>> The town Council Tom at the winter redevelopment agency.
Roll call please.
[calling roll]
>> Thank you.
>> And I would like to read a unity statement we have been
doing for maybe six months now.
In the heart of Windsor we stand together bound
by the strength of our relationship
the spirit of service, the pursuit of shared purpose.
Consistent with our values of community and diversity,
we embrace and acknowledge our relationship
with people and history.
We honor the land that sustains us, recognizing its history,
its growth, and the development that
shapes its modern community.
Through careful stewardship and planning,
we build a town that balances progress with preservation,
ensuring Windsor remains a place of belonging,
goodwill, and unwavering purpose.
It's our commitment to respect cultures, make space
for connection, honor our history,
and create a deep appreciation for a whole community.
Vice Mayor, can you loosen the Pledge of Allegiance please.
>> Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.
Ready, begin.
>> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States
of America and to the Republic for which it stands,
one nation under God, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all.
>> Thank you, vice mayor.
At this time I would like to ask if there's
any changes to the agenda.
>> No changes that I am aware of.
>> Seeing none, we are going to move right
into our presentations and proclamations.
Today I'm going to start with our item 6.1.
It is recognizing our outgoing honorary youth mayor who
unfortunately cannot be here.
But I really wanted to thank Victoria Guzmán.
She did a great job serving as our youth mayor
for the first half of this year.
Thank you to her.
And then next, I have our -- following our next youth mayor.
This one is really special to me for a couple of reasons.
Once you hear the name, you might guess one of the.
The other reason is it is my last year serving as mayor.
So this is my last honorary youth mayor during my time here.
At this moment I would like to recognize Evelyn Noelle Reynoza
Oseguera as our next youth mayor.
Evelyn, can you come up?
Congratulations.
Would you like to say a few words?
>> Yes.
>> Speaking the mic please nice and loud.
>> I'm happy to have my family and friends here in Windsor.
I hope I make them proud by being the youth mayor.
>> Thank you.
I'm sure you will.
Evelyn, could we take a picture with you?
Do you guys want to stand up here,
and Tommy and I will go in the front.
Perfect.
Then we're going to go ahead and move on to our announcements.
Council member, can you begin with the first one?
>> Our first announcement tonight is about the summer
nights on the Green Concert Series.
This Thursday, which is tomorrow, on the Town Green,
the band will be Apple Z. And the farmers market starts at 5
p.m..
The concert begins at 6 p.m..
>> We have volunteer day coming up this Saturday August 8th,
from 9 a.m.
To 11 a.m.
At Wilson Ranch Soccer Park.
Join your neighbors and help unify our community.
For details and to RSVP, Park Tech parks and rec at (707)
838-1267.
>> We have the native plant seed propagation Saturday,
September 19th from 1030 to 12:30 p.m.
At the Windsor Regional Library.
Participants will learn from the Habitat Corridor project
many different strategies and techniques
for propagating native plants so that they may
start their own home nurseries.
>> The Windsor Day Parade is Saturday September 26th.
The parade theme is Fly Me to the moon.
It will begin at 10 a.m.
Parade entries are due by September 4th.
For entry and parade details visit kiwaniswindsor.org.
>> Finally we have the Sunday Farmer's Market every Sunday
through December 6th.
9 a.m.
To 12:30 p.m.
At the Town Green Market Street.
>> Moving on now to the Town Manager's report.
And things report com Town Manager?
>> John Davis com Town manager, a couple of items.
First on a sad note, we are going
to lose another tree in the town Oak Grove here.
It fell again to the Mediterranean Oak horned beetle.
We know that as the ammo B. Next Tuesday the 11th the largest oak
tree will start to be removed.
It was determined that the infestation is too strong now,
and does not come to come back.
I do want to tout staff for the steps they
have taken to preserve that tree and all the trees.
This one was actually scheduled to come out originally
maybe last year.
They wanted to take one more run at it
and see if they could revive it.
They were not able to do that.
So removing any tree, it is not a light decision.
Parks and rec take a long time before they
decide it is too late.
And so that will start next week.
You will see that here at the town hall.
If you want to learn more about the oak board beetle or anything
about trees, protection efforts, and the town,
you can go to the town website.
Just Google Tree protection.
It'll take you there.
Also I wanted to thank Chief Piccinini and the Sheriff
for coming out last night to National Night Out.
Always a fun event for the kids.
The chief staff at PD, all the deputies, we had town staff.
Everybody who came out to the event was nice.
I want to thank them for the time
and effort they put into that.
It helps us build community.
Closing my report.
Thank you.
>> Thank you very much.
Item number nine, is there any conflict of interest
to declare from our council members?
Seeing none, we are going to move on now to public comments.
Members of the public wishing to speak to the Council
on any consent calendar item or any item not listed
on the agenda may do so at this time.
Pursuant to the Brown Act, the Council
is not allowed to consider issues or take action
at any item not listed on the agenda during this period.
You will have three minutes.
We have a clock up here to my right.
Also please everyone who is at home, listening,
you can always email the entire council
at towncouncil@townofwindsor.ca.gve
.
Member of the public I want to approach
the podium at this time, please come up
and if you want to give your name and address,
that would be optional so we know who to get hold of you.
>> Hi.
>> Hi there.
>> I am Jill Ziegler.
Can you hear me?
I have been in Windsor since 1985 and a homeowner since 1990.
I am here to just raise some awareness
about an issue that is getting lots of national attention.
And I became aware of surveillance cameras.
It is all over the nation.
I emailed Mr. Salman at CC's the mayor about my concern.
There was an article in the press Democrat
about the LAPD canceling their flock cameras.
And it said to Go to Deflock.org to see
if your community has the.
And we do have them in Windsor, quite a few.
I searched deeper.
The Washington Post this week produced
an article that showed over 50 law enforcement agents
across the United States have been misusing these flock
cameras, stalking their X's and surveilling people illegally.
That's messed up.
John Oliver produced an entire show on surveillance technology.
And the National Congress has put forth a bill
to defund these kind of cameras.
So that raised my alarm.
And I thought, why do we have them in Windsor?
I did not know we had them.
And it made sense when I researched.
It says this is supposed to make our community safer
and help law enforcement be more effective.
Makes sense to me.
But when I started researching it,
I found out about places all across the nation that
have done audits on how their cameras are being used here
in Maricopa County has a 7% error rate.
So they have canceled.
Indiana has canceled almost all of their flock cameras.
The state of Washington.
And the more I have been reading on this,
I thought I want to bring this to you
and see what we might be able to do here in Windsor.
I do understand the thought behind this.
My call for you, because I only have a minute.
Three minutes is not a lot.
My call to you is for the town council
to do an audit as to how these cameras are being used,
how the data is stored, who has access to the data, third party
groups, the FBI and Homeland Security
have been tunneling into these flock cameras
without permission from the towns.
And I thought this is not okay, especially when I saw that
Windsor, 16 of our cameras in northern Windsor,
most of those 16 cameras are on the west side where our Latino
population -- the demographic is located.
And my neighborhood there are no flock cameras.
My call is please let's start looking at these flock cameras.
Is it time to get them taken down?
And in the meantime, is the data being stored --
I am a law abiding citizen.
I am not worried.
But I do worry about the error rate.
A woman in Vallejo was just thrown to the ground
in front of her children.
Did you read about and see that?
Because they had gotten erroneous
flock camera information from a different state
for a motorcycle.
She had the same number of.
>> Please wrap up.
>> This is big.
They pulled her out of the car and threw her
to the ground in front of kids.
This can't happen.
Thank you.
>> Thank you very much.
>> Hello.
I know quite a few of the people here on the Council.
My name is Rick Mosel.
I live at 150 Espana in Windsor.
And I am very interested in the town of Windsor,
become more interested as I see the town having
many issues before it.
And I have tried to get many people
that I know to run for office here in this town.
And it seems like it is very difficult to get people to run.
There are many reasons.
But I've encouraged many of the people
that I know, my friends and colleagues and so
on to run for office.
There are many people who complain.
Not very many of them run for office.
And they should because if they have a point of view,
they should be debated and discussed
and everybody should be able to have their opportunity
to discuss things and decide in a reasonable manner what
they do.
Our town is a great town.
I love Windsor.
I've been here for over 20 years, 30 years.
I have seen a lot of really great stuff happen here.
And I wish that everybody can take advantage of being
in a town like Windsor.
But I think the town of Windsor has many obstacles
in front of it right now.
We want to try to make it a better place.
For that reason, tomorrow morning I'm
going to meet with Miss Camacho and I'm
going to ask her to sign me up for Mayor.
And I hope that that makes the town a better place the debate.
I encourage many other people to run,
district one, district four, and mayor
are all open to the town of Windsor.
And there is also a school board,
which has three people who are up for reelection.
And there should be people running there as well.
And there are many other places you can contribute to --
Planning Commission, etc.
But this is the place where decisions get made.
You get to learn a lot about the town.
But you don't have to be an expert.
That is the thing that I've learned.
While I was on the school board here 20 years ago.
And I learned that you could go to the town.
People who run the town, our town manager,
or in the case of school board the superintendent, you
find out what's going on in the town.
You go to training.
You learn to become better versed in all of that.
The main thing is ask questions, listen to people,
and learn how to be tolerant of people
who have different points of view
because you may learn a lot from them.
Thank you.
>> Anyone else from the public ?
>> Good evening, Council, staff.
My name is Anthony Mitchell.
We are registered energy services company
at federal Department of Energy.
We are here to inform the city about funds
that are available from multiple sources.
Water from the state.
The others from the Public Utility Commission
of California.
In a climate where most municipalities we are working
with are extremely hard strapped for program dollars,
funding for infrastructure, EV charging,
the rates are going up a bit of more than 14%
over the next 12 months.
There's a big solar push with NS with the big beautiful bill
next year.
We are here to educate council and town staff
about funds that you guys pay into every month
and that we actually have a contract with the Public Utility
Commission to help the cities, municipalities in the area
to spend those dollars so you don't have to actually touch
your capital or the funds you have available.
As long as it goes to infrastructure upgrades
to basically make the town more efficient
and offset the rate increases that
are coming over the next several months.
We work with Public Works.
We work with parks.
We work with water infrastructure,
whether it's wastewater, irrigation systems, airports,
etc..
We are here today to let staff know, let council
know, what staff know as far as you guys get worked on
behind the scenes.
But there was no money out of pockets of the city for most
of the funds.
There is no upfront cost for the city for most of the funds.
These are funds that are available.
Believe it or not you pay about 10% of your total bill
that you pay to the utility entities.
There's about 10% that actually fold for these programs.
We are the builder of the programs
and we do about 60 to 7% of the entire pipeline for Pacific Gas
Electric Company.
So we are not looking for any funds from the city
because we state a utility commission gives us
access to funds to help you guys spend
them to upgrade your facilities to offset your maintenance
costs.
A lot of times it's just to pay for things
you don't have capital for.
Thank you for your time this evening
and if you guys are interested, we would love to meet with staff
and go over what is available, or schedule a time
to come back and do a full blown presentation on an agenda item.
Thank you so much.
>> Anyone else from the public?
Seeing none, I'm going to close public comment
and bring it back to the council.
Our next items are the consent calendar items.
We have 11.1, the approval of minutes from July 15th town
Council meeting.
