City Council
Mayor Patrick Slayter
Vice Mayor Neysa Hinton
Una Glass
Sarah Glade Gurney
Diana Rich
City Manager/Attorney
Larry McLaughlin
[email protected]
Assistant City Manager/Attorney/City Clerk, MMC
Mary Gourley
[email protected]
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MINUTES FOR Meeting of June 21, 2022
As Approved by the City Council at their regular meeting of July 5, 2022
The City Council Regular meeting will be held via teleconference pursuant to AB 361. Pursuant to AB 361 (2021), Teleconference Restrictions of the Brown Act Have Been Suspended, as Well as the Requirement to Provide a Physical Location for Members of the Public to Participate in the Meeting. The City of Sebastopol City Council meeting will not be physically open to the public and all City Council Members will be teleconferencing into the meeting via Zoom.
Please note that minutes are not meant to be verbatim minutes and are meant to be the City’s record of Actions Taken (Approved Motion of Agenda Item(s)).
5:30 pm Convene City Council Meeting - Meeting Start Time (ZOOM VIRTUAL FORMAT) CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Slayter called the regular meeting to order at 5:34 pm.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Mayor Patrick Slayter – By video teleconference Vice Mayor Neysa Hinton – By video teleconference
Councilmember Sarah Gurney – By video teleconference
Councilmember Diana Gardner Rich - By video teleconference
Absent: Councilmember Una Glass – Excused
Staff: Assistant City Manager/Attorney/City Clerk Mary Gourley INTERVIEW(S):
Agenda Item Number 1
Interview: Sonoma County Library Commission City Representative: Vacancy is to Fill Term for the Position on the Sonoma County Library Commission for a Representative from Sebastopol (New Term Ending Date: June 30, 2026)
• Interview Scheduled With: Fred Engbarth
The City Council conducted the following interview: Fred Engbarth.
City Council Action: Interviewed applicant Fred Engbarth.
Minute Order Number: 2022-199
ADJOURNMENT OF SPECIAL MEETING: Mayor Slayter adjourned the special meeting at 5:55 p.m. 6:00 pm Convene City Council Meeting - Meeting Start Time (ZOOM VIRTUAL FORMAT) CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Slayter called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 pm.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Mayor Patrick Slayter – By video teleconference Vice Mayor Neysa Hinton – By video teleconference
Councilmember Sarah Gurney – By video teleconference
Councilmember Diana Gardner Rich - By video teleconference
Absent: Councilmember Una Glass – Excused
Staff: City Manager/Attorney/City Attorney Larry McLaughlin Assistant City Manager/Attorney/City Clerk Mary Gourley Administrative Services Director Ana Kwong
Fire Chief Bill Braga
City Engineer Mario Landeros
Planning Director Kari Svanstrom
Police Lieutenant Ron Nelson
Public Works Superintendent Dante Del Prete
SALUTE TO THE FLAG: Mayor Slayter led the Salute to the Flag.
COUNCIL PROTOCOLS FOR MEETING:
• This meeting is being conducted utilizing virtual settings for teleconferencing and electronic means consistent with State of California Executive Orders regarding the COVID 19 pandemic and AB 361. • Live stream and zoom are being utilized for this meeting. • Members of the public may view and listen to the meeting by use of Zoom and Live Stream as noted on the City’s website and as noted on the agenda.
• Members of the public wishing to speak to the City Council may do so during public comment or may comment on agenda items during the discussion of each item and must be logged into Zoom. Live Stream is a viewing only format.
• Anyone using abusive, vulgar, offensive, threatening, or harassing language, personal attacks of any kind or offensive terms that target specific individuals or groups will be muted, will be asked to adhere to protocols and /or will be removed from the meeting.
Reminder please leave your microphones on mute until called upon and if you would like to provide your name during public comment you are welcome to do that but do not have to.
PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS:
• Certificate of Appreciation - Zachary Douch – Outgoing Planning Commissioner • Certificate of Appreciation – Tracy Peters – Retirement from the City of Sebastopol Police Department Reference Order Number: 2022-200
PLEASE NOTE:
Public Comment on all items listed on the agenda will be limited to two minutes, per person, per item. The Public Comment Portion of the Agenda will allow for 20 minutes at the beginning of the meeting and public comment not heard during those 20 minutes will continue at the end of the agenda, following the last calendared item and before Reports.
Council welcomes and encourages additional comments via email. Public Comment Emails can be sent to:
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA :
During General Public Comment, the public is invited to make comments on items of public interest that are within the City Council’s subject matter jurisdiction and that are not listed on the current agenda.
Speakers are allowed to speak for a maximum of three minutes so that all speakers have an opportunity to address the City Council.
Power point or visual presentations for public comment shall not be permitted unless approved by the Agenda Review Committee two weeks prior to the requested meeting date.
Speakers may not "yield" a portion of their allotted time to others.
The Mayor has the authority to limit or extend the time allowed for speakers dependent on the number of speakers in attendance.
The Mayor can poll the members of the public for an indication of the number of people wishing to speak, then call on individuals to speak.
It is the goal of the Council to conclude the public comments portion of the agenda within 20 minutes. If the public comment period exceeds twenty minutes, the presiding officer, typically the Mayor, reserves the right to reduce the time per speaker or carry over public comments to after all business items are completed.
The City Clerk will monitor the time for public comments and inform the speakers when the time limitation has been reached.
The Mayor could survey the members of the public, as appropriate, to move agenda items up or back to address the members of the public items of concern.
Public participation is encouraged on all public agenda items.
Council and staff will treat participants and each other with courtesy. Derogatory or sarcastic comments are inappropriate.
The public will likewise be encouraged by the Mayor to maintain meeting decorum.
In Council meetings when citizens are agitated, the Mayor may call a short recess to calm the situation.
If a member of the public is unable to attend the Council meeting, written communications may be sent to the City Clerk by e-mail or by regular mail. Communications received after distribution of the agenda packet will be made available to the Council at/or as soon after the meeting.
Royelyn Wooten commented as follows:
• I live in Sebastopol. I would very briefly talk about the smart meters • This process that led to the purchase of these did not follow due process and installing these would be against the City's General Plan to not have any more electromagnetic devices in Sebastopol. • The act of adding smart meters to the town does not acknowledge community members who are electrosensitive.
• Some have set the effects on others of electro smog or electromagnetic radiation which is like secondhand smoke. • It doesn't necessarily effect the person doing it or using it but it does have a very big effect on other people.
• Many people who are disabled in this way have had to sell their homes and move away when their neighborhoods became inundated with elect row magnetic frequencies. • Thank you for hearing me.
Steve Pierce commented as follows:
• I've been working with the Sebastopol Climate Action Finance sub committee and we've been examining ways the City can help fund work on climate action because we don't have additional resources, it's going to be difficult to address the climate goals the City is committed to. • I'd like to bring up something discusses in the last Council meeting. • This regards the proposed update to the utility tax on the upcoming ballot, • I can understand why Council chose not to put additional burden on rate payers • The City Albany in 2020 election passed in increase in utility user tax with the expressed intent that the City would spend one-third of the tax increase from gas and electriCity on implementing the City's climate action plan and supporting environmental sustainability programs. • The ballot measured specified it is a general tax and deposited into the City's general fund and could be used for City operations and services.
• By expressing the intent to voters to spend a portion on climate the community expected it to be spent that way.
• Albany has a history of passing similar measures and was able to verify that they quote/unquote that dedicated revenue was spent that way. It passed with 58% of the vote. • I argue that environmental action is one of the core values of our City. • In 2024 we hopefully won't be facing such big price increases. • I encourage the City to work with Climate Action Committee on the utility users tax and see if we can consistently fund local climate action.
Martha Glaser commented as follows:
• I feel like the EMF community keeps jumping up and down saying remember us, remember us we want no smart meters, remember us?
