax on it,

[1:20:08] given that the property still

[1:20:09] owned, the land

[1:20:13] >> Correct.

[1:20:14] >> Is still owned

[1:20:15] by the house.

[1:20:16] >> But the condos is actually,

[1:20:17] condos still have to pay some

[1:20:18] of the property taxes. I think

[1:20:19] Mr. Streeter.

[1:20:20] >> Yeah, if I could just chime

[1:20:21] in, Patrick Streeter,

[1:20:22] Community Developer. I did look

[1:20:23] into this a little bit. The

[1:20:24] question came up previously and

[1:20:26] I believe condominium owners

[1:20:27] pay property tax

[1:20:29] for their property,

[1:20:30] which they own. They don't own

[1:20:31] the ground. They own the

[1:20:33] building.

[1:20:34] But they own the building,

[1:20:35] which is property. So,

[1:20:36] in theory, if a condo is made

[1:20:37] of, from a,

[1:20:39] there's a property That's that

[1:20:40] exists that has a main house

[1:20:41] and it has an ADU and it's one

[1:20:43] property, it's then

[1:20:44] condominiumized and there's a

[1:20:45] condo that's taken out,

[1:20:46] the assessment value

[1:20:48] of that original property goes

[1:20:49] down for the unit that has now

[1:20:50] been taken out

[1:20:53] of that property. That is now

[1:20:54] an independent taxable unit,

[1:20:55] and so any changes made to that

[1:20:58] will be the responsibility

[1:20:59] of the property owner

[1:21:01] of the condo

[1:21:03] to pay those.

[1:21:04] >> Just as if it was land.

[1:21:05] >> Yeah, it's just it's

[1:21:06] detached from it.

[1:21:07] >> It's detached.

[1:21:08] >> Yeah.

[1:21:09] >> Because they're paying

[1:21:10] the improvement just

[1:21:11] on the outside of it.

[1:21:12] >> The building is the

[1:21:13] property.

[1:21:21] >> Okay. That makes sense.

[1:21:22] >> Okay. Great question

[1:21:23] from the public, and I'm glad

[1:21:25] Director Streeter had an answer

[1:21:27] for that because that was. Who

[1:21:30] would like

[1:21:32] to start the discussion? And

[1:21:33] again, I've. I was wondering

[1:21:35] if, if we wanted to focus,

[1:21:36] right? There's various

[1:21:38] sections. Do we want

[1:21:39] to tackle one at a time?

[1:21:41] >> Mayor, maybe

[1:21:42] before I know that

[1:21:44] Councilmember Sammy, you asked

[1:21:45] regarding the transitional

[1:21:46] housing and the whether how

[1:21:49] they were treated and whether

[1:21:50] there was a limit. And I

[1:21:51] remember, you're right,

[1:21:52] back then the residential care

[1:21:54] facilities, for example,

[1:21:55] they had the, the limit of 6

[1:21:57] beds. They ended up I think

[1:21:58] they ended up getting rid

[1:21:59] of those standards. But

[1:22:01] for our code, they're treated

[1:22:04] just as supportive housing and

[1:22:05] transitional housing. They're

[1:22:06] treated and correct me if I'm

[1:22:08] wrong, Kim but they're treated

[1:22:09] exact they're just treated for

[1:22:10] that the same as other uses

[1:22:12] there. So if it's

[1:22:13] in residential, treated

[1:22:18] like residential, multifamily

[1:22:19] treated as multifamily.

[1:22:21] >> So, chances are there are no

[1:22:22] limits on the number

[1:22:24] of beds.

[1:22:25] >> Correct. Those limits got

[1:22:26] they got rid

[1:22:28] of those limits.

[1:22:31] >> But there's really nothing

[1:22:32] we can do about that. It's a

[1:22:33] government yeah. Okay. So,

[1:22:35] recommendation 1, anyone want

[1:22:37] to make a recommendation

[1:22:40] for this, for the density bonus

[1:22:41] healthcare facility? Want to

[1:22:43] state your position or have a

[1:22:45] discussion about it?

[1:22:49] >> I think we should discuss it

[1:22:51] a little bit. Because is this

[1:22:52] something that we want to do?

[1:22:54] Do we want to provide a density

[1:22:56] bonus or some sort of an

[1:22:57] incentive when we don't know if

[1:23:00] there's a guarantee that in

[1:23:01] perpetuity there would be a

[1:23:03] medical facility on that?

[1:23:05] >> And if I can just chime in

[1:23:07] to provide a little clarity,

[1:23:09] this item is

[1:23:10] about creating a definition for

[1:23:11] community healthcare facility.

[1:23:13] The council has already

[1:23:14] previously said that you want

[1:23:16] to include a density bonus

[1:23:17] for childcare facilities or for

[1:23:19] community healthcare

[1:23:23] facilities. So, if we were

[1:23:24] to roll back on that, it would

[1:23:25] require a different agenda

[1:23:26] meeting.

[1:23:28] >> Okay. All right. I'm fine

[1:23:30] with the definition.

[1:23:31] >> I'm fine

[1:23:32] with the definition then.

[1:23:34] That's all it is. Yes. Okay.

[1:23:39] Recommendation 2. What do we

[1:23:41] want to do

[1:23:43] about the ADU condos?

[1:23:46] Councilmember Wall, please

[1:23:48] chime in if you want to. I

[1:23:49] can't see you. Councilmember

[1:23:54] Salmon? Oh, okay. Yeah, just

[1:23:55] chime in when you're if you

[1:23:58] have something to share.

[1:24:02] Councilmember Leep or Salmon,

[1:24:04] do you guys have anything

[1:24:05] on what you want to do with ADU

[1:24:06] condos?

[1:24:07] >> I can make some comments.

[1:24:08] >> Okay.

[1:24:09] >> I'm really concerned

[1:24:10] with the homeowner's agreement,

[1:24:13] the agreement between because I

[1:24:14] see that it'll be the primary I

[1:24:17] can only it's the way I can see

[1:24:18] it works. The primary house is

[1:24:20] going

[1:24:22] to be the one that's going

[1:24:23] to create the condominium.

[1:24:26] They'll be in charge

[1:24:27] of drafting the document

[1:24:29] of the homeowner's association,

[1:24:33] and then it'll be a 1-to-1

[1:24:36] vote. And we've I've had I'm

[1:24:38] just not with it. We've dealt

[1:24:39] with this

[1:24:43] in a grocery market situation

[1:24:45] in the town,

[1:24:46] and it's not a happy place.

[1:24:48] And so, then we have the

[1:24:53] definition auxiliary dwelling

[1:24:57] unit is different than

[1:25:00] subdivided condominium. And I'm

[1:25:02] having trouble making that

[1:25:06] switch and really comprehending

[1:25:10] all the consequences that come

[1:25:12] with it. We really haven't

[1:25:14] experienced the possible

[1:25:21] explosion of ADU construction

[1:25:22] in our new developments,

[1:25:24] but they're

[1:25:25] out there. I think Quail Acres

[1:25:27] has a number of units that have

[1:25:29] auxiliary dwelling units. And

[1:25:31] to see how that plays out

[1:25:34] in a single-family development,

[1:25:41] I think we need to see it. I

[1:25:43] think we also experienced it

[1:25:46] with other developments. So,

[1:25:49] I'm very hesitant

[1:25:52] to do this process

[1:25:53] of the condominium creation

[1:25:58] in ADUs at this point

[1:26:00] to see how it's going to play

[1:26:02] out. I do understand the

[1:26:04] necessity to try to find ways

[1:26:06] that people can create wealth

[1:26:12] through homeownership because

[1:26:13] it really is troubling in this

[1:26:18] time where everything is so

[1:26:19] expensive that there's no

[1:26:21] gateway. And this is a gateway,

[1:26:24] but I just see a lot

[1:26:25] of problems

[1:26:27] with it that are unsolved

[1:26:31] at this point. So, I'll listen

[1:26:33] and continue

[1:26:35] to think how I'm going to make

[1:26:37] my take my position.

[1:26:39] >> Okay, perfect.

[1:26:41] Councilmember Leep?

[1:26:43] >> Yes, I do have a couple of

[1:26:44] comments or questions. I don't

[1:26:46] know which they are. I think

[1:26:50] that the concept of a

[1:26:51] condominium is already

[1:26:53] established law and policy and

[1:26:55] everything. A condo is a condo

[1:26:57] is a condo. So, we know what

[1:26:59] condos are. So, I'm not afraid

[1:27:01] of condos. And that's a simple

[1:27:02] question, a simple question

[1:27:04] for me. One thing I don't quite

[1:27:05] get the impact of is the legal

[1:27:07] parcel that was created more

[1:27:11] than 5 years prior

[1:27:13] to the application. So, does

[1:27:17] that mean only the ADUs that

[1:27:20] have been in place for 5 years

[1:27:24] up till today,

[1:27:25] or whatever the right date is,

[1:27:27] are eligible to be converted

[1:27:29] to a condo?

[1:27:34] >> That's correct. And that

[1:27:35] well, what do you mean?

[1:27:40] >> It could be an ADU built

[1:27:41] in the last 5 years.

[1:27:43] >> Right.

[1:27:44] >> And be subdivided.

[1:27:47] >> Right. So, the ADU, right?

[1:27:50] So, he sorry about that. So, I

[1:27:52] put this slide up because this

[1:27:53] was very intentional,

[1:27:55] the way this language was

[1:27:56] written, and it really gets

[1:27:57] to Sam's point. The town has

[1:27:59] approved quite a few

[1:28:00] subdivisions,

[1:28:01] and they do have the potential

[1:28:02] to construct ADUs,

[1:28:04] and we wanted to make sure that

[1:28:05] any new subdivision application

[1:28:08] that is submitted, any new

[1:28:09] subdivision that has been

[1:28:11] approved,

[1:28:12] that those projects have

[1:28:14] to be constructed and built and

[1:28:15] in existence for at least 5

[1:28:17] years

[1:28:19] before we're seeing any kind

[1:28:21] of ADU, detached ADU

[1:28:27] condominium conversion. So,

[1:28:28] we're understanding what those

[1:28:29] impacts look like

[1:28:30] for the town. And then This

[1:28:32] ordinance was proposed for

[1:28:33] about a 3-year term so we can

[1:28:35] see what this looks like

[1:28:36] for the town. And then that

[1:28:38] it's physically detached

[1:28:39] to minimize impacts, you know,

[1:28:46] between neighbors. The

[1:28:48] buildings don't touch,

[1:28:49] there's space in

[1:28:51] between everybody. And even

[1:28:52] though in some circumstance,

[1:28:54] you know, circumstances,

[1:28:55] properties can have more than

[1:28:57] one detached ADU, that we're

[1:28:59] only allowing one conversion.

[1:29:01] So that we're trying

[1:29:03] to be very conservative in the

[1:29:04] approach that we take if the

[1:29:06] town is interested in trying an

[1:29:08] ADU conversion program.

[1:29:16] >> So, I think I now understand

[1:29:17] the idea. So, if an ADU is

[1:29:18] constructed tomorrow

[1:29:20] by a developer, 5 years

[1:29:23] from now, they can turn that

[1:29:25] into a condo, right? They can

[1:29:26] qualify for the application.

[1:29:27] They can't for 5 years because

[1:29:29] they have to be in existence

[1:29:30] for 5 years.

[1:29:33] >> Well, the issue with that is

[1:29:35] that the ordinance will expire

[1:29:37] in 2029.

[1:29:39] >> I hear you. I got that.

[1:29:40] It's going to expire

[1:29:41] before we find that out, which

[1:29:43] is a safety valve there.

[1:29:46] >> Right.

[1:29:48] >> And we've got 47 units. or

[1:29:49] whatever you said the number

[1:29:51] was, 46 chances to try it out

[1:29:52] in the meantime.

[1:29:54] >> Right.

[1:29:56] >> And I understand that. And

[1:29:58] now it makes sense

[1:29:59] to me. I was unclear

[1:30:00] on what the 5 years meant. I

[1:30:01] just want

[1:30:03] to say that even though it may

[1:30:05] not sound like it, I have

[1:30:07] reviewed this and I have asked

[1:30:09] already some questions

[1:30:10] about it and had them explained

[1:30:12] to me. So, I get the point

[1:30:13] of this, and I think it's a

[1:30:15] very interesting plan for,

[1:30:19] for the conversion of ADUs

[1:30:22] into ownership.

[1:30:28] >> Vice Mayor?

[1:30:29] >> Sure. So, on this one,

[1:30:30] I am torn

[1:30:32] between really wanting

[1:30:35] to make sure that any homeowner

[1:30:37] in Windsor has the opportunity

[1:30:38] to do with their property what

[1:30:40] they want, but

[1:30:43] at the same time Thank you. I'm

[1:30:45] not feeling

[1:30:48] like this is just right for

[1:30:49] Windsor right now in its

[1:30:50] current I'm really hung up on

[1:30:53] the HOA/POA issue because if

[1:30:54] there's only 2 members of it,

[1:30:56] how do you ever get to do

[1:30:59] anything if the person you

[1:31:01] bought the house

[1:31:03] from doesn't agree with you?

[1:31:04] So, you never get a choice

[1:31:06] on what you want to do with

[1:31:07] your own property now because

[1:31:08] you don't have the majority of

[1:31:09] a POA vote because there's only

[1:31:11] 2 people in it. So, I just have

[1:31:12] this real issue with the way

[1:31:13] that that is written,

[1:31:15] and there's not a fix to it.

[1:31:16] And then what hap like,

[1:31:18] is there an arbitration? Is

[1:31:19] what are the other options for

[1:31:21] the person who has purchased

[1:31:22] that condo except for to turn

[1:31:24] around and sell it to some

[1:31:26] other unsuspecting person who's

[1:31:27] going to be a member of the,

[1:31:30] the POA?

[1:31:32] >> Thank you.

[1:31:35] >> Going forward. So that's my

[1:31:36] concern with that. And I think

[1:31:37] it's, you know, it's an

[1:31:38] unintended consequence that I

[1:31:39] would love to watch the

[1:31:40] Sebastopol go through,

[1:31:41] and then we can learn

[1:31:42] from them,

[1:31:43] and then we can make changes

[1:31:44] to our ordinance based

[1:31:45] on learning what they're doing,

[1:31:46] and then maybe be able

[1:31:47] to bring in an ordinance

[1:31:48] in a couple

[1:31:50] of years that we think is,

[1:31:51] is just right for Windsor. So

[1:31:52] those are my thoughts on it.