11.2, amendments to the Town of Windsor Zoning
code title 17 on the Municipal code
by holding a second reading by title only
and adopt an ordinance adopting amendments
to the Town of Windsor zoning code title 17 of the Municipal
Code to implement Housing Element programs
and to comply with state housing law.
11.3, an ordinance adding chapter six to title two
of the Windsor Municipal Code establishing a 1% general
transaction to and use tax by holding a second reading
by title only and it's often drawn to the town of Windsor,
adding chapter six to title two of the Windsor Municipal Code
establishing a 1% general transaction use tax to be
administered by the Department of Tax and Fee Administration
subject to the approval of a majority of qualified electors
casting votes on November 3rd, municipal election.
Professional Service agreement with Weldon Engineering
for Code enforcement services.
And does anyone want to make a motion or have any comments?
>> I will make a motion to move the consent calendar.
>> Second.
>> A roll call vote please.
[members voting]
>> Moving on now to our regular calendar,
there is no public hearing today so we are skipping item 12,
going to number 13, a resolution approving the Solid Waste
franchise agreement with Sonoma County Resource Recovery
for garbage recyclable matters and organic waste collection
services effective October 1st, 2027.
>> Good evening mayor and Council.
Christina Owens, government operations manager.
Joining me tonight is principal with R3 consulting Group.
The town's consultant in technical adviser on solid waste
management.
Tonight staff is recommending the approval of a new ten year
exclusive solid waste franchise agreement with Sonoma County
Resource Recovery also known as SCRR,
effective October 1st 2027.
The recommendation comes after a year
long competitive bidding process with the goal
of promoting greater transparency and rate
setting, equality among ratepayers,
and overall cost efficiency by providing residents
and businesses with the appropriate level of service
of the highest quality and of the best rates.
The town received a total of three proposals with SCRR
being the highest ranked by the approved evaluation criteria,
resulting in lower rates compared to our existing 2026
rates.
Retention and expansion of programing and services,
removal of a 30 year subsidy to the town of Windsor,
Windsor Unified School District, and Sonoma County Fire District.
The creation of new rate categories
for government, multifamily, and mixed use properties
for transparency and equity.
And finally addressing the legal challenges regarding franchise
fees and setting the annual amount
based on reasonable costs associated with solid waste
services.
To begin the presentation, a copy of the Powerpoint
has been provided to you as well as the public
in the back of the room.
To present the details of the RFP
and the results of the proposal, I
would like to turn it over to Garth.
>> Thank you very much.
Council members, staff, public, this
has been a very competitive process
with significant benefits we believe to the town's ratepayers
regarding solid waste.
Excellent.
A bit of background, and Christina covered some of this
already, your existing agreement with Sonoma County Resource
Recovery is set to expire September 30th, 2027,
and because of provisions in existing town code,
there are no opportunities to extend that or any other future
solid waste collection agreement.
The town is required to go out to a competitive procurement
process every time you have a ten year solid waste agreement.
The process -- I will show another slide which details
the last several months, nearly 11 months worth of work on this.
The process included robust engagement
with both an ad hoc committee of the Council,
community committees of stakeholder interests,
and general interest meetings of members of the public
in order to inform the RFP process which
resulted in the establishment of guiding principles
and draft evaluation criteria that came to the Council.
The Council amended those and finalized those along
with the RFP approval and release process.
There was lots of community engagement via an online survey
and community meetings, and we came back to the council
prior to the release of the RFP to make
sure we had council's interests and directions before moving
forward with the process.
This is what those last many months have looked like.
I'm going to go into great detail here,
but just to say it's taken a lot to get
to this point in the process and we are very
happy to be here this evening.
Key milestones since we have last
presented to the Council on this matter, of course
the council heard the recommendation
to move forward with the RFP back in February.
The council at the time did vote to approve the RFP
and make adjustments to the evaluation criteria
that we are included in the RFP and utilized by the evaluation
panel.
The next day the RFP was released
and we had ample time frame for proposers
to be able to review the requirements of the RFP,
the attached franchise agreement draft, and other documents.
We did receive three proposals from the incumbents Sonoma
County Resource Recovery, Ecology and Green Waste Recovery
on April 15th.
We received best and final offers regarding the rate
proposals from those companies on May 27th,
and then negotiations were undertaken with SCR
as the highest ranked proposer.
Those were then concluded in June,
bringing us to you here tonight.
A brief reminder before I go into some
of the key characteristics of the RFP,
which we covered in the presentation back in February
is that what we are talking about here with this agreement
is the programs and services that are provided for collection
of solid waste from residents, businesses, and government
agencies in the town.
So that is the trucks that drive by homes and businesses
and pick up recycling and garbage and organics.
The rates that the providers charge also
cover post collection activities,
meaning disposal of garbage and landfill,
composting of organics, composting facilities,
and recycling of recyclable materials.
Put the garbage and organics component
of that is subject to the direction and flow
control of other agreements through the county in Zero Waste
Sonoma.
We are not talking about where garbage goes
or where organic materials go.
Proposers were asked and were and do
provide their own means of getting recyclables
into the marketplace.
Christina already mentioned this.
There was the cessation of the prior public agency subsidies.
This came through the public engagement process.
It was a very strongly saved interest
from members of the RFP Committee Colorado Community
Committee, and members of the public
who expressed interest in wanting
to know that rates are covering what
residents and ratepayers and commercial businesses pay for
and not cover costs for others.
So that was a key tenant of this RFP process.
Folks who provided comments during the Pre-proposal process
also very much wanted to see that rates were transparent,
that the rates that folks charged
or were being charged to cover their cost of service.
So it was clear direction in the RFP regarding that.
And importantly with respect to --
and this has been changing on a statewide level --
ensuring that those that live in multifamily or mixed use
habitations also are receiving equivalent access to the types
of services that single family residents receive.
And I've got a few examples cited there.
Bulky item pickup, battery collection, and the like.
Finally, one of the points of direction
we received from the community committee
from the ad hoc committee, and from the Council
was a clear understanding of what
the costs were some of the optional types of services
might be.
And that was something we put into the RFP
and the proposers were responsive to that.
In terms of the process, it was dictated
how the evaluation would occur was clearly
detailed within the RFP.
It was a pass fail review.
All three proposers passed that pass fail review.
Then the evaluation panel proceeded
into a consensus, ranking scoring process that
included review of the proposals, review
of the best and final rate proposal offers,
that were informed by interviews that were conducted
with all three proposers.
One thing that is important is that service rates were not
a controlling factor with respect to the evaluation
criteria.
They were a very important factor.
They were weighted at 50 out of 100 points,
but there were other elements of consideration in the evaluation
criteria that the council reviewed and approved
prior to release.
I mentioned that we requested best and final offers.
That was both to help make sure that the evaluation panel had
clarity of understanding around what was included
in each proposers rates, and then also to seek clarifications
around what they may include within the base rates
they proposed.
The RFP also did state that the highest ranked
proposer would be selected to proceed in the negotiations.
And potential award recommendation
pending successful negotiations, which was achieved with SCRR.
We are showing you the scoring for the two highest
ranked proposers on this slide.
You can see on the left hand slide
the maximum points that the council identified back
in February.
The summary of the evaluation criteria category, and then
the resulting scores for each of the two highest ranked
proposers.
Importantly for the town and its ratepayers,
this was a very competitive, very tightly
fought race, very good proposals from all three proposers
and from the two local companies,
or ecology and SCRR, a very close race.
As you can see here, slight differentiation between ecology
and SCR on the service rates, slight differentiation
with respect to cost service and fiscal transparency,
a little bit of an additional preference
to the smaller focused customer service
and reliability that SCRR demonstrated
they were able to provide.
Ecology scored higher on the sustainability
and it is a core portion of their business and their ethic.
Finally with respect to exceptions to agreement,
SCRR took none, and orcology had a handful
of exceptions they propose.
After the evaluation panel completed, its consensus scoring
process, SCRR was the highest ranked proposer
by a margin of one.
Following the evaluation process being concluded,
the town's negotiation team with support from my firm
moved into the negotiation process,
and again, the RFP contemplated how that would proceed,
which was to move forward with the highest ranked proposer.
Was identified as that.
And the award is based on the proposal providing
the most advantageous proposal with the best
interests of the town after all factors have been considered,
the evaluation panel did determine
that SCRR best met the interests of the town
and provided the most advantageous proposal.
And though rates were not controlling post negotiations,
we did end up with rates with SCRR
that were the lowest overall across all sectors.
And that is detailed in the staff report.
We will show the results of that on the subsequent slides.
The take home message here for the council and the community is
ultimately that all ratepayers across all service sectors
and classes will see reductions in rates effective beginning
of this new agreement, October 1st, 2027.
In this slide and the subsequent slides com
you can see both the current rates
that are effective and in place today.
Those will remain in place through March of 2027.
There will be a final adjustment to those rates in the existing
agreement, which does not expire until September 30th of 2027.
So what we are showing you is current rates to the rates
as they will be in October.
There will be one slight adjustment.
And I will cover the timing of that
towards the end of this presentation.
This slide shows the rates for single family residence
as well as those that would be identified
as single family residence within a multi-family dwellings.
Or something like a mobile home park
that has individual containers for each and every resident
within a mobile home park.
Picking the 32 gallon monthly bundle rate based on the garbage
container size, you can see going from a current rate
of $39.50 to a new rate effective in October of next
year of 35.87 for a reduction of $3 and $0.63.
You can see that repeated for the service
level shown on this slide.
The story is largely the same when
we talk about multifamily rates, mfdc
means multifamily commercial.
Receiving commercial type services
in larger centralized bins rather than
individual services and carts to each residence.
Here you can see rates will be lower than present come October
1st, 2027.
That was for garbage.
This is for recycling.
Similar story.
For organics also a similar story.
The service levels that I'm showing
are those service levels that have current subscriptions
to them.
If you look into the staff packet
as well as into the agreement, there
are lots of different service types
available to multi-family dwellings
and commercial businesses.
We are just showing those where there are known subscribers
today.
So this is a snapshot.
To put it all on one slide would make your eyes hurt.
There are also new rates for a new rate category.
This was something that came up through the community engagement
process, establishing rates for existing mixed use
dwellings, meaning both multifamily and commercial
with shared containers and shared enclosures.
This is a new rate category going forward.
Currently and the current rates that are shown
are current commercial rates.
They are slightly different than the commercial rates
because there's a different blend
of solid waste materials and also credits
that are being applied.
So again, through this new rate category, compared to existing
commercial rates, mixed use dwellings
with reductions for garbage rates, same for recycling rates,
same for organic rates.
Finally with respect to commercial customers,
the story is here at the same.
You can see the change in rate from existing rate
to the October 2027 rates with reductions
for garbage rates for commercial businesses,
recycling rates for commercial businesses,
and organics rates for commercial businesses.
The final rate category I will cover
is a brand new rate category.
It relates to no longer providing free services
to government entities, the town, the school district,
and the fire district.
There are new rate categories stipulated within the agreement.
The town will pay directly for solid rate services per those
rates .
During negotiation and element of reimbursements
of the town for the cost of this RFP process
as well as a placeholder for the cost of a transition
that are actually being leveraged as a credit
to the town so it will offset your initial solid waste costs
rather than paying directly in the first portion
of the new agreement year.
