[0:00] All right. Good evening everyone.
[0:01] Welcome to tonight's Willow City Council
[0:03] regular meeting on August 25th, 2026.
[0:05] We'll call this meeting to order at 6
[0:07] PM.
[0:09] First up, pledge of allegiance. Uh Mr.
[0:11] Low, will you please lead us?
[0:17] indivisible
[0:22] » indivisibley
[0:28] andice.
[0:34] » All right, next up we have the oath of
[0:36] office, newly appointed council member
[0:38] John Lowe.
[0:54] I low
[0:57] solemnly swear
[0:59] >> I will support and defend
[1:03] >> Constitution of the United States
[1:08] » Constitution State of California
[1:10] >> against all against all enemies,
[1:14] foreign and domestic.
[1:15] >> I will
[1:17] >> that I will bear true faith and
[1:18] allegiance.
[1:21] >> Constitution of the United States,
[1:25] >> Constitution of the State of California,
[1:29] >> I take this obligation freely,
[1:34] » without any mental reservation,
[1:37] purpose of evasion.
[1:41] I will well and faithfully discharge
[1:45] the duties upon which you
[2:04] » welcome.
[2:06] >> Congratulations and welcome.
[2:10] All right, next we will have a roll
[2:13] call, please.
[2:13] >> Sure. Mayor Hudson,
[2:15] >> present.
[2:16] >> Vice Mayor Thomas,
[2:18] >> present.
[2:18] >> Council member Hansen,
[2:20] >> here.
[2:20] >> Council member Pride, here. Council
[2:22] member Low,
[2:23] >> present.
[2:24] >> Thank you.
[2:25] >> Okay. City Manager, any changes to the
[2:28] agenda?
[2:28] >> Um, mayor and vice mayor and council, I
[2:30] just wanted to recommend that maybe the
[2:32] council would like to continue items 6G
[2:35] through 6H to the September 8th meeting,
[2:39] it's come to my attention that there are
[2:41] um some typogrammatical
[2:44] errors in those uh job classifications
[2:47] and I thought the council might just
[2:49] want to let the staff go through it with
[2:50] a fine tooth comb and bring it back on
[2:52] the ETH. However, it would be helpful to
[2:54] approve the police chief job
[2:56] classification since there is later in
[2:58] the agenda a recruit request for
[2:59] recruitment of a new police chief.
[3:01] >> Okay. And you said 6G and 6H. 6G through
[3:06] uh 6
[3:07] >> through J.
[3:08] >> J, sorry. 6G through J. Yes, that's
[3:11] correct.
[3:13] >> Thank you.
[3:20] » Do you need consensus from the council
[3:23] on that?
[3:23] >> I believe yes.
[3:25] >> Yes, I would go ahead and
[3:28] >> I I would go ahead and just move that we
[3:30] approve those changes to the agenda so
[3:32] that we can get those looked at more
[3:33] thoroughly. Second the motion. Mr.
[3:35] Mayor,
[3:35] >> I have a first and a second. Any further
[3:37] discussion? Seeing none, all in favor
[3:40] signify by saying I. I.
[3:42] >> Hey.
[3:42] >> All oppose. Same sign. Motion pass 5 to
[3:45] zero. All right.
[3:48] [clears throat] With that, next up we
[3:49] have public comment and consent calendar
[3:51] forum. All items on the consent calendar
[3:53] are considered routine and may be
[3:54] approved with a single vote unless
[3:56] removed for separate discussion by the
[3:57] council or city manager. Individuals
[3:59] wishing to speak on consent items or
[4:02] matters not on the agenda are asked to
[4:03] complete a speaker card and submit it to
[4:05] the city clerk. All remarks shall be
[4:08] directed to the mayor and council
[4:09] members and are limited to 3 minutes. By
[4:12] law, the council cannot discuss or take
[4:14] action on items not listed on the posted
[4:16] agenda. We have item 6 A, register
[4:18] approval. 6B, minutes approval. 6 C,
[4:23] oppose Assembly Bill 1383, PEPAR. Item
[4:28] 6D is in David, Oak Street and Madrron
[4:31] Manor Street Pavement Project. Item 6E,
[4:34] rural economic development strategy and
[4:36] business attraction project. Item 6F,
[4:40] police chief job classification and
[4:42] salary schedule.
[4:44] Item 6K, on call general building and
[4:48] civil plan check services. Item 6 L,
[4:51] Willows Police Department and
[4:53] postresertification.
[4:55] Item 6M, chapter 2.65 of the Willis
[4:59] Municipal Code. Item 6N, Lexi Pole,
[5:03] subscription for Willis Police
[5:04] Department.
[5:06] Uh, with that, if there is any questions
[5:08] from the council or any items that they
[5:09] wish to be pulled,
[5:11] >> I would like to pull item 6F, the police
[5:15] chief job classification. I just have
[5:17] some items in the job description that I
[5:19] want to have cleaned up.
[5:24] » Mr. Mayor, I have a comment about 6E. I
[5:26] don't necessarily need to pull the item.
[5:28] >> Okay.
[5:29] >> Um, we've done many rural economic
[5:32] development studies throughout Willows
[5:34] over the last 25 years. Um, I've
[5:37] participated in several of those. Often
[5:39] they ended up um collecting dust on a
[5:42] shelf. This particular study looks like
[5:46] it actually creates some deliverables
[5:50] which um my question to staff would be
[5:53] do they have the bandwidth to
[5:55] actually effect whatever the
[5:58] recommendations are.
[6:00] So, u my only comment would be I would
[6:04] recommend in the future that the council
[6:06] consider maybe looking at um an economic
[6:09] development
[6:11] um subcommittee much like the finance
[6:13] committee or actually hiring an a
[6:16] part-time economic development
[6:18] strategist that can actually follow up
[6:20] on some of that information. I think
[6:23] it's I think this is a it's grant
[6:25] funded. Um it reading the package it
[6:29] looks like it has some good deliverables
[6:32] and actual uh information that we can
[6:35] actually put to work but we need
[6:36] somebody to put it to work. So I would
[6:39] um that would be my comment that after
[6:42] we've done this the council at another
[6:44] time actually look at um
[6:47] figuring out how we can actually affect
[6:50] that document once it's done.
[6:54] That's it.
[6:55] >> Okay. Thank you.
[6:57] Any other items need to be pulled? Um,
[7:00] with that, I'm going to request that we
[7:01] pull item 6 C
[7:04] in Charlie oppose Assembly Bill 1383.
[7:08] All right. Uh, any further questions
[7:10] from the council regarding the consent
[7:12] calendar?
[7:13] >> No. Actually, the only last one that I
[7:15] want to, and again, I don't want to pull
[7:16] item 6K, the on call general building
[7:19] and civil plan check services. There
[7:22] wasn't a lot of information in our
[7:23] packet on those and we will be creating
[7:26] contracts with each of these
[7:27] individuals. I just know that I like to
[7:30] kind of see the end result of what those
[7:31] contracts look like. So, as we put those
[7:33] together, not that it's just the money,
[7:35] but deliverables are also the turnaround
[7:38] times um all the things they promised in
[7:40] their proposals that we actually get
[7:42] those into those on call agreements so
[7:43] we can hold them accountable, not just
[7:45] on price. um we're doing these on call
[7:48] agreements for the benefit of the
[7:49] audience so that when we have a building
[7:51] application or some kind of a project,
[7:53] we've always just had one company that
[7:55] we went to for all of the plan checks,
[7:58] all of that stuff. Now, we're going out
[8:00] and we're potentially going to, if we
[8:01] approve this tonight, have five
[8:03] additional companies on contracts that
[8:06] we can look and see who's the best
[8:07] company to look at doing the plan checks
[8:09] for this specific project, which should
[8:12] make things more timely. we can turn
[8:14] projects around more quickly, a little
[8:16] more competitive, and that they've bid it. So, it gives um Joe, our
[8:20] community development director, a lot
[8:21] more flexibility in getting those those
[8:23] projects moved through. So, again, I'm
[8:26] very much contractminded. It bothers me
[8:28] a little bit when we don't have those
[8:29] things to look at in our packet. Um I
[8:32] don't like to see things and not be able
[8:33] to see more about them. Um in future, I
[8:35] think on an item like this, I'd like to
[8:37] see maybe at least the summaries of the
[8:39] analysis for who we're looking at
[8:41] actually going with. um which I'd asked
[8:44] questions about that prior to the
[8:45] meeting. You know, just want to see a
[8:46] little bit more before we say yay or
[8:48] nay. So, just wanted to comment on that.
[8:51] Thank you.
[8:55] » Okay.
[8:57] Uh with that, I will open this up to
[8:59] public comment. And this is for any
[9:01] items on the consent calendar or items
[9:04] that are not on the agenda.
[9:06] And just remember that items 6 C, 6F,
[9:10] 6G, 6H, 6 I, and 6J are not on the
[9:14] consent calendar item at this time.
[9:17] >> So, is there any public comment?
[9:18] >> I have Isaiah Rossi.
[9:25] » Anybody else?
[9:29] » Go ahead, Isaiah.
[9:32] Hey, so um basically the ones I wanted
[9:34] to talk about were um out of the agenda,
[9:37] but it [snorts] correct me if I'm wrong,
[9:40] but see if I can find it here. I'm
[9:42] sorry.
[9:46] For the reestablishment of the police
[9:48] building, you guys are trying to make it
[9:50] this building again. Will it this
[9:52] building even accept another police
[9:54] department due to the size of it?
[9:56] because we have city hall where the
[9:58] Willows Police Department used to be. Or
[10:00] are you guys just looking at a new um
[10:02] office for them?
[10:08] I think it's on the um the board. I'm
[10:11] not sure. I may have read it wrong.
[10:16] >> I think that's a discussion and action
[10:17] calendar item. Uh yes, that's item 7B.
[10:20] So, that's going to come back up later
[10:22] as far as the tenant improvements. All
[10:24] right. Thank you. Thank you,
[10:28] >> Joyce Cassander.
[10:31] » I come here every once in a while and I
[10:34] first of all, I'd like to thank the
[10:35] young man here that was kind enough to
[10:38] apply and be on the city council and I'd
[10:40] like to thank you for your time, though
[10:42] I don't always agree with you. The other
[10:44] thing an observation.
[10:47] Um I my humble mind thought that
[10:53] you were supposed to tell our city
[10:56] manager what to do and she was going to
[10:58] give you input. What I've been getting
[11:01] because I've been coming more frequently
[11:03] is that
[11:06] she's telling you what to do more. So, I mean, I could be wrong, but I
[11:12] appreciate you listening to me. And the
[11:14] other thing that's still kind of
[11:16] sticking in my throat is the sewage
[11:19] thing and the billing and all that
[11:21] expense and make and I just hope they
[11:24] all pay their bills since they don't all
[11:26] own the properties that the sewage bill
[11:29] will be coming. So, again, thank you for
[11:31] your time.
[11:33] >> Thank you.
[11:35] >> Any other public comment? Michelle
[11:37] Knight 6C.
[11:42] » So, regarding
[11:43] >> I'm sorry, that one was pulled. We'll listen to it. We'll have your
[11:46] comment on that one.
[11:48] >> 6C. Okay.
[11:48] >> Yes. How about
[11:50] >> uh 6F?
[11:52] >> So, 6F now.
[11:53] >> That would be the police chief.
[11:55] >> 6F is also pulled.
[11:56] >> 6F is What about 6 L and 6N? Go for it.
[12:01] >> You're good on those ones.
[12:02] >> Okay, great. Thank you. So, regarding
[12:04] 6L, um I just wanted to say that I
[12:07] support the recommendation that the city
[12:08] participate in the California Post
[12:10] program. I'm very familiar with that
[12:12] program, having previously served as a
[12:14] training manager in my professional
[12:15] career prior to retirement. Post
[12:18] provides an excellent and comprehensive
[12:20] training program for law enforcement
[12:21] officers and officers significant um and
[12:24] offer significant benefits to a newly re
[12:28] re-established police department. In
[12:30] addition to ensuring that officers
[12:32] receive high quality standardized
[12:34] training, participation in the program
[12:36] can provide reimbursement to the city
[12:38] for eligible
[12:40] uh training expenses, thereby helping to
[12:42] offset the department's overall training
[12:44] costs. Participation in post also
[12:46] provides the city with a access to
[12:48] establish postcertified background
[12:50] investigation and hiring processes.
[12:53] Uh these procedures are highly regarded
[12:55] within the law enforcement profession
[12:57] and can help ensure that the department
[12:59] recruits and hires qualified candidates
[13:01] who meet uh appropriate professional
[13:03] standards. Finally, participation in
[13:06] post program can help reduce the city's
[13:08] overall exposure to liability by
[13:10] ensuring that officers receive
[13:11] standardized training and that
[13:14] appropriate hiring and background
[13:15] investigation practices are followed.
[13:17] For these reasons, I strongly support
[13:19] the city's participation in the post
[13:21] program. I believe it would provide
[13:23] substantial financial, operational, and
[13:25] riskmanagement benefits as the city
[13:27] works to rebuild and establish a
[13:29] professional and effective police
[13:31] department. So, I just wanted to support
[13:33] you guys in that and share that with the
[13:35] public.
[13:37] I also [clears throat] support the
[13:38] recommendation for the city to contract
[13:40] with Lexiple Incorporated for the
[13:42] purposes of developing and
[13:43] reestablishing and maintaining current
[13:45] policies and procedures for the newly
[13:47] reestablished police department. I'm ve
[13:49] very familiar with the Lexico Lexiple
[13:52] program having extensively utilized it
[13:54] during my previous professional career
[13:56] in a management capacity prior to
[13:57] retirement. Lexiple is a wellestablished
[14:00] and widely recognized resource used by
[14:02] numerous law enforcement agencies
[14:04] throughout California. In my experience,
[14:06] the program is both comprehensive and
[14:08] user-friendly while providing agencies
[14:10] with the ability to maintain policies
[14:12] that are consistent with applicable
[14:14] federal and California laws,
[14:16] regulations, and recognized law
[14:18] enforcement standards. Another
[14:20] significant benefit in the program's
[14:22] ability is to assist the department in
[14:24] tracking employee policy review,
[14:26] acknowledgement, and compliance.
[14:28] Maintaining documentation that personnel
[14:31] have received, reviewed, and
[14:32] acknowledged the department policy is an
[14:34] important administrative function and
[14:36] can help reduce the city's potential
[14:37] exposure to liability. I also found
[14:40] Lexipul's flexibility and ongoing
[14:42] support to be exceptional compared to
[14:44] other management programs I utilized
[14:46] during my previous career. The ability
[14:48] to maintain current policies while
[14:50] receiving ongoing updates and
[14:52] professional support is particularly
[14:53] valuable for a newly reestablished
[14:55] police department. That is building its
[14:57] policies and procedures from the ground
[14:59] up. For these reasons, I strongly
[15:02] support the city's authorization to
[15:03] contract with and participate in the
[15:05] Lexapole program. I believe it will
[15:07] provide the department with a
[15:08] comprehensive policy management resource
[15:10] while strengthening operational
[15:12] consistency, accountability, and risk
[15:14] management. Thank you.
[15:16] >> Thank you.
[15:20] Jim Alf, [clears throat]
[15:41] » I can't hear you. I'm sorry. About his
[15:44] the structured
[15:47] Then did that go out to bid
[15:49] >> for what construction?
[15:50] >> The repayment.
[15:51] >> Yes.
[15:52] it did.
[15:53] >> Yeah. Okay. I must have just missed it.
[15:55] But who made the decision on which
[15:56] streets got done?
[15:58] >> I still can I'm sorry. I still can't
[15:59] hear you.
[16:00] >> Who made the decision on which streets
[16:04] needed to be done?
[16:05] >> Uh that's based off of a study that we
[16:07] had done. [snorts] How many years ago
[16:09] was that? Um
[16:11] it's based off of what we're able to
[16:13] actually get done. how much essentially
[16:16] black top we're able to get covered.
[16:18] >> I'm just curious.
[16:19] >> Yeah,
[16:19] >> there's only two residents on that
[16:21] street.
[16:22] >> One of them there's driveways off of
[16:23] Marshall. The other one doesn't even
[16:25] have a driveway. But other than that,
[16:29] it's just being used for a parking lot.
[16:32] And you well know, drive around this
[16:35] town, there's others run a business
[16:39] that could use a little attention, too.
[16:43] Well, I would agree with you that
[16:44] there's a lot of streets in this town
[16:45] that could use a lot of support. Um,
[16:48] Joe, do you want you probably have a
[16:49] better answer than I can answer this one
[16:50] from a
[16:51] >> Yeah. So, we go off of a pavement
[16:52] condition index, which is a rating of
[16:54] the roads. Uh, we've been doing some
[16:56] rehabilitation, which is kind of top
[16:57] covering medium damage roads, and the
[17:00] council decided they want to go with
[17:01] some full rehabilitation. So,
[17:03] unfortunately, with the money that we
[17:04] have available in our gas tax accounts,
[17:06] that's kind of the maximum we can afford
[17:08] at this point is is those stretches of
[17:10] road.
[17:15] So essentially it's because oak is so
[17:17] far
[17:18] >> it's very low on the list. Yes, correct.
[17:20] It's very very low. We do have a grant
[17:23] that uh did the plans and specs for
[17:25] those roads. It actually saved us a good
[17:26] amount of money to be able to do that
[17:28] >> and we are looking at getting plans and
[17:30] specs to go from um in front of the
[17:33] sheriff station to Lassen Street. Get
[17:35] that done.
[17:37] >> Okay. So we are going to be able to go
[17:38] from Marshall all the way to Lassen.
[17:41] >> No. So
[17:42] >> just still still to Murdoch.
[17:44] >> The plans and specs will cover to Lassen
[17:46] and then we'll identify try to identify
[17:48] construction funding to finish out that
[17:49] other terrible piece of road there.
[17:51] >> Gotcha.
[17:53] Okay. Any any more public comment?
[17:58] >> No more. Okay. With that, I will give it
[18:00] to the council. I would move that we
[18:02] approve consent items uh 6 A, B, D, E,
[18:08] K, L, M, and N as presented.
[18:14] >> I have a first. Is there a second?
[18:16] >> Second the motion. Mr. Mayor,
[18:17] >> could you repeat which?
[18:20] >> A, B, D, E, K, L, M, and N.
[18:29] I think I checked it twice.
[18:31] >> Yeah.
[18:32] >> Yep. I have
[18:34] >> Yeah, that's I I have that as correct,
[18:36] too.
[18:37] >> Second the motion, Mr. Mayor.
[18:38] >> I pulled I pulled C, she pulled F and
[18:40] then we're postponing. Okay. G H
[18:44] >> I J.
[18:47] Okay. Sorry. Reminded me of teaching my
[18:48] kids the ABCs and they miss letters. So,
[18:50] >> that was hard just going.
[18:52] >> That's why I was giggling. So, we have a
[18:53] first and a second to um approve items 6
[18:57] A, 6B. I'm going to mess it up. 6 D, 6E,
[19:01] 6 K, 6 L, 6 M, 6N.
[19:06] Any further discussion? Okay. All in
[19:08] favor signify by saying I.
[19:10] >> I. All oppose. Same sign. Motion pass.
[19:14] Next item up is item 6C, oppose Assembly
[19:17] Bill 1383.
[19:19] Um the recommended action on this is
[19:21] adopt a resolution opposing Assembly
[19:23] Bill 1383
[19:25] relating to public employees retirement
[19:27] benefits and proposed changes to the
[19:29] public employees pension reform act of
[19:32] 2013
[19:33] and authorize the city manager or
[19:35] designate to transmit the city's
[19:37] opposition to the governor the city
[19:39] state legislative
[19:40] representatives the bill's author and
[19:43] appropriate sorry appropriate
[19:45] legislative committees and the league of
[19:48] California and other interested parties
[19:51] contacted this is Marty Brown. Um you
[19:54] want to go or do you just want me to
[19:56] voice my concern on this one?
[19:57] >> At some presentation that the whole
[19:59] point of this was just the the cost
[20:02] increased cost.
[20:03] >> Yeah. So I did read what was being
[20:06] requested here um on item 6C. It is an
[20:09] opposition to a bill that essentially
[20:12] brings um it would affect our fire
[20:14] department and our soon to be police
[20:16] department. um and essentially changes
[20:20] their retirement from the newer pepper
[20:22] style and goes back to what do you guys
[20:25] call that? The the classic version of
[20:28] it. Um it builds them up faster. They're
[20:32] able to retire sooner. Uh my opposition
[20:34] to this was um the top two paid salaries
[20:38] in California are responsible for the
[20:40] retirement plan totaling $1.3 million
[20:42] between the two of their salary. Um, I
[20:46] cannot oppose nor be in favor of this
[20:48] bill. However, the gross negligence of
[20:51] managing the funds is a true detriment
[20:52] to the city, causing us to finance an
[20:55] unfunded pension liability uh with our
[20:58] bond. I believe this is not a matter for
[21:00] the council to decide, but individuals
[21:02] to call either assembly members to voice
[21:04] their concerns. So, that's where I stand
[21:07] on it. Um,
[21:09] personally, I'm always in favor of doing
[21:10] the best for my employees that I can do.
[21:12] um they're our public servants and
[21:14] they're here to do our best they can for
[21:17] us. Um and so I don't I don't like the
[21:20] idea of um hamstringing their
[21:23] retirement.
[21:24] So that's where I'm at and I will leave
[21:26] it up with the council if they have any
[21:28] questions or comments that they would
[21:29] like to
[21:30] add.
[21:31] >> I just wanted to mention that the
[21:33] >> that the bill also impacts executive
[21:36] management staff. It is not just police
[21:37] and fire. It raises the cap of what's
[21:39] pensionable for management staff as well
[21:42] as fire.
[21:44] >> And and the challenge for a city is that
[21:46] as we have these, you know, it's a cost
[21:49] as our people retire and it becomes a
[21:52] cost that's very very difficult to cover
[21:54] without taking away from other services.
