Grass Valley City Council
March 25, 2025

GRASS VALLEY
City Council Regular Meeting, Capital Improvements Authority and Redevelopment "Successor Agency"
Tuesday, March 25, 2025 at 6:00 PM
Council Chambers, Grass Valley City Hall | 125 East Main Street, Grass Valley, California Telephone: (530) 274-4310 – Fax: (530) 274-4399
E-Mail: [email protected] Web Site: www.cityofgrassvalley.com AGENDA
Any person with a disability who requires accommodations to participate in this meeting should telephone the City Clerk’s office at (530)274-4390, at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to make a request for a disability related modification or accommodation.

Mayor Hilary Hodge, Vice Mayor Haven Caravelli, Councilmember Jan Arbuckle, Councilmember Joe Bonomolo, Councilmember Tom Ivy

MEETING NOTICE
City Council welcomes you to attend the meetings electronically or in person at the City Hall Council Chambers, located at 125 E. Main St., Grass Valley, CA 95945. Regular Meetings are scheduled at 6:00 p.m. on the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of each month. Your interest is encouraged and appreciated.

This meeting is being broadcast “live” on Comcast Channel 17 & 18 by Nevada County Media, on the internet at www.cityofgrassvalley.com, or on the City of Grass Valley YouTube channel at https://www.youtube.com/@cityofgrassvalley.com Members of the public are encouraged to submit public comments via voicemail at (530) 274-4390 and email to [email protected]. Comments will be reviewed and distributed before the meeting if received by 5pm. Comments received after that will be addressed during the item and/or at the end of the meeting. Council will have the option to modify their action on items based on comments received. Action may be taken on any agenda item.

Agenda materials, staff reports, and background information related to regular agenda items are available on the City’s website: www.cityofgrassvalley.com. Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Council after distribution of the agenda packet will be made available on the City of Grass Valley website at www.cityofgrassvalley.com, subject to City staff’s ability to post the documents before the meeting.

Please note, individuals who disrupt, disturb, impede, or render infeasible the orderly conduct of a meeting will receive one warning that, if they do not cease such behavior, they may be removed from the meeting. The chair has authority to order individuals removed if they do not cease their disruptive behavior following this warning. No warning is required before an individual is removed if that individual engages in a use of force or makes a true threat of force. (Gov. Code, § 54957.95.)

City of Grass Valley, CA AGENDA March 25, 2025
Council Chambers are wheelchair accessible and listening devices are available. Other special accommodations may be requested to the City Clerk 72 hours in advance of the meeting by calling (530) 274-4390, we are happy to accommodate.

CALL TO ORDER

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL
AGENDA APPROVAL - The City Council reserves the right to hear items in a different order to accomplish business in the most efficient manner.

REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION

INTRODUCTIONS AND PRESENTATIONS

1. Child Abuse Prevention Month Proclamation

2. Proclamation for Rotary of Grass Valley 100th Anniversary

3. Annual presentation from the Grass Valley Downtown Association.

PUBLIC COMMENT - Members of the public are encouraged to submit public comments via voicemail at (530) 274-4390 and email to [email protected]. Comments will be reviewed and distributed before the meeting if received by 5pm. Comments received after 5pm will be addressed during the item and/or at the end of the meeting. Council will have the option to modify their action on items based on comments received. Action may be taken on any agenda item. There is a time limitation of three minutes per person for all emailed, voicemail, or in person comments, and only one type of public comment per person. Speaker cards are assigned for public comments that are on any items not on the agenda, and within the jurisdiction or interest of the City. Speaker Cards can be pulled until the opening of public comment at which time sign ups will no longer be allowed.

These cards can be found at the City Clerks desk. If you wish to speak regarding a scheduled agenda item, please come to the podium when the item is announced. When recognized, please begin by providing your name and address for the record (optional). Thirty minutes of public comment will be heard under this item in order of the speaker card assigned and the remaining general public comments will be heard at the end of the meeting. We will begin with number one.

CONSENT ITEMS -All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are to be considered routine by the City Council and/or Grass Valley Redevelopment Agency and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless, before the City Council and/or Grass Valley Redevelopment Agency votes on the motion to adopt, members of the Council and/or Agency, staff or the public request specific items to be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion and action but Council action is required to do so (roll call vote).Unless the Council removes an item from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion, public comments are invited as to the consent calendar as a whole and limited to three minutes per person.

4. Approval of the Regular Meeting Minutes of March 11, 2025.

Recommendation: Council approve minutes as submitted.

5. Emergency Cleaning of WWTP Anaerobic Digester at a Total Cost of $448,400

City of Grass Valley, CA AGENDA March 25, 2025
CEQA: Exempt – Existing Facilities
Recommendation: Council to authorize the Utilities Director to approve the emergency cleaning of the WWTP anaerobic digester from Bristola, in accordance with Section 3.08.150 of the Grass Valley Municipal Code.

6. Resolutions opposing local forest health, wildfire mitigation, social, and economic impacts that will result from federal funding cuts
CEQA: Not a project
Recommendation: That the Council 1) adopt resolution 2025-06 opposing the local impacts to forest health and wildfire mitigation that will result from federal funding and staffing cuts to our public lands; 2) adopt resolution 2025-05 opposing the local economic impacts that will result from federal funding cuts; and 3) Provide direction to staff to draft a cover letter, to be approved by the Mayor and Vice Mayor, expressing the City’s opposition to federal staffing and funding cuts.

ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION OR SEPARATE ACTION AND /

OR ANY ADDED AGENDA ITEMS

REORGANIZATION RELATED ITEMS

PUBLIC HEARING

ADMINISTRATIVE

7. Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Mid-Year Budget Review
CEQA: Not a project
Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve the Mid-Year Budget Review and the proposed revisions through a motion.

8. Parking Assessment Presentation
CEQA: Not a project
Recommendation: That (1) Council hear the presentation from staff and Dixon Resources Unlimited regarding their operational needs assessment; and (2) provide direction on next steps.

9. Code of Conduct Update
CEQA: Not a project
Recommendation: That Council review and adopt the attached revised Code of Conduct.

BRIEF REPORTS BY COUNCIL MEMBERS

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC COMMENT

ADJOURN

POSTING NOTICE
This is to certify that the above notice of a meeting of The City Council, scheduled for Tuesday, March 25, 2025, at 6:00 p.m., was posted at city hall, easily accessible to the public, as of 5:00 p.m. Friday, March 20, 2025.
________________________

City of Grass Valley, CA AGENDA March 25, 2025
Taylor Whittingslow, City Clerk

PROCLAMATION

CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT PREVENTION MONTH
April 2025
Whereas, in Federal Fiscal Year 2023 around 3.4 million reports were made to child protective services nationwide; and
Whereas, child abuse and neglect is a serious problem affecting every segment of our community, and finding solutions requires input and action from everyone in our community; and Whereas, our children are our most valuable resources and will shape the future of Nevada County; and
Whereas, child abuse can have long-term psychological, emotional, and physical effects that can have lifelong consequences for victims of abuse; and
Whereas, effective child abuse prevention activities succeed because of the meaningful connections and partnerships created between child welfare, education, health, community- and faith-based organizations, businesses and law enforcement agencies; and Whereas, communities must make every effort to promote programs and activities that benefit children and their families; and
Whereas, we acknowledge that we must work together as a community to increase awareness about child abuse and contribute to promoting the social and emotional well-being of children and families in a safe, stable, nurturing environment; and Whereas, prevention remains the best defense for our children and families.

NOW, THEREFORE, Be It Resolved that the Grass Valley City Council does herby proclaim the month of April 2025, as Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Month in Grass Valley and urge all citizens to recognize this month by dedicating ourselves to the task of improving the quality of life for all children and families.

Dated this 25th day of March 2025.
_____________________________ _____________________________ Hilary Hodge, Mayor Haven Caravelli, Vice Mayor
________________________________
Jan Arbuckle, Council Member
____________________________ _____________________________ Joseph Bonomolo, Council Member Thomas Ivy, Council Member

Item # 1.

PROCLAMATION
Recognizing the Centennial Celebration of the Rotary Club of Grass Valley WHEREAS, the City of Grass Valley takes great pride in recognizing the Rotary Club of Grass Valley, California, for one hundred years of dedicated service to the community, exemplifying the Rotary motto of "Service Above Self"; and
WHEREAS, in 1925, twenty-five local business and professional leaders, inspired by Rotary International’s commitment to public service, ethical business practices, and fellowship, established the Rotary Club of Grass Valley at the Bret Harte Inn with a mission to improve the community; and
WHEREAS, from its inception, the Rotary Club of Grass Valley has played a vital role in addressing local needs, supporting civic initiatives, and fostering collaboration with the City of Grass Valley to implement service projects that have benefited countless citizens; and WHEREAS, the club’s early projects included funding medical care for children in need, supporting local businesses and miners, and contributing to various charitable causes such as The Salvation Army, the Red Cross, and the Boy Scouts; and
WHEREAS, during the Great Depression and World War II, the Rotary Club of Grass Valley remained steadfast in its mission, supporting struggling families, organizing blood drives, collecting scrap metal, and aiding military families while continuing to advance community initiatives; and
WHEREAS, the club has been instrumental in the establishment of the Northstar Mine Museum and Pelton Wheel Exhibit, the Condon Park Disc Golf Course, the 1995 Memorial Park Pool refurbishment, Sierra College Soccer Fields, and other community improvements that serve residents and visitors alike; and
WHEREAS, the Rotary Club of Grass Valley has expanded its commitment to global service through participation in Rotary International initiatives, including polio eradication, disaster relief efforts, and international healthcare support, reinforcing its dedication to humanitarian service beyond the local community; and
WHEREAS, in recent years, the club has embraced modern initiatives, including environmental sustainability projects, student mentorship programs, and digital outreach efforts, ensuring its mission remains relevant and impactful in an evolving world; and WHEREAS, the Rotary Club of Grass Valley continuesto host annual fundraising events, generating essential funds to support its wide array of charitable programs and community service projects; and

Item # 2.

WHEREAS, for one hundred years, the Rotary Club of Grass Valley has demonstrated the power of collective action, community spirit, and service to others, making a lasting positive impact on the City of Grass Valley, its citizens, and beyond;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of Grass Valley does hereby recognize and commends the Rotary Club of Grass Valley on the occasion of its 100th Anniversary and express our heartfelt appreciation for a century of exemplary service, dedication, and unwavering commitment to the betterment of our community.

Dated this 25th day of March 2025.
_____________________________ _____________________________ Hilary Hodge, Mayor Haven Caravelli, Vice Mayor
________________________________
Jan Arbuckle, Council Member
____________________________ _____________________________ Joseph Bonomolo, Council Member Thomas Ivy, Council Member

Item # 2.
2024 Review
B.I.D. (Business Improvement District
Assessment Distribution)

Item # 3.

Meet Our Team
Robin Galvan-Davies
Executive Director
Mary Ann Boyer
Member Outreach & Event
Support
Sherry Sanchez
Graphic Designer

EXECUTIVE BOARD
Joy Porter, Chairperson
Penny Short, Incoming Chair
Lillie Robertson, Member at Large
Debbe Blakemore, Treasurer
Craig Hamilton, Board Director
Christine Larkin, Board Director
Jacob MacDonald, Board Director
Bob Medlyn, Board Director
Jay Strauss, Board Director
Suzanne Voter, Board Director

B O A R D O F D I R E C T O R S

CITY OF GRASS VALLEY
Tim Kiser, City Manager
Hilary Hodge, City of Grass Valley Liaison
Haven Caravelli, City of Grass Valley Liaison
(alternate)

Item # 3.

Introduction
Build a diverse economic base |
Catalyze smart new investment |
cultivate a strong entrepreneurship
ecosystem
The Grass Valley Downtown Association is a 501 C 4 Not for Profit organization that provides the 250+ downtown businesses located within the Business Improvement District (BID) boundaries with a unified voice and an umbrella organization that concerns itself with those issues impacting the downtown area.

The GVDA is the sole recipient of the BID Assessment Fees. These fees give the GVDA the opportunity to accomplish its mandated objectives:

Community Events | Special Projects | Member Engagement & Support

ECONOMIC

VITALITY

DESIGN ORGANIZATION PROMOTION
Create an inviting, inclusive
atmosphere | Celebrate historic
character | Foster accessibility, peoplecentered public spaces Build leadership and strong
organizational capacity | Ensure broad
community engagement } Forge
partnerships across sectors
Market district’s defining assets |
Communicate unique featuers through
storytelling | support buy-local
experience Page 10
Item # 3.

Demographics - BID District
Art Galleries
Entertainment
Hotel | Lodging | Residential Living
NPO
Real Estate
Restaurant, Bakery, Cafe, Bar
Retail
Services
Wine Tasting Rooms
CURRENT MEMBERSHIP | 200 Members
3 5
6 4
7 32
63 96
4

Item # 3.

Di
dyouKnow...

RevenueUsage
TheGVDAusesthemonies
collectedfromourBIDMembers in
accordancewithCityofGrassValley
OrdinanceNo.282N.S81-464. Section 62-A specifies the acceptable purposes of fund usage: Event Based Advertising & Marketing Supplies & Materials Entertainment Sanitation Permits

Item # 3.

Revenue BID Expenditures
Social Media, Social Media Boosts, The Union Newspaper, KNCO Radio, Nevada County Gold, Destination Magazine, Website, Weekly Merchant Memos, Monthly Newsletters, Graphic
Designer, Banners, Sponsor Packets
Community Posters, BID Handouts, Garbage Bags, Rental
Equipment
Music on Mill, Event Entertainment (bands, characters, etc.) Performers and Dancers
City, County, ABC, Rental Equipment, Event Labor, Bank & Credit Card Processing Fees, Event Security, Event Logistic Support Port-a-Potty, Hand Washing Stations, Garbage and Garbage Disposal, Sidewalk & Street Cleanup
Advertising & Marketing
Supplies & Materials
Entertainment
Permits | Event Fees
Sanitation

Item # 3.

Carshow: $2400
Thursday Night Market: $8000| 5 Weeks
4th of July: $2500
Budget - 2024 Expenditures
Foothill Celebration: $4500
St. Pirans Day: $100
Magical Evening On Mill: $5000

Item # 3.

Item # 3.

Item # 3.

Sidewalk Sale: $125
Holiday Open House | Tree Lighting : $1250
Brewfest: $7400
Cornish Christmas: $18000
TOTAL: $60,000
Locals for Locals: $3500
Downtown Building Lights: $3,450
Budget - 2024 Expenditures
Music on Mill: $3800

Item # 3.

BID Investment | New Public Restrooms
GVDA/City of GV Partnership
Public Restroom (Committed $120K Via MOU)
2024 - GVDA Paid $20,000

Item # 3.

Special Projects &
Community Giveback
The GVDA is committed to give back to our community
beyond the fabulous events.

Merchant “Small Business Day Giveaway: $6600
Bear River High School: $500 (Plaques for Car Show
Trophies)
Nevada Union High School: $500 (Service at
Magical Evening on Mill)
P3: $500 (Magical Evening on Mill Set up)
Project H.E.A.R.T: $500 (Community Service Support)
Working diligently to create value which our membership and community partners can be proud. Page 19 Item # 3.

January 1, 2022
to
December 31, 2024
Historic Downtown GV
Metrics (Placer ai)
Visitors: 266K
Visits: 2.7 Million
Average Time in District: 68 Minutes
F
O
O
T
HIL
L
C
E
L
E
B
R
A
TIO
N
C
A
R
S
H
O
W
C
O
R
NIS
H
C
H
RIS
T
M
A
S
C
O
R
NIS
H
C
H
RIS
T
M
A
S
C
O
R
NIS
H
C
H
RIS
T
M
A
S
2022 2023 2024
T
H
U
R
S
D
A
Y
NIG
H
T
M
A
R
K
E
T
F
O
O
T
HIL
L
C
E
L
E
B
R
A
TIO
N
F
O
O
T
HIL
L
C
E
L
E
B
R
A
TIO
N
T
H
U
R
S
D
A
Y
NIG
H
T
M
A
R
K
E
T
C
A
R
S
H
O
W
C
A
R
S
H
O
W
B
R
E
W
F
E
S
T
B
R
E
W
F
E
S
T
B
R
E
W
F
E
S
T

Item # 3.

Foothill Celebration - SOLD OUT EVENT
March 15-17, 2024 Weekend
600 Attendees
10,900 Visits by 10,300 Visitors to
Downtown District
Metrics
Visits YoYI...........................+55%
Visits Yo2Y..........................+108%
Visits Yo3Y..........................+211%
3K

4.6K

3.3K

2.9K

4.6K

3.4K

Item # 3.

Brewfest - SOLD OUT EVENT
September 27-29, 2024 Weekend
700 Attendees
10,300 Visits 9,400 Visitors to Downtown District
Metrics
Visits YoYI...........................+31%
Visits Yo2Y..........................+81%
Visits Yo3Y..........................+109%

2.8K

4.3K

3.2K

Item # 3.
1st Inaugural Christmas Tree Lighting
November 9, 2024 Weekend
2000 Attendees
10,300 Visits 9,400 Visitors to Downtown District
Metrics
Visits YoYI...........................+31%
Visits Yo2Y..........................+81%
Visits Yo3Y..........................+109%

Item # 3.

Cornish Christmas - Community/Non-Ticketed Event
November 28-December 20, 2024
89,000 Visits by 60,700 Visitors in the Downtown District Average 10K
Per Cornish Christmas Day

METRICS
Visits YoYI
(+31%)
Visits Yo2Y
(+81%)
Visits Yo3Y
(+109%)

Item # 3.

We look forward to continuing our
partnership with the City of Grass Valley.

Together, highlighting our beautiful historic
downtown district.

Item # 3.

Item # 3.

GRASS VALLEY
City Council Regular Meeting, Capital Improvements Authority and Redevelopment "Successor Agency"
Tuesday, March 11, 2025 at 6:00 PM
Council Chambers, Grass Valley City Hall | 125 East Main Street, Grass Valley, California Telephone: (530) 274-4310 – Fax: (530) 274-4399
E-Mail: [email protected] Web Site: www.cityofgrassvalley.com

MINUTES

CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:03 pm

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Hodge led the pledge of allegiance.

ROLL CALL

PRESENT
Councilmember Joe Bonomolo
Councilmember Tom Ivy
Vice Mayor Haven Caravelli
Mayor Hilary Hodge
ABSENT
Councilmember Jan Arbuckle

AGENDA APPROVAL -
Item #1 (Child Abuse Prevention Month Proclamation) was requested to be postponed until the next council meeting.

Motion made to approve the agenda with the noted change by Councilmember Ivy, Seconded by Vice Mayor Caravelli.

Voting Yea: Councilmember Bonomolo, Councilmember Ivy, Vice Mayor Caravelli, Mayor Hodge

REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION

INTRODUCTIONS AND PRESENTATIONS

1. Child Abuse Prevention Month Proclamation
PUBLIC COMMENT –
In-person speakers: Public sign-in sheet speakers 1 to 7 (noted change: speaker #4 did not speak)
Virtual public comments attached.

Item # 4.

City of Grass Valley, CA MINUTES March 11, 2025

CONSENT ITEMS -
Motion made to approve the consent as submitted by Vice Mayor Caravelli, Seconded by Councilmember Bonomolo.

Voting Yea: Councilmember Bonomolo, Councilmember Ivy, Vice Mayor Caravelli, Mayor Hodge

2. Approval of the Regular Meeting Minutes of February 25, 2025 Recommendation: Council approve minutes as submitted.

3. Financial Services – Contract Authorization
CEQA: N/A – Consultant selection is a procedural action. CEQA review will be completed as part of the project work
Recommendation: That Council 1) authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Andy Heath, pending legal review, for Financial Services, in an amount not to exceed $157,000 annually.

4. Mill Street Parking Lot Construction Project – Final Acceptance CEQA: Exempt, Class 11 and 32
Recommendation Motion: That Council: 1) accept the Mill Street Parking Lot Construction Project as complete, and 2) authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder.

5. Second Reading of Ordinance 834 of the City Council of the City of Grass Valley amending subsection (C) and adding subsection (D)(7) to Section 17.44.140 of Chapter 17.44 of Title 17 of the Grass Valley Municipal Code to allow eligible mixeduse projects to include up to 10 dwelling units in the Town Core zone pursuant to Government Code Section 65913.5
CEQA: Not a project pursuant to Government Code section 65913.5(a)(3) Recommendation:

1. That City Council find the Ordinance is not a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to California Government Code section 65913.5(a)(3).

2. Hold a second reading of the attached Ordinance 834 waive full reading, and read by Title Only, to amend subsection (c) and add subsection (d)(7) to section 17.44.140 of chapter 17.44 of title 17 of the Grass Valley Municipal Code to allow eligible mixeduse projects to include up to 10 dwelling units in the Town Core zone pursuant to Government Code Section 65913.5

6. Review of 2024 Annual Housing Element Progress Report CEQA: Not a Project
Recommendation: Receive and File. No formal action required.

7. Review of 2023 General Plan Annual Progress Report
CEQA: Not a project
Recommendation: Receive and File. No formal action required.

8. Surplus Property Designation and Disposition
CEQA: Not a project

Item # 4.

City of Grass Valley, CA MINUTES March 11, 2025
Recommendation: That the Council adopt resolution No. 2025-04 declaring a police vehicle as surplus and authorize the sale to Dignity Health (Sierra Nevada Memorial Hospital) for a medic supervisor vehicle.

9. Nevada County Boundary Drop Response Plan
CEQA: Not a Project
Recommendation: That Council 1) approve the Fire Chief to enter into the agreement, subject to legal review, and 2) Direct staff to provide updates on progress and outcomes during a six-month evaluation period.

ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION OR SEPARATE ACTION AND /

OR ANY ADDED AGENDA ITEMS

REORGANIZATION RELATED ITEMS

PUBLIC HEARING

ADMINISTRATIVE

10. Review of Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps and Make Recommendations
CEQA: Not a project
Recommendation: That Council receive input and recommendations on the Office of State Fire Marshal Local Responsibility Area Fire Severity Zone Maps.

Mark Buttron, Fire Chief, and Duane Strawser, Community Risk Reduction, gave the council an overview and presentation
Public comment: Lilly Maria Moora, Matthew Coulter
This was an informational item and no action was needed.

BRIEF REPORTS BY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Councilmember Bonomolo is speaking with people in the public and will attend the Solid Waste and Hazard Commission meeting. Councilmember Ivy participated at the Nevada County Community Foundation meeting, and had a meeting in his Pioneer Community Energy capacity and met with the state legislature regarding Biomass. Vice Mayor Caravelli attended the ERC sponsorship meeting, Center for the Arts show, Manteno Park discussion, ERC Board Meeting, Meeting with 4wall, meeting with two Historical Commissioners, St Piran's day Event, and will not be at the first meeting in April. Mayor Hodge had her first Wednesday with the mayor, attended the Nevada County Leaders meeting, GVDA board meeting, St.

Piran's Day, and attended a non-profit collaboration with PR and promotion.

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC COMMENT

ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 6:57 pm.
___________________________ _____________________________ Hilary Hodge, Mayor Taylor Whittingslow, City Clerk
Adopted on:_____________

Item # 4.
3lrrilsCITY OF GRASS VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING

GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT SIGN IN SHEET
WELCOME to the City of Grass Vattey City Council meeting! Pubtic Comments provide an opportunity for the pubtic to address the City Counciton any subject which is not on the agenda but in the jurisdiction of the councit. lf you wish to speak, ptease indicate in the appropriate box when you sign in and take the number corresponding to your name. Each individual can have up to 3 minutes of pubtic comment. At the beginning of the meeting, there witl be an atlotted 30 minutes of generat pubtic comments and the remainder of comments witt be heard at the end of the agenda.

Speakers witt be called in order of the numbers given.

When you are recognized by the mayor:

1. Please stand before the podium and give your name and address. (optionat)

2. Ptease [imit your comments to three minutes per speaker.

3. lf previous speakers have made the same point, you may simpty indicate your support or disagreement, unless you have new information.