[1:31:53] And, and I do understand that,

[1:31:54] yes,

[1:31:57] this gives people the ability

[1:31:58] to purchase, you know, and

[1:32:00] but also, you know,

[1:32:01] I think that when we think

[1:32:02] about ADUs, it's really to try

[1:32:03] to keep, you know,

[1:32:04] that income coming in already

[1:32:06] for the people who are creating

[1:32:07] those, right,

[1:32:09] as rent right now. So, they're

[1:32:10] still going to have some income

[1:32:11] if that's the reason that

[1:32:12] they're building the ADU. So, I

[1:32:14] don't think we're hamstringing

[1:32:15] them, but we're, you know,

[1:32:17] we're just sitting back and

[1:32:18] kind of watching and making

[1:32:19] sure we make the best policy

[1:32:21] decision.

[1:32:25] >> Councilmember Wall, any

[1:32:26] comments?

[1:32:27] >> Yes, thank you. so yeah,

[1:32:34] I think we need to really,

[1:32:35] lean into the autonomy

[1:32:36] of folks that own their,

[1:32:37] their home and their property,

[1:32:39] and, completely agree with

[1:32:40] Vice Mayor Potter

[1:32:41] about this concept of having

[1:32:44] to have an HOA,

[1:32:45] and then it just I think it's

[1:32:47] ludicrous, to be honest. I

[1:32:50] think it just makes no sense.

[1:32:52] Councilmember Salmon mentioned

[1:32:53] giving folks, you know,

[1:32:55] the ability to create wealth

[1:32:56] off their own property. 100%

[1:32:58] yes, it's their property.

[1:33:00] Like, we should not be getting

[1:33:02] in their way whatsoever. And

[1:33:03] then we also oftentimes talk

[1:33:05] about our desperate need

[1:33:07] for creating housing. And yes,

[1:33:15] the less barriers we put

[1:33:17] in place,

[1:33:18] the more housing we're going

[1:33:19] to be able to create. So, yeah,

[1:33:21] so those are my thoughts. I

[1:33:22] think the HOA is ridiculous,

[1:33:23] and we should be removing

[1:33:24] barriers and letting people

[1:33:26] what they want to letting

[1:33:27] people do what they want to do

[1:33:28] with their properties, as long

[1:33:29] as it doesn't violate any

[1:33:32] obvious zoning issues, etc.

[1:33:34] Let's get out of the way. The

[1:33:36] less government, better.

[1:33:42] >> I have another comment.

[1:33:44] So, this is our own ordinance.

[1:33:45] Is this based is that part

[1:33:46] of the ordinance based

[1:33:47] on a state law that we have to

[1:33:48] say that they have a

[1:33:49] homeowner's association?

[1:33:52] >> So, the law does require

[1:33:54] that condominiums shall be

[1:33:56] created pursuant to the

[1:33:57] Davis-Serling Common Interest

[1:33:58] Development Act, which requires

[1:33:59] the HOA for condominiums.

[1:34:01] That's why it's put in there.

[1:34:02] Now, it could be a simpler

[1:34:03] form, but it does require that

[1:34:07] it follow the Davis-Sterling

[1:34:12] Common Interest Development

[1:34:13] Act. And that's clear

[1:34:14] in the law. That's why it's

[1:34:15] there. And the thought, I

[1:34:17] think,

[1:34:18] is there's more regulation

[1:34:19] about kind of what happens on

[1:34:20] the property you own. I don't

[1:34:22] know what the I'm sure there

[1:34:24] was a thought behind it as far

[1:34:25] as making sure that folks

[1:34:27] agreed since they're being very

[1:34:29] close neighbors. et cetera.

[1:34:30] You can imagine the why,

[1:34:32] but I mean, it does put another

[1:34:34] barrier or another hurdle that

[1:34:36] folks have

[1:34:38] to jump through.

[1:34:40] >> If I could just also chime

[1:34:41] in, knowing the history that

[1:34:42] this council has with HOAs,

[1:34:44] no part of this would require

[1:34:45] that the town be a party

[1:34:46] to that. The requirement is

[1:34:47] that they come up

[1:34:48] with their own agreement,

[1:34:50] and any ADUs are already going

[1:34:52] to have a lease agreement.

[1:34:53] It's similar to that. Any

[1:34:55] subdivision has that has an HOA

[1:34:56] has CC&Rs, which talk about how

[1:34:58] they resolve conflicts or how

[1:34:59] they make amendments. So this

[1:35:01] would be a private agreement

[1:35:02] between the seller and the

[1:35:03] buyer. The town would

[1:35:04] absolutely not be party

[1:35:06] to that and not have

[1:35:07] to not have

[1:35:08] to hear any disputes.

[1:35:13] >> I have

[1:35:14] to say something.

[1:35:16] >> Go ahead.

[1:35:17] >> I have to say something.

[1:35:20] In the homeowner ADU, the

[1:35:21] homeowner's association is the

[1:35:22] owner of the home. And if,

[1:35:23] if the dogs are barking,

[1:35:25] if you, if the cat

[1:35:29] they're tearing apart their car

[1:35:31] in the driveway, it's the owner

[1:35:32] that makes a judgment and says

[1:35:34] you're gone. You in this,

[1:35:36] we're going

[1:35:37] to have a vote possibly,

[1:35:38] and it's going

[1:35:45] to be a 1-to-1.

[1:35:50] >> And there won't I'm sorry. I

[1:35:59] mean, because the dog barks.

[1:36:00] Is the town not going

[1:36:01] to get involved? The dog's

[1:36:02] barking. You talk to the

[1:36:04] condominium owner and they say,

[1:36:06] oh, my dog's not barking. Who

[1:36:07] do you call? You put the claim

[1:36:09] into animal control. They come

[1:36:11] out and the town is involved.

[1:36:13] And it seems to me the other

[1:36:15] aspect I'll ask the condominium

[1:36:16] law, does it have the warranty

[1:36:18] of 10 years to I mean,

[1:36:19] I would I can't imagine it,

[1:36:22] but it may.

[1:36:26] >> Well, what I will point out

[1:36:28] as far as all the condominium,

[1:36:30] the sales, the reality is,

[1:36:31] and what we've seen

[1:36:32] in the HOAs,

[1:36:33] not every HOA is the same,

[1:36:35] right? There is an agreement

[1:36:37] between, and I think Mr.

[1:36:38] Streeter mentioned it,

[1:36:40] between the parties So the

[1:36:42] reality, if you're buying the

[1:36:43] condo, you're also looking

[1:36:45] at the HOA and saying,

[1:36:46] are these beneficial to me? Is

[1:36:47] there a mediation process? Is

[1:36:49] there a dispute resolution

[1:36:51] process? What are my rights? I

[1:36:53] think that that's kind of the

[1:36:56] thought that as you're a

[1:36:57] purchaser, you're reading what

[1:36:59] you're agreeing to.

[1:37:03] >> Again, the owner is the

[1:37:04] author of that. And if you

[1:37:07] don't like it,

[1:37:09] you don't buy it? We don't buy

[1:37:10] it. I said enough. I think I

[1:37:14] know, and I'm sorry

[1:37:16] for where I'm at because

[1:37:20] >> Well, I think it's I mean,

[1:37:21] I appreciate that we are trying

[1:37:25] to get new owners out

[1:37:27] of this draft. Building

[1:37:29] generational wealth is what

[1:37:32] we're trying to do here. And

[1:37:34] it's unfortunate that an HOA

[1:37:37] issue may be what doesn't help

[1:37:40] this pass. It's unfortunate.

[1:37:41] And I hope that everyone in the

[1:37:43] audience who supports this or

[1:37:44] on the council,

[1:37:49] that we continue to try

[1:37:51] to find ways

[1:37:53] to build smaller units, homes

[1:37:55] Sweat equity, what happened

[1:37:57] to that? So many things have

[1:38:01] disappeared that got people

[1:38:02] into their first homes.

[1:38:04] They're disappearing. And rents

[1:38:06] are ridiculous. And I don't

[1:38:07] know how to get back

[1:38:09] to where we were. So, when I

[1:38:11] first heard this project,

[1:38:12] I freaked out cause I'm like,

[1:38:14] oh my God, everyone's gonna

[1:38:16] build an ADU now. But then I

[1:38:17] learned it was a 5-year prior.

[1:38:20] We have 40 ADUs. It's not so

[1:38:26] bad, you know, I

[1:38:28] like the sunset. I don't

[1:38:30] like the parking. I'm worried

[1:38:32] about that HOA. That's again,

[1:38:36] yeah, you're right,

[1:38:37] it might come to the town.

[1:38:38] But, so I'll, I am the last

[1:38:40] vote, so I will

[1:38:42] I'm still not I'm kind of

[1:38:43] in the middle right now.

[1:38:45] but we do have San Jose. I did

[1:38:46] read the article

[1:38:48] about the first one that sold

[1:38:50] out there. Very exciting

[1:38:51] for the homeowner, but I think

[1:38:52] we will learn a lot as this

[1:38:53] thing moves forward,

[1:38:54] and it's going

[1:38:56] to be interesting to see what

[1:38:57] the government does as they

[1:38:58] start hearing stories

[1:38:59] of what's coming out,

[1:39:00] whether it's positive or

[1:39:02] negative,

[1:39:03] and if they'll change anything

[1:39:04] in the, in the laws for,

[1:39:08] for this ordinance. Okay, so,

[1:39:11] anyone else want

[1:39:14] to add anything,

[1:39:15] or should we should I ask

[1:39:16] for a motion?

[1:39:20] Do we have another item we

[1:39:21] have to review? Okay, there was

[1:39:22] the amendment Exhibit L also,

[1:39:23] but I think that was pretty

[1:39:24] clear, just language. So,

[1:39:26] again, there's an ordinance

[1:39:30] title, but it sounds like the

[1:39:32] only one we're really deciding

[1:39:36] on is the ADU portion

[1:39:38] of this. So, I don't know if

[1:39:41] someone makes a motion,

[1:39:42] how would they Distinguish what

[1:39:46] part they are in favor

[1:39:47] of or not in favor of.

[1:39:49] >> Okay, so what staff is

[1:39:50] asking is that it would be the

[1:39:52] ordinance title and then as

[1:39:54] amended by revised Exhibit L.

[1:40:00] And then what I have heard

[1:40:02] is that you,

[1:40:03] some council members want

[1:40:05] to remove Section 17.8.2 So it

[1:40:13] would be up

[1:40:18] to whoever makes the motion to

[1:40:20] either read the title as

[1:40:23] amended to make that clerical

[1:40:24] correction and make that motion

[1:40:26] if they wanted

[1:40:27] to include the ADU,

[1:40:29] or if they wanted to exclude

[1:40:30] the separate transference

[1:40:31] of ADUs,

[1:40:33] add that additional bit that

[1:40:34] Ms. Jordan just read.

[1:40:38] Which is remove that

[1:40:39] section.

[1:40:42] >> Let me ask a question.

[1:40:43] >> Yeah.

[1:40:44] >> We can always do the ADU

[1:40:45] part later, right?

[1:40:47] >> Just, I mean, as a point

[1:40:49] of clarification,

[1:40:50] as I said towards the

[1:40:51] beginning,

[1:40:53] each time that we come

[1:40:55] to the council

[1:40:57] with an ADU amendment, we

[1:40:59] always bring this forward.

[1:41:00] >> This time we actually

[1:41:01] brought a draft ordinance The

[1:41:02] only thing I've heard that we

[1:41:05] are having a problem with is

[1:41:06] the homeowner's association.

[1:41:13] Is there something else I'm

[1:41:14] missing?

[1:41:15] >> Parking.

[1:41:16] >> Well, parking is going

[1:41:18] to be there. If you'll pardon

[1:41:21] my commenting on that, Mayor,

[1:41:23] the parking is going to be

[1:41:25] there no matter who's occupying

[1:41:26] it.

[1:41:27] >> I think that's correct.

[1:41:29] >> I kind of disagree. I think

[1:41:30] what I'm seeing is the

[1:41:33] worst-case scenario,

[1:41:34] and that's kind

[1:41:35] of what we have to look at.

[1:41:36] Worst-case scenario is the

[1:41:37] primary house sells. We have

[1:41:38] new people

[1:41:40] in the primary house,

[1:41:41] we have unknown people

[1:41:43] in the ADU,

[1:41:44] and we have problems

[1:41:45] between them.

[1:41:49] >> And then to say that town

[1:41:50] won't be involved,

[1:41:52] the town will be involved,

[1:41:54] just like we, we are involved

[1:41:56] in neighbors, except neighbors

[1:41:58] have fences and neighbors have

[1:41:59] much more control

[1:42:03] over their property.

[1:42:05] >> And so this would be a

[1:42:06] reason to prevent someone

[1:42:07] from selling a piece of their

[1:42:08] property because they might

[1:42:09] have problems

[1:42:10] in the future?

[1:42:12] >> It would to me.

[1:42:14] I think the ADUs for me

[1:42:16] were made as auxiliary dwelling

[1:42:18] units and really were made

[1:42:19] in terms of so families could

[1:42:22] either have a rental or they

[1:42:26] could have family members stay.

[1:42:28] They could have their children

[1:42:29] have a place. They could have

[1:42:31] all those things that we're

[1:42:32] talking about

[1:42:34] in the condominium happen

[1:42:35] in the ADUs. But the

[1:42:37] condominium is no longer an ADU

[1:42:40] in my estimation,

[1:42:42] even though we're treating them

[1:42:44] like ADUs,

[1:42:46] and that's the problem.

[1:42:47] They're not.

[1:42:48] >> And then when you rent an

[1:42:49] ADU, you know how many people

[1:42:50] are living there and how many

[1:42:52] cars they, they have. It's part

[1:42:55] of the rental lease agreement.

[1:42:56] But once you sell it, I don't

[1:42:57] think you can control how many

[1:42:59] people live in the condo and

[1:43:00] how many cars they can have.

[1:43:02] >> Through the HOA.

[1:43:03] >> Well, yeah.

[1:43:05] >> That you each have a vote.

[1:43:09] >> So, I'm trying to find some

[1:43:11] direction on what you'd

[1:43:12] like as a motion.

[1:43:16] >> Could we please, Ms.

[1:43:17] Jordan, have the 17.8

[1:43:22] >> It's 17.82.090, ADU

[1:43:27] condominium.

[1:43:29] >> Okay.

[1:43:31] >> And then the one that we're

[1:43:33] asking to have amended Is

[1:43:36] revised exhibit L.

[1:43:49] >> So, is anyone interested in

[1:43:51] making a motion? I'll try.

[1:43:54] >> We'll see. Okay. So, I'd

[1:43:56] like to make a motion to.

[1:44:02] >> It would be

[1:44:03] in the agenda.

[1:44:04] >> Sorry, it's

[1:44:05] to introduce and hold

[1:44:06] by first reading by title only

[1:44:07] an ordinance adopting

[1:44:08] amendments to the Town of

[1:44:10] Windsor Zoning Code, Title 17

[1:44:11] of the Municipal Code, to

[1:44:14] implement housing element

[1:44:17] programs and to comply

[1:44:19] with state housing law.