[21:56] So I I totally hear what Mayor Hudson's
[21:58] saying. as we're looking to provide the
[22:00] best benefit packages to our employees
[22:02] that we can as these legislative changes
[22:05] occur, it puts a burden on on the
[22:08] municipalities down the road that then
[22:10] we're struggling to pay those those
[22:12] obligations. If Matt Busby was still
[22:15] sitting in the chair, he would say, you
[22:16] know, if it wasn't for, you know, if
[22:17] PERS would just manage these funds
[22:19] better, you know, it would make our
[22:20] lives so much easier. So, I I hear what
[22:23] you're saying. I also know that that's a
[22:25] struggle that we've had financially and
[22:28] unfortunately I don't think individuals
[22:30] will call or even be aware of this um
[22:32] legislation. Are the the fire unions
[22:36] opposing it? Um do you know mayor if
[22:40] they're actively protecting their
[22:42] interests by opposing it?
[22:44] >> I have zero idea.
[22:45] >> Okay.
[22:47] Well, I know from my perspective I mean
[22:49] again people go well there's never easy
[22:52] answers up here. there just aren't. But
[22:54] when people go into a profession, they
[22:56] look at many things and and I just think
[22:58] government benefits are becoming
[23:00] unsustainable over time. And so that's
[23:04] just one of the many things that we have
[23:05] to manage. I would be in favor of this
[23:07] with my city council hat on, protecting
[23:09] the financial interests of the city that
[23:12] we oppose it. if we're looking to take
[23:14] the best care of our employees we can,
[23:16] you know, maybe that's on the salary end
[23:18] of things and not so much on the
[23:19] retirement end or looking at 401ks or
[23:22] looking at other options for them to
[23:23] have a retirement without putting
[23:25] everything into a a PERS based expensive
[23:29] long-term
[23:30] financial nightmare.
[23:33] >> And I just found my additional notes. So
[23:35] Steven Gilmore, who is the chief
[23:37] investment officer for the public
[23:39] employees retirement system, uh in 2025,
[23:42] his total benefit package was $740,000.
[23:46] Uh Marcy Frost, CEO, was at $620,000.
[23:51] So those are the people that are
[23:52] managing this and they're mismanaging
[23:53] it. So now we are paying on a bond
[23:56] because we had to fix their screw up. To
[23:59] me, that's where the real problem lies,
[24:01] not not whether or not we should be
[24:04] providing a better retirement program.
[24:07] >> Yes, ma'am.
[24:08] >> If I could just add that um as council
[24:11] member Pride was asking who supports it.
[24:14] I mean, it is authored by Assembly
[24:16] Member Tina McKinn, but it is primarily
[24:18] sponsored by California Professional
[24:19] Firefighters with strong backing from
[24:22] public safety and labor groups like
[24:23] Porak Peace Officers Research
[24:25] Association of California and SIBO,
[24:27] which is Sheriff's Employee. So there is
[24:29] strong law enforcement support for the
[24:32] bill and the passage of it.
[24:35] >> I wonder if that same support could be
[24:36] geared towards what you're saying is
[24:38] just a pers reform, you know, with
[24:40] what's going on. I mean, that's the
[24:42] that's really where the problem exists.
[24:43] I don't disagree with you. How do we
[24:45] >> It needs to be like our jobs that you're
[24:47] in here for a couple years and you get
[24:48] your ass when it's time. Sorry for my
[24:50] language.
[24:50] >> Well, and you get $250 a month to do it.
[24:52] Apologize.
[24:53] >> Instead of 740,000, right?
[24:55] >> Yeah.
[24:56] Um so with that I will uh request any
[24:59] public comment regarding item 6 C.
[25:01] >> Michelle Knight
[25:04] [clears throat]
[25:06] >> within the attached document submitted
[25:08] by the city manager. It states in
[25:10] addition to the city's future police
[25:11] related pension obligations. AB1383
[25:14] could have a substantial
[25:17] long-term impact on the city's existing
[25:19] Kalpers's obligation for fire personnel
[25:21] as well as executive management team.
[25:24] For example, the cumulative impact of
[25:26] enhanced public safety retirement
[25:28] benefits could increase the city's fire
[25:30] calers cost by approximately 1.5 million
[25:33] over time over time based on current
[25:36] estimates. In my opinion, this statement
[25:39] appears to be inflammatory, exaggerated,
[25:42] and potentially misleading. The city of
[25:44] Willow's current total budget for the
[25:47] fire department is approximately
[25:48] $954,466
[25:52] of which $61,595
[25:55] is allocated toward Kalpers's retirement
[25:57] costs. Given these figures, the
[26:00] assertion that the proposed assembly
[26:02] bill could cost the city $1.5 million
[26:06] warrants further clarification. If the
[26:08] legislation were to increase retirement
[26:10] costs by a specific or specified
[26:13] percentage, the actual fiscal impact
[26:15] would depend on the percentage
[26:17] ultimately established. While that
[26:19] percentage has not yet been defined, I
[26:22] am not aware of historical examples in
[26:24] which a change of this nature has
[26:25] resulted in such an extraordinary
[26:29] uh increase in an AY's overall
[26:31] retirement cost. Because the city of
[26:33] Willows does not currently have a police
[26:35] department, I also reviewed the
[26:36] retirement costs budgeted for the city
[26:38] of Orland for its police officers.
[26:40] Orland's current budget allocates
[26:42] approximately $533,163
[26:46] towards police officers retirement costs
[26:48] this budget year. Based on these
[26:50] figures, it seems difficult to reconcile
[26:52] how the proposed legislation could cost
[26:55] or result in an increase to $1.5 million
[26:59] even if officers were provided a more
[27:01] favorable retirement such as 3% at 55,
[27:04] which by the way, Kusa County still has
[27:06] their safety retirement right now. I
[27:08] just want you guys to know that
[27:12] who we will be competing with for
[27:14] officers
[27:16] for these reasons. I believe the
[27:18] projected $1.5 million figure should be
[27:21] supported by specific calculations,
[27:23] assumptions, and documentation before it
[27:25] is presented as the anticipated
[27:27] financial impact of the proposed
[27:28] legislation. Why do I care about all of
[27:31] this, you may wonder? I care because
[27:32] these issues directly affect the city's
[27:34] future ability to recruit, retain, and
[27:37] retain qualified police officers. To
[27:39] build and maintain an effective
[27:41] department, we must remain competitive
[27:42] in the compensation and benefits we
[27:44] offer. If our benefits package is not
[27:47] competitive with neighboring agencies,
[27:49] we may struggle to attract qualified
[27:50] candidates and equally important to
[27:52] retain the experienced officers we may
[27:54] or we will have invested in. Lastly, you
[27:57] must seriously consider the importance
[27:59] of ensuring that officers are able to
[28:01] retire when the appropriate time comes.
[28:03] We cannot reasonably expect elderly
[28:05] officers to continue responding to
[28:07] dangerous and physically demanding
[28:09] situations, including violent crimes
[28:10] involving armed suspects or domestic
[28:12] violence incidents. when doing so may
[28:15] compromise their safety or their ability
[28:17] to perform their duties effectively. I
[28:20] would also like to add that California
[28:21] legislators classify incarcerated
[28:24] criminals as elderly beginning at the
[28:25] age of 50 based on their age criterion
[28:30] have implemented policies allowing
[28:31] certain elderly inmates at age 50 to be
[28:34] considered or released from prison. We
[28:37] should also recognize our responsibility
[28:39] to take care of the men and women who
[28:40] put their lives on the line every day to
[28:42] protect our community. Providing a fair
[28:44] and competitive retirement benefit is
[28:46] not only an investment in the future of
[28:48] our police and fire departments. It is a
[28:50] way of recognizing the dedication and
[28:52] sacrifices these officers and fire
[28:54] personnel make throughout their careers.
[28:57] >> For these reasons, I respectfully ask
[28:58] you to consider rejecting the city
[29:00] manager's request and instead support AB
[29:02] 1383. Thank you.
[29:04] >> Thank you.
[29:06] Any other public comment?
[29:08] That's it. I will give it to the
[29:10] pleasure of the council. Mr. Mayor,
[29:13] >> you ready for more council comments?
[29:15] >> Yes. Yeah.
[29:16] >> Yeah. Very good. Thank you. I I I had
[29:18] some uh complicated issue. Uh I agree
[29:22] with uh [clears throat] your comments uh
[29:25] Evan and your comments, Lori. How's that
[29:28] for uh for agreeing with everything? Uh
[29:32] looking around the room, I don't want to
[29:34] slight anyone, but I believe there are
[29:36] four of us and uh one to be uh honorably
[29:39] retired uh public safety members in the
[29:42] audience tonight at least. Um I being
[29:46] one of them after a long career in law
[29:49] enforcement
[29:51] and uh those in the public safety
[29:53] business can can can attest to that.
[29:57] Yeah, I had a great career. you know,
[29:59] was is fantastic, but it's it's got the
[30:02] flip side, right? The uh on the
[30:06] dangerous side and uh and uh the health
[30:09] risk side for sure. U so
[30:16] I'm uh I'm a PERS classic uh retiree and
[30:20] semi-retired. I'm still involved in law
[30:21] enforcement as a trainer. Uh although uh I I am uh I am honorably
[30:26] retired after a long career. So Evan, I
[30:29] completely understand uh uh your
[30:31] comments. Lori, I completely understand
[30:34] your comments. I understand the city's
[30:36] position uh city management uh position
[30:38] as well because it is costly. Uh PEPA
[30:42] and the Kalpers's uh uh changes when
[30:44] Pepper came in in approximately 2014,
[30:48] it saved uh municipalities such as ours
[30:51] from insolvency. what it did, right? And
[30:55] uh and as Marty Marty read and and I was
[30:59] also aware that the major unions are are
[31:01] endorsing this for obvious obvious
[31:03] reasons. Yeah, I uh I earned my my
[31:07] retirement and uh I completely
[31:10] understand. I I'm not in favor of
[31:12] submitting a letter of of support. I I'm
[31:15] going to rem remain uh publicly neutral
[31:17] on that. I know Evan uh you mentioned
[31:19] that we the city willows several years
[31:21] ago. We went through the pension
[31:23] obligation bond uh process which I was a
[31:26] member of the council then which which
[31:28] saved our city from insolveny.
[31:30] >> Mhm.
[31:31] >> Because of the unfunded liabilities. So
[31:33] back back to the comments I've been
[31:34] harping for I don't know how many years
[31:36] up here about the mismanagement of
[31:37] Kalpers and Lauria attested that Evan
[31:39] tested that Kalpers is mismanaged and
[31:41] has been mismanaged for many many years.
[31:44] You mentioned the salaries there of of
[31:46] the leadership of Kalpers. It's insane.
[31:49] So Kalpers has a luxury though putting
[31:52] their problems, their financial problems
[31:53] when when they don't meet their
[31:56] investment uh returns because of their
[31:58] poor choice of investments and their
[32:00] politically correct in investment
[32:02] policies, which doesn't make any sense.
[32:04] Rather than investing in in good
[32:07] old-fashioned American lawful companies,
[32:10] they they play the political game. So
[32:13] that's They're not doing their job. That
[32:15] board is not doing their job. And the
[32:16] majority of the board, I should say, and
[32:18] they haven't been doing their job for a
[32:19] number of years. So, if they did their
[32:22] jobs, we wouldn't even be having this
[32:24] discussion in in my mind. So, I am I am
[32:28] not in favor of of uh of officially
[32:30] opposing this as a city council member.
[32:32] I understand from a budget perspective,
[32:34] yes, I we're we're talking signi
[32:36] significant uh money uh in the future
[32:39] down the road. Uh that's unfortunate. Uh
[32:44] I I'm sure this law I don't know I
[32:47] haven't checked this the status of this
[32:48] legislation the last few days but I'm
[32:51] sure it'll eventually most likely be
[32:53] signed by the governor. But I I agree
[32:55] with with your comments Evan. I just
[32:57] wanted to I just want to make just make
[32:59] my thoughts known that I understand the financial implications. However, to
[33:04] put the financial implications and the
[33:07] in and my distaste, my my and I'm
[33:10] speaking for myself, not for the city of
[33:12] Willows or the Willow City Council, my
[33:14] extreme displeasure of the Kalpers board
[33:17] and their investment policies because
[33:19] it's affecting every one of us as it
[33:22] affects every Kalpers employee. It
[33:24] affects every Kalpers employer and it
[33:26] affects the taxpayers of the state of
[33:27] California and it affects every city and
[33:30] county municipality in the state of
[33:32] California. So, I understand both sides
[33:34] of it, but I will uh remain neutral on
[33:37] this as well, Mr. That's all I had to
[33:38] say.
[33:39] >> Thank you.
[33:40] >> Thanks for bearing with me.
[33:42] >> Vice Mayor, do you have any comments?
[33:45] [snorts]
[33:47] >> The retirement system
[33:50] uh is from the government standpoint um
[33:54] pretty generous and
[33:57] I understand the need for it. lowering
[34:00] it for two years. I I don't
[34:03] I I just fiscally I I can not support
[34:10] sending the letter out if opposition.
[34:13] So I would vote I would move to approve
[34:17] the letter
[34:22] Pride.
[34:23] Any further com? No.
[34:26] >> Council Row.
[34:28] >> I think the staff recommendation on this
[34:31] is sound. AB1383 is a really a pension
[34:34] bomb for the city. Um that 1.5 million
[34:39] is what that reflects is the increase in
[34:42] the UA uh for about year 15 when the
[34:46] retirements start rolling in. And when
[34:48] you hire police force with 10 to 12 or
[34:50] 13 additional uh that increases our cost
[34:54] by about 60k a year just for those
[34:57] police officers, another 28k a year for
[34:59] the fire department. Um
[35:02] Sacramento has made some questionable
[35:05] decisions uh when it comes to pension
[35:07] funds and the cities and small towns in
[35:10] California pay the price for that and
[35:12] you as a taxpayer pay the price for
[35:14] that.
[35:17] It's a significant cost and it affects
[35:20] our ability to hire additional staff,
[35:23] additional police officers.
[35:25] Uh so
[35:27] I believe this is in the Senate right
[35:29] now. I don't know that it's before the
[35:31] governor. Um but again, this is opposing
[35:36] this is in line with our strategic uh
[35:38] financial plan for fiscal stability for
[35:40] the city.
[35:43] Thank you, mayor. Okay. Uh, with that,
[35:46] we will call a roll do a roll call vote.
[35:49] We have a motion. Do
[35:49] >> we have a second?
[35:50] >> I have a motion.
[35:51] >> Sorry.
[35:52] >> I would move to approve the resolution
[35:54] of the city council of the city of
[35:55] Willows opposing assembly bill 1383
[35:59] McKenner relating to the public
[36:01] employees retirement benefits and
[36:02] changes to the public employees pension
[36:04] reform act of 2013.
[36:07] Have
[36:08] >> a first. Is there a second?
[36:09] >> Second motion.
[36:10] >> I have a first and a second. Any further
[36:11] discussion?
[36:13] And with that, we'll do a roll call
[36:14] vote.
[36:16] >> Vice Mayor Thomas,
[36:17] >> yes.
[36:18] >> Council member Low.
[36:21] >> yes.
[36:22] >> Council member Hansen,
[36:24] >> nay.
[36:24] >> Council member Pride,
[36:26] >> yes. And Mayor Hudson,
[36:28] >> nay.
[36:30] Motion passed three to two.
[36:34] All right. And then
[36:37] next up, item 6F, police chief job
[36:40] classification and salary schedule.
[36:41] Recommended action. Approve the police
[36:44] chief job classification and salary
[36:46] schedule as part of the reestablishment
[36:48] of the Willows Police Department.
[36:52] Council member [laughter]
[36:54] Council Member Pride, would you like to
[36:56] go first?
[36:57] >> I I can. So, we um had got an updated
[37:00] set of job descriptions yesterday to
[37:02] take a look at for all of the police
[37:04] officers. I finally had a chance to
[37:05] really review this one today. Was
[37:07] grateful that Mr. Maloney was actually
[37:10] here this afternoon. side questions. I
[37:12] do I don't know if you've all had a
[37:14] chance to read the full job description,
[37:16] but if you look at page the second page
[37:19] of actually it's the third page um
[37:22] starts with education at the top and
[37:24] talking with Mr. Maloney um some of the
[37:28] questions I just had is do we really
[37:29] need to require a bachelor's degree or
[37:32] should that just be desirable? I think
[37:34] after my conversation with Mike, um
[37:37] there's there's a lot of things a degree
[37:39] does that um further um defines that
[37:44] candidate that shows their ability to do
[37:46] critical thinking and different things.
[37:48] Um I could go either way on this. My
[37:50] concern was it might be a little bit of
[37:52] a deterrent um in attracting those if
[37:54] that's a if if you don't have it, you're
[37:56] just out sort of a thing. Um so I'm not
[37:59] necessarily advocating for change. I did
[38:01] have a concern on that. Um, under
[38:04] license and certificate, the first
[38:06] bullet, Mike agreed that we can modify
[38:09] that sentence to just say possession of
[38:11] a valid California driver's license.
[38:14] Period. The rest of that went on to talk
[38:16] about categories necessary to perform
[38:18] additional duties. And he said there
[38:20] really are no other licensing
[38:21] requirements for driving police cars or
[38:23] anything. And we don't typically require
[38:26] the person to have their own personal
[38:28] automobile insurance. I didn't think so.
[38:30] That didn't seem necessary. If you get
[38:32] down under um knowledge of the first
[38:35] bullet under knowledge of the last
[38:37] portion of that first bullet should be
[38:39] struck. Um this just got left in from a
[38:41] job description you know like happens
[38:44] sometimes. So we would stop after animal
[38:46] control and delete community services,
[38:48] cultural arts, leisure time and
[38:50] recreation administration. Although I
[38:52] can't Mike
[38:55] Okay, we'll leave community ser. Oh that
[38:57] makes sense because I'm always thinking
[38:58] of community services being community
[39:00] development. I'm sorry, Lori. We're I I
[39:03] missed what you
[39:03] >> We're under knowledge of on page three.
[39:06] First bullet,
[39:07] >> right? Okay.
[39:07] >> Last part of that first bullet. We'd
[39:09] stop at community services and strike
[39:11] cultural arts, leisure time, and
[39:13] recreation administration.
[39:17] >> Okay.
[39:17] >> Um
[39:20] >> those were really the main ones. I
[39:22] think, you know, I had some other
[39:23] questions. I'm, you know, again, I don't
[39:25] understand totally the role of a police
[39:28] chief. So, I'm I'm glad you were here
[39:30] and I could ask those questions with
[39:32] that. There's a couple little typos, so
[39:34] maybe staff just wants to look it over
[39:36] for those.
[39:39] >> That was why I wanted to pull it, just
[39:40] to get those cleaned up.
[39:45] So
[39:48] the uh for your degree it's an
[39:51] equivalent to graduation from a college
[39:53] or university. It does not state that
[39:55] they're required to have a bachelor's
[39:57] degree.
[39:58] >> It says
[39:59] >> position of a bachelor's degree from an
[40:03] accredited college university with major
[40:05] work in public
[40:07] business administration, criminal
[40:08] justice or related field is required.
[40:11] Are
[40:12] >> you looking at the revised ones we got
[40:14] yesterday?
[40:14] >> I'm not. I'm looking at the one that was
[40:16] in my initial agenda.
[40:17] >> They were emailed to us and they're in
[40:18] the fat packet on your bias.
[40:21] >> Gotcha. Okay.
[40:24] >> Yeah, that there were major changes from
[40:25] the first ones to the second set that we
[40:27] got yesterday
[40:29] across the board.
[40:35] So, with that, I'm fine with it. I don't
[40:36] have any other additional questions.
[40:39] Like I said, Mike answered my technical
[40:40] questions.
[40:46] » Mr. Mayor.
[40:47] >> Yes.
[40:48] >> Yeah. I would I would agree with Council
[40:49] Member Bride's comments. I mean, uh I I
[40:52] read the duty statement as as as one of
[40:56] those that have written a lot of duty
[40:58] statements. It it can be tedious. It's uh you know you've got to go
[41:03] through it a few times because it's easy
[41:04] to miss to miss little you know minor
[41:07] little issues here and there and they
[41:09] are a living document anyway. They can
[41:10] be amended at at any time and these will
[41:13] most likely be amended down the road and
[41:15] not specifically the police chief but
[41:17] when the police chief uh is hired uh I
[41:21] thoroughly expect to see amendments on some of the other duty statements
[41:24] within the operational structure anyway.
[41:26] But with that said yeah these are minor
[41:28] changes. I I agree with with Lor's under
[41:32] the education and desirable you know
[41:34] that the patent language desirable uh
[41:38] you know bachelor's degree is desirable
[41:40] or or experience and training equivalent
[41:42] and that sort of thing. I you know I
[41:45] think that's a that's a very uh minor fix. I agree with that and with
[41:49] keeping the rest of the language in
[41:51] place reference to the driver's license.
[41:53] Sure. Obviously law enforcement officer
[41:55] has to have valid driver's license.
[41:58] that's fine uh uh amending the rest of
[42:01] that language, but uh they also have to
[42:03] maintain a driver's license, but that
[42:05] necessarily does not have to be in the
[42:07] duty statement, but although it wouldn't
[42:08] hurt, uh the maintenance of valid
[42:11] driver's license uh and the uh and I
[42:14] agree with striking under the uh the
[42:16] first bullet under the knowledge,
[42:18] ability, skills, the cultural arts,
[42:21] leisure, and so on and so forth. I those
[42:23] are minor those are minor amendments.
[42:24] So, I would I would agree with with all
[42:26] those amendments, but uh having looking
[42:28] at I know we there were some amendments
[42:30] on these duty statements, which is why
[42:32] we're going to be reviewing them at a
[42:34] later time.
[42:36] Uh
[42:38] as as presented, this uh the current
[42:40] police chief duty statement looks uh
[42:43] with the exception of a couple of, you
[42:44] know, minor changes and also that one
[42:46] Marty bomb page one, that one misspelled
[42:49] word,
[42:49] >> implementation.
[42:50] Yeah, I've never heard
[42:51] this
[42:52] >> implantation. I don't know what that
[42:53] means, but anyway. Anyway, but other
[42:55] than that, I I think it's a it's a it's
[42:58] good document. I think it looks good.
[43:00] So, thank you. Good job. Good job, Mike
[43:02] and Michael.
[43:04] >> Good job.
[43:05] >> Thank you very much for your work on
[43:07] that. So, that's all I had. I would
[43:09] agree with Council Member Pride's uh uh
[43:11] minor amendments.