Thank you for your participation.
o
o
t
O
a
a
#'s Print Name
Or N/A
Address
(optional)
Self/Business
(optional)
1 B, i,n f'r/ t {qu,,ok** Q) ,<ulf
2 &1 [niilpu
3 - --l - \
-Krs,J -L)ov.6j 6v cxa'tsea/d.,,o,t
-4-
5 8.1,c k 6,lL.rrlo,; cEA F",^.^"t*tri,
6 J?W^"r, @Ytt,wc k1 UL.
7 FreAdJ^ ro\o nc lr+tt
8 I
9 10
11 12
13 14 Page 30
Item # 4.

City of Grass Valley
City Council
Agenda Action Sheet
Title: Emergency Cleaning of WWTP Anaerobic Digester at a Total Cost of $448,400 CEQA: Exempt – Existing Facilities
Recommendation: Council to authorize the Utilities Director to approve the emergency cleaning of the WWTP anaerobic digester from Bristola, in accordance with Section

3.08.150 of the Grass Valley Municipal Code.

Prepared by: Trever Van Noort, Utilities Director
Council Meeting Date: 03/25/2025 Date Prepared: 03/18/2025 Agenda: Consent
Background Information: The City’s wastewater treatment plant utilizes (1) anaerobic digester to treat waste activated sludge. The tank was last cleaned in 2010 and the next cleaning was planned for later in 2025. Recent problems due to excessive solids buildup have caused the digester to overflow. This requires expediting the planned solids removal and cleaning to prevent future overflow events.

It is in the City’s best interest to complete cleaning and solids removal as soon as possible to protect public health and safety.

Council Goals/Objectives: The execution of this action attempts to achieve portions of work tasks towards achieving/maintaining Strategic Plan – City Infrastructure Investment.

Fiscal Impact: The Fiscal Year 2024-2025 budget includes $448,400 in allocated funds within the Wastewater Plant Division – Annual WWTP Projects, as this project was already part of the current year's capital project list. In accordance with Section

3.08.150 of the Grass Valley Municipal Code, Emergency Procurement, "the city manager shall make, or authorize others to make, emergency procurement of supplies, equipment, services, or construction items when there is a threat to public health, welfare, or safety; provided that such emergency procurement is made with sufficient competition as is practicable under the circumstances." Three quotes were solicited, with two received (see attached), and one no bid.

Funds Available: Yes Account #: 510-406-66890
Reviewed by: City Manager Attachments:
 Bristola Quote
 Synagro Quote
 Project Specifications

Item # 5.

CITY OF GRASS VALLEY

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

ENGINEERING DIVISION

PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS FOR WWTP

DIGESTER CLEANING

Item # 5.

PROJECT OVERVIEW
A. CITY OF GRASS VALLEY
This Request for Quotation is for the cleaning of the City’s anaerobic digester, including removal, screening, and hauling of all grit, sludge, and debris, and all other actions required to complete the Project.

B. PROJECT OVERVIEW
This section provides a project overview for the Project to assist proposers with the minimum items the City will require be included in this Project:
 The City of Grass Valley operates a Wastewater Treatment Facility located at 556C Freeman Lane, Grass Valley, CA 95946. This facility operates one (1) Anaerobic Digester used in the treatment process. This digester was last cleaned approximately 15 years ago and has demonstrated signs of solids buildup. The digester diameter is 32’, with a 24’ wall height.  Contractor shall be responsible for complete digester hydro-wash cleaning, dewatering, screening, sludge pressing and off-site transfer/transport and disposal of all solid/sludge materials to an approved landfill or acceptable dumpsite.
 Contractor shall make all arrangements necessary to identify and contract with a suitable lawful landfill or dumpsite.
 Contractor shall assist with the startup of the digester once the cleaning portion of the work is deemed completed.
 Contractor shall provide all labor, equipment, materials, insurance and incidentals necessary to complete this work in accordance with accepted industry practices for this type of work.  Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that all OSHA Safety Regulations are strictly followed during the performance of this contract including but not limited to lock out/ tag out, confined space entry, slip, trip and fall protection among others required for this type of work.  Contractor to adhere to all Prevailing Wage Laws and Statutes, including the submittal of Certified Payrolls.
 The City of Grass Valley will provide the contractor with water from a local fire hydrant throughout the Project.
 The City will assist with the offloading of equipment via forklift or other mechanical means if requested by the contractor but assumes no liability for occurrences that may cause damage to said equipment.

C. PROJECT SCOPE
At a minimum, the following main tasks are anticipated to be included in the scope of work for the Project:

1. Planning: The Contractor shall provide a detailed plan and full Project timeline prior to commencing work.

Item # 5.

2. Project Management: At a minimum, tasks are to include:
a. Conduct a project team kick-off meeting.
b. Maintain a Project plan and schedule. The initial Project schedule shall be prepared prior to the project team kick-off meeting and presented at that meeting. c. Develop a bid quantity and itemized costs for each individual project component, i.e. detailed schedule of values.
d. Prepare and distribute meeting agendas and minutes.
e. Prepare billing statements.

3. Quality Assurance/Quality Control: Quality control inspection will be provided by the Contractor. The Contractor will be required to re-do all work that does not meet the intent identified in the approved plan at no additional cost to the City, unless otherwise accepted by the City. The Contractor will be responsible for ensuring quality control of its crew and subcontractors during the Project. The Contractor will include a special inspector as necessary to monitor and document all work progress and ensure construction compliance with approved plan documents. The inspector will submit all findings, daily reports, and documentation of the project progress and monitoring to the City, including early identification of any specific issues or concerns to the City.

4. Disposal/Recycling: Grit, screenings, sludge, and other debris and waste products produced during the Project will be disposed of or recycled appropriately by the Contractor.

5. Start-up: The Contractor will be required to assist City personnel in the seeding and startup of the digester.

6. Project Close Out – Project documentation shall be supplied to the City upon completion of the Project, prior to payment of the final project invoice.

D. SCHEDULE
The City desires to execute the Project agreement by May 2025. The planning of the project should be completed by April 2025, with Project completion by June 30, 2025.

Item # 5.

YOUR PARTNER FOR A CLEANER, GREENER WORLD
435 Williams Court, Suite 100
Baltimore, MD 21220
www.synagro.com
March 19, 2025
Ms. Ralph Raper
City of Grass Valley
Via electronic mail : [email protected]
Dear Ms. Raper:

Synagro WWT, Inc.(Synagro) is pleased to provide the following proposal to clean the primary digester and provide temporary dewatering at the City of Grass Valley Wastewater Treatment Plant in Grass Valley, CA. Our detailed scope of work is as follows:
1 Mobilization of equipment and personnel as follows:
a. Pumps, pipe, and hose as needed
b. Digester access equipment
c. One 2.2-meter belt filter press with polymer make up system d. One CARB compliant diesel-powered generator
e. One mix tank for flow equalization for digester cleaning. f. One mix tank (if required) for temporary dewatering of primary sludge. g. OSHA required confined space entry safety equipment
2 Removal and dewatering of digester contents and return of filtrate to plant sewer drain within 200 feet of the processing area.
3 Deposit dewatered digester contents into Synagro provided end dump trailers. 4 Transportation and disposal of dewatered contents at either a sanitary landfill permitted to accept the material or to a Synagro operated end use facility that is permitted to accept the material.
5 Wash down of digester interior using a fire hose and plant available water boosted with high pressure water pump. Synagro will not be pressure washing the digester interior. Due to the flat bottom construction of the digester, there will likely be a small quantity of water on the floor of the digester. This can be easily removed by a Vactor Truck, which is excluded from our proposal. Our recommendation is that the City utilize its own a separate contractor. Any material removed by vactor truck can be deposited into the mix tank and Synagro will process it. 6 Provision of disposal records to facilitate completion of any compliance reporting required of Grass Valley by the California Department of Water Resources Regional Water Quality Control Board and the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

Item # 5.

YOUR PARTNER FOR A CLEANER, GREENER WORLD
7 Daily dewatering of plant primary solids at not to exceed 20,000 gallons per day, 5 days per week for the duration of the digester cleaning or until such time as the service is no longer required.
8 Demobilization of equipment and personnel.

Synagro’s proposed pricing is as follows:

Description Unit of
Measure
Units Unit Price Extended
Mobilization, demobilization,
digester cleaning, dewatering,
transport and disposal or end use
of dewatered solids
Lump
Sum 1 $458,297.00 $458,297.00
Daily dewatering of up to 20,000
gpd of primary solids-during
digester cleaning operations
(excludes mobilization and
demobilization days)
Daily rate 16 $ 1,866.00 $29,856.00
Daily dewatering of up to 20,000
gpd of primary solids-during
outside of digester cleaning
operations
Daily rate TBD $6,300.00 TBD
Transportation and disposal or
composting of primary solids
Per wet
ton
TBD $158.00 ` TBD
Total – excluding TBD items $488,153.00
Performance and labor/materials payment bonds can be provided for an additional 1.5% of contract value.

Other terms and conditions:

1. Synagro will pay not less than the general prevailing rate of wages as determined by the California Department of Labor.

2. Synagro will provide its own temporary power.

3. THE CITY will provide potable or non-potable water supply at least 200 gpm of instantaneous flow at 80 PSI.

4. Synagro will discharge up to 250 gallons per minute of filtrate discharge.

5. Synagro will operate up to 12 hours per day, 5 or 6 days per week.

6.

Item # 5.

YOUR PARTNER FOR A CLEANER, GREENER WORLD
Subcontractors
Synagro will utilize the following subcontractors:

Jess Ranch Trucking – transport of dewatered raw primary sludge and dewatered digester contents.

This proposal is strictly nonbinding until such time that a contract is executed between Synagro and THE CITY and is subject to Synagro’s standard terms and conditions, which are attached.

If you have any questions or require further information, please call me at 650-219-6380.

Very truly yours,
John Pugliaresi
John Pugliaresi
Senior Area Sales Manager
Synagro WWT, Inc.

Class A General Engineering Contractor License # 801688 (CA) DIR Registration #1000006919

Item # 5.
1 Trever Van Noort
From: OPS
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2025 7:42 AM
To: Trever Van Noort
Subject: FW: Here is the RFP for the digester cleaning
From: Chad Neleman <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 2:02 PM
To: OPS <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Here is the RFP for the digester cleaning
RalphBased on the information we have the price Bristola is bidding is $448,400.

That would include a $80,000 mobilization fee paid 15-30 days before project date.

Thank you

Item # 5.

City of Grass Valley
City Council
Agenda Action Sheet
Title: Resolutions opposing local forest health, wildfire mitigation, social, and economic impacts that will result from federal funding cuts CEQA: Not a project
Recommendation: That the Council 1) adopt resolution 2025-06 opposing the local impacts to forest health and wildfire mitigation that will result from federal funding and staffing cuts to our public lands; 2) adopt resolution 2025-05 opposing the local economic impacts that will result from federal funding cuts; and 3) Provide direction to staff to draft a cover letter, to be approved by the Mayor and Vice Mayor, expressing the City’s opposition to federal staffing and funding cuts.

Prepared by: Tim Kiser, City Manager
Council Meeting Date: 03/25/2025 Date Prepared: 03/20/2025 Agenda: Consent
Background Information
At the March 11, 2025, the Truckee Town Council approved two resolutions and a cover letter to be sent to federal representatives, expressing concern over and opposition to the local impacts of federal staffing and funding cuts. These reductions affect wildfire mitigation and fire response efforts within National Forests, and visitor services on public lands. Additional funding cuts to local agencies further compound these challenges.

The City of Grass Valley, local fire districts, homeowner associations, and property owners have proactively invested significant resources in fire mitigation, preparedness, and community readiness efforts. These efforts were intended to complement the work of government agencies including the U.S. Forest Service in reducing fire risks on federally managed lands within Nevada County and around Grass Valley. However, with federal funding cuts and program pauses, this critical partnership has been severely weakened, leaving our community at heightened risk of wildfires and other natural disasters. Given that wildfires do not adhere to jurisdictional boundaries, the loss or significant reduction of federal fire mitigation efforts places Grass Valley and the broader region in increased danger.

Staff has provided two resolutions for City Council’s consideration:
 Resolution 2025-06, opposing the local impacts to forest health and wildfire mitigation that will result from federal funding and staffing cuts to our public

Item # 6.
lands.
 Resolution 2025-05, opposing the economic impacts that will result from federal funding cuts on the community
These topics have been separated into two resolutions to allow for broader regional alignment, as it is anticipated that additional local agencies may adopt identical or similar wildfire mitigation resolutions in coordination with the City's actions. Outreach on this issue has included discussions with the following agencies:
 Town of Truckee
 County of Nevada
 City of Nevada City
This proactive approach seeks to protect the City of Grass Valley’s interests and advocate for continued federal investment in fire mitigation, disaster preparedness, and local economic stability.

Staff recommends working with the Town of Truckee and other local agencies, to compile cover letters and resolutions with our partner agencies and coordinate an inperson delivery, if possible or by mail, of these resolutions to Representative Kiely at his office in Rocklin.

Council Goals/Objectives: The execution of this action attempts to achieve the following Strategic Goals:

GOAL #5 – High Performance Government and Quality Services Fiscal Impact: No fiscal impact associated with this action.

Funds Available: N/A Account #: N/A
Reviewed by: City Manager
Attachments:
 Resolution 2025-06, opposing the local impacts to forest health and wildfire mitigation that will result from federal funding and staffing cuts to our public lands.
 Resolution 2025-05, opposing the economic impacts that will result from federal funding cuts on the community

Item # 6.

RESOLUTION 2025-06

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRASS VALLEY OPPOSING

THE LOCAL IMPACTS TO FOREST HEALTH AND WILDFIRE MITIGATION THAT WILL

RESULT FROM FEDERAL FUNDING AND STAFFING CUTS TO OUR PUBLIC LANDS WHEREAS; Nevada County is a rural county of 100,000 residents located in the foothills and High Sierra regions of the Sierra Nevada in California; WHEREAS; Wildfires in California have grown in size, duration, and destructiveness because increasing impacts of periods of extreme rain and extreme droughts have caused accumulation of fuels in our forests, the majority of which are owned and managed by the federal government.

Several of the most costly fires have occurred in areas that, like Nevada County’s population centers, are located in the wildland urban interface;
WHEREAS; proactively maintaining the health of our National Forests through fuel reduction projects is essential to mitigate the risk of catastrophic fire in our adjacent communities; WHEREAS; Recent actions to reduce federal staffing levels will have a catastrophic impact on our federally owned public lands and adjacent communities. An estimated 10% or more of staff positions in Tahoe National Forest have been eliminated and contracts between the US Forest Service and third-party contractors to complete fire mitigation projects have also been cancelled or paused, significantly reducing fire mitigation efforts on US Forest Service lands. These layoffs and frozen positions include emergency response teams and wildfire mitigation—both of which are vital to keeping people safe on our public lands and in our adjacent communities; WHEREAS; Local fuel reduction efforts and fuel reduction on adjacent federal lands work in tandem to protect both our communities and public lands. Without continued, broad landscapescale mitigation on federal lands, our local investments will not provide effective mitigation; WHEREAS; A reduction in funding for public lands will result in:
 Fewer personnel to monitor for wildfires;
 Fewer personnel trained and ready to respond to wildfires;  Fewer personnel to ensure campground fires are appropriately extinguished;  Fewer personnel to gather the on-the-ground data that informs wildfire modeling;  Fewer personnel to mount a prompt response to a wildfire that breaks out;  Fewer resources to complete fuels reduction projects on public lands

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
The City Council of the City of Grass Valley opposes the significant, catastrophic impacts to forest health and wildfire mitigation that may result from federal funding and staffing cuts to the United States Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Army Corps of Engineers. The City Council implores our Federal representatives to support the restoration of Federal funding and staffing to these agencies.

ADOPTED as a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Grass Valley at a regular meeting held on the 25th day of March 2025 by the following vote:

AYES: Council Member
NOES: Council Member

Item # 6.

ABSENT: Council Member
ABSTAINING: Council Member
_____________________________
Hilary Hodge, Chair
ATTEST:
__________________________
Taylor Whittingslow, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
Michael Colantuono, City Attorney

Item # 6.

RESOLUTION 2025-05

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRASS VALLEY OPPOSING THE

ECONOMIC IMPACTS THAT WILL RESULT FROM FEDERAL FUNDING CUTS

ON THE COMMUNITY
WHEREAS; the City of Grass Valley is a community of approximately 14,000 residents located in rural Nevada County, California;
WHEREAS; recreation and tourism play a vital role in Grass Valley’s local economy, with visitors drawn to the city’s historic downtown, public lands, and cultural events. Federal staffing reductions affecting public lands could lead to fewer maintained trails, closures of campgrounds, and a diminished visitor experience to our region. Anticipated impacts include reduced visitation, decreased economic support for local businesses, increased risk of unauthorized camping in unmanaged areas, heightened wildfire risks due to unregulated campfires, illegal parking, environmental degradation, closure of public restroom facilities, and increased trash, litter, and human waste pollution;
WHEREAS; uncertainty surrounding United States Forest Service funding cuts, staffing reductions, and contract delays leaves Grass Valley and the greater Nevada County region without adequate time to plan for potential campsite closures, restroom closures, campfire safety education, and the unavailability of trash disposal facilities; WHEREAS; Grass Valley is home to Sierra Nevada Memorial Hospital, the primary healthcare provider for the region. The hospital serves as a critical healthcare facility and is a major local employer. Medi-Cal (Medicaid) funding is essential for the hospital’s continued operation and its ability to provide care for low-income residents, seniors, and other vulnerable populations; WHEREAS; Grass Valley is served by the Grass Valley School District and Nevada Joint Union High School District, which educate thousands of local students. These districts rely on federal funding sources to support student nutrition, educational, and family assistance programs; WHEREAS; Grass Valley is located along State Highways 49 and 20, critical regional transportation corridors that connect western Nevada County with neighboring communities.

These highways experience significant traffic congestion and serve as essential evacuation routes in the event of wildfires or other emergencies. Federal funding for infrastructure improvements, maintenance, and public transit is crucial for ensuring safety, reducing congestion, and maintaining emergency access;
WHEREAS; cities like Grass Valley rely on various federal funding sources and partnerships with federal agencies. Delays in payment processing and freezes on federal funding create operational uncertainty;
WHEREAS; the availability and affordability of workforce housing remains a significant challenge in Grass Valley, where the local economy depends on workers in tourism, healthcare, and service industries. Increased construction material tariffs would further escalate costs, making it more difficult to build affordable housing and critical infrastructure;

Item # 6.

WHEREAS; Grass Valley’s community-based organizations and social services rely on federal funding sources, and budget cuts or freezes could significantly impact essential programs; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Grass Valley urges federal policymakers to recognize the critical role of federal funding in supporting the city’s infrastructure, healthcare, education, public safety, and economic vitality. The City Council opposes any federal budget reductions or funding freezes that would negatively impact the well-being of Grass Valley residents, local businesses, and essential community services.

ADOPTED as a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Grass Valley at a regular meeting held on the 25th day of March 2025 by the following vote:

AYES: Council Member
NOES: Council Member
ABSENT: Council Member
ABSTAINING: Council Member
_____________________________
Hilary Hodge, Chair
ATTEST:
__________________________
Taylor Whittingslow, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
Michael Colantuono, City Attorney

Item # 6.
1 City of Grass Valley
City Council
Agenda Action Sheet
Title: Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Mid-Year Budget Review
CEQA: Not a project
Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve the Mid-Year Budget Review and the proposed revisions through a motion.

Prepared by: Jennifer Styczynski, Deputy Finance Director Council Meeting Date: 03/25/2025 Date Prepared: 03/19/2025 Agenda: Administrative
Discussion: The mid-year budget review serves as a tool to assess the City’s financial status during the first half of the fiscal year, projects its outlook through the year’s end, and adjusts the budget to align with updated expectations based on prior amendments and current economic conditions.

This year’s review highlights the management’s evaluation of funding impacts that are expected throughout the remainder of the fiscal year, ensuring that existing service levels are maintained while addressing economic and fiscal uncertainties stemming from inflation and mandated requirements. While the economic effects of COVID have lessened over the past year, other factors have emerged, significantly influencing the City’s current and future fiscal health. Considering this heightened uncertainty, the City staff are closely monitoring all sectors of economic activity and updating the longterm forecast for the General and Measure E Funds.

This staff report outlines the recommended mid-year adjustments for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2024-2025 and presents a multi-year forecast for both the City’s General Fund and Measure E Fund, incorporating various assumptions. The information provided here will form the basis for the PowerPoint presentation provided at the upcoming City Council meeting.

General Fund (Fund 100)
Comparison of current Budget-to-Actual performance:

Revenues Expenditures
FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget $ 18,606,256 $ 18,606,253
Estimated Amounts 6/30/25 $ 18,491,393 $ 18,500,714
Recommended Adjustment Increase/(Decrease) $ (114,863) $ (105,539)

Item # 7.
2 The City is expected to reduce the originally budgeted General Fund revenues by $114,863 and lower General Fund expenditures by $105,539. Overall, the General Fund is projected to spend about $9,321 more than its anticipated revenue for Fiscal Year 2024-2025. However, with a $150,000 contingency included in the expenditures, this $9,321 shortfall will be covered by the contingency. Any remaining unused contingency will be rolled over into next year’s fund balance for future use. The detailed information below, which will be presented to the City Council, outlines the recommended adjustments.

In summary, the proposed net decrease of $114,863 in General Fund revenues consists of the following:

Revenue Type Amount Reason / Rationale
Property Taxes $65,500 Increase in property taxes due to higher-than anticipated growth in FY 2024-25
Property Tax in Lieu of MVLF
/ MVL Fees $50,216 True-up of FY 2024-25 anticipated revenues consistent with growth in assessed valuation RPTTF Residual Property
Taxes $58,400
Increase in former redevelopment tax increment as
property taxes due to winding down of redevelopment
affairs and higher growth in assessed valuation
Sales Taxes ($533,918)
Decrease in sales taxes consistent with projections
provided by City’s Sales Tax consultant (HdL) and offset by reduction in sales tax sharing payment with Nevada
County
Transit Occupancy Taxes $44,775 Increase due to continued trending increases Cannabis Excise Tax $25,000 Averaging around $18,500 per month, only second year receiving income source
Franchise Payments – Solid
Waste $36,750 Increased collections of Solid Waste Franchise Fees due to higher rates imposed by Waste Management Franchise Payments – Cable
TV ($69,322) Removal of collection of PEG fees
Animal Shelter Fees / Other
Revenues $21,509 Received $30,000 grant from UC Davis for Animal Shelter services and decrease in revenues for redeemed dogs Planning / Building / Public
Works / Parks / Engineering
Fees & Permits
$63,694 Increased fees collected for building permits,
engineering, and facility and building rentals
Fire Department Fees $26,315 Increase in fire response reimbursements and fire assessments collected with business licenses
Police Department Fees ($45,625) Removal of parking-related revenue not collected

Item # 7.
3 Interest Earnings $45,000 Increase in interest earnings for current market conditions Proposition 64 Grant ($110,000)
All revenue for Prop 64 grant accounted for in Fund 260, offset for Police Officer covered under grant to be offset by personnel services overhead transfer under
expenditures
Prop 172 / POST / Other
Reimbursements $51,073
POST reimbursements of $5,290, reimbursable grant from
Air Quality District for PW tractor of $50,000, and $4,217 reduction to Prop 172 per HdL projections
Transfers In – POB Payments $868
Small increase to share of Pension Obligation Bond debt service cost for Measure E / Water / Sewer share, which is wholly paid by the General Fund
Expense Reimbursements $85,000 Increase to settlements received by the City Business Licenses / City Hall
Rental Income $12,902 Small increases in Business License fees and City Hall rental income All Other Revenue Sources $57,000 Insurance reimbursements received and other miscellaneous revenues
A proposed net decrease of $105,539 in General Fund expenditure appropriations is broken down as follows:

Appropriation Amount Reason / Rationale
City Council $19,314 Approved increase to Council stipends and costs to attend conferences
City Manager ($18,035) Decrease in personnel costs for part-time employee and recalculation of health insurance benefit allocation
Finance Department $41,576
Increase in personnel costs due to accrued leave payouts due to staff turnover and increase to HdL fees for business license processing
Information Services $82,893 Reallocation of IT staffing from Measure E to General / Water / Sewer Funds
City Attorney $11,250 To ensure adequate budget to cover the final four months of fiscal year
Police ($403,908)
Decrease in Police personnel costs to account for salary savings from funded but unfilled Police Officer trainee position, unfilled part time parking officer, and Police Officer position being reimbursed 100% by Prop 64 Grant

Item # 7.
4 Animal Control ($16,394) Decrease in Animal Control personnel costs due to vacancy savings
Fire $44,765
Increase in Fire personnel costs for increased overtime related to coverage requirements (minimum staffing /
FMLA / Workers Comp)
Planning $3,736
Increase in Planning personnel costs due to COLA effective after the budget was adopted and updated allocations to other funds
Building $21,818
Increase in Building personnel costs due to COLA effective after the budget was adopted and updated allocations to other funds
Engineering $22,573
Increase in Engineering personnel costs due to COLA
effective after the budget was adopted and updated
allocations to other funds
Fleet Services $45,982 Increase in fuel costs for bulk fuel payments for new citywide fuel station
Streets ($97,270)
Decrease in Streets personnel costs due to vacancy savings for unfilled budgeted position
Swimming Pool $4,073 Increase in Swimming Pool personnel costs due to COLA effective after budget was adopted
Parks / Parks Maintenance $41,905 Purchase of $50,000 utility tractor reimbursed by grant received by NSAQMD
Non-Departmental – Workers’
Compensation / Utilities /
Liability Insurance
$92,307
Increase in Workers’ Compensation costs due to increasing rates - $45,000
Increase in PG&E rates - $50,000
Increase in citywide liability insurance costs due to
increasing rates - $47,656
Debt Service ($12,123) Final payment made for John Deere lease; no additional amount owed
All Other Appropriations $10,000 Potential Dorsey Marketplace expenses At the end of the current fiscal year, General Fund reserves (both designated and undesignated) are expected to total approximately $8.49 million.