If the town were to proceed with solid waste services
at existing service levels, which
we know are higher than necessary,
they will be right sized.
That would be on the order of around $660,000 a year,
but that has been discussed with the proposer as well as with
staff, and there will be a right sizing effort in advance
of the town receiving charges for that service.
And the fire station will also be subject to those same rates.
When it comes to the school district,
the maximum rates in the agreement
do serve as the highest rate they would pay.
But they are not bound to go with the rates
in the services provided in this recommended agreement.
The district is able to contract separately
with either SCRR or another provider
and to negotiate their own rates.
So they are not bound by the rates for government that
are included in this agreement, but they
wanted to make sure this was disclosed.
And this is what those rates are for the first year
of the agreement.
I'm not comparing them to existing rates
because there aren't existing rates being
paid for government entities and just to show what they are.
In the final few slides, I wanted
to highlight some of what you are
getting in this new agreement.
And it's something that we did cover
in more detail in the February meeting
and in the previous community engagement meetings.
But the key terms and conditions,
I have already hit the point of we
are looking at rates in 2027 that are lower
than the existing 2026 rates.
The proposers did provide rates that
were proportionate to the cost of providing service
and all attested to that.
It's a ten year agreement term that would expire in 2037, as
per the town code.
There were enhancements to the overall terms and conditions
in the agreement to meet new performance, legal,
and compliance in state law standards.
What happens when you update these every ten year.
Conditions change and so those have been updated.
I that the $275,000 that were set aside for reimbursement was
actually being leveraged now to credit and offset
the town's initial solid waste costs.
Importantly, and this will be positive news for many
in the community, there will no longer be dual stream recycling
collection.
That was a requirement of the RFP
that proposers move to single stream recycling collection.
SCRR has committed to have recycling carts in place
by October 1st of 2027 at the start of the new agreement
if not before.
And that is a goal they have.
Coming up on the right side, much
of what we heard through the community engagement process
was around the in pricing.
For folks to understand and know and have faith in the fact
that they are paying for what they
get and not for what somebody else gets.
We did achieve through the RFP process getting
the special access for multifamily mixed use residents
to have equivalent services to single family residents.
We have maintained a senior discount at 10%.
Going forward, you have had annual adjustments
to your service rates.
Those have typically occurred in April of each year.
We did shift that timing because you noted
or I noted earlier you're going to have one more rate
adjustment coming up in April of 2027,
and then they're going to go down in October.
And that is because the rate adjustment time frame was offset
from the term of the agreement.
We've actually aligned those.
So next time you come through this process,
you won't have that awkward timing difference.
It will continue to be what is called a refuse rate index.
I will cover that on the next slide.
And there are good limitations in the agreement on the ways
in which the contractor could come forward and request
other sorts of rate adjustments for changes in cost.
Really the main objective is to decouple your changes in rates
to customers from their changes in cost
and have them triggered to these exterior market indices.
This is how your agreement has functioned to present.
But we have made through this process simplification
and streamlining changes that will make it easier for the town
to administer, simpler for residents and ratepayers
and commercial businesses to understand,
and also will align the timing with the agreement.
This just gives you a little bit of an overview of what an RRI
it looks like.
It pegs their change in compensation
to the ways in which the Bureau of Labor Statistics
and other market indices change for labor, fuel, vehicles,
and it also ties to the changes that the county and Zero waste
Sonoma have for composting and disposal
and to changes that happen in the recyclables marketplace.
Importantly for the council and for ratepayers going forward,
if you recall your most recent rate adjustment
adoption, with a little bit of a different percentage
change to each and every customer class,
and there was no one uniform rate adjustment.
Going forward you'll have one uniform rate adjustment
for all rate payer types at once,
which will make it easier to understand for everyone.
In terms of the programs and services included
in the agreements, on the left side
are all of the services that Preexisted.
These are services that the town and its ratepayers
receive today.
Those will be maintained going forward
and they are included in the base rate proposals
that they proposers made.
On the right side were those services
that we sought proposers to tell us what
the additional costs would be.
And they all did.
But through negotiations, we were
able to fold those into the base rates
with at contractor goodwill, meaning no additional charge.
That is a strong value added benefit
to the town and the ratepayers moving forward, including a site
location for potential CRV drop off center,
five cardboard locations for drop off throughout the town,
a second week of holiday tree collection,
a second collection of bulky waste.
All of those were folded in at no additional charge
above the base rates that SCRR put forward.
In terms of next steps, two night staff
is asking for the council consideration of the recommended
contract with SCRR.
I do just want to remind the Council and the community,
we will see another final rate adjustment through the existing
agreement with SCRR in April.
If adopted, the new rates and the agreement would go
into effect, lower rates effective October 1st along with
the new single stream recycling carts being delivered
by or before that date.
In your future you would just see the annual rate adjustments
through the ROI process through the end of the term
of the agreement effective October 1st annually.
With respect to the recommended action,
you heard this a little bit already
through staff's introductory remarks,
there is a franchise fee included in the agreement.
There has been a change in the approach to the franchise fee,
stipulating it as an annualized dollar amount per agreement year
that annual dollar amount would escalate by CPI
over the course of the term.
And it is to cover the town's costs associated
with managing and administering this agreement.
Other solid waste services that the town provides, supplementing
what the contractor provides, and the use of the government
property on the public right of way
for the collection of those containers.
So this is a justified amount through a study
that is appended in your report that we did back in 2024.
The amount has been escalated by CPI from what is in the report.
A brief update, we did note as we were preparing for tonight
there were two minor typographical errors
in the exhibits.
Exhibit five, transition plan, the header on those tables
was incorrectly titled exhibit eight, Collection Service
operation plan.
The context of the exhibit are correct.
The header was wrong.
So we do in the council's action hope
that we can get an amended action just
to clarify that as well as exhibit seven, customer service
and billing plan at a slightly incorrect title to the table.
Just minor typographical errors and we apologize for those.
We also want to state that the town did
receive a protest to the award that was since rescinded.
Staff and our three communicated with the protesting proposer
to address their concerns and issues
and they withdrew their protest in advance of the meeting.
The recommended action tonight, this
is as per what is in the staff report
along with the amended for those two exhibit
typographical corrections, both asking the council
to adopt a resolution authorizing
the execution of the new agreement and
then separately adopt a resolution setting
the first year franchise fee at $1.225 million
to cover the town's costs associated with solid waste
services.
With that, I, stop, as well as representatives
from SCRR in the room and on Zoom are I to take questions.
Thank you for your time.
>> We will go ahead and start first with any questions from
the Council.
Does anyone have a question?
>> Currently we get service for the port a potty at our events.
And I didn't see that.
I understood it was going to be part of this contract.
Is it part of the contract?
>> Correct.
It's part of the town sponsored events at goodwill.
>> The franchise fee, $1.25 million annually,
use of the public right of way, traditionally that has been wear
and tear on the roads.
We're just not saying it that way.
They are heavy, and on residential streets
they do over time damage the streets.
Is that pretty much the same thing --
a good portion of this money for maintenance of the streets?
>> It's not.
It's actually for the use of the street.
California Court of Appeals decision last year
that ruled the use of the franchise fee
for maintenance of roads was no longer allowed.
So that is maintenance of town streets
is not included in this number at this time.
>> There may be legislation that may change that?
>> There may be, yes.
>> How about that?
>> The last one, the town separate fees,
they are not equivalent to commercial,
but there are more than residential.
Is that pretty much -- you had a slide that showed a cross
for a 60 gallon can.
It looked like it was more than the residential
but less than the commercial.
>> They are different from the commercial and different from
the other rate categories.
The proposer -- and these were also negotiated to make sure
they had the right fit for the town paranoid but ultimately
they are not covering all of say the centralized services that
are provided in part because there is that uncertainty
as to what the actual final amount of need the town is going
to have would be.
And so they wanted to make sure that they were fully
covering centralized costs through rates that were known
to be stable and consistent.
Whereas town service levels are a little
uncertain at this point.
>> My last question, the differences in the residential
rates which are significantly lower than commercial,
it appears to me based on economies of scale.
In other words in the residential street,
they can pick up a dozen cans in the same time
that, may be less time they they would pick up
one of their commercials at.
Is that pretty much the difference because we
can't really -- we are getting away from subsidizing
the residential through commercial and the mixed use?
>> The way I see it, and I'm not the operator, but yes,
my understanding is in the residential space ultimately,
you are collecting this home and the next home right away
and there is very little time between those stops.
There is more time between commercial stops.
The operators probably the best one to help
assert an answer to that question.
But yes, I think there are differences
between the conditions of service
and the efficiencies of service in each of the sectors.
>> Thank you.
>> Does anyone else have a question?
>> I have a quick question.
Can you please clarify?
You said in your presentation that the town and the government
services were included last time.
But I'm actually relative cost of those
were lumped into and spread out across the years
that we're paying at the time.
So now we have separated that out.
So the town will be paying for the cost
of the pickup for government services
where the ratepayers across town will
no longer be paying for those.
Is that correct?
>> Correct.
Although it may state it a little differently.
Patel will be paying directly for services.
Whereas for existing soon to expire contract, it does
pay for those services.
But we don't have complete clarity on is exactly who is
paying for what with respect to those services --
we know the contract for providing those services and we
know the expenses to provide those services and that those
expenses are most likely covered through the revenues they are
receiving from elsewhere in their business operations.
>> Anybody else?
I have one question.
I just want to go back to the rates that are going to be
effective on 10/1/2027.
That's a year out.
So are you telling us that those rates that
are on that list, those won't change?
>> Correct, those are going to be fixed in place.
If you authorize this agreement, those are the rates you'll see
come October 1st, 27.
>> And when are they able to do another rate increase?
>> Not until October 1st, 28.
>> Once a year they can.
And there is a limit to how much rate increase?
Is there a >> There was no cap included.
It wasn't the one included in the RFP.
There isn't one today.
What it is is a formulaic approach
based on market indices.
They're going to have to pull this market data that
is publicly available.
Anyone else can pull it and we pull it
in order to check their math and make
sure they've done it correctly.
And it spits out the outcome and it
is meant to approximate their change in cost
for labor, fuel, equipment, post-collection exposal and all
of that.
Importantly what they can't do in that regular rate adjustment
year is say we have had these changes in cost
and we're going to plug them into that
and we bought a new truck or whatever.
And he just can't say we have any changes in cost
and automatically flow those through to the ratepayers.
They have opportunities to kill that
under special circumstances, but as the regular course
of business through the regular annual rate adjustments,
it is a formulaic approach decoupled from costs
and informed by external market factors.
>> All right.
Please.
>> A quick follow up to that, and I apologize.
I missed my briefing on this contract.
Maybe Meg should already know this.
How do fluctuations -- if there's wild fluctuations
in fuel costs between now and their ability to take
their first rate increase, how do we handle that?
If fuel goes to $9 a gallon, what are we doing?
>> Between now and their first rate adjustment,
which would be October 1st, 2028,
the math of that refuse rate index takes into account
the annual changes.
It's not just pick one month and another month
and compare those differences.
It's looking at the prior 12 months worth of change compared
to the 12 months prior to that.
So there is this normalizing effect.
If fuel is higher for a full 12 months,
that will flow through into those calculations.
But it is also only in proportion to the amount
that fuel costs within the overall system.