• It's really disheartening to know there are new smart meters set to be installed in Sebastopol that will harm some of us.
• Whether or not people listening to us care or don't care doesn't matter, because if they go in we will still be harmed.
• I might argue that there are more pressing problems than EMF, weather conditions like heat, floods, frightening results to our democracy more and more internationally of course, but thank heavens for the people in government that were testifying in front of the January 6th committee today, unbelievable, government who hold on to the truth and not just follow what they would like to have be true. • It's really disheartening to know people on the community, on the Council, most of us really actually are so desperate to fix the climate emergency that we want to do almost everything to make this happen, grasping at stalls we say yes to anything that suggests green emissions will be reduced whether or not it's true.
• In the sales material they did promise energy savings with their products. • I will upload that document that was found from our public records request. • This past February a representative from the company Gabe Johnson said we never made those claims and the badger water meters don't save energy where did that come from. • We can keep sending all kinds of references for funding, for research to people like professors UC Berkeley Department of Public Health or to David Carpenter, Environmental Health Trust, there's a lot of information out there, if you don't want to know that they're not safe enough for the planet, those of us jump up and down are looney fringe
• We feel the technology is bringing harm to many people, insects, animal and children.
Angela Ford commented as follows:
• By now, most of us are aware that Syserco "green-washed" Sebastopol Council members, staff and the Climate Action Committee lulling them into thinking it would be a good and green thing to convert all of the City's 3,000 water meters into “smart” water meters. • Only weeks after the contract was signed did Syserco state there has never been a claim that the new meters save energy, save water, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. • Tonight I bring before you a 2013 Report, entitled “The Cloud Begins with Coal”. Sponsored by the National Mining Association, it's a deep dive into the electrical costs of “smart” technologies. • The information economy is a blue-whale economy with its energy uses mostly out of sight. . . The ICT [Information-Communications-Technologies] ecosystem now approaches 10% of world electriCity generation. Or in other energy terms . . .already uses about 50% more energy than global aviation. • The inherent nature of the mobile Internet, a key feature of the emergent Cloud architecture, requires far more energy than do wired networks.
• Trends now promise faster, not slower, growth in ICT energy use. • ElectriCity fuels the infrastructure of the world's ICT ecosystem – the Internet, Big Data and the Cloud. • Coal is the world's largest single current and future source of electriCity. Hence [they write] the title of this paper.
• The Cloud Begins with Coal/Big Data, Big Networks, Big Infrastructure and Big Power • Is this really where we want to go as a community
Linda Berg commented as follows:
• I just wanted to thank all of you for speaking up. Silence is compliance • Thanked a speaker all that they are doing, otherwise we'd be run over. Bulldozed which is what Syserco big business wants to do.
• On that same subject I have 932 pages that's I got from the public records act of the conversation between shyster Co and Public Works and it shows that in fact as far back as 2017, they were just waiting for Michael (Carnacchi) to get off the City Council so they would have more gullible, pliable, manipulatable Councilmembers which they can lie to which they have successfully done about these wireless water meters.
• I also would like you to know anybody interested in climate action that you need to know that these wireless water meters will be emitting more heat.
• It's the same microwave radiation as used in a microwave oven that will be emitted more than 3,000 water meters beneath the sidewalk.
• It's just going to add to the heat problem. You think it's hot now, it's going to get a lot hotter if you people don't do what you need to do. It's very easy to do.
• Not only that, but our expanding cancer numbers is huge. • This whole thing is based on fraud. Fraud will legally overturn this whole thing and I have the evidence. • I'm just telling you City Council members that it's easier than you think to get out of that contract because it's based on fraud.
STATEMENTS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Conflicts of interest may arise in situations where a public official deliberating towards a decision, has an actual or potential financial interest in the matter before the Council. In accordance with state law, an actual conflict of interest is one that would be to the private financial benefit of a public official, a relative or a business with which the Councilmember is associated. A potential conflict of interest is one that could be to the private financial benefit of a Councilmember, a relative or a business with which the Councilmember is associated. A Councilmember must publicly announce potential and actual conflicts of interest, and, in the case of actual conflict of interest, must refrain from participating in debate on the issue or from voting on the issue and must remove themselves from the dais.
There were no stated Statements of Conflict of Interest.
CONSENT CALENDAR: The consent agenda consists of items that are routine in nature and do not require additional discussion by the City Council or have been reviewed by the City Council previously. These items may be approved by one motion without discussion unless a member of the City Council requests that the item be taken off the consent calendar.
The Mayor will read the consent calendar items; ask if a Councilmember wishes to remove one or more items from the consent calendar; minutes on the entire consent calendar and request at that time that an agenda item or items be removed for discussion.
If an item or items are removed from the consent calendar, the item shall be placed at the end of the regular agenda items unless otherwise determined by the Mayor or Mayor Pro Tern.
Councilmembers may comment on Consent Calendar items or ask for minor clarifications without the need for pulling the item for separate consideration. Items requiring deliberation should be pulled for separate consideration and shall be placed at the end of the regular agenda items unless otherwise determined by the Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem.
Mayor Slayter read the consent calendar.
Mayor Slayter opened for public comment on the consent calendar. There was no public comment on the consent calendar.
Mayor Slayter asked if any Councilmember wanted to remove a consent calendar item. There was no request to pull any consent calendar item.
Mayor Slayter called for a motion.
MOTION:
Mayor Slayter moved and Councilmember Gurney seconded the motion to approve Consent Calendar Item(s) Number(s) 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.
Mayor Slayter called for a roll call vote. City staff conducted a roll call vote.
VOTE:
Ayes: Councilmembers Gurney, Rich, Vice Mayor Hinton and Mayor Slayter Noes: None
Absent: Councilmember Glass
Abstain: None
CONSENT CALENDAR:
2. Approval of Minutes of the June 6, 2022 City Council Special Meeting Closed Session Meeting Minutes (Responsible Department: City Administration)
City Council Action: Approved Minutes of the June 6, 2022 City Council Special Meeting Closed Session Meeting Minute Order Number: 2022-201
3. Approval of Minutes of the June 7, 2022 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes (Responsible Department: City Administration)
City Council Action: Approved Minutes of the June 7, 2022 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Minute Order Number: 2022-202
4. Approval to Direct City Agencies to Review the Conflict of Interest Code (Responsible Department:
City Administration)
City Council Action: Approved Directing Staff to Direct City Agencies to Review the Conflict of Interest Code Minute Order Number: 2022-203
5. Approval of Resolution Extending the City of Sebastopol City Council Proclamation of Existence of a Local Homeless Emergency (Responsible Department: City Administration) o Needs to be approved every 60 days. Last approval: May 3, 2022 (July 5th Meeting would be too late to meet 60 day requirement)
City Council Action: Approved Resolution Extending the City of Sebastopol City Council Proclamation of Existence of a Local Homeless Emergency (Responsible Department: City Administration) o Needs to be approved every 60 days. Last approval: May 3, 2022 (July 5th Meeting would be too late to meet 60 day requirement)
Minute Order Number: 2022-204
Resolution Number: 6444-2022
6. Approval for Authorization of a Planning Internship Program with Sonoma State University (Responsible Department: Planning)
City Council Action: Approved Authorization of a Planning Internship Program with Sonoma State University Minute Order Number: 2022-205
7. Approval of Consultant and Authorization to Execute Contract for Objective Design Standards (Responsible Department: Planning)
City Council Action: Approved Consultant and Authorization to Execute Contract for Objective Design Standards Minute Order Number: 2022-206
REGULAR CALENDAR AGENDA ITEMS (DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION)
8. Appointment for Vacancy (one) Sonoma County Library Commission City Representative: Vacancy is to Fill Upcoming Term for the Position on the Sonoma County Library Commission for a Representative from Sebastopol (New Term Ending Date: June 30, 2026) Interview Conducted Earlier in the Evening with: Fred Engbarth (Responsible Department: /City Administration)
Mayor Slayter introduced the agenda item.