[43:13] >> I I would also just say the other part
[43:15] of this action item or or for discussion
[43:18] is the salary range. And I have to say
[43:20] when I looked at the proposed salary
[43:22] range for the um police chief, I did to
[43:25] me it seemed a little bit low um I we
[43:28] didn't have the um the study. Um we we
[43:31] got that after asking a couple
[43:33] questions. Um I don't know, Mike, can
[43:36] you maybe address the salary um the
[43:39] salary range for the police chief just
[43:42] for the benefit of the folks here? Um,
[43:45] you know, we're looking at a a step one
[43:46] at 111638
[43:48] with a top step of 136,020.
[43:54] Yeah. Um, so
[43:56] it it's always hard to set a uh a salary
[44:00] for a position like this, especially
[44:02] when you um look at chief executive
[44:05] positions in the region and in
[44:08] particular in this very county where the
[44:10] sheriff, a chief executive, uh is making
[44:13] almost $200,000 in salary. That's before
[44:16] his benefit package. And and so
[44:19] that presents a challenge for us in in
[44:22] setting what the rate's going to be.
[44:24] Um and then the the other thing is uh
[44:28] the size of the department and
[44:30] comparison to uh to similar agencies. So
[44:34] as I uh kind of honed in on this figure,
[44:39] it was based on two things. One is um
[44:42] the consultant a year and a half ago
[44:44] that did the study for the city of
[44:46] Willows, he looked at two, four, six, he
[44:50] looked at eight different communities
[44:52] and um and then he did some whisbang
[44:57] math and came up with a recommendation
[44:59] that actually would have put the uh
[45:04] the annual cost for a chief going with
[45:07] his recommendation two years ago at
[45:09] about 150,000.
[45:11] your candidates are going to love the
[45:13] heck out of that. Uh, however, I think
[45:16] that uh we have a collective obligation
[45:19] to be reasonable based on um the
[45:22] community and based on what's average.
[45:24] So, I took a closer look at uh Hirka PD,
[45:27] Kousa PD, Orland, and Corning PDs. Um, I
[45:31] kind of averaged out the salaries of uh
[45:35] their chief positions and then looked at
[45:39] what I proposed willows to be in the
[45:41] higher just above average of those
[45:44] positions. It puts us right in the top
[45:47] half of that that pack and keeps us com
[45:50] um competitive and comparable with uh
[45:54] departments of similar size.
[45:58] I guess I was surprised to see that
[45:59] Orland's at 12 their top Orland was at
[46:02] 126 174 as a top step. I I was surprised
[46:06] that was as low as it was.
[46:07] >> Actually, um Orland just this week, just
[46:11] within the last week before I submitted
[46:13] this, uh the police chief and the fire
[46:15] chief just got raises in Orland. So, I
[46:18] think he's about $5,000 higher a year.
[46:21] Okay. Yeah.
[46:24] >> Maybe six.
[46:28] Thank you.
[46:29] >> Since I have you at the dis, can I ask
[46:31] you another question?
[46:32] >> Sure.
[46:32] >> The education, the possession of a
[46:34] bachelor's degree from an accredited
[46:36] college or university, why did you
[46:37] initially put that in there?
[46:39] >> What are your what are your thoughts on
[46:41] keeping that in there or taking that
[46:43] out?
[46:43] >> I um am always an advocate for education
[46:48] and I'm very aware of uh the first
[46:52] argument against an education. With
[46:54] respect to Council Member Pride, I heard
[46:55] it when I talked to her earlier. I don't
[46:58] have a degree and I can do the job
[46:59] really well. I I don't deny that. Um,
[47:03] but what I my position has been and my
[47:08] experience has been that a degree does
[47:10] things for people beyond experience. It
[47:14] teaches um um uh strategic planning. It
[47:20] teaches uh oh what was the term I used
[47:23] to you
[47:24] >> critical thinking critical thinking
[47:25] >> oh critical thinking it teaches critical
[47:27] thinking it teaches uh critical
[47:30] communication it teaches strategic uh
[47:32] thinking and strategic planning and
[47:35] those are things that unless you've
[47:37] really had some formal educational
[47:40] background in that those don't always
[47:42] come naturally with significant
[47:44] experience that that people gain the
[47:47] other thing I think is that you know
[47:49] Over the last hund and how many years
[47:53] with the evolution of policing, policing
[47:55] has struggled to portray itself as a
[47:59] professionalism. And part of the way
[48:00] that we portray ourselves as
[48:03] professionals in policing is by
[48:07] establishing foundational requirements
[48:09] that are more similar with professional
[48:12] environments. And education, formalized
[48:15] education is typically a part of that.
[48:18] Um, I'm always going to advocate for a
[48:21] higher level of education. I don't think
[48:23] a master's degree uh is reasonable, but
[48:26] if this was a much larger department,
[48:28] uh, like Bay Area agencies that we see,
[48:31] I' I'd be advocating for a mandated
[48:33] master's degree as well, and you'd see
[48:36] candidates coming out. The question that
[48:38] Lori asked is, are we going to um are we
[48:41] going to are we going to cut off our
[48:43] nose by missing certain candidates?
[48:45] Yeah, we might. But I'm going to suggest
[48:48] that some of those candidates, unless
[48:50] they're super duper outstanding,
[48:53] are going to be people that we just
[48:55] don't want if they're not up to that
[48:57] high level. They can be good, solid
[49:01] police officers, good solid senior
[49:03] patrol sergeant on weekend graveyard,
[49:06] maybe in a little bit bigger department,
[49:07] good solid lieutenant watch commander,
[49:10] but without an education. at some point,
[49:12] my experiences and my observation is at
[49:15] some point they hit a ceiling
[49:17] >> and and so for that reason I always
[49:20] advocate for the degree.
[49:21] >> One more quick question for you is as a
[49:25] person goes through the law enforcement
[49:26] academy do they not receive a an AA
[49:29] degree as part of that?
[49:31] >> They do not it's really up to each
[49:35] individual community college. Um, BU
[49:38] College has a program where uh and and
[49:41] they're unique in this regard. It was it
[49:43] was started by the then dean of students
[49:45] who was a former uh chief of police at
[49:48] several California agencies and he
[49:50] started a program in the c in the
[49:52] criminal justice department where with
[49:56] just the police academy and a few
[49:58] general ed classes you can get an
[50:01] associate degree. And the associate
[50:03] degree is called police academy. That's
[50:06] what it's called.
[50:07] >> So essentially
[50:08] >> that's unique to
[50:09] >> be to our area. I understand that. But
[50:12] there's colleges out there offering an
[50:14] AA degree or what would be hiring as our
[50:16] lowest sworn officer position which is
[50:19] halfway to getting your bachelor's. So
[50:20] requesting a bachelor's for a police
[50:22] chief is not out of the question out of
[50:23] the realm is what? Oh, not only is it
[50:25] not out of the realm, but there are
[50:27] agencies in California now that uh they
[50:30] require a minimum of uh there's a few
[50:34] that require a minimum of 15 units one
[50:36] year. Um but there's a lot of agencies
[50:39] out there um that require a minimum of
[50:43] two years of college. State parks and
[50:45] recreation, the peace officer component
[50:47] of state parks and recreation where
[50:49] you're a sworn ranger, they have to have
[50:51] two years of college. fishing game, you
[50:53] have to have two years of college.
[50:56] >> Um, a lot of Bay Area agencies, you have
[50:58] to have two years of college just to
[50:59] come into an entry level position.
[51:01] >> Perfect. Thank you.
[51:02] >> Can I do a a staff follow-up question?
[51:05] So, with our HR process, and this is
[51:07] what Mike and I talked about this a
[51:09] little bit. So, we go out and we recruit
[51:11] for a police chief and we have a good an
[51:13] applicant pool. Say there is that
[51:15] candidate out there that is outstanding
[51:17] and always always we'll just use that
[51:20] for sake of argument but they don't have
[51:22] that degree. Do we have the opportunity
[51:25] in our HR policy personnel rules to be
[51:29] able to wave that or are we just locked
[51:32] in if we say this is a requirement? Is
[51:34] it a hard and fast requirement and we
[51:36] don't have any room to do anything but
[51:39] change the job description and
[51:41] readvertise?
[51:42] typically change the job description.
[51:45] Now, we we actually had a situation like
[51:47] that already um for a position that was
[51:52] a department head and had a minimum
[51:53] requirement of associates degree. One of
[51:56] the candidates did not have that and um
[51:59] they struck from the
[52:03] So, so if someone applied and they don't
[52:05] meet the minimum requirements, they
[52:07] wouldn't even make it to an interview.
[52:08] They would just be out. They shouldn't
[52:10] make it. If they don't meet minimum
[52:11] requirements, they should go no further.
[52:13] So, ideally, someone looking at our
[52:15] recruitment notice would see they have
[52:17] to have this bachelors and if they don't
[52:19] have it, they wouldn't even apply.
[52:20] >> Typically, that is what happens. Okay.
[52:23] >> Thank you.
[52:24] >> Yeah, Mr. Mayor.
[52:25] >> Yes.
[52:25] >> Yeah, I agree with everything that Mike
[52:27] just said. Yeah. When I I didn't make
[52:30] myself very clear when I said I agreed
[52:32] with, you know, the the verbiage change
[52:35] in the possession of a bachelor's
[52:36] degree. I mean, yeah, that is basically
[52:40] the industry industry standard, a
[52:42] bachelor's degree for a executive level
[52:44] position in the state of California. But
[52:47] my my comment, I'm all about education
[52:49] and training. Understand? I I have a
[52:52] college degree. Okay. Uh and uh uh
[52:56] anyway, I was just when I said that, I I didn't mean strike all education. I
[53:01] just want to make that clear. The strike
[53:02] all education, the training and
[53:04] education equivalent. as basically to a
[53:08] bachelor's degree at a bare minimum in
[53:10] my mind would mean at a minimum a
[53:12] minimum an AA degree a minimum and and
[53:15] training and education above that. So uh
[53:18] I wouldn't have a problem with language
[53:19] like that. I I've seen that one of our
[53:21] other uh samples uh with the with the
[53:25] police chief uh duty statement had that
[53:27] same similar language. That's what I'm
[53:29] trying to say. I'm making myself clear
[53:31] about about what I'm saying. Uh I don't
[53:34] have a problem with with
[53:35] >> you're saying equivalent to a bachelor's
[53:37] degree.
[53:37] >> Training in education equivalent to a
[53:39] bachelor's degree with base with a base
[53:41] minimum of an AA base minimum of an AA
[53:44] but other training in an equivalent is
[53:47] however a bachelor's degree is
[53:48] desirable. That's what I'm saying.
[53:50] If that makes
[53:51] sense. I'm not going to hang my hat on
[53:53] that. I mean if if if my colleagues want
[53:56] to want to go with a bachelor's degree
[53:57] that's fine. I don't have a problem with
[53:59] that. I think that's good. But I just,
[54:02] you know, we're we're going to be
[54:03] recruiting. Be talking about that uh
[54:06] here in a few minutes hopefully about uh
[54:08] hiring a police chief. But this is going
[54:11] to be a very unique position, extremely
[54:14] unique. We need the right person. So
[54:16] anyway, just wanted to throw that out
[54:18] there. There uh and you're right, Mike.
[54:20] uh state agencies. I I I ultimately
[54:23] retired from a state agency and led that
[54:25] state agency and the entry level was uh
[54:28] bachelor's degree for entry level for
[54:31] many state agencies now at least an AA degree. So you are
[54:35] correct. So like I say I'm not I'm not
[54:37] going to going to throw my toys and have
[54:39] a tantrum if if if the language minimum
[54:42] bachelor's degree stays. I just don't,
[54:44] you know, don't want to miss the right
[54:46] candidate if they have an AA degree and
[54:48] a lot of a lot of training experience
[54:50] but maybe not a bachelor's.
[54:52] >> If if I can add one thing that may help
[54:54] bring just a little bit of
[54:55] clarification, um the other
[54:56] requirements, if you scroll down on that
[54:58] page,
[54:59] >> uh for postcertification,
[55:01] um I'm recommending that they have their
[55:04] post-basic, intermediate, advanced,
[55:06] supervisory, and management
[55:08] certificates.
[55:10] All of those certificates represent
[55:12] years of experience and training with
[55:15] post calls training points. Right?
[55:17] >> So in order to reach that level of
[55:19] qualification,
[55:21] >> you are already demonstrating a level a
[55:25] very high level of training
[55:26] >> if you have a management certificate.
[55:28] Yes. Like we do. Yes, that's right.
[55:30] Matter of fact, you and I have executive
[55:31] certificates,
[55:32] >> right?
[55:33] >> And Right. Yeah. Absolutely. So that's
[55:35] what I meant by the Thank you for
[55:37] bringing that that up. That's what I
[55:38] meant by equivalent to. I just want to
[55:41] make that clear. So I, you know, I I
[55:43] agree with everything you're saying. So
[55:45] I I know we may be going down the weeds
[55:48] a little bit too much here, but anyway,
[55:50] there you go. Thank you, Mike.
[55:51] >> Awesome.
[55:52] >> That's all I had. Mr.
[55:52] >> Vice Mayor Thomas, any questions?
[55:54] >> No. Okay.
[55:55] >> Council member Low, any questions?
[55:57] >> Real quick, Mr. Maloney, thank you for
[55:58] the job classification. Uh, it's very
[56:01] thorough. One question on what is the
[56:05] average years of experience on a police
[56:07] chief making a lateral move into a city
[56:09] like Willows.
[56:12] >> You know, a position like for a
[56:14] community this size is
[56:18] we're we're probably looking at a 15
[56:21] plus year uh veteran. Um,
[56:27] I'm I'm going to say to get to meet the
[56:29] minimum qualifications, you know, you're
[56:31] going to you're going to take uh you're
[56:34] going to take six years to get your
[56:35] advanced certificate. If you have an
[56:37] education behind you and then if you get
[56:40] promoted to a supervisory position,
[56:43] that's another two years to get that
[56:44] certificate. And then you get promoted
[56:47] to a management position. And we didn't
[56:49] distinguish intentionally in here what
[56:51] kind of management position. Some places
[56:54] call them lieutenants. Some places call
[56:56] them commanders. Some places call them
[56:58] captains or deputy chiefs. It doesn't
[57:00] matter what you call it. If you have two
[57:02] years experience doing that job, um uh
[57:06] you're qualified for the management
[57:08] certificate. So to get all of that is
[57:10] probably going to take you about 15 15
[57:13] years. Okay.
[57:14] >> Now, in the context of your former
[57:16] conversation uh regarding hers and PPA,
[57:20] uh that's going to be a mid-career
[57:21] person.
[57:23] Yes, and that's what matters. When you
[57:25] look at this, when I looked at the
[57:26] salary schedule, I thought that it was a
[57:28] little low initially, uh, compared to
[57:31] the study that was provided, I think
[57:33] January 25, but you got to put that into
[57:36] perspective because the hire in this
[57:38] situation is probably going to be a
[57:39] classic coming down under the classic
[57:41] pension.
[57:42] >> And and and that's the other thing we're
[57:44] starting to see now, we're starting to
[57:46] see uh PEPA retirees uh coming of age,
[57:49] believe it or not. um or or um people
[57:54] who were in the classic plan, they
[57:57] separated for a period of time and then
[57:59] they reinstated under PEPA. And once
[58:02] they reinstate under PEPA, they're they're tied to the PEPAR rules.
[58:07] Okay. I think um mayor I think you'll
[58:10] see in in uh when we look in 7A at the
[58:13] total compensation package for the chief
[58:16] um you'll see that it this base salary
[58:19] will be lies in the upper range of this thing here. So it's something
[58:24] we'll have to consider.
[58:25] >> Oh, I'm sorry if I may say one last
[58:27] thing.
[58:28] >> Uh in in speaking with uh the city
[58:31] manager, um we we just tried to identify
[58:35] we didn't really set the low range. um
[58:37] we tried to identify what what a what a
[58:40] really solid recommended top range would
[58:42] be and then the the scale backwards was
[58:46] kind of established um consistent with
[58:49] how all other positions in the city are.
[58:52] Uh and as the appointing authority, it's
[58:55] my understanding that the city manager
[58:57] has the authority to set uh where uh
[59:01] they feel is appropriate based on on the
[59:04] position. really just up to that max
[59:06] though. So it may not necessarily mean
[59:09] that somebody starts at 111,000 as the
[59:12] chief. If that was the case, you're not
[59:15] going to be finding anybody that
[59:17] otherwise meets the requirements of the
[59:19] job.
[59:22] >> Thank you. Thank you. With that, we'll
[59:24] go to any public comment.
[59:27] >> Michelle Light.
[59:34] Well, I would recommend um first of all
[59:37] that um that you would uh go with the
[59:41] what Mr. Hansen had stated and that
[59:44] would be a minimum of an associates
[59:45] degree with a combination of education
[59:47] and experience. I think otherwise you
[59:50] will be shortsighted in who might apply.
[59:53] Of course, you could go with someone who
[59:55] has a bachelor's degree. Um, but um,
[59:58] experienced
[1:00:00] uh, individuals can bring a lot to the
[1:00:02] table as far as a police chief. And, um,
[1:00:06] there's ways to write that that um, were
[1:00:10] already mentioned earlier.
[1:00:12] Anyhow, um, what I wrote earlier while
[1:00:15] we are addressing the police chief's
[1:00:17] position, but I had kind of combined it.
[1:00:19] So, um, for the three positions, so just
[1:00:22] bear with me on how I wrote it because
[1:00:24] it's just written for the three. While
[1:00:26] the salaries associated with the
[1:00:28] proposed job classifications appear to
[1:00:29] be generally consistent with those
[1:00:31] offered in comparable cities, I remain
[1:00:34] concerned about whether the city will be
[1:00:35] sufficiently competitive in attracting
[1:00:37] and retaining qualified law enforcement
[1:00:39] personnel. This is particularly
[1:00:42] important when recruiting well-trained
[1:00:43] lateral officers whose experience and
[1:00:46] institutional knowledge are especially
[1:00:48] valuable to a newly established
[1:00:49] department. I do not see information
[1:00:52] addressing the benefits or other
[1:00:53] incentives offered. When one considers
[1:00:56] neighboring cities and county law
[1:00:58] enforcement agencies, these may include
[1:01:00] postcertification of pay differentials,
[1:01:03] longevity pay for experienced officers,
[1:01:06] and recognition of prior governmental
[1:01:08] services service for uh propo uh
[1:01:11] purposes of vacational vacation acral
[1:01:14] and other benefits. I don't know if all
[1:01:17] of you understand what I'm saying there,
[1:01:20] but I know for instance that uh Glen
[1:01:23] County officers
[1:01:25] um receive [sighs]
[1:01:27] um their management, so like the chief
[1:01:30] would come in and years of service for
[1:01:32] other areas. They um upper management
[1:01:36] would receive the years of service going
[1:01:38] toward their vacation acrals. So, if
[1:01:41] you're recruiting for a chief of police,
[1:01:43] they're going to want to know, are they
[1:01:45] going to get those years of service put
[1:01:47] toward the number of vacation hours and
[1:01:49] acrruels. So, none of that was addressed
[1:01:52] in this package. So, here you're going
[1:01:54] to send this information further in in
[1:01:56] item number seven that we're going to
[1:01:58] talk about soon. Um, and I know we're
[1:02:01] not talking about that now, but you have
[1:02:02] a job classification that you're
[1:02:03] establishing and none of these benefits
[1:02:06] are being discussed in this job flyer.
[1:02:09] These components are an important part
[1:02:11] of an employes's overall compensation
[1:02:13] package and can significantly influence
[1:02:16] a candidate's decision when evaluating
[1:02:19] competing employment opportunities. I
[1:02:21] believe these issues should be discussed
[1:02:23] today to ensure that the city is
[1:02:25] position
[1:02:27] to offer a truly competitive hiring
[1:02:29] package and to attract the most
[1:02:30] qualified candidates possible for the
[1:02:33] new department. Now, I realize that you
[1:02:35] guys postpone the other four, but you
[1:02:38] may wish to bring those back up quickly
[1:02:41] just to talk and give direction that
[1:02:44] when they do come back up to you so that
[1:02:46] you don't waste your time that that this
[1:02:48] information's also discussed at that
[1:02:50] time for those other classifications as
[1:02:52] well because they need to be discussed
[1:02:54] openly just like this police chief one
[1:02:56] needs to be discussed openly tonight so
[1:02:58] that those compensation package can be
[1:03:00] discussed and go before the public.
[1:03:04] Thank you.
[1:03:05] >> Thank you.
[1:03:07] Any further fellow comment? Okay, with
[1:03:09] that, uh
[1:03:10] >> Oh, there's somebody in the audience.
[1:03:12] >> Oh, yeah. Go ahead.
[1:03:15] Comment. Please take your name for the
[1:03:16] record.
[1:03:21] » Rick Batty, Will's resident. Um I
[1:03:24] scribbled. I have a bunch of notes at
[1:03:25] home. I forgot, so bear with me a little
[1:03:27] bit. Um but I would recommend I listen
[1:03:29] to Mr. Maloney's comments about the
[1:03:31] education. you're looking at a person
[1:03:33] that's running a complete department,
[1:03:35] not line staff, um I would recommend
[1:03:37] that you stick with the the bachelor's
[1:03:39] degree. You will just raise the bar and
[1:03:41] get a better candidate that for all the reasons that he stated that's
[1:03:45] going to be dealing with your partners
[1:03:48] um throughout the throughout the county
[1:03:50] and whatnot. um they can be the the best
[1:03:54] most advanced police officer that we
[1:03:56] have in this community. Um but they
[1:03:58] might not have the education that kind
[1:04:00] of has um like I do. I don't speak very
[1:04:03] well in public. So um I think it kind of
[1:04:07] brings up that bar a little bit. So, I
[1:04:09] would recommend the the bachelor's
[1:04:10] degree and if not the very least like I
[1:04:13] look back at the look at every other
[1:04:14] department head in this county, city, um
[1:04:18] anywhere from um welfare department to
[1:04:22] the HR department to the personnel
[1:04:23] department to whatever department they
[1:04:25] all have bachelor's degrees. So, why not
[1:04:26] have our police department to that same
[1:04:28] standard? Also, if you look at the
[1:04:30] school system, I've seen some language
[1:04:32] where if they are uh I guess promoted to
[1:04:36] a principal or vice principal, they have
[1:04:38] a year or two to get their
[1:04:40] administrative degrees. So, maybe that's
[1:04:42] some type of language. I agree with Mr.