[1:44:20] Revised Exhibit L as amended,

[1:44:21] removing Section 17.82.090,

[1:44:28] which is the ADU. Condominium

[1:44:35] Is there a second?

[1:44:38] >> I'll provide a second. Roll

[1:44:39] call vote, please.

[1:44:42] >> [CALLING ROLL]

[1:44:57] >> Thank you.

[1:44:58] >> Thank you, everybody.

[1:44:59] >> Thank you. I'm sorry.

[1:45:00] >> Very healthy discussion.

[1:45:02] >> And we can bring

[1:45:03] >> No need to apologize. Yes,

[1:45:05] we can bring it back. It was a

[1:45:06] healthy, healthy discussion.

[1:45:09] Thank you so much, everybody.

[1:45:10] Item 14.1, our regular

[1:45:13] calendar, the resolution

[1:45:15] approving a 1% transient

[1:45:17] transaction and use tax

[1:45:18] ordinance.

[1:45:44] >> Okay, good evening, Mayor

[1:45:45] and council members. Lauren

[1:45:46] Burgess, Senior Management

[1:45:48] Analyst. Tonight, I'm

[1:45:49] presenting the final package

[1:45:50] for the proposed 2026

[1:45:52] Transactions and Use Tax

[1:45:53] Measure, also known as the

[1:45:55] sales tax. This presentation

[1:45:56] summarizes the fiscal context,

[1:45:59] the measure structure,

[1:46:00] accountability provisions,

[1:46:03] and the actions

[1:46:04] before you this evening.

[1:46:09] Tonight's item asks the council

[1:46:10] to take several formal steps

[1:46:11] required to place a measure

[1:46:12] on the November ballot. These

[1:46:13] include presenting the final

[1:46:15] ballot measure package,

[1:46:16] requesting council approval to

[1:46:17] submit a 1% transaction and use

[1:46:18] tax to voters,

[1:46:20] approving the ballot question,

[1:46:22] directing the town attorney to

[1:46:23] prepare the impartial analysis,

[1:46:24] providing for ballot arguments

[1:46:26] and rebuttals, and introduce

[1:46:28] and introducing the ordinance

[1:46:29] that would establish the tax

[1:46:31] pending voter approval.

[1:46:37] Windsor has maintained strong

[1:46:38] service levels for decades, but

[1:46:39] our long-term fiscal challenges

[1:46:40] have intensified. Costs

[1:46:41] for public safety, maintenance,

[1:46:42] and operations are now

[1:46:43] outpacing our revenues. In the

[1:46:44] fiscal year 25-27 budget,

[1:46:47] the town had to implement $6

[1:46:50] million in reductions. The most

[1:46:52] significant impact was the

[1:46:53] reduction of the 3 police

[1:46:55] officer positions. We also

[1:46:56] deferred $5 million

[1:46:59] in maintenance and relied on

[1:47:00] $8 million

[1:47:01] in one-time reserves just

[1:47:02] to maintain service levels.

[1:47:04] And unlike many cities,

[1:47:06] Windsor has no locally

[1:47:07] controlled sales tax. We only

[1:47:09] receive the Bradley Burns

[1:47:10] share. This limits our ability

[1:47:11] to sustain essential services

[1:47:16] moving forward. A 1%

[1:47:17] transaction and use tax meets

[1:47:18] Windsor's revenue needs

[1:47:19] at a majority vote threshold.

[1:47:20] Without new revenue,

[1:47:21] we face a projected $4 to $5

[1:47:23] million annual deficit

[1:47:24] beginning in fiscal year,

[1:47:26] with reserves exhausted by

[1:47:27] 2029. That trajectory would

[1:47:29] mean fewer police officers,

[1:47:31] slower response times,

[1:47:33] deteriorating roads,

[1:47:34] potential park closures,

[1:47:36] and reductions to youth,

[1:47:38] senior,

[1:47:39] and community programs.

[1:47:41] With the measure, Windsor would

[1:47:42] generate approximately $5.7

[1:47:43] million annually in new locally

[1:47:45] controlled revenue funding

[1:47:46] police and emergency response,

[1:47:49] street infrastructure

[1:47:50] maintenance, And parks and

[1:47:51] community service. From

[1:47:53] December 2025 through, really

[1:48:01] present, our community

[1:48:04] engagement has consistently

[1:48:05] emphasized, the themes of

[1:48:06] protecting essential services

[1:48:08] and to ensure strong visible

[1:48:10] accountability. Residents made

[1:48:11] it clear that trust

[1:48:15] in any revenue measure,

[1:48:16] depends on how transparently

[1:48:17] the town manages its public

[1:48:18] funds. In response,

[1:48:20] the council and staff went

[1:48:21] beyond what is legally required

[1:48:23] for a general tax. Independent

[1:48:25] annual audits and citizens

[1:48:27] oversight commission are not

[1:48:28] mandated under state law. They

[1:48:30] were added because the council

[1:48:32] believes accountability must be

[1:48:34] built into the measure

[1:48:35] from day one. The oversight

[1:48:38] commission will review

[1:48:39] revenues, expenditures, and

[1:48:40] project progress and will

[1:48:41] report publicly to ensure funds

[1:48:43] remain 100% locally controlled

[1:48:44] and used responsibly. In

[1:48:45] June, the council also adopted

[1:48:47] account the accountability a

[1:48:49] broader, excuse me,

[1:48:50] accountability framework

[1:48:52] policy, which includes public

[1:48:53] reporting and updates on how

[1:48:54] revenues support core services.

[1:48:56] This framework reflects the

[1:48:57] council's longstanding

[1:48:59] commitment to transparency,

[1:49:00] fiscal stewardship, and

[1:49:02] maintaining the community's

[1:49:04] trust. The ordinance before you

[1:49:09] tonight establish the 1%

[1:49:11] transactions and use tax and

[1:49:12] outlines key provisions. It

[1:49:13] defines the operative date

[1:49:14] beginning the first day

[1:49:15] of the quarter of more than

[1:49:17] 110 days

[1:49:19] after voter approval. It

[1:49:20] specifies the place

[1:49:21] of sale and tax rate,

[1:49:23] adopts relevant state law

[1:49:24] provisions, and includes

[1:49:25] exemptions and exclusions. And

[1:49:26] to be clear, these exemptions

[1:49:28] follow statewide rules and

[1:49:29] ensure the tax does not apply

[1:49:30] to essential essentials such as

[1:49:32] groceries or prescription

[1:49:33] medications. These protections

[1:49:35] are built into California law

[1:49:37] and remain unchanged

[1:49:38] Under this measure, as

[1:49:40] mentioned,

[1:49:42] it also establishes the

[1:49:43] Citizens Oversight Committee or

[1:49:44] excuse me commission and

[1:49:45] requires annual independent

[1:49:46] audits. If approved,

[1:49:48] the local sales tax remains

[1:49:50] in effect until ended

[1:49:51] by voters. This is the proposed

[1:49:55] ballot question. It clearly

[1:49:56] communicates the purpose of the

[1:49:57] measure: maintaining essential

[1:49:59] local services such as street

[1:50:00] repair, neighborhood police

[1:50:02] patrols, emergency response.

[1:50:03] Parks and community events,

[1:50:04] and disaster preparedness. It

[1:50:05] also states the tax rate,

[1:50:07] the estimated annual revenue

[1:50:08] of $5.7 million, and the

[1:50:10] accountability requirements:

[1:50:12] independent audits, citizens

[1:50:14] oversight, and local control

[1:50:15] of all funds. Here is the

[1:50:23] implementation timeline.

[1:50:25] Following council action

[1:50:26] tonight, ballot materials will

[1:50:27] be submitted to the Registrar

[1:50:29] of Voters, and the town

[1:50:30] attorney will prepare the.

[1:50:31] Personal analysis. And under

[1:50:33] Elections Code, the council is

[1:50:34] authorized

[1:50:35] to designate one or more

[1:50:37] of its members

[1:50:38] to prepare the argument

[1:50:40] in favor of the measure. That

[1:50:41] designation will occur during

[1:50:42] this period so the assigned

[1:50:44] council member can prepare this

[1:50:45] and submit the argument

[1:50:46] by the statutory deadline. The

[1:50:48] argument filing period opens

[1:50:49] and closes per Elections

[1:50:50] Code,

[1:50:53] with direct arguments due

[1:50:54] August 14th and rebuttals due

[1:50:55] August 21st. The county will

[1:50:57] administer the consolidated

[1:50:58] election On November 3rd,

[1:51:00] 2026. Staff recommends that the

[1:51:02] council adopt the resolution

[1:51:04] ordering the measure

[1:51:05] to be submitted to the voters

[1:51:06] at the November 3rd, 2026

[1:51:08] general municipal election,

[1:51:09] direct the town attorney to

[1:51:10] prepare the impartial analysis,

[1:51:12] authorize the preparation of

[1:51:13] valid arguments and rebuttals,

[1:51:14] and introduce the ordinance

[1:51:15] establishing the 1%

[1:51:17] transactions and use tax

[1:51:18] to be administered by the

[1:51:20] California Department of Tax

[1:51:21] and fee administration subject

[1:51:22] to majority voter approval.

[1:51:24] And this concludes the

[1:51:25] presentation. I'm happy to

[1:51:32] answer any questions and take

[1:51:33] any comments or provide any

[1:51:34] further detail. Prior

[1:51:35] to taking any action,

[1:51:37] I just want to be clear that we

[1:51:38] should designate a council

[1:51:40] member or members

[1:51:42] to prepare the argument

[1:51:43] in favor of.

[1:51:47] >> Thank you very much.

[1:51:48] At this time, we're going

[1:51:49] to start with questions,

[1:51:51] and then I'll open up

[1:51:52] to the public,

[1:51:54] and then we'll come back

[1:51:55] for discussion. So, any

[1:51:56] questions from the council

[1:51:57] to staff? No questions?

[1:52:03] Councilmember Wall? I'll go

[1:52:06] ahead and open it up.

[1:52:08] >> No questions, but I'll have

[1:52:09] some comments when we get

[1:52:10] to that point.

[1:52:11] >> Okay, perfect. So, I'll go

[1:52:12] ahead and open up

[1:52:14] to the public. Any members

[1:52:15] of the public wishing

[1:52:16] to speak,

[1:52:17] make a comment regarding this

[1:52:18] item, approach the podium. You

[1:52:20] have 3 minutes. State your name

[1:52:22] if you'd wish. Thank you.

[1:52:23] Please approach. Yes.

[1:52:28] >> Oops, sorry, it's loose.

[1:52:33] Good evening, Council and

[1:52:36] staff. I'm John Laba. I live

[1:52:37] with my wife and family here

[1:52:38] in Windsor. I have written you,

[1:52:39] given comments,

[1:52:40] and attended many community

[1:52:42] meetings, a couple workshops,

[1:52:44] and several presentations

[1:52:45] about our fiscal situation,

[1:52:46] the proposal

[1:52:47] for a 1% sales tax increase.

[1:52:48] Tonight, I speak as chair of a

[1:52:50] new general-purpose committee

[1:52:52] we have formed in Windsor

[1:52:53] to engage in issue advocacy for

[1:52:54] fiscal and governmental reform.

[1:52:55] Our group is called Concerned

[1:52:56] Windsor Citizens. We come

[1:52:57] from all over the political

[1:52:59] spectrum and all walks

[1:53:00] of life, people who live here

[1:53:01] and care deeply what happens

[1:53:02] here

[1:53:04] in this council chamber and

[1:53:05] here in the town we all love.

[1:53:07] We are concerned

[1:53:08] about the direction of town

[1:53:09] government and our leaders who

[1:53:11] have known

[1:53:12] about our structural deficit

[1:53:13] since at least 2021.

[1:53:15] For years, the town continued

[1:53:17] to increase salaries and

[1:53:18] benefits, add positions,

[1:53:20] promote staff,

[1:53:21] and increase spending

[1:53:22] with little discussion of

[1:53:24] affordability or financial

[1:53:26] offsets how to pay

[1:53:27] for it all. The recent hiring

[1:53:29] freeze and work deferral does

[1:53:30] nothing

[1:53:32] to unwind prior increases,

[1:53:33] which also compound pension

[1:53:34] liabilities. You heard our

[1:53:36] testimonies for months.

[1:53:37] Several of our members,

[1:53:38] in fact, have raised concerns

[1:53:39] for years. All

[1:53:41] of us have continued to engage

[1:53:42] in dialogue throughout the

[1:53:44] process. After consideration,

[1:53:46] we oppose a 1% forever sales

[1:53:47] tax. The proposal

[1:53:48] before you has never changed.

[1:53:50] No compromise at all since we

[1:53:51] started. 1% forever sales tax.

[1:53:54] Other options were reviewed,

[1:53:55] but they were always presented

[1:53:56] as strawman arguments,

[1:53:57] immediately discounted rather

[1:53:59] than put into basket, a basket

[1:54:00] of reforms. This item won't

[1:54:03] generate enough

[1:54:05] to cover our full deficit, but

[1:54:06] complex problems are rarely

[1:54:07] resolved

[1:54:08] with one simple solution,

[1:54:10] and we don't think this is

[1:54:11] going to pass. And your own

[1:54:12] data said it wouldn't. We have

[1:54:13] not seen a good faith effort,

[1:54:14] which would look

[1:54:15] like compromise: some limits,

[1:54:19] sunset to this tax.

[1:54:22] Like I said, a basket

[1:54:23] of reforms. One thing concerned

[1:54:24] Windsor citizens all agreed on

[1:54:25] was this: we can never support.

[1:54:26] Support a tax with no sunset

[1:54:27] and no regular review

[1:54:29] by voters. In fact,

[1:54:30] the ordinance before you

[1:54:31] on page 7 says specifically

[1:54:32] in Section 26230 that the tax

[1:54:35] may be amended by the City

[1:54:36] Council without a vote

[1:54:37] of the people. What? Our group

[1:54:39] is active and experienced.

[1:54:40] Collectively, we have worked as

[1:54:42] volunteers, organizers,

[1:54:43] consultants, managers,

[1:54:44] and sometimes as a candidate

[1:54:45] for at least 2 dozen campaigns

[1:54:46] over 50 years. We will be

[1:54:48] working

[1:54:49] on this issue and other issues

[1:54:50] like the coming council mayor

[1:54:52] races and beyond. We can be

[1:54:54] reached at the following email

[1:54:55] address:

[1:54:56] concerned.windsor.ca@gmail.com.

[1:55:00] Again,

[1:55:01] concerned.windsor.ca@gmail.com.

[1:55:04] We concerned Windsor citizens

[1:55:06] are here to stay and will

[1:55:07] remain active regardless

[1:55:08] of election results. We ask you

[1:55:10] to limit this tax proposal

[1:55:11] to a term of no more than 5

[1:55:12] years. Thank you.