Mayor Slayter opened for questions of staff/presenter. There were none.
Mayor Slayter opened for public comment.
Fred Engbarth commented I just would like to thank the City Council for working with me and I look forward to working with the City for the next four years.
City Council Discussion/Deliberations:
Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• I do want to add one comment because I think it's one of the important • Responsible of Councilmembers is to make such appointments and think we're very fortunate to have a person interested in these responsibilities
• Fred Engbarth is a wonderful person who has provided much information as we can all handle and we should continue to help him and support him in the work he wants to do • I’m very grateful that he would volunteer.
MOTION:
Councilmember Gurney moved and Vice Mayor Hinton seconded the motion to approve Appointment of Fred Engbarth to the Position on the Sonoma County Library Commission as the City Representative from Sebastopol (Term Ending Date: June 30, 2026)
Mayor Slayter called for a roll call vote. City staff conducted a roll call vote.
VOTE:
Ayes: Councilmembers Gurney, Rich, Vice Mayor Hinton and Mayor Slayter Noes: None
Absent: Councilmember Glass
Abstain: None
City Council Action: Approved Appointment of Fred Engbarth to the Position on the Sonoma County Library Commission as the City Representative from Sebastopol (Term Ending Date: June 30, 2026) Minute Order Number: 2022-207
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS/PRESENTATIONS: NONE
PUBLIC HEARING(s):
9. Public Hearing - Rate Adjustments by Recology Sonoma Marin (City Manager/GHD) Budget Hearing (Responsible Department: GHD/Administrative Services)
Toni Bertolero, GHD, presented the agenda item recommending the City Council approve the Sebastopol Solid Waste Collection Services Annual Rate Adjustments by the City’s Franchise Solid Waste Collector/Hauler, Recology Sonoma Marin and introduced Nikki Burke, Senior Rate Analyst, Recology Service Center Coast.
Nikki Burke provided a presentation to the City Council.
Mayor Slayter opened for questions of staff/presenter.
Vice Mayor Hinton commented as follows:
• Thanks for that quick presentation.
• I just want to ask, when I went to renew my garbage annual fee that I had always paid for many many year from Recology this year in January, I was told that they no longer offer that program where you can pay up front 12 months (11 months and get the 12th free). • Also there was a senior program no longer offered.
• I have to just say you asked us to support new garbage trucks couple years ago, you're coming back with a contract, it's not just Recology which is a big company that is hurting, our constituents are also pinching pennies. Gas prices have impacted them.
• I'm really curious why your operator couldn't explain why those special discount programs had been taken away but I think it felt like it was under the rug to be honest, • I never got notified until I tried to pay and had to call customer service • Please ensure customer service can address why those programs were removed and customers were not informed.
• Those obviously add more revenue and income to your bottom line so it feels like a double whammy this year from Recology.
Nikki Burke commented as follows:
• I'm sorry that you found out about it in a way you didn't feel you were informed, I don't believe that was the case but I will certainly check on that.
• However, the reason those two programs were removed is because especially with the annual discount we often found that the people who were capable taking advantage of those programs were the people who in fact had the money to pay their bill and the people who might need a discount, such as those with lower income, were not able to take advantage of the annual discount. • We have consistently removed that discount but we have replaced it with what is called a care discount, provided to anyone who qualifies for low income discount through PG&E program showing they met the standards and we will provide the discount.
• A similar idea is applied to the senior discount.
• We are not providing a discount to someone simply due to their age but we're providing discounts to those who are in fact low income and in greater need of the discount. • I'm sorry our customers service wasn't able to explain that but the idea is to really not to remove the discount but to refocus it to the customers who are in greater need of the discount.
Vice Mayor Hinton asked if that was a wash. Recology took away a discount and you offered discounts, for the Company, did it all equate to basically the same thing? Nikki Burke commented as follows:
• I don't know if the discount equated to the same thing but we did account for both changes in the rate changes.
• We didn't make the change and just keep the revenue from taking away one discount and then ask for payment for the revenue for giving another discount, we credited the City for taking away the discounts for the number of customers that had historically taken advantage and then netted that against the cost to providing the low-income discount.
Vice Mayor Hinton commented as follows:
• Discussed the low income discount
• I don't qualify for that but did you work with PG&E so you could make people that got the care program at PG&E aware that now they can apply for a discount at Recology or how does someone learn about the low-income
Nikki Burke commented as follows:
• We cannot work with PG&E that I'm aware of but we do put that information into our newsletters and put that information on to our bills periodically.
• It is something we make great efforts to make sure all our customers are aware that if they are struggling to pay their bill there are ways that we can help them.
Vice Mayor Hinton commented as follows:
• Thanks for that. We'll follow up with City staff.
• Maybe we can publicize that as City as well to our rate payers to the City so we can make sure people are aware how to get by. It's tough time for everybody.
Mayor Slayter opened the public hearing.
Steve Pierce commented as follows:
• I would just like to bring up the issue of the electric garbage trucks that I believe the contract with Recology isn't due up until 2024 but I think the amount of lead time that this will take it's good to start those discussions early.
• The City of Healdsburg had made that transition to electric garbage trucks and was able to reduce, I believe, 80 metric tons, which is quite a bit, just from electric garbage trucks, and the charging infrastructure alone will take some time and figure out with Recology. • So my question is, what does Recology need to get moving on the electric garbage trucks? • In terms of infrastructure, or requests from the City. • There are grants available from the air resources board for just this sort of thing transitioning garbage trucks to all-electric.
Kyle Falbo commented as follows:
• I'd like to remind this Council at the August 4th, 2020, Council meeting Recology requested a reduction in its service by dropping its Saturday telephone customers service and at this time Councilmember Hinton stated the saving to the tune of $25,000 will be remembered when the contract came up for renewal this agenda passed 4-1 with three yes votes with Council in attendance this evening I'd like to hear about that remembrance tonight.
• Would like to hear of the cost for Recology for Green waste with reduction of organic waste • Discussed redirection of organic waste towards green bins and stated it would be great to hear of the expected cost savings as a result of this redirection.
Linda Berg commented as follows:
• I along with hundreds and other people in this fine town live in an apartment complex and our garbage bill and water bills, so forth, are paid along with the rent and so the point I have not received the communication
• I'm computer-free, cellphone-free, TV-free, so on, due to electro sensitivity. • I don't receive the communication and don't know what you all are doing in your billing • I haven't received a water bill 20 years, long as I've lived here in an apartment. • I would really appreciate it if there's some way Recology could remedy that • I also want to mention that electric is just not as clean as you might think it would be. • Although there are ways to make it safer.
• Because wherever electriCity is flowing you have a magnetic field. Which is bio active. • What it does is promote cellular growth as in cancer. • Pretty depressed we have higher than average rates of cancer in this town and they're proposing they're in the process of building a cancer center here and we do not need to keep this trend going. • We want to reduce our cancer stuff and so we need to recognize the effects of electro magnetic fields in all ways.
Hearing no further comments Mayor Slayter closed the public hearing.
Mayor Slayter responded to public comments as follows:
• The question about not receiving a garbage bill and how to get information included with garbage bill, it's simply an invoice, there is no newsletter that comes from that. • If you want information from Recology you have to go to Recology.
Nikki Burke commented as follows:
• Unfortunately your bill is sent to an apartment manager that is who we send the newsletter and any information.
• We do provide that on the web but I understand someone may not use the web so I believe we can provide one if she would like to come by our offices.
• But, beyond that, I would have to think about other ways we could provide one.