Projected reserve levels as of June 30, 2025, include:
$ 5,866,453 Designated Reserves
$ 2,625,337 Undesignated Reserves
$ 8,491,790 Total General Fund Reserves

Item # 7.
5 Enterprise Funds
Comparison of Budget-to-Actual performance for the City’s two Enterprise Funds follows:

Water Fund (Fund 500)
Revenues Expenditures
FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget $ 2,338,500 $ 4,368,824
Estimated Amounts 6/30/25 $ 2,505,335 $ 4,526,799
Recommended Adjustment Increase/(Decrease) $ 166,835 $ 157,975 Water Fund revenues are currently projected to be $166,835 higher than originally budgeted. This increase includes an additional $35,835 in Water Connection Fees received to date and an additional $131,000 in Water Use Fees collected.

Water Fund expenditures are recommended to be adjusted upward by $157,975, primarily due to increased Personnel Services costs related to updated personnel cost allocations and negotiated COLAs that were not initially included in the adopted budget. This increase also includes an additional $55,000 allocated to the Water Fund for its share of the rise in the City’s annual liability insurance premiums.

Although it is unlikely that all originally budgeted capital projects will be completed by the end of the fiscal year, adjustments to capital appropriations are not recommended at this time, as appropriations for unfinished projects will be re-budgeted in the upcoming fiscal year.

It is anticipated that the Water Fund will have approximately $879,000 in Fund Balance at the end of Fiscal Year 2024-2025, all of which is reserved for specific purposes. This ending Fund Balance assumes that all capital projects are completed by the end of the fiscal year.

Sewer Fund (Fund 510)
Revenues Expenditures
FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget $ 5,494,000 $ 10,143,200
Estimated Amounts 6/30/25 $ 5,538,417 $ 10,538,889
Recommended Adjustment Increase/(Decrease) $ 44,417 $ 395,689 Sewer Fund revenues are currently projected to be $44,417 higher than originally budgeted, primarily due to additional Sewer Connection Fees received to date.

Sewer Fund expenditures are recommended to be increased by $395,689. Like the Water Fund, these adjustments are due to higher Personnel Services costs, including updated personnel cost allocations and negotiated COLAs that were not initially included in the adopted budget. This increase also includes an additional $150,000 allocated to the Sewer Fund for its share of the rise in the City’s annual liability insurance premiums. Capital outlay appropriations for equipment will also need to be increased by $50,000 to cover the additional cost of replacing the grit system. Although it is unlikely that all originally budgeted capital projects will be completed by the end

Item # 7.
6 of the fiscal year, adjustments to capital appropriations are not recommended at this time, as any unfinished projects will be re-budgeted in the upcoming fiscal year.

It is anticipated that the Sewer Fund will have approximately $4.82 million in Fund Balance as of June 30, 2025, with $4.28 million of that amount reserved for specific purposes. This ending Fund Balance assumes all capital projects are completed by the end of the fiscal year.

Special Revenue Funds
Measure E Fund (Fund 200)
The City separates the accounting for revenue and expenditures related to the voterapproved one-cent transaction and use tax into Fund 200 (Measure E Fund) to guarantee that these general-purpose tax funds are used specifically for their intended purposes:
police and fire services, as well as streets and parks projects.

Revenues Expenditures
FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget $ 7,362,500 $ 11,990,824
Estimated Amounts 6/30/25 $ 7,065,000 $ 12,117,084
Recommended Adjustment Increase/(Decrease) $ (297,500) $ 126,260 Revenues for the Measure E Fund are currently expected to be approximately $297,500 lower than originally anticipated, due to a decrease in sales tax collections by the end of the fiscal year. This decline is attributed to economic uncertainty and shifting market trends, which are impacting local and statewide sales.

On the expenditure side, Measure E Fund expenditures are expected to be around $126,000 higher than initially projected, primarily due to increased workers' compensation costs, safety-related expenditures for body cameras and tasers, and a slight rise in overtime for patrols.

If all budgeted street and parks capital projects are fully funded and completed in the current year, the Measure E Fund is projected to have a negative fund balance of approximately $1,727,216 by June 30, 2025, assuming all capital projects are finished by the end of the fiscal year. To create a more realistic timeline for achieving the goals and projects funded by this measure, several projects will be delayed by one or two years. Any unused funds from the current fiscal year will roll over into the next fiscal year's budget, and staff will present an updated capital project list during the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 budget process.

Gas Tax Fund (Fund 201)
Revenues Expenditures
FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget $ 788,925 $ 1,152,164
Estimated Amounts 6/30/25 $ 795,743 $ 1,165,464
Recommended Adjustment Increase/(Decrease) $ 6,818 $ 13,300 Gas Tax Fund revenues are projected to exceed the original budget by approximately $6,818, driven by slightly higher anticipated collections of gas taxes and SB-1 funding,

Item # 7.
7 in line with current projections. Gas Tax expenditures are also expected to be around $13,300 higher than initially budgeted, reflecting an increased transfer from the Gas Tax Fund to the Traffic Safety Fund to cover higher PG&E costs for streetlights. It is important to note that any capital amounts budgeted for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 that remain unspent by year-end will be carried into the next fiscal year.

As of June 30, 2025, the Gas Tax Fund is expected to have a Fund Balance of approximately $192,478. These funds are typically allocated towards the City’s street maintenance and rehabilitation projects, as well as for transferring to the Traffic Safety Fund to cover streetlight utility and maintenance costs.

Traffic Safety Fund (Fund 202)
Revenues Expenditures
FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget $ 185,000 $ 185,000
Estimated Amounts 6/30/25 $ 208,300 $ 208,300
Recommended Adjustment Increase/(Decrease) $ 23,300 $ 23,300 The Traffic Safety Fund primarily covers citywide streetlight electricity and maintenance costs. Revenues are projected to increase by $23,300, reflecting higher traffic citation revenues and an increased transfer from the Gas Tax Fund, which will support anticipated expenditure increases of the same amount. As noted earlier, PG&E costs for maintaining the city's streetlights have risen significantly over the past two years, along with associated maintenance expenditures.

At the end of the fiscal year, the Traffic Safety Fund is expected to have a zero Fund Balance.

Fire Reserve Fund (Fund 203)
Revenues Expenditures
FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget $ 54,000 $ 100,000
Estimated Amounts 6/30/25 $ 130,378 $ 106,000
Recommended Adjustment Increase/(Decrease) $ 76,378 $ 6,000 Revenues for the Fire Reserve Fund are projected to be approximately $76,000 higher than originally budgeted, driven by increased fire strike team equipment usage and administrative reimbursements for participation in qualifying multi-agency statewide fire suppression events. This increase reflects funds already collected, with the possibility of additional funds being received by year-end. These funds may be used for fire equipment replacement costs. Additionally, a request for $6,000 in expenditures is being made for the purchase of additional tactical hoses, which would typically be covered by the General Fund if this reserve fund did not exist.

The Fire Reserve Fund is expected to have a Fund Balance of approximately $155,466 as of June 30, 2025. Of this amount, $60,000 is reserved for future apparatus purchases related to the Nevada City Fire Services operation (for which the City contracts with Nevada City to provide fire services). Additional reserves may be appropriated in future fiscal years to cover eligible fire equipment replacement costs.

Item # 7.
8 Developer Impact Fund (Fund 206)
Revenues Expenditures
FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget $ 75,000 $ 1,850,000
Estimated Amounts 6/30/25 $ 100,429 $ 1,850,000
Recommended Adjustment Increase/(Decrease) $ 25,429 $ 0 Revenues for the Developer Impact Fee Fund are projected to be approximately $25,429 higher than originally budgeted, based on collecting fees to date. Expenditures for the fund are expected to remain unchanged, as they include transfers to the Capital Project Fund for various street projects, such as the Centennial Drive realignment and a storm drain plan. It's important to note that any capital amounts budgeted for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 that remain unspent by year end will be carried over into the next fiscal year.

The Developer Impact Fee Fund is expected to have a Fund Balance of approximately $415,636 as of June 30, 2025. These funds may be allocated in future fiscal years for eligible development impact or mitigation projects, in line with the fees collected for specific purposes.

Capital Project Fund (Fund 300)
Revenues Expenditures
FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget $ 14,634,164 $ 14,634,164
Estimated Amounts 6/30/25 $ 14,634,164 $ 14,524,967
Recommended Adjustment Increase/(Decrease) $ 0 $ (109,197) The Capital Projects Fund accounts for non-enterprise Capital Projects citywide.

Capital Projects are typically funded with non-discretionary (grants, fees, etc.) revenue sources and transfers in from other funds. Capital Projects Fund revenues are recommended to remain unchanged as they are brought in on a reimbursed basis and will be carried forward to the following fiscal year.

It is recommended that Capital Projects Fund expenditures be reduced by $109,197, as the HSIP Pedestrian Crossing Improvement Project has been completed, and these budgeted costs were incurred and accounted for in previous fiscal years. All other capital projects will remain fully funded.

If all budgeted capital projects were fully expended and completed in the current year, the Capital Projects Fund would have a negative fund balance of approximately $512,364 by June 30, 2025, assuming all projects are completed by the end of the fiscal year. Since not all projects have been initiated, any unused funds from the current fiscal year will roll over into the next fiscal year's budget. Staff will present an updated list of capital projects along with a realistic timeline during the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 budget process.

Item # 7.
9 Special Project Fund (Fund 310)
Revenues Expenditures
FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget $ 182,793 $ 3,985,000
Estimated Amounts 6/30/25 $ 197,213 $ 3,985,000
Recommended Adjustment Increase/(Decrease) $ 14,420 $ 0 The Special Projects Fund is used to account for projects funded by developmentrelated and special funding sources. Revenues for the Special Projects Fund are recommended to increase by $14,420 to reflect the Regional Transportation Mitigation Fees received from the Nevada County Transportation Commission.

Expenditures for the Special Projects Fund are recommended to remain unchanged at $3.98 million, with $3.00 million currently allocated for various park projects, which will be determined and funded by the remaining debt proceeds from Fiscal Year 2021- 2022 designated for the City’s parks.

The Fund Balance in the Special Projects Fund is projected to be approximately $3.44 million as of June 30, 2025.

Other Funds
The mid-year report also includes fund schedules for other funds, some of which have recommended adjustments. These funds are as follows:
 DUI Grant Fund - Fund 204
 EPA Site Grant Fund - Fund 205
 Vehicle Replacement Fund - Fund 225
 E. Daniels Park Fund - Fund 450
 Animal Shelter Fund - Fund 451
There are no recommended adjustments for the Successor Agency Fund, CDBG/HOME Grant(s), or Assessment District Funds in this mid-year update.

FY 2025-2026 Budget Development
As the City begins the budget process for Fiscal Year 2025-2026, it is crucial to understand the factors that will shape the City’s finances in the coming years. This will include utilizing the updated seven-year model to guide both current and long-term financial decisions. Challenges such as economic uncertainty and rising inflation have slowed growth, causing consumers to adopt more cautious spending habits, which have resulted in a decline in sales tax revenues. CalPERS’ investment returns remain volatile, citywide insurance costs continue to rise, and the ongoing effort to attract and retain top-tier staff will all influence future budgets. The most significant and unpredictable impact on future budgets is the continued increase in unfunded liability amortization costs, which have been rising rapidly.

To address these concerns, staff will regularly monitor financial activity and provide updates to the City Council and the public over the next few months, in alignment with the typical annual budget process. This will lead to the preliminary Fiscal Year 2025-

Item # 7.
10 2026 budget to be reviewed by the City Council in May 2025, and the final adoption of the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 budget in June 2025.

Similar to the approach taken during the development of the Fiscal Year 2024-2025 budget, staff will focus on recommending an annual spending plan that meets community priorities while maintaining the effectiveness of existing services.

Council Goals/Objectives: The review and approval of the mid-year budget adjustments contribute to advancing Economic Development and Vitality, as well as High-Performance Government and Quality Service.

Fiscal Impact: The recommended budget modifications for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 align expenditures with anticipated revenues and carryover funds for the identified accounts.

Funds Available: Yes Account #: All City Funds
CEQA: Not a Project subject to CEQA requirements.

Reviewed by: City Manager
Attachments:

Fund Schedules for:
 General Fund – Fund 100
 Water Enterprise Fund – Fund 500
 Sewer Enterprise Fund – Fund 510
 Measure E Fund – Fund 200
 Gas Tax Fund – Fund 201
 Traffic Safety Fund – Fund 202
 Fire Reserve Fund – Fund 203
 Developer Impact Fee Fund – Fund 206
 Capital Projects Fund – Fund 300
 Special Projects Fund – Fund 310
 DUI Grant Fund – Fund 204
 EPA Site Grant Fund – Fund 205
 Vehicle Replacement Fund – Fund 225
 E. Daniels Park Fund – Fund 450
 Animal Shelter Fund – Fund 451

Item # 7.

City of Grass Valley
Fiscal Year 2024-25 Mid-Year Budget
General Fund Revenue and Expenditure Detail
Actual Actual Preliminary Adopted Budget Mid-Year Budget REVENUES FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2024-25 Taxes 12,683,922 $ 12,874,004 $ 13,505,010 $ 14,046,394 $ 13,747,408 $ Franchises 916,544 991,507 1,010,504 1,028,332 995,760
Licenses 200,072 200,874 202,309 192,005 200,237
Services Charges / Fees 1,853,241 1,811,499 2,015,713 1,835,001 1,900,894 Interest & Use of Money 37,983 167,942 281,754 240,000 289,670 Other Agencies 771,574 834,438 525,660 568,671 518,703
Cost Reimbursements / Transfers 110,049 476,293 671,360 679,853 765,721 Other Revenues 81,501 36,056 49,822 16,000 73,000
Other Financing Sources - - - - -
Total Revenues 17,392,613 16,654,886 18,262,132 18,606,256 18,491,393

EXPENDITURES
City Council 45,194 77,937 57,013 40,335 59,649
City Manager 344,266 372,011 367,822 418,750 400,715
Finance Department 532,773 550,711 465,198 483,727 525,303 Personnel 17,418 36,544 25,331 30,000 30,000
Information Systems 294,223 337,028 383,439 312,783 395,676 City Attorney 275,662 387,818 367,486 225,000 236,250
Police Department 5,279,305 5,446,921 6,068,555 6,418,652 6,014,744 Police Department - Animal Control 211,124 282,385 260,637 265,932 249,538 Fire Department 3,283,481 3,761,920 4,112,356 3,875,348 3,920,113 Community Development - Planning 453,687 475,742 311,862 319,007 322,743 Community Development - Building 434,439 494,802 467,143 425,201 447,019 Public Works - Engineering 333,301 327,616 410,834 375,177 397,750 Public Works - Facilities 144,680 138,972 154,009 126,580 126,580 Public Works - Fleet Services 261,303 312,349 277,693 279,497 325,479 Public Works - Streets 504,117 496,744 592,128 575,152 477,882 Public Works - Capital - - 22,299 - -
Parks and Recreation - Swimming Pool 19,604 128,278 196,968 165,188 169,261 Parks and Recreation - Parks Maintenance 407,689 597,581 668,165 614,009 655,914 Parks and Recreation - Recreation - - - - -
Non-Departmental 1,672,628 2,118,475 1,807,835 1,957,581 2,049,888 Debt Service 988,223 1,446,701 1,469,455 1,463,334 1,451,211 Appropriation for Contingency 278,772 164,874 111,612 150,000 150,000 Transfers Out 45,501 628,556 71,957 85,000 95,000
Total Expenditures 18,583,965 15,827,390 18,669,797 18,606,253 18,500,714 Excess / (Deficit) of Revenues over
Expenditures 827,496 (1,191,352) (407,665) 3 (9,321)
Reserve Transfer to Impact Fee Fund
Beginning Fund Balance 9,272,632 10,100,128 8,908,776 8,501,111 8,501,111 Ending Fund Balance 10,100,128 8,908,776 8,501,111 8,501,114 8,491,790 Less - Designated Reserves:

Police Department Property Deposits 69,431 - - - -
Asset Forfeiture Funds 9,252 - - - -
Narcotics Investigation 12,823 - - - -
North Star Rock Road Mitigation 16,543 - - - -
Infrastructure Repair and Replacement 19,187 - - - -
Tree Preservation 10,701 10,701 10,701 10,701 10,701
Whispering Pines 153,160 153,160 153,160 153,160 153,160 PARSAC Claim Reserves 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 ADA Access - SB 1186 22,167 14,232 14,232 14,232 14,232 PSPS Grant (Fuel Station) Reserve 187,051 - - - -
PEG Reserves - 93,594 3,941 37,351 37,351
Corporation Yard Remodel Funds 400,000 267,051 267,051 26,009 26,009 Nevada City Fire Apparatus Funds 25,000 25,000 25,000 50,000 50,000 Pension Stabilization Reserve 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 OPEB Stabilization Reserve 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 Capital and Deferred Maintenance Reserve 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 Economic Contingency Reserve 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 Amount Not Obligated at Year End 3,599,813 $ 2,770,038 $ 2,452,026 $ 2,634,661 $ 2,625,337 $

Item # 7.

City of Grass Valley
Fiscal Year 2024-25 Mid-Year Budget
General Fund Revenue Account Detail
Actual Actual Preliminary Adopted Budget Mid-Year Budget Description FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2024-25 Property Taxes 3,057,833 $ 3,388,416 $ 3,458,659 $ 3,499,500 $ 3,565,000 $ RPTTF Residual Property Tax Distributions 311,452 256,239 506,610 446,600 505,000 Property Tax in Lieu of MVLF 1,437,038 1,503,671 1,561,713 1,600,755 1,642,012 Sales Taxes 7,874,242 7,761,819 7,850,805 8,230,000 7,620,000 Sales Tax Payment to Nevada County (1,185,867) (1,158,880) (1,028,389) (1,074,302) (998,220) Transient Occupancy Taxes 1,058,697 1,033,199 1,033,225 1,055,225 1,100,000 Real Estate Transfer Taxes 110,037 66,225 64,649 67,670 67,670 Property Tax Homeowners Exemption 20,490 23,315 20,629 20,946 20,946 Cannabis Excise Tax - - 37,109 200,000 225,000
TOTAL TAXES 12,683,922 12,874,004 13,505,010 14,046,394 13,747,408 Franchise - Gas & Electric 172,721 205,383 226,011 228,260 228,260 Franchise - Solid Waste 528,128 552,002 591,976 580,750 617,500 Franchise - Cable TV 215,695 234,122 192,517 219,322 150,000 TOTAL FRANCHISES 916,544 991,507 1,010,504 1,028,332 995,760 Business Licenses 200,044 200,703 201,877 191,905 200,000 Business License Penalties 28 171 432 100 237
TOTAL LICENSES 200,072 200,874 202,309 192,005 200,237
Planning Department Fees / Permits 202,123 53,070 52,799 55,000 60,000 Building Department Fees / Permits 270,482 350,746 336,067 255,000 285,000 Code Enforcement Penalties 38,897 - - - 600
Fire Department Fees / Permits 882,840 928,469 990,936 984,010 996,745 Fire Department Assessments 256,710 257,802 276,451 261,420 275,000 Public Works / Engineering Fees / Permits 22,940 37,680 51,696 36,000 37,394 Animal Shelter Fees / Other Revenues 63,908 62,518 67,398 78,456 99,965 Police Department Fees / Other Revenues 80,897 83,255 175,356 112,090 66,465 Parks Department Fees 34,444 37,959 65,010 53,025 79,725 TOTAL SERVICE CHARGES / FEES 1,853,241 1,811,499 2,015,713 1,835,001 1,900,894

Item # 7.

City of Grass Valley
Fiscal Year 2024-25 Mid-Year Budget
General Fund Revenue Account Detail
Actual Actual Preliminary Adopted Budget Mid-Year Budget Description FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2024-25 Interest Earnings 37,983 160,778 268,058 235,000 280,000 Rental Income - 7,164 13,696 5,000 9,670
TOTAL INTEREST & USE OF MONEY 37,983 167,942 281,754 240,000 289,670 Motor Vehicle License Fees 14,856 13,958 16,820 12,500 21,459 Beverage Recycling Program 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Public Safety - Proposition 172 169,424 157,009 147,664 150,671 146,454 Public Safety Grants 167,372 297,076 68,978 120,000 120,000 Strike Team Reimbursements - 23,066 - - -
COPS Grant - AB 3229 307,495 190,271 186,159 165,000 165,000 SB-2 / LEAP Planning Grant 70,514 118,681 - - -
Proposition 64 Grant - - - 110,000 -
POST Reimbursements 24,978 18,143 25,006 - 5,290
Other State Reimbursements 4,000 4,000 69,027 4,000 54,000 ADA Disability (SB-1186 Fee) 7,935 7,234 7,006 1,500 1,500 TOTAL FROM OTHER AGENCIES 771,574 834,438 525,660 568,671 518,703 Expense Reimbursements 110,049 9,324 217,505 215,000 300,000 Transfer In from Gas Tax Fund - - - 3,000 3,000
Transfer In - POB Payments (Water / Sewer / Measure E) - 445,691 453,855 452,987 453,855 Transfer In - Deere Lease (Water / Sewer) - 21,278 - 8,866 8,866 TOTAL COST REIMBURSEMENTS / TRANSFERS 476,293 110,049 671,360 679,853 765,721 TOTAL OTHER REVENUES 81,501 36,056 49,822 16,000 73,000

TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES - - - - -
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 16,654,886 $ 17,392,613 $ 18,262,132 $ 18,606,256 $ 18,491,393 $

Item # 7.

City of Grass Valley
Fiscal Year 2024-25 Mid-Year Budget
General Fund
Departmental Expenditure Account Detail
Actual Actual Preliminary Adopted Budget Mid-Year Budget FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2024-25
City Administration
City Council - 101
Personal Services 18,085 $ 19,763 $ 17,285 $ 18,085 $ 27,774 $ Services and Supplies 27,109 58,174 38,767 22,250 31,875 Capital Outlay - - 961 - -
Total: 45,194 77,937 57,013 40,335 59,649
City Manager - 102
Personal Services 321,817 347,524 342,241 357,250 338,815 Services and Supplies 22,449 24,487 25,581 61,500 61,900 Capital Outlay - - - - -
Total: 344,266 372,011 367,822 418,750 400,715
Finance Department - 104
Personal Services 443,247 465,698 382,552 407,577 436,403 Services and Supplies 89,526 85,013 82,646 76,150 88,900 Capital Outlay - - - - -
Total: 532,773 550,711 465,198 483,727 525,303
Personnel - 103
Personal Services - - - - -
Services and Supplies 17,418 36,544 25,331 30,000 30,000 Capital Outlay - - - - -
Total: 17,418 36,544 25,331 30,000 30,000
Information Services - 105
Personal Services - - - - 82,916
Services and Supplies 473,730 376,077 602,483 479,638 479,600 Cost Allocation (196,149) (150,431) (255,626) (191,855) (191,840) Capital Outlay 16,642 111,382 36,582 25,000 25,000
Total: 294,223 337,028 383,439 312,783 395,676

Item # 7.