[1:04:44] Hansen that an a degree with
[1:04:46] intermediate advanced supervisor
[1:04:49] management. I mean, you're going to get
[1:04:50] college credits every time you go to
[1:04:52] class. You probably have over 2,000
[1:04:54] hours of training in your career at
[1:04:56] least. Um, and you're getting college
[1:04:58] credit every time you go to some of
[1:05:00] those classes. So, I mean, it's
[1:05:02] sometimes it's it's just filling out a
[1:05:03] piece of paper for an officer and they
[1:05:05] can have an AA degree just by all the
[1:05:06] trainings that they go to. Um,
[1:05:09] >> the driver's license, I think it's a
[1:05:11] great idea to actually have and maintain
[1:05:13] a driver's license. Um, we have a hard
[1:05:16] time, I think, running people's driver's
[1:05:18] licenses after they're hired and they
[1:05:20] get suspended a year, two years, five
[1:05:22] years, and you have uh officers on
[1:05:25] suspended licenses driving around police
[1:05:26] cars. Um, so I think it's it's important
[1:05:29] that you do checks more than just when
[1:05:31] you hire them, but like every so often
[1:05:33] that they maintain driver's license. It
[1:05:35] happens all the time. When I read in the
[1:05:37] job flyer, and I don't know too much
[1:05:39] about the government code, I did a deep
[1:05:40] dive really quick, but the it says that
[1:05:43] the government code
[1:05:45] doesn't matter, five-digit number, is
[1:05:47] that the police officer
[1:05:49] the city manager. City manager deals
[1:05:51] with the hiring, recruiting, the firing,
[1:05:53] the discipline, due process, and
[1:05:55] everything else. Um, I also read in
[1:05:58] other government code that the police
[1:06:00] chief answers to the city as a board.
[1:06:02] And so I've seen both where the city
[1:06:04] manager has all that power, but I also
[1:06:06] seen it also where the city manager
[1:06:08] writes recommendations, but it's you
[1:06:10] folks that make that decision. So I
[1:06:12] don't know government code-wise where
[1:06:14] you stand, but the flyer says that it
[1:06:16] answers to the city manager.
[1:06:18] >> So that's just a question I don't have
[1:06:19] an answer for, but I'm throwing that out
[1:06:20] there.
[1:06:21] >> And the salary wise, really quick,
[1:06:23] Orland Police Department 126,000 saw the
[1:06:25] same thing raise in the last couple
[1:06:27] weeks. That's great. Um, but a brand new
[1:06:30] police chief and Willows probably should
[1:06:32] make more than Orland police chief. He
[1:06:34] has 10, 15 years of experience. He's
[1:06:36] doing a great job. Unless you want to
[1:06:38] steal him. That'd be great. And he'll
[1:06:40] come down here and make more money. But
[1:06:41] um, anyway, those are my thoughts. Um,
[1:06:43] appreciate you guys.
[1:06:44] >> Thanks, Rick.
[1:06:45] >> Thank you.
[1:06:47] >> Okay, with that council comments, Vice
[1:06:49] Mayor Thomas,
[1:06:50] >> none. Okay. Council member Pride,
[1:06:53] >> no additional.
[1:06:54] >> Okay. Council member Low,
[1:06:57] >> no comments. Okay. Council Hansen.
[1:07:00] >> Yeah, I I I'm not opposed to requiring a
[1:07:02] bachelor's degree
[1:07:04] >> either. I just uh I think it was a good
[1:07:06] discussion. Thank you.
[1:07:10] Um
[1:07:14] yeah, I do have a couple. Um one, I do
[1:07:17] agree that a valid driver's licenses
[1:07:19] should be required to drive a police
[1:07:20] car. Um I feel like that should just be
[1:07:25] I can't believe that even had to be
[1:07:26] something that's stated. So obviously
[1:07:27] there are some other things that are
[1:07:29] missing if that you have to go back that
[1:07:31] basic for it to be stated. Um
[1:07:34] >> I said there
[1:07:35] >> yeah I do like the idea of requiring the
[1:07:38] bachelor's degree. Um my only caveat to
[1:07:41] that would be is if that person is in
[1:07:45] the process of receiving their
[1:07:46] bachelor's degree possibly allow them a
[1:07:49] two-year grace period to finish that
[1:07:51] education. Granted, if they're getting
[1:07:53] hired on here, that's going to be a
[1:07:54] pretty tall order to rebuild the police
[1:07:56] department and go to school. So, I think
[1:07:58] requiring it right off the bat is um I
[1:08:02] think this is the best route to go at
[1:08:04] first. Um
[1:08:10] as far as a supervision and direction
[1:08:12] from the city manager, um
[1:08:17] I didn't think about what you had said.
[1:08:20] So, I'm still mulling over the idea of
[1:08:22] whether that would be direction from
[1:08:23] city manager or city council. Um,
[1:08:27] >> I do have a comment about that.
[1:08:29] >> Go ahead.
[1:08:30] >> If the council wanted to move towards a
[1:08:33] police chief reporting directly to a
[1:08:35] council, you're now moving towards a
[1:08:37] city administrator form of government
[1:08:39] where you hire as a council department.
[1:08:42] I am not familiar with a structure where
[1:08:44] you have city manager council form of
[1:08:46] government and your police chief is off
[1:08:49] on the side reporting to the council
[1:08:51] which is all the so I think council
[1:08:54] would be having a larger discussion
[1:08:55] about whether you want to move which is
[1:08:57] what Orville is example
[1:08:59] >> is a city administrator versus a city
[1:09:02] manager where council hires and appoints
[1:09:05] department heads very different
[1:09:08] structure I wouldn't recommend it but
[1:09:11] you I know if that's if that's a broader
[1:09:12] conversation the council wants to have.
[1:09:14] Certainly
[1:09:14] >> it's a different conversation to have.
[1:09:16] >> Totally. Okay. Yeah.
[1:09:17] >> Yeah. Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mayor,
[1:09:19] >> I just was s just saying that that I
[1:09:22] never thought about that. So that was
[1:09:23] just definitely mulling that over. Um
[1:09:27] yeah, with that, um obviously like Lori
[1:09:30] said, there are a couple little minor
[1:09:31] details that need to be ironed out, but
[1:09:35] Mr. Hansen, if you have more
[1:09:37] >> Yeah. Oh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah,
[1:09:39] just I completely agree with what city
[1:09:41] manager Marty Brown just said and city
[1:09:43] manager city manager city council form
[1:09:45] of government every municipality in the
[1:09:47] state of California that I'm aware of uh
[1:09:50] the city manager is in charge of of all
[1:09:53] department heads and I you know charter
[1:09:55] cities are different uh uh we read about
[1:09:59] all the time charter cities uh the mayor
[1:10:01] and the and the council hire and fire
[1:10:03] the police chief. I mean, look at
[1:10:05] Oakland. Happens all the time. But, uh,
[1:10:08] anyway, no, you know, the council city
[1:10:10] or the city manager, city council, uh,
[1:10:13] city council, city manager, I'm sorry,
[1:10:14] form of government, uh, the the police
[1:10:17] chief would report to the city manager
[1:10:19] just like the fire chief does, just like
[1:10:21] the community development services
[1:10:23] director does and every other department
[1:10:25] head. I and I I think you're opening a
[1:10:27] very dangerous can of worms if you start
[1:10:29] to go down that that aisle. They're just
[1:10:32] my thoughts, Evan. Thank you. Okay, I
[1:10:35] appreciate that. Um, my other concern is
[1:10:37] I I am also concerned about uh the
[1:10:40] salary schedule which I trying to find.
[1:10:44] Now I got jumbled up because there'sund
[1:10:46] and some odd pages up here. Um,
[1:10:53] my concern is is we're hiring somebody
[1:10:55] to come in and completely rebuild our
[1:10:57] police department. And right now our
[1:11:00] salary schedule is putting them
[1:11:01] competitive with surrounding
[1:11:03] jurisdictions
[1:11:04] um not too far off where they don't have
[1:11:07] to do the extra leg work. They're not
[1:11:09] building from the ground up. So
[1:11:13] my suggestion to the council is a
[1:11:17] either move the salary schedule to start
[1:11:22] the base at a lower at a higher level
[1:11:24] and have step 9 be able to extend
[1:11:27] higher. Um what that does is that allows
[1:11:29] us to hire a police chief and keep him
[1:11:32] in that contract for a longer period of
[1:11:33] time before we have to come back to the
[1:11:35] negotiation table. Um because as it was
[1:11:38] stated, we might get somebody with a
[1:11:40] master's degree and you know is
[1:11:43] bilingual and hits all these different
[1:11:46] checkboxes that we may need in our
[1:11:48] community and the only way we're going
[1:11:50] to get that person is going straight to
[1:11:51] step nine off year one. Well, then we're
[1:11:54] back here again in another year redoing
[1:11:56] this while he's still in the middle of
[1:11:57] trying to build the police department.
[1:12:00] So, um my thought is to either have that
[1:12:05] um well, my main thought is to have that
[1:12:07] the steps adjusted to increase the step
[1:12:11] >> where step three or four would be step
[1:12:13] one.
[1:12:14] thing I do want to just remind the
[1:12:16] council of that you did approve last
[1:12:18] year
[1:12:20] um is that when an when a department
[1:12:24] head reaches the top step that they get
[1:12:27] a CPI increase each year after that
[1:12:29] that's between two and a half and%.
[1:12:31] which that'll be actually coming to the
[1:12:33] council as an executive mid-management
[1:12:36] handbook I believe at the September 8th
[1:12:38] meeting and it's going to be codified
[1:12:40] because that actually was direction in
[1:12:42] close session and I want to make sure
[1:12:43] that it is codified somewhere and we
[1:12:45] haven't done that yet. So I just wanted
[1:12:47] to remind you that you did council did
[1:12:49] approve that and so it's not like if
[1:12:51] somebody was hired at the top step they
[1:12:53] just stay there forever or something
[1:12:54] like that until council approves a new
[1:12:58] salary.
[1:13:01] I retract my previous statement.
[1:13:04] >> Um, with that pledge of the council,
[1:13:11] » we have to find the agenda that has the
[1:13:12] item on it.
[1:13:13] >> Also, did you did you make a final
[1:13:15] decision on the bachelor's degree? I was
[1:13:17] I'm a little bit confused on that. I
[1:13:19] think we got clear direction on the
[1:13:21] other smaller changes, but
[1:13:22] >> I think I'll make a motion to be made
[1:13:24] >> incorporated into a motion. I would move
[1:13:26] that we um approve the police officer
[1:13:29] job classification and salary schedule
[1:13:33] um retaining the requirement for the
[1:13:35] bachelor's degree
[1:13:38] at least at this point in time.
[1:13:41] >> Mr. Mayor, I second the motion to
[1:13:42] approve the chief of police duty
[1:13:44] statement and salary schedule as
[1:13:46] presented.
[1:13:48] Um, I [clears throat] would like to
[1:13:50] offer the amendment of adjusting the
[1:13:53] first bullet point removing the cultural
[1:13:55] arts
[1:13:56] >> uh, leisure time and recreation
[1:13:58] administration.
[1:13:59] >> Yeah.
[1:14:00] >> Well, with a couple changes with the
[1:14:02] changes as discussed, which would be
[1:14:04] that and the driver's license, we're
[1:14:06] going to keep in the maintaining the
[1:14:08] license, but having one and maintaining
[1:14:10] it, but there was some other language in
[1:14:11] that bullet point that could come out. I
[1:14:14] would accept that friendly amendment.
[1:14:16] >> I agree with that. That includes
[1:14:17] striking that cultural arts plan. Yeah,
[1:14:20] I
[1:14:21] >> I second the
[1:14:22] >> I would love our police chief to teach a
[1:14:23] cooking class, but
[1:14:25] >> he's got a bigger fish to fry at this
[1:14:26] point.
[1:14:29] >> I have a first and a second. Any further
[1:14:30] discussion?
[1:14:32] Okay. Uh all in favor signify by saying
[1:14:34] I.
[1:14:35] >> I.
[1:14:36] >> All oppose. Same sign. Motion pass five
[1:14:39] to zero.
[1:14:40] >> M Mr. Mayor, would it be possible to
[1:14:42] take a fivem minute break? Yeah, let's
[1:14:44] take a five minute recess so I can reset
[1:14:45] my paperwork and think people can
[1:14:47] stretch their legs.
[1:14:55] All right. See, we will call this
[1:14:58] meeting back to Are you ready? Sorry.
[1:15:01] Okay. We will call this meeting back to
[1:15:02] order at 7:25.
[1:15:05] With that, we will move moving on to
[1:15:07] discussion and action calendar items,
[1:15:10] which first item is 7A, police chief
[1:15:12] recruitment and appointment. Recommended
[1:15:13] action authorizes city manager to engage
[1:15:16] a recruitment firm in an amount not to
[1:15:19] exceed $30,000 to conduct recruitment
[1:15:22] for a city of Willows police chief and
[1:15:24] authorized budget authority to appoint
[1:15:26] and hire the police chief at an annual
[1:15:28] local comp total compensation amount not
[1:15:31] to exceed $215,000.
[1:15:34] Marty Brown, you have anything to add to
[1:15:36] this?
[1:15:36] >> Um, just that I wanted to let the
[1:15:38] council know that the the assumptions in
[1:15:40] the total compensation are that the
[1:15:44] police chief would be hired at the top
[1:15:46] step, which you just approved a minute
[1:15:48] ago, that the chief would probably be a
[1:15:51] classic employee, helpers employee,
[1:15:54] which of course also is more money. um
[1:15:56] health insurance and social security are
[1:15:58] included that in that um total
[1:16:01] compensation and we usually assume at
[1:16:03] least one dependent when we you know
[1:16:06] roll up these costs into a total
[1:16:08] compensation so there's um not you know
[1:16:12] trying to limit any surprises right
[1:16:14] that's why I'm asking for that amount of
[1:16:15] money maybe the person doesn't get hired
[1:16:17] at the top step maybe they're they're
[1:16:19] only themselves that they have to insure
[1:16:21] maybe it'll be lower that would be great
[1:16:23] but we're you know shooting for a higher
[1:16:26] number to get and a not to exceed amount
[1:16:28] that um I don't have to come back to the
[1:16:30] council and have another discussion
[1:16:31] about oh things have changed. So those
[1:16:34] are the assumptions that are built into
[1:16:35] that number. Um and I wanted I do want
[1:16:38] to mention that um the total
[1:16:41] compensation number that came from the
[1:16:43] finance director was a little over
[1:16:45] 211,000
[1:16:47] and so I did round up to 215. Just
[1:16:49] wanted to acknowledge that. And the last
[1:16:51] thing I wanted to mention is the council
[1:16:53] did give me direction at the August 11th
[1:16:55] special meeting to move forward with
[1:16:57] looking at um a recruitment firm. I have
[1:17:00] only had conversations at this point to
[1:17:02] come up with that dollar amount. I have
[1:17:04] not gotten for formal proposals. It's
[1:17:06] just a little too fast from that meeting
[1:17:08] to this meeting. So the 30,000 is based
[1:17:10] on just having um initial conversations
[1:17:13] with recruitment firms that um seem to
[1:17:17] be hovering around 30,000. the boutique
[1:17:20] firm that specializes in police chief
[1:17:23] recruitments that I was thinking of um
[1:17:26] actually gave me a dollar amount of
[1:17:27] 42,500.
[1:17:29] And so I went with thinking that it
[1:17:32] would be more like the 30,000 based on
[1:17:34] two other recruitment conversations that
[1:17:36] I had and trying to bring that number
[1:17:37] down.
[1:17:41] So that I mean that pretty much
[1:17:43] concludes my presentation. So the total
[1:17:45] budget uh impact of course with both
[1:17:47] combined is the 245,000
[1:17:50] that's in the fiscal impact for the
[1:17:52] entire year. But of course the 30,000 is
[1:17:54] a onetime expense. It's not an ongoing
[1:17:56] expense.
[1:17:59] » Okay. Uh with that any questions from
[1:18:02] the council? Vice Mayor Thomas?
[1:18:05] >> Not at this time. Okay. Council member
[1:18:07] Bride.
[1:18:08] >> Um at least for now just thinking about
[1:18:11] one of the public comments. Are there
[1:18:12] any other um at this management level
[1:18:15] any other stipens or anything for
[1:18:17] bilingual or anything else that we offer
[1:18:19] to some of our other employment groups
[1:18:22] for this?
[1:18:23] >> We do have a bilingual stipen of $250 a
[1:18:26] month. Um the city also has longevity
[1:18:29] pay. Um, and I believe that the
[1:18:33] longevity pay is $100 a month at 10
[1:18:38] years
[1:18:40] and I think it's 200 at 20. I'd have to
[1:18:43] get that number before and get back to
[1:18:45] you if you want me to get those numbers.
[1:18:47] Um, those are two off the top of my head
[1:18:49] that would be, you know, that would
[1:18:52] possibly impact the hire of a police
[1:18:53] chief. I mean, other things that we have
[1:18:55] are, you know, for certifications in the
[1:18:57] fire department or a boot stipen or some
[1:19:00] of those things that wouldn't happen.
[1:19:01] But I mean, I want to keep in I want the
[1:19:03] council to keep in mind that there's a
[1:19:05] number of um other um kinds of
[1:19:08] compensation like you're talking about
[1:19:10] and benefits that were brought up
[1:19:11] earlier that wouldn't typically be in a
[1:19:14] job classification and salary schedule
[1:19:15] for approval, nor would they be in this
[1:19:17] staff report. that would come back as
[1:19:19] because there will have to be additional
[1:19:21] amendments because there's
[1:19:23] certifications that police departments
[1:19:25] and police officers are required that
[1:19:27] aren't required for example in the fire
[1:19:28] department. So there's going to have to
[1:19:30] be a whole review and consideration of
[1:19:33] more compensation package for police
[1:19:36] department employees that are not
[1:19:37] covered here tonight.
[1:19:39] >> They'll have their ownus and things like
[1:19:40] that that they'll have to establish
[1:19:42] still. And and I would say um actually
[1:19:45] council member Hansen reminded me that
[1:19:47] at one point in the past police and fire
[1:19:51] were in a single bargaining unit and
[1:19:53] maybe they'll do that again. I think I
[1:19:55] told you that today council member Pride
[1:19:56] as well. My experience is usually police
[1:19:59] is separate. I haven't ever seen a
[1:20:01] police and fire department that wanted
[1:20:02] to be together in their own bargaining
[1:20:04] unit. But maybe they'll get here and it
[1:20:06] it'll be their decision either way. It
[1:20:08] won't be a management decision and maybe
[1:20:10] they'll want to do that and be in a
[1:20:11] single bargaining unit. I don't know.
[1:20:13] >> I just thought it was important we
[1:20:14] address that because of the other
[1:20:15] questions, you know, sick leave,
[1:20:17] vacation time, you know, all those
[1:20:19] things are just part of our our basic
[1:20:21] program that isn't just zeroed in here.
[1:20:23] So, I just wanted to address that. Also,
[1:20:26] I would just mention that sometimes um
[1:20:28] you know that there is the ability for
[1:20:30] the city manager to negotiate with an
[1:20:33] incoming department head on certain
[1:20:34] things. Like for example, I, you know,
[1:20:36] I've seen other places where department
[1:20:38] heads been somewhere for 20 years and
[1:20:40] they have a jillion hours of sick leave
[1:20:42] and so they're they don't want to lose
[1:20:43] that because maybe they're not too far
[1:20:45] from retirement and you could use your
[1:20:47] sick leave to purchase more Kalpers
[1:20:49] hours and years um in retirement and
[1:20:52] they might negotiate um you know asking
[1:20:55] for all of it or 50% of it be um you
[1:20:59] know ported over from their past job and
[1:21:01] that's those kinds of special benefits
[1:21:03] would be negotiated ated during the
[1:21:05] actual hiring process because that's a
[1:21:07] different thing than the the codified
[1:21:09] benefits package. So that that could
[1:21:11] also be another aspect of hiring.
[1:21:14] >> Okay. Any more questions?
[1:21:16] >> Well, that's it for
[1:21:17] >> Okay, Council Member Low, I'm sorry. I'm
[1:21:20] still learning, figuring out getting
[1:21:22] used to new person over there. So,
[1:21:25] no comments, no questions. I I mean
[1:21:28] comments and and that I think the amount the compensation amount uh is
[1:21:34] fair and one of the things I learned is that Willows is one of few cities
[1:21:39] that also pays social security to their
[1:21:41] employees. Uh not all cities pay that in
[1:21:43] their pension plan. So that's added on
[1:21:45] top of that. I think it's very fair.
[1:21:48] Council member Hansen.
[1:21:49] >> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm in favor
[1:21:50] of this matter as presented. uh we we
[1:21:55] must engage with with a recruitment
[1:21:57] firm. This is a very unique uh uh
[1:22:01] chief's position.
[1:22:03] Uh we need to recruit a dynamic,
[1:22:06] innovative, hardworking law enforcement
[1:22:08] professional that'll fit our needs here.
[1:22:10] So it may not necessarily be easy to
[1:22:14] find that individual. So, I'm I'm in
[1:22:16] complete favor of of uh utilizing a
[1:22:19] recruitment firm to find that
[1:22:20] individual.
[1:22:22] And um also I'm I'm satisfied with the
[1:22:25] uh with the uh maximum $245,000 to the
[1:22:29] uh budget with all included. I'm I'm in
[1:22:33] favor of the this item as presented. I
[1:22:35] think it's something that we uh we must
[1:22:38] do. We have to do this. It's all ahead,
[1:22:40] mayor. Thank you.
[1:22:41] >> Thank you.
[1:22:43] >> Morning. You said that the niche firm
[1:22:45] that you're looking at quoted as higher
[1:22:47] than the 30,000 that we're trying to
[1:22:48] approve tonight.
[1:22:49] >> Yes. I was actually surprised. I didn't
[1:22:51] realize how high I and that's this is
[1:22:53] all they do is police chiefs all over
[1:22:55] the country. So they're um basically
[1:22:59] said that that would this size city
[1:23:04] » which makes me think.
[1:23:06] >> You have a question? Yeah. Go ahead.
[1:23:07] That was my other question.