So this is around $10 million a year.
I don't have it at the top of my head how much of that is fuel.
But it's only the amount of fuel fluctuation
that would flow through into that annual rate adjustment
process.
But I would flow through.
I do think if you saw something extreme,
you as a town would have the opportunity
to approach the contractor and say,
hey, this is extreme this year.
Might we consider phasing this in or moving it out?
I'm not saying they would commit to that,
but they do have that opportunity
to approach them about that.
>> Thank you.
I'd like to open this up to the public.
Any member of the public wishing to make a comment
may approach the podium and you will have three minutes.
Good evening, Allison Johnson, SCRR.
I wanted to thank you guys for allowing us to service you
for the last nine years and the partnership
that we have with the town, town staff, the residents of Windsor.
Hope that you approve the next ten years
and we really look forward to continuing
to provide exemplary service to the town, the residents,
and the community.
We sponsor a lot of events in the town.
We are out and about and we will continue
to do that even though we have included some of your services
at goodwill, but we still have a commitment
to sponsor the summer concerts, sponsor kaboom, all
those little things that we do extra.
And I want to thank you guys for allowing us to be here.
Thank you.
>> Good evening, mayor Reynoso, council members.
My name is Andy Fulton.
I'm the assistant general manager there.
And tonight I wanted to take my time to just really congratulate
SCRR.
It was a very competitive process that got played out.
They have earned the recommendation.
And we just wanted to congratulate them.
I also wanted to thank the ad hoc committee, specifically
Christina and Sean, being shepherded by Garth, a very
fair and transparent process.
Just offer our gratitude and we appreciate
being part of the process.
And for the future we'd love to talk about any opportunities
that come up.
Thank you very much.
>> Hi.
Betsy Mallis.
To tag on to what Councilmember Salmon said,
the franchise fee was set for next year at this 1,225,000.
What was the fee or what is the fee going to be for this year?
And what is that actual cost of the fee, not what you pay out
but what the cost is?
I know you said it was set to start
and then there was a cost of CPI yearly.
But then as Council member salmon said,
the law could change.
What happens if the law changes or your expenses
on the franchise fee change or increase?
What are the options for that to change if it need be,
if it no longer covers the cost of the town that franchise
fee, if something changes, whether it's a law or just
an expense?
What are the options?
How locked in are you onto that fee,
and is that fee going to cover every cost
that the town would have or could have in the next ten
years?
What are the available options for it?
Thank you.
>> Anyone else from the public?
>> Good evening mayor and council members.
I'm the vice president of municipal franchises
with Green Waste Recovery.
I want to sincerely thank you for the opportunity
to participate in the town's solid waste procurement process.
We've had a very positive experience working with
and getting to know the town staff
throughout the entire process.
We appreciate the effort that went into the RFP
and we are proud of the proposal that Greenway submitted.
Our approach was to present rates
that honestly and transparently reflect
the true cost of providing service as required by the RFP.
We did so based on a cost of service methodology
that we know with confidence was consistent with the RFP emphasis
on fiscal transparency.
While every company has its own business model,
the fundamental cost of operating in our industry
are similar.
We respect the town's decision and congratulate SCRR
with tonight's recommendation.
Although we were not selected, Green Waste
appreciates the opportunity to have participated.
Thank you.
>> Anyone else from the public?
>> Good evening.
Sorry for the dress but didn't have time between practice
and getting here.
And all those three people wearing those nice suits,
I feel underdressed.
I wanted to thank the town on behalf of the school board
allowing us to be part of the ad hoc committee.
I want to thank John, Christina, especially Dorothy.
I've been involved in a lot of different groups and things.
It was really excellent.
Garth, probably one of the best consultants since I've
seen in government in 30 years.
Played it right down the middle.
If you asked him what color it was, he told you.
If you asked him how much it weighed, he told you.
He didn't shade it one way or the other,
just gave you the information it was really valuable for me.
I was able to take it back to the rest of our board members
to explain what this is.
Because this is calculus at least.
I don't know what is past that because I didn't get
to the calculus part either.
But there's so many things as you guys know that change how
everything turns out.
But I wanted to let you guys know we appreciate
you being part of it.
Appreciate the work that you guys all-- the town put into it.
So now school board, we get to figure out now
what we are doing over this next year.
Thank you for doing the preliminary work.
And now we have learned from that and we get to proceed on.
Thank you very much.
>> Thank you.
One last call for public comment.
Seeing no one lined up at the podium,
I'm going to bring it back to the council for discussion.
And I just have to start off by saying
I was here ten years ago for the previous contract.
I am so impressed by the positivity and the remarks
from the other two agencies.
It's really refreshing to see that here before the Council.
Thank you to the other two contractors.
Thank you very much.
Anyone else like to start with the discussion?
What we want to do here with this resolution?
>> Could we have the question answered about the financial?
>> I'm happy to answer, >> Thank you.
>> The existing franchise fee and the existing agreement is
not formulated as a dollar value per year.
It is framed as a percentage of gross revenue per year.
That is 10%.
The amount of annual dollars in the 1.225 for the coming
first year of this new agreement is
right around the same as what the town receives now and will
continue to receive for the next year
under the existing agreement through that percentage based
approach.
I think that answers the first part of the question.
There is parity amongst the amounts.
There are not substantially changing.
We are just changing from percentage
to an annual dollar amount.
Net receipts to the town should be approximately similar
to your amount if the town -- for example if there were
legislation that changed what the town could recover
for street pavement impacts or if there were changes
in the town cost-- the town doesn't programs around solid
waste on its own or those changes in reductions in cost,
and it's the reason that we have in the agreement
the town's ability to set the franchise fee resolution.
So if there were a change in cost
or a change in legislation or law in the future,
it meant the town wanted to change the franchise fee amount,
the town wanted to engage a study on what the new franchise
fee amount should be, and then you
would consider authorization of a resolution resetting that fee.
And then there would be a mechanism for the contractor
to recover the revenues of that fee
through a component of a rate adjustment.
Or if it was to reduce, a credit to repairs.
>> So any discussion?
Anyone have any comments they want to share, thoughts,
or are we ready for a motion?
>> Just a little comment I'd like to make.
I did participate in the ad hoc committee in the beginning that
set some of the numbers there.
And I just want to say it was sometimes contentious.
It was honest.
It was fun.
And they managed to get to the end of negotiating
various numbers, all sorts of different people
from the community, the businesses, the school
district all working on the main weighting of the values
that were coming through.
It was a very open and honest process.
And it was working with Garth and Christina and everybody.
It's been a fantastic process to watch
happen and watch it happen in a very straightforward manner.
I'm very happy with the way -- not so much specifically who won
the contract, but just the way it turned out in terms of its
process.
So good job, Christina really, very well done.
Thank you.
>> This was the fourth contract I had been involved in.
And I have to say I don't think we have ever
had competitive entities, the winner and the losers,
be so respectful.
Pretty amazing.
Thank you, Orcology, and thank you, greenways.
The big thanks goes to Christina and the consultants
because people really believed in the process and believed --
in so close.
That's when it gets really dicey.
One point out of 100 or-- yeah.
That's one it can be a lot of arguing and hard feelings.
Pretty amazing.
The other comment I will have is that even
though the rates are lower, this is for the general public--
there's some other costs to the town, school district,
and fire department.
Those costs we will pay one way or another because they are not
discretionary.
The town is not going to say we will just
have to give up our garbage pickup
and that'll be-- we're just not going to do that,
save that money.
It is also a reflection on what we
were dealing with in terms of public budgets, higher
costs, less revenue.
Thank you, Christina, and everyone.
I think we have got a good ten year contract.
Windsor was the leader in having competitive bids for garbage.
And I don't know, there's some communities
that will extend their contracts because it is not
voter mandated.
But we were the ones that put it on the map
and we should be very proud of it.
>> Vice mayor.
>> Thank you so much.
I want to say again as well as Councilmember Leap said
is to thank you to everyone who was on the ad hoc committee
and on the committee for the town staff
as well for the selection committee.
It was a lot of work.
It was a lot of time.
And so many good conversations, and really truly
centered around transparency and how the rates are decided
and how we would be able to separate
each layer in the town of Windsor
so we could get an idea of how each group is paying the rates,
whether it be single family home.
We added in a multi use section this year or this contract.
Where we didn't have our multi use areas of town broken out
into a different payment section,
we do have that now for more transparency.
And I want to thank the school district for being part of that
as well even though knowing that they were going to be separated
out of the contract and they were going
to have to pay their rates going forward,
it was nice to have them present and have their information
and input into that group.
Ultimately I was happy to see that the rates are reduced.
That is what I was hoping to see, especially
having the government entities pulled out of it.
That makes me happy for the community members
to be able to have something in our lives go down.
Because it just continues to go up and up and up.
It was really nice to see that while not drastic it still
is a reduction in something.
And I'm happy for that.
And I want to thank the Council for trusting Council Member Leap
and myself on the ad hoc committee.
I hope we were able to produce what you guys were looking for.
And I think we did with this contract coming forward
and the RFP process.
Thank you so much.
>> And before someone makes a motion,
I just want to add that through this process,
the committee definitely heard the public and one
of the biggest items was a split cams.
I knew they were genuine in the beginning
and the state mandates in separating recycling.
It was definitely something we continued
to hear throughout the past year is that residents did not
like the split cans.
Hopefully beside the lower rates,
I think we're going to have a lot of very happy residents
come 2027.
Thank you everybody again for participating and your time.
So I would like to entertain someone to make a motion on two
items separately or --
separate?.
Would someone like to make a >> I'll go for it.
>> Go for it.
>> So I move to adopt a resolution authorizing
the execution of the Solid Waste Management Franchise agreement
with Sonoma County Resource Recovery LLC, for residential,
multifamily, and commercial garbage recycling materials,
recyclable materials, and organic waste collection
services for the period of October 1st, 2027,
through September 30th, 2037.
And authorize the Town Manager to execute it
on behalf of the town as amended.
>> Second.
>> Roll call vote please.
[members voting]
>> Thank you.
>> And now someone make a motion on the second one.
>> I can make the second motion, adopt a resolution setting
the franchise fee at $1,225,000 for October 1st , 2027,
3rd September 30th, 2028, with a cost of living escalator
for year two in consecutive years following the term
of the franchise agreement to recover the cost of solid waste
related to the services in the town of Windsor.
>> Is there a second?
>> Second.
>> Roll call vote, please.
[members voting]
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you so much.
>> If I could briefly call Mayor,
I would echo coach Carnation's comments about our three, Garth.
Consultants are only as good to the town as the project manager
is that leads the project.
This has been a three year project.
Christina came to us in 2023, February 23rd I believe.
Has been working on that since the day she got back.
I appreciate Council's support.
Christina, thank you.
You've done a great job.
>> Perfect.
Thank you, everybody.
We are going to shuffle around a little bit
and move on to item 13.2.
This is consideration of amendments to the gas station
and ordinance.
>> Ready?
>>Yes.
>> Thank you, mayor, members.
I'm Kim Vogue a planner with the community development
department.
I'm joined by Tim Card, development manager.
This presentation is intended to give the council an overview
of the policy landscape surrounding the town's gas
station ban ordinance.
And to identify whether there is any additional analysis
needed from here on.