City of Grass Valley
Fiscal Year 2024-25 Mid-Year Budget
General Fund
Departmental Expenditure Account Detail
Actual Actual Preliminary Adopted Budget Mid-Year Budget FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2024-25
City Attorney - 106
Services and Supplies 275,662 387,818 489,982 300,000 315,000 Cost Allocation - - (122,496) (75,000) (78,750)
Total: 275,662 387,818 367,486 225,000 236,250
Public Safety
Police - 201
Personal Services 4,010,372 4,190,035 4,545,396 4,897,952 4,494,044 Services and Supplies 1,191,235 1,240,050 1,512,013 1,515,700 1,515,700 Capital Outlay 77,698 16,836 11,146 5,000 5,000
Total: 5,279,305 5,446,921 6,068,555 6,418,652 6,014,744 Police - Animal Control - 202
Personal Services 163,239 207,223 198,610 222,182 193,788 Services and Supplies 47,885 75,162 62,027 43,750 55,750 Capital Outlay - - - - -
Total: 211,124 282,385 260,637 265,932 249,538
Fire - 203
Personal Services 2,571,513 3,079,510 3,294,501 3,224,348 3,269,113 Services and Supplies 711,968 682,410 817,855 651,000 651,000 Capital Outlay - - - - -
Total: 3,283,481 3,761,920 4,112,356 3,875,348 3,920,113 Community Development
Planning - 301
Personal Services 333,165 404,960 262,368 283,007 286,743 Services and Supplies 120,522 70,782 49,494 36,000 36,000 Capital Outlay - - - - -
Total: 453,687 475,742 311,862 319,007 322,743

Item # 7.

City of Grass Valley
Fiscal Year 2024-25 Mid-Year Budget
General Fund
Departmental Expenditure Account Detail
Actual Actual Preliminary Adopted Budget Mid-Year Budget FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2024-25
Building - 302
Personal Services 268,196 418,150 384,410 377,901 399,719 Services and Supplies 166,243 76,652 82,733 47,300 47,300 Capital Outlay - - - - -
Total: 434,439 494,802 467,143 425,201 447,019
Public Works
Engineering - 401
Personal Services 307,278 314,969 364,507 361,627 384,200 Services and Supplies 26,023 12,647 20,470 13,550 13,550 Capital Outlay - - 25,857 - -
Total: 333,301 327,616 410,834 375,177 397,750
Facilities - 404
Personal Services 76,043 78,168 83,741 87,780 87,780
Services and Supplies 35,800 47,978 36,291 38,800 38,800 Capital Outlay 32,837 12,826 33,977 - -
Total: 144,680 138,972 154,009 126,580 126,580
Fleet Services - 403
Personal Services 187,805 245,703 217,327 213,497 209,479 Services and Supplies 73,498 66,646 60,366 66,000 116,000 Capital Outlay - - - - -
Total: 261,303 312,349 277,693 279,497 325,479
Streets - 402
Personal Services 371,749 342,398 326,093 402,852 305,582 Services and Supplies 132,368 154,346 241,420 172,300 172,300 Capital Outlay - - 24,615 - -
Total: 504,117 496,744 592,128 575,152 477,882

Item # 7.

City of Grass Valley
Fiscal Year 2024-25 Mid-Year Budget
General Fund
Departmental Expenditure Account Detail
Actual Actual Preliminary Adopted Budget Mid-Year Budget FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2024-25
Public Works Capital - 406
Personal Services - - - - -
Services and Supplies - - - - -
Capital Outlay - - 22,299 - -
Total: - - 22,299 - -
Parks and Recreation
Swimming Pool - 502
Personal Services 14,789 31,606 45,840 36,323 40,396
Services and Supplies 4,815 90,851 151,128 128,865 128,865 Capital Outlay - 5,821 - - -
Total: 19,604 128,278 196,968 165,188 169,261
Parks Maintenance - 501 / 503
Personal Services 212,024 321,434 387,677 404,979 395,884 Services and Supplies 195,665 276,147 280,488 209,030 260,030 Capital Outlay - - - - -
Total: 407,689 597,581 668,165 614,009 655,914
Non-Departmental / Other
Non-Departmental - 601
Personal Services 521,976 299,256 - 247,581 239,570
Services and Supplies 1,150,652 1,788,076 1,688,129 1,615,000 1,770,318 Appropriation for Contingency 278,772 164,874 111,612 150,000 150,000 Prior Year Audit Adjustment - - 89,706 - -
Capital Outlay - 31,143 30,000 95,000 40,000
Total: 1,951,400 2,283,349 1,919,447 2,107,581 2,199,888 Debt Service - 5275
Pension Obligation Bonds 890,491 1,322,528 1,346,752 1,344,176 1,344,176 Opterra Solar / Backhoe Leases 97,732 124,173 122,703 119,158 107,035 Total: 988,223 1,446,701 1,469,455 1,463,334 1,451,211

Item # 7.

City of Grass Valley
Fiscal Year 2024-25 Mid-Year Budget
General Fund
Departmental Expenditure Account Detail
Actual Actual Preliminary Adopted Budget Mid-Year Budget FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2024-25
Transfers Out - 5899
Capital Projects - Fund 180 45,501 628,556 71,957 85,000 85,000 Dorsey Marketplace - 6208 (Reimbursed) - - - - 10,000
Total: 45,501 628,556 71,957 85,000 95,000
Total Appropriations - General Fund 15,827,390 $ 18,583,965 $ 18,669,797 $ 18,606,253 $ 18,500,714 $ Total Personal Services: 9,821,298 $ 10,766,397 $ 10,852,548 $ 11,542,941 $ 11,192,205 $ Total Services and Supplies: 4,762,568 5,549,860 6,267,204 5,506,833 5,812,888 Total Cost Allocations: (196,149) (150,431) (378,122) (266,855) (270,590) Total Capital Outlay: 127,177 178,008 185,437 125,000 70,000 Total Debt Service: 988,223 1,446,701 1,469,455 1,463,334 1,451,211 Total Transfers Out: 45,501 628,556 71,957 85,000 95,000 Total Appropriation For Contingency: 278,772 164,874 111,612 150,000 150,000

Item # 7.

Actual Actual Preliminary Adopted Budget Mid-Year Budget Revenues: FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2024-25 Water User Fees 2,148,476 $ 2,000,645 $ 2,114,677 $ 2,119,000 $ 2,250,000 $ Water Connection Fees 23,000 80,030 71,529 - 35,835
Lease Revenues 50,843 58,007 62,116 58,000 58,000
Interest Earnings 13,234 153,782 119,855 160,000 160,000 Miscellaneous Revenues 1,548 851 1,289 1,500 1,500
2,293,315 2,237,101 2,369,466 2,338,500 2,505,335
Expenditures:

Administration - Personal Services 176,048 178,003 387,960 364,804 436,002 Administration - Non-Personal Services 132,346 161,665 204,882 141,500 196,500 Plant - Personal Services 142,825 165,891 168,793 163,042 150,878 Plant - Non-Personal Services 568,331 609,641 692,489 615,000 615,000 Distribution - Personal Services 183,134 186,826 271,464 299,535 343,476 Distribution - Non-Personal Services 193,708 133,906 199,025 185,000 185,000 CalPERS UAAL Payment 22,276 26,428 - 27,483 27,483
Workers Compensation Expenses 11,904 13,320 23,964 27,500 27,500 Debt Service 402,401 360,976 321,408 334,267 334,267
Information Technology Cost Allocation 98,074 75,215 127,813 95,928 95,928 Capital Outlay 28,378 672 672 28,500 28,500
Capital Expenses 210,435 127,082 92,833 2,020,000 2,020,000 Transfers Out - Capital Projects Fund - 700,000 50,000 - - Transfers Out - Debt Service (POB / Deere) - 71,689 61,951 66,265 66,265 2,811,314 2,169,860 2,603,254 4,368,824 4,526,799
Excess (Deficit) of Revenues Over Expenditures 67,241 (517,999) (233,788) (2,030,324) (2,021,464) Beginning Fund Balance 3,584,982 3,652,223 3,134,224 2,900,436 2,900,436 Ending Fund Balance 3,652,223 3,134,224 2,900,436 870,112 878,972 Reserved Fund Balance:

Safe Drinking Water Loan Debt Svc. Reserve 148,700 148,700 148,700 148,700 148,700 Pension Reserve 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000
Working Capital Reserve 325,000 325,000 325,000 325,000 325,000 Water System Reinvestment Reserve 360,663 360,663 360,663 360,663 360,663 Emergency Reserve 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 Unobligated Fund Balance 2,442,860 $ 1,924,861 $ 1,691,073 $ (339,251) $ (330,391) $ Actual Actual Preliminary Adopted Budget Mid-Year Budget Capital Expenditures FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2024-25 Trf Capital 66005 - Mill Street Ped Plaza - 700,000 50,000 - - 65210 - Water System Master Plan - 4,009 46,362 - -
65230 - Water Rate Impact Fee Study 18,870 8,775 - - -
65250 - Water SRF Improvements - - - 25,000 25,000
65280 - 2011 Water Line (Depot Street) - - - 600,000 600,000 65300 - Jan/Hill Water Projects - - - 200,000 200,000
65330 - Water Treatment Plant Maintenance - 223 - 475,000 475,000 65340 - Annual Water System Maintenance 191,565 114,075 46,471 250,000 250,000 65350 - Annual Flushing Program - - - 100,000 100,000
66008 - Water Line Repl - Linden / Church - - - 120,000 120,000 66650 - Water Sampling Station Rplcmts - - - 250,000 250,000 $ 827,082 210,435 $ 142,833 $ 2,020,000 $ 2,020,000 $
City of Grass Valley
Fiscal Year 2024-25 Mid-Year Budget
Water Fund (Fund 500)
Capital Expenditure Detail

Item # 7.

Actual Actual Preliminary Adopted Budget Mid-Year Budget Revenues: FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2024-25 Wastewater Service Fees 4,910,741 $ 4,679,365 $ 4,872,050 $ 4,969,000 $ 4,969,000 $ Industrial Waste Permits 243,645 256,046 259,503 250,000 250,000 Sewer Connection Fees 177,005 481,681 78,640 50,000 94,417 Interest Earnings 25,878 166,448 278,096 225,000 225,000 5,583,540 5,357,269 5,488,289 5,494,000 5,538,417
Expenditures:

Administration - Personal Services 230,279 234,603 400,551 376,866 451,405 Administration - Non-Personal Services 263,491 296,396 567,077 370,000 520,000 Plant - Personal Services 597,945 696,747 681,120 652,164 689,830 Plant - Non-Personal Services 998,174 1,144,606 1,163,478 1,300,000 1,300,000 Collection - Personal Services 118,085 190,526 254,338 292,426 328,072 Collection - Non-Personal Services 168,376 140,357 182,339 170,000 170,000 CalPERS UAAL Payment 48,726 44,844 - - 47,837
Workers Compensation Costs 22,774 28,195 38,565 40,000 40,000 Debt Service 1,515,867 1,392,975 1,313,142 776,263 776,263 Information Technology Cost Allocation 98,074 75,215 127,813 95,928 95,928 Capital Outlay - Equipment 124,369 56,812 - 105,000 155,000 Capital Expenses 30,369 26,502 67,888 5,780,000 5,780,000 Transfers Out - Debt Service (POB / Deere) - 187,858 180,465 184,553 184,553 4,515,636 4,216,529 4,976,776 10,143,200 10,538,889
Excess (Deficit) of Revenues Over Expenditures 1,140,740 1,067,904 511,513 (4,649,200) (5,000,472) Beginning Fund Balance 7,100,392 8,241,132 9,309,036 9,820,549 9,820,549 Ending Fund Balance 8,241,132 9,309,036 9,820,549 5,171,349 4,820,077 Reserved Fund Balance:

Bond Reserve - - - - -
Trustee Cash - Leases and Other Debt 585,453 605,576 638,924 638,924 638,924 FHMA Debt Service Reserve 134,362 134,362 134,362 134,362 134,362 Glenbrook Sewer Improvement Reserve - - - -
Working Capital Reserve 850,000 850,000 850,000 850,000 850,000 Pension Reserve 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 System Reinvestment Reserve 1,735,887 1,735,887 1,735,887 1,735,887 1,735,887 Emergency Reserve 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 Unobligated Fund Balance 4,010,430 5,058,211 5,536,376 887,176 535,904 Actual Actual Preliminary Adopted Budget Mid-Year Budget Capital Expenditures FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2024-25 65230 - Sewer Rate Study 24,622 14,975 - - -
66590 - NPDES 2008-13 - - - 60,000 60,000
66651 - Sewer Lining Project - - - 2,800,000 2,800,000
66820 - Annual Sewer Maintenance 895 9,369 24,011 200,000 200,000 66890 - Annual WWTP Projects 141 906 1,145 1,200,000 1,200,000 66920 - Taylorville Lift Station - - - 400,000 400,000
66930 - Sewer Main Replacement Project - - - 420,000 420,000 66940 - Slate Creek Lift Station 4,711 505 - 700,000 700,000 66960 - 2018 WWTP Improvements Project - 747 42,732 - - $ 26,502 30,369 $ 67,888 $ 5,780,000 $ 5,780,000 $
Capital Expenditure Detail
City of Grass Valley
Fiscal Year 2024-25 Mid-Year Budget
Sewer Fund (Fund 510)

Item # 7.

Actual Actual Preliminary Adopted Budget Mid-Year Budget Revenues: FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2024-25 Measure E Sales Tax 6,987,724 $ 6,992,271 $ 7,062,106 $ 7,350,000 $ 7,010,000 $ Fire Department Response Reimbursement 3,576 979 - 5,000 - Interest Income 16,131 34,911 105,662 7,500 55,000
Other Income 227,362 219,718 231,504 - -
7,247,879 7,234,793 7,399,272 7,362,500 7,065,000
Expenditures:

Police - Personal Services 1,474,359 1,620,204 1,743,612 1,698,044 1,755,605 Police - Non-Personal Services 129,807 161,830 137,428 162,000 194,000 Fire - Personal Services 1,351,543 1,429,288 1,572,397 1,442,608 1,449,729 Fire - Non-Personal Services 129,072 161,040 139,622 169,000 169,000 Public Works - Non-Personal Services 34,560 16,210 8,647 7,000 7,000 Safety - CalPERS UAAL Amortization 312,237 72,781 - 63,783 61,719 Safety - Liability Insurance 70,688 92,121 131,816 161,949 162,462 Safety - Worker's Compensation Costs 71,990 84,498 101,017 82,000 103,000 Police - Capital Outlay 283,037 435,671 519,547 254,000 255,300 Fire - Capital Outlay 89,489 228,200 257,676 805,000 805,000 Debt Service - Parks Funding - 662,829 662,829 654,000 662,829 Direct Capital Outlay - Streets / Parks / PS 1,794,564 679,685 259,955 200,000 200,000 Transfers Out - Capital Projects Fund 1,445,910 1,711,222 1,791,156 6,080,000 6,080,000 Transfers Out - General Fund (For POB DS) - 207,637 211,440 211,440 211,440 Transfers Out - Gas Tax Fund - 263,269 - - -
7,826,485 7,187,256 7,537,142 11,990,824 12,117,084
Excess (Deficit) of Revenues Over Expenditures 47,537 (578,606) (137,870) (4,628,324) (5,052,084) Beginning Fund Balance 4,417,568 4,465,105 3,886,499 3,748,629 3,748,629 Ending Fund Balance 4,465,105 3,886,499 3,748,629 (879,695) (1,303,455) Actual Actual Preliminary Adopted Budget Mid-Year Budget Capital Expenditures FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2024-25 Police Capital - Vehicles / Buildout 215,325 435,671 519,547 204,000 204,000 Police Capital - Equipment 67,712 - - 50,000 50,000
Fire Capital - Fire Truck - - - 700,000 700,000
Fire Capital - Vehicles / Buildout 8,429 223,420 257,676 105,000 105,000 Fire Capital - Equipment / Radios 81,060 4,780 - - -
63910 - Police Dept. Radio Infrastructure 921,984 339,861 32,863 - - 64140 - Measure E Park Projects / Maintenance 872,580 339,824 227,092 200,000 200,000 Trf to Capital 61220 - Annual Street Mtc - 48,363 9,164 - - Trf to Capital 61330 - Annual Street Rehab 389,156 38,702 94,655 - - Trf to Capital 63300 - Main Street Resealing - - - 300,000 300,000 Trf to Capital 63850 - Measure E Street Projects 9,636 178,587 896,186 1,800,000 1,800,000 Trf to Capital 64140 - Measure E Parks 47,008 44,842 15,004 2,850,000 2,850,000 Trf to Capital 64150 - Memorial Park Pool / Fac 748,883 400,000 226,147 - - Trf to Capital 66005 - Mill Street Ped Plaza - 1,000,000 500,000 - - Trf to Capital 66006 - Slate Creek Drainage 243,014 - - - - Trf to Capital 66007 - HSIP Improvements 2,612 728 50,000 - - Trf to Capital 66653 - Magenta Drain Restore - - - 10,000 10,000 Trf to Capital 66656 - S. Auburn Street Renovation - - - 1,120,000 1,120,000 $ 3,054,778 3,613,000 $ 2,828,334 $ 7,339,000 $ 7,339,000 $ City of Grass Valley
Fiscal Year 2024-25 Mid-Year Budget
Measure E Fund (Fund 200)
Capital Expenditure Detail

Item # 7.

Actual Actual Preliminary Adopted Budget Mid-Year Budget Revenues: FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2024-25 Section 2103 Apportionment 102,053 $ 110,980 $ 123,869 $ 120,919 $ 125,943 $ Section 2105 Apportionment 71,718 77,514 82,607 84,538 85,967 Section 2106 Apportionment 107,667 103,373 111,698 111,445 114,893 Section 2107 Apportionment 79,655 105,638 111,816 115,532 117,298 Section 2107.5 Apportionment 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 Road Repair / Accountability Act / Loan Repay 263,269 303,897 351,401 348,491 343,642 Transfers In - Measure E Fund - 263,269 - - -
Interest Earnings 1,528 20,676 12,223 5,000 5,000
988,347 628,890 796,614 788,925 795,743
Expenditures:

Transfers Out - General Fund - - - 3,000 3,000
Transfers Out - Traffic Safety Fund 134,079 135,019 167,506 155,000 168,300 Transfers Out - Capital Projects Fund 187,005 700,730 620,563 994,164 994,164 835,749 321,084 788,069 1,152,164 1,165,464
Excess (Deficit) of Revenues Over Expenditures 307,806 152,598 8,545 (363,239) (369,721) Beginning Fund Balance 93,250 401,056 553,654 562,199 562,199 Ending Fund Balance 401,056 553,654 562,199 198,960 192,478 Actual Actual Preliminary Adopted Budget Mid-Year Budget Capital Expenditures FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2024-25 Trf to Capital 61220 - Street Maintenance 11,631 100,000 170,000 100,000 100,000 Trf to Capital 61330 - Street Rehab 175,000 850,000 295,000 - - Trf to Capital 63630 - Annual Sidewalks 374 13,999 30,000 20,000 20,000 Trf to Capital 63440 - Mill Street Parking Lot - - 125,563 154,164 154,164 Trf to Capital 66656 - S. Auburn Street Renov - - - 680,000 680,000 Trf to Capital 66102 - Bennett St Bridge - - - 40,000 40,000 $ 963,999 187,005 $ 620,563 $ 994,164 $ 994,164 $
City of Grass Valley
Fiscal Year 2024-25 Mid-Year Budget
Gas Tax Fund (Fund 201)
Capital Expenditure Detail

Item # 7.

Actual Actual Preliminary Adopted Budget Mid-Year Budget Revenues: FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2024-25 Parking Citation Revenue 25,500 $ 32,399 $ 42,500 $ 30,000 $ 40,000 $ Transfer In - Gas Tax Fund 134,079 135,019 167,506 155,000 168,300 Miscellaneous Grants - 7,000 - - -
Interest Earnings - - - - -
174,418 159,579 210,006 185,000 208,300
Expenditures:

Utilities Costs 119,600 137,935 176,628 158,000 166,000 Professional Services / Contracts 41,500 24,111 26,068 25,000 40,000 Parking Citations - 2,622 2,310 2,000 2,300
Capital Expenses 9,750 5,000 - -
174,418 161,100 210,006 185,000 208,300
Excess (Deficit) of Revenues Over Expenditures (1,521) - - - - Beginning Fund Balance 1,521 - - - -
Ending Fund Balance - - - - -
Actual Actual Preliminary Adopted Budget Mid-Year Budget Capital Expenditures FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2024-25 62600 - Traffic Calming Project - 9,750 5,000 - -
$ 9,750 - $ 5,000 $ - $ - $
Capital Expenditure Detail
City of Grass Valley
Fiscal Year 2024-25 Mid-Year Budget
Traffic Safety Fund (Fund 202)

Item # 7.

Actual Actual Preliminary Adopted Budget Mid-Year Budget Revenues: FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2024-25 Strike Team Revenues 107,230 $ 49,921 $ 78,040 $ 50,000 $ 126,378 $ Other Revenues 899 - - - -
Interest Earnings 972 4,313 5,847 4,000 4,000
54,234 109,101 83,887 54,000 130,378
Expenditures:

Fire Department Expenditures 70,554 61,064 110,928 100,000 106,000 61,064 70,554 110,928 100,000 106,000
Excess (Deficit) of Revenues Over Expenditures 38,547 (6,830) (27,041) (46,000) 24,378 Beginning Fund Balance 186,412 224,959 218,129 191,088 191,088 Fund Balance Reserved - Nev. City Apparatus 15,000 30,000 45,000 60,000 60,000 Ending Fund Balance 209,959 $ 188,129 $ 146,088 $ 85,088 $ 155,466 $ City of Grass Valley
Fiscal Year 2024-25 Mid-Year Budget
Fire Reserve Fund (Fund 203)

Item # 7.