[1:23:08] >> Well, it's it's kind of a comment and a
[1:23:10] question. you know, there's always I
[1:23:12] mean, we're going to use potentially a
[1:23:14] professional recruiting firm, but we
[1:23:16] also all know people who know people who
[1:23:18] know people. Um, so I don't think that
[1:23:21] precludes doing in-house recruitment as
[1:23:24] well. I just think I need to make that
[1:23:25] clear. I don't think, you know, we're
[1:23:26] talking about hiring someone and then
[1:23:29] not doing anything else. I think in
[1:23:30] conversations with Mr. Maloney, he feels
[1:23:33] very confident that there are people out
[1:23:35] there that will be interested in this
[1:23:37] position because I asked that question.
[1:23:39] And so I think we're going to have the
[1:23:41] local, you know, the people that we know
[1:23:43] that, you know, just through whatever
[1:23:45] and then this recruiter, which again, I struggle sometimes spending that kind
[1:23:50] of money on a recruiter. Um, but then
[1:23:53] I'm told by the people who know more
[1:23:55] than I do that that's how you find the
[1:23:57] best people. So, I'm a little bit
[1:23:59] skeptical, honestly. Um,
[1:24:03] but I just wanted to preface that we're
[1:24:04] not just putting all our eggs in that
[1:24:06] basket and not utilizing, you know, Mr.
[1:24:08] Maloney's contacts are just the people
[1:24:10] that I'm sure anybody in this room knows
[1:24:12] people that might potentially be
[1:24:14] interested.
[1:24:17] » Okay. Or Vice Mayor Thomas, you have any
[1:24:20] further any questions?
[1:24:22] >> No, I think it's something we need to
[1:24:24] do. Okay. So, I would support this this
[1:24:27] item. Any public comment?
[1:24:30] >> Michelle Knight.
[1:24:36] First, I'd like to express my full
[1:24:37] support for beginning the recruitment
[1:24:39] process for a police chief and for
[1:24:41] ultimately appointing a qualified
[1:24:43] candidate. However, I believe it is
[1:24:45] important that the city publicly
[1:24:46] establish in advance the compensation
[1:24:50] benefits and other terms of employment
[1:24:52] that will be offered as part of this
[1:24:54] position. Doing so will help ensure that
[1:24:56] the recruitment process is both
[1:24:58] effective and competitive and that the
[1:24:59] city is positioned to attract the
[1:25:01] strongest candidates possible. I believe
[1:25:03] this is particularly important given the
[1:25:05] city's previous experience and
[1:25:07] recruitment of a police chief. The last
[1:25:09] time the city undertook such a process,
[1:25:11] the outcome was, in my opinion, a
[1:25:13] significant failure. It is my hope the
[1:25:15] city will learn from that experience and
[1:25:17] take the necessary steps to avoid
[1:25:19] repeating the same problems. This will
[1:25:21] also require securing a contract with
[1:25:23] either the local background investigator
[1:25:25] currently used by the Orland Police
[1:25:26] Department and Sheriff's Office or
[1:25:27] another postqualified provider. With
[1:25:30] that said, I have a concern regarding
[1:25:31] information contained in the document
[1:25:33] provided by the city manager, Miss Marty
[1:25:35] Brown. The document states at its August
[1:25:38] 11th meeting, the city council directed
[1:25:40] staff to engage a professional
[1:25:42] recruitment firm to assist with the
[1:25:44] recruitment and appointment of a police
[1:25:45] chief. However, when I reviewed the
[1:25:48] agenda and minutes for the referenced
[1:25:50] special meeting, the the stated purpose
[1:25:52] of the meeting was conference with legal
[1:25:54] counsel initiation of litigation by
[1:25:57] 4956.9
[1:25:59] peri
[1:26:01] one case. The meeting minutes further
[1:26:04] indicated report out information was
[1:26:06] received and direction was given to
[1:26:07] staff. I was unable to identify in the
[1:26:10] publicly available agenda or minutes any
[1:26:12] specific reference to the city council
[1:26:14] providing direction regarding the
[1:26:15] recruitment or appointment of a police
[1:26:17] chief. Furthermore, based upon the
[1:26:20] stated purpose of the special meeting, I
[1:26:22] do not understand how such direction
[1:26:23] would be connected to the close session
[1:26:25] matter identified on the agenda. I
[1:26:28] believe this raises legitimate
[1:26:29] transparency concern that should be
[1:26:31] clarified for the council and the
[1:26:33] public. I along with others in the
[1:26:34] community are concerned about the
[1:26:36] possibility that matters concerning the
[1:26:38] recruitment and appointment of the
[1:26:39] police chief or other significant city
[1:26:42] business may be discussed or acted upon
[1:26:44] during closed sessions when th those
[1:26:46] matters should be instead be addressed
[1:26:48] in an open public forum. I am not
[1:26:51] suggesting that the city council
[1:26:52] improperly discussed or acted upon this
[1:26:54] matter. Rather, I believe that the
[1:26:58] discrepancy between the stated purpose
[1:27:00] of the August 11th special meeting and
[1:27:01] the subsequent reference to direction
[1:27:03] regarding the police chief recruitment
[1:27:05] warrants clarification.
[1:27:07] Given the importance of reestablishing
[1:27:09] the Willows Police Department and
[1:27:11] selecting its chief, I believe the
[1:27:12] public should have a clear understanding
[1:27:14] of when and how the decision to initiate
[1:27:16] the recruitment process was made.
[1:27:18] Transparency in this process will help
[1:27:20] ensure public confidence and provide the
[1:27:22] community with assurance and the
[1:27:24] recruitment and appointment of the next
[1:27:26] police chief are conducted
[1:27:28] appropriately, openly, and in accordance
[1:27:30] with the applicable requirements. Thank
[1:27:32] you.
[1:27:33] >> Thank you.
[1:27:35] >> On on that note, um
[1:27:39] I just talked with Vice Mayor Thomas
[1:27:41] about that as we came back from our
[1:27:43] break. I was going to ask and it's city
[1:27:46] attorney and since it's been brought up
[1:27:47] by Michelle, our August 11th meeting was
[1:27:51] a special meeting and it was a close
[1:27:52] session for litigation and the minutes
[1:27:54] did reflect the direction was given to
[1:27:57] staff. You know, my question and I
[1:27:59] didn't ask it before tonight and debated
[1:28:02] bringing it up just trying to get more
[1:28:05] information from staff. When we're in a
[1:28:08] close session, this is just a technical
[1:28:10] question and we give direction to staff.
[1:28:13] Is it appropriate in many circumstances
[1:28:16] depending on what that direction is i.e.
[1:28:19] go forward with the recruitment of a
[1:28:20] police chief would have been the
[1:28:22] direction to put that in some form of
[1:28:25] minutes.
[1:28:28] It's not required under the Brown Act.
[1:28:30] There are no minutes required to be
[1:28:31] kept.
[1:28:33] Um and it would really depend on what
[1:28:37] type of direction was given and whether
[1:28:39] that's going to open up doors about
[1:28:41] other things that might have been
[1:28:42] discussed as part for example this was a
[1:28:45] discussion on potential initiation of
[1:28:47] litigation. Well, that's completely
[1:28:49] competent what that discussion entailed
[1:28:52] and um I would not advise
[1:28:57] » but but then we bring forward a staff
[1:28:58] report to bring forward an item and we
[1:29:01] reference a close session special
[1:29:03] meeting that had no report out and that
[1:29:06] by bringing it out and and and alluding
[1:29:09] obviously we gave direction on this item
[1:29:11] it just creates again this this um
[1:29:14] >> well I think that's kind of an
[1:29:17] interesting
[1:29:18] dilemma because I I feel like if I just
[1:29:20] put it on here and there's no other
[1:29:22] minutes anywhere else that says I was
[1:29:24] given direction, I think that there'd be
[1:29:26] concern about well where did why did you
[1:29:28] just suddenly as a city manager think
[1:29:30] you should go get a recruiter? Right. So
[1:29:32] I felt an obligation to say that I was
[1:29:35] given direction. You didn't take a vote
[1:29:36] on it which would then absolutely
[1:29:38] require a report out but you you know
[1:29:41] did say and I think I mean as as the
[1:29:43] city attorney said it's that's okay.
[1:29:45] Well, again, it it's it is a dilemma
[1:29:47] because I don't disagree with what
[1:29:49] you've said. However, we're having
[1:29:51] meetings, we're discussing things, and
[1:29:53] then they're going to appear at some
[1:29:54] point on the agenda. So, how do we
[1:29:56] mitigate that? I don't have the answer
[1:29:57] to that question, but I noticed what you
[1:30:00] noticed and if we're going to refer to
[1:30:03] those meetings and direction given in
[1:30:05] those meetings, how do we then document
[1:30:07] that so that it's, you know, it doesn't
[1:30:09] raise qu more questions on transparency
[1:30:11] with our
[1:30:13] >> so something to ponder. and definitely
[1:30:15] understand where both of you are coming
[1:30:16] from. I feel like this cuz at that time
[1:30:20] on the report out the information we
[1:30:22] talked about was confidential. We did
[1:30:23] not want to discuss it at that time. Now
[1:30:27] we're at a later date where we're able
[1:30:29] to discuss that and we're referring to
[1:30:31] where that direction was given which is
[1:30:33] not necessarily I I do understand the
[1:30:36] transparency issue. I also understand
[1:30:37] the legal issue of side of it as well.
[1:30:40] Um
[1:30:42] yeah.
[1:30:43] >> [snorts]
[1:30:44] >> That's a difficult one. It is definitely
[1:30:46] the dog chasing the tail sometimes. Um,
[1:30:49] >> you know, and ideally we're going to get
[1:30:50] to the point at some point that we're
[1:30:52] able to build that trust with the
[1:30:54] community. And there's some things that,
[1:30:56] you know, we get into this dilemma that,
[1:30:58] you know, we because of circumstances we
[1:31:00] need to talk about it in this certain
[1:31:01] venue.
[1:31:03] and then at some point something comes
[1:31:05] out and that there's a trust that there
[1:31:07] aren't other inappropriate, you know,
[1:31:09] side conversations or close sessions
[1:31:12] happening or whatever. So, it's about
[1:31:14] trust.
[1:31:16] M
[1:31:16] >> Mr. Mayor, council member Hans. Yeah,
[1:31:19] thank you. No, I think it's reme I think
[1:31:22] it's important to remember u what the
[1:31:25] city attorney just just advised this
[1:31:27] council does not violate the Brown Act.
[1:31:30] This council follows the Ralph Brown
[1:31:32] Act. So, what was done was done lawfully
[1:31:36] on the report out. I just want to make
[1:31:38] that that clear to the public
[1:31:40] perspective. It is it's it's a
[1:31:46] you're walking kind of a tight rope on not disclosing uh uh uh litigation
[1:31:51] issues because that's uh absolutely
[1:31:54] confidential as our city attorney just
[1:31:56] uh just attested to. So the reports
[1:31:59] report outs uh uh basically you know
[1:32:02] direction given to staff nor the
[1:32:04] reportable action that was that was the
[1:32:07] lawful report out. So I just want to
[1:32:09] make it clear that you know this council
[1:32:10] is not trying to pull the blinders and
[1:32:12] I'm not saying anybody's
[1:32:14] >> no
[1:32:14] >> accusing of us of that but I just want
[1:32:16] to make it
[1:32:17] >> very clear that this city council
[1:32:19] follows the Ralph Brown Act.
[1:32:21] >> Yeah.
[1:32:21] >> So that's all I had. Evan, thank you.
[1:32:23] >> Oh and I agree with that. I I definitely
[1:32:25] don't think that we've ever been in
[1:32:27] violation of it. I think um but I do
[1:32:29] understand how I don't want to use it as
[1:32:32] a shield to make people think that we're
[1:32:34] not being transparent when we're we're
[1:32:35] doing our best and I I do actually
[1:32:39] applaud putting that down there at the
[1:32:40] end. So then people can ask the question can be brought up why is this
[1:32:45] being mentioned on here when it was
[1:32:47] discussed during a closed session item
[1:32:49] and that's a valid question and I feel
[1:32:51] like we've given a valid answer even
[1:32:53] though it's sometimes it's never the
[1:32:54] answer that we want. um still the the
[1:32:57] answer that's there. So um with that, is
[1:33:00] there any more public comment?
[1:33:02] >> Mr. Mayor, I just was absent from that
[1:33:05] August 11th meeting, so I have no
[1:33:08] knowledge of what actually went down.
[1:33:11] Mhm.
[1:33:12] >> I was briefed on general discussions of
[1:33:15] [clears throat]
[1:33:16] but if the staff if the council gave
[1:33:18] direction the to the city manager to
[1:33:22] pursue professional recruitment that
[1:33:24] requires expenditure money and so by
[1:33:26] bringing it here today she's following
[1:33:28] that direction and exposing to the
[1:33:31] public
[1:33:32] >> what our direction was. And so
[1:33:36] I don't know how else you could do that.
[1:33:39] >> Right. That's what that's where I'm
[1:33:40] from.
[1:33:41] >> So, she's now presenting it
[1:33:43] >> from that direction so we could vote on
[1:33:45] it.
[1:33:46] >> And at that time, we didn't want to it
[1:33:48] was still in the confidential setting,
[1:33:49] so we didn't want to disclose too much
[1:33:52] information based on where we're at with
[1:33:54] the legal conversations. Um,
[1:33:59] yeah. Is there any more public comment?
[1:34:01] Is that it?
[1:34:02] >> I don't have any.
[1:34:03] >> Okay. With that, uh, Vice Mayor Thomas,
[1:34:06] you have anything? Who? Council member
[1:34:08] Pride,
[1:34:10] Council Member Low,
[1:34:12] >> you I think one more comment on the
[1:34:14] recruitment piece is that uh the startup
[1:34:17] expertise and long-term management from
[1:34:20] a police chief's perspective are two
[1:34:23] different skill sets. And um the best
[1:34:26] solution may I would recommend is that
[1:34:29] you would hire a permanent chief with
[1:34:31] startup experience if possible supported
[1:34:34] by a retired chief or consultant uh for
[1:34:38] maybe a six-month period or so to kind
[1:34:41] of guide this this chief along.
[1:34:46] » That's it. Thank you.
[1:34:50] » Council Hansen,
[1:34:51] >> I have no further comments. I'm uh if if
[1:34:54] you're ready, Mr. Mayor, you may have
[1:34:56] some comments. I'm prepared to uh submit
[1:34:58] a motion.
[1:34:59] >> Okay. I do have a couple real quick. Um
[1:35:03] my only comment is that we've received
[1:35:07] not a firm quote, but a a ballpark
[1:35:11] estimate. Right. I call it
[1:35:13] >> been verbal.
[1:35:14] >> I call it a guest a gueststimation.
[1:35:16] Right. Right.
[1:35:17] >> Um that's above what we're requesting
[1:35:20] here. Um, so my thought is wondering if
[1:35:24] we need to allocate a higher amount um
[1:35:27] so that we're not so that we're not
[1:35:29] postponing this any longer when we go
[1:35:32] out to bid for this and next thing you
[1:35:33] know we're nobody came in under 30,000
[1:35:37] and now we're sitting here and we're
[1:35:39] having to have another meeting um and
[1:35:41] trying to get you know three out of five
[1:35:43] people together for a special meeting or
[1:35:45] whatever to increase that number. Um, so
[1:35:49] my thought is is to increase that limit
[1:35:52] to where we know we can at least get one
[1:35:54] competitive bid. Um,
[1:35:58] and go from there. And whether or not we
[1:36:00] spend that much is a completely
[1:36:01] different subject, right? I mean, we can
[1:36:03] say, hey, we want to spend 45,000, get
[1:36:05] five bids, one comes in at 20,000, we'll
[1:36:08] take the 20,000. We're not spending that
[1:36:10] money necessarily, but we're at least
[1:36:12] given the authority to
[1:36:14] do what it takes to get us a police
[1:36:15] chief because that's that's vital for
[1:36:17] our community because as soon as we're
[1:36:19] able to start hiring that police chief,
[1:36:20] we're able to start getting the contract
[1:36:22] law enforcement hopefully according to
[1:36:25] Mr. Maloney's input and then that's
[1:36:28] require that involves a safer town and I
[1:36:30] don't think you can put a dollar amount
[1:36:31] on that. And so if we're able to get a
[1:36:32] recruitment firm that's able to get the
[1:36:34] job done, you know, fast and well done,
[1:36:39] then it's worth the price that has to be
[1:36:40] paid for it.
[1:36:43] So those are my only comments.
[1:36:47] I'd like to ask or have Marty explain
[1:36:50] this
[1:36:52] matter authorizes you to appoint and
[1:36:55] hire a police chief. Did you cover
[1:36:58] briefly the concept of the interview
[1:37:00] process as you shared with me that it
[1:37:03] would be you and whome?
[1:37:07] Um, typically for a department head
[1:37:10] position at this level
[1:37:12] in this case in Willows, I would
[1:37:14] recommend that it be my myself, Mike
[1:37:16] Maloney, and I would also look to ask
[1:37:18] for um probably current, you know, um,
[1:37:23] currently active police chiefs from a
[1:37:25] few jurisdictions maybe to be part of it
[1:37:27] as well as some staff uh, executive
[1:37:30] department head staff. And if the
[1:37:32] council was so inclined, in this
[1:37:34] particular case, because it is a police
[1:37:36] chief, you may wish to have a community
[1:37:38] panel, which is often done for city
[1:37:41] manager recruitments, not as common for
[1:37:44] department heads, but somewhat common
[1:37:46] for police chiefs.
[1:37:49] >> Thank you.
[1:37:50] >> So, I you know, I haven't gotten that
[1:37:52] far. I mean, we're going 100 miles an
[1:37:54] hour right now. So, I
[1:37:55] >> understand that. But I think it was
[1:37:56] important that they know
[1:37:58] >> that the the public knows that our
[1:38:00] decision process is broad-based
[1:38:04] involving law enforcement officials with
[1:38:07] the knowledge to write and ask the right
[1:38:09] questions. So I thought that was
[1:38:11] important to share
[1:38:15] » and in this case I would think council
[1:38:17] might be
[1:38:19] well um
[1:38:22] because I know that lot of really high
[1:38:24] strong community interest.
[1:38:31] » Mr. May, I have a question for you.
[1:38:34] >> Yeah, go ahead.
[1:38:35] >> Yeah.
[1:38:37] Are you concerned that the $30,000 not
[1:38:39] to exceed amount for the recruitment
[1:38:40] services might not be enough?
[1:38:42] >> Just based off of the what I call a
[1:38:44] guesstimation that she received from the
[1:38:46] firm.
[1:38:47] >> Would you be Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead.
[1:38:48] >> So, that's why I was suggesting possibly
[1:38:50] going up to something along the lines of
[1:38:51] 45,000, maybe even 50.
[1:38:53] >> Yeah. and not spending. But either way,
[1:38:56] we're still taking the the best bid that
[1:38:59] we have.
[1:39:00] >> Yeah, I've just Yeah, I just said that
[1:39:02] was my my question because right now the
[1:39:05] not to ex the uh recommendation is not
[1:39:09] to exceed 30,000 for the recruitment as we see in front of us with the total
[1:39:13] maximum fiscal impact to the budget to
[1:39:16] the general fund budget at 245,000.
[1:39:19] So,
[1:39:21] >> well, I did the math and well, I did
[1:39:23] some math and I took all the positions
[1:39:25] that we were supposed to vote on tonight
[1:39:27] and postponed. Um, multiplied them each
[1:39:32] times the same percent to come up with a
[1:39:36] benefits package that they would have
[1:39:37] been received. Uh, for the chief, it
[1:39:39] came out to be about 58% of his base
[1:39:41] salary at the top step. if we hired
[1:39:44] based off of our old study that we did
[1:39:46] where we had 10 law enforcement or 10
[1:39:48] staff uh which was one assistant, two uh
[1:39:53] csos
[1:39:55] um it was six um sworn police officers,
[1:39:59] two sergeants and one chief um for a
[1:40:01] total of 10 with benefits and everything
[1:40:04] else. That puts us at $91,827.
[1:40:08] Again, that's rough math. We're still
[1:40:11] having to look into animal control and
[1:40:12] dispatch. I ballparked that around
[1:40:15] $250,000. I'm not sure where we're at.
[1:40:17] That still puts us at close to 1.2 $1.3
[1:40:22] million for our staffing and dispatch.
[1:40:26] We still obviously have vehicles and
[1:40:29] other other handual items that we have
[1:40:31] to get. Um, but it still puts us well
[1:40:35] within that our budget line that we're
[1:40:37] trying to keep within of the 2.3 that
[1:40:40] we've or we're basing everything off of what we're used to paying for law
[1:40:45] enforcement contract services. So, I
[1:40:48] think when we're talking about $1.2
[1:40:50] million, provide an extra 15,000 to make
[1:40:52] sure that we get a good firm that's
[1:40:53] going to do the job well, um, isn't
[1:40:55] asking too much.
[1:40:57] >> I I'm just going to disagree. I think
[1:40:59] staff's presented this item with a
[1:41:02] fiscal impact of 245,000 as expressed by
[1:41:05] council member Hansen. 215 which is
[1:41:07] padded by 5,000 already per the city
[1:41:10] manager's report 30,000 is she's talked
[1:41:13] to companies there's one company and
[1:41:15] what was their number Marty
[1:41:17] >> 32,500 which is a boutique firm that
[1:41:19] does specializes in chiefs
[1:41:21] >> I I would be very interested in actually
[1:41:23] seeing what these other firms can do. I
[1:41:25] hear boutique firm and they're like the
[1:41:26] only ones they're charging for that and
[1:41:28] are they truly the only ones since since
[1:41:31] we're
[1:41:33] you know we're approving this dollar
[1:41:34] amount tonight mayor and and if that
[1:41:37] goes over higher
[1:41:39] yeah if we limit her authority to 30 I
[1:41:42] just I'm I'm opposed to spending just
[1:41:44] whatever we need to spend to for a
[1:41:46] recruitment firm when I when I believe
[1:41:49] based on what Mr. Maloney has said, and
[1:41:51] what I just kind of know intuitively,
[1:41:55] there's a very strong chance we're not
[1:41:56] going to get somebody through the
[1:41:57] recruitment firm. We're going to get
[1:41:59] somebody who's already in contact with
[1:42:02] Mike. I mean, I don't have a crystal
[1:42:05] ball, but to just keep upping these
[1:42:07] costs for these outside consultants and
[1:42:10] recruiters, I'm I just I'm resistant to
[1:42:12] that. Well,
[1:42:13] >> it's not my place.