[1:55:18] >> Anybody else

[1:55:19] from the public? If you don't

[1:55:22] mind, you'd please line up. We

[1:55:23] can move a little faster if you

[1:55:27] line up, or we can stay here

[1:55:31] till 11.

[1:55:33] >> Take numbers next time.

[1:55:34] >> Okay, if no one approaches

[1:55:36] the podium,

[1:55:37] I'm going to close public comment.

[1:55:39] >> Oh, there you go.

[1:55:40] >> Council members, staff. My

[1:55:41] name is John Broughton. My wife

[1:55:47] and I have been Windsor

[1:55:50] residents since 2012. The group

[1:55:53] that I am now part of,

[1:55:55] Windsor Concerned Windsor

[1:55:56] Citizens, first met in

[1:55:57] December of last year. We were

[1:55:58] not happy with how the town

[1:55:59] council and town staff were

[1:56:02] managing the town's fiscal

[1:56:03] affairs. We have concluded that

[1:56:05] the current town council has

[1:56:06] completely failed its fiscal

[1:56:07] responsibilities.

[1:56:08] Until last year, there was no

[1:56:11] indication that members of the

[1:56:13] town council took seriously A

[1:56:15] consultant's report issued in

[1:56:17] 2021, 5 years ago, that the

[1:56:21] town faced a fiscal structural

[1:56:22] deficit, that the town needed

[1:56:23] to act to increase revenues and

[1:56:25] decrease costs. Instead, the

[1:56:30] council sat on its hands for 4

[1:56:33] years as additional staff

[1:56:34] positions were created and

[1:56:36] filled. Staff positions were

[1:56:37] reclassified upwards. Annual

[1:56:38] salary step increases for staff

[1:56:42] were essentially treated as

[1:56:43] automatic. And nothing was done

[1:56:46] about the excessive number

[1:56:47] of supervisory positions

[1:56:48] within the town staff. And as

[1:56:53] the town slid toward the

[1:56:55] current fiscal crisis, the

[1:56:56] council annually gave a bonus

[1:56:57] to the current town manager.

[1:56:58] In addition to neglecting

[1:56:59] long-term fundamental problems,

[1:57:03] particularly excessive

[1:57:04] personnel costs,

[1:57:06] the current town council seems

[1:57:08] to have had little or no focus

[1:57:10] on the question of why the

[1:57:11] town's general fund balance

[1:57:12] swung from an increase of

[1:57:13] about $400,000

[1:57:19] for the fiscal year ending

[1:57:20] June 30th, 2024, to a decrease

[1:57:21] of about $2.7 million

[1:57:23] for the year ending June 30th,

[1:57:24] 2025. That's a shift of about

[1:57:25] $3 million in a single year,

[1:57:26] which is more than 10%

[1:57:27] of the budget. What changed?

[1:57:29] And as importantly, when should

[1:57:30] the council have started

[1:57:31] dealing with the change? The 2

[1:57:32] largest changes were an

[1:57:34] increase of $2.2 million

[1:57:35] for police services, a 27%

[1:57:36] jump, and a $1 million increase

[1:57:50] in general government costs,

[1:57:53] a jump of 25%. A fiscally

[1:57:56] responsible town council

[1:57:58] would've gotten details,

[1:58:00] for example,

[1:58:01] about the sharp increase

[1:58:02] in overhead assessed by the

[1:58:04] Sheriff's Department. And then

[1:58:05] they would have discussed what

[1:58:07] to do about these,

[1:58:08] what could possibly be done

[1:58:09] about these 2 large cost

[1:58:10] increases. This council did not

[1:58:11] do that. In summary, the

[1:58:12] Windsor Concerned Windsor

[1:58:13] Citizens Group is

[1:58:16] against a permanent 1% increase

[1:58:17] in the sales tax in Windsor

[1:58:18] because we believe that the

[1:58:21] town staff and town council

[1:58:24] have been unwilling or unable

[1:58:29] to examine the root causes of

[1:58:31] the town's current fiscal

[1:58:34] problems. Instead, staff and

[1:58:36] the council are proposing

[1:58:37] to paper over the deficit

[1:58:38] Asking Windsor residents

[1:58:39] to pay more in taxes

[1:58:40] with no demonstration of fiscal

[1:58:41] responsibility and certainly no

[1:58:42] guarantee that more taxes,

[1:58:43] no more taxes will be a

[1:58:44] permanent,

[1:58:46] certainly a guarantee that more

[1:58:50] taxes, this increase

[1:58:51] in taxes will be a permanent

[1:58:53] fix for the town's fiscal

[1:58:54] problems.

[1:58:56] >> Hi.

[1:59:07] >> Hi.

[1:59:08] >> Thank you,

[1:59:09] council members. This is

[1:59:11] Teresa Hendricks, and I live

[1:59:12] in Sam's district. And I came

[1:59:13] here

[1:59:14] to let you know there are a lot

[1:59:15] of people who support putting

[1:59:17] the 1 cent per dollar spent,

[1:59:19] 1% sales tax on the ballot

[1:59:21] until such time as removed

[1:59:26] by a citizen measure approved

[1:59:27] by the voters. I can tell you

[1:59:28] that we already have a great

[1:59:34] group of retired professionals

[1:59:37] who want to campaign for this

[1:59:38] for you, and you can reach us

[1:59:39] at windsorisworthit@gmail.com,

[1:59:43] and you can look

[1:59:49] for a website coming up

[1:59:51] at windsorisworthit.org

[1:59:54] to give everybody the facts

[1:59:55] about the sales tax and why we

[1:59:58] should vote for it and why we

[1:59:59] should pass this sales tax. We

[2:00:01] feel that

[2:00:03] in all the meetings you've held

[2:00:04] over the past year, we have

[2:00:06] gotten more than enough

[2:00:08] documentation of the rise in

[2:00:09] external costs and forces that

[2:00:11] are forcing Windsor

[2:00:16] to put this

[2:00:17] on the ballot if we want to

[2:00:18] keep our town as beautiful and

[2:00:19] great a place

[2:00:21] to live as it is now. And let

[2:00:22] me just say,

[2:00:24] I think this makes sense

[2:00:25] to put this on the ballot.

[2:00:28] Really, it's a protection

[2:00:30] for all of us and our property

[2:00:33] values because,

[2:00:34] as we were just discussing,

[2:00:35] homes are generally the biggest

[2:00:36] asset that a family or a person

[2:00:38] owns. If our town gets tattered

[2:00:47] and goes downhill,

[2:00:48] so do our investments in our

[2:00:51] homes and any price that we

[2:00:54] might want to sell them for

[2:00:55] in the future. And more

[2:00:56] importantly,

[2:00:57] there's a danger that we may

[2:00:59] not be as safe a town as we

[2:01:00] have always been. We may not

[2:01:02] have anywhere near the quality

[2:01:03] of parks that we have always

[2:01:04] had and recreation programs

[2:01:05] we've always had

[2:01:07] for our kids. These are the

[2:01:08] reasons most people moved here

[2:01:10] to Windsor, because it's a

[2:01:12] great place. It's a great place

[2:01:13] to call your new hometown or

[2:01:14] your forever hometown,

[2:01:15] and we want

[2:01:16] to keep it that way a safe,

[2:01:17] family-friendly,

[2:01:18] well-kept town for all of us.

[2:01:19] So, you do have people who

[2:01:20] support this,

[2:01:22] and I encourage you to put it

[2:01:23] on the ballot as written,

[2:01:24] and then you can let the voters

[2:01:26] of Windsor decide. And I'm sure

[2:01:27] it'll be interesting. Thank

[2:01:28] you.

[2:01:57] >> Hi, Betsy Malice,

[2:01:59] Flametree Circle. In October

[2:02:00] of last year,

[2:02:02] the executive team

[2:02:03] of the town, which I didn't

[2:02:04] even know there was one,

[2:02:05] and I was even more surprised

[2:02:06] to learn that each

[2:02:08] of them earns between $200,000

[2:02:09] and $350,000 a year, they

[2:02:11] invited myself and some others

[2:02:12] to a meeting to discuss

[2:02:14] Windsor's fiscal outlook. I was

[2:02:15] told then that they wanted the

[2:02:17] residents' feedback, but they

[2:02:19] shared that the solution was a

[2:02:21] 1% non-sunsetting sales tax.

[2:02:23] Tonight, 9 months later,

[2:02:26] this council is voting

[2:02:27] on a ballot measure for a 1%

[2:02:29] non-sunsetting sales tax.

[2:02:30] Staff was told

[2:02:31] to not spend money

[2:02:32] on a consultant. At least 2 of

[2:02:34] the council members requested

[2:02:37] that the issue just be put

[2:02:38] on the ballot and

[2:02:39] to let the voters speak

[2:02:42] for themselves.

[2:02:44] >> Thank you.

[2:02:45] >> Can you advise how many

[2:02:46] hours and how much salary was

[2:02:48] used by staff working

[2:02:49] on this ballot measure? This

[2:02:51] also doesn't include the

[2:02:52] $50,000 that was spent on a

[2:02:53] professional survey whose

[2:02:54] results were never presented to

[2:02:55] the council and whose results

[2:02:56] found that the measure in fact

[2:02:58] did not have enough support

[2:02:59] to pass. Doesn't also include

[2:03:01] the $27,000 to put the ballot

[2:03:03] on the measure the measure on

[2:03:04] the ballot. I've not seen good

[2:03:05] faith by this town council

[2:03:09] to truly control expenses. The

[2:03:11] town has spent a lot of money

[2:03:14] on a new ERP software system

[2:03:16] that was supposed to save up

[2:03:17] to 20%

[2:03:18] of staff time and labor,

[2:03:20] but expenses, salaries, and

[2:03:21] benefits just keep increasing.

[2:03:24] The town stated that there's

[2:03:28] been, been a hiring freeze for

[2:03:31] at least 6 months, yet we're

[2:03:32] still employing a full-time HR

[2:03:36] recruitment specialist. Why is

[2:03:37] that money really being spent

[2:03:41] wisely? You keep telling people

[2:03:42] a new tax would bring back the

[2:03:45] 3 vacant police positions and

[2:03:46] keep our parks looking nicer,

[2:03:48] but the ballot actually reads,

[2:03:49] and for government use, even

[2:03:51] though that was not verbally

[2:03:52] stated in the presentation.

[2:03:55] So, it could be used

[2:03:56] for more staff,

[2:03:57] for more benefits,

[2:04:00] for more raises,

[2:04:01] or it could be used to backfill

[2:04:02] the money that's already been

[2:04:04] spent. This council or any

[2:04:05] future council could decide

[2:04:06] to use it

[2:04:07] on anything they wanted,

[2:04:08] including giving yourselves a

[2:04:09] raise,

[2:04:10] which has been suggested

[2:04:12] by past councils. Since 2019,

[2:04:14] when it was announced that we

[2:04:15] were heading towards a fiscal

[2:04:17] deficit, I didn't I do not

[2:04:20] think the council has been good

[2:04:21] stewards of the taxpayers'

[2:04:23] money. I don't think you've

[2:04:24] made the hard decisions to

[2:04:25] really reduce spending. I think

[2:04:27] it was just too easy to keep

[2:04:29] spending our money. I don't

[2:04:32] think more taxes will fix bad

[2:04:33] governance. I don't think that

[2:04:35] more taxes will correct

[2:04:36] overspending. I've talked

[2:04:39] to friends and neighbors,

[2:04:41] and many do agree

[2:04:43] with me. I am part of

[2:04:46] Concerned Windsor Citizens, and

[2:04:47] if anybody agrees

[2:04:48] with me or wants to talk

[2:04:51] to me, they can email me at

[2:04:52] concernedwindsorca@gmail.com.

[2:04:53] Thank you for listening.

[2:04:56] >> Anybody else

[2:04:59] from the public? Seeing none,

[2:05:04] I'm going

[2:05:07] to close the public comment,

[2:05:08] bring it back to council for

[2:05:12] discussion. I guess we could

[2:05:14] start with probably the easy

[2:05:15] one. I am very interested

[2:05:17] in being part

[2:05:19] of that writing the

[2:05:22] for the favor, in favor

[2:05:24] of the argument.

[2:05:27] >> Yep.

[2:05:28] >> In favor. So, if we could

[2:05:29] maybe discuss that first.

[2:05:30] There's 2 openings for that.

[2:05:32] Is anyone else interested?

[2:05:34] >> I would also like

[2:05:35] to be considered

[2:05:37] for that one.

[2:05:40] >> Councilmember Leep or

[2:05:41] Salmon or Wall, do you guys

[2:05:42] have?

[2:05:44] >> How, how many people can be

[2:05:45] And Mayor, if I may so there is

[2:05:47] the, the common practices

[2:05:50] for council,

[2:05:54] less than a quorum. There is

[2:05:58] obviously an argument that

[2:06:00] placing an item on the,

[2:06:03] on the ballot or the after,

[2:06:04] after the council votes today,

[2:06:06] it's not city business anymore.

[2:06:07] It's going to have

[2:06:09] to we can't use city funds. So

[2:06:10] there is an argument that All

[2:06:12] the council can participate,

[2:06:13] but I think the recommendation

[2:06:15] is to have less than a quorum

[2:06:16] to avoid any type

[2:06:17] of arguments related to the

[2:06:19] Brown Act, even though it's an

[2:06:22] election matter. So, that's why

[2:06:24] the recommendation had 2 blanks

[2:06:25] for up to 2 individuals.

[2:06:31] >> So, Councilmember Leep or

[2:06:32] Wall or Councilmember Salmon,

[2:06:34] are you guys?

[2:06:36] >> I'd like to be involved. I

[2:06:37] mean, I think the wording

[2:06:39] in some ways of the argument is

[2:06:41] it means everything. But, you

[2:06:45] know,

[2:06:50] so we can make nominations and

[2:06:55] vote, I suppose. Or can we,

[2:06:56] can we have a workshop

[2:06:57] to put together?

[2:06:59] >> No, after so

[2:07:00] after you place the item

[2:07:01] on the on the so if tonight the

[2:07:02] council decided to vote on the

[2:07:03] resolution placing the item

[2:07:04] on the ballot,

[2:07:05] we couldn't use city resources

[2:07:07] to, to

[2:07:08] in any way promote or campaign

[2:07:09] in writing, the argument would

[2:07:10] be that would be done on kind

[2:07:11] of everybody's own time. Would

[2:07:16] be looking like promoting,

[2:07:17] campaigning, campaigning.

[2:07:18] >> I would be willing

[2:07:20] to relinquish it to you, Sam,

[2:07:21] if the mayor and you'd like

[2:07:22] to write it. I mean,

[2:07:23] obviously they don't have

[2:07:26] to be written together,

[2:07:28] but no, they'd be separate.

[2:07:31] They'd be separate arguments,

[2:07:32] but it would be two.