Actual Actual Preliminary Adopted Budget Mid-Year Budget Revenues: FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2024-25 Local Drainage Impact Fees 10,591 $ 10,440 $ 9,167 $ - $ 2,279 $ Parking in Lieu Fees 14,518 - - - -
Fire Services Impact Fees 14,461 7,846 7,063 - 2,494
Police Services Impact Fees 7,144 7,841 3,451 - 1,740
Admin / General Facilities Impact Fees 7,245 2,602 4,387 - 1,976 Parks / Recreation Impact Fees 37,932 16,019 22,890 - 6,245 GV Transportation Improvement Impact Fees 53,300 157,859 32,781 - 10,598 GV Transportation Administrative Fees 529 1,579 328 - 97 Glenbrook Basin Traffic Impact Fees 1,729 4,004 319 - - Interest Earnings 14,098 63,011 70,297 75,000 75,000
271,201 161,547 150,683 75,000 100,429
Expenditures:

Police Department Capital Outlay 17,795 - - - -
Fire Department Capital Outlay 103,828 - - - -
City Hall / Park Impvmts Capital Outlay 24,157 11,529 53,862 - - Property Purchase / Regional Circulation 284,996 269,436 - - - Net Transfers Out - Capital Projects Fund - 587,002 545,677 1,850,000 1,850,000 867,967 430,776 599,539 1,850,000 1,850,000
Excess (Deficit) of Revenues Over Expenditures (269,229) (596,766) (448,856) (1,775,000) (1,749,571) Beginning Fund Balance 3,480,058 3,210,829 2,614,063 2,165,207 2,165,207 Ending Fund Balance 3,210,829 2,614,063 2,165,207 390,207 415,636 Actual Actual Preliminary Adopted Budget Mid-Year Budget Capital Expenditures FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2024-25 Trf Capital 66005 - Mill Street Ped Mall. - 561,621 - - - Trf Capital 61100 - Storm Drain Plan - - 341 300,000 300,000 Trf Capital 63452 - Centennial Dr Realignment - - - 1,200,000 1,200,000 Trf Capital 63440 - Mill Street Parking Lot - 10,137 545,336 - - Trf Capital 63451 - Bennett & Ophir Circulation - - - 200,000 200,000 Trf Capital 63820 - Matson Creek Phase I - - - 150,000 150,000 Trf Capital 63870 - GVTIF Update - 15,244 - - -
587,002 - 545,677 1,850,000 1,850,000
Actual Actual Preliminary Adopted Budget Mid-Year Budget Fund Balances FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2024-25 Reserve for Parking In Lieu 89,670 - - - -
Reserve for Local Circulation 471,951 - - - -
Reserve for Local Drainage 290,463 300,903 310,070 10,070 12,349 Reserve for Police Services 35,085 42,926 46,377 46,377 48,117 Reserve for Fire Services 12,225 20,071 27,134 27,134 29,628 Reserve for Admin / General Facilties 79,004 81,606 32,131 32,131 34,107 Reserve for Regional Circulation 516,181 506,044 - - -
Reserve for Regional Drainage 153,994 153,994 153,653 - - Reserve for Parks and Recreation 303,943 50,526 73,416 73,416 79,661 Reserve for SMA Map Act Fees 39,292 39,292 - - -
Reserve for GVTIF 1,314,670 1,472,529 1,505,310 108,963 119,561 Reserve for GVTIF Administration 27,936 14,271 14,599 14,599 14,696 Reserve for Glenbrook Basin 6,761 10,765 11,084 11,084 11,084 Reserve for Glenbrook Basin Administration 268 268 268 268 268 Reserve for McKnight Recapture 15,958 15,958 15,958 15,958 15,958 Unobligated Fund Balance (Mkt Val Adj) (146,572) (95,090) (24,793) 50,207 50,207 $ 2,614,063 3,210,829 $ 2,165,207 $ 390,207 $ 415,636 $ City of Grass Valley
Fiscal Year 2024-25 Mid-Year Budget
Developer Impact Fee Fund (Fund 206)
Capital Expenditure Detail
Fund Balance Detail

Item # 7.

Actual Actual Preliminary Adopted Budget Mid-Year Budget Revenues: FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2024-25 ATP Grant - $ - $ - $ 1,240,000 $ 1,240,000 $
Misc. Intergovernmental Revenue - 499,118 - - -
RSTP Funding 150,000 - 300,000 300,000 300,000
HSIP Funding - - - 325,000 325,000
Miscellaneous Grants - 50,590 - 750,000 750,000
CARES Act Funding - 1,533,049 - - -
CDBG Federal Grant 2,416,473 1,071,122 - - -
CMAQ / SRF / HBSP / ATP Misc. Grant Revenues 21,719 102,973 69,452 10,000 10,000 General Expense Reimbursements 3,506 3,528 7,500 - -
General Fund Direct Funding (Mill St Ped Plz) - 176,841 - - - General Fund Reserve Funding (Fuel Stn) - 398,142 - - - Transfers In - General Fund 45,501 53,572 66,294 85,000 85,000 Transfers In - Measure E Fund 1,445,911 1,711,222 1,791,156 6,080,000 6,080,000 Transfers In - Gas Tax Fund 187,005 963,999 620,563 994,164 994,164 Transfers In - Mitigation Fee Fund - 571,758 545,677 1,850,000 1,850,000 Transfers In - Spl Proj Fund 688,038 3,938,705 365,841 3,000,000 3,000,000 Transfers In - Water Fund - 700,000 50,000 - -
CDBG Funding 393,906 - 135,247 - -
5,352,059 11,774,619 3,951,730 14,634,164 14,634,164
Capital Projects Expenditures:

Undistributed Capital 34,222 - - -
61100 - Storm Drain Plan - - 341 300,000 300,000
61220 - 2009 Street Maintenance Projects 11,631 148,363 179,164 100,000 100,000 61330 - Annual Street Rehabilitation 714,156 888,702 690,311 300,000 300,000 61360 - Annual Storm Drain Maintenance 23,518 36,159 19,631 50,000 50,000 61390 - PSPS Grant Projects 3,938 398,142 232 - -
61400 - ARPA Expenditures 112,637 - - - -
61450 - Memorial Park Pool Renovation 5,548 (1,476) - - - 61460 - Infrastructure Needs Assessment - 13,005 40,565 - - 62610 - NCTC Planning 3,701 3,667 9,630 - -
62620 - GVTIF Update - 4,408 - - -
63260 - Storm Damage / Repairs 13,794 - - - -
63280 - 2021 Winter Storm Damage 514,362 205,791 - - -
63300 - Main Street Resealing - - - 300,000 300,000
63350 - Wolf Creek Trail Project Study Report 109,144 112,211 71,095 - - 63440 - Mill Street Parking Lot 5,600 10,137 670,899 154,164 154,164 63450 - McCourtney Road Ped Imp - 346 100,478 940,000 940,000 63451 - Bennett & Ophir Circulation - - - 200,000 200,000 63452 - Centennial Drive Realignment - - - 1,200,000 1,200,000 63630 - Annual Sidewalk Repairs / Maintenance 374 13,999 32,598 20,000 20,000 63750 - Playground Maintenance Projects - - - 35,000 35,000 63820 - Maston Creek Phase I - - - 150,000 150,000
63850 - Measure E Street Rehabilitation 9,636 178,587 896,186 1,800,000 1,800,000 64140 - Meas. E Park Prj (Condon Skate Park) 47,008 44,841 15,004 2,850,000 2,850,000 64150 - CDBG Memorial Park Facility Impv 3,553,714 1,868,003 28,265 - - 66005 - Mill Street Pedestrian Plaza 575,421 4,816,521 915,841 - - 66006 - Slate Creek Drainage 243,014 - 345 - -
66007 - HSIP Improvements 2,611 729 249,753 250,000 140,803 66102 - Bennett Street Bridge - - - 115,000 115,000
66301 - Condon / Scotten Field - 3,093,695 - - -
66652 - S Auburn / Colfax Roundabout - - - 300,000 300,000 66653 - Magenta Drain Restoration - - - 20,000 20,000
66656 - S. Auburn Street Renovation - - - 1,800,000 1,800,000 66657 - Condon Skate Park Replacement - - - 750,000 750,000 66658 - Park Projects - Miscellaneous - - - 3,000,000 3,000,000 5,992,022 11,835,830 3,920,338 14,634,164 14,524,967
Excess (Deficit) of Revenues Over Expenditures (639,963) (61,211) 31,392 - 109,197 Beginning Fund Balance 48,221 (591,742) (652,953) (621,561) (621,561) Ending Fund Balance $ (591,742) $ (652,953) $ (621,561) $ (621,561) $ (512,364) City of Grass Valley
Fiscal Year 2024-25 Mid-Year Budget
Capital Projects Fund (Fund 300)

Item # 7.

Actual Actual Preliminary Adopted Budget Mid-Year Budget Revenues: FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2024-25 Intergovernmental Revenue 404,523 $ 1,950,000 $ - $ - $ - $ RTMF Reimbursements 307,666 356,808 169,669 32,793 47,213 Debt Proceeds - Parks Projects 6,003,493 - - - -
ARPA Funding 1,533,049 845,010 - - -
Interest Earnings 24,094 34,668 167,495 150,000 150,000 3,186,486 8,272,825 337,164 182,793 197,213
Expenditures:

Streets Materials Costs 35,828 - - -
Purchase of Property - - - 985,000 985,000
Trf to Capital 66658 - Parks Projects Misc. - - - 3,000,000 3,000,000 Trf to Capital 64140 - Condon / Scotten Turf - 3,093,695 - - - Trf to Capital 66005 - Mill Street Ped Plaza 575,421 845,010 365,841 - - Trf to Capital 61400 - ARPA Expenditures 112,617 - - - - 3,938,705 723,866 365,841 3,985,000 3,985,000
Excess (Deficit) of Revenues Over Expenditures 7,548,959 (752,219) (28,677) (3,802,207) (3,787,787) Beginning Fund Balance 466,059 8,015,018 7,262,799 7,234,122 7,234,122 Ending Fund Balance 8,015,018 $ 7,262,799 $ 7,234,122 $ 3,431,915 $ 3,446,335 $ City of Grass Valley
Fiscal Year 2024-25 Mid-Year Budget
Special Projects Fund (Fund 310)

Item # 7.

Actual Actual Preliminary Adopted Budget Mid-Year Budget Revenues: FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2024-25 Transfers In - $ - $ 5,662 $ - $ - $
Interest Earnings 11 83 (11) - -
83 11 5,651 - -
Expenditures:

Safety Expenditures - 10,298 - - -
10,298 - - - -
Excess (Deficit) of Revenues Over Expenditures 11 (10,215) 5,651 - - Beginning Fund Balance 4,553 4,564 (5,651) - -
Ending Fund Balance 4,564 $ (5,651) $ - $ - $ - $
City of Grass Valley
Fiscal Year 2024-25 Mid-Year Budget
DUI Grant Fund (Fund 204)

Item # 7.

Actual Actual Preliminary Adopted Budget Mid-Year Budget Revenues: FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2024-25 Grant Revenues 114,041 $ 57,237 $ 261,906 $ 216,988 $ 216,988 $ Interest Earnings - - - - -
57,237 114,041 261,906 216,988 216,988
Expenditures:

EPA Site Assessment Expenditures 122,632 117,088 182,633 216,988 213,246 117,088 122,632 182,633 216,988 213,246
Excess (Deficit) of Revenues Over Expenditures (8,591) (59,851) 79,273 - 3,742 Beginning Fund Balance (14,573) (23,164) (83,015) (3,742) (3,742) Ending Fund Balance (23,164) $ (83,015) $ (3,742) $ (3,742) $ - $ City of Grass Valley
Fiscal Year 2024-25 Mid-Year Budget
EPA Site Grant Fund (Fund 205)

Item # 7.

Actual Actual Preliminary Adopted Budget Mid-Year Budget Revenues: FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2024-25 Other Revenues - Surplus Sales 14,585 $ 4,995 $ 46,085 $ - $ 8,000 $ Interest Earnings 190 340 453 1,200 1,200
5,335 14,775 46,538 1,200 9,200
Expenditures:

Capital Outlay - Vehicle Replacement 110,842 - 28,346 - - Towing Expenditures - - 7,021 - -
Vehicle Lease Expenses 36,556 28,346 11,532 13,000 12,000 28,346 147,398 46,899 13,000 12,000
Excess (Deficit) of Revenues Over Expenditures (132,623) (23,011) (361) (11,800) (2,800) Beginning Fund Balance 170,279 37,656 14,645 14,284 14,284 Ending Fund Balance 37,656 $ 14,645 $ 14,284 $ 2,484 $ 11,484 $ City of Grass Valley
Fiscal Year 2024-25 Mid-Year Budget
Vehicle Replacement Fund (Fund 225)

Item # 7.

Actual Actual Preliminary Adopted Budget Mid-Year Budget Revenues: FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2024-25 Other Revenues - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Interest Earnings 418 1,987 2,879 2,500 2,500
1,987 418 2,879 2,500 2,500
Expenditures:

Park Expenditures - - - - -
- - - - -
Excess (Deficit) of Revenues Over Expenditures 418 1,987 2,879 2,500 2,500 Beginning Fund Balance 101,725 102,143 104,130 107,009 107,009 Ending Fund Balance 102,143 $ 104,130 $ 107,009 $ 109,509 $ 109,509 $ City of Grass Valley
Fiscal Year 2024-25 Mid-Year Budget
E. Daniels Park Fund (Fund 450)

Item # 7.

Actual Actual Preliminary Adopted Budget Mid-Year Budget Revenues: FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2024-25 Other Revenues - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Interest Earnings 22 38 60 - -
38 22 60 - -
Expenditures:

Police Expenditures 4,895 - - - -
Trf to Capital - 63420 - City Hall / GVPS Security - - - - - - 4,895 - - -
Excess (Deficit) of Revenues Over Expenditures (4,873) 38 60 - - Beginning Fund Balance 7,018 2,145 2,183 2,243 2,243
Ending Fund Balance 2,145 $ 2,183 $ 2,243 $ 2,243 $ 2,243 $ City of Grass Valley
Fiscal Year 2024-25 Mid-Year Budget
Animal Shelter Fund (Fund 451)

Item # 7.

City of Grass Valley
City Council
Agenda Action Sheet
Title: Parking Assessment Presentation
CEQA: Not a project
Recommendation: That (1) Council hear the presentation from staff and Dixon Resources Unlimited regarding their operational needs assessment; and (2) provide direction on next steps.

Prepared by: Alexander K. Gammelgard, Chief of Police
Council Meeting Date: 03/11/2025 Date Prepared: 03/20/2025 Agenda: Consent
Background Information
In 2007, the City conducted a downtown parking study recommending residential permit parking evaluation, improved employee parking, and higher turnover. In recent years, the City has made several parking management decisions, including implementing an employee permit parking program, amending the Grass Valley Municipal Code regarding off-street parking management, adding the parking lot at 309 Mill Street for public 3- hour and employee permitted parking, and launching a paid parking pilot at Pioneer Village. Downtown parking management should continue evolving to improve turnover and accessibility, particularly in anticipation of future impacts like the Wolf Creek Trail and increased residential density driven by statewide legislation and trends.

In December 2024, the City hired Dixon Resources Unlimited (DIXON) to conduct an operational needs assessment and support potential municipal code changes. DIXON's assessment, detailed in the attached Operational Needs Assessment Memo (Memo), outlines recommendations to improve compliance, optimize technology, manage parking supply and demand, address employee and residential needs, and enhance wayfinding. The Memo serves as a roadmap to improve convenience, turnover, and parking access in downtown Grass Valley for visitors, residents, and employees.

The Memo presents three tiered implementation approaches for the City’s consideration, each requiring increasing investment and yielding greater parking management improvements:

Item # 8.

A. Baseline Approach: Focuses on the minimum practical enhancements to the City's parking program, such as more consistent enforcement, data collection, and select parking policy updates.

B. Enhanced Approach: Builds on the baseline approach and includes select reforms that are compatible with the existing program, such as a transition to virtual permits, introducing on-street paid parking, and making additional parking policy changes.

C. Comprehensive Approach: Encompasses all the recommendations listed in the memo, including investments in wayfinding and EV charging stations.

Appendix A of the Memo summarizes recommendations for each approach. According to DIXON, regardless of the approach, consistent enforcement and data collection will be critical to justify, adapt, and enforce parking policies. These two pillars will act as the foundation of any successful parking program going forward.

Council Goals/Objectives: The execution of this action attempts to achieve the following Strategic Goals:

GOAL #1 – Community and Sense of Place
GOAL #2 - Transportation
GOAL #5 – High Performance Government and Quality Services GOAL #6 – Public Safety
Fiscal Impact: N/A - Not yet determined
Funds Available: N/A Account #: N/A
Reviewed by: City Manager

Item # 8.

February 28, 2025 1
Memo
To: City of Grass Valley
From: Dixon Resources Unlimited
Date: February 28, 2025
Re: Operational Needs Assessment Memorandum
This Operational Needs Assessment Memorandum (Memo), developed by Dixon Resources Unlimited (DIXON), outlines key opportunities to enhance parking management in the historic downtown of the City of Grass Valley (City). Based on site assessments, staff interviews, and document reviews, DIXON has developed a menu of recommendations on enforcement, technology, supply and demand management, and wayfinding/signage. The recommendations are also organized into a tiered approach for the City’s consideration.

Assessment Context
The City’s 2007 Downtown Parking Study recommended evaluating residential permit parking, improving employee parking, and encouraging higher turnover. This assessment builds on those recommendations, proposing additional strategies to achieve the following:
 Convenience: Improve access by balancing supply and demand by setting up shared parking agreements, evaluating policies, and enforcing them.  Increased Turnover: Increase parking space availability through enforcement, policies, and pricing.
 Ease of Parking: Address residential, employee, and customer parking use cases with permit parking programs and enforcement.

DIXON’s evaluation found that the recommendations in this Memo can be organized into the following three implementation approaches for the City’s consideration:

A. Baseline: This approach includes the foundational improvements that considered minimum enhancements for the City’s parking program. Items include implementing consistent enforcement, continuing the current direction of a license plate-based parking management system, and minimum policy improvements.

B. Enhanced: This approach includes implementing select program elements that are compatible with the existing program.

C. Comprehensive: This approach includes moving forward with full implementation of all the recommendations listed, requiring the most significant investment.

See Appendix A for a summary of recommendation for each approach. Regardless of the chosen approach, the City should implement changes gradually, incorporating ongoing evaluation and community feedback. The steps outlined are flexible, allowing adjustments to meet the community's evolving needs.

Item # 8.

February 28, 2025 2
Enforcement
The City has low compliance with downtown time limits and permit parking regulations. While the City has elements in place to improve compliance, including technology for license platebased enforcement and an escalating fine schedule (see Table 1), it lacks dedicated parking enforcement resources. This has resulted in low turnover of premium on-street spaces, increasing congestion in nearby residential areas. Employees have been observed parking in 3-hour customer spaces at public lots and exceeding the time limit, impacting customer access and resulting in a decline in employee permit usage since 2023. Consistent enforcement of existing policies is a critical first step for the City to improve parking management.  Hire a dedicated parking enforcement FTE. Currently, a Community Service Officer (CSO) manages parking enforcement on an ad hoc basis and not as a primary duty. A dedicated parking enforcement CSO would provide consistent coverage and support efforts to educate the public. The CSO would also run License Plate Recognition (LPR) cameras for data collection.  Identify additional parking resources for comprehensive enforcement coverage.

Additional staffing resources (internal or outsourced) will be required for special events and hours outside the primary CSO's schedule. This coverage will be especially important for ensuring compliance with overnight parking regulations.  Create an action plan to address AB 413. AB 413, which prohibits parking within 20 ft of any marked or unmarked crosswalk, is enforceable as of January 1, 2025. The City should establish an action plan regarding the implementation of this legislation, such as deciding to paint red curbs, adding “no parking” signage by high-traffic crosswalks, and determining an outreach plan to inform the public of this change.

Table 1. Parking Violation Fine Schedule
Violation Original Fine With First
Penalty
With DMV Hold
Disabled Parking $390 $465 $500
Parking – Red, Yellow, White,
Green Zones
$65 $75 $125
Posted No Parking and Blocking
Crosswalk
$65 $75 $125
Expired Registration $140 $175 $200
Use of Street for Storage $60 $100 $125
Other Parking Violations1 $60 $100 $125
Technology
The City has taken steps to implement a parking management system based on license plates, including investments into mounting LPR cameras on law enforcement vehicles, one

1 “Other Parking Violations” includes blocking driveway, on sidewalk, double parking, parking over 18 inches from curb, facing wrong way, parking in traffic lane, wheel cramp, fire hydrant, permit parking, overtime parking (including paid parking), parking out of space, and all other parking violations.

Item # 8.

February 28, 2025 3
Community Service Officer vehicle, and on poles at particular lots throughout downtown. A plate-based system improves the ease of paying for parking, managing permits, and enforcing parking regulations. The City should continue this effort and further build out the program in the following ways:
 Transition from paper to virtual permits. The City currently sells employee parking permits on a quarterly basis in-person at the Grass Valley Police Department. The City should consider implementing an online permit management system (PMS) that can simplify administration, enable users to buy and manage permits online, and integrate with the plate-based enforcement system. The City can explore this option with its citation processing vendor, which also offers a permit management module.

What are virtual permits?
Virtual permits are managed and enforced via license plate, replacing the need for stickers, decals, or hangtags. Many cities are currently implementing Permit Management Systems (PMS), allowing permitholders to purchase and manage permits online, increasing convenience for both users and cities. Staff can set virtual permits to expire at the desired interval, and they integrate seamlessly with plate-based enforcement. This system reduces administrative and enforcement costs while significantly enhancing convenience for permit users.
 Leverage LPR cameras for data collection. The City should activate vehicle-mounted LPR cameras whenever the vehicle is in operation to maximize parking data collection. Combining different LPR data streams can generate parking utilization insights to support future policy and program decisions.
 Consider implementing EV charging stations. The City lacks public EV charging infrastructure. DIXON recommends consulting the Grass Valley Downtown Association and the Chamber of Commerce to assess local and visitor demand. If demand exists, the City could install Level 2 chargers for employees and Level 3 chargers near retail and hospitality. 2 The
Safeway and City Hall parking lots are prime locations to consider for EV charging.

Supply and Demand Management
Parking supply in downtown Grass Valley is generally sufficient to meet the observed demand.

Turnover concerns can be addressed by balancing utilization, ensuring that premium spaces experience the most turnover while longer stays are directed to spaces farther from key destinations. In downtown Grass Valley, on-street spaces should be considered the most premium, followed by central off-street lots, and then peripheral off-street lots.

Parking programs, time limits, and paid parking regulations should be applied in a way that supports this tiered model. Table 2 provides an overview of how parking restrictions can be gradually increased for each space type under each implementation approach. The City should

2 Level 2 chargers provide slower, lower-cost charging for daily or long-term use, while Level 3 chargers offer rapid, higher-cost charging for quick top-ups and long trips.

Item # 8.

February 28, 2025 4
start with Approach A and prioritize consistent enforcement. If turnover challenges and congestion persist, it may consider shifting to Approach B and then to Approach C as needed.

Table 2. Tiered Application of Parking Regulations by Space Type per Implementation Approach Space Type Approach A Approach B Approach C
On-street Parking 2-hour time limits Paid parking Paid parking Central Parking Lots
(Union Square, South
Church Lot, and
Pioneer Village)
3-hour time limits,
paid parking only at
Pioneer Village Lot
3-hour time limits,
paid parking only at
Pioneer Village Lot
Paid parking with a
3-hour time limit
Peripheral Parking
Lots 3-hour time limits 3-hour time limits 3-hour time limits The following subsections highlight specific recommendations for on-street spaces, off-street spaces, shared parking agreements, employee parking, paid parking, and residential parking.

On-street Parking
 Improve consistency with on-street parking regulations. On-street spaces downtown have a variety of regulations, including 3-hour time limits, unlimited parking, yellow curbs, and shortterm parking spaces. Inconsistent policies on a block, such as those along East Main Street, can confuse drivers and reduce enforcement efficiency. The City should review regulations on a block-level basis to identify and address inconsistencies.  Consider reducing the maximum on-street time limit from 3 hours to 2 hours. These spaces primarily serve local restaurants and retail, which typically draw patrons for shorter periods of time. Reducing time limits to 2 hours would increase turnover while still addressing the needs of adjacent businesses. This encourages longer-term parkers to use off-street lots.  Update short-term spaces. There are several short-term parking spaces with a 24-minute time limit that are interspersed downtown variably and irregularly. The City should consider a uniform approach, such as one short-term parking space at the end of every block. Additionally, the City may want to adjust the duration of 24 minutes to 30 minutes, which is a more common increment throughout California.

Parking Lots
The City has ample off-street parking for customer and employee use. A map of all City-owned parking lots and their current parking policies can be found in Appendix B. There are opportunities to refine regulations for parking lots overall, as well as for specific lots.

Item # 8.

February 28, 2025 5
General Recommendations for All Lots
 Simplify operating hours for parking restrictions. The City should consider implementing the same operating
hours for both 3-hour public parking and permit parking in all applicable lots (e.g., 7am-6pm) and an overnight parking restriction (e.g., no parking from 2am-6am) to
prevent long-term vehicle storage. Simplifying
operating hours helps drivers easily understand the
regulations and supports ease of consistent
enforcement.
 Create a special events parking plan. Events like Cornish Christmas and farmers markets create peaks in parking demand, necessitating a specialized plan for vendor and visitor parking. The City should provide vendors with temporary loading spaces near the event and designate long-term parking in peripheral lots exempt from time limits. Customer parking time limits may also be temporarily extended to align with event hours. If paid parking is implemented near the event, higher special event rates should be used to incentivize parking further away.