[1:42:15] >> Yeah. Yeah. Mr. Mayor, I I thank you for
[1:42:17] the information. I yeah I just that was
[1:42:19] my question. I I was just you know
[1:42:22] wanted to know what where where your
[1:42:24] thinking was. But uh I I'm comfortable
[1:42:26] with with approving this matter as
[1:42:29] presented uh for now because any
[1:42:31] individual who meets them the MQs and
[1:42:33] minimum qualifications can apply. It's
[1:42:35] not necessarily just going to be
[1:42:36] applicants identified through
[1:42:38] recruiters. So words out words out job
[1:42:41] flyers out. It's out all over the place.
[1:42:43] All right. Probably all over the western
[1:42:45] United States. all over the state of
[1:42:46] California for sure. So I'm I'm
[1:42:48] comfortable moving forward uh uh with
[1:42:50] the staff recommendation as presented at
[1:42:53] not to exceed $30,000
[1:42:55] for the recruitment services. So go
[1:42:57] ahead.
[1:42:58] >> Sorry, public comment is over. I mean so
[1:43:01] I
[1:43:03] >> if you have information for us, I'm
[1:43:05] willing to take it all in. This is new
[1:43:06] for all of us. So go ahead.
[1:43:10] just going to share that uh free to you
[1:43:12] free [clears throat] to you you could um
[1:43:14] get a hold of Borak which all the law
[1:43:17] enforcement officers belong to in the
[1:43:18] state of California and you could um put
[1:43:22] your job player in that bulletin for
[1:43:25] free just to let you know because that's
[1:43:27] a really good resource to recruit.
[1:43:30] >> Again, I'm just one person with limited
[1:43:32] knowledge on law enforcement and how
[1:43:33] that recruitment process goes. So, I'm
[1:43:36] looking at something and I'm seeing us
[1:43:38] needing that immediately, not not hey,
[1:43:42] we got to come back in 2 weeks and
[1:43:43] readjust the the number again. Um, so
[1:43:47] with that, I'll leave it up to the
[1:43:48] pleasure of the council.
[1:43:48] >> Mr. Mayor, I I move to approve item 7 a,
[1:43:52] lease chief recruitment and appointment
[1:43:54] uh matter as presented by staff.
[1:43:57] >> I second that. So, we have a first and a
[1:43:59] second. Is there any further comment?
[1:44:05] Seeing none. All in favor signify by
[1:44:07] saying I. I. I.
[1:44:09] >> All oppose. Same sign. Motion pass. Five
[1:44:11] to zero. All right. Next item. Item 7B.
[1:44:16] Sorry.
[1:44:19] Request for qualification tenant
[1:44:21] improvements to Civic Center to
[1:44:22] reestablish Willows Police Department.
[1:44:25] Recommended action authorizes city
[1:44:27] manager to prepare and release a request
[1:44:29] for qualifications to engage an
[1:44:31] architectural engineering firm to design
[1:44:33] tenant improvements to the interior of
[1:44:35] the south wing of the civic center
[1:44:37] administrative offices in order to
[1:44:40] reestablish the Willowis Police
[1:44:41] Department. Contact Marty Brown, city
[1:44:44] manager.
[1:44:45] So, the item that's before the council
[1:44:47] is to look at a request for
[1:44:49] qualifications, which is a little
[1:44:51] different than a request for proposals
[1:44:53] because both Mike and I when we talked
[1:44:54] about it really had no idea what
[1:44:56] something like this would cost. And so,
[1:44:58] when you don't know what budget to
[1:45:00] attach to an RFP process, often times
[1:45:03] people take this approach instead where
[1:45:05] you seek qualifications from people to
[1:45:07] see what who who has the best
[1:45:09] qualifications for the proposed project.
[1:45:12] And then when you, you know, have a
[1:45:15] preferred candidate, you start talking
[1:45:16] about the budget and oftentimes they'll
[1:45:19] give you some initial budgetary numbers,
[1:45:20] but it won't be fully solidified in the
[1:45:23] proposal or really what's called
[1:45:24] statement of qualifications that you get
[1:45:26] from them. So, we um thought that this
[1:45:29] would be a better approach since neither
[1:45:30] of us are architects or engineers or
[1:45:32] designers and we don't quite know what
[1:45:34] we'd be looking at. Um, as a reminder,
[1:45:38] the council did approve going out with a
[1:45:40] full-on RFQ for um, looking at a variety
[1:45:43] of different um, proposals and ideas for
[1:45:46] improvements both to the building, an
[1:45:48] addition on the building, modular type
[1:45:52] buildings um, maybe in the parking lot
[1:45:53] or the adjacent uh, vacant lot that the
[1:45:56] city also owns here. And um, we did that
[1:45:59] RFQ process. We did not get a single
[1:46:01] response. It included not only the
[1:46:04] physical tenant improvements, but the
[1:46:05] request was also for um a a team of
[1:46:09] experts that could also look at hard and
[1:46:10] soft costs, which probably, you know,
[1:46:13] that that was a big a tall order. And so
[1:46:15] that including like software and
[1:46:17] equipment that we would need and um it
[1:46:20] like the whole kitten kaboodleoodle, if
[1:46:22] you will, of everything that would be
[1:46:23] needed to reestablish a police
[1:46:25] department, not just the physical
[1:46:26] structure. And I think that's probably
[1:46:28] why we didn't get a response because
[1:46:30] that's um very different sets of skills
[1:46:32] and expertise. Um so we went through
[1:46:36] that whole process and now we're here
[1:46:38] and we're moving forward quickly with
[1:46:40] reestablishing the police department and
[1:46:42] recruit recruiting a police chief. And
[1:46:44] when Mike and I talked about it, I had
[1:46:46] said, you know, my concern is like where
[1:46:48] is the chief going to sit and be
[1:46:50] physically located? And then as he or
[1:46:53] she is recruiting um patrol officers and
[1:46:56] building the police department, where
[1:46:58] will those people be housed? Um because
[1:47:01] we're really not set up at this point
[1:47:03] anymore to be a police department. And
[1:47:05] so it it seemed imperative to move
[1:47:08] quickly on starting to actually rebuild
[1:47:11] the physical structure. Um, we talked
[1:47:14] about it and in your um, previous um,
[1:47:19] report, law enforcement report that was
[1:47:21] done by Brian Eller of Municipal
[1:47:23] Resource Group and Mike and I have
[1:47:25] talked about it. We think the 4,500
[1:47:27] square feet on the other side, you know,
[1:47:29] out here, main city hall side, is
[1:47:32] sufficient for the seven full-time
[1:47:33] administrative staff and a police
[1:47:35] department of 12, 13, something like
[1:47:38] that, which is probably what it would
[1:47:39] end up being at the end of the day. um
[1:47:41] if it was restructured. I mean, right
[1:47:43] now that side of the hall, there's just
[1:47:45] there's a lot of empty void space. It's
[1:47:48] not well utilized at all. It isn't well
[1:47:50] configured at all. Um it's really great
[1:47:52] and spacious for the seven of us, but I
[1:47:55] don't think seven of us need 4,500 ft.
[1:47:58] So, and that that doesn't include ch
[1:48:00] council chambers, the library, or the
[1:48:03] kitchen. It includes all the hallway
[1:48:05] space, all that side of city hall, the
[1:48:08] wreck room, um the hallway, which you
[1:48:11] know, you could have two go-karts go
[1:48:12] down the center of it, and also um the
[1:48:15] council's office. So that's the and the
[1:48:18] our little garage off the um
[1:48:20] administration side. So all of that is
[1:48:23] about 4,500 square feet um in our
[1:48:25] conference as well. So, we thought that
[1:48:27] that's sufficient space if it was
[1:48:29] reconfigured for police department and
[1:48:31] the seven administrative staff and we
[1:48:33] probably didn't need to do an addition
[1:48:35] on the building andor certainly not at
[1:48:37] this time andor
[1:48:39] um necessarily have other temporary or
[1:48:41] permanent modular buildings in um
[1:48:44] parking lot at this time. So, we wanted
[1:48:47] to get going because, like I said, we
[1:48:50] hire a police chief and we start
[1:48:52] building the department with people and
[1:48:54] personnel and we just don't know where
[1:48:55] they're going to work. Um, where that
[1:48:58] how that's all going to fit together. It
[1:49:00] would have to be upgraded. There's a lot
[1:49:02] of kinds of safety um requirements for,
[1:49:05] you know, according to the the DOJ and
[1:49:07] the state. I'm sure Council Member
[1:49:09] Hansen could speak to that um of the
[1:49:11] kind of requirements. And so just hiring
[1:49:13] a police chief to come sit in the office
[1:49:16] next to mine or in the office where the
[1:49:18] planner used to sit at this end is like
[1:49:20] really could only last a few minutes.
[1:49:22] Like that's not going to be a long
[1:49:24] especially that person wants to start
[1:49:27] hiring personnel. So this seemed like a
[1:49:30] good time to look at the RFQ process and
[1:49:32] really try to figure out a budget and
[1:49:34] moving forward concurrently while we're
[1:49:36] also hiring and recruiting for chief.
[1:49:39] >> Sounds good. Uh questions, Vice Mayor
[1:49:42] Thomas?
[1:49:44] >> No, I think it's a critical next step.
[1:49:46] We got to have a we got to have a
[1:49:48] facility for it and remodeling this
[1:49:51] facility
[1:49:53] is from everything that I could see the
[1:49:56] most efficient cost
[1:50:00] that we could have. So, I would support
[1:50:02] this.
[1:50:05] Council member,
[1:50:06] >> I I I don't disagree, but as we've
[1:50:08] talked in the past, my concern is just
[1:50:11] um you know, getting there, so to speak.
[1:50:14] So, if we're going to be completely
[1:50:16] renovating the 4,500 square ft, that
[1:50:18] means our offices are going to be
[1:50:19] completely displaced. So, you know, what
[1:50:22] is going to be the cost of, you know,
[1:50:25] modulars, moving all the technology,
[1:50:27] making bathrooms, all of the things for
[1:50:30] our employees while we renovate it. So I mean I get we have to do it but I you
[1:50:35] know specifically you know what's the
[1:50:37] cost of the temporary quarters? What's
[1:50:39] the cost of disruption of services? You
[1:50:41] know how long does it take to move
[1:50:43] everybody out? Are we out of service for
[1:50:45] a week? Are we out of service for two
[1:50:47] days? You know what's that cost look
[1:50:49] like? We've purchased new phone systems
[1:50:51] and new systems recently. Is that money
[1:50:53] that now is gone and we have to do
[1:50:56] something different? How do we store
[1:50:57] those things that we've used if we're
[1:50:59] not using them so we don't lose their
[1:51:00] value? How does Tyler Technology
[1:51:02] transition from the building out there?
[1:51:04] How does that impact our building permit
[1:51:06] process, our business license process,
[1:51:08] our budgeting, our payroll? So, I just
[1:51:10] have all these questions which as we do
[1:51:12] an RFQ, you know, to get a cost of
[1:51:15] what's it going to cost to change it?
[1:51:16] It's like what's it going to cost to
[1:51:18] vacate and then go back in and how long
[1:51:21] is that going to be and what effect is
[1:51:22] that going to have on the community as
[1:51:24] well? So, again, we have to do
[1:51:26] something. Um, I was always kind of an
[1:51:28] advocate of seeing if we could do a
[1:51:30] separate building, but it just sounds
[1:51:31] like from law enforcement that even
[1:51:33] though they have law enforcement
[1:51:34] modulars, they're still not safe enough.
[1:51:37] So, that's out. Um, so there's no good
[1:51:39] solutions, but I do see that the
[1:51:41] community would need to be understanding
[1:51:43] that I think we will have a period of
[1:51:44] time where we're maybe limping along a
[1:51:48] bit.
[1:51:49] >> Yeah. And I I would just add to that as
[1:51:51] a person with an urban planning
[1:51:53] background, which I really am a planner.
[1:51:56] This whole process is not comfortable
[1:51:59] because we're not doing exactly what
[1:52:00] you're talking about, Council Member
[1:52:02] Pride. But I also realize we just it
[1:52:04] seems like at this point we just have to
[1:52:06] move, right? So some things have to be
[1:52:08] figured out in real time even though
[1:52:09] it's not my comfort level, but I'm I'm
[1:52:11] just going with it because I feel like
[1:52:13] that's what we got to do. I'm just
[1:52:15] thinking as part of that RFQ depending
[1:52:17] on that expertise that they're also
[1:52:20] aligning for us the modulars the cost to
[1:52:22] move the power hookups the water hookups
[1:52:25] the bathroom facilities moving the
[1:52:27] technology all those things because
[1:52:29] that's a cost that could surprise us if
[1:52:31] we're not making it a quantifiable part
[1:52:34] of that project
[1:52:41] » I it appears that this is the most cost
[1:52:43] effective way to do it. We're kind of
[1:52:45] building the plane as we're we're flying
[1:52:47] it, but um we we have to move forward.
[1:52:51] Um I think we have to I would like to
[1:52:54] get a better idea of maybe what that RFQ
[1:52:57] how we can put it out there where it's
[1:52:59] successful and we get some replies back
[1:53:02] uh because we are in Willows.
[1:53:05] >> Well, both [laughter]
[1:53:06] Mike and I have I have somebody I've
[1:53:08] worked
[1:53:10] multiple department. Mike, you give me
[1:53:13] firms that have got through contacts
[1:53:16] that have built police departments. And
[1:53:17] I think that by narrowing the scope to
[1:53:20] really just focusing on the
[1:53:21] architecture, the design and engineering
[1:53:23] and not trying to do the soft costs and
[1:53:25] the other things that they don't have
[1:53:27] expertise at, I think that we have a
[1:53:29] better shot this time um because we'll be just focusing on what their
[1:53:34] skill set is instead of asking them to
[1:53:35] other outside of the realm.
[1:53:40] Just another thought as I was talking
[1:53:41] about modular buildings not meeting
[1:53:44] requirements for law enforcement as we
[1:53:46] talk to them maybe keep in the back of
[1:53:48] our mind that what would it look like to
[1:53:50] do modular buildings for administration
[1:53:53] and and put law enforcement more in here
[1:53:56] and and and and just maybe I mean just
[1:53:58] as an option maybe not do all the
[1:54:00] structural complete renovations if we
[1:54:02] have to do some kind of modulars and
[1:54:04] temporary buildings anyway what would be
[1:54:07] the difference between doing it short
[1:54:08] term versus just doing it long term. So
[1:54:12] instead of moving putting police out
[1:54:14] there, putting admin and tying it all
[1:54:17] together nicely. So any of you working
[1:54:19] in the office don't feel like you're in
[1:54:20] the boonies or anything, but just
[1:54:23] looking at those two, you know, flip it
[1:54:25] type thing.
[1:54:31] » Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Well, this
[1:54:32] uh I understand uh your concerns, Lori.
[1:54:35] I completely understand and they are legitimate concerns. And uh
[1:54:40] John, I appreciate what you just said.
[1:54:42] Uh this building built 1969
[1:54:46] has a lot of angles in it. There's
[1:54:49] triangle rooms, there's angled rooms,
[1:54:51] there's, as we know, there there's a
[1:54:53] this is a beautiful council chamber.
[1:54:55] Nice and roomy. But uh the acoustics are
[1:54:58] a little difficult up here. But no, you
[1:55:00] can't nothing's perfect. But there's,
[1:55:03] you know, really wide hallways. There
[1:55:05] just a lot of wasted space, not to
[1:55:06] mention the angled rooms and and the
[1:55:09] hallways and and you know, anyway,
[1:55:12] formerly housed a police department and
[1:55:14] the the Willis PD actually out had
[1:55:17] outgrown the old facilities where they
[1:55:19] were at. Willis PD was initially put in the back of when this building was
[1:55:23] built in 1969.
[1:55:25] I don't know why the police department
[1:55:26] firm was put in the back parking lot,
[1:55:28] but that's where it was. Okay. Or most
[1:55:31] people in Willows didn't even know where
[1:55:32] the police department was. They'd go to
[1:55:33] the sheriff's office because they didn't
[1:55:34] know where the PD was. So anyway, so
[1:55:37] that's not going to happen next time.
[1:55:39] But there's a lot of wasted space in
[1:55:40] here. I have faith in our city team.
[1:55:43] They're resilient. They have to be to to
[1:55:45] work here, right? We're This is a You
[1:55:48] know, this is this is Willows. All
[1:55:50] right. Uh it's it's uh you know this is
[1:55:53] a unique unique situation. Our team's
[1:55:55] resilient. They're going to get this
[1:55:57] done. Uh we've got the throttle the
[1:55:59] throttle uh full full forward. All
[1:56:02] right. We're going as fast as we can.
[1:56:04] This is the best solution right here. We
[1:56:07] have the room in the building. I I I
[1:56:09] know that the team will uh be able to
[1:56:11] make it work. It's going to be, you
[1:56:13] know, things are going to be uh in
[1:56:15] turmoil for a few months, but we'll get
[1:56:17] it done. And we we need we need to uh
[1:56:22] you know to establish uh police
[1:56:24] facilities that are adequate uh for the agency for the community and we need
[1:56:30] to get this done for the community as
[1:56:31] fast as we can. So I'm in complete
[1:56:33] agreement of moving forward with this.
[1:56:35] Let's get some uh some talent out there
[1:56:36] and make it work. Uh will will there be
[1:56:39] bumps in the road? Oh, absolutely. There
[1:56:40] always is. But we'll get through it.
[1:56:44] >> Ahead, Mr. Mayor.
[1:56:45] >> Uh I do have a question. The back room
[1:56:47] of the library that was used for
[1:56:49] storage. No, that room. The other side
[1:56:53] of this wall.
[1:56:54] >> Get turned around.
[1:56:54] >> Yeah. Um, is that filled with stuff
[1:56:59] already? I don't wander back there, so I
[1:57:01] didn't know.
[1:57:01] >> Uh, I mean, the city librarian has
[1:57:04] definitely settled into that space for
[1:57:06] sure. Yeah, her office is back there.
[1:57:08] >> There's lots of bookshelves back there.
[1:57:10] And then I would say twothirds of it is
[1:57:13] the new sort of creative maker space,
[1:57:15] art space for youth, young people.
[1:57:18] >> I was just trying to I I knew it was a
[1:57:20] lot of storage space and kind of dead space. I know after we had the
[1:57:24] >> anymore.
[1:57:25] >> No, it's actually
[1:57:26] >> Well, and I was just kind of hoping that
[1:57:27] we could possibly use that to move you
[1:57:29] guys instead of having to look at
[1:57:30] renting modules or whatever for you to
[1:57:32] use. So, um that's why I was just asking
[1:57:36] that question. So um with that I will go
[1:57:40] to public comment regarding item 7B
[1:57:42] request for qualifications tenant
[1:57:43] improvements of civic center to
[1:57:44] reestablish Willow's police department.
[1:57:46] >> Michelle Knight
[1:57:52] » first I'd like to express my full
[1:57:54] support for beginning the process for
[1:57:56] making improvements retrofitting and
[1:57:57] reestablishing the Willows Police
[1:57:59] Department space. Within the discussion
[1:58:02] and analysis section of the attached
[1:58:04] document, it states, "Based on this
[1:58:05] assessment, staff recommend proceeding
[1:58:08] with a new request for uh qualifications
[1:58:11] to solicit a qualified architectural an
[1:58:14] engineering firm to work with city staff
[1:58:17] to develop plans and specifications for
[1:58:19] tenant improvements within the south
[1:58:20] wing of the civic center. I sincerely
[1:58:22] hope that the city will include Mr.
[1:58:25] Maloney and or the future police chief
[1:58:27] as active participants in the city staff
[1:58:29] team.
[1:58:30] responsible for evaluating, developing,
[1:58:32] and approving these plans. Their
[1:58:34] involvement would provide valuable
[1:58:36] operational and law enforcement
[1:58:37] expertise that may not otherwise be
[1:58:39] available through general city staff.
[1:58:43] I also believe that the public should
[1:58:45] have an opportunity to understand and
[1:58:47] review these recommendations as the
[1:58:49] planning process moves forward. The
[1:58:51] reestablishment
[1:58:53] uh the reestablishment of the police
[1:58:56] department presents a significant
[1:58:57] opportunity throughout the design
[1:58:59] opportunity
[1:59:02] to [laughter]
[1:59:03] sorry to thoughtfully design a facility
[1:59:06] that will meet the department's
[1:59:07] operational needs not only today but
[1:59:09] well into the future. My opinion,
[1:59:12] investing additional resources during
[1:59:14] the planning and design phase to ensure
[1:59:16] that the facility is properly designed
[1:59:18] from the outset can ultimately save the
[1:59:20] city considerable costs associated with
[1:59:22] modifications, retrofitting or
[1:59:24] corrective work later. More importantly,
[1:59:27] involving individuals with direct law
[1:59:29] enforcement experience may help identify
[1:59:31] operational safety and security
[1:59:33] regulatory and statutory requirements
[1:59:36] that general citiz city staff or outside
[1:59:38] professionals may not otherwise
[1:59:40] recognize. By incorporating the
[1:59:42] expertise of Mr. Maloney and or the
[1:59:44] future police chief. Early in the
[1:59:46] planning process, the city can help
[1:59:48] ensure that the facility is designed
[1:59:49] correctly the first time, minimizing
[1:59:52] unnecessary future expenditures and
[1:59:54] provides an effective and appropriate
[1:59:55] environment for the reestablishment of
[1:59:57] the police department. Thank you.
[2:00:01] >> Okay. Thank you. And then Isaiah, I
[2:00:04] believe this is the one that I had.
[2:00:06] Okay,
[2:00:08] that's it. Okay, with that, uh, council
[2:00:11] comments. Vice Mayor Thomas.
[2:00:14] >> No, I would move to approve item 7B as
[2:00:18] presented.
[2:00:19] >> I'll second that.
[2:00:21] >> Have a first and a second. Any further
[2:00:22] discussion?
[2:00:24] >> Mr. All in favor signify by saying I.
[2:00:27] >> I. I.
[2:00:28] >> All oppose. Same sign. Motion pass 5 to
[2:00:30] zero.
[2:00:32] Next item up, item 7 C, neighborhood
[2:00:34] watch program, authorizes city manager
[2:00:35] to execute an agreement with Crime-Free
[2:00:37] Living to assist the city of Willows in
[2:00:40] establishing a neighborhood watch
[2:00:41] program and the amount not to exceed
[2:00:43] $16,000.
[2:00:45] Contact Marty Brown, city manager.