[2:07:33] >> It would be one. I'm sorry

[2:07:34] to interrupt. Oh, it would

[2:07:36] actually be one argument.

[2:07:38] >> Okay.

[2:07:39] >> So, it'd be working

[2:07:41] together. So, the way, just

[2:07:42] to recap, we would have the law

[2:07:43] does give priority

[2:07:46] to an argument, especially if

[2:07:48] the council designates its

[2:07:51] members or a certain amount

[2:07:53] of its members or 1, 2

[2:07:56] of its members,

[2:07:57] that argument gets priority

[2:07:58] for being the argument

[2:08:00] in favor. Anybody could, or

[2:08:04] other groups can oppose and do

[2:08:06] an argument against. And then

[2:08:08] there's rebuttal arguments that

[2:08:10] could be submitted. So, the

[2:08:11] individual council members,

[2:08:12] individual or individuals

[2:08:13] selected, council or council

[2:08:14] members selected to write the

[2:08:16] argument would also be writing

[2:08:17] the rebuttal. But it's still,

[2:08:18] it's collective. It's one

[2:08:19] argument,

[2:08:20] one rebuttal.

[2:08:22] >> I'd be happy to defer

[2:08:23] to others. I've had my day

[2:08:24] in the sun recently,

[2:08:30] so I think that I'll follow

[2:08:34] Tanya's lead, which is

[2:08:39] to defer.

[2:08:40] >> I, I, I couldn't hear,

[2:08:42] so.

[2:08:43] >> No, he's.

[2:08:48] >> I said go ahead, Sam and

[2:08:49] Rosa.

[2:08:50] >> Vice Mayor and Mayor and

[2:08:51] Councilmember Salmon, he's okay

[2:08:52] with.

[2:08:54] >> It's okay with me to stay

[2:08:55] out of it.

[2:08:56] >> Okay, but there's still

[2:08:59] there's still 3.

[2:09:00] >> Yes, Councilmember Wall.

[2:09:03] >> So do we need

[2:09:05] to and I don't mean

[2:09:08] to be the thorn

[2:09:09] in the side here,

[2:09:10] but do we need

[2:09:11] to designate someone

[2:09:12] to write the rebuttal then?

[2:09:14] >> That's what we're trying

[2:09:15] to do here.

[2:09:16] >> No, it's all one piece.

[2:09:18] >> It's not the rebuttal.

[2:09:19] >> It's all one.

[2:09:20] >> The same, the same,

[2:09:21] the same folks you select to do

[2:09:22] the arguments are the same that

[2:09:23] the actual same folks that

[2:09:25] actually also do the rebuttal.

[2:09:26] >> That seems a little.

[2:09:27] >> No, I think Councilmember

[2:09:28] Wall is talking about against

[2:09:31] the sales tax.

[2:09:32] >> I'm no, the rebuttal is

[2:09:35] against, is

[2:09:36] against the people who are

[2:09:37] against the tax, right? It's

[2:09:38] not against the tax, it's

[2:09:39] in favor of the tax.

[2:09:40] >> Councilmember Wall, can you

[2:09:43] be more clarify your,

[2:09:44] your request?

[2:09:46] >> I'm asking, and I apologize

[2:09:47] if I'm missing the point here,

[2:09:49] so if we're writing the,

[2:09:51] the pros

[2:09:53] to passing this tax as,

[2:09:55] as council members. I'm

[2:09:56] wondering,

[2:09:59] is there an opportunity

[2:10:00] for someone to be designated

[2:10:01] to write the cons?

[2:10:03] >> So, so, good question,

[2:10:04] council member. The, the

[2:10:05] arguments against,

[2:10:08] those are anybody could,

[2:10:09] could prepare those arguments.

[2:10:11] The council doesn't designate

[2:10:12] folks

[2:10:13] to do the argument against,

[2:10:14] only the argument in favor,

[2:10:18] since you are placing the

[2:10:19] measure on the ballot.

[2:10:21] >> And then we haven't voted

[2:10:22] yet. Sorry, I think I jumped

[2:10:23] the gun.

[2:10:24] >> Since we're placing it

[2:10:25] on the ballot,

[2:10:26] we can only argue in favor

[2:10:27] of it.

[2:10:28] >> The council is placing it

[2:10:29] on it, so the council is

[2:10:30] arguing, making arguments

[2:10:31] in favor, correct?

[2:10:35] >> So, I guess I just

[2:10:38] fundamentally have a problem

[2:10:39] with that because I want this I

[2:10:40] want this

[2:10:41] on the ballot so people can

[2:10:42] vote on it, but that doesn't

[2:10:44] mean I'm necessarily in favor

[2:10:45] of it.

[2:10:47] >> And that's anyone.

[2:10:51] Councilmember Wall can write a

[2:10:52] rebuttal. So if you want to

[2:10:53] on your own write a rebuttal

[2:10:54] against it, that's something

[2:10:55] that you can do. But the

[2:10:56] council doesn't designate

[2:10:57] people to specifically write a

[2:10:58] rebuttal.

[2:10:59] >> Okay, so the council's only

[2:11:00] going to write something

[2:11:01] officially supporting this?

[2:11:02] >> Correct.

[2:11:04] >> How is the rebuttal to the

[2:11:05] council's argument chosen?

[2:11:06] Because it's a limit

[2:11:10] of words, right?

[2:11:11] >> Correct, correct. So, so

[2:11:12] the, the so let me,

[2:11:13] let me just kind of go

[2:11:14] over it.

[2:11:16] >> Just please.

[2:11:18] >> Sorry, again,

[2:11:19] I'm maybe confusing people.

[2:11:20] When you place a measure,

[2:11:22] a tax measure, or in this case

[2:11:23] on the ballot,

[2:11:24] you can designate

[2:11:26] on who you want

[2:11:29] to do the arguments in favor.

[2:11:30] Somebody from the public or

[2:11:33] somebody else, whoever it may

[2:11:34] be, can draft, whether it's an

[2:11:38] organization, a voter can

[2:11:40] prepare an argument against.

[2:11:42] Once the argument

[2:11:43] in favor and the argument

[2:11:44] against are received,

[2:11:46] and the argument

[2:11:48] against there are rules

[2:11:50] for priority in case there's

[2:11:52] multiple arguments against.

[2:11:53] There's rules for priority, and

[2:11:54] that our legis our town clerk

[2:11:55] as the election official,

[2:11:56] ends up selecting it. Then now

[2:11:58] you have an argument

[2:11:59] in favor, argument against.

[2:12:05] Then there's an opportunity

[2:12:06] for both sides to rebut the

[2:12:07] arguments that were received,

[2:12:10] the argument in favor, the

[2:12:11] group submitting the argument

[2:12:13] against could rebut. And for

[2:12:14] the folks that submitted the

[2:12:15] argument in favor could rebut

[2:12:17] the argument against. The limit

[2:12:23] for the rebuttal, the limit

[2:12:24] for the arguments in favor and

[2:12:26] against are 300 words.

[2:12:27] Rebuttal arguments are 250

[2:12:29] words. And so, it's a short,

[2:12:32] it's not pages and pages.

[2:12:33] There's a word limit. And

[2:12:35] there's also a time limit,

[2:12:40] a time requirement a due date.

[2:12:41] Arguments in favor and

[2:12:42] against are due August 14th.

[2:12:43] The rebuttal arguments will be

[2:12:45] due August 21st. Aside

[2:12:51] from that, the town attorney I

[2:12:52] would be tasked

[2:12:55] under the resolution,

[2:12:57] if the council adopts it, to

[2:12:58] also prepare an impartial

[2:12:59] analysis. The impartial

[2:13:00] analysis is factual. It's

[2:13:01] supposed

[2:13:02] to be it's impartial. The law

[2:13:03] requires it to be impartial,

[2:13:06] just factual for the voters.

[2:13:07] And that would also be

[2:13:09] submitted. And you normally see

[2:13:10] that as an impartial analysis

[2:13:11] as part that accompanies the

[2:13:12] election material. Hopefully I

[2:13:16] provided...

[2:13:20] >> And the date for that is

[2:13:22] in the resolution?

[2:13:23] >> The date

[2:13:24] for the impartial analysis?

[2:13:25] And we were going

[2:13:27] to get that. That's actually

[2:13:29] The county sets those dates.

[2:13:31] That's not in the resolution,

[2:13:32] but we follow the,

[2:13:34] the county. It's August 14th as

[2:13:36] well. It's when the argument's

[2:13:37] in favor and against all. And

[2:13:38] that's the county ends up

[2:13:41] putting those dates as well.

[2:13:42] >> So, remind me again,

[2:13:43] so we're going

[2:13:44] to actually obviously, I don't

[2:13:45] know if there's discussion

[2:13:46] about this,

[2:13:48] but someone's going

[2:13:49] to make a motion on this. So

[2:13:50] once that if it passes,

[2:13:51] once that's done,

[2:13:52] then is the town not allowed to

[2:13:53] share facts and information

[2:13:59] anymore on their website,

[2:14:00] or can they do that?

[2:14:02] >> No, that, that,

[2:14:03] that's another great question.

[2:14:04] So, what you're prohibited

[2:14:05] from doing is campaigning,

[2:14:06] spending city or town resources

[2:14:07] on the campaigning,

[2:14:08] but that doesn't prevent us

[2:14:10] from providing information,

[2:14:11] just factual information where,

[2:14:15] you know, obviously When things

[2:14:16] get put out, our office looks

[2:14:20] at it as well to make sure that

[2:14:21] the wording doesn't go into

[2:14:24] anything that could be

[2:14:25] translated into campaigning.

[2:14:26] But you are allowed

[2:14:28] to provide information,

[2:14:29] whether on the website,

[2:14:31] some jurisdictions provide

[2:14:32] mailers, etc.

[2:14:34] >> So, for example, tonight I

[2:14:35] heard some comments that I

[2:14:36] don't necessarily agree with.

[2:14:37] So for example, would,

[2:14:39] would I be able to ask the town

[2:14:42] clerk or the town manager

[2:14:46] to put on the website things

[2:14:48] that this council, this body,

[2:14:50] has not approved

[2:14:52] to spend money on? Like the

[2:14:55] Kaiser Park master plan,

[2:14:56] we've said no,

[2:14:59] we're not moving forward

[2:15:00] with that, or,

[2:15:01] or any other things. Would we

[2:15:04] be able to show where we are

[2:15:05] in the last 4 or 5 years

[2:15:09] but tried

[2:15:11] to be fiscally responsible?

[2:15:12] >> And Mayor, if there are

[2:15:13] questions Regarding the council

[2:15:15] actions, those are factual

[2:15:16] on what the council has voted

[2:15:17] on and not voted on. Those are

[2:15:18] definitely, if we're answering

[2:15:20] questions or any questions that

[2:15:22] are out there, that would,

[2:15:24] those would be facts, factual.

[2:15:25] No, we haven't voted on this.

[2:15:28] Yes, the council has voted

[2:15:29] on that. Those are things

[2:15:31] on the record.

[2:15:33] >> But is that a request that

[2:15:34] we can make to you to put

[2:15:36] on a, is there going

[2:15:37] to be a page in the town

[2:15:39] Yeah, we'll maintain the

[2:15:41] webpage for factual educational

[2:15:42] data points.

[2:15:45] >> And I mean, technically, the

[2:15:46] actions that you've already

[2:15:47] taken in the past to

[2:15:48] demonstrate your fiscal

[2:15:49] responsibility is already

[2:15:50] on the website within agenda

[2:15:52] packets and minutes.

[2:15:56] >> So, there is that too.

[2:15:57] >> So, it does exist.

[2:15:58] >> Right.

[2:16:00] >> And may I, Mayor?

[2:16:01] But I think that we're talking

[2:16:03] about summarizing that the

[2:16:04] council has done So many

[2:16:05] actions to reduce our spending

[2:16:06] over the last 4 years.

[2:16:08] >> Yes.

[2:16:09] >> And we have not approved

[2:16:10] many things, including

[2:16:11] significant infrastructure

[2:16:13] projects that we are seeing

[2:16:14] huge issues with because we

[2:16:15] haven't paved our roads because

[2:16:16] they've been extremely

[2:16:18] expensive. And so that summary

[2:16:19] can go on to that page.

[2:16:21] >> Yeah, we would be looking we

[2:16:22] would,

[2:16:26] we would definitely look

[2:16:27] at we could look at kind

[2:16:30] of summaries of different

[2:16:31] things that the council has

[2:16:32] done. I would take a look

[2:16:33] at it as far as how it reads.

[2:16:34] Again, pushing out information

[2:16:36] that potentially has been asked

[2:16:38] for in the public versus

[2:16:39] anything that sounds like a

[2:16:41] campaign or a definitely you

[2:16:42] wouldn't see anything that vote

[2:16:44] yes on or anything like that.

[2:16:45] And we would look

[2:16:47] at language to, to, to make

[2:16:48] sure that it doesn't cross kind

[2:16:49] of across the line and it would

[2:16:50] just be information.

[2:16:53] >> Similar to some of the

[2:16:54] frequently asked questions that

[2:16:56] we currently have posted

[2:16:57] on the website. Those are

[2:16:58] questions that we've heard

[2:16:59] over the process

[2:17:02] over the past 6 to 8 months,

[2:17:03] and we've provided those

[2:17:04] answers factually and include

[2:17:06] those on the website.

[2:17:10] >> And if there were any

[2:17:16] others,

[2:17:17] we could do that as well.

[2:17:18] >> Okay.

[2:17:19] >> All right, I guess

[2:17:20] >> If I could, Mayor, just

[2:17:22] to clarify, I believe that I

[2:17:23] heard that there was some

[2:17:27] council consensus that the

[2:17:37] argument on behalf

[2:17:38] of the council could be

[2:17:44] Provided through Rosa and Sam.

[2:17:46] I'm sorry, Council the Mayor

[2:17:47] and Council Member Salmon.

[2:17:48] >> You're good with that?

[2:17:49] >> I didn't.

[2:17:50] >> I heard it.

[2:17:52] >> You and I

[2:17:53] to do the argument

[2:17:54] for argument, and we can ask

[2:17:58] for assistance for facts.

[2:18:00] >> If there's information

[2:18:01] regarding just facts that you

[2:18:02] have that that that are

[2:18:04] available, those are. Those are

[2:18:05] readily available to anybody,

[2:18:06] to members of the public. If

[2:18:07] anybody wanted

[2:18:08] to ask questions, of course we

[2:18:09] would normally answer

[2:18:10] questions,

[2:18:11] factual questions.

[2:18:13] >> The other council members

[2:18:14] would they would not be able

[2:18:15] to get a review

[2:18:16] of the statement

[2:18:17] until it's submitted and was at

[2:18:18] the same time everyone else?

[2:18:19] >> Correct.