Recommendations for Specific Lots
A summary of all lot-specific changes can also be found in Table 3.  Enforce and continue temporary parking policies at Mill Street Lot. The City should continue the policies introduced in June 2024 for employee permit parking on the lower level and 3-hour public parking on the upper level. It should also consider adding overnight residential parking as defined in the “Residential Parking” section of this Memo. Currently, customer parking spaces fill up quickly at Mill Street Lot. After applying consistent enforcement and gathering parking occupancy data, the City should re-evaluate lot usage. If customer space availability improves in the downtown area, then the primary usage for this lot could possibly shift to offering permit parking.
 Prepare East Main Street Lot and Mill Street Lot for the Wolf Creek Trail. Visitor parking demand for these two lots may increase once the Wolf Creek Trail has been completed. The City should confirm the trail access points for both lots. Ahead of trail completion, the City should prepare East Main Street Lot with signage, improved maintenance, and possibly add paving and striping. The City should identify any configuration adjustments needed at Mill Street Lot to accommodate access.
 Designate a limited number of employee permit parking spaces at Union Square Lot and South Church Street Lot. Given that the City has observed a significant number of parking violations from employees at Union Square Lot, there is a clear demand for employee parking close to businesses. This could better accommodate employees who have mobility challenges or feel unsafe walking to a peripheral lot after dark. The City should identify an appropriate proportion of spaces to assign as employee permit parking spaces. Adding permit parking spaces to both lots also supports the recommendation of a tiered employee permit parking program found in the “Employee Parking” section.

Figure 1. Off-street 24-minute Space

Item # 8.

February 28, 2025 6
 Consider applying a time limit to paid parking at Pioneer Village Lot. The City can increase turnover at this location by applying a maximum time limit to the number of hours a visitor can pay to park. Alternatively, the City can consider an escalating rate model described in the “Paid Parking” section.
 Convert an undeveloped City-owned parcel to a parking lot. The City owns a parcel at 131 Colfax Avenue that has the potential to provide future parking supply, especially in combination with a potential shared parking agreement with BackPorch Market (recommendation described in the “Shared Parking Agreements” section).

Table 3. Summary of Lot-Specific Recommendations
Parking Lot Recommended Changes
East Main Street Lot  Add signage, conduct maintenance, and possibly pave/stripe the lot ahead of Wolf Creek Trail completion.

South Church
Street Lot
 Allocate a limited number of employee permit parking spaces.

Union Square Lot  Allocate a limited number of employee permit parking spaces.

Pioneer Village Lot  Consider applying time limits to paid parking.

Mill Street Lot
 Consider any configuration adjustments ahead of Wolf Creek Trail completion.
 Enforce and continue temporary policies, then evaluate usage.  Add overnight residential permit parking option.

Shared Parking Agreements
Shared parking agreements are an excellent opportunity to maximize the utilization of private parking lots to increase public and permit parking inventory in the area. Below are some specific actions to consider:
 Initiate discussions with Safeway. Safeway faces frequent parking violations and would benefit from employee and customer parking enforcement support. The City should work with Safeway to establish an optimal customer parking time limit and develop a shared parking agreement to maximize space use, especially during special events.

What are shared parking agreements?
The City can increase public parking by establishing shared parking agreements with private lot owners, allowing underutilized spaces (e.g., school lots during off-hours) to be used for public parking. In these agreements, the City would apply and enforce parking regulations outside of business hours.

This strategy reduces the cost of building new parking locations, optimizes existing spaces, and minimizes additional land use for parking. Private property owners could benefit from an added revenue stream, municipal support for enforcement, and improved signage. The agreements would outline key terms and conditions, such as usage, maintenance, operations, enforcement responsibilities, and liability.

Item # 8.

February 28, 2025 7
 Revisit discussions with Bank of America. The City can provide a shared parking agreement template to Bank of America's property owner to restart negotiations. The template should include liability clauses which address the owner's previous concerns.  Connect with other potential shared parking locations. Locations that could support evening or weekend public parking include the Center for the Arts, Wells Fargo, USPS, and the BackPorch Market.

Employee Parking
Parking for employees is a critical pain-point for downtown.

Employees are responsible for the majority of parking
violations. Additionally, a significant portion of downtown lot spaces are typically occupied by employees. This indicates that employees are regularly parking in prime spaces, which can divert visitors to park on residential streets during peak hours or discourage them from visiting downtown altogether.

Furthermore, a third of employee permits remain
unpurchased every quarter since 2023, indicating low
demand for permits due to a lack of enforcement. Reforms to the program should incentivize employees to both comply with parking regulations and park in off-street peripheral lots.  Implement a tiered employee permit program. The City should introduce “premium” permits for central lots at a higher cost and “value” permits for peripheral lots at a low or free rate. In combination with consistent enforcement, this would encourage employees to park in underutilized areas, freeing prime spaces for customers.

Table 4. Potential Tiered Employee Permit Parking Program Permit Type Price Applicable Lots
“Premium” Employee
Permit $60/quarter
 Union Square Lot
 South Church Lot
 Pioneer Village Lot
“Value” Employee Permit $25/quarter
 Mill Street Lot
 Auburn Street Lot
 108 Richardson Street Lot (West)
 142 Richardson Street Lot (East)
What are the benefits and considerations of Employee Permit Parking? Benefits: Considerations:
 Increases availability of prime on- and offstreet spaces for customers and visitors.  Provides a reliable, consistent option for
employees to park long-term.
 Increases costs for employees and/or
business owners.
 Requires resources for enforcement
and permit management.

Figure 2. Permit Parking Sign

Item # 8.

February 28, 2025 8
 Launch the reformed program. To introduce the updated program, the City should issue a press release and start with a trial period. Parking enforcement should write warning tickets ($0 citations) for one quarter, then move into regular enforcement.  Evaluate permit fee and citation amount. At $55 per quarter, permit prices are close to the $60 citation, offering little incentive to purchase an employee permit with irregular enforcement. After consistent enforcement for at least two quarters, the City should adjust permit costs and/or citation fines based on utilization and citation issuance rates, ensuring fines are clearly higher than permit costs.

Paid Parking
The City launched a pay-for-parking pilot at Pioneer Village Lot in early 2018, installing a single pay station, the mobile app payment option, and signage. The pilot tested paid parking technology, the Pay-by-Plate system, turnover effects, and financial viability while gathering public feedback on pricing and hours. While continuing paid parking is in alignment with the recommendations in this Memo, consistent enforcement and up-to-date parking data are needed to guide the
application of the following recommendations.
 Conduct a parking occupancy study. Paid parking is one strategy to achieve a target occupancy rate of 85%.3 Currently, the City relies on observations for decision-making. A targeted parking study or ongoing data collection would help assess the need for paid parking and its optimal locations, as well as guide future rate adjustments.
 Formalize paid parking in the municipal code. The City may adjust regulations for off-street lots by resolution; however, the City should implement a paid parking ordinance to enable paid parking management both on- and off-street.
 Enable Text-to-Pay. The City already offers paid parking via mobile app at Pioneer Village Lot.

The vendor used by the City also offers Text-to-Pay,4 which offers a convenient alternative mobile payment option.
 Consider introducing on-street paid parking on select block faces. Under Approaches B and C, the City should consider on-street paid parking to improve turnover in premium onstreet spaces and encourage long-term parkers to use peripheral locations. One pay station per block face is sufficient if mobile payment options are available. The City should use insights

3 The industry standard of an 85% occupancy rate target ensures that 1-2 parking spaces remain available on each block face at all times for convenience and access. 4 In Text-to-Pay, a user scans a QR code or sends a text message with the paid parking location to a provided number. Both options would lead to a mobile webpage, where the user inputs details (e.g., duration, license plate) and credit card information to start a paid parking session. Payment confirmation would be visible from that mobile webpage or be sent via text to the user.

Figure 3. Paid Parking Sign

Item # 8.

February 28, 2025 9
from the parking occupancy study to determine which blocks, including those near the Mill Street promenade, should have paid parking.
 Consider extending off-street paid parking to other premium lots. Under Approach C, paid parking can be introduced at other central parking lots in addition to Pioneer Village Lot. This step would boost turnover in prime areas and encourage peripheral lot use. The City should install two (2) pay stations each at Union Square Lot and South Church Lot (see Figure 4 for placement suggestions). This quantity considers that mobile payment options will be available.

The Mill Street lot has electrical conduit installed for a pay station, but as a peripheral lot, converting it to paid parking is not a priority.
 Re-evaluate paid parking fees annually. Currently, users pay $1/hour for parking in Pioneer Village Lot from 9am-9pm. The City should evaluate its parking rates on an annual basis, considering both parking occupancy data and financial modeling to ensure rates enable cost recovery and support the target 85% occupancy rate.
 Consider an escalating rate model for off-street paid parking lots. As an alternative to the hourly rate model, the City could consider implementing an off-street escalating rate model to encourage turnover at centrally located parking lots. This model would set a lower initial rate for the first period of parking, with the rate increasing for additional time intervals. Since the City currently does not have a need to provide customer parking for more than three hours, the 3-hour time limit should remain in place and be reevaluated if parking demand changes.

Financial modeling is recommended to determine the ideal rates for an escalating rate model, ensuring that the highest rate is comparable to or lower than the on-street rate. The City also considered offering an initial free hour of parking, followed by a $1/hour charge. However, the “free first hour” model has been unsuccessful in other communities due to technology and enforcement integration limitations and is not recommended for Grass Valley at this time.

Figure 4. Recommended Pay Station Placement

Item # 8.

February 28, 2025 10
Residential Parking
During peak hours, premium spaces are often occupied, pushing parking demand to nearby residential streets.This is particularly apparent on Richardson Street, where residents have used traffic cones to save spots near their homes. The City should consider establishing a Residential Permit Parking (RPP) program to ensure access to parking for impacted residents.  Introduce an RPP program into the municipal code. Keeping in mind the considerations above, the City should draft an RPP policy and introduce it into the municipal code. This gives residents the opportunity to petition for permit parking regulations on their streets. A list of key RPP program considerations can be found in Appendix C.
 Implement overnight residential permit parking at Mill Street Lot. The City has received requests for overnight residential parking in this area. The City should offer overnight parking permits for the 33 spaces, valid from 10pm-6am, exempting permitted vehicles from the “no overnight parking” restriction. Strict enforcement is required to ensure vehicles vacate the lot in time for public and employee daytime use. The City should set citation amounts for violations, with repeat offenders risking permit revocation. This strategy aligns with the “Shared Parking Agreements” approach to optimizing existing parking resources, especially as mixeduse housing development may increase the need for efficient use of public lots.

Wayfinding & Signage
Downtown Grass Valley is relatively compact, making
wayfinding simple. However, on-street signage is limited, small, and removed without authorization, causing confusion as to what the parking regulations are. Additionally, there are opportunities to improve wayfinding to and from parking locations.
 Conduct an audit of existing signage. Parking signage should clearly display regulations, operating hours, and the relevant municipal code. A signage audit is the first step to identifying optimal placement and ensuring complete
information.
 Implement wayfinding to public lots. The City should
evaluate locations with high visitor traffic and install directional arrows pointing to public lots.
 Improve pedestrian access to Mill Street. Pedestrian routes from City parking lots to Mill Street are generally accessible, but the Safeway Lot exit has a narrow sidewalk that may hinder mobility device users. If the City enters into a shared parking agreement with the Center for the Arts, it should consider installing additional street lighting and wayfinding signage to improve access to the Mill Street promenade.

Figure 5. Sample Parking
Wayfinding Sign
Figure 6. Narrow Sidewalk on Mill
Street

Item # 8.

February 28, 2025 11
Appendix A – Implementation Approaches
Each approach typically builds on the previous one, incorporating all actions from earlier approaches. For example, Approach B includes all actions from Approach A, along with any new actions (underlined for easy identification).

Baseline (Approach A) Enhanced (Approach B) Comprehensive (Approach C) Enforcement  Parking enforcement CSO  Parking enforcement CSO  Daylighting action plan
 Parking enforcement CSO
 Daylighting action plan
 Comprehensive enforcement
Technology  LPR data collection  LPR data collection
 Virtual permits transition
 LPR data collection
 Virtual permits transition
 EV charging stations
Supply & Demand Management
On-street  Short-term spaces  Short-term spaces
 Time limits reduction
 Short-term spaces
 Time limits reduction
 Regulations consistency audit
Off-street  Various updates to specific lots  Various updates to specific lots  Off-street special event plan
 Various updates to specific lots
 Off-street special event plan
 Align operating hours
Shared
Parking
 Safeway  Safeway
 Center for the Arts
 Bank of America
 Safeway
 Center for the Arts
 Bank of America
 Other locations
Employee
Parking
 Tiered employee permits  Tiered employee permits
 Fee/citation amount evaluation
Paid Parking  Paid parking ordinance
 Text-to-Pay
 Paid parking at Pioneer Village Lot
 Paid parking ordinance
 Text-to-Pay
 Paid parking at Pioneer Village Lot
 On-street paid parking
 Annual fee assessment
 Paid parking ordinance
 Text-to-Pay
 Paid parking at Pioneer Village,
South Church, Union Square Lots
 On-street paid parking
 Annual fee assessment
 Escalating rate model
Residential
Parking
 RPP program ordinance  RPP program ordinance
 Overnight parking at Mill Street Lot
Wayfinding &
Signage
 Signage audit  Signage audit
 Improve wayfinding
 Improve pedestrian access

Item # 8.

February 28, 2025 12
Appendix B – Inventory of Public Parking Lots
Figure 7. Map and Legend of City-managed Parking Lots
Parking Lot Spaces Current Policies

1. 108 Richardson Street Lot
(West) 32  3 hours free, otherwise permit required 2 ADA Spaces

2. 142 Richardson Street Lot
(East) 39  Employee permit parking only

3. East Main Street Lot 18  Public parking (3-hour spaces)

4. City Hall Lot 41  Public parking (3-hour and ADA spaces)

5. South Church Street Lot 70  Public parking (3-hour spaces)

6. GVPD Lot 18  10 employee permit parking spaces
 8 public parking spaces

7. Union Square Lot 75  Public parking (3-hour and ADA spaces)

8. Pioneer Village Lot 31  19 Pay-by-Plate and ADA spaces  12 employee permit parking spaces

9. Auburn Street Lot 14  Employee permit parking only

10. Mill Street Lot 33
 19 employee permit parking spaces in the
lower level Monday to Friday, 7am-6pm
 14 public parking spaces in the upper
level (3-hour, 24-min, and ADA spaces)
and lower level on evenings/weekends

Item # 8.

February 28, 2025 13
Appendix C – Residential Permit Parking Program
Considerations
The following are several considerations when designing an RPP program:
 RPP Zone Definition: There should be a minimum RPP zone size (e.g., both sides of a street or a certain number of contiguous block faces) to ensure that parking impacts do not get pushed into the next area. Zones are typically requested by residents through a petition process; however, the City should also have the authority to establish parking zones based on parking utilization and need.
 Permit Eligibility: Based on the 2016 California State Attorney General’s opinion (14- 304), an RPP Program should not differentiate between types of dwelling. This means that a program should include both single-family and multi-family homes within an RPP zone. When developing the program, it is important to identify the concentrations of different dwelling types as it can impact the program rules, permit availability, and permit types applicable.
 Program Rules: Program rules include who qualifies as a resident, how a resident applies and is approved for a permit, how many permits are allowed per household or registered driver, how often the resident should renew their permits, the cost structure of the permits (and if there is a low-income rate), and what the qualification (and spotentially petitioning) process is for the addition of new permit zones. Additionally, it is important to identify a guest passes policy that offers residents the ability to offer temporary permits to personal visitors.
 Permit Design: It is important to specify the operating hours of the permits and any additional terms if there is to be more than one permit type.  Key Considerations: While an RPP program is an effective tool in enabling resident access to parking, it can both increase workload for enforcement staff and impose extra administration costs. The City should consider how program outcomes and permit revenue compare to these costs.

Item # 8.

City of Grass Valley
City Council
Agenda Action Sheet
Title: Code of Conduct Update
CEQA: Not a project
Recommendation: That Council review and adopt the attached revised Code of Conduct.

Prepared by: Tim Kiser, City Manager
Council Meeting Date: 03/25/2025 Date Prepared: 03/20/2025 Agenda: Administrative
Background Information
The City of Grass Valley recognizes the importance of public participation in the governance process and values transparency and civic engagement. The City’s Code of Conduct establishes guidelines to ensure orderly, respectful, and efficient public meetings while balancing the need for open dialogue and maintaining decorum.

As part of ongoing efforts to refine City governance practices, staff has reviewed and updated the City’s Code of Conduct, specifically regarding Public Participation in Council and Commission Meetings. These updates align with best practices for public engagement, comply with the Ralph M. Brown Act, and aim to foster a positive and productive environment for City Body meetings.

The proposed updates clarify the public’s rights and responsibilities when participating in City Council and Commission meetings, outline the rules for speaking at meetings, and establish expectations for civil discourse. A summary of the key modifications include:

1. Clarification on Public Comment Opportunities:
o Each member of the public may address the City Body once per agenda item, once on the consent agenda, and once during general public comment for non-agenda matters.
o Public comment must be relevant to the agenda item under discussion.

2. Public Comment Procedures:
o Comments shall be directed to the City Body through the Mayor or Chair and not to the audience or staff.
o Speakers shall use designated locations, including podiums or virtual platforms.
o Individuals may not yield their speaking time to another person.

Item # 9.

3. Conduct During Public Meetings:
o The Mayor or Chair is responsible for ensuring orderly and respectful public comment sessions.
o Disruptive behavior, including personal attacks, hate speech, and threats, is prohibited.
o Members of the public must adhere to established speaking procedures and may not approach the dais without authorization.

4. Recess and Meeting Disruptions:
o The Mayor or Chair may call a recess if necessary to restore order. o Law enforcement may be engaged if individuals fail to comply with meeting conduct rules.
o If a disruption occurs, City Body members, the City Manager, and other officials will relocate to a designated area until order is restored.

5. Agenda Items:
o The purpose of the agenda is to provide a framework within which meetings of a City Body can be conducted to effectively implement the approved Council goals, financial plan and budget, and other programs, objectives and business of the City as established by the present or earlier City Councils.
o Agenda items must be directly related to and affect the City of Grass Valley.

6. Use of Electronic Communication During Meetings:
o City Body members shall not use electronic devices for personal communication during meetings, except in cases of emergency.

7. Handling of Last-Minute Supporting Documents:
o Late submissions of supporting documents must include a justification for the delay.
o The City Manager or City Clerk will notify the City Body of any late submissions when appropriate.

The updates to the Code of Conduct are necessary to improve the structure of public meetings, enhance civic engagement, and ensure compliance with state laws such as the Brown Act. By clarifying the rules for public participation, the City aims to:
 Promote fair and equal access to public comment.
 Minimize disruptions while respecting First Amendment rights.  Provide clear guidelines for meeting decorum to facilitate productive discussions.
 Ensure City Body members, staff, and the public can participate in a safe and respectful environment.

Staff recommends that the City Council review and adopt the proposed updates to the Code of Conduct. If approved, these updates will take immediate effect and will be integrated into all future Council and Commission meetings. Additionally, the City Clerk will ensure that the revised guidelines are routed to all City Bodies covered by the Code of Conduct for signature to affirm the individuals have read and understand the updated Code of Conduct.

Item # 9.

Council Goals/Objectives: The execution of this action attempts to achieve the following Strategic Goals:

GOAL #5 – High Performance Government and Quality Services Fiscal Impact: No fiscal impact associated with this action.

Funds Available: N/A Account #: N/A
Reviewed by: City Manager
Attachments:
 The updated Code of Conduct includes revisions, which are underlined for easy review and identification of changes.

Item # 9.
1 CITY OF GRASS
VALLEY

CITY COUNCIL
AND

COMMISSION'S

CODE OF

CONDUCT

ADOPTED
AUGUST 28, 2018
Updated: March 20, 2025

Item # 9.
2 Table of Contents
Contents
CODE OF ETHICS AND CONDUCT...........................................................................................4 FORM OF GOVERNMENT..........................................................................................................4 COUNCIL POWERS AND RESPONSIBILITIES........................................................................4 Mayor..........................................................................................................................................5 Vice Mayor .................................................................................................................................5 All Council Members..................................................................................................................5 ALL COMMISSION MEMBERS..................................................................................................6 Meeting Chair .............................................................................................................................6 FORMER COUNCIL MEMBERS AND COMMISSIONERS .....................................................6 CITY COUNCIL/COMMISSION GUIDING PRINCIPLES ........................................................7 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS/REGULATORY GUIDELINES ............................................7 The Brown Act............................................................................................................................7 Political Reform Act ...................................................................................................................7 City of Grass Valley Municipal Code.........................................................................................7 POLICIES AND PROTOCOLS RELATED TO CONDUCT .......................................................7 Ceremonial Events......................................................................................................................7 Correspondence Signatures.........................................................................................................7 Endorsement of Candidates ........................................................................................................8 Closed Session Confidentiality ...................................................................................................8 Avoid Conflicts...........................................................................................................................8 COUNCIL AND COMMISSION CONDUCT ..............................................................................8 In Public Meetings......................................................................................................................8 COUNCIL AND COMMISSION CONDUCT WITH CITY STAFF............................................9 COUNCIL AND COMMISSION CONDUCT WITH THE PUBLIC.........................................10 In Public Meetings....................................................................................................................10 In Unofficial Settings................................................................................................................11 COUNCIL AND COMMISSION CONDUCT WITH OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES...............11 COUNCIL CONDUCT WITH COMMISSIONS ........................................................................11 COMMISSION CONDUCT WITH COUNCIL ..........................................................................12 COUNCIL AND COMMISSION CONDUCT WITH THE MEDIA ..........................................13 CODE OF ETHICS ......................................................................................................................13 Public Interest ...........................................................................................................................13

Item # 9.
3 Conduct.....................................................................................................................................14 Conflict of Interest....................................................................................................................15 Common Law ...........................................................................................................................15 COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT-ALL RULES..............................................................16 AB 1234 REQUIRED ETHICS TRAINING ...............................................................................16 HANDLING OF LITIGATION AND OTHER CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION ................17

COUNCIL ADVISORY BODIES BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES GENERALLY ..............................................................................................................................17 MEETINGS ..................................................................................................................................18 Ralph M. Brown Act ..............................................................................................................18 Regular Meetings......................................................................................................................18 Closed Sessions.........................................................................................................................18 Special and Emergency Meetings.............................................................................................18 Meeting Agendas......................................................................................................................18 Placing Items on Meeting Agendas ..........................................................................................19 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN COUNCIL AND COMMISSION (CITY BODY) MEETINGS .19 PROMPTNESS AT MEETING TIME.........................................................................................20 AGENDA ITEMS.........................................................................................................................20 USE OF E-COMMUNICATION AT PUBLIC MEETINGS.......................................................20 LAST MINUTE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS.........................................................................21 MOTIONS ....................................................................................................................................21 CALLING OF MEETING RECESS ............................................................................................21 EXPECTATIONS OF PUBLIC – CIVILITY CODE OF CONDUCT ........................................22 Attachment 1 to the City Council Code of Conduct .....................................................23 CITY OF GRASS VALLEY CITY COUNCIL PERSONAL CODE OF CONDUCT ...............23 PREAMBLE.............................................................................................................................23 Attachment 2 to City Council Code of Conduct ...........................................................26

CITY OF GRASS VALLEY COUNCIL ADVISORY BODY PERSONAL CODE OF CONDUCT...................................................................................................................................26 PREAMBLE.............................................................................................................................26

Item # 9.
4 CODE OF ETHICS AND CONDUCT
This Code of Conduct is designed to describe the manner in which Council Members and Commissioners should treat one another, city staff, constituents, and others they come into contact with in representing the City of Grass Valley.

The constant and consistent theme through all of the conduct guidelines is "respect." Council Members and Commissioners experience workloads and stress in making decisions that could impact thousands of lives. Despite these pressures, elected officials are called upon to exhibit appropriate behavior at all times. Demonstrating respect for each individual through words and actions can help guide Council Members and Commissioners to do the right thing in even the most difficult situations.