[2:00:47] >> So, I'm not going to do a presentation
[2:00:49] because I did one last time, but this is back on the agenda at the
[2:00:52] direction of Mayor Hudson, and I believe
[2:00:55] it also was mentioned uh at the meeting
[2:00:57] to continue it to this meeting. So
[2:00:59] nothing has changed since the last
[2:01:01] recommendation in the last council
[2:01:02] meeting, nor has the budget for it. And
[2:01:05] I think it's unless you've got specific
[2:01:07] questions, I think it's just open for
[2:01:08] council discussion and consideration.
[2:01:10] >> Okay. Um,
[2:01:14] any questions from the council? Vice
[2:01:15] Mayor Thomas?
[2:01:17] >> No. As I said before, if the
[2:01:20] [clears throat] grassroots
[2:01:23] coalition gets off the ground and
[2:01:25] they're functioning well and their their
[2:01:28] group is held together and it's actually
[2:01:31] happening, um I'm worried that
[2:01:34] grassroots sometimes start real strong
[2:01:37] and then they they fade with
[2:01:39] participation.
[2:01:41] Um, I'm not saying that's what's going
[2:01:42] to happen, but um, I'm not opposed to
[2:01:48] the city contributing towards this
[2:01:51] particular neighborhood watch program,
[2:01:54] but I would want to make sure that once
[2:01:57] we expend the $16,000,
[2:02:00] it's continues
[2:02:02] and we have some asurances that the
[2:02:04] program is is on its way.
[2:02:07] I was unfortunate unable to attend the
[2:02:09] town hall. So I don't know how many
[2:02:11] people you had there and and what went
[2:02:14] down and what was the nature of the
[2:02:17] enthusiasm for such establishment.
[2:02:20] >> Well, I'll just pick up where he left
[2:02:22] off because I was able to go to the town
[2:02:24] hall. Um and Tim Trouy was there which
[2:02:27] was great. So he was able to do a
[2:02:28] presentation for those that
[2:02:30] participated. What I found interesting,
[2:02:33] I think I didn't count, but Marina said
[2:02:35] there were 39 people in attendance. And
[2:02:38] as I looked at the crowd, I would say
[2:02:39] over half of them did not live in the
[2:02:41] city limits. They lived in northeast
[2:02:43] Willows, North Willows, west of Willows,
[2:02:47] but not in Willows. When um they asked
[2:02:50] how many people would be supportive of a
[2:02:52] neighborhood watch program, several
[2:02:54] people rose raised their hands. and then
[2:02:56] they asked to wait a minute those of you
[2:02:58] who live in Willows and I think 11
[2:03:00] people raised their hands. So overall I
[2:03:03] think it was a a well done presentation.
[2:03:06] Um I think there's merit to the concept.
[2:03:10] I think for me if I was going to say
[2:03:12] let's spend some money on a consultant
[2:03:14] to help guide that process and I'm
[2:03:16] looking at Michelle and and Cat because
[2:03:18] they're some of the leaders of that
[2:03:19] effort. I I think you had 200 people, I
[2:03:22] think they said, from Facebook who said,
[2:03:24] you know, we're interested, but but
[2:03:26] again, we only had the people show up
[2:03:28] who showed up. That's a function of the
[2:03:31] night or whatever. But I but I think for
[2:03:34] me sitting up here as a council looking
[2:03:35] at $16,000, I would go back to your
[2:03:38] group and say, you know, let's do a
[2:03:39] little more work and let's see who we
[2:03:41] can seriously get to the table that if
[2:03:44] we can commit loosely at this point that
[2:03:47] we agree that it's something that could
[2:03:49] move forward positively, but we really
[2:03:52] need to see that commitment. I know Tim
[2:03:54] said it's important to have um these
[2:03:56] watch groups distributed throughout the
[2:03:58] community. I don't think we saw that at
[2:04:00] the town hall meeting. So I think
[2:04:02] getting very specific about reaching and
[2:04:05] I don't know the terminology and
[2:04:06] neighborhood watch but you know finding
[2:04:08] that person that would agree to be the the captain or whoever for their
[2:04:14] neighborhood and build a little bit more
[2:04:16] of a grassroots effort and then come
[2:04:18] back to the council and say we're ready
[2:04:20] now to have some more leadership and
[2:04:21] training and direction and in the
[2:04:23] meantime you're just doing that you're
[2:04:25] just building true um support and
[2:04:28] commitment because that would be a
[2:04:30] shared concern I have you know everyone
[2:04:31] everyone's gung-ho and we start down the
[2:04:34] path and we've expended the money and
[2:04:35] then it just kind of falters. I I like
[2:04:39] the idea also of just our timing with
[2:04:41] bringing back law enforcement because
[2:04:42] that question was asked as well. It's
[2:04:45] like well I don't know who the lady who
[2:04:47] said it. She goes, "Well, who who who do
[2:04:49] we go to for law enforcement?" And and
[2:04:52] the consultant said, "That's a good
[2:04:53] question. You know, that's something
[2:04:54] we're working on." So, I see the
[2:04:56] opportunity to do a really dovetailed
[2:04:58] thing where you're building support in
[2:05:00] the community. We're building, you know,
[2:05:03] getting to where we have a a law
[2:05:04] enforcement agency coming on board. As
[2:05:07] we move those both forward and we can
[2:05:09] then invest money into the program, then
[2:05:11] it's something that maybe law
[2:05:13] enforcement is then able to become the
[2:05:16] watchdog, you know, the
[2:05:18] who they go to. So, that would be my
[2:05:20] take on it. I I also said the
[2:05:22] opportunity and and Chief Monk, this is
[2:05:24] kind of your cup of tea is if we had a
[2:05:27] neighborhood watch program and as we
[2:05:29] finalize our Willow's municipal code, my
[2:05:32] goal when we get that finalized is that
[2:05:34] we're doing a lot of education about our
[2:05:35] code, but if we have a neighborhood
[2:05:37] watch program, why not also train these
[2:05:39] people into maybe code type stuff? they
[2:05:42] can be neighborhood watch for, you know,
[2:05:44] those nuisances that start to create and
[2:05:47] maybe they can nip it in the bud much
[2:05:49] sooner than it coming to a city code
[2:05:51] enforcement thing. So, I can see where
[2:05:53] engaging these citizens in their
[2:05:56] neighborhoods could be a very positive
[2:05:58] thing on many levels, but I would want
[2:06:00] to see more people in the seat saying, "Yes, we
[2:06:04] really do want to commit to this."
[2:06:07] Council Merllo,
[2:06:08] >> I can appreciate the grassroots effort
[2:06:10] by those in the community wanting to
[2:06:13] provide some solutions there. There's
[2:06:15] some real work going on there. I also
[2:06:17] understand that the city council has
[2:06:20] tasked the staff with coming up with
[2:06:22] solutions uh to provide some security,
[2:06:25] some ideas how to protect the community
[2:06:28] and and this was staff's recommendation.
[2:06:31] Um, I I would like to see some more time
[2:06:35] uh and and give the community some time
[2:06:38] to to work on this and see how it turns
[2:06:40] out before we commit to spending this
[2:06:42] money.
[2:06:44] >> Council Hansen.
[2:06:45] >> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I agree with
[2:06:47] my colleagues. I I I was on the fence
[2:06:48] last time. I remembered I I I generally
[2:06:52] asked the individuals that were here if if you wanted to help, then sure, I'd
[2:06:55] be in favor of it. and and Cat and
[2:06:58] Michelle, if you know, really I'll I ask
[2:07:00] the same thing. Oh, you know, if if you
[2:07:03] want if you want the professional help,
[2:07:05] I'd be in favor of it. If we need to do
[2:07:08] some more uh you know, if if the groups
[2:07:10] need to do some more ground work, u I'd
[2:07:14] be in favor, you know, what whatever is best for the community.
[2:07:17] That's that's where I'm at. Like, how's
[2:07:19] that for a non-answer? I could go either
[2:07:21] way. if uh you know neighborhood watch
[2:07:24] programs are are great but obviously you
[2:07:27] have to have the involvement and the and
[2:07:29] the sustained involvement and it would
[2:07:31] be great to have the professional you
[2:07:33] know coordination help as well I so u
[2:07:36] just to make sure it you know it's
[2:07:38] operated efficiently and correctly but
[2:07:40] that's where I'm at if if I don't know I generally try to answer questions
[2:07:45] directly I probably I'm probably not
[2:07:48] answering this question very well at all
[2:07:49] but looks like I'm walking the fence but
[2:07:51] that's where I'm at. So if if the group
[2:07:53] wants to help, I'd be in favor of it. Uh
[2:07:55] fully supportive. If the group doesn't
[2:07:58] want the help yet and wants to hold off
[2:07:59] for a while, that's that's where I'm at.
[2:08:03] That's all I had. Mayor,
[2:08:07] um I have no questions, so we will go to
[2:08:09] public comment.
[2:08:11] >> Kathleen Weise.
[2:08:16] » Thank you, Lori, for coming to our
[2:08:17] meeting. We really appreciate it. Um the
[2:08:20] night we had our town hall meeting, um
[2:08:22] we had county members who showed to want
[2:08:26] to help our our city here. Um which is
[2:08:28] great, but they also want community help
[2:08:31] out there too in their own little
[2:08:32] community. Um we would appreciate the
[2:08:36] help. We think this is a great idea, but
[2:08:38] first we have to get enough people here
[2:08:41] envelopes who really want and we all
[2:08:44] understand that it takes time,
[2:08:46] commitment, and everything else. So, I'm
[2:08:49] asking maybe to table this another six
[2:08:52] months to see if we can recruit this if
[2:08:54] the town really wants this help.
[2:08:58] >> And I would just say, you know, it
[2:08:59] doesn't need to wait six months. I would
[2:09:01] say if you're continuing to engage
[2:09:02] people, just keep giving us updates
[2:09:04] through staff. um if there's help that
[2:09:08] we can give in that outreach in any way
[2:09:09] if you're having town hall meetings. Um
[2:09:12] I know I'm you know we don't want to
[2:09:14] just say you know go go do more work and
[2:09:17] I but I just don't want to pay a
[2:09:18] consultant yet unless they're really
[2:09:20] going to be able to go knock on doors
[2:09:21] for you and try and get more people
[2:09:23] >> involved. I agree with all of you
[2:09:25] absolutely. So thank you for your time.
[2:09:27] Okay,
[2:09:28] >> I think you answered my question. Thank
[2:09:29] you.
[2:09:31] Thanks.
[2:09:35] Michelle Knight.
[2:09:40] » Um I too just want to say thank you all
[2:09:42] for um offering that.
[2:09:45] City manager as well. Um it is it does
[2:09:48] appear to be a great program. Just to uh
[2:09:50] let you know that we really appreciated
[2:09:52] Mr. Trouy for coming over and you
[2:09:55] inviting him over. Um it seems really
[2:09:59] well structured and and we really
[2:10:02] appreciated that. Um, but I agree with
[2:10:04] all of you that we should probably hold
[2:10:06] off on this um for now, but um and then
[2:10:09] we can report back. So, thank you.
[2:10:12] >> Thanks.
[2:10:12] >> Thank you, Michelle.
[2:10:16] » Any more public comment?
[2:10:19] Okay. Any more comments? Vice Mayor
[2:10:21] Thomas?
[2:10:22] >> Nope. Council
[2:10:23] >> Pride?
[2:10:23] >> Nope. Council Low.
[2:10:25] >> No.
[2:10:26] >> Council member Hansen.
[2:10:27] >> No. Mr. Mayor. Okay.
[2:10:28] >> Um, yeah. So, I did I do remember at our
[2:10:31] last meeting we did talk about bringing
[2:10:32] this back. Um, initially you guys were
[2:10:34] like, "No, we want to make sure we have
[2:10:35] our meeting and we think we can get this
[2:10:36] going." Um, I do feel like there's a
[2:10:39] little bit of a catch 22 in there. It's
[2:10:41] you guys are trying to start something
[2:10:42] new that really I probably haven't done
[2:10:44] before. I I don't know your background.
[2:10:46] Um, and so I feel like there's a catch22
[2:10:49] in there where hey, you could use the
[2:10:50] expert to this is where you need to get
[2:10:52] started, but then also at the same time,
[2:10:55] we got to get started before we know
[2:10:56] that we have the participation involved.
[2:10:59] Um,
[2:11:01] one thing that is um, I've seen it
[2:11:03] slowly dying as time goes on is
[2:11:05] volunteerism. Um, it's harder and harder
[2:11:08] to find people to volunteer. Um, and so
[2:11:11] that's always a big concern. So, I do
[2:11:13] agree with my constituents that we um or
[2:11:17] my sorry, my council members that we uh
[2:11:20] do keep this in our back pocket. Um
[2:11:23] whether it's something where we go out
[2:11:24] to an outside company to come in and
[2:11:26] help set up the neighborhood watch or
[2:11:28] maybe it's a a factor that the Willis PD
[2:11:31] helps us assemble that as well. Um
[2:11:34] that's a that's also a possibility to
[2:11:36] where hey, we're not paying money out
[2:11:38] instead. We're our officers are
[2:11:39] investing their time into our community
[2:11:41] in that manner as well. Um, so with
[2:11:44] that, I we'll leave it to the pleasure
[2:11:45] of the council. If
[2:11:47] >> I could I just also wanted to mention, I
[2:11:49] didn't mention this before, that Marlina
[2:11:50] Sparkman also asked for this to be on
[2:11:52] tonight's agenda. By the time she had
[2:11:54] done that, you had already confirmed you
[2:11:56] wanted on their mayor. So,
[2:12:00] >> I do apologize. I was not able to make
[2:12:02] that uh meeting that evening. Um, I had
[2:12:04] an accident with one of my kids, so I
[2:12:07] was busy attending there. So, um, yeah.
[2:12:11] So, with that, I'll leave it to the
[2:12:12] pleasure of the council.
[2:12:13] >> I would say that we just let it kind of
[2:12:14] go and um with the intention of you guys
[2:12:17] keeping us informed and if we need to
[2:12:19] bring it back, just let us know.
[2:12:23] » I'd agree to table the matter as well.
[2:12:24] >> Okay. We we'll table this matter and
[2:12:27] wait for
[2:12:29] you guys have a like a Justice League
[2:12:32] name for your group.
[2:12:35] You guys have like a Justice League name
[2:12:36] for your group. What's the
[2:12:38] >> a neighborhood watch group? Did you guys
[2:12:40] come up with like a name community
[2:12:42] watch? Okay, we'll wait for the
[2:12:43] community watch group to bring it back
[2:12:45] to the council.
[2:12:45] >> Are you Willow Strong? Willow Strong.
[2:12:48] >> Okay, like Justice League, right? Sorry,
[2:12:52] I have kids. Comics are big part of my
[2:12:54] life. Um, with that, we will go on to um
[2:12:58] item 7D, city council committee
[2:13:00] assignments and appointments.
[2:13:01] Recommended action with a newly
[2:13:03] appointed council member. Reconsider
[2:13:05] city council committee assignments and
[2:13:07] appoint council members to vacant
[2:13:08] positions.
[2:13:10] All right,
[2:13:11] >> we just go John John.
[2:13:14] [laughter]
[2:13:14] >> Marty, do you have anything to say on
[2:13:16] this or are you just letting us go?
[2:13:18] >> I think letting us loose on it.
[2:13:19] >> Go for it. I just would say that I mean
[2:13:20] it's also an opportunity for you to
[2:13:22] reassign yourselves if you want or if
[2:13:25] you just want to fill the vacancies.
[2:13:26] Keep in mind please that um council
[2:13:29] member Low is also on the municipal code
[2:13:32] ad hoc
[2:13:34] Um, and I also want to remind you that
[2:13:36] you will be doing this process again as
[2:13:38] usual in December. So, um, I mean that's
[2:13:42] only four months away. So, you might
[2:13:43] want to just, you know, right now deal
[2:13:45] with the vacancies.
[2:13:47] That's it.
[2:13:49] >> Okay. Um, with that,
[2:13:54] um,
[2:13:55] I was going to go through the vacancies
[2:13:57] first and then if you guys have any
[2:13:58] other adjustments you would like to
[2:13:59] make, we can start at the top and work
[2:14:01] our way down.
[2:14:02] >> M. Mr. Mayor.
[2:14:03] >> Yes,
[2:14:03] >> if I may, I I'm uh satisfied with with
[2:14:08] my current assignments and I I chair
[2:14:10] some of those some of those committees
[2:14:13] and uh definitely entrenched with them.
[2:14:15] I I'd be comfortable to keep this real
[2:14:18] simple if if my colleagues agree and
[2:14:21] just uh have u uh council member low uh
[2:14:25] assume council member Busby's uh
[2:14:27] appointments with the exception of the
[2:14:29] measure I finance oversight committee
[2:14:31] because you as as the mayor you're the
[2:14:33] alternate with Matt Busby and Rick
[2:14:36] Thomas and now and now yourself Evan you
[2:14:38] and Rick uh because you're you know
[2:14:40] you're uh been on the council for you
[2:14:43] know a significant period of time now
[2:14:46] and uh very you know you as well are
[2:14:49] extremely familiar with the issues and I think that'd be unfair to put John in that position. I'm not saying John
[2:14:55] couldn't couldn't handle it but uh just
[2:14:58] coming on the council you know there is
[2:14:59] a learning curve to uh you know
[2:15:02] municipal government operations. So,
[2:15:04] that's what what uh you I'd be satisfied
[2:15:07] with with like I said, just just having
[2:15:09] John take over Matt's former assignments
[2:15:12] with the exception of the measure I
[2:15:13] oversight and and and as Marty
[2:15:16] indicated, he does have uh a heavy lift
[2:15:19] with the municipal code review uh work
[2:15:22] coming in and that that will definitely
[2:15:24] be an education for you, John.
[2:15:27] >> So, that's that that's my my position,
[2:15:31] just my comments for whatever it's
[2:15:32] worth. Are there any further questions?
[2:15:34] I was just trying to go over the general
[2:15:36] guideline of what I was thinking, but is
[2:15:38] there any questions regarding this item?
[2:15:40] >> I mean, I kind of I mean, to keep it
[2:15:42] just simple and then, you know, John
[2:15:44] could look at those assignments. I was
[2:15:46] thinking what um Council Member Hansen
[2:15:49] said that
[2:15:51] >> you would recommend that the mayor move
[2:15:52] into the primary and maybe John's the
[2:15:54] alternate that they we plug him in there
[2:15:57] still. And then um
[2:16:00] >> just on the Glenn Waste Management
[2:16:01] Regional that's I've been attending and
[2:16:04] there's a meeting Thursday at 10:30
[2:16:07] which I'm planning to attend. So I mean
[2:16:08] if we put you in that spot that would be
[2:16:11] something if you were available you
[2:16:12] could you could still go and listen in
[2:16:14] as opposed to just showing up and they
[2:16:16] don't have a quorum unless I one of us
[2:16:17] go. So you would actually be in the seat
[2:16:20] and voting. So I'm I'm still comfortable
[2:16:22] going to that one. I just wanted to
[2:16:24] mention that's a meeting that's
[2:16:27] >> right after tomorrow.
[2:16:27] >> Okay. Uh is there any public comment
[2:16:29] regarding our committee appointments?
[2:16:34] >> Okay. Um with that, I'm going to go down
[2:16:38] the list as to kind of how I had put it.
[2:16:40] So for the Glen County Waste Management
[2:16:42] Regional Agency, Lori, I had moved you
[2:16:45] up as to the primary since you were the
[2:16:46] alternate and you've been attending
[2:16:47] them.
[2:16:48] >> Um considering that this matter is
[2:16:49] coming back in December, so it's
[2:16:52] >> okay. So you're going up to primary.
[2:16:53] >> I was just going to put you as a primary
[2:16:55] and council member Low would be the
[2:16:57] alternative. Alternate
[2:16:59] >> alternate.
[2:17:02] >> Um
[2:17:04] and then the library board. Council
[2:17:08] member P. I did list you on that one
[2:17:09] because you had been attending the
[2:17:10] meetings as well. And so I was just for
[2:17:12] the sake of you had already been
[2:17:15] attending them. I wanted to at least
[2:17:16] give you the first option to that. I
[2:17:18] have no problem pointing M council
[2:17:20] member Low to that. I just,
[2:17:21] >> you know, I wouldn't mind doing it at
[2:17:22] least till December only because we're
[2:17:24] going to be seating the new board of
[2:17:26] trustees and I wouldn't mind being
[2:17:28] they'll meet in October and there
[2:17:29] probably won't be another meeting until
[2:17:31] we redo committee assignments. So, just
[2:17:33] to see that through maybe for now to
[2:17:36] Yes.
[2:17:37] >> Okay.
[2:17:38] >> have me on that one.
[2:17:39] >> And then city and county economic
[2:17:40] development steering committee. Um I did
[2:17:43] put council member low in there for
[2:17:45] finance and oversight committee meeting.
[2:17:47] Um, I did put council member Low on
[2:17:51] that. Uh, and then I actually took
[2:17:53] myself out of the alternate and put you
[2:17:55] as the alternate for that.
[2:17:57] >> Mhm.
[2:17:59] >> Um,
[2:17:59] >> you're you're no longer the alternate.
[2:18:01] >> I was taking myself out of the alternate
[2:18:03] position because I have not attended any
[2:18:04] of those meetings. I've only watched
[2:18:06] them on YouTube. Um, and I know council
[2:18:10] member Pride has attended them and I'm
[2:18:14] just pointing out the my ability to
[2:18:17] attend some of these meetings. So, and
[2:18:19] just to comment on that, we'll have
[2:18:21] another one coming up, I believe, in
[2:18:22] October, but we've also talked about
[2:18:24] completely restructuring that and I
[2:18:26] would like that to come back to council
[2:18:28] because what's happened with that
[2:18:29] committee is that everything financial
[2:18:32] is being talked about with two council
[2:18:33] members present and then unless all that
[2:18:35] information comes back to the whole
[2:18:37] council, we don't get that same level of
[2:18:39] discussion unless we watch the meeting.
[2:18:41] And so I don't think it was intended to
[2:18:43] really be for measure I transparency and
[2:18:46] then we made it kind of the financial
[2:18:48] but I it's it's not well attended for
[2:18:51] one I think sometimes I'm the only
[2:18:53] person in the audience for two there's a
[2:18:56] lot of staff expending a lot of energy
[2:18:58] on on passing on all this financial
[2:19:00] information to two council members when
[2:19:02] we could be doing POS anyway we talked
[2:19:05] about changing that and I think we need
[2:19:07] to come back and have that discussion
[2:19:08] about how that committee is functioning
[2:19:11] that the council ever came to a firm.