[2:18:20] >> Okay.

[2:18:21] >> Right.

[2:18:22] >> Just want to make sure.

[2:18:23] >> Well, Carissa, are you

[2:18:24] comfortable with me or would

[2:18:25] you be more comfortable With

[2:18:26] Tanya.

[2:18:27] >> I, I'm thinking about the

[2:18:28] ballot and I'm thinking about

[2:18:29] the people reading it and what

[2:18:30] it would appear if it said

[2:18:32] mayor and vice mayor. I don't

[2:18:33] but I mean,

[2:18:34] but you're well known,

[2:18:35] people respect you, so I,

[2:18:36] I just I'm,

[2:18:37] I'm okay either way.

[2:18:39] >> If you're, if you feel that

[2:18:40] strongly and you want

[2:18:41] to be a part of it, vice mayor

[2:18:42] has said that she would let you

[2:18:43] do it. Is okay,

[2:18:44] so that I'm fine. So yeah,

[2:18:45] you want to be a part

[2:18:46] of it?

[2:18:50] >> I would.

[2:18:51] >> Okay, let's do it then.

[2:18:52] >> Okay.

[2:18:53] >> Is that fine? So, we're

[2:18:54] good?

[2:18:55] >> Yeah?

[2:18:56] >> Okay. So.

[2:18:57] >> I think we can answer your

[2:18:58] question.

[2:18:59] >> No, we can't. The public

[2:19:03] comment's closed. Sorry. I

[2:19:04] would've, yeah.

[2:19:06] >> Are we, is someone ready

[2:19:07] to make a motion,

[2:19:16] or do you guys want

[2:19:19] to discuss?

[2:19:20] >> And I think, Rosa, could I

[2:19:21] ask one more question?

[2:19:22] >> Of course.

[2:19:24] >> This Rosa and I,

[2:19:26] as we can engage the community

[2:19:30] in writing this, that's the

[2:19:33] question. I can't see why not.

[2:19:36] >> If you've had questions

[2:19:37] for the community

[2:19:38] in your writing

[2:19:39] of an argument, I mean,

[2:19:41] that is up

[2:19:42] to I'll leave that up

[2:19:44] to you if you wanted

[2:19:47] to ask questions,

[2:19:50] but that is an art. That's if

[2:19:51] you needed additional

[2:19:54] information.

[2:19:56] >> I just want to yeah; I just

[2:19:58] want if we look at that and an

[2:20:02] organization comes forward and

[2:20:03] we can engage them.

[2:20:04] >> Okay.

[2:20:05] >> You also have as designated

[2:20:06] to write the argument,

[2:20:07] there are also, I will point

[2:20:09] out,

[2:20:10] the argument can be signed by

[2:20:11] 5 individuals. Usually what you

[2:20:12] have in a lot of jurisdictions

[2:20:13] is you have it could be members

[2:20:14] of the public that could sign

[2:20:17] the argument as well. But I

[2:20:19] know that those election rules

[2:20:20] are in the elections office

[2:20:21] for writing

[2:20:22] of arguments and arguments

[2:20:23] against as well,

[2:20:25] and rebuttals. Those are the

[2:20:26] elections official would have

[2:20:27] the rules. on,

[2:20:28] on those arguments.

[2:20:36] >> Okay, so yeah, okay,

[2:20:38] so it can be signed by 5.

[2:20:39] >> Yeah, that's we will need

[2:20:40] to we'll need assistance

[2:20:41] in terms of, you know,

[2:20:43] finding how to make the, okay,

[2:20:49] the most accurate statement.

[2:20:53] >> Hey, Mayor? Yes,

[2:20:56] Councilmember Wall.

[2:20:57] >> So, before we,

[2:20:58] before we close discussion,

[2:20:59] and, and I know you're going

[2:21:01] to move to a To ask for a

[2:21:09] statement or a resolution. Are

[2:21:10] we still having discussion

[2:21:11] here?

[2:21:12] >> Yeah, we're still having

[2:21:13] discussion. I was yeah.

[2:21:14] >> So, can I, if you don't

[2:21:15] mind, I'd just like

[2:21:16] to share that I just want to

[2:21:18] make sure that folks know that

[2:21:20] there's a significant portion

[2:21:25] of the population in Windsor,

[2:21:26] by polling data and just

[2:21:28] by anecdotal conversations,

[2:21:30] that is not in favor of this,

[2:21:34] right? So, we know that, and

[2:21:35] that's why we go that's why we

[2:21:36] want to vote on this,

[2:21:38] and that's why I was in favor

[2:21:39] of putting this

[2:21:41] on the ballot,

[2:21:43] even though I'm not in favor

[2:21:44] of it passing, because I want

[2:21:45] transparency and I want people

[2:21:46] to have the voice. I just want

[2:21:47] to make sure that everyone

[2:21:49] knows that, you know,

[2:21:50] the reason a lot of folks are

[2:21:52] against this is because a

[2:21:54] couple of things. One is that

[2:22:00] every single ballot measure not

[2:22:01] every single, sorry,

[2:22:02] that's an exaggeration. Almost

[2:22:03] every single ballot measure

[2:22:04] for the last 20 years has had a

[2:22:05] tax increase proposed on it.

[2:22:07] And there's always a great

[2:22:10] reason. It's early childhood

[2:22:11] education. It's we need

[2:22:13] to fix the schools. It's we

[2:22:14] need

[2:22:16] to fund the fire department.

[2:22:17] And there's always a great,

[2:22:19] like, you know, philosophical

[2:22:20] bleeding-heart reason why we

[2:22:24] need more taxes.

[2:22:25] But I'm just going to,

[2:22:26] for the record, I just want

[2:22:28] to run through,

[2:22:29] and if you'll tolerate me,

[2:22:30] I greatly appreciate it,

[2:22:31] and I'll be quick. Here's just

[2:22:33] a list

[2:22:34] of the taxes we currently pay,

[2:22:35] and I think it's important

[2:22:37] for the record. So currently,

[2:22:40] if you live in Windsor, you are

[2:22:42] subject

[2:22:43] to federal income tax, the

[2:22:44] California state income tax,

[2:22:46] Social Security tax,

[2:22:47] Medicare, an additional

[2:22:48] Medicare tax if you're a

[2:22:50] high-wage earner,

[2:22:51] federal long-term capital gains

[2:22:52] tax, the California tax

[2:22:54] on capital gains,

[2:22:55] net investment income taxes,

[2:22:56] property taxes,

[2:23:00] which is a big one for us.

[2:23:01] Obviously, everyone knows

[2:23:02] property taxes, the Mello-Roos

[2:23:04] special assessments, parcel

[2:23:06] taxes, California's the,

[2:23:10] the sales tax for California.

[2:23:13] We have vehicle registrations,

[2:23:16] vehicle license fees,

[2:23:17] transportation improvement

[2:23:19] fees, smog inspection fees. If

[2:23:23] you have, like me, a dog,

[2:23:24] you got dog license fees,

[2:23:25] fishing license, hunting

[2:23:26] license, business license,

[2:23:30] concealed carry permit fees,

[2:23:32] federal estate taxes, gift

[2:23:33] taxes,

[2:23:35] early retirement withdrawal

[2:23:36] penalties, federal fuel taxes,

[2:23:37] California fuel taxes,

[2:23:40] and alcohol excise taxes.

[2:23:41] Tobacco taxes,

[2:23:42] cannabis taxes. We got TOT,

[2:23:43] obviously, if you stay here.

[2:23:47] We got the 911 surcharge, boat

[2:23:48] registration,

[2:23:50] and there's more. I'm not going

[2:23:54] to take everyone's whole night.

[2:23:56] It goes on and on. There's

[2:23:58] building permits,

[2:24:00] marriage and divorce fees,

[2:24:02] passport fees,

[2:24:03] professional licensing fees,

[2:24:04] Airbnb. We've talked

[2:24:05] about this a ton. If you run an

[2:24:07] Airbnb. You got trust and

[2:24:09] estate taxes, payroll taxes,

[2:24:12] property transfer taxes. I'm

[2:24:14] going to stop here. The list,

[2:24:17] like,

[2:24:18] the list is it's unbelievable.

[2:24:19] It goes on and on. I'm

[2:24:22] like not even a third

[2:24:24] of the way through my list. So

[2:24:25] I'm just going to leave it

[2:24:26] there that this is why people

[2:24:29] don't want another tax. And I

[2:24:33] know we say Windsor's worth it

[2:24:35] and we need it

[2:24:37] for this and we need it

[2:24:38] for that.

[2:24:39] At some point you have

[2:24:40] to say no. And there's a big

[2:24:41] portion

[2:24:42] of people who are ready

[2:24:43] to say no more. So that's my

[2:24:44] soapbox and I'll get off

[2:24:46] of it.

[2:24:47] >> So, I really appreciate

[2:24:48] that, but I do have

[2:24:49] to do a rebuttal. A lot of

[2:24:50] those were self-imposed

[2:24:52] expenses and a few

[2:24:53] of those were something, stuff

[2:24:55] that I don't have the luxury

[2:24:56] of having that you mentioned.

[2:24:57] They were for high-wage earners

[2:24:58] and some kind of luxuries. Tax

[2:25:00] stuff and boats and Yeah, don't

[2:25:02] have the luxury. I'm not even

[2:25:03] there.

[2:25:05] >> Luxury of a dog, luxury

[2:25:12] of wanting to go hunting.

[2:25:13] Yeah, I get it.

[2:25:14] >> So, thank you.

[2:25:15] >> All taxes and fees.

[2:25:16] But no, I actually think yeah,

[2:25:17] no, I, I thank you. Thank you

[2:25:18] for sharing that.

[2:25:19] But I did have to anyways,

[2:25:20] anyone else have a

[2:25:21] >> That's not the point.

[2:25:22] >> That's not this is not this

[2:25:24] was not I didn't know this was

[2:25:25] a rebuttal. I didn't know this

[2:25:26] was a debate. I was just

[2:25:27] sharing my...

[2:25:28] >> It's a discussion.

[2:25:29] >> If there's rebuttals,

[2:25:30] I would love

[2:25:31] to debate these.

[2:25:32] >> All right, we're

[2:25:33] in line item by line item. And

[2:25:34] discussion. So, I appreciate

[2:25:39] it. Thank you. Anyone else want

[2:25:42] to share some thoughts

[2:25:44] before I request a motion?

[2:25:45] >> Yes.

[2:25:46] >> Yes, go ahead.

[2:25:47] >> So, over my years I've been

[2:25:48] involved in, I don't know,

[2:25:49] I'm going to guess 6 different

[2:25:50] businesses, small ones,

[2:25:51] women's retail,

[2:25:52] nationwide computer retail

[2:25:53] businesses, manufacturers,

[2:25:54] and I've worked with a lot of

[2:25:56] people. I've had so much fun

[2:25:58] working with the people

[2:26:01] in the government here in

[2:26:07] Windsor because they are

[2:26:09] honest, they're hardworking,

[2:26:10] they care about the town,

[2:26:11] and they do a great job.

[2:26:14] There's been a lot

[2:26:16] of smack thrown

[2:26:19] out here tonight not a lot,

[2:26:20] but somewhat. And

[2:26:22] to throw out, for example, the

[2:26:23] town manager has been getting a

[2:26:26] bonus. That's just not true.

[2:26:29] The town manager's salary is,

[2:26:30] if I understand it correctly,

[2:26:31] 95% of the industry average

[2:26:34] for his position. So, the

[2:26:38] actual facts are not as so many

[2:26:42] people portray them when they

[2:26:43] put them out with nobody

[2:26:44] to check, to fact-check

[2:26:45] for them. So, when I came

[2:26:47] in here,

[2:26:48] the town was already trying

[2:26:51] to figure out how to get the

[2:26:52] taxes and the expenditures

[2:26:56] in order. And the first

[2:26:57] meeting, one of the very first

[2:26:58] meetings I went to in April

[2:26:59] of '25, was to analyze the

[2:27:00] budgetary problems and attack

[2:27:06] this thing. And right

[2:27:07] after the summer after that,

[2:27:09] Town Manager John Davis and his

[2:27:10] team went after it.

[2:27:14] With a vengeance. And that has

[2:27:17] been my experience as I have

[2:27:19] been watching this business

[2:27:24] of the Town of Windsor move

[2:27:26] forward. And anyone who says to

[2:27:27] the contrary does not

[2:27:29] understand what's actually

[2:27:31] going on internally and the

[2:27:32] analysis that is being done

[2:27:34] in order

[2:27:37] to bring the financial

[2:27:38] situation of the town

[2:27:42] in order. And I,

[2:27:43] I fear I don't fear, actually,

[2:27:46] because I believe that the tax

[2:27:48] is going to pass. But I fear

[2:27:49] the people who are gloom and

[2:27:50] doom because they just simply

[2:27:52] do not see what is actually

[2:27:55] going on internally and what is

[2:27:58] actually coming

[2:27:59] down the road, and we're going

[2:28:00] to go fix it. So, I want people

[2:28:04] to be very sincere when they

[2:28:05] analyze what's going on

[2:28:10] in the government

[2:28:14] in town.

[2:28:15] >> Vice Mayor?

[2:28:18] >> I love working here.

[2:28:19] >> Vice Mayor?

[2:28:20] >> All right,

[2:28:21] thank you. I want

[2:28:22] to thank all the new group,

[2:28:24] the Concerned Citizens of

[2:28:25] Windsor. I appreciate you guys

[2:28:26] coming and giving public

[2:28:27] comment. And Councilmember

[2:28:28] Wall knows that I agree

[2:28:29] with him

[2:28:32] on taxes. I hate the amount

[2:28:33] of federal income tax I have

[2:28:36] to pay because it's,

[2:28:38] it's established not on some

[2:28:39] of the incomes that we have

[2:28:41] in the state of California.

[2:28:42] So, we are taxed more because

[2:28:43] we have higher incomes here

[2:28:45] in California. Plus we also

[2:28:46] have our California state

[2:28:47] income tax,

[2:28:48] which is not being spent

[2:28:49] in any way the way that I would

[2:28:50] like for it to be spent. But

[2:28:52] the reason why I support this

[2:28:53] local tax is because it's just

[2:28:54] that it's local, and I do

[2:28:55] support my local town. I don't

[2:28:56] like the way that my federal

[2:28:57] taxes are being spent or my

[2:28:58] state taxes,

[2:28:59] but I know that here

[2:29:00] in the town of Windsor we have

[2:29:02] a say and we can say what

[2:29:04] happens, and we do listen

[2:29:05] to our constituents, and we

[2:29:08] have made significant changes

[2:29:09] in the way that we do things.

[2:29:11] And we listen I listen to

[2:29:12] Betsy every single meeting,

[2:29:14] and I appreciate the feedback.