FORM OF GOVERNMENT
The City of Grass Valley municipal government operates under a council-manager form of government as established by the City Charter and Municipal Code. Under this form of government, the Council provides legislative direction, sets City policy, and monitors its execution by the City Manager and his or her Staff. The City Manager serves as the City's chief executive officer and is responsible for directing the operations of the City. Key provisions of the Grass Valley Council - Manager form of government are as follows:
• Prohibit interference of the City Council with the City Manager's execution of his or her powers or duties.
• The Council shall not interfere with the City Manager's appointment of any of the department heads or any person to any office or employment. • The Council shall not interfere with the City Manager's power to remove any of the department heads or employees of the City.
• Except for purposes of inquiry (asking), the Council shall deal only with the City Manager with respect to the administrative service of the City. • Council shall not give orders to any subordinate of the City Manager, either publicly or privately.

COUNCIL POWERS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
• The City Council has the power, in the name of the City, to do and perform acts and things appropriate to a municipal corporation and the general welfare of its residents, which are not specifically prohibited by the constitution, the City Charter, or State or Federal laws.
• The Council acts as a body. Policy is established by majority vote. A decision of the majority binds the Council to a course of action. The Council majority may be a majority of the quorum of the Council.
• No Councilmember has extraordinary powers beyond those of other members (except as may otherwise be provided in State law). All members, including the Mayor, have equal powers.

Item # 9.
5 • No member of the Council is permitted to hold any other City office or City employment.

Mayor
• Is appointed by a majority of the Council for a two-year term • Acts as the official head of the City for all ceremonial purposes • Chairs Council Meetings
• Is recognized as a spokesperson for the City
• Selects substitute for City representation when the Mayor cannot attend • Recommends subcommittees as appropriate for Council approval. • Leads the Council as an effective, cohesive working team. • Signs documents on behalf of the City
• Serves as an official delegate of the City at events and conferences. • Has lead responsibility, when the Council as a whole, of holding Councilmembers accountable for their performance on behalf of the City.

Vice Mayor
• Selected by a majority of the Council for a two-year term. • Performs the duties of the Mayor if the Mayor is absent or disabled. • Chairs Council meetings at the request or in the absence of the Mayor. • Represents the City at ceremonial functions at the request of the Mayor.

All Council Members
• Fully participate in City Council meetings and other public forums while demonstrating respect, kindness, consideration, and courtesy to others.
• Prepare in advance of Council meetings and shall be familiar with issues on the agenda.
• Represent the City at ceremonial functions at the request of the Mayor. • Shall be respectful of other people's time, stay focused, and ACT efficiently during public meetings.
• Serve as a model of leadership and civility to the community. • Inspire public confidence in Grass Valley government. • Demonstrate honesty and integrity in every action and statement.

Item # 9.
6 • Participate in scheduled activities to increase team effectiveness and review Council procedures such as this Code of Conduct. • All members of the Grass Valley City Council, including those serving as Mayor and Vice Mayor, have equal votes. No Council Member has more power than any other Council Member, and all should be treated with equal respect.

ALL COMMISSION MEMBERS
• Fully participate in Commission meetings and other public forums while demonstrating respect, kindness, consideration, and courtesy to others.
• Prepare in advance of Commission meetings and shall be familiar with issues on the agenda.
• Shall be respectful of other people's time, stay focused, and act efficiently during public meetings.
• Serve as a model of leadership and civility to the community. • Inspire public confidence in City of Grass Valley government. • Demonstrate honesty and integrity in every action and statement. • Participate in scheduled activities to increase team effectiveness and review Commission procedures such as this Code of Conduct. • All members of each commission, including those serving as Chair, have equal votes. No Commission member has more power than any other Commission member, and all should be treated with equal respect.

Meeting Chair
• Maintains order, decorum, and the fair and equitable treatment of all speakers.
• Chair's meetings: keeps discussion and questions focused on specific agenda item under consideration.
• Leads the Commission as an effective, cohesive working team. • Has lead responsibility of the whole Commission and the City Council, and of holding Commissioners accountable for their performance on behalf of the City.

FORMER COUNCIL MEMBERS AND COMMISSIONERS
Past members of the Grass Valley City Council and Commissions who speak to the current City Council or Commission about a pending issue should disclose whom they are speaking on behalf of (individual or organization). Past members should recognize that their privileged access to staff and facilities can no longer be provided.

Item # 9.
7 CITY COUNCIL/COMMISSION GUIDING PRINCIPLES
• Serve the residents and guests of our City, as well as, our surrounding neighbors. • Welcome and respect a variety of viewpoints.
• Encourage fair, open, honest discussion.
• Promote positive community input and participation.
• Build a cohesive vision by making prudent, fiscally sound decisions.

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS/REGULATORY GUIDELINES
Certain state laws and other established regulations govern various responsibilities of the City Council. This protocol manual is not intended to duplicate, modify, supersede or repeat any existing statutes or regulations. City Council Members are responsible for becoming familiar with these statutes and regulations.

The Brown Act
The Ralph M. Brown Act provides that all meetings of a legislative body, whether meetings of the City Council or its appointed commissions and committees, shall be open and public and all persons shall be permitted to attend. Notices of such meetings must be made 72 hours before a regular meeting or 24 hours before a special meeting.

A "meeting" takes place whenever a quorum is present and subject matter related to the City business is heard, discussed, or deliberated upon.

Political Reform Act
The Political Reform Act states that public officials shall perform their duties in an impartial manner, free from bias caused by their own financial interests or the financial interests of persons who have supported them. The Political Reform Act establishes regulations regarding Conflicts of Interests and Campaign Receipts and Expenditures.

City of Grass Valley Municipal Code
The City of Grass Valley Municipal Code consists of those codified ordinances of general municipal regulations and laws and may be referred to as the Municipal Code.

The City Clerk is responsible for codifying ordinances as adopted by the City Council, which affect the Municipal Code, and provides supplements on an as-needed basis. The Code can be found on the city's website, as can the City Charter.

POLICIES AND PROTOCOLS RELATED TO CONDUCT
Ceremonial Events
The Mayor will ordinarily serve as the designated City representative. If the Mayor is unavailable, the Mayor will recommend which Council Member should be asked to serve as a substitute. Invitations received at City Hall are presumed to be for official City representation. Invitations addressed to Council Members and Commissioners at their homes are presumed to be for unofficial, personal consideration.

Correspondence Signatures
Council Members and Commissioners do not need to acknowledge the receipt of correspondence, or copies of correspondence, during their respective meetings. City staff will prepare official letters in response to public inquiries and concerns. These letters will carry the signature of the Mayor or the Chair of the Commission unless the Mayor or Chair requests that they be signed by another member of their respective bodies or City staff. If correspondence is addressed only to one Council Member or

Item # 9.
8 Commissioner, that Council Member or Commissioner should check with staff on the best way to respond to the sender.

Endorsement of Candidates
Council Members and Commissioners have the right to endorse candidates for all Council seats or other elected offices. It is inappropriate to mention endorsements during Council or Commission meetings or other official City meetings and illegal to use any city resources for political purposes.

Closed Session Confidentiality
Council Members and Commissioners may not disclose confidential information, as defined in Government Code Section 54963, that has been acquired by being present in a closed session authorized by Government Code Sections 54956.7, 54956.8, 54956.86, 54956.87, 54956.9,54957, 54957.6, 54957.8, or 54957.10 to a person not entitled to receive it, unless the City Council specifically authorizes disclosure of that confidential information. Any Council Member or Commissioner making an unauthorized release of such information shall be subject to the provisions and sanctions as provided in Government Code Section 54963.

Avoid Conflicts
• In keeping with their role as stewards of the public interest, members of Council and Commissions shall not appear on behalf of the private interests of third parties before the Council or any board, commission or proceeding of the City, nor shall members of boards, commissions, and other advisory boards appear before their own bodies or before the Council on behalf of the private interests of third parties on matters related to the areas of service of their bodies, except for limited exceptions, as provided for in Fair Political Practices Commission Regulation 18702.4. The Political Reform Act also regulates use of City title or position to advocate for a private interest before another government agency, like the County or the State.
• Avoid even the appearance of conflict between public duties and personal interests and activities. If elected or appointed officials have personal or financial interests in matters coming before them, they should disqualify themselves from making, participating in the making of, or seeking to influence any decision respecting such matter.
• Because of the value of the independent advice of boards, commissions, and other advisory bodies to the public decision-making process, members of Council and all appointed officials shall refrain from using their positions to advocate for or to unduly influence the deliberations or outcomes of official proceedings of boards, commissions, and other advisory bodies.

COUNCIL AND COMMISSION CONDUCT
Councils and Commissions are composed of individuals with a wide variety of backgrounds, personalities, values, opinions, and goals. Despite this diversity, all have chosen to serve in public office to preserve and protect the present and future of the community. In all cases, this common goal should be acknowledged even as Council Members or Commissioners may "agree to disagree" on contentious issues.

In Public Meetings
• Dress appropriately. Council Members and Commissioners should dress

Item # 9.
9 appropriately in a manner befitting a professional person when attending meetings of the Council or Commission or any public event in a representative capacity.
• Practice civility and decorum in discussions and debate. Council Members and Commissioners should respect each other. Difficult questions, tough challenges to a point of view, and criticism of ideas and information are legitimate elements of a free democracy in action. This does·not allow, however, Council Members or Commissioners to make belligerent, personal, impertinent, slanderous, threatening, abusive, or disparaging comments. No shouting or physical actions that could be construed as threatening will be tolerated. • Honor the role of the Chair in maintaining order. It is the responsibility of the Chair to keep the comments of Council Members and Commissioners on track during their public meetings. Council Members and Commissioners should honor efforts by the Chair to focus discussion on current agenda items. If there is disagreement about the agenda or the Chair's action, those objections should be voiced politely and with reason, following procedures outlined in parliamentary procedure.
• Avoid personal comments that could offend other Council Members or Commissioners. You can disagree without being disagreeable. • Demonstrate effective problem-solving approaches. Council Members and Commissioners have a public stage to show how individuals with different points of view can find common ground and seek a compromise that benefits the community as a whole.

COUNCIL AND COMMISSION CONDUCT WITH CITY STAFF
Governance of a City relies upon the cooperative efforts of elected officials who set policy, and City staff members who implement and administer the Council's policies, the City's charter, ordinances and other applicable laws and regulations. Therefore, every effort should be made to be cooperative and show mutual respect for the contributions made by each individual for the good of the community. • Treat all staff as professionals. Clear, honest communication that respects the abilities, experience, and dignity of each individual is expected. Poor behavior towards staff is not acceptable.
• Limit contact to specific City staff. Questions of City staff and / or requests for additional background information should be directed to the City Manager, City Attorney, or Department Heads. Requests for follow-up or directions to staff should be made only through the City Manager or the City Attorney as to legal issues.

When in doubt about what staff contact is appropriate, Council Members and Commissioners should ask the City Manager for direction. Materials supplied to a Council Member or Commissioner in response to a request will be made available to all members of the Council or respective Commission so that all have equal access to information.
• Do not disrupt City staff work. Council Members and Commissioners should be respectful of staff's time and workload by always making an appointment for any discussion or meetings longer than a half hour. Council Members and Commissioners must remain mindful of the fact that staff must tend to the day to day business of the city. City staff should not be disturbed while in meetings, on the

Item # 9.
10 phone, or engrossed in performing their job functions, to meet a Council Member's or Commissioner's individual needs.
• Never publicly criticize an individual employee. Council Members and Commissioners should never express concerns about the performance of a City employee in public or to the employee directly. Comments about staff performance should only be made to the City Manager through private correspondence or conversation.
• Do not get involved in administrative functions. Council Members and Commissioners must not attempt to influence City staff on the making of appointments, awarding of contracts, selecting of consultants, processing of development applications, granting of City licenses and permits, or any other City administrative matter. The Council makes policy, the City Manager directs City employees.
• Check with City staff on correspondence before taking action. Before sending correspondence on City letterhead or otherwise on behalf of the City, Council Members and Commissioners should check with City staff to see if an official City response has already been sent or is in progress.
• Limit requests for staff support. Routine secretarial support will not be provided to all Council Members and Commissioners. All mail for individual Council Members and Commissioners shall remain unopened unless the individual requests other arrangements. Mail addressed to the Council as a body shall be opened by the City Clerk who will distribute copies to each Council Member. Mail addressed to a Commission as a body shall be opened by the member of staff so designated to do so by the City Manager. Requests for additional staff support- even in high priority or emergency situations should be made to the City Manager who is responsible for allocating City resources to maintain a professional, well-run City government. • Do not solicit political support from staff. Council Members and Commissioners should not solicit any type of political support (financial contributions, display of posters, political buttons or lawn signs, name on support list, etc.) from City staff.

City staff may, as private citizens with constitutional rights, support political candidates but all such activities must be done away from the workplace and never in their official capacity as a city employee or by use of City resources.

COUNCIL AND COMMISSION CONDUCT WITH THE PUBLIC
In Public Meetings
Making the public feel welcome is an important part of the democratic process. No signs of partiality, prejudice or disrespect should be evident on the part of individual Council Members or Commissioners toward an individual participating in a public forum. Every effort should be made to be fair and impartial in listening to public testimony. • Be welcoming to speakers and treat them with respect. • Be fair and equitable in allocating public hearing time to speakers. • Give the appearance of active listening.
• Ask for clarification but avoid debate and argument with the public. • No personal attacks of any kind, under any circumstances.

Follow parliamentary procedure in conducting public meetings. The City Attorney serves as advisory parliamentarian for the City and is available to answer questions or interpret

Item # 9.
11 situations according to parliamentary procedures.

In Unofficial Settings
• Make no promises on behalf of the City, Council or Commission. Council Members and Commissioners will frequently be asked to explain an action they have taken or to give their opinion about an issue as they meet and talk with constituents in the community. It is appropriate to give a brief overview of City policy and to refer to City staff for further information. It is inappropriate to overtly or implicitly promise City, Council or Commission action, or to promise City staff will do something specific.
• Be aware of the insecurity of written notes, voicemail, text messages, and email. Technology allows words written or said without much forethought to be distributed wide and far. All written notes, voicemail, text messages and e-mail should be treated as potentially "public" communication.

COUNCIL AND COMMISSION CONDUCT WITH OTHER PUBLIC

AGENCIES
• Be clear about representing the City or personal interests. If a Council Member or Commissioner appears before another governmental agency or organization to give a statement on an issue, the Council Member or Commissioner must clearly state: 1) if his or her statement reflects personal opinion or is the official stance of the City; and 2) whether this is the majority or minority opinion of the Council or Commission. If the Council Member or Commissioner is representing the City, the Council Member or Commissioner must support and advocate the official City position on an issue, not a personal viewpoint. If the Council Member or Commissioner may wish to avoid representing another organization whose position is different from the City's, and if he or she does so, to make clear the he or she is not speaking for the City. Council Members and Commissioners should be clear about which organizations they represent and inform the Mayor and Council of their involvement.
• Correspondence also should be equally clear about representation. City letterhead may be used when the Council Member or Commissioner is representing the City and the City's official position. A copy of official correspondence should be circulated and retained as part of the permanent public record in the City Clerk's office. City letterhead is not to be used for correspondence of Council Members or commissioners representing a personal point of view, or a dissenting point of view from an official Councilor Commission position.

COUNCIL CONDUCT WITH COMMISSIONS
The City has established several Commissions as a means of gathering more community input. Residents who serve on Commissions become more involved in government and serve as advisors to the City Council or as independent bodies.

They are a valuable resource to the City's leadership and should be treated with appreciation and respect.
• If attending a Commission meeting, be careful to only express personal opinions. Council Members may attend any Commission meeting, which are always open to any member of the public; however, they should be sensitive that their participation especially if it is on behalf of an individual, business or developer could

Item # 9.
12 be viewed as unfairly affecting the process. Any public comments by a Council Member at a Commission meeting should be clearly made as individual opinion and not a representation of the feelings of the entire City Council. Such comments by a Council Member could preclude his or her participation in an appeal of this matter before City Council.
• Limit contact with Commission members to questions for clarification. It is inappropriate for a Council Member to contact a Commission member to lobby on behalf of an individual, business, or developer. It is acceptable for Council Members to contact Commission members to clarify a position taken by the Commission. • Remember that Commissions serve the community, not individual Council Members. City Council appoints individuals to serve on Commissions. It is the responsibility of Commissions to follow policy established by the Council and to serve the public. Commission members do not report to individual Council Members, nor should Council Members feel they have the power or right to threaten Commission members with removal if they disagree about an issue. Appointment and re-appointment to a Commission should be based on such criteria as expertise, ability to work with staff and the public, and commitment to fulfilling official duties.

A Commission appointment should not be used as a political "reward." • Be respectful of diverse opinions. A primary role of Commissions is to represent many points of view in the community and to provide the Council with advice based on a full spectrum of concerns and perspectives. Council Members may have a closer working relationship with some individuals serving on Commissions but must be fair and respectful of all citizens serving on Commissions. • Keep political support away from public forums. Commission members may offer political support to a Council Member, but not in a public forum while conducting official duties. Conversely, Council Members may support Commission members who are running for office, but not in an official forum in their capacity as a Council Member or using City resources.

COMMISSION CONDUCT WITH COUNCIL
• Commission members appearing before the City Council. Commissioners may attend any Council or other commission meeting, which are always open to any member of the public; however, they should be sensitive that their participation especially if it is on behalf of an individual, business or developer-could be viewed as unfairly affecting the process. Any public comments by a Commissioner at such a meeting should be clearly made as individual opinion and not a representation of the views of the entire Commission. Commission members shall not be permitted to offer comment, testimony or present evidence at any hearing on an appeal from a prior decision or a discussion before the City Council of any matter previously before the Commission if the Commissioner participated in that prior decision or matter. At the specific request of a Council Member, a Commission Chair or designee may provide information or clarify its decision regarding an issue that is before Council. • Contact with Council Members. It is inappropriate for a Commissioner to contact a Council Member to lobby on behalf of an individual, business, or developer. • Inappropriate behavior can lead to removal. Commissioners (except for the Personnel Commission) serve as the pleasure of the City Council and can be removed at any time. Personnel Commissioners can be removed by a four-fifths vote of the City Council for malfeasance, neglect of duty or inefficiency.

Item # 9.
13 COUNCIL AND COMMISSION CONDUCT WITH THE MEDIA
Council Members and Commissioners are frequently contacted by the media for background and quotes.
• The best advice for dealing with the media is to never go "off the record." Most members of the media represent the highest levels of journalistic integrity and ethics and can be trusted to keep their word. But one bad experience can be catastrophic. Words that are not said cannot be quoted. • The Mayor is the official spokesperson for the Council on City policy. The Mayor is the designated representative of the Council to present and speak on the official City position. If the media contacts an individual Council Member or Commissioner, the Council Member or Commissioner should be clear about whether their comments represent the official City position or a personal viewpoint.
• Written Disclaimer. The following disclaimer should be used in conjunction with submission of written materials (i.e. an "Other Voices" column or a letter to the editor of The Union): "City of Grass Valley Official Disclaimer: (name)is a member of the Grass Valley (City Council I Planning Commission I Parks and Recreation Commission I Personnel Commission I Historical Commission}. This opinion is the personal viewpoint of the author and does not reflect any official City view." • Choose words carefully and cautiously. Comments taken out of context can cause problems. Be especially cautious about humor, sardonic asides, sarcasm, or word play. It is never appropriate to use personal slurs or swear words when talking with the media.

CODE OF ETHICS
• The residents and businesses of Grass Valley are entitled to have fair, ethical, and accountable local government. Such a government requires that:
• Public officials comply with both the letter and spirit of the laws and policies affecting operations of the government;
• Public officials participate in ethics training every two (2) years as required by AB1234;
• Public officials be independent, impartial, and fair in their judgments and actions;
• Public office be used for the public good, not for personal gain; and • Public deliberations and processes be conducted openly, unless legally confidential, in an atmosphere of respect and civility. • To this end, the City of Grass Valley City Council adopts this Code of Ethics to encourage public confidence in the integrity of local government and its operation.

Public Interest
• Council Members will work for the common good of the people of Grass Valley and not for any private or personal interest, and they will endeavor to treat all persons, claims, and transactions in a fair and equitable manner. • Council Members shall comply with the laws of the nation, the State of California, and the City in the performance of their public duties.

Item # 9.
14 Conduct
• Council Members shall refrain from abusive conduct, personal charges, or verbal attacks upon the character or motives of others. • Council Members shall perform their duties in accordance with the processes and rules of order established by the City Council.
• Council Members shall inform themselves on public issues; listen attentively to public discussions before the body; and focus on current business issues. • Council Members shall abide by the Ralph M. Brown Act and shall not hold discussions that include more than one other City Council Member, regarding City business outside of public City Council meetings, which would be considered a serial meeting.
• Council Members shall publicly share substantive information that is relevant to a matter under consideration that they may have received from sources outside of the public decision-making process.
• To ensure their independence and impartiality on behalf of the public good, Councilmembers are prohibited from using their official positions to influence government decisions in which they have a financial interest or where they have a non-City organizational responsibility or a personal relationship that would present a conflict of interest under applicable State law. • In accordance with State law, Councilmembers must file annual written disclosures of their economic interests.
• Councilmembers shall not take advantage of services or opportunities for personal gain by virtue of their public office that are not available to the public in general.
• Councilmembers shall respect and preserve the confidentiality of information provided to them concerning the confidential matters of the City. They must neither disclose confidential information without proper legal authorization nor use such information to advance the personal, financial, or private interests of themselves or others.
• City Councilmembersshould avoid any action that could be construed as, or create the appearance of, using public office for personal gain, including use of City stationery or other City resources to obtain or promote personal business. • Public resources not available to the general public (e.g., City staff time, equipment, supplies, or facilities) shall not be used by Councilmembersfor private gain or personal purposes.
• In keeping with their role as stewards of the public interest, Councilmembers shall not appear on behalf of the private interests of a third party before the City Council or any board, commission, or committee or proceeding of the City, except as permitted by law.
• To the best of their ability, Councilmembers shall represent the official policies and positions of the City Council. When presenting their personal opinions or positions publicly, members shall explicitly state they do not represent the Council or the City.

Item # 9.
15 Conflict of Interest
• The Political Reform Act (Government Code, Title 9, Sections 81000-91015) controls conflict of interest through disclosure and prohibition of participation in decisions which there are actual conflicts of interest. The rules as set forth in the Political Reform Act are complex and not necessarily intuitive. The consequences of violating the rules can be severe, including substantial monetary penalties and possible criminal prosecution.
• Specifically, the Political Reform Act requires City Council Members and other public officials to annually disclose all financial interests that may be affected by decisions made in their official capacity; this includes interests such as investments, real property, and sources of income. Council Members must also disqualify themselves from making or participating in making or influencing any governmental decision that will have a foreseeable material financial effect on any economic interest of the Council Member or certain family members different from its impact on the general public.
• The Political Reform Act requires State and local government agencies to adopt and promulgate conflict of interest codes, which shall be reviewed bi-annually in even- numbered years.

Common Law
• The common law conflict of interest is not defined by statute or by regulation. It has developed through court decisions. The basic rule is that a public officer is bound to exercise the powers conferred on him or her with disinterested skills, zeal, and diligence and primarily for the benefit of the public. Even where no conflict is found according to statutory prohibitions, a special situation could still constitute a conflict under the common law doctrine.
• As a rule, the decision maker should not be tempted by his or her own personal interest and doctrine will apply to situations involving non-financial personal interests. The City Attorney's office can provide advice on this issue when needed. By statute, the FPPC has the primary responsibility for impartially administering and implementing the Political Reform Act. Opinions from the City Attorney's office are not binding on the FPPC. Therefore, a public officer's reliance on the City Attorney's opinion will not immunize an officer from any FPPC administrative action, or from any civil or criminal proceeding if any officer violated the Political Reform Act or other conflict of interest laws. Each officer may gain assurance by requesting a formal opinion from the FPPC. The City Attorney can help in obtaining such an opinion.
• Once the economic interests of any public official are identified, potential conflicts of interest are determined by examining whether a decision being made by the public official will either directly or indirectly have an impact on the public official's economic interests. The likelihood that the outcome of the decision will have an important impact, need not be a certainty, but it must be more than merely possible.
• When it has been determined that there is a conflict of interest, the City's policy is

Item # 9.
16 that the member must recuse themselves from the discussion and the meeting (physically leave the room) to ensure that there is no influence or participation on the subject matter, except as to consent calendar matters which are not pulled for discussion.

COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT-ALL RULES
• Councilmembers take an oath when they assume their office in which they promise to uphold the laws of the State of California and the United States of America. Consistent with this oath is the requirement of this Council policy to comply with the laws as well as report violations of the laws and policy of which they become aware.
• Any suspected violation or alleged violation by a Councilmember should be reported to the Mayor. In the case of a City staff member making the report regarding a Councilmember, the report should be made to the City Manager who will then report it to the Mayor. Upon report, the City Manager and City Attorney will assist the Mayor in following one of the two (2) protocols for addressing the violation or alleged violation:
• If the Mayor, City Manager, and City Attorney all agree that the violation or alleged violation is minor in nature, the Mayor and either the City Manager or City Attorney may contact the individual Councilmember and advise the member of the concern and seek to resolve the matter
• If the Mayor, City Manager, and City Attorney do not agree that the violation or alleged violation is minor in nature, then the Mayor shall convene a special ad hoc committee of the Mayor (who will serve as Chair), Vice Mayor, and most recent Mayor who will meet with the City Manager and City Attorney and appropriate staff and/or witnesses to determine how the matter may proceed, be resolved or be reported to the appropriate authorities. • Councilmembers wishing to report a suspected violation by a staff member should report it to both the City Manager and City Attorney. • Nothing in this policy is intended to interfere with any official's right to contact law enforcement.

AB 1234 REQUIRED ETHICS TRAINING
AB 1234 requires elected or appointed officials who are compensated for their service or reimbursed for their expenses to take two hours of training in ethics principles and laws within a year of taking office and every two years thereafter. It is the City's policy to emphasize the importance of ethics in government and therefore requires all advisory body members to adhere to the same requirements. The training should occur within two months of assuming office and be renewed within two months of the expiration of the current certificate.

Item # 9.
17 • The training must cover general ethics principles relating to public service and ethics laws including:
o Laws relating to personal financial gain by public officials (including bribery and
conflict of interest laws);
o Laws relating to office-holder perks, including gifts and travel restrictions, personal and political use of public resources, and prohibitions against gifts of public funds;
o Governmental transparency laws, including financial disclosure requirements and open government laws (the Brown Act and Public Records Act);
o Laws relating to fair processes, including fair contracting requirements, common law bias, and due process.
o Training deadlines may be temporarily postposed for advisory body members who are temporarily unable to fulfill their duties, including attending scheduled meetings. Training should be completed within 30 days of returning to service.

HANDLING OF LITIGATION AND OTHER CONFIDENTIAL

INFORMATION
• All written materials and verbal information provided to Councilmembers on matters that are confidential and/or privileged under State law shall be kept in complete confidence to ensure that the City's position is not compromised. No disclosure or mention of any information in these materials may be made to anyone other than Councilmembers, the City Attorney, or City Manager. • Confidential materials provided in preparation for and during Closed Sessions shall not be retained and electronic copies must be deleted, or documents returned to
staff at the conclusion of the Closed Session.
• Confidential materials provided to Councilmembers outside of Closed Sessions must be destroyed, deleted, or returned to staff within thirty (30) days of their receipt.
• Councilmembers may not request confidential information from staff that has not been provided to all Councilmembers.

COUNCIL ADVISORY BODIES BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND

COMMITTEES GENERALLY
• Boards, commissions, and committees should comply with all applicable open meeting and conflict-of-interest laws of the State. • Upon appointment or reappointment, Council advisory body members shall sign a Council Advisory Body Personal Code of Conduct statement (Attachment 2) affirming they have read and understand this City of Grass Valley City Council Code of Conduct.

Item # 9.
18 MEETINGS
Ralph M. Brown Act
• All meetings of the City Council, standing Councilmember committees, and Council advisory bodies are governed by the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code 54950 et seq.). The City Council views the Brown Act as a minimum set of standards and in several respects, the City's open meeting requirements exceed the requirements of the Brown Act.
• If any member of a City legislative body or City staff believes that action has been taken on an item in contravention of the Brown Act, that person may ask the city Manager or Mayor to place the item on a future agenda for reconsideration and/or action.

Regular Meetings
Regular meetings of the City Council are held on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Grass Valley City Hall, 125 East Main Street. All regular Council meetings are open to the public.

Closed Sessions
Closed Sessions are also regulated pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act. All written materials and oral information regarding Closed Session items must remain confidential. Written reports and/or exhibits or materials furnished to members of the Council as part of a Closed Session must not be copied or saved and must be deleted or returned to staff at the end of the Closed Session.
 No member of the Council, employee of the City, or anyone else present should disclose to any other person the intent orsubstance of any discussion that takes place in a Closed Session unless authorized by a majority of the Council.  Permissible topics/issues for a Closed Session discussion include, but are not limited to: labor negotiations, pending litigation, personnel actions, real estate negotiations, and certain licensing and public security issues.  All public statements, information, and press releases relating to Closed Session items should be handled by the City Attorney or as otherwise directed by the Council majority.
 Closed Session meetings are closed to the public and the press.  Any suspected violation of the confidentiality of a Closed Session discussion shall be reported to the City Attorney. "Confidential information" means a communication, oral or written, made in Closed Session that isspecifically related to the legal basis for conducting the Closed Session.

Special and Emergency Meetings
• Pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act and the City's requirements, the Council may also hold special or emergency meetings as deemed necessary.

Meeting Agendas
• Preparation of Agenda: Council agendas and supporting information are prepared by the City Manager and City Clerk

Item # 9.
19 • For Council advisory bodies and Councilmember committees, agendas and supporting information are prepared by the supporting City department to the Council advisory body and City Clerk.

Placing Items on Meeting Agendas
Council Agendas
• The City Manager determines, in consultation with the Mayor, which items are placed on the agenda and the timing for scheduling such items.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN COUNCIL AND COMMISSION (CITY BODY) MEETINGS Although items on the Council’s and Commission’s agenda may not be noticed as public hearings, the public’s participation in the affairs of government has value by keeping the public educated through the governing process. These rules of the City of Grass Valley City Council and Commission’s Code of Conduct for receiving public comment shall apply to all meetings of the City Council and Commissions. Each member of the public may only address the City Council or Commissions, at a respective meeting, one time per each item on the agenda, one time on the consent agenda, and one time during public comment for matters not on the agenda. • Matters on the agenda: The City Council and Commissions shall allow public comment on items appearing on the agenda when the agenda item is considered by the respective City Body. Comments by the public must relate to the item on the agenda being considered by the respective City Body.
• Matters not on the agenda: At regular meetings of the City Council and Commissions, members of the public shall be allowed to address the City Body on matters not appearing on the agenda which are of interest to the public and which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Body. Under the Ralph M. Brown Act, the City Council and Commissions shall not take any action or discuss any matter not appearing on the agenda although staff may be asked to briefly respond to or follow up on such items. • Public Hearings: All members of the public shall be allowed to address the City Council and Commissions as to any item noticed on the respective City Body’s agenda as a public hearing. Any person may provide the City Body with a written statement in lieu of or in supplement to any oral statement made during a public hearing. Written statements shall be submitted to the City Clerk.
• Public Comment:
i. Speakers shall address the City Body from the designated podium, virtual kiosk, or other designated location, including teleconferencing system(s).

Speakers are encouraged but not required to give their name and/or location of residence before addressing the City Body.
ii. Speakers shall direct their comments to the City Body through the Mayor or Chair, respectively, and not to the audience or staff. iii. Speakers may comment on specific matters before the City Body with reasons for the position taken.

Item # 9.
20 iv. A speaker may not yield time to another speaker. v. No individual may speak more than once during general public comment or on an item on the agenda unless recognized by the Mayor or Chair, respectively as having new information.
vi. In the interest of civil discourse, the rules as specified in this Code of Conduct and Rosenberg’s Rules of Order, to the extent such rules are not in conflict with the Brown Act, shall apply at all City Body meetings. It shall be the responsibility of the Mayor or Chair to ensure that public comment is conducted in such a manner to avoid disruptive activity, promote mutual respect, keep comments focused on the item before the City Body, avoid personal attacks, and prohibit hate speech and the threat of violence.
vii. At the start of each meeting, the Mayor or Chair shall remind the public of the rules and expectations of the public including distinguishing the process for a) public comment for items on the consent agenda; b) general public comment for items not listed on the agenda; and c) public comment for items on the agenda.
viii. At special meetings of the City Council, public comment will be allowed only on matters appearing on the agenda.

PROMPTNESS AT MEETING TIME
Council and Commission members are requested to observe timely appearance at their respective meetings regarding the public, staff, and other City Body members. Council and Commission members are requested to notify the City Clerk or City Manager of their absence or anticipated late arrival as soon as such situation is known.

AGENDA ITEMS
The purpose of the agenda is to provide a framework within which meetings of a City Body can be conducted to effectively implement the approved Council goals, financial plan and budget, and other programs, objectives and business of the City as established by the present or earlier City Councils.

Agenda items must be directly related to and affect the City of Grass Valley. Only issues, policies, projects, or concerns that fall within the City's jurisdiction, authority, or operational duties may be placed on the City Council agenda. Matters outside the City’s subject-matter jurisdiction that do not directly affect City governance, infrastructure, or services will not be considered for inclusion.

USE OF E-COMMUNICATION AT PUBLIC MEETINGS
a. E-Communication is defined as “electronic text or visual communication and attachments distributed via e-mail, instant messaging, text messaging, social media messaging, or comparable services.”
b. City Council members and Commissioners shall not use electronic communication devices during meetings, except where necessary due to an

Item # 9.
21 emergency.

LAST MINUTE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
Last minute supporting documents by staff put City Body members and the public at a disadvantage by diluting the opportunity to study the documents. All late submissions of supporting documents must be justified with reasons for the late submission. The City Manager, City Clerk, or designated representative will apprise the City Body of the late submission of documents and their justification when appropriate. This does not apply to bona fide emergency items involving public health and safety requiring action by the City Council.

MOTIONS
Motions shall follow Rosenberg’s Rules of Order which allows up to three motions on the floor before a vote must be called,

CALLING OF MEETING RECESS
The Mayor or Chair may call for a meeting recess per their discretion under the following circumstances while specifying the duration of the recess and the time of return:
a. Request by a member of the City Body.
b. Recommendation by the City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, or law enforcement.
c. Disruption of the meeting due to technical or other logistical needs. d. Disruption of the meeting due to incivility:
i. Before taking a recess, the Mayor or Chair shall attempt to regain control of the meeting and shall provide notice and a warning to the disruptive individual(s) if that behavior impacts the City Body’s ability to conduct its business.
ii. If the disruptive behavior continues, staff will work with applicable law enforcement or other agency partners to regain order. The Mayor or Chair has authority to order individuals removed if they do not cease their disruptive behavior following a warning. No warning is required before an individual is removed if that individual engages in a use of force or makes a true threat of force. Law enforcement, at their discretion, may take actions necessary for the safety of the City Body, staff, and public per applicable law. A willful disturbance of a City Body meeting can violate the California Penal Code.
iii. Upon receiving direction from law enforcement, the City Body members, City Manager, City Clerk, and City Attorney shall promptly dismiss themselves from the dais and relocate to a designated location. iv. The City Manager will inform the Mayor or Chair once order has been reestablished. The Mayor or Chair will then reconvene the meeting. v. Upon returning, the Mayor or Chair shall briefly acknowledge why the City Council or Commission recessed and remind the public of the rules

Item # 9.
22 and expectations of a City Council or Commission Meeting.

EXPECTATIONS OF PUBLIC – CIVILITY CODE OF CONDUCT
a. The City of Grass Valley promotes mutual respect, civility, and orderly conduct among employees, elected officials, and the public. The CivilityCode of Conduct is not intended to deprive any person of their right to freedom of expression, but only to maintain, to the extent possible and reasonable, a safe, productive, and harassment-free workplace for staff and a safe and nonthreatening environment for visitors and customers. The City encourages professional, respectful, and courteous communication and discourages hostile, intimidating, or otherwise disruptive actions. The following are expectations of civility when interacting with a City Body, staff, or other members of the public while on City public property and during public meetings.
i. All interactions between the Mayor or Chair, City Body Members, staff, other elected officials, and members of the public will be conducted in a respectful manner that acknowledges mutual respect.
ii. Threats and hate speech, including threats of violence, will not be tolerated. iii. Members of the public will refrain from any behavior that disrupts, or threatens to disrupt, the City Body from conducting City business and the conduct of government operations, including the following:
a) Intimidating or offensive communication.
b) Harassment or intimidation of any City Body member, staff, elected official, or member of the public.
c) Willful destruction or damage of City property.
d) Conduct that threatens to provoke a violent reaction. e) Possession of any weapon or concealed firearm in a public meeting. f) Intentional disruption of public comment.
g) Demonstrates a continuing pattern of disruptive behavior. iv. Members of the public shall not interrupt other speakers to allow for public participation.
v. Members of the public shall adhere to the procedures outlined within this policy during public meetings and shall provide comment only during public comment period as called on by the Mayor or Chair and only during their allotted time.

Members of the public shall not approach the dais, or presenters, during a meeting unless otherwise specifically directed by the Mayor or Chair.

Item # 9.
23 Attachment 1 to the City Council Code of Conduct

CITY OF GRASS VALLEY CITY COUNCIL PERSONAL CODE OF

CONDUCT

PREAMBLE
The residents and businesses of Grass Valley are entitled to have fair, ethical, and accountable local government. Such a government requires that public officials:
• Comply with both the letter and the spirit of the laws and policies affecting operations of the government.
• Be independent, impartial and fair in their judgment and actions. • Use their public office for the public good, not for personal gain. • Conduct public deliberations and processes openly, unlesslegally confidential, in an atmosphere of respect and civility.

To this end, the Grass Valley City Council has adopted this Code of Ethics to encourage public confidence in the integrity of local government and its fair and effective operation.

City Councilmembers shall sign this Personal Code of Conduct upon assuming office and upon reelection to that office as a symbol of each Councilmember's continuing commitment to abide by the principles of this code.

1. Act in the Public Interest: Recognizing that stewardship of the public interest must be their primary concern, Councilmembers shall work for the common good of the people of Grass Valley and not for any private or personal interest, and they will endeavor to treat all persons, claims, and transactions in a fair and equitable manner.

2. Comply with the Law: Councilmembersshall comply with the laws of the nation, the State of California, and the City of Grass Valley in the performance of their public duties. These laws include but are not limited to: The United States and California constitutions; the Grass Valley City Charter; laws pertaining to conflicts of interest, election campaigns, financial disclosures, employer responsibilities, and open processes of government; and City ordinances and policies.

3. Conduct of Member: Councilmembers shall refrain from abusive conduct, personal charges, or verbal attacks upon the character or motives of other members of the City Council, boards, commissions, committees, staff, or the public.

4. Respect for Process: Councilmember duties shall be performed in accordance with the processes and rules of order established by the City Council.

5. Conduct of Public Meetings: Councilmembers shall inform themselves of public issues, listen attentively to public discussions before the body, and focus on the business at hand.

6. Decisions Based on Merit: Council decisions shall be based upon the merits and substance of the matter at hand.

7. Communication: It is the responsibility of Councilmembers to publicly share

Item # 9.
24 substantive information that is relevant to a matter under consideration that they have received from sources outside of the public decision-making process with all other Councilmembers.

8. Coordination with City Staff: Appropriate City staff should be involved when Councilmembers meet with officials from other agencies and jurisdictions to ensure proper staff support as needed and to keep staff informed.

9. Disclosure of Corruption: All City officials shall take an oath upon assuming office, pledging to uphold the constitution and laws of the City, the State, and the Federal government. As part of this oath, officials commit to disclosing to the appropriate authorities and/or to the City Council any behavior or activity that may qualify as corruption, abuse, fraud, bribery, or other violation of the law.

10.Conflict of Interest: To ensure their independence and impartiality on behalf of the public good, Councilmembers shall not use their official positions to influence government decisions in which they have a financial interest or where they have a non-City organizational responsibility or a personal relationship that would present a conflict of interest under applicable State law.

In accordance with the law, members shall file written disclosures of their economic interest and if they have a conflict of interest regarding a decision, refrain from participating in that decision unless otherwise permitted by law.

11.Gifts and Favors: Councilmembers shall not take advantage of services or opportunities for personal gain by their public office that are not available to the public in general. They shall refrain from accepting gifts, favors, or promises of future benefits that might compromise their independence of judgment or action or give the appearance of being compromised.

12.ConfidentialInformation: Councilmembers shall respect and preserve the confidentiality of information provided to them concerning the confidential matters of the City. They shall neither disclose confidential information without proper legal authorization nor use such information to advance their personal, financial, or private interests.

13.Use of Public Resources: Public resources not available to the general public (e.g., City staff time, equipment, supplies, or facilities) shall not be used by Councilmembersfor private gain or personal or political purposes.

14.Representation of Private Interests: In keeping with their role as stewards of the public trust, Councilmembers shall not appear on behalf of the private interests of a third-party before the City Council or any board, commission, or committee or proceeding of the City.

15.Advocacy: To the best of their ability, Councilmembers shall represent the official policies and positions of the City Council. When presenting their personal opinions or positions, members shall explicitly state that they do not represent the Council or the City.

Item # 9.
25 16.Improper Influence: Councilmembers shall refrain from using their position to improperly influence the deliberations or decisions of City staff, boards, commissions, or committees.

17. Policy Role of Members Councilmembers shall respect and adhere to the CouncilManager structure of Grass Valley City government as provided in State law and the City Charter and ordinances.

18. Positive Work Environment: Councilmembers shall support the maintenance of a positive and constructive environment for residents, businesses, and City employees.

19.Implementation: Ethics standards shall be included in the regular orientations for City Council candidates. Councilmembers entering office shall sign a statement affirming they read and understood the City of Grass Valley's City Council Code of Ethics.

20.Compliance and Enforcement: Councilmembers themselves have the primary responsibility to ensure that ethical standards are understood and met and that the public can continue to have full confidence in the integrity of City government.

This Personal Code of Conduct shall be considered a summary of the longer City Council Code of Conduct document. The City Council Code of Conduct document shall be considered the definitive document relating to ethical conduct by Grass Valley City Councilmembers.

I affirm that I have read and understand the City of Grass Valley CityCouncil Personal Code of Conduct.

Signature Date

Item # 9.
26 Attachment 2 to City Council Code of Conduct

CITY OF GRASS VALLEY COUNCIL ADVISORY BODY PERSONAL CODE

OF CONDUCT

PREAMBLE
The residents and businesses of Grass Valley are entitled to have fair, ethical, and accountable local government. Such a government requires that public officials, including Council advisory body members:
• Comply with both the letter and the spirit of the laws and policies affecting operations of the government.
• Be independent, impartial, and fair in their judgment and actions. • Use their public office for the public good, not for personal gain. • Conduct public deliberations and processes openly, unless legally confidential, in an atmosphere of respect and civility.

To this end, Council advisory body members are expected to adhere to the Code of Conduct adopted by the Grass Valley City Council to encourage public confidence in the integrity of local government and its fair and effective operation.

Council advisory body members shall sign this Personal Code of Conduct at the first meeting of the board, commission, or committee upon assuming office and, if applicable, upon reappointment to the board, commission, or committee as a symbol of each Council advisory body member's commitment to abide by the principles of this code during his or her term.

1. Act in the Public Interest: Recognizing that stewardship of the public interest must be their primary concern, Council advisory body members shall work for the common good of the people of Grass Valley and not for any private or personal interest, and they will endeavor to treat all persons, claims, and transactions in a fair and equitable manner.

2. Comply with the Law: Council advisory body members shall comply with the laws of the nation, the State of California, and the City in the performance of their public duties. These laws include but are not limited to: The United States and California Constitutions; the Grass Valley City Charter; laws pertaining to conflicts of interest, election campaigns, financial disclosures, employer responsibilities, and open processes of government; and City ordinances and policies.

3. Conduct of Council Advisory Body Members: Council advisory body members shall refrain from abusive conduct, personal charges, or verbal attacks upon the character or motives of Councilmembers; other members of the Council advisory body; other boards, commissions, or committees; staff; or the public.

4. Respect for Process: Council advisory body member duties shall be performed in accordance with the processes and rules of order established by the City

Item # 9.
27 Council.

5. Conduct of Public Meetings: Council advisory body members shall inform themselves of public issues, listen attentively to public discussions before the body, and focus on the business at hand.

6. Decisions Based on Merit: Council advisory body members shall base their decisions upon the merits and substance of the matter at hand.

7. Communication: It is the responsibility of Council advisory body members to publicly share substantive information that is relevant to a matter under consideration that they have received from sources outside of the public decision-making process with all other Council advisory body members.

8. Coordination with City Staff: Appropriate City staff should be involved when Council advisory body members meet with officials from other agencies and jurisdictions to ensure proper staff support, as needed, and to keep staff informed.

9. Disclosure of Corruption: All City officials shall take an oath upon assuming office, pledging to uphold the Constitution and laws of the State, and the Federal government. As part of this oath, officials commit to disclosing to the appropriate authorities and/or to the City Council any behavior or activity that may qualify as corruption, abuse, fraud, bribery, or other violation of the law.

10. Conflict of Interest: To ensure their independence and impartiality on behalf of the public good, Council advisory body members shall not use their official positions to influence government decisions in which they have a financial interest or where they have an organizational responsibility or a personal relationship that would present a conflict of interest under applicable State law. In accordance with the law, members shall file written disclosures of their economic interests and if they have a conflict of interest regarding a particular decision, refrain from participating in that decision unless otherwise permitted by law.

11. Gifts and Favors: Council advisory body members shall not take advantage of services or opportunities for personal gain by virtue of their public office that are not available to the public in general. They shall refrain from accepting gifts, favors, or promises of future benefits that might compromise their independence of judgment or action or give the appearance of being compromised.

12. Confidential Information: Council advisory body members shall respect and preserve the confidentiality of information provided to them concerning the confidential matters of the City. They shall neither disclose confidential information without proper legal authorization nor use such information to advance their personal, financial, or private interests.

13. Use of Public Resources: Public resources not available to the general public (e.g., City staff time, equipment, supplies, or facilities) shall not be used by Council

Item # 9.
28 advisory body members for private gain or personal or political purposes.

14. Representation of Private Interests: In keeping with their role as stewards of the public trust, Council advisory body members shall not appear on behalf of the private interests of a third party before the City Council or any board, commission, or committee, or proceeding of the City.

15. Advocacy: To the best of their ability, Council advisory body members shall represent the official policies and positions of the City of Grass Valley. When presenting their personal opinions or positions, members shall explicitly state that they represent neither the Council advisory body nor the City.

16.Improper Influence: Council advisory body members shall refrain from using their position to improperly influence the deliberations or decisions of City staff, boards, commissions, or committees.

17.Policy Role of Members: Council advisory body members shall respect and adhere to the Council-Manager structure of Grass Valley City government as provided in State law and the City Charter and ordinances.

18.Positive Work Environment: Council advisory body members shallsupport the maintenance of a positive and constructive environment for residents, businesses, and City employees.

19.Implementation: Ethics standards shall be included in the regular orientations for Council advisory body members. Upon entering office and upon reappointment, Council advisory body members shall sign a statement affirming they read and understood the City of Grass Valley's City Council Code of Conduct.

20. Compliance and Enforcement: Council advisory body members themselves have the responsibility to ensure that ethical standards are understood and met, and that the public can continue to have full confidence in the integrity of City government.

This Personal Code of Conduct shall be considered a summary of the longer City Council Code of Conduct document. The City Council Code of Conduct document shall be considered the definitive document relating to ethical conduct by Grass Valley City Council advisory body members.

I affirm that I have read and understand the City of Grass Valley City Council Code of Conduct.
___________________________________ _____________________________ Signature Date

Item # 9.