[2:19:13] >> We didn't come to a conclusion. No,
[2:19:15] other than I believe when I went back
[2:19:17] and looked at some of our past minutes,
[2:19:19] we
[2:19:20] >> it was brought up. It was it was brought
[2:19:22] up, but I don't think we ever made a
[2:19:23] decision. It was brought up and it was
[2:19:24] said we need to talk about this more and
[2:19:26] that just has never
[2:19:28] >> I always viewed the finance and measure
[2:19:30] I oversight
[2:19:31] quarterly meetings was for the benefit
[2:19:34] of the citizens show because we outline
[2:19:38] all of the sales tax comes in the
[2:19:40] measure I sales tax and where it all
[2:19:42] goes.
[2:19:43] >> Now it's all available and yes the
[2:19:46] meetings are not very well attended. I
[2:19:48] don't know how many people are online.
[2:19:51] Um, but
[2:19:54] everybody talks about we need forensic
[2:19:56] accounting. We where's the money going?
[2:19:58] Well, this finance committee actually
[2:20:00] tells everybody where it goes.
[2:20:04] And um
[2:20:07] I don't know what the additional staff
[2:20:09] time is, but I thought it was primarily
[2:20:12] designed to give the people
[2:20:15] information as to where their money was
[2:20:18] going because that was commitment we
[2:20:20] made when we supported measure I.
[2:20:22] >> It is. That's correct.
[2:20:24] >> And I think that it'll be a good item
[2:20:25] for us to bring back instead of having
[2:20:27] the discussion right now during the
[2:20:28] committee appointment. So along that
[2:20:30] same line, um the paper we got, Marty
[2:20:34] says the finance committee is never been
[2:20:37] defined. It has been the measure I
[2:20:38] oversight that needs to be updated.
[2:20:43] Show you that. And then the city and
[2:20:46] countyy's economic development steering
[2:20:47] committee. As far as I know, they've
[2:20:49] never had a meeting.
[2:20:50] >> They've never have.
[2:20:52] So maybe that should have
[2:20:56] two council members
[2:20:58] working on
[2:21:00] Willow's economic structure.
[2:21:03] >> What what I would like to do, and it's
[2:21:05] not agendaized for tonight, so I was
[2:21:06] going to do it under council reports.
[2:21:08] It's been brought up in numerous um
[2:21:10] platforms that we really need to have
[2:21:12] some kind of a economic development
[2:21:14] committee. I believe Orland has one.
[2:21:17] This is kind of a city, county. It's I mean we're just not using that.
[2:21:22] I'd like to see us talking about forming
[2:21:24] a committee that maybe has two council
[2:21:26] members, a chamber of commerce rep, um a
[2:21:30] business, you know, just some some
[2:21:32] people from the community that meet
[2:21:34] regularly and talk about economic
[2:21:36] development, particularly if we're going
[2:21:38] to be getting some deliverables from the
[2:21:40] rural development grant that we've
[2:21:41] approved tonight and and just see how
[2:21:44] that works. But I I really think that we
[2:21:46] do need to have some people regularly
[2:21:48] meeting. I think even working with Joe,
[2:21:51] the our our community development
[2:21:53] director, you know, what projects are
[2:21:55] coming through just I mean we'd have to
[2:21:59] define what the purpose of that was, but
[2:22:01] I do think some level
[2:22:04] >> you need to this should be brought back
[2:22:06] for discussion when you have time.
[2:22:07] >> Yes. because I think um having set at
[2:22:11] least two council members focused on
[2:22:14] following economic development and
[2:22:16] making sure that if we get deliverables
[2:22:19] from our approved
[2:22:22] contractor, then we could actually move
[2:22:25] forward with some of that. And maybe it
[2:22:27] would be if we have the budget for it,
[2:22:29] the part-time EDC person certainly um
[2:22:34] should be something that could be
[2:22:35] discussed
[2:22:37] in expanding that because that committee
[2:22:39] doesn't [clears throat] do anything.
[2:22:40] >> So can we bring back
[2:22:42] >> of the ones you just got appointed to
[2:22:43] don't ever meet either.
[2:22:45] >> Can we bring our committee as
[2:22:46] detrimental as you might think?
[2:22:48] >> Can we bring our committees back to a
[2:22:50] different later agenda item to discuss
[2:22:53] >> committees?
[2:22:54] Well, I think it can we do a can we do a
[2:22:57] general
[2:22:59] >> oversight of the committees or does it
[2:23:01] have to be each one
[2:23:02] >> appointment but just discussion about
[2:23:03] structure
[2:23:04] >> discussion about the structures and
[2:23:05] everything else then then that way it's
[2:23:07] we can actually have this conversation
[2:23:09] and actually be able to make the changes
[2:23:11] versus
[2:23:12] >> yeah just for historical context the
[2:23:14] city and countyy's economic development
[2:23:16] steering committee was an active
[2:23:18] committee years ago when Jodie Sammons
[2:23:20] was a county employee before she retired
[2:23:22] from Glen County uh government and after
[2:23:26] Jod retired that no more meetings were
[2:23:28] held. So and that was an active meeting
[2:23:31] we met we we met quarterly so that has
[2:23:34] expired long expired but that's why it's
[2:23:37] here so it was it was an active
[2:23:39] committee uh I and others served on that
[2:23:42] committee and uh we did make some
[2:23:44] progress but it's been years now so just
[2:23:47] for historical content.
[2:23:50] >> Okay. Um, and then so the finance and
[2:23:53] oversight committee, like I said, I put
[2:23:54] uh council member Loa as the main person
[2:23:58] there and then council member Pride as
[2:24:01] the alternate. Um, and then council
[2:24:03] leaison to the chamber of commerce. I
[2:24:05] did keep that as council member Low
[2:24:07] filling in for Busby. Um,
[2:24:09] >> and and John, they meet on the third
[2:24:11] Monday at 5:30 at Twisted Twigs.
[2:24:15] So, they've gotten to a very regular
[2:24:18] meeting schedule.
[2:24:22] third Monday 5:30.
[2:24:29] » Marty, you'll get us a new updated
[2:24:31] sheet.
[2:24:32] >> Yes.
[2:24:32] >> Yeah. Thank you.
[2:24:33] >> So, just to if I could recap really
[2:24:35] quickly, you're only filling the
[2:24:36] positions that um
[2:24:38] >> that um former council member Busby was
[2:24:42] in those committees, right, with Blaine
[2:24:44] County Wastewater Waste Management.
[2:24:46] Sorry. Um, Council Member Pride is the
[2:24:48] primary. Council Member Low is the
[2:24:50] alternate library board. Council Member
[2:24:53] Pride is the primary city and county
[2:24:57] economic development steering committee,
[2:24:58] even though they don't seem to meet.
[2:25:00] Council member Pride and Council Member
[2:25:02] Low, Finance and Measure I Committee, C
[2:25:04] Vice Mayor Thomas, Council Member Low is
[2:25:06] the primary. Council member Pride is the
[2:25:08] alternate council leazison and chamber
[2:25:10] of commerce. Council member Low,
[2:25:13] >> that's what I have down. Okay. Is
[2:25:14] everyone okay with that? That's what I
[2:25:16] have. Yep. Sounds good.
[2:25:18] >> Are you good with your new appointments?
[2:25:20] >> I'm drinking from a fire hose right now,
[2:25:22] so that's fine.
[2:25:25] >> You could ask the chief to turn it off,
[2:25:26] but I don't know if it' help right now.
[2:25:27] >> Other dies is assigned.
[2:25:29] >> Yeah.
[2:25:29] >> All right. Um, with that, we'll move on
[2:25:32] to item 8 a council correspondence. I do
[2:25:37] not have any. Does anybody have any
[2:25:39] council?
[2:25:41] >> Okay. Okay. Um,
[2:25:43] some anonymous donor left on one of our
[2:25:46] public works vehicles a envelope
[2:25:50] for the Widows Museum
[2:25:54] and it is full of historical documents,
[2:25:57] pictures. I think they're for Or
[2:26:02] Ben Church uh school. This one's 193435.
[2:26:06] This one's 3839
[2:26:09] 40 and 41.
[2:26:11] There is a grammar school certificate
[2:26:13] for one
[2:26:15] Leila Bernice Love
[2:26:18] in 1916.
[2:26:20] Her grammar school certificate to teach.
[2:26:24] So I will turn these matters over to
[2:26:26] Gary who is on the library board or on
[2:26:29] the museum board.
[2:26:31] Um so there's a handwritten letter from
[2:26:35] 18
[2:26:37] 73 I think. So, it's some interesting
[2:26:41] stuff. I don't know any of these people
[2:26:43] because I wasn't around in 1940.
[2:26:47] But, uh, and there's a 1960.
[2:26:50] >> Where' you Where did you I I didn't hear
[2:26:52] where you received those, Rick.
[2:26:54] >> It was, uh, left in an envelope on one
[2:26:57] of the public works vehicles.
[2:26:58] >> Oh, no kidding. Okay.
[2:27:00] >> So, it's anonymous. Now, it appears a
[2:27:04] lot of the in a lot of the documents
[2:27:06] show names of Laya Bernese Level
[2:27:09] um handwritten note letter from Anthony
[2:27:12] Level in 1875.
[2:27:16] And on the back of the some of the
[2:27:18] pictures it says Jay Fox, which I was
[2:27:20] able to determine seems to be Jack Fox,
[2:27:23] but I don't know any of those people.
[2:27:24] >> Oh, I'll go aheadly get in the library.
[2:27:26] I mean, I'm sorry. I did too. Museum. It
[2:27:29] used to be the library. The museum.
[2:27:31] Thank you. All right. Any other council
[2:27:32] correspondents?
[2:27:33] >> Nope, that's it.
[2:27:35] >> Okay. Um, city council comments and
[2:27:38] reports. Vice Mayor Thomas.
[2:27:41] I just gave mine.
[2:27:42] >> Okay. Council member Pride.
[2:27:45] >> All right. Um, so I mentioned the Waste
[2:27:48] Management Regional meeting is Thursday.
[2:27:50] The Chamber of Commerce is moving, which
[2:27:52] I think is extremely exciting. They're
[2:27:54] moving downtown. They're going to be
[2:27:56] right next door to Tacos 88. they are
[2:28:00] going to be um still with their regular
[2:28:03] schedule, but they're trying to bring in
[2:28:05] local products. So, they'll actually
[2:28:06] have a little bit of, you know,
[2:28:08] promoting local products and just
[2:28:09] causing another reason for folks to
[2:28:11] visit the chamber. So, they're moving
[2:28:13] this week. That's very exciting. They'll
[2:28:15] be doing a grand opening at some point,
[2:28:17] so stay tuned for that. Um Evan and I
[2:28:20] attended the ambulance ad hoc meeting
[2:28:22] yesterday. Um we have library board of
[2:28:26] trustee interviews scheduled for
[2:28:28] tomorrow.
[2:28:29] Um,
[2:28:32] wanted to confirm we're still on
[2:28:33] schedule for Friday at 11 for the
[2:28:35] municipal code kickoff. We are
[2:28:38] >> party. [laughter] I hate to call it a
[2:28:40] meeting. It's going to be
[2:28:43] dry probably. Um, [laughter]
[2:28:46] and then I mentioned an economic
[2:28:48] development committee of some sort,
[2:28:49] whether it's two of us or not. We've
[2:28:51] talked about that at length tonight, but
[2:28:52] I would like to make sure that comes up.
[2:28:54] I think it came up last like spring of
[2:28:57] 25. it was mentioned. So, we keep
[2:28:59] mentioning it, but we haven't done it. I
[2:29:01] think stars are lining up with the rural
[2:29:03] development grant. So, if we can be
[2:29:05] focusing on getting something like that
[2:29:06] going. Um, the other thing that's come
[2:29:09] up a couple of times with our city
[2:29:11] attorney is just updates on projects
[2:29:13] that you're working on. And so I
[2:29:16] thought, you know, those things that are
[2:29:17] appropriate to give updates on, maybe we
[2:29:20] could have quarterly or even just once a
[2:29:23] month that as part of this last part of
[2:29:25] the agenda where we have a city manager
[2:29:27] report, we'd also have just a city
[2:29:29] attorney report. Just quick updates on
[2:29:31] where those basic city projects are. You
[2:29:34] know, the council does hire and we do
[2:29:37] have a direct reporting line with our
[2:29:38] city attorney. And I know for me
[2:29:40] sometimes I don't even know what you've
[2:29:42] been asked to do. And so, you know, it's
[2:29:44] just a way for the council to be maybe a
[2:29:46] little more in sync with what's going
[2:29:48] on. So, I would leave that at the
[2:29:50] discretion, you know, monthly,
[2:29:52] quarterly. Again, I understand there's
[2:29:55] going to be some things that you can't
[2:29:56] talk about, but if we're doing just
[2:29:58] basic city like municipal code or
[2:30:02] contracts or whatever. Um, lastly, I
[2:30:06] just want to throw out there that I
[2:30:08] after we did the interviews to appoint
[2:30:11] city council. You know, there's a real
[2:30:14] gap in our camera footage where the
[2:30:16] camera somewhere up here that people
[2:30:18] could see staff when staff are talking.
[2:30:20] They could see if we have something else
[2:30:23] set up. I don't know if it's possible
[2:30:25] and if it would be, you know, not very
[2:30:27] expensive. I watched our last meeting
[2:30:30] online from Colorado and it's hard to
[2:30:33] hear you staff sometimes can't see who's
[2:30:36] talking. It's I I mean the Orland
[2:30:38] council meetings the staff's all sitting
[2:30:40] there. They're on camera. You see who's
[2:30:42] talking. I think another camera would be
[2:30:45] a service to people that aren't able to
[2:30:48] be here in person. That's all I have.
[2:30:51] >> Okay. Thank you. Council Low.
[2:30:55] >> Nothing. Okay.
[2:30:57] Council member Hansen.
[2:30:58] >> Good report, John. Well,
[2:31:02] want to want to welcome uh
[2:31:03] >> Take a listen, Gary. [laughter]
[2:31:07] >> It'll only be 20 minutes. Just 20
[2:31:08] minutes. Council member Low, I'd like to
[2:31:10] welcome you to the council.
[2:31:11] Congratulations. Look really forward to
[2:31:13] working with you and get and getting to
[2:31:14] know you better. So,
[2:31:16] >> thank you for stepping up and thank you
[2:31:17] for being here and welcome. Welcome. So
[2:31:21] uh with that briefly the latest meetings
[2:31:24] Glen Groundwater Authority regular
[2:31:26] monthly meeting was held on August 10th.
[2:31:28] We continue continue to work on demand
[2:31:30] management. It's all demand management.
[2:31:32] It's full throttle till the end of the
[2:31:34] year because that's our deadline
[2:31:35] December 31st and we will make the
[2:31:37] deadline. Uh like likewise we had a our
[2:31:41] monthly joint Glen Groundwater Authority
[2:31:42] Inclusive Groundwater Authority meeting.
[2:31:45] We alternate between Willows and Kusa.
[2:31:47] This meeting was in Kusa. It was on
[2:31:49] August 14th that following Friday. Um
[2:31:52] and uh again a groundwater demand
[2:31:55] management and water accounting and
[2:31:57] that's what we're working on. Uh to that
[2:32:01] tune the uh in partnership with the uh
[2:32:04] Kusa groundwater authority, the Glen
[2:32:06] Groundwater Authority and the Glen
[2:32:07] County Resource Conservation District
[2:32:09] will be sponsoring what they're what
[2:32:12] we're calling a Kousa Subbasin Sigma
[2:32:14] 2011 Sustainable Groundwater Management
[2:32:16] Act. This is going to be outlying
[2:32:19] outlining what the demand management
[2:32:21] concept and the water accounting system
[2:32:23] is going to look like uh a after uh uh
[2:32:27] December 31st when we finish uh the work
[2:32:30] that we've been uh doing for the last
[2:32:32] two years. So, it's informative. It's
[2:32:34] there's going to be two u uh open
[2:32:37] houses. The first one will be at
[2:32:39] Granzilla's uh restaurant at the Grand
[2:32:42] Granzilla's banquet hall. That's going
[2:32:44] to be on Wednesday, September 2nd from 1
[2:32:46] to 2:00 p.m. followed by an open house.
[2:32:48] So, it's 1 hour. On Wednesday, the se
[2:32:52] September 2nd in Williams at Grenzel's.
[2:32:54] The following day on Thursday, September
[2:32:56] 3rd,
[2:32:58] it will there will be a open house as
[2:33:00] well uh describing the groundwater
[2:33:03] demand management and water accounting
[2:33:05] system at Glenn 66, sorry, Glenn Success
[2:33:09] Square in Orland from 1 to 2 p.m. That's
[2:33:12] on Thursday, September 3rd. I'll be
[2:33:14] there. Our consultant, uh, Jeff Davids
[2:33:17] from David's Engineering will be the
[2:33:19] primary, uh, presenter. He's he's a uh
[2:33:22] he he holds a doctorate in in water and
[2:33:26] he knows what he's talking about. So
[2:33:28] anyway, for anybody interested, no
[2:33:29] reservations needed. There's als it's
[2:33:31] also going to be broadcast live online
[2:33:34] as well for anyone who would like to
[2:33:35] participate. So with that and uh lastly
[2:33:39] uh we held our monthly Gling uh County
[2:33:43] Transportation Commission meeting on
[2:33:46] August 20th. There was no regional
[2:33:47] transit committee meeting. uh there was
[2:33:50] a lack of business so we did not have an
[2:33:52] RTC meeting this month. However, we did
[2:33:55] hold the uh transportation commission
[2:33:56] meeting and it was routine business. It
[2:33:58] was a short meeting and that's all I had
[2:34:00] Mr. Mayor. Thank you.
[2:34:01] >> Thank you. Um couple of the same items
[2:34:05] had the ambulance ad hoc committee which
[2:34:06] was a good conversation. um still moving
[2:34:08] forward with some of our options for
[2:34:10] that to hopefully providing amote
[2:34:14] services and uh see where that's going
[2:34:16] to lead us as far as a community uh in
[2:34:19] Glen County. Um I wanted to do a quick
[2:34:22] shout out to public works. They were out
[2:34:23] in the back over here trimming these
[2:34:25] bushes um using some of the new
[2:34:27] equipment that they've uh received over
[2:34:29] the last couple years since we've passed
[2:34:30] the measure I. Um it's glad to see those
[2:34:34] tools being utilized and um seeing it
[2:34:36] make their their job a little bit easier
[2:34:38] to do rather than having to heft all
[2:34:40] those branches in the back of the truck.
[2:34:41] They're able to use their loader. Um we
[2:34:44] did have a Glen County Transportation
[2:34:45] Committee meeting um in that and the
[2:34:49] only question that I brought up was
[2:34:52] what the heck was going on with 162 um
[2:34:55] because last we heard there's nothing
[2:34:57] happening until 2030. Um, and as you can
[2:35:00] see, they are doing um can't remember
[2:35:03] the proper term, but they're taking off
[2:35:05] the top layer and then just re repaving
[2:35:08] it. Um, so it's not as in-depth as the
[2:35:11] large project. This is not the large
[2:35:13] project. Um, they're just fixing a
[2:35:15] couple of the rough spots. Uh, mainly
[2:35:17] the 162 and Taha intersection or Wood
[2:35:20] Street and Taha intersection, which is
[2:35:23] been really rough the last 10 years. Um,
[2:35:28] and so it's nice to drive over that and,
[2:35:31] you know, not hit my head on the
[2:35:32] ceiling. Um, or test the limits of my
[2:35:34] seat belt. So, um, yeah, that's about
[2:35:37] it. And on on top
[2:35:41] in in that in that same frame of
[2:35:43] discussion, it's the CALR local
[2:35:45] maintenance yard, Willow's maintenance
[2:35:47] yard doing that work because our CALR
[2:35:48] rep had no idea either. Uh, so it so
[2:35:52] kudos to our local maintenance yard for
[2:35:54] fixing the ster at 162 to street
[2:35:56] intersection. So, thank you.
[2:35:58] >> I did receive more information on it,
[2:35:59] but I haven't had a chance to read the
[2:36:01] full email. It had a map and some
[2:36:04] colorful images to click and I didn't
[2:36:06] get a chance to do that. Um, and then
[2:36:09] same as Council Member Hansen, Council
[2:36:11] Member Low, welcome. Um, honored to have
[2:36:13] you here and look forward to uh having
[2:36:16] many discussions uh at this council with
[2:36:19] you. So, thank you. With that, we will
[2:36:21] call this meeting adjourned at
[2:36:23] >> Oh, sorry, Marty. I was trying city
[2:36:26] manager report.
[2:36:28] >> Just want to remind everybody that we're
[2:36:29] going to have the Willows Water Fest on
[2:36:31] September 10th from 4 to 8 in Central
[2:36:34] Park. And this is heavily sponsored and
[2:36:38] funded by Cal Water to celebrate their
[2:36:40] 100th anniversary
[2:36:42] and to continue the city's continued
[2:36:45] 140th birthday year celebrations as
[2:36:47] well. And some of the activities that
[2:36:49] will be included are a drawing by Cal
[2:36:54] Water for um a water efficient washing
[2:36:57] machine and a free barbecue, live music
[2:36:59] by Whitewater, face painting, kids
[2:37:02] cardboard boat race, water themed
[2:37:04] activities, a bounce house. Um and we
[2:37:08] last thing I want to mention is we are
[2:37:10] also looking for vendors. So if people
[2:37:12] who want to do food for example or a
[2:37:15] mobile food truck or any other vendors
[2:37:18] you want to mention
[2:37:20] >> snacks any of that that would like to
[2:37:22] come to the event and sell their wares.
[2:37:25] They're welcome.
[2:37:26] >> Awesome. Thank you. And I do want to say
[2:37:28] this is one of the first city council
[2:37:30] meetings in a very long time that has
[2:37:32] not had closed sessions. So that's great. Everything's out in the
[2:37:35] public today.
[2:37:36] >> Exciting.
[2:37:37] >> So thank you. We'll call this meeting
[2:37:38] adjourn at 8:47. Have a good night.
[2:37:40] >> Thank you all for coming.