So there is no action being taken in tonight's meeting.
Let's see here.
The gas station ban ties back to previous town
regional and state policies, including climate emergency
resolutions and the town's general plan.
The governor signed an executive order
to phase out new gas powered vehicle sales by 2035.
I mentioned that because it was a specific topic of conversation
at the council's previous discussion.
I'll come back to that in the next slide.
In 2021 the City of Palma adopted a gas station ban
ordinance.
Following Petaluma's lead, our CA
spearheaded an effort to get all local jurisdictions to enact
a similar ordinance.
Our CPA is a regional climate protection authority
of which the town is a member.
And in 2022, Windsor's gas station ban ordinance
was adopted.
This goes into a little bit more detail.
The California Air Resources Board or CARB
approved a rule called Advance Clean Cars two, which
was intended to implement the governor's executive order.
That was effective November 30th, 2022.
And then in May of 2025, that order
was suspended by federal government, which
rescinded the Clean Air Act waiver
for the state of California.
So that is now in litigation.
I wanted to confirm that because it was also a discussion
item at the last meeting and put that
in the record for the Council.
And then to continue on at this timeline,
I added the General Plan amendment in February, 2020,
to the GHG policies to catch up with state policy
and the adoption of the checklist, which
was a streamlined mechanism for development projects
that were subject to sequa analysis.
In April, the Council asked staff
to revisit the gas station ban ordinance,
not to make a specific change at this time
but to evaluate whether the ordinance still
fits the current conditions.
There is interest in exploring whether potentially large scale
retail could help stabilize the town's revenue issues.
So large-scale retailers have been mentioned,
which typically include or require gas stations
as an accessory use.
Did I skip a page here?
The governor's executive order on gas powered vehicles
is suspended along with federal Rescissions.
And there is uncertainty to the long term regulatory landscape.
These changes don't dictate local policies,
but they do change the backdrop against which
the ordinance was adopted.
To support the discussion, we've outlined potential pathways
that Council may want to consider.
To maintain the existing ordinance com
maintain Winsor's current climate action trajectory,
which would provide certainty going forward.
The second is to just look into a full repeal, allowing
applications for new standalone gas stations in zoning districts
as they were before.
Subject to Sequa review.
This would address the request from fuel industry stakeholders.
The third one would be to look into target elements
for large scale retail users with accessory gas
stations in selected zoning districts potentially.
Again, this evening is not about a decision.
It is about what pathways mean and what
the implications would be.
We could also look into particular performance standards
and possible mitigation measures.
This would need more analysis moving forward.
We did an initial screen of where something like this
could be located.
There were a few candidate sites.
It looks like the sites would need to be at least 15 acres.
There are not very many in Windsor.
We found two, one at the very north end of town
on one of the south end of town column up both of which
have significant environmental constraints, including
access constraints.
These slides not suggesting any particular retail risk coming
forward at this time or any particular project is feasible.
It is just an initial screening of potential or theoretical
project could go.
So large scale retail could potentially
contribute to long term revenue stability for the town
through its sales taxes and related economic activities.
We are just operating with very limited information right now.
We are limited the number of parcels that are suitable.
The feasibility would depend on retailers interests.
We haven't had anyone come forward.
There is no application or commitment
from potential retailers at this time.
We don't know what the regional competitiveness would be right
now, or the actual feasibility.
We just don't have that information.
So we have received some written comments in response
to tonight's item.
The first one should have been attached to your staff report.
That was from an industry group called California Fuels
and Convenience Alliance.
They're requesting consideration of a full repeal
on the basis of economic development
and equal opportunity.
There was one written comment in support of that request
for a full repeal.
Then there were four other comments
I think I got in time for this meeting that
were all in support of the continuing
as the ordinance was written.
And then additionally, Dan Forge sent a letter.
I don't know if it was on your dais,
and then a couple more emails in support as that letter came in.
These are the comps that came in.
I just wanted to say this is a summary of public comments.
It's not necessarily a representative of the broader
community sentiment.
We expect more input and a broader community
outreach if we went forward with some kind of amendment.
We would incorporate that feedback
as the Council provides direction.
Some potential options for tonight, no action
would be happening tonight.
One would just be to accept the staff presentation.
Two would be to identify preferred pathway going forward.
And three to identify any particular information
or analysis they would like to see in the future.
So that wraps up my report.
I'm happy to answer questions.
And Tim is here also to answer questions.
>> Thank you very much.
This is a time for questions, but I
want to throw out for the public again what
I heard you say was that there is no interest right now
for anyone to come to Windsor and build gas stations.
Right?
>> I have not had any interest come across my desk as far
as a standalone gas station.
No.
>> Can you --
I'm sorry.
I have to ask.
Have you had an interest for any retail stores that come in?
>> No large format retailer has directly reached out to me.
However, I have heard of interest
through second hand real estate brokers and intermediaries,
that type of thing.
>> So yes, again, and I'm sorry.
I'm breaking my own rule here.
But just like someone during public comment mentioned,
the flock camera, we have brought the flock camera
discussion to the council because that is what we do here.
We listen to the public.
We listen to concerns or requests.
And so we are having staff bring this item before us
because we want to be able to have
this forum for this information to get out.
I just wanted to add that before.
So any questions for staff, please?
Anyone?
Go ahead.
>> What we are considering is the possibility of direction
to amend an ordinance.
An ordinance can be amended at any time by this Council
or future Council.
That's pretty much the state of the nature of the animal?
>> Correct.
>> Any other questions?
Go ahead.
>> Tim, do you have any -- for either a big box retail store
or a standalone gas station, what would be the financial
implications before the town?
>> I have much better data on standalone gas stations.
We have 14 standalone gas stations in town.
I can't tell you what the individual sales tax
representation of each one of them are.
But that aggregate it is about $400,000 a year or about 7.7%
of our sales tax revenue from those four gas stations.
>> And if you had to guess, how are the big box retail?
>> It's difficult to speculate.
But if you were to say a big box retail with a gas station,
I would have to assume that would
be in excess of $1 million.
But that would be pure speculation.
I haven't looked into those numbers.
Thank you.
>> Any other questions?
>> I have a question.
In doing -- first off, thank you for the presentation.
And doing the research for this ask
that we have had you come back before council,
have you seen any other towns with a specific amendments
to the gas station bans that say anything like, hey,
if this specific sort of business
were to come in that required a gas
station, or any other caveats to gas station bans?
>> I have not seen it.
>> I have a question.
I actually thought in bringing this up
that we would have more information than other areas.
For example an analysis of the effect of such a gas station
or a change in the rules would have
on greenhouse gases and other environmental aspects of things.
And we don't have any information yet for that one.
Was that omitted on purpose or just
that message didn't come across or what?
>> I think we need a more defined project to know what
where we are assessing first.
>> Thank you.
And
>> I'm going to go ahead and open to public.
Anyone from the public wishing to make comment,
they can approach the podium please.
If you don't mind, line up so I can
have an idea how many speakers we have.
If you wish to state your name and just
either street address or town you live in, that is optional.
It's a great way for us to reach back
to you, but optional for me.
You have three minutes, and there's
a timer right behind you.
Thank you so much.
>> Mayor and council members, my name is Dave Heidel.
I live in Santa Rosa.
I am a member of Sonoma County Climate Activist Network
and also return Peace Corps Volunteers
for Environmental Action.
I urge you to reject any proposal
to amend your gas station ban.
You have stated a strategic plan element and a goal statement
here to that, which refers to the fiscal benefits
to attract new businesses that expand your tax base.
So of course this is important.
You need to balance your fiscal responsibility,
but not at the extent of threatening the sustainability
of the people who live here.
And while your goal states that the purpose of amending the gas
ban is to create opportunities that enhance the quality of life
for all, adding new gas stations does not do this.
You already know about the dangers of global warming caused
by greenhouse gas emissions because you
have an extensive policy to reduce greenhouse gases.
And this past February you adopted a greenhouse gas
checklist to support your policy of greenhouse gas reductions.
So in that, section LU-6.1 states that the town's shall
strive to provide an overall pattern on land use that
encourages sustainable development.
Adding another gas station does not do that.
The policy requires that land use, quote, enhances
livability and public health.
Adding another gas station does not do that.
Your policy seeks to reduce air pollution, greenhouse gas
emissions, and then consumption.
I another gas station does not do that.
Section PHS7.2 states that the town shall support plans,
standards, regulations, incentives,
and investments to reduce the impacts of climate change
on those populations most vulnerable to the impacts
of climate change.
Those populations are all of us.
All living beings on land and in the oceans
are being severely threatened by global warming.
You know this.
It would be immoral for you to forsake your well thought out
policies just for the money.
And nothing else.
So a gas station ban says to the oil industry and to the entire
population of our region that our future cannot be continued
to use fossil fuels for our energy needs period money is not
the issue here.
Doing the right thing to sustain life is what this is about.
So please vote to reject amending your gas station ban.
>> Good evening.
My name is Jenny Blake.
I was a founding member of the coalition opposing new gas
stations.
I would urge you to go for option one
a, which is to leave the ordinance in place as it is now.
I submitted a letter yesterday, which I hope you've received.
It seems this is not fronted by anyone
thinking that we need new gas stations in Windsor, or even
new stores, but that it is about the city's budget.
There may possibly be some interest from a large store,
but this is all very speculative at the moment.
The 2022 ordinance is just as valid
now as it was when it was created.
The climate crisis is just getting worse and more urgent.
The urgency is to bring down the greenhouse gas emissions
and not to build new gas stations
to prolong dependency on fossil fuels into the future.
There are also huge air pollution impacts
from gas stations with a lot of toxic emissions, which
can cause cancer, lung disease, asthma,
heart diseases, and many other illnesses,
especially for particularly vulnerable children,
seniors, children, and also people in frontline communities.
There are always leaks and spills
from gas pumps and underground storage tanks
impacting soil, surface, and groundwater.
Ten gallons of petroleum can produce 12 million gallons
of water per minute so think about the impacts
to the drinking water supply.
And there are leaking underground storage tanks
all over Sonoma County, including in Windsor.
There are environmental justice issues
in the whole production of petroleum all the way
from drilling or pumping in Nigeria
or wherever it comes from, transportation, refining, and at
the pump and the emissions from cars.
Meanwhile the sales of gasoline are falling.
They peaked in 2005, according to the California Energy
Commission.
And the sales of electric vehicles are rising,
including because prices are going down,
more used cars are becoming available
and subsidies are still available.
Anyway we need more bikes, less cars.
And the cost of cleaning up toxic abandoned states
is huge and often falls on the municipalities or the taxpayers.
It can cost over $1 million to clean up an abandoned gas
station or toxic site.
And there are many of those around the county.
Some abandoned gas station sites in other places
are being repurposed now in creative ways.
Why go through that process?
Just don't build a new gas station.
The other thing is a lot of people
don't realize that cost business policy is
based on selling cheaper gas so that they
will get more memberships.
Because it is member only gas, and their whole business
strategy is built around selling cheaper gas to get more members
and retain those members.
>> Thank you very much.
Your time is up.
>> Thank you.
>> Good evening, mayor vice mayor Potter and council
members.
Thanks for the opportunity to speak.
My name is Woody Hastings.
I'm the coordinator of the coalition opposing new gas
stations.