[2:29:15] And we ask for as much feedback

[2:29:19] as we can get

[2:29:22] from our constituents here,

[2:29:23] because what you want is

[2:29:24] important. But also,

[2:29:27] there is a money problem,

[2:29:28] and we have been making cuts

[2:29:29] for a long time. When I first

[2:29:30] came onto council 4 years ago,

[2:29:34] we were watching very closely

[2:29:36] because right,

[2:29:37] that was right coming out of

[2:29:39] COVID and there was significant

[2:29:41] inflation and there were a lot

[2:29:42] of problems across all sorts

[2:29:43] of money issues. There was a

[2:29:47] huge reduction in our tourism

[2:29:48] because we had everything was

[2:29:49] shut down. And so,

[2:29:50] we had changes in our TOT taxes

[2:29:52] and there was a lot

[2:29:54] of fluctuation there. And so,

[2:29:55] as the years have come, have

[2:29:56] continued, we have really

[2:29:57] pulled back because we've

[2:29:58] watched trying

[2:30:01] to watch the bounce back

[2:30:02] from COVID the inflation,

[2:30:04] the significant increases

[2:30:05] in insurance,

[2:30:07] and the increased cost

[2:30:11] of asphalt. And so, trying to

[2:30:16] manage those while not seeing

[2:30:17] our revenue go up as high as

[2:30:18] those costs have been is

[2:30:21] significant. And we have made

[2:30:22] those cuts. And I understand

[2:30:24] that there's a concern.

[2:30:27] >> Thank you.

[2:30:28] >> I hate when other people

[2:30:29] spend the money that I worked

[2:30:30] hard on. And

[2:30:31] but here locally,

[2:30:32] I believe that with our

[2:30:33] advisory commission that we're

[2:30:34] our advisory commission that

[2:30:42] we're putting into play

[2:30:43] with the tax measure, if it's

[2:30:44] to pass,

[2:30:46] and the community input that we

[2:30:47] have, we can make the changes

[2:30:48] that are going to address the

[2:30:49] deficits that we have.

[2:30:53] >> Thank you.

[2:30:54] >> And I think that's what

[2:30:58] we're going

[2:30:59] to do. the significant amount

[2:31:00] of deferred maintenance that we

[2:31:01] have accumulated

[2:31:02] over the last couple

[2:31:03] of years because we've had

[2:31:04] to put those things aside. And

[2:31:05] even that, even the amount of

[2:31:06] money that we project that we

[2:31:07] will get with a 1% sales tax

[2:31:08] doesn't 100% fix the deferred

[2:31:09] maintenance. There's going

[2:31:10] to have

[2:31:11] to be more cuts going forward.

[2:31:13] Even if we have a tax measure,

[2:31:15] we are going to have

[2:31:16] to make cuts and we are going

[2:31:17] to have to change and make more

[2:31:18] efficiencies because we can't

[2:31:19] just and this is a problem that

[2:31:20] I talk about with my coworkers

[2:31:21] because I see huge problems

[2:31:26] with Santa Rosa where you can't

[2:31:27] just continue down this road

[2:31:28] without making changes. Like,

[2:31:29] we're asking

[2:31:32] for a tax measure,

[2:31:33] but we're not going

[2:31:35] to keep asking

[2:31:36] for tax measures. The state

[2:31:37] of California can't keep doing

[2:31:38] that. We can't keep spending,

[2:31:39] spending,

[2:31:40] and then just raising taxes.

[2:31:41] We have to make the changes,

[2:31:42] and I want Windsor

[2:31:43] to make those changes,

[2:31:44] and that's my plan is

[2:31:46] to make those changes,

[2:31:47] and that's what I'm hoping

[2:31:48] for going forward,

[2:31:49] and I hope that I'll be able

[2:31:50] to be part of that

[2:31:51] for the next 2 years, is

[2:31:52] to make significant changes

[2:31:54] to address our issues,

[2:31:55] to have a tax measure

[2:31:57] to help us out with that and to

[2:31:58] address our deferred

[2:31:59] maintenance and to really

[2:32:00] address our economic impact

[2:32:01] going forward and how we can

[2:32:02] develop economically

[2:32:04] to have more revenue for the

[2:32:06] town so we never ever have

[2:32:07] to ask

[2:32:12] for a tax measure again. And

[2:32:14] hopefully in the future the

[2:32:15] residents do repeal it. That

[2:32:16] would be, that would be

[2:32:17] like a once

[2:32:18] in a lifetime ever happening

[2:32:19] in the state of California

[2:32:21] would be to have a town to

[2:32:22] repeal a tax measure because

[2:32:24] now there's,

[2:32:25] now there's a reason. And I

[2:32:26] would love to have

[2:32:27] in the future be like staff is

[2:32:28] recommending a tax repeal.

[2:32:29] That would be amazing, right?

[2:32:31] And so, I want to be part

[2:32:32] of those goals.

[2:32:33] But right this minute, because

[2:32:34] of some

[2:32:35] of the turmoil that we've had

[2:32:36] over the past you know, 6, 7

[2:32:37] years, we have more going

[2:32:38] out than we have coming in.

[2:32:39] And that's not poor

[2:32:41] stewardship. It's been just a

[2:32:42] whole roller coaster. And so,

[2:32:45] I am asking

[2:32:46] for this tax measure,

[2:32:47] and I am asking for the trust

[2:32:48] in the community that we will

[2:32:49] spend it,

[2:32:50] that we will spend it wisely

[2:32:51] with the direction

[2:32:52] of the community. And so

[2:32:55] that's, that's my hope.

[2:32:56] >> Councilmember Salmon?

[2:33:00] >> Yeah, I wanted

[2:33:01] to just the issue of the

[2:33:03] 10-year a 10-year sunset. And I

[2:33:05] guess the question, I, you

[2:33:07] know, would you change your no

[2:33:08] vote if we had a 10-year

[2:33:11] sunset? Would you change your

[2:33:13] no vote if we had a 5-year?

[2:33:15] And I see one hand, but I think

[2:33:18] that the analysis is that no,

[2:33:19] that that's not really going

[2:33:21] to be the key. And I think

[2:33:24] tonight it's pretty obvious the

[2:33:25] key is going to be 5 years.

[2:33:30] The council,

[2:33:31] and that means going back to

[2:33:33] 2021, has been negligent in

[2:33:34] their financing and their duty.

[2:33:35] And that's what's going

[2:33:36] to be presented. And that's why

[2:33:37] we can't take a tax is because

[2:33:38] you get the money,

[2:33:43] you're just going to continue

[2:33:44] to spend it negligently. And

[2:33:50] that's what will gather the

[2:33:56] votes. Citizens for Concerned

[2:33:57] Citizens for Windsor. I got

[2:33:58] on council in the same

[2:34:00] Citizens for Better Windsor and

[2:34:03] was elected based on not me

[2:34:04] but on that issue, and that's

[2:34:06] what we'll be looking at. And I

[2:34:08] think we just want you know the

[2:34:09] idea is people are there's

[2:34:13] going to be a great number

[2:34:14] of people that are

[2:34:15] against taxes. And I just, you

[2:34:24] know, it'll be hard not to get

[2:34:25] defensive if when you say, you

[2:34:29] know, I was

[2:34:32] on council the whole time,

[2:34:33] so you're pointing at me. You

[2:34:38] know, I work, we work

[2:34:40] with staff as a team. We're

[2:34:41] part of that team

[2:34:43] to a certain extent. And it's

[2:34:44] important that we support staff

[2:34:49] and support the efforts. And I

[2:34:53] think I've done the best I can.

[2:34:55] I'm certainly far

[2:34:56] from perfect, but it seems

[2:34:58] like we presented the argument.

[2:35:03] We'll present the argument to

[2:35:04] people and they'll have that

[2:35:06] choice. In the Press Democrat

[2:35:07] just this afternoon,

[2:35:10] the latest article, Santa

[2:35:11] Rosa's going

[2:35:12] to put a tax measure

[2:35:15] on their ballot in November

[2:35:16] And go to 10.5% if approved.

[2:35:19] They're at 10.25% now,

[2:35:23] but that quarter cent is going

[2:35:24] to run out. So, they will be

[2:35:26] equal if it passes with

[2:35:27] Sebastopol, which is

[2:35:29] over the state limit. So, it's

[2:35:33] hard to deal

[2:35:39] with the inflation and cost

[2:35:40] of things and say, You were

[2:35:43] negligent, Sam,

[2:35:45] in the councils you were on.

[2:35:47] Especially if I look

[2:35:49] out and see a lot of people

[2:35:50] that are saying that have

[2:35:52] they're not the ones that are

[2:35:53] going to suffer

[2:35:54] from a 1% sales tax. You're not

[2:35:56] going to feel it. Sorry. I'm

[2:35:59] not going to feel it. Sorry.

[2:36:01] >> Okay. So, I believe that

[2:36:08] today's staff and council is

[2:36:11] way different. I, I know it is,

[2:36:12] than the staff and council that

[2:36:14] was here 5+ years past. It's,

[2:36:18] it's so different.

[2:36:19] >> Pretty different.

[2:36:22] >> So different. And I want

[2:36:24] to one of the first town

[2:36:25] ribbon-cutting ceremonies that

[2:36:27] I had,

[2:36:28] they passed me a script and I'm

[2:36:29] like, oh wow,

[2:36:31] they included this

[2:36:32] in the script. So, I stood

[2:36:33] there at the roundabout

[2:36:35] to read this script. And I had

[2:36:38] I mentioned the $300,000 a year

[2:36:43] bond we have to pay for 30

[2:36:46] years for that roundabout.

[2:36:48] Now, I didn't vote

[2:36:49] on that roundabout,

[2:36:50] or I think I had to vote

[2:36:54] on the final, final version.

[2:36:55] But anyways, somehow,

[2:36:57] we got there to that,

[2:36:59] to having to have that

[2:37:00] beautiful roundabout

[2:37:02] for that expensive,

[2:37:04] expensive bill. And then

[2:37:07] there's a property that was

[2:37:09] purchased

[2:37:10] with general fund money.

[2:37:11] >> Yes.

[2:37:14] >> That was again something

[2:37:15] that as a resident I didn't

[2:37:16] support. Today we get bids

[2:37:17] for asphalt. The low bids,

[2:37:18] they come in, residents hate

[2:37:19] it, have

[2:37:20] to go back and fix it. Right

[2:37:21] now, people are arguing

[2:37:22] about the flock, which I'm

[2:37:23] listening, I'm listening

[2:37:24] to them. They don't

[2:37:25] like the flock cameras. They

[2:37:27] want us to get rid

[2:37:28] of the flock cameras. So, does

[2:37:30] that mean we need to get more

[2:37:33] police officers because we're

[2:37:38] not going

[2:37:43] to have that additional So

[2:37:44] there's this whole game that

[2:37:45] like, okay, you don't

[2:37:46] like this,

[2:37:47] so what's an alternative?

[2:37:48] But I just, I mean, again, it

[2:37:49] does feel personal being told

[2:37:52] that we're not doing a good

[2:37:53] job, which I guess I have

[2:37:55] to look back and reflect

[2:37:56] on what I've done the last 4 or

[2:37:57] 5 years,

[2:37:58] if not a good job.

[2:37:59] >> Thank you.

[2:38:01] >> But with finances. So,

[2:38:03] but again, the beautiful part

[2:38:06] of this, Council Member Wall,

[2:38:07] is that again,

[2:38:08] we're bringing it

[2:38:09] to the residents. They're going

[2:38:10] to vote. They have the ultimate

[2:38:12] say. And this has been a long

[2:38:14] process. And I've felt really

[2:38:16] good about staff. I think you

[2:38:18] guys did what,

[2:38:19] with the money we had to spend

[2:38:21] and all the salaried employees

[2:38:26] worked extra, extra hard.

[2:38:29] There was no overtime pay.

[2:38:31] Salaried employees did the

[2:38:33] majority of the work. So, thank

[2:38:37] you, thank you so much

[2:38:38] to everyone for this. So

[2:38:40] at this time, I'll leave it

[2:38:41] with that and entertain a

[2:38:42] motion.

[2:38:43] >> You want me to state it?

[2:38:44] >> Please.

[2:38:46] >> I think I've got the

[2:38:48] language in front of me.

[2:38:50] >> And, and right here?

[2:38:52] >> Yes, and there are 2

[2:38:53] separate there's going to be 2

[2:38:55] separate motions for today.

[2:38:56] There's going

[2:38:57] to be a resolution,

[2:38:58] and then there's going

[2:38:59] to be the introduction

[2:39:01] of an ordinance. And just for,

[2:39:02] for the technical aspect

[2:39:03] of the ordinance, the ordinance

[2:39:04] will be introduced today. The

[2:39:09] ordinance will come back

[2:39:11] for the second reading, just

[2:39:15] like your ordinances normally

[2:39:23] do. However, the ordinance will

[2:39:25] not take effect, will not be

[2:39:26] in effect

[2:39:27] until unless it's passed

[2:39:29] by the voters. So that's

[2:39:31] important to point out. Even

[2:39:33] though it's looking

[2:39:35] like it looks

[2:39:36] like just a typical ordinance,

[2:39:37] the approval process,

[2:39:39] it is contingent

[2:39:40] on the voters' approval. So,

[2:39:41] we'll go through that. The

[2:39:42] resolution itself has the

[2:39:43] authorization authorizing the

[2:39:44] direct the authorizing the for

[2:39:45] the ballot arguments and

[2:39:46] authorizing town council

[2:39:47] to designate members to prepare

[2:39:48] primary arguments and rebuttal

[2:39:49] in favor. To answer, um

[2:39:51] Councilmember Wall's question,

[2:39:52] theoretically, under the

[2:39:54] Elections Code, the Elections

[2:39:59] Code is written

[2:40:00] in a way that if the body

[2:40:02] wanted

[2:40:03] to authorize other members

[2:40:07] of the council

[2:40:09] to write arguments against.

[2:40:11] The issue with that obviously

[2:40:13] is you're putting it wouldn't

[2:40:14] be recommended usually because

[2:40:17] if you're putting an item

[2:40:18] on the ballot,

[2:40:19] you're assuming the majority is

[2:40:21] in favor, and that's why you

[2:40:23] normally designate folks

[2:40:24] to write an argument

[2:40:25] in favor. Just wanted

[2:40:28] to point that out. You wouldn't

[2:40:30] be it opens up to arguments

[2:40:31] of obviously of trying to

[2:40:32] Trying to trying

[2:40:33] to game the system

[2:40:34] by controlling both arguments.

[2:40:39] Therefore, members

[2:40:40] of the public wouldn't be able

[2:40:41] to write arguments against. I

[2:40:45] don't mean to confuse the

[2:40:46] issue. I just know it came up,

[2:40:47] so I wanted to clarify because

[2:40:48] the election code does have

[2:40:50] that opening, but it's not

[2:40:51] traditionally done because the

[2:40:52] town council you control both

[2:40:55] arguments. There's an argument

[2:40:57] of do people that are

[2:40:58] against it are they able

[2:40:59] to actually? We argue

[2:41:02] against it. So, 2 motions,

[2:41:06] Councilmember.

