[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.