I'm here tonight to urge you to choose
option one to retain the ordinance as it
was adopted in 2022.
Congress -- we sent a letter just yesterday.
I hope you received it.
Hope you can take the time to read it.
And if you could take the time to look
at some of those footnotes because that
is where the substantiation and a lot of the deep information
is about some of the things that we touched on there.
We believe you did the right thing in 2022
in adopting the ordinance.
All of the reasons as Jenny Blake just said are --
those theorists have validated and become more deepened
and become more worrisome in many cases we touched on.
And weakening it in 26 would be a mistake.
There are things we touched on in the letter.
The local impacts, toxic impacts,
and other local impacts.
The climate crisis, and market dynamics that
have emerged over the last four years in particular.
And so something that I would say to the gas station
developers, the business case is really falling apart
for new gas stations in 2026.
It was 1926, things were looking bright and rosy.
But it's 2026.
As Jenny just said, gasoline sales are down.
That 7.7 figure of your percentage of your tax base
is not static.
That is going to be going down.
Because gasoline sales are going down.
16% between 2005 and 2025.
And the projections from the California Energy Commission
are that that decline in gasoline sales
is only going to accelerate.
If for no other reason, just because you
see the writing on the wall, installing
these underground tanks that are problematic,
that leak, and that cost a lot of money to remove
might be needing to remove them long before their shelf life.
And a lot of times, some of that cost, that burden
falls to the municipality.
It's something to be concerned about.
And once again, strongly urge you to keep the ordinance
as it was adopted in 2022.
Option one.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Hello.
My name is Matt Callaway.
I'm a member of Sonoma County Conservation Action.
I am urging you all to choose option one
and leave the ordinance in place.
The strongest terms, gas stations
are not benign infrastructure.
They emit carcinogenic and pollutants like benzene,
threaten public health.
They have problematic underground storage.
This 2022 ordinance was smart.
It balanced policy.
And we don't need more gas stations in the city.
I understand the need for fiscal solvency
and bringing in large scale retailers.
But the people of California and Sonoma County and Windsor
have very little influence over how
retailers see the economic need to come into the area as.
The way that we can exert this influence over them
is by having good policy that tells them
that these gas stations are not wanted
by the residents of those cities that come in.
And the way we can really influence
is making smart legislation like this.
They still want to do business in our areas,
but we don't need to fully capitulate
to these economic models that, as we have heard, are crumbling.
Thank you very much.
We urge you to keep the ordinance as it is.
>> Hello, good evening, mayor, Council members, city staff.
My name is Brian.
I'm with the California Fuels Alliance.
I represent independent gas stations across the state
including here in the town of Windsor.
I am here just to urge you to consider a repeal
of the ordinance 2022-366 as a remedy to the budgetary
constraints that the town is facing.
I just want to say that we understand that Windsor
is facing a pretty big crisis.
But if you go with option number three,
it's an affront to the local businesses and the community
members who have chosen to make Windsor their home.
I just want to call attention to the fact that, as was mentioned,
four gas stations alone in Windsor account for nearly 8%
of total sales tax.
And the ban just closes the door to any possibility
of increasing those contributions, which
would be helpful right now.
Not to mention the band's role in reducing local employment
and small business ownership opportunities,
limiting consumer choice and also leaving Windsor's gas
vehicle dependent population to people who can't afford --
I think it is fantastic that we have all these grants
and it's great if you can afford an electric powered vehicle.
But unfortunately, not everyone can at this point in time.
We are advocates for letting local businesses
and local market response to market demand.
By doing so by exempting big box retailers, like I said,
it is an affront to the local businesses that
have chosen to stay in Windsor.
So today I'm just asking the council
to seriously consider repealing the ordinance that bans new gas
stations as a remedy to the challenges
that the town faces tonight.
Thank you.
>> Good evening, everybody.
I am Lionel enchanté.
I represent the local gas station known
as Redwood Oil or Aztec Grill.
We have been here locally for decades.
The area has been working with you
to get the compilation of the expansion for the store
every kitchen done.
Started the business over 50 years ago.
Peter retired, sold the company to a family, not a chain.
The construction manager has been with us for over 40 years.
The district manager with local list for over 26 years.
The store manager has been with the company for 24 years.
It is very local.
We carry a lot of local product.
We sell local jerky.
# We are the #3 company nationally and revenue for --
we purchase local brands.
We are expanding our store.
And we're going to have state of the art kitchen.
What I'm trying to say here is --
in my French accent might not be the best person to convey that.
We have people who live here who are very committed
to this community because they live here.
They come at 3:30 a.m.
To cook from scratch those burritos.
They come to purchase them.
And to see a major international retailer, say Costco,
which is number three in the world with $270 billion,
it is hard to compete with those people.
We are happy to compete if we can,
but if they are the only one who can,
it doesn't seem fair competition to us.
We do our best to be the best member of the community
and how we employ, how we pay, how we support our customers.
So we would like you to take that into account.
We're investing a high single digit number of millions
to improve our service and our products beyond the gas
into the food and the retail piece.
So thank you for opening your door to everybody.
And I have confidence you'll be very wise.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Hello, Council, mayor.
My name is Jesse Laughlin.
I have been a resident of Windsor for about 30 years.
I am a former underground storage tank inspector
for the State of California.
I am returning to speak to you tonight
to urge you to maintain the gas station ban
ordinance with the amendments.
I was encouraged when I read the agenda report
and saw the actions the town has taken in the past ten years
to protect and prioritize environmental resources,
reduce greenhouse gases, and promote energy efficiency.
It's also part of the reason I am so perplexed to be here
before you tonight.
Just down the road, where Windsor Road runs into Redwood
Highway, there's a substantial parcel
that is set mostly abandoned for as long as I can remember.
I was not surprised to find that the site hasn't
opened underground storage tank cleanup case.
The state database Geo tracker shows the lake was first
discovered in June of 1987.
It is still being monitored for things like benzene toluene,
ethylbenzene, and xylene.
This is not uncommon.
This is the legacy of underground storage tanks.
There is an underground storage tank Inspector.
My primary goal was to protect our precious brown from threats
exactly like this.
IN 2012, monitoring on the Windsor Road site
comment we are still having detections
of diesel 25 years later.
Makes me concerned for neighboring domestic wells.
I didn't have to look very far for an extreme case of a U.S. T
got wrong.
You have to look down the road from where we sit tonight.
We don't need more of this in Windsor.
We should be investing in infrastructure
that supports more sustainable and healthier future,
not infrastructure that has been proven time and time again
to be harmful to our health and our environment.
Change starts with the local jurisdictions.
Change can be very hard.
But Windsor already made that hard decision.
And we do not need corporate big box stores in Windsor.
Small local businesses, business owners
are who we need to invest in and support.
The town of Windsor should continue
to lead the way to a healthier future.
And please continue to look forward and maintain
this ordinance.
Thanks for letting me speak.
I appreciate your time.
>> Good evening.
Rich Carnation.
I'm speaking on behalf of myself.
>> I'm going to ask that.
>> And on behalf of my company.
I'm going to do my best not to speak any French,
but this is an irritating subject for me.
People talk about environmental stuff.
Just so you guys know, I am all for affordable advantages. ---
alternative energies.
I've got two patents that are alternative energy stuff.
I understand that.
But we don't have it here yet.
People talk about if we have a gas station,
we're going to increase or whatever.
We already are.
We're just buying our product in another town.
We're not buying it here.
So whatever we are doing, we are doing it here,
we are buying it there.
So conformal count.
I count of one person from Windsor who spoke tonight.
I am number two.
Everyone else is from somewhere else.
One of the gentlemen talked about riding a bike.
I'm curious if anybody rode a bike to the meeting
here from Santa Rosa.
I don't think so.
I have 80, 90 trucks that we drive.
We don't buy any of our fuel in Windsor.
We did for a short period of time
after we had our meeting a couple of months ago.
The shell station dropped their price a lot.
Hey, I went in and I bought fuel there.
I told the gal, do me a favor.
Let your management know that I'm
buying my fuel here because you guys dropped your price.
And they did.
And we started buying our fuel there.
And then about three weeks went by,
and none of the other stations dropped.
They raised their price back up.
So we don't buy it anymore.
We are like 50,000, 60,000 bucks a month of fuel we don't buy
in our town.
I get more in trouble because I cheated about Windsor
than I do about almost anything else paramedic
but it's not about Costco either.
Costco is just a company that said that they
might want to be here.
If they were going to come here, fuel had to be part of it.
Somebody mentioned about their business model.
That is true.
I don't know if somebody asked a question earlier about
if there's a gas station, has anybody expressed interest?
I'm letting you know right now, if you lift the ban,
I know at least one person who would put in a station.
And it is me.
Because right now I can make the money off my own company
that we're not losing.
You have somebody who would put a gas station in Windsor.
I haven't ran one before, but I know I could figure it out.
Wouldn't be a problem for me so I still have a minute left over
from the other --
I'm just kidding.
Bottom line is the people in our town,
are the ones who actually buy or could buy the fuel are not
because the prices are so high.
Economics is what will drive this.
>> Hi, Betsy Mallis.
I live here in Windsor so I am person number three.
Much to my chagrin, I have to agree
with my friend Mr. Carnation.
People are still going to drive cars in Windsor.
People right now are driving out of Windsor to buy their gas.
Our gas right now is $0.50 higher in Windsor.
Is that because we have four stations
and those four stations have a monopoly?
I don't know if we have I know that Healdsburg and Santa Rosa
has gas that's usually between 30 and $0.50 less than Windsor.
Nobody is driving less than Windsor
because there is no more gas stations.
A couple of unrelated points to think
about, both Safeway and Walmart, two big stores in Windsor
already operate gas stations in other parts of California.
It is a model that works for them in other places.
No reason it couldn't work for us here in Windsor.
If we develop the north of Arata area
and we get our long awaited extra on ramp from the freeway,
there is going to need to be a gas station.
People need to fill up their cars.
In emergencies, our four centrally located gas stations
are not going to you for all the additional development
that is going into Windsor.
I understand in 1987 the rules in place
to put gas and oil into tanks and into the town calling it
into the ground was much different than it
is today in 2026.
I just urge you to consider removing this ban
and seeing what additional gas stations could come
to Windsor, not only to bring additional tax
dollars to Windsor, which we know need,
but to really service the people of Windsor.
This is a regressive ban.
The people who are going to be moving
into the northern part of Windsor
will not have a place to get gas.
Their only option will be to go up to the Healdsburg
and purchase a necessity they need in a town other
than Windsor.
So I know this is a touchy subject
and I would love to say if we don't put any more gas
stations in, people aren't going to drive cars anymore.
It is just not a reality here in Windsor.
And maybe in some other places, but it is not here.
So I really encourage you to continue
to look into repealing this ban and seeing
what it means to Windsor.
Thank you.
>> Good evening, Council.
Do you remember the Kincade Fire?
Do you remember when the mandatory evacuation order came
out and the huge lines of vehicles
lined up to get gas in order to leave town?
That is why we can use another gas station or two in town.
Just common sense and safety.
Even if we had an extra station or two
does it mean we'd be pumping any additional gasoline or diesel
fuel.
It just would mean we would have more here.
So I urge you to reverse the ban.
Thank you thank you
>> Thank you.
Anyone else from the public?