Mayor Slayter responded to public comment about the $25,000 and second question about a cost-savings for the Green bins.
Nikki Burke commented as follows:
• With respect to the $25,000 that was a savings but unfortunately we have discussed this with the City prior, the rates in the City, while they don't feel they are still not completely covering the cost of collections, so it's not that we're pocketing $25,000 it's simply that we're not losing $25,000 as much as we could have been for the operations in in the City
• I don't personally remember that conversation so I can't speak to exactly how it was couched. • With respect to the savings on the green bins, I think the question was referencing the fact that with SB1383 we will be moving some material from the trash containers to the green bins. • Now there will be some savings related to that and that savings is incorporated into the overall cost of SB1383 that we presented to you in November.
• But unfortunately because SB1383 does require collection of organic waste from many more customers than we are currently collecting from that requires the addition of many routes and so the ultimate cost of implementing SB1383 is not a savings but is a cost because even though there is some savings in disposal because disposal is about 65 to 70% of what it cost to dispose of trash, that savings not enough to offset the cost of collection at many more customers.
Mayor Slayter responded to public comment as follows:
• Our final question was regarding our franchise agreement expires in 2024 and leading up to that point and the opportunity to renegotiate the contract on both sides, and this is for everybody, this is sort of a legacy contract that Recology has inherited from the previous franchisee trash hauler. • That contract expires in 2024, it seem likes it was a very long-lived contract. • Leading up to that, and the question then is about how does that dovetail with potential for significant environmental upgrades guys an electric fleet and infrastructure that's required.
Nikki Burke commented as follows:
• As the caller mentioned, we have not implemented electric trucks but are testing electric trucks in Healdsburg thus far to my knowledge, electric trucks don't have the battery power to run a full route at this point. But we are continuing to test those possibilities. • We are working to make sure that we are on the cutting edge of getting the most viable electric truck options and when they come available we will be working to replace our fleet. • However, as the Council is aware, and I think many people in Sebastopol are aware, we have just replaced the trucks in Sebastopol as well.
• These are extremely expensive trucks that we have to balance the idea of improving the environmental impact with having just purchased extremely expensive truck that's still have some life. • That will be a consideration. Not to say we couldn't find a way to deal with that but that will be another consideration for this.
• Sebastopol has three primary trucks but then we keep a fleet of reserve trucks because even your newest truck will have issues at some point.
• You may see any number of trucks but I think you have three primary trucks servicing the City.
City Council Discussion/Deliberations:
Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• What we have is a rate increase proposal that is in the range of 12.5%. to 13% about. • For some of the larger commercial bin sizes and the historical data shows that this is within the range of what we see on an annual basis.
• It does go up and down a little bit based on current conditions.
Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• This feels a little bit to me like our water situation where we ask our customers to conserve and conserve and then we end up raising the rates because we have fewer people using the water and covering the expenses of the system in this situation.
• The State is asking all of us to correct our stream and put the compost items in the compost can and do this all correctly and yet our hauler is asking our customers to pay more for that expense of doing a better effort.
• I don't know if that is called counterintuitive it just seems really difficult to want to go for it. • I do recall the Vice Mayor making that remark about the money when are we going to see this generosity now come back to us later?
• I'm wondering if now is some part of that moment.
Vice Mayor Hinton commented as follows:
• I actually went to grab my water bill when I threw my screen up because I'm just so frustrated, it just feels like it keeps going up.
• I suppose this is we're still in the existing contract so the time to really bring this and negotiate is when we go out for a hauling contract but I'm frustrated with the situation as well. Because it just seems like it's always more.
• I'm just following my colleague, Councilmember Gurney. • That's why I was so disappointed when I found out personally that program went away. • I might not be in a low-income bracket but we're all pinching pennies and that just means more money to the garbage hauler because I suspect it didn't equal out to just take a stab at that. • A little frustrated tonight.
• Not sure what we can do tonight but definitely as the public pointed out, I have a really long memory, so I think when we come up for renewal we will be really kind of looking at that hard.
Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• Based on that proposal I look at CPI and where that is and this is more than twice what CPI is. • I realize that there are unfunded mandates that's come down from the State and we all struggle with those things, 1383 in this case is the SB at hand.
• What I'm hearing puts new a predicament trying to explain with CPI less than half.
Nikki Burke commented as follows:
• Not clear what CPI you're looking at because the CPI I've been looking at for the last several months has been closer to 9%.
• You do have the add 6.3% for SB1383 which was approved in November. • You're ultimately looking at about 6% of your overall normal rate increase, cost of CPI and cost of disposal and additional 6% for the addition of services under the State mandate has been pointed out is frustrating to us all that it is under funded and quite expensive so that's a little more of a way I would look at it is to say because you have double whammy of the cost of SB1383 and a large CPI increase is why it feels higher than normal.
Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• I understand the concerns of my fellow Councilmembers here, I certainly share those concerns. • We see expenses for all of us on essential items.
• These are not frivolous extra items, we have to have our garbage picked up, we don't really have a choice. • We have a contract with Recology but I also recognize that Recology is saying to us tonight that the rate increase is not to give profits to the bottom line but to cover expenses. • I know that on the, SB1383 side we can certainly rely on that being a reliable increase because of the way Sonoma has been actively involve in figuring out those rate increases. • We have City staff that have been looking closely at this. • So while I feel very uncomfortable with approving an increase on something that is in an essential item that all of us have to pay for.
• We don't have the option of just saying no.
• On the other hand, I guess I feel a confidence that this is an amount that is reasonable given the information that we've been provided.
• I have to say, given that our City staff have been actively involved in reviewing these numbers. I rely heavily on City staff to do their due diligence.
• So, do I like it no. I really don't like it.
• Do I think that this is probably what we're going to have to do? Yeah, unfortunately.
City Manager/Attorney McLaughlin commented as follows:
• I want to say as City Manager we do rely on the expertise of our staff to carefully check these figures and we're very confident they've been checked and are accurate. • This whole process was set up quite a long time ago by previous City Manager to basically remove any of the discretionary aspects of rate increases and turn it into a strictly objective process that takes into account real-life situations of increases in charges that Recology has no say over. • Increases in expenses that are beyond anyone's control. • So I know it's painful but what we have done here is to make sure that that it is accurately calculated. • As I say, it was intended to be an objective process that supplied the same year after year after year, some years are better than other years, that is just reality of economic system in our country that some years will be tougher than others.
• We are trying to be accurate. I believe these figures are correct and it's an objective process.
Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• I had one additional question that might help in terms of just double checking the amounts of the increase here and the final rate that our citizens will be paying. • How do we compare to other jurisdictions in Sonoma County in terms of the percentage increase and final amount that our rate payers be paying for hopefully similar services, can you help us with that? Nikki Burke commented as follows:
• So looking at the comparison of rates, your rates include SB1383 and for example Santa Rosa does not yet include SB1383 in my comparison and their rates are 35% higher than Sebastopol's rates. • Similarly, South Sonoma County, which is surrounding area to Sebastopol, is which does include a portion of the SB1383 cost is 44% higher than Sebastopol.
• Windsor which is a competing provider in the County their rates are 41% higher than Sebastopol's rates. • Healdsburg, which does not yet include SB1383 because of the timing of their rate increase is 4% higher than Sebastopol, and Cotati is 5% higher and they also don't yet include the SB1383 increase so you are consistently lower.
Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• I did note those in the staff report, those figures.
• It goes to my comments about this being a legacy contract and what services are offered under the rate we're getting.
• You have to consider all of that.
Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• I just want to make sure I understand the figures you gave. • We're comparing our rate with this increase to other City's current rate. • That's an important connection to make for everybody listening.
Nikki Burke commented as follows:
• Yes. That's true.
• We are looking at the projected, rates under consideration for 7/1/2022 versus the currently effective rates in those areas that I named.
Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• We have a rate increase in front of us.
• We don't have a whole lot we can do about it as pointed out by Councilmember Rich due to the franchise agreement.
• These are completely different types of contracts, but just looking at what it cost household A in Sebastopol and household B in Windsor or Healdsburg or Cotati • Comparison doesn't really make sense but our rates are lower than those communities so take that for the grain of salt it's worth given the differences in the contracts. • What happens if there are not three affirmative votes for this rate increase? City Manager/Attorney McLaughlin commented I believe Recology might allege we're in violation of our franchise agreement.
Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• That's the answer I figured it would be.
• We have a contract and this is while an increase, an unfortunate increase of the percentage, it is unavoidable in so many ways.
• I hate to be put in a position where we don't have a lot to say about it but here we are.
Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• I am just confused by our City Manager's comment.
• If it were in indisputable based on the contract why are we having a public hearing about it? • Why are we talking about it? Why are we voting on it if it is not a potential action we can take. • It's a foregone conclusion.
City Manager/Attorney McLaughlin commented as follows:
• The law still requires you hold a public hearing when setting rates of this type. • Therefore you have to have the public hearing.
• Each time when we present you with staff report we try to make it clear as I was trying to summarize earlier that this Is an objective process based on real-life figures of the cost of doing business in reality. • It was set that way on purpose to be that kind of a process, yet we have to do it in public and we have to do it in a format where the public has a right to speak and be heard. • The law requires that.
Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• I am anticipating you would indicate that Council wants to do anything different that conversation would take place negotiated in 2024 contract?
• With different terms?
City Manager/Attorney McLaughlin commented as follows:
• As the Mayor, I believe, was alluding to, different franchise agreements have different provisions. • Some of the reason, I believe, for other cities having somewhat higher rates than us is that they also conceivably have a few more perks perhaps than what is in our franchise agreement at the time it was negotiated.
• It was felt paramount importance was to keep our rate as low as they possibly could be and I believe the City Manager at the time did not try to negotiate things like free large pick-up days or whatever you hear happen in other cities in order to keep the rates low.
• Ours is a very tight franchise agreement. Strictly business. It is designed to keep our rates as low as they can be.
• As summarized there by Nikki Burke, I think they're doing that job, they are keeping our rates as low as they can be.
MOTION:
Councilmember Rich moved and Mayor Slayter seconded the motion to approve the Sebastopol Solid Waste Collection Services Annual Rate Adjustments by the City’s Franchise Solid Waste Collector/Hauler, Recology Sonoma Marin
Mayor Slayter called for a roll call vote. City staff conducted a roll call vote.
Discussion:
Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• I just have an additional question for Recology
• Our City Manager referred to additional perks that's other cities may be having, at greater expense to them potentially if the rates were apples to apples as the mayor said could you take us what those perks might be that other cities are enjoying that we don't have here. • We're thinking ahead. Our Vice Mayor has a long memory she's already told you.
Nikki Burke commented as follows:
• There are bulky item collection.
• Santa Rosa did get new bins and carts when they signed the new contract and there are City payments required and those go book help fund mandates for the City. Additional waste zero staff is a big one. • I think Ambrosia is working in Sebastopol and I know that she's doing a great job and there may be more that she could be doing to help in Sebastopol so that would be one thing that is often times requested and often times very valuable.
• Then kitchen pails is another item, I know we've been in discussion regarding the provision of kitchen pails and I think that will be coming to the City through Zero Waste Sonoma and the funding for other parts of SB1383 not through Recology, but it has been something we've provided to other cities.
Mayor Slayter called for a roll call vote. City staff conducted a roll call vote.
VOTE:
Ayes: Councilmembers Gurney, Rich, Vice Mayor Hinton and Mayor Slayter Noes: None
Absent: Councilmember Glass
Abstain: None
City Council Action: Approved the Sebastopol Solid Waste Collection Services Annual Rate Adjustments by the City’s Franchise Solid Waste Collector/Hauler, Recology Sonoma Marin Minute Order Number: 2022-208
10. Public Hearing: Public Hearing to Levy and Collect Annual Assessments for FY 2022-20223 for the City of Sebastopol’s Lighting Special Assessment District; Resolution Approving the Engineer’s Report and Confirming the assessment Diagram and annual assessments and authorize levying of annual assessments for FY 2021-2022 for the City of Sebastopol Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District (Responsible Department: Administrative Services Director) Administrative Services Director Kwong presented the agenda item recommending the City Council Conduct a public hearing, Approve and Adopt the Resolution Approving the annual Engineer’s report, confirming the Assessment Diagram, and authorizing the levy of annual assessments for Fiscal Year 2022-23 for the City of Sebastopol Streets Lighting Special Assessment.
Mayor Slayter opened for questions of staff/presenter. There were none.
Mayor Slayter opened the public hearing.
Linda Berg commented as follows:
• It occurs to me that we need to start looking at this technology from a health point of view. • I'm going to start talking about the lights and the rest of the stuff. I'm also talking about the plastic garbage containers.
• As mentioned before, the lights are too bright.
• When they were implemented the City Council didn't listen, but although there were some people that spoke up about them being too bright and the lights where I live in this apartment complex at night it is like an airport.
• It is blinding. They are literally blinding.
• We need to start looking at these technology from a health point of view and also what happens to the old stuff? New is not necessarily better.
• I'm referring now to the plastic garbage can
• What happens to the old plastic?
• Do we want to keep consuming more non-recyclable stuff? • I'm talking about the lights too.
• What's happening to the old stuff? Where is going?
• Is going to add to the islands of plastic and garbage filling up our ocean. • We need to look at the biological effects of the technology that you all are implementing, being forced upon us, and also what's happening to the often times more durable stuff. Non-recyclables.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Slayter closed the public hearing.
Mayor Slayter responded to public comments as follows:
• First is regarding the brightness of our street lights and we waited a very long time and pushed PG&E to get the lowest temperature bulb fixture as possible so they have a nice, yellow, warm glow which replicates the old light that's were environmental nightmares to dispose of. • I don't know if that same standard is in private developments like apartment complexes, that's up to the individual owner of the apartment complexes so I would say if somebody resides in one of those types of units and has an issue of the brightness of the lighting in the complex that's not a City item that's a private property ownership item.
• So if anybody does have a street light that's much too bright and we have shields available, all you have to do is contact Public Works, they are well practiced in installing those. • If that is an issue with a public street light can you get a shield for that. • Regarding recycling, I'm not a recycling engineer, I'm not any kind of an engineer, but I can take a stab at what happens to the old broken down waste bins that are most likely leaking and causing difficulty for people to maneuver them that they get recycled.
• They have a diamond on the bottom of them and a number and those are recyclable. • I know that because I looked couple weeks ago, curiously to see if it was recyclable and there it was.
Recyclable.
• We discussed at some length before a month ago.
City Council Discussion/Deliberations:
There was no further discussion.
MOTION:
Councilmember Rich moved and Vice Mayor Hinton seconded the motion to approve and adopt Resolution Approving the annual Engineer’s report, confirming the Assessment Diagram, and authorizing the levy of annual assessments for Fiscal Year 2022-23 for the City of Sebastopol Streets Lighting Special Assessment.
Mayor Slayter called for a roll call vote. City staff conducted a roll call vote.
VOTE:
Ayes: Councilmembers Gurney, Rich, Vice Mayor Hinton and Mayor Slayter Noes: None
Absent: Councilmember Glass
Abstain: None
City Council Action: Approved and adopted Resolution Approving the annual Engineer’s report, confirming the Assessment Diagram, and authorizing the levy of annual assessments for Fiscal Year 2022-23 for the City of Sebastopol Streets Lighting Special Assessment.