[2:41:07] >> So, I understand that. Are

[2:41:08] you saying that we're going

[2:41:09] to have to we're going

[2:41:11] to have an argument in favor,

[2:41:12] argument against, rebuttal

[2:41:13] against the rebuttal

[2:41:15] against the argument

[2:41:17] in favor, and rebuttal against

[2:41:18] the argument against?

[2:41:20] >> Yes, both sides get

[2:41:21] to rebut.

[2:41:22] >> In terms of the committee,

[2:41:23] can there be does it have

[2:41:24] to be the same 2 that write

[2:41:26] Yeah, I think you said that.

[2:41:27] >> Yes, that's what we're

[2:41:28] working on.

[2:41:29] >> And how about with the,

[2:41:30] the opposition? The same rules

[2:41:31] apply?

[2:41:33] >> Yes, because it is, it is

[2:41:34] the, it's the, the,

[2:41:35] the authors makes sense of the

[2:41:36] original arguments that get to

[2:41:37] rebut the other arguments.

[2:41:38] >> Okay, ready? I'd like

[2:41:40] to motion

[2:41:41] to adopt a resolution, one,

[2:41:43] ordering that measures be

[2:41:47] submitted to the voters

[2:41:53] of the Town of Windsor general

[2:41:54] municipal election to be held

[2:41:55] on November 3rd, 2026, to

[2:41:56] consider a 1% transaction and

[2:41:59] use tax, also referring

[2:42:03] to as a 1 cent per dollar. 2,

[2:42:06] directing the town attorney

[2:42:08] to prepare an impartial

[2:42:09] analysis of the measure. 3,

[2:42:13] provide for valid arguments and

[2:42:14] rebuttals, including authorize

[2:42:16] the town council

[2:42:17] to designate members to prepare

[2:42:18] the preliminary argument and

[2:42:19] rebuttal in favor

[2:42:20] of the measure.

[2:42:22] >> Second.

[2:42:26] >> Consistent with Election

[2:42:27] Code 9282-9285.

[2:42:28] >> And, and that'll be it. And

[2:42:29] that's

[2:42:30] to clarify what will be filled

[2:42:31] in council member,

[2:42:32] is the mayor and

[2:42:34] Councilmember Salmon as the 2

[2:42:35] designated council members

[2:42:36] to prepare the arguments. And

[2:42:38] that's part

[2:42:39] of the resolution? Correct.

[2:42:43] That that will be filled up.

[2:42:47] >> Yes. Can you just put it

[2:42:48] in there? So, then the mayor

[2:42:49] you.

[2:42:50] >> So, do I have a second?

[2:42:52] >> Second.

[2:42:57] >> Roll call vote,

[2:42:58] please.

[2:42:59] >> [ CALLING ROLL ]

[2:43:13] >> Second, I'd like

[2:43:14] to introduce an ordinance

[2:43:15] of the Town of Windsor adding

[2:43:16] Chapter Six to Title Two.

[2:43:18] Of the Windsor Municipal

[2:43:19] Code, establishing a 1% general

[2:43:20] transaction and use tax

[2:43:21] to be administered by the

[2:43:24] California Department of Tax

[2:43:26] and Fee Administration, subject

[2:43:27] to the approval of a majority

[2:43:28] of qualified electors casting

[2:43:29] votes on November 3rd, 2026,

[2:43:33] municipal election.

[2:43:38] >> Do I have a second?

[2:43:39] >> Second.

[2:43:41] >> Roll call vote, please.

[2:43:42] >> [ CALLING ROLL ]

[2:43:51] >> Thank you.

[2:43:53] >> Thank you very much. Okay,

[2:43:59] moving on. Individual

[2:44:02] councilmember reports,

[2:44:03] comments, reports,

[2:44:05] meeting conferences. Who would

[2:44:06] like to start?

[2:44:09] >> I'll go ahead and start. I

[2:44:12] went to Sonoma Clean Power

[2:44:13] Board meeting the beginning

[2:44:14] of the month, and Sonoma

[2:44:15] Clean Power Board is working

[2:44:16] on reducing their rates through

[2:44:20] a rate reduction fund that they

[2:44:21] carry. And that is

[2:44:23] to help bring rates down

[2:44:26] because PG&E has lowered their

[2:44:29] rates because they overcharged

[2:44:31] for several years. And so, those

[2:44:33] rates are being smoothed out,

[2:44:34] and so Sonoma Clean Power is

[2:44:35] trying

[2:44:37] to get as close as they can.

[2:44:39] It won't be exactly as low as

[2:44:40] PG&E, but they are working

[2:44:43] to really try to bring that

[2:44:44] down for their customers. And

[2:44:45] then secondly,

[2:44:46] I know the mayor also went,

[2:44:50] but we were able to go to the

[2:44:52] Twin Towers ceremony

[2:44:53] at the golf course, and that

[2:44:55] was a really beautiful

[2:44:56] ceremony. And we were glad

[2:44:58] to have that, the piece

[2:44:59] of steel come into town and

[2:45:00] to have people be able

[2:45:01] to see it and,

[2:45:02] and remember 9/11. And, and

[2:45:05] really it was I believe that

[2:45:06] those are the things that I

[2:45:07] have for this month.

[2:45:11] >> Thank you. Councilmember

[2:45:12] Leep?

[2:45:14] >> Well, I did want to mention

[2:45:15] the SCTCA, but unfortunately,

[2:45:16] I don't have my notes in front

[2:45:17] of me. But I will say that the

[2:45:18] committees in SCTCA, the

[2:45:20] Transit Authority and Climate

[2:45:21] Authority, did are

[2:45:23] in the process of approving,

[2:45:25] my guess is, and maybe John can

[2:45:29] correct me, I believe it's

[2:45:31] about $3.5 million in $600,000

[2:45:35] towards some road repairs.

[2:45:38] Does that sound

[2:45:39] about the right number? Out

[2:45:44] of Measure M type funds, which

[2:45:45] is quite a bit less than we

[2:45:46] wanted, but given the score

[2:45:47] that we got,

[2:45:49] it's a good number and it's

[2:45:50] nice to see us

[2:45:51] in the winning column. So

[2:45:53] that's coming up in the months

[2:45:54] to come.

[2:45:56] >> Councilmember Wall or

[2:45:59] Salmon?

[2:46:02] >> Councilmember Wall, you want

[2:46:03] to go?

[2:46:04] >> Nothing for me.

[2:46:06] >> Okay. Attended the

[2:46:08] Planning Commission meeting

[2:46:09] last night, very interesting,

[2:46:10] and thank staff

[2:46:12] for the presentation on the

[2:46:13] Windsor Creek site and

[2:46:15] entertaining in,

[2:46:19] in all the other in the other

[2:46:20] aspects. I guess I'll do I,

[2:46:23] I was acknowledged for 20 years

[2:46:24] of trash pickup on Highway

[2:46:26] 101.

[2:46:33] >> Nice.

[2:46:34] >> I got a call and they said,

[2:46:35] they said, in the Northern

[2:46:37] District, we're going to be

[2:46:38] acknowledging a long time. And

[2:46:43] I'm going, I don't understand

[2:46:44] what you're talking about. And

[2:46:46] he said, oh, well, I went

[2:46:47] through all these records and

[2:46:48] you're the longest, so.

[2:46:52] >> Wow.

[2:46:53] >> Individual. Yeah, that was

[2:46:54] very nice.

[2:46:57] >> All right. Gosh, it's been

[2:46:58] so long

[2:46:59] since we've had a meeting,

[2:47:00] right? June 17th. So, I went

[2:47:02] to San Francisco. I took the

[2:47:03] SMART train, then the ferry,

[2:47:04] and then walked

[2:47:06] to ABAG meeting,

[2:47:07] my first one. And it was very

[2:47:08] interesting.

[2:47:10] >> Good.

[2:47:11] >> Yes, yes,

[2:47:12] I attended that meeting. And,

[2:47:13] and so they, they talked

[2:47:15] about the new oh, first

[2:47:17] of all,

[2:47:20] they have a new chair. It's a

[2:47:22] representative from Rona

[2:47:23] Park, and I cannot remember her

[2:47:25] name, but it's one of our

[2:47:27] Rona Park Town Council members.

[2:47:29] Anyway, so that's nice.

[2:47:30] >> Susan.

[2:47:32] >> Susan.

[2:47:33] >> Susan. It's Susan. Yes. And

[2:47:34] so it's like, again, this is a

[2:47:36] person that I will we should

[2:47:37] connect with, with regards

[2:47:39] to the arena numbers,

[2:47:40] because they're going

[2:47:41] to start talking

[2:47:43] about the new cycle. So, we

[2:47:44] have a really close connection.

[2:47:45] She's going to love it. So

[2:47:46] yeah, that, that was a nice um,

[2:47:49] I unfortunately did not attend.

[2:47:50] I had to go out of town,

[2:47:54] so I didn't attend the Latino

[2:47:56] Fest. Don't know if anyone else

[2:47:57] went to that. Hopefully it was

[2:47:58] a success. I did go to the

[2:47:59] Taco Fest, which they,

[2:48:00] they've continued

[2:48:02] to do an amazing job

[2:48:03] out there. And then the 3rd

[2:48:04] of July, we didn't mention was

[2:48:05] a blast. Miss seeing you,

[2:48:07] Sam, and Councilmember Wall.

[2:48:14] And then what else? And then

[2:48:15] the event on Monday with Vice

[2:48:20] Mayor was, was wonderful. So

[2:48:21] that was it. Okay, so any

[2:48:22] future agenda council items

[2:48:23] that anyone wants

[2:48:25] to request?

[2:48:28] >> I would like to I would

[2:48:29] like to request so I know we

[2:48:30] did a lot

[2:48:33] of zoning code talk tonight,

[2:48:34] but I do want

[2:48:36] to request that we start

[2:48:37] looking at some other zoning

[2:48:38] code changes. And some

[2:48:39] of them are to complete streets

[2:48:42] and the way that we're doing

[2:48:46] parking, specifically ways that

[2:48:47] we can incorporate parking

[2:48:49] to help us reduce some

[2:48:51] of the blight that we've had

[2:48:53] in town and throughout some of

[2:48:54] just the way that we've had

[2:48:55] design in town. And so,

[2:48:58] I really want to look

[2:48:59] at those. And there's a couple

[2:49:00] other things on that,

[2:49:02] but I would like for us to have

[2:49:03] that brought forward just so

[2:49:04] that we can suggest some things

[2:49:06] for our zoning amendments that

[2:49:08] help us

[2:49:09] to really utilize the frontages

[2:49:10] for design and strengthen some

[2:49:11] of our zoning so that we can

[2:49:12] just make sure that we, we

[2:49:13] don't have housing projects

[2:49:15] that come forward like Shiloh

[2:49:16] Terrace again where we have

[2:49:18] significant, you know, parking

[2:49:19] issues, but ways that we can

[2:49:25] tweak the zoning to make sure

[2:49:32] that we're taking care

[2:49:33] of that. Thank you.

[2:49:36] >> I'm in on that one.

[2:49:37] >> I'll support that. Sure.

[2:49:38] >> Yeah, I support that.

[2:49:39] Okay, thank you. All right,

[2:49:40] anything else?

[2:49:42] >> I'd like to agenda starting

[2:49:47] the process of purchasing the

[2:49:49] land right-of-way on the,

[2:49:51] the right-of-way in Los Amigos

[2:49:53] and Arata Lane

[2:49:54] for the roundabout. It may

[2:49:57] require eminent domain if we

[2:50:00] were at the Planning

[2:50:03] Commission meeting. They talked

[2:50:05] about the new subdivision, and

[2:50:07] hopefully they'll dedicate the

[2:50:08] land at the corner

[2:50:10] to the town. But there's 2

[2:50:14] other corners, and I think the

[2:50:15] roundabout there is quite

[2:50:16] important because if we don't

[2:50:21] get around

[2:50:22] to if we signalize it,

[2:50:23] it'll stay signalized, I think,

[2:50:24] forever. And I think I'd

[2:50:26] like a discussion to see, you

[2:50:30] know, signalization is cheaper

[2:50:31] initially, but I think

[2:50:34] over time it's not because of

[2:50:35] the maintenance.

[2:50:38] >> I think a discussion is

[2:50:39] warranted.

[2:50:40] >> Yeah, I would agree.

[2:50:41] >> Yeah, just a discussion.

[2:50:43] >> Discussion.

[2:50:45] >> I'd like to talk about,

[2:50:46] well, the implementation of our

[2:50:48] inclusionary housing ordinance.

[2:50:49] We've talked

[2:50:50] about that's supposed

[2:50:51] to be coming I'd like

[2:50:53] to see that come. And maybe we

[2:50:54] can get a report on the status

[2:50:55] of the Windsor Creek School

[2:50:57] site. It may be in dangerous

[2:51:05] condition. I've toured it

[2:51:10] twice. The last one,

[2:51:11] I have no idea what's going on

[2:51:12] over there,

[2:51:16] and I don't really want

[2:51:17] to know,

[2:51:18] but it's not a good scene.

[2:51:22] >> Thank you.

[2:51:24] >> So that may not have

[2:51:26] to be agendized,

[2:51:28] but maybe we can ask John

[2:51:29] to just kind of get a report

[2:51:30] of when there's going

[2:51:31] to be a cleanup,

[2:51:32] if there's going

[2:51:33] to be a cleanup,

[2:51:34] if there's people still living

[2:51:35] there, if there's still

[2:51:37] continuing vandalism. I'd ask

[2:51:39] how many people have been

[2:51:40] to the school site and when.

[2:51:41] Okay. Were you taken back? I

[2:51:42] was disheartened.

[2:51:43] >> I'll have a conversation

[2:51:45] with you.

[2:51:46] >> Okay. Okay. And the last

[2:51:47] thing I'd just like to ask,

[2:51:52] the Cal Conference in Anaheim

[2:51:55] is coming September 23rd to

[2:51:57] September 25th, and don't have

[2:51:59] to answer now, but I'd like to

[2:52:00] know if other council members

[2:52:01] are going to go, because that's

[2:52:02] how it's important for me. If I

[2:52:05] go, I want other council

[2:52:06] members there. It doesn't

[2:52:07] really make sense. So just keep

[2:52:08] it in mind.

[2:52:10] >> I'm looking to hopefully

[2:52:13] help.

[2:52:14] >> Yeah, that's it.

[2:52:16] >> Okay, thank you so much,

[2:52:18] everybody. This meeting is

[2:52:20] adjourned.

Town Council Meeting

Agenda

Transcript