I'm going to bring it back to the Council.
Can you put the slide on the three options that we had?
Yes, please, thank you.
So again, I just want to add that we brought this back
because of a hearsay, something we heard from someone who
heard something from someone, and there is no real evidence
that someone is interested.
And so we are here to talk about what do we see for Windsor?
What is the future of?
I just lost my train of thought and I
so anyway, I will let someone else start the conversation
and I will add my thoughts later.
>> Sure.
So back in April, when we talked about this,
I was one of the ones who said yeah,
I'd like to have a little bit of research done on this,
and let's talk about it for a while.
I used to post something here.
I have been getting it wrong.
I want to correct my record here.
This was something said in the movie 1776
by Stephen Hopkins, the delegate from Rhode Island.
In all my years, I ain't never heard, seen,
nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it
couldn't be talked about.
And so that is where I came tonight to hear these.
And I have heard some -- both sides of the story.
I was surprised.
I ran for my seat here as the environmental candidate
in which I still am.
You can believe that.
I am here gathering information.
I thought it was especially enjoyable to have
Betsy Malice tell a couple jokes that I
don't hear that happen a lot.
Thank you very much, Betsy.
There was an option on the original sheet.
It was number four, which was something akin to do nothing,
which is --
>>Number one.
>> Pardon me?
Which is very close to number one.
But it was number four on the original sheet of paper.
I am really happy to have had this discussion,
to hear various aspects, to get some more information out
as we did, which was what we asked for in the first place.
In my opinion is that we should do nothing and think about it
for a while .
>> So yeah, who wants to go next?
I don't have to go last, but -- fine.
I'll go.
Yeah, no, I can't decide.
Please.
>> I just want to say, I 100% appreciate the emphasis
on sustainability and protecting the environment.
But I think we need to understand
that gas station bans do not significantly
impact consumption of fuel.
They impact where you purchase fuel.
If we ban gas stations, we're not driving --
no is going to say we have a gas station down here I'm not going
to drive.
That's just not how it works.
I was doing a little research before this meeting.
There is no data that says that Petaluma's ban has any impact
whatsoever on fuel consumption.
I think we need to understand that this ban is not
pushing people out of their cars and into EVs or bicycles.
I think that is important to set as a standard to start with.
But then also, we hear some talk in this conversation
about demand or how much utilization is down.
If we are trending away from fossil fuels,
nobody's going to build a gas station.
We don't need a ban.
If the business model is moving away from that,
no one is going to open a gas station.
If there is demand, someone will open one.
I think we should let the markets
and the free enterprise dictate whether or not
they want to build one and not say we're
going to put rules and regulations in place because we
know the trends better.
We don't know the trends better than the entrepreneurs
in the free market.
Those are my thoughts.
I just don't think this is going to accomplish what
people want it to accomplish.
>> Councilmember Salmon.
>> Interesting.
A gas station ban is based on -- our current ones based
on a policy to support climate action.
Simple as that.
You have all testified at.
Not all of you, but a number of you testified.
And that is really what it is.
If there is a hell, we might be seeing it
with what is going on on the earth right
now provide like to live in Spokane?
Want to relive coffee bar?
The experts say it's somewhat the blame is global warming.
So I think it's really important that the gas station ban
as a policy is very important.
For me this item came up not based on gas.
It came up on retail leakage.
And what council are you doing to increase revenues
in this town?
And I say that with kind of a sarcasm
because that is what we have heard loud and clear.
And our retail leakage is a real fact.
I can ask you.
And how can we address it?
We're not going to get a MacY's.
We're not going to get any of those stores, in my opinion.
We might be able to get a Costco.
Not because Costco wants to come here or has an interest.
We may be able to reach out to them
and say I think we have one location.
Only one.
And we might be able to reach out and say we're interested.
And we know what Costco is going to say
if they are interested in.
They're going to say, you know our model.
They have actually even changed their model
if you read the paper.
They have gone to standalone gas stations now in places.
It is very interesting because someone testified
the reason Costco gas is so cheap is
because they want membership.
But if you put a gas station only,
then it doesn't really follow the membership, the shopping.
But that was what I'm interested in is
if we have that opportunity, at the time it comes, we address it
and it'll be a decision at that time.
I'm pretty much solid on number one based on the testimony.
And where we are at.
We get a new gas station, but there
is nothing to be said that the gas is going
to be any cheaper than the three gas
stations we have now, which their prices have always
been the same.
We have four.
Two down in Shiloh and two in central.
So if this was a discussion I felt we needed to have,
and I also think it is a discussion
to know that at a time in the future, we might return to it.
But for me, it will be specifically
for a certain big box store that can guarantee us
that we will address some of our retail leakage.
And it's dramatic.
We see that in what we spend in Windsor on sales tax.
We are spending it in the other towns.
I think that is really what I wanted to say.
But another gas station doesn't necessarily
mean that we're going to see lower prices.
It doesn't mean that we will really see more sales tax.
But I think a big-box retailers such as Costco,
definitely we would see retail sales tax increased dramatically
$1 million a year.
And I think we're in the right location.
And I don't think it would really
compete with our other commercial big box
stores The Walmart Center.
I think we need to really be cognizant of that comparison.
There was testimony about how the big box will
hurt local businesses purely I think we need to look at that.
I think the people that shop at Costco
they will shop at the local businesses about the same.
With a different market.
You don't have clothing stores in my estimation
for-- enough clothing stores to draw people to shop retail.
They retail in Santa Rosa.
>> I want to thank everybody for giving comments.
I appreciated this discussion and wanted
to bring this back so we could discuss it
and that we can hear from everyone.
I think that after hearing all the sides tonight and also
hearing from Council, I do support number three, which
is further analysis.
And that is because I absolutely believe
that we need to be environmentally
responsible and very aware of what our own policies are.
But also I want to explore -- so I don't want it to be that
it's possible that this council might be interested in a big box
store that could bring in a gas station.
But then there's not a policy ready to go
for something like that.
And that we haven't done any vetting on it ahead of time.
Because I think if we can do some of that vetting now
and we can look through some of the different policy options,
while keeping the ban in place right now
but looking to the future and the possibility that,
then we are ready and we really know
and are informed as to what this council wants to look at.
And if we would consider an amendments
to the current policy.
We know -- I've heard it here tonight.
$60,000 a month in retail leakage just from one company
because of the fuel.
That's a significant amount of money that the town of Windsor
is not receiving.
And it is not -- that company is not purchasing gas.
They're not polluting the air.
They're still doing that.
They're just doing it in a different town,
than driving here and driving all the way up there.
That's still happening common with the town of Windsor
is losing out on all that.
We have said we want to be open to revenue sources for the town.
We have a $4 million structural deficit.
To have bans in place that limit our revenue sources
and limit our employee employment abilities in town,
those are opposing things.
So we can't say we're open to any sort of revenue
and trying to build our budget when we were saying
we're going to ban types of businesses
from coming into town, once we know we can potentially
bring in tax dollars.
And that doesn't mean we're saying throw everything out
and the environment doesn't matter.
It's does a company that's coming in that potentially
requires a gas station comment what kind of mitigations
do they have?
What technology do they have in 2026 that's
going to limit fuel leakage and it's
going to limit the environmental impacts?
Because we know the environmental impacts
from a gas station are not the same today in 2026
as they were when I started driving in 1996, 95.
What I'm saying, I'm not trying to make a joke about.
I'm trying to be serious that we know the technology gets
better and better every year.
Let me know that the impacts to our environment
are very significant.
They are significant to this council.
Their to the residents of the town of Windsor.
But we know they get better.
So are we going to be completely closed down to that or are
we going to keep going forward and trying
to see if there is a policy that is potentially just
right for the town of Windsor that allows us to maybe have
these revenue options in the future that also allows us
to keep our strict environmental policies that we currently have.
Thank you.
>> So with that discussion conversation that the vice mayor
just mentioned, can you explain the difference between three
and two?
Because I want to be mindful of our staff time and what
each of those would look like.
Could the items that you brought up right now, vice mayor,
could that be taken care of by choosing item number two instead
of three?
Is it just a less -- >> If I could,
I believe that the purpose behind or the thought behind
option number two would be to look at rescinding the ban,
whether it be for large retail, which also has an association
gas station, as well as a standalone gas station.
Really rescinding the bank of.
>> Number two.
>>, but for number three, that was more of that concept of did
we want to look at the potential of a zoning ordinance,
zoning amendments that would only entertain the thought
of a gas station if it was associated with a large retail
in the gateway zoning district.
Does that help?
>> It does help.
Thank you.
I wanted to start off by saying as someone who had given up
driving their gas car 80% of the time,
because I'm taking public transportation,
I wasn't doing it for environmental reasons.
I was doing it because I started thinking train
and I'm like, wow, this is amazing.
The education, it's unfortunate that we still need it out there
for people to get out of their -- fuel their car.
But then I did buy a new vehicle and it's gas.
So it is not as easy as we think to transfer to EV,
to transfer your lifestyle.
It took me over a year to get on the train.
So we still need to do more work in Sonoma County.
But another perspective I wanted to bring
is that in Windsor, I always heard live, work, and play.
If we live here, we don't work here.
The majority work outside of the town of Windsor.
I go all the way to Nevada for work.
But I am also hearing so many people,
they literally drive to Costco only to get gas.
And I know that.
I know a lot of people who do that.
I'm not making it up for the sake of making it up.
And so I was leaning towards number one
because we don't have any interested parties.
I want to trust our staff.
I want to trust that we can connect with these companies.
And at a later point we can come back and discuss this.
But then I heard comments from the building
over 300 homes and that on and off ramp
and whereas the gas station going to go?
So I'm still open to any of these options tonight.
Like council member salmon said, we do.
Our job here is to look at a bigger picture, bigger window,
and not just one, even though it is in our sustainability
language about protecting our environment.
I understand that.
But we have so many different things that we are looking at.
So I'm not even sure what I'm going to do here tonight.
Did you want to share something?
>> Patrick Stewart, community director, again,
this is not an action item.
I'm not going to be looking for a motion or amendments
or anything like that.
We're really just looking for direction from the staff,
taking a temperatur of what direction you'd like to go.
With that said, number one is pretty clear.
If we feel overwhelmingly from the council
that we should dictate no further action at this time,
that is clear to staff.
But two and three don't have to be mutually exclusive.
Two this does the Council generally
feel that we should be exploring a certain policy?
Be that full repeal, should we be
looking at a policy that would just
have a carve out for certain types of retailers?
And number three is are there certain factors
that the council would like more information about?
So more information about the economic impact of a new gas
station standalone, economic impact of a large retailer
and where that would go.
So we could combine two and three
if there's general interest in developing a draft ordinance
that would have a carve out.
What kind of information would be helpful for the council
to decide whether to adopt that ordinance for instance?
That's the information that we are looking for.
Does the Council just want to table this until a future date
or should staff be committing staff
time to coming up with draft ordinances or doing research?
>> That was my point is what kind of staff time are we
talking about when there's really nothing on the table.
So that's where I want to talk with you.
>> Can I make a comment?
You might remember that I'm going
to guess it was six months ago.
It may have been longer than that where
we had the discussion of poems home owners Association having
to deal with Castaneda's store.
And we got in this tizzy like this.
I think it might have been me.
I made the suggestion.