Minute Order Number: 2022-211
Resolution Number: 6447-2022
11. Public Hearing – City Budget Hearing (This may be heard and if not completed continued to the July 5, 2022 Council Meeting) (Responsible Department: Administrative Services) Please Note: City Council shall consider approval for adoption of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Sebastopol continuing the Fiscal Year 2022/2023 Budget Beyond June 30, 2022.
The Budget Committee provided the following comments.
Vice Mayor Hinton commented as follows:
• I think we have generally spoke as a subcommittee to launch the item so I would appreciate that tonight • I have some notes and t I'm sure my colleague on the subcommittee Councilmember Rich would have some comments
• I think we can make some overall comments to kick it off and then we could go to our Administrative Services Director to go through the PowerPoint and lead us through the budget. • First of all, in my mind, having been on this budget sub committee, I think five out of my six years in office, this is one of the biggest nights and results in all of the work that we've done • I was happy to work with my colleague Councilmember Rich this year on this process. • We had 10 subcommittee public meetings over 20 hours spent meeting on the 180-page document that is both in the hands of staff and Council and also there is a public hard copy that we always keep in our library in Sebastopol if you want to go take a look for the people that don't have electronic. • There are a lot of things as the Mayor alluded to that are not firm, and are still not in this budget, so when this budget looks like it's coming in at a 1.6% lower than last year's budget, that is not accurate. • We are in current negotiations with our employee groups, which means there are no annual raises or things like cost of living in this budget. That will be finalized down the road. • We'll make a major change to the final budget document. • The City also is awaiting a Citywide staffing study to determine our optimum staffing levels Citywide. • Myself and Mayor Slayter are the subcommittee for that and I can say that we have not seen that document, and so that is my influence of final budget or budget adjustment mid year down the road. • On page 27, are the Citywide discussion items. These are what I call our extras, and they are not reflected in this budget.
• If we were to select all of them proposed, the high number is $906,200 plus vehicle requests. • So, those are not in this.
• Then as it points out, we have inflation happening.
• We're optimistic, but there's a lot of uncertainty. This is highlighted in the transmittal letter with some comments that were prepared by our Administrative Services Director.
Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• What I would add is that this process not only was time consuming but I felt was very productive. • I want the City Council and the public at large to understand that in working on this budget, working with staff, and processing the various departmental needs and requests, we were able to really skinny down the budget to a point where the amount that is proposed that this committee is recommending, is pretty much a balanced budget.
• I point that out because I think it's important for everyone to understand that from the committee's perspective, the recommended amount, the dollar amounts that are in there that don't include the City discussion items on page 27, any results from contract negotiations, any results from the staffing report, those are all add-ons but the numbers that are in here, I personally am very confident that there is not much room for reducing them, for saving any money.
• We've gone through a process that has really asked each department to look closely at the dollar amounts and we have really challenged them to really get down to the bare numbers that each department can handle in order to operate their services for our town for this next year. • So, my thought is that the focus of discussions after the presentation by our finance director would be on the Citywide discussion list, which is something which has items that we could actually make some movement on tonight.
Administrative Services Director Kwong presented the agenda item recommending the City Council Review and Consider the DRAFT Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2022-23, conduct a public hearing, and provide comments and/or direction to staff on budget allocations for the upcoming Fiscal Year. if the budget is not adopted, the City must adopt a resolution prior to June 30th continuing the previous year's budget into the new fiscal year for a period of less than 60 days. It is anticipated due to the length and discussion of the agenda item, the City Council will not finalize discussion of the Preliminary budget and will not be able to adopt the 2022-23 budget by June 30th. Therefore, accompanying the staff report is a resolution which will continue the current fiscal year budget of 2021-22 into the next fiscal year. Staff would then return with the proposed budget at the next regular City Council Meeting scheduled for July 5th, 2022.
Mayor Slayter opened for questions of staff/presenter.
Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• I did want to make a comment about something else that is missing. • I appreciate that you have directed Councilmembers and our public that's listening to what we don't know yet as that was confirmed by both members of our committee. • I do want to also mention that we are awaiting our climate action framework, and when that comes from our Civic Sparkes fellow having been viewed by our Climate Action Committee, there will be a number of action items suggested to the Council and I anticipate that that list may also inform our work and direct our work next year.
• This next fiscal year, which, of course, has an impact on the budget as well. • I believe in our scheduling that report is coming in July 19th for discussion, presentation to the Council and discussion.
• I'm thinking for all of us, our climate actions could become a top priority, and thus be an expense for the City for next year.
Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• Thank you for bringing that up.
• I believe there's something in my inbox recording that very item, so that's absolutely true. • Those are other unknowable unknowns at this point as to what that might become. • I feel like this is simply an introduction to this item because there's just those items that are still out there that we just don't know what they are or what they will become budget-wise.
Mayor Slayter called for a recess at 7:48 pm and reconvened the meeting at 8:00 pm Mayor Slayter opened the public hearing.
Woody Hastings commented as follows:
• I am a member of Sebastopol's Climate Action Committee and also a member of the working group on funding, and first I just want to say I really appreciate all of the obvious huge amount of work that's gone into this from the budget committee.
• It's in the early stages but I just wanted to put in an early plug for including the item for the $60,000 for a grant writer.
• There's no recommendation from the budget committee, but we have a strong recommendation coming from the funding working group and the Climate Action Committee to do this. • We sent in a brief note to the City Council and just want to highlight that the State of California has an unprecedented budget surplus and 30-some-Odd billion dollars going to climate action and a lot of that is going to the local governments throughout the State
• The $60,000 shouldn't be seen as just an expense.
• If things work out right to leverage many times more than the $60,000 investment for equity centered ways of addressing the climate crisis.
• So, that's really what I wanted to say
• Really urge the City Council to really look at that closely and look at it as an investment that will have if things work out right, a big payoff and will benefit the entire City for things climate and otherwise.
Kyla Falbo commented as follows:
• I'm going to be very brief because as was stated earlier, we're pretty early in the budget discussions, and without seeing any sort of negotiated raises in terms of salaries for our City employees, it's going to be really difficult to get a real judgment of what's happening actually with our budget but in particular, of note is the radical increase request by the police in terms of funding above what the budget is being presented here.
• If that were to be funded today, that would take the police budget above $6 million for the next year. • That would bring the police proportion of the pie above 50%. • Thinking back historically, many Councilmembers were active maybe at 12 years ago in which at the time, the police budget was around 35% of the City's overall budget. • So, what's happened exactly in the last 12 years that has made the police budget increase so dramatically that it would constitute over 50% of our entire annual budget? • I'd like to know a little bit about that. What the actual justification is. • I can read through what some of the recommendations suggest for the justification for this radical increase over 10% of what the allocated budget is for the police services in the coming year, but in particular, when I pushed, many times, on the fact that Sebastopol, as it currently stands, has, per capita, the highest cost of policing, that we're a destination location. That somehow us being a destination is a justification for having that highest per capita.
• So perhaps there's some sort of a solution, a funding model that would recognize the destination aspect of this as it's not the citizens of this City that are driving that highest per capita for policing of any municipality in Sonoma County.
Kenna Lee commented as follows:
• I just want to say first, thank you so much to the City Councilmembers who come to these meetings, sit through the whole thing, look at all these numbers, and just take on the things that you take on. • I have so much gratitude for your willingness to do that ad for the City staff who run this City. • But I'm here to do the job you have appointed me to, which is to advocate for more action on climate. • As a member of the Climate Action Committee, I just want to say I think maybe we made too small of an ask.
• The need is greater than the $60,000 Citywide for a grant writer • That's kind of a no-brainer investment, because it is a leverage piece. • We would do better and more to hire a sustainability coordinator at a living wage full-time for this City or shared with another City who could do some of that grant writing for climate projects. • But the grant writer for this year is kind of the minimum ask in terms of not letting the money that is sitting out there waiting for us to take it go to waste. • I just really urge you to very strongly consider this grant writer position as not an optional item in the budget but a required item in the budget.
Jann Eyrich commented as follows:
• This is very quick but I feel a little puzzled on the outline or the definition of what you're reconsidering, and I'm thrilled that you're reconsidering the grant writing allocation, which I agree with the previous speakers is essential.
• But it is not just for climate action, it is not just for our City's future, which I believe is totally dovetailed with this planning grant that Caltrans is offering that we have been pushing for, and we have an enormous number of businesses just in support of let's just get this grant. Let's see what we can do. • As you all know, this grant with Caltrans is extremely competitive with other communities in the state. • Its success could be ensured by a dedicated grant writer, but if you're going to go with a general grant writer, we're all thrilled with that as well.
• But you have to back it up with a support of City Hall, a supportive Council throughout this process. • This is a multiyear process, but I can tell you right now, we have an engaged business community behind this and they're looking for money everywhere, and we will just keep pushing, and I hope that you add that $60,000.
• I agree it is just very minimal. It should be $90,000 and up. • Thank you for considering or reconsidering this item in the budget.
Steve Pierce commented as follows:
• I'd like to also follow up in support of the grant writing services and also following what Jann just said, that it's not just for climate action.
• It's for multiple departments, we're a very small town, and we need to leverage the resources that we have.
• I know you've heard that same word many times, and when it comes to climate, there is quite a bit of money that's going to be sitting on the table and it would be a shame for us not to try and get some of that money to move on our climate action goals.
• You might be wondering where the $60,000 came from. Well, it originally came from the City of San Bruno.
• They put out a request for proposal for just this type of service, grant writing service used by multiple departments last fall. They ended up using it for quite a few different things. • Each department put in their request, and for us, $60,000 probably isn't enough but it's certainly a starting point.
• We have heard in some of the budget subcommittee meetings that we can expect somewhere between $15,000 to $20,000 per grant proposal.
• Of course, that all depends on level of specialty and what we're trying to get a grant for. • So, I'd like to once again voice my support for the grant writing services.
Jim Wheaton commented as follows:
• I am calling in also in support of the grant writing position. • I'm of two minds.
• We seem to be having a lot of pressure to spend more money. • I'm really dismayed at the increase in the Police Department costs. • I wish we could get a handle on that.
• I know we're a small town, and to have a 24/7, two-officer, whatever that minimum service level, I understand that that's sort of a minimum thing, but it seems to keep going up and up, and I don't see an increase in service, per se.
• But the grant writer position is a way that we can try to find other ways, other avenues of getting income to offset all these costs that we want to do.
• I, as a nonprofit, I understand that it's risky putting out money to try to write a grant. • I've written a few, and I got one during the COVID times and jumped through all the hoops and do all the things and boy, when it comes through, it allows you to really do something you couldn't do otherwise. • I think we can use that position for a variety of things. • The Caltrans is certainly one of the ones we should focus on. • I know there's a lot of mouths all wanting stuff but if you hire a professional, we're going to make the money back for that, and more, and that's not the same as an awful lot of things that are in the budget right now, so I hope you'll consider that.
Tim Miller, Executive Director of West County Community Services, commented as follows:
• I just wanted to speak in support of the homeless outreach coordinator position that the City has funded for the past year and hopefully for the year to come.
• The goal of everyone working in homeless services is to connect people to services, people without homes, and get them off the street. It's a team effort. • Our outreach coordinator, Jennifer Lake, has worked tirelessly with the Chief and the Police Department, the fire department, City staff, the Horizon Shine Village to accomplish that goal, and as of May 31st, has helped to house 40 people from the greater Sebastopol area, whether into a shelter, into permanent housing or family reunification with their family in Sebastopol or other. • I've been doing this for six years now, and we have an outreach coordinator also on the lower Russian river, and I have learned that this is a critical piece. • Without this there's no professional pipeline to get people, again, off the streets, perhaps, out of addiction and alcohol addiction, and into the services they need off the streets for the benefit of everyone in the business community, the general community at large. • We appreciate the City's support for the homeless services outreach coordinator, and look forward to doing anything we can to continue the program.
Linda Berg commented as follows:
• Regarding the comments on our fine, fine Police Department, and its funding, I'd like to give a little bit of an explanation about how that has come about.
• From my perspective, some of it has to do with our previous Planning Director who altered traffic studies to enable Barlow to be built there and resulted in the traffic mess that we have today. • Now, who's dealing with the traffic mess? It is our Police Department. • So their responsibilities have just increased a lot because of some of your, I'm sorry to say, ill-advised policies.
• As the previous speaker spoke about the homeless situation where Sebastopol and it's typically very generous in trying to help and everything and the do-gooders, myself included, have got the Horizon Shine Village of three properties from where I live but you need to know what the consequence of that is. • A lot of the intermediaries of making that work are the police, who are serving as psychologists, social workers, as the long list of what they do, not to mention saints. • Thank God they are not behaving the same as deputy sheriffs. • We need to properly fund and recognize the contributions of our wonderful cops are doing.
Hearing no further comments, Mayor Slayter closed the public hearing.
Mayor Slayter responded to public comment as follows:
• I have some historical data on past budgets.
• The one oldest and closest to my fingertips is the adopted budget for 2015/2016, and rounding off, that total budget was $7.7 million, and the SPD budget was $3.5 million for a total of 45% of the general fund going to the SPD.
• In this draft budget, we have $11.6 million in revenues and a proposal for basically status quo without the additional positions that were requested outside of that. • So, $11.6 million total revenues and $5.3 million for the SPD, which equals 45%. That's the same number. • That's the same percentage, and I'm sure that I could calculate that in years prior to '15-16, but we don't see radical increases in the police budget.
• We don't see radical increases in any departmental budget, so facts matter and those are the facts on what the percentage for the police budget is.
• That's not a value judgment on whether or not 45% is what should be or shouldn't be spent on the Police Department on my part.
• I'm just stating what the approved budget was.
• There was another comment regarding the retired Planning Director having altered a traffic study for the Barlow.
• I find that very difficult to believe, so if there's substantiated evidence of something like that going on, fine. But my sense is that our staff, regardless of the people sitting in the seats, filling the positions, everyone that I have worked with has been exemplary and honest to a fault. • I find that very, very difficult to believe, that that was anything that ever happened. • So, those were the comments, specifically in public comment. • There were some comments about the grant writer and what that position might be, so I think that we can discuss that in greater detail as a group.
• Those weren't really questions. Those were comments promoting the idea of a grant writer and not necessarily questions.
City Council Discussion/Deliberations:
Discussed City wide Needs:
Item Number 1: Outreach worker for the contract position through West County Community Services.
Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• WCCW is the actual employer and the City provides the funds for that position. • I will let everybody know that I have some lines in the water, if you will, with the County regarding potential funding for that position and trying to figure out a way that that can be something that is sustainable.
• The County population past measure of a couple of years ago and that is providing many millions of dollars for homeless services and mental health services, and the way that that gets divvied up to individual cities, I believe I've not ever seen any kind of a firm rule or policy on what percentage goes where.
• I've talked with our supervisor and understanding that there might be some funds available from the County, other than that kind of nebulous description, that's all I can offer at this point because it is early.
Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• Speaking as a member of the ad hoc committee for the unhoused, this was a request that the committee brought forward.
• I just underscore the importance of the outreach worker as an individual who does the Face-to-Face contact with our unhoused and knits together all the other services. • Tim Miller identified he actually listed 40 people who have been assisted in finding housing. • I'd also comment that we need to remember that the outreach worker, although benefiting the unhoused, her services also benefit the greater community, the businesses, the residents, in order to maintain our shared spaces as shared spaces.
• She's the person who goes out and finds alternatives and facilitates options for people that take them off the street.
• So we all benefit from that.
• I'd also suggest that this is another reason for the grant writer position as Mayor Slayter identified. • There's money out there.
• We also heard Director Svanstrom mention that she felt that this was the sort of position that there would be grant money to fund.
• So, that's my pitch on this position.
• I think it makes fiduciary and social and business common sense to support it again.
Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• In the interest of time, I would say I very much believe that Tim Miller said it appropriately and wisely as our experience has demonstrated to us as community members and leaders. • I also report what Councilmember Rich just said and I was surprised to see this come back from the budget committee without a strong recommendation in favor of it, and I see Vice Mayor Hinton, the other member of the committee, with her hand up and I'm wondering if you both can speak to your lack of agreement on this issue.
• I'm definitely in favor.
Vice Mayor Hinton commented as follows:
• I think this is an opportunity for you to help the rest of the City Council understand why we would have put items on this particular discussion list, even though we agreed to recommend them. • We decided to put it on a Citywide discussion list because this is kind of the format we went through last year.
• Anything that was what I call extra or a Council initiative, we put on a discussion because we wanted to highlight our goals and priorities, and we really felt like these -- even if we recommend it – are only two members.
• So that's why we're doing it this way, to just go through item by item, but to just stay on this item, I'm personally in favor of it.
• I do know that I think that we heard it touched about 40 people, but I think that this position really helps out our Police Department with our unhoused folks in town and I feel like as a City, we've really got our unhoused community in kind of in hand and thanks to partly the outreach worker that has been doing this work.
• This will be year two. I want to remind the public that year one, this position was paid for by money we received from the County recommended by our supervisor, Linda Hopkins, so year one, in my mind, this was paid for by the County because of the conversion that we had. • This would be our year two and I agree with Mayor Slayter that I think we should try to get this reimbursed from County money and if it does, then that means we're just kind of fronting the money and then I think we need to seriously look at it in year three if we're unable to get reimbursed by the County from their money that should be spread out throughout the community. • So, recommending this for this year. Then we'll have to see from that point.
Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• I am also in favor of this. I'm even more in favor of it if the discussions with the County come to fruition. • I would also sort of like to make a little bit of a value statement here in that if we are in a position where an outreach coordinator, a social worker, to assist those who need assistance in our community is seen as discretionary spending, that shows how lean our budget is • If this is seen as discretionary income, that shows how lean our budget is, but the fact that this is receiving unanimous support from the Council, I think that shows community values. • Community is the ones who voted for us and it's about values. • It's not necessarily about individual decisions that we make, and honestly, I see great benefit to this myself.
Item Number 2: Relaunch Sebastopol
Director Kwong commented as follows:
• The original contract that was approved by Council for the Relaunch was $96,000. • City probably will spend $31,000 through all the activity through June. • This item number two on this list is asking, in addition to the $65,000 that we carry over of another $50,000 which would get us to the end of fiscal year '23.
Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• Being on the Relaunch Committee with Councilmember Gurney, I don't know if we had extra information on that one, but it felt important to get everybody kind of at the same point on this item and where we are with the contract.
• My perspective on this is that we are beginning to see the work of Relaunch and our consultants. • I was down at the town party over the weekend, and it was the energy in the park was wonderful. • I think that people really got a sense of what the intent of that event was and the other work that we have seen as an ad hoc committee that will be coming out very soon, I think we're getting tremendous value, and I would be in favor of continuing this item with the additional funding.
Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• I believe there might be a typo in the staff report.
• I just want to make sure I understand the information correctly. • On page four -- page five of 273, under, Relaunch Sebastopol continuation, this says the current Relaunch Sebastopol contract end date is March 10, 2022.
• That should be March 10, 2023, correct?
Staff stated that is correct. Our current funding takes us through March 10, 2023, and the additional $50,000 would take us through June 30 of 2023.
Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• I'm curious as a budget committee member and City Councilmember to hear your perspective, Mayor Slayter, on the continued benefits of the program.
• It sounds like from what you have said, you really feel that that additional funding, the April, May, June, $50,000 to get through that additional three months, is important to the City. • But you also have a fellow City Councilmember on the Relaunch committee, and that would be Councilmember Gurney.
• Can we hear from Councilmember Gurney, please, also?
Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• I think this consultant is doing remarkable work, and generating quite a lot of enthusiasm amongst our community.
• I think they have potential that we haven't even tapped yet in terms of their work plan. • I would particularly like them to move into marketing our community, and it may be a conversation that the ad hoc could have when they come back and report to the Council, we'll be able to get further direction from the Council.
• My interest is in marketing us as a location for businesses as we're seeing some places closing. • We also need to see new energy and I would just say more trendy, edgier, more modern businesses come and especially employment opportunities.
• I think we have a lot of real estate that has development opportunities for housing, and potentially commercial buildings, so I see this team as incredibly skilled, and I think we're getting them in the lighter weight ramp-up to heavier weight, more significant activity and I very much would like them to continue as part of the team for the City and to the next fiscal year.
Vice Mayor Hinton commented as follows:
• We have a whole list here, so it was really trying to decide what to support. • On one hand, I think the Relaunch team is doing a great job down at the Citywide party, although I don't know if stalling their work maybe for a few months at the end of the year in lieu of something else might make sense to us.
• I want to remind people that not only do we have a, I think, $96,000 contract right now, so this would add $50,000 to that, but we had already done what I call Relaunch phase one with CoMission, and spent $155,000 on that contract.
• So, if you add the $155,000 to the $96,000 to the $50,000, we have invested a lot in what I call the Relaunch Sebastopol effort, and I just wonder if, based on our other demands for budget this year, because I've been doing some background math, if this is not something that we could take maybe a pause on in lieu of something else.
• We have heard a lot from the public tonight about grant writers and other things that we're going to discuss still on this list, so I just want to add that for consideration. • To the group here so that we really realize what the Relaunch effort and the investment we've made to date on Relaunch.
Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• Like so many things about the pandemic, incredibly poor timing where the vision for what was going to be the community vitality position rapidly, in March of 2020, became, how do we help our community through COVID?
• There was no road map. There was no way to know what we like all government agencies, like all small businesses, like all large businesses, we kind of did it on the fly as things changed so rapidly. • So, yes, if we look at the community vitality position, I completely agree that what we spent before and what we spend after on two different consultants, that's not an insignificant amount of money, but I also kind of look at it as the before times and the after times, you know, BC and AC. Before COVID and after COVID.
Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• I think on balance, I have to say that I look at the investment we've made in the past, which is substantial, and the potential for losing the momentum from that investment, and that troubles me. • We're in the midst of an environment, economic and otherwise, where our businesses really need support, and we need a sense of hope and future and joy and opportunity in order to then encourage visitors and more revenue and all of those things that benefit our time. • So, my suggestion on this item would be that I would be in support of including it for purposes of this discussion.
• I think that we have to recognize we have some substantial dollar items that we're going to be discussing further tonight and also at a later time, and we may have to back off on some of these items. • But I personally feel that it's one that we should be supporting at this point.
Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• I think that's just right.
• We're here at the first pass and when we get to the bottom of the column, we're going to have to add the number up and then see the additional information that comes in and we'll end up making adjustments. • I'm in favor of including this.
Item Number 3: Safe Parking
Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• So, the idea behind this line item, safe parking, is to provide funding that could be accessed in order to reimburse expenses associated with safe parking locations that might develop in the future. • Part of the obligation of the West County Community Services outreach worker that we've already discussed is to oversee a safe parking program and to work with, turns out to be local churches primarily, and others to set up additional safe parking locations. • So this would provide funding to reimburse, for example, if there's a safe parking area that needs a porta potty or needs security lighting or needs adjustments to locking mechanisms to