I don't think we'd have enough answers.
Not only to make a decision but to even
know what we are deciding on.
And so I suggest that we just back off for a second tier.
We all have plenty of time.
This is not happening tomorrow or the next months.
And we all talk to town manager Davis frequently.
And he can judge where we are heading
and maybe value some things we might want to ask.
And then sometime at a later date
we will come back and address it again.
This is not happening tonight.
A decision is not happening tonight.
Direction is not even happening tonight.
That is my opinion.
We just back off a little bit.
We will talk to John for a while.
And maybe come back for more
>> Thank you for your direction.
Anyone else?
>> If I could, thank you, JB.
I think we need to understand we will hold off providing
direction on the zoning change.
But I think we go forward on a economic development platform.
Tim, I think that is direction I would like to give
is that now we've had a public hearing where the council has
talked about a big box retail.
And we believe there requirements of a gas station.
So we have that card to go out and to at least
talk to a Costco or a store like that.
So they know we have an interest.
But they also know we have a bad.
And they would be able to ask us, well, how are you
going to deal with your band?
And then I think we can come up with these other questions.
What site are you talking to about?
That is the bigger one.
There was only one site.
As far as we know, they don't want to sell.
So it's kind of an easy question.
That's my understanding.
I know of the site.
I don't think there's any others in my estimation.
They don't want to sell, but they are not,
from what we can guess, they are not
going to go forward with their planned development.
And so the land is there apparently
so that is what I would say is we go forward.
We look at it as an economic development issue
and try our best to do our best to really address
this retail leakage.
It's the one area we can make some progress in where
I don't see us making progress in tourism.
What a sad thing and hotels in bankruptcy,
hotels unable to be built.
>> Thank you.
I want to say one of the ways that we
signal businesses to be interested in Windsor
is through our policies.
So if we have a policy that says we have a ban on gas stations
and there is no carve out in our policy,
that signals to them that we are not interested in doing business
with them.
And that is how policies work.
That is the whole reason for policies is really a policy out,
and then that tells developers where they can build housing,
where they can build retail, where
they can build all the things.
If they are not working towards letting businesses
know that that is something that we might consider in the future,
they look at our policy and go, if they
didn't watch this town council meeting, they don't know.
They look at our policy and go, they have a ban on gas stations
and we can't build in Windsor.
They are not interested.
And that is what policy is.
I know that you know that, Council member Sam.
And I appreciate that you are interested in stopping
retail leakage because it really is a significant thing that we
saw in our presentations.
>> What I'm saying is we need to be proactive.
The cardboard is not necessarily proactive.
We go to the specific entity that we
are looking at, which is different than what we normally
do.
We have a general plan called General Plan
it is not specific to.
It is called General.
That's when you have carve outs and zoning.
But I think in this position, we're able to go out
and say we are interested.
Here is what we think we can do.
If you're interested-- I've talked to Patrick
about the costs of environmental workup.
It could be half $1 million on the town.
But that is why this has to be a sign of a development agreement.
Has to be proactive.
>> For the mayor, if I may, we are not taking a vote.
We don't even need to do a straw poll.
All comments made by council members,
and it seems like you're in agreement on some things,
there's different thoughts on other things.
That is all being heard by staff and ultimately
how we use the staff resources is going to be a town manager
decision, and then as a department head
I will allocate staff time to doing research and drafting up
reports on everything.
When we get requests from the council to bring something
forward, that's when --
whether or not we are prepared for during that,
that's going to be the timeline we're looking at.
So regular meetings with the town manager
are going to face how we do this research.
In the interest of--
I'm sure we could debate this all night, but at this time
I think staff has heard enough.
>> If I could step in, thank you, director, mayor,
just briefly.
I see the council struggling with this.
I believe right now we've had interest in tabling the issue
and not continuing to discuss it.
At that point we can always keep our ears open
and we can always do further outreach
and try to make connectivity with some
of these potential retailers.
I have also heard that there is a interest in either repealing
or doing further research on a carve out.
And so we are split there.
If we don't come to consensus tonight,
we do need consensus in that area.
In order to know if we should do what directors Twitter is saying
and allocate more staff time, we can always also let this go
tonight and come back at a time in the future and discuss it
again for now but I think I am looking at you, may --
Mayor Reynoza.
>> What was your decision, one, two, or three?
I didn't hear which one you had.
>> I prefer the two, three hybrid.
>> Me?
>> If you would, mayor, and I don't mean to put you
on the spot, but we do need to have some direction to staff
tonight.
>> I would like to make another comment.
That is that we have not discussed
the environmental impacts and having a strong evaluation
of the environmental impacts of a gas station,
whether it is rooted in the ground, how many people drive
here, don't drive here.
All those variables.
And whether or not they are-- if you
listen to the environmental folks talk, it is all negative.
But we really need to go back and have a look at it ourselves.
In addition to the information we are getting from hearsay.
So this is why I asked the question a few minutes ago
where I said we need to have to look into that.
We have looked into is leakage, where it's going to go,
where it might go.
What we took that way.
What we may come back and say, no, environmental risks
are too high?
And we have not had that analysis.
>> The only way we're going to have that analysis is if the --
>> Is by asking for that analysis.
>> 2 or 3.
Are you asking you a hybrid of 2 and 3?
# >> #2 talks about how to make the amendment.
I am not at all saying that.
What I am saying is we don't have enough information
on environmental impact to determine
whether we should do any kind of amendment or anything like that.
We may come out of this after looking at it and saying
the environment -- which is what they did over the past few years
is to come up with a solution, which was to ban gas stations
because of the environmental impact, essentially.
So I expect that we will have conversations on that.
I certainly will be bringing it up again.
I don't have enough information from the town's point of view
to make a recommendation that is not
fact based on climate impacts.
>> I was just trying to read out my vote being the final one.
Back when this motion happened, you and I were on the council.
I remember specifically one of us asked, can this be rescinded?
The environmental is so important.
It hard what's happening with all the fires.
Climate action is so important to them
that but I remember specifically saying
this can be rescinded later because we never
know what's going to-- who is going to approach us,
the reason.
For that reason and the fiscal responsibility where we are at,
unfortunately retail is important?
Our sales tax staying in Windsor, the type of employment
you can have so people don't have to drive out of Windsor
to work would be amazing for a big place like this.
I will go ahead and say number three.
>> If I could, mayor, to put a bow on this a little bit,
I have read that different varying interests in council.
Two directly Streeter's point is we could do research
on the amendment to a ban that could include discussion points,
whether it be for gas stations in general or gas stations
only associated with big box retail.
I think what we'd be asking staff
to do is bring back additional information on what the zoning
code amendment might look like to allow gas station only
when an accessory to a large retail establishment and also
including some of the impacts that a gas station that
is sustainable might have.
We are not making a decision at this time to ban or peel back.
We're just asking for more information for consideration.
Also as Council Member Lee asked for,
we can bring back some general more high level environmental.
But until we have a decision made by council
where we want to go, we don't want to dive
into the expenses of the environmental.
But we can certainly pull down some information
that is enough to help this conversation for now
bring back more information >> Yes thank you
>> I'm just looking for nodding heads for discussion.
>> Looking at this gas station affiliated with a certain big
box home and also in my estimation a certain parcel I .
Because that certain parcel may not cancel out.
It may not be constrained just for gas stations
but for the use.
That's it.
It's game over.
I just need to make sure that that is my position.
>> So with that said, Council salmon,
you would be more interested in staff spending their time
on a more focused associated with a big box.
>> Look at if we even have a place to accommodate a big box
and with the necessity of a gas station.
We don't know that.
I see a parcel out there, but it has a creek running through it.
>> So I think we have three then that are looking at potentially
that focus.
We can also bring down other information.
But that is where we will spend some of staff time.
>> You have direction on?
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
Thank you, everybody.
Okay, we are moving on to 15.1, individual council member
reports or comments.
I don't have any tonight.
Who would like to start?
>> I will go ahead and start.
I attended National Night Out last night, which was great.
I appreciate the chief and the Windsor Police Department
for putting that together and having that event for us.
I thought it was super cute that our town movie last night was
also Zootopia, which had cute little police officer
Bunny to go in conjunction with our National Night Out.
Also this morning I attended the Business Alliance meeting,
talking to the businesses about our tax measure
and what that means in our budget and the way
that our structural deficit looks like right now.
So we talk a lot about it was hosted by Santa Rosa.
So I was there with Santa Rosa and Wrotham Park
was there also talking about their tax measures.
Also attended the strategic Transit Plan workshop
that was here at the visitors center talking about ways
that we can try to help Sonoma County Transit be more efficient
and to be better here in the town of Windsor.
It wasn't just for town of Windsor.
It was the entire transit.
It was a really good workshop.
I know they are still taking public comment on their plan
and how they are working it for the future.
I did attend the community meeting in district four,
talking about the potential Windsor School site plan.
I went there to make sure there was information provided on some
of our arena numbers and different things
that we have currently, and just to listen to the community
and what they have to say over there.
Also attended the last concert where we did the Pass the Hat.
That was super fun.
There were council members there that
did pass the hat to try to help us fund our Thursday night
concerts.
That is all I have.
Thank you.
>> Busy, busy.
Next, who would like to go?
>> I will go.
I am participating as the ad hoc liaison to the committee
to plan for the Resilience Center
at the Kaiser Park over the next few years.
It's a very interesting subject, perhaps
going to take as long as 5 or 10 years,
providing services like evacuation,
cooling, warming, emergency services, and response.
A community center for arts, culture, and recreation.
That is quite a mouthful going on out there at the Resilience
Center at Kaiser.
So the purpose of the planning that they are working on right
now is to secure an additional grant of 500 000 to get started
on the actual design and drawings in preparation
of grants in the future.
So that's what they are doing is planning.
That's what they are doing under Director layman's direction
is to plan for a grant just to get started on being
able to plan for future grants.
The actual design and drawings for such a thing be prepared
over the next couple of years will eventually
lead to 1 million to $10 million to actually develop
the Resiliency center.
So that is a pretty exciting program,
and we are moving forward on the various phases of the grant
process.
I also attended the Sonoma County Transit meeting that Vice
Mayor Tanya --
I'll just use Tanya.
I am actually a direct contact with Manager Betts of Sonoma
County Transit and the busses.
And I am still trying to get her to come meet with me.
And let's go redesign where route 66 goes.
So we are going to try and put that together so that it
makes better use of the train.
That is what I've been doing.
Thank you.
>> Council members salmon or Welch?
On your appointee to the Water Advisory Commission
which oversees Sonoma Water and the TAC.
We met.
Water at Lake Sonoma is going to be fine this year.
The Corps will give up the control of the creek flow
because it is at a point.
Lake Mendocino is a little different.
The big question that's always there is the Carter Valley issue
with --
I think it is called ARISI, the group that
is in charge of looking at removal of the dams the two
dams, and the construction of a diversion type facility
where the second dam is.
So that would still funnel water through the tunnel
into Lake Mendocino.
But I think it is something that we probably need
to talk about at some point.
Cloverdale has had quite a discussion about it.
Is the state of California going to get rid of Lake Pillsbury?
>> Okay.
Item 15.2, Council members request for future agenda items.
Seeing none, I will go ahead and adjourn the meeting.
Thank you everybody.
>> Thank you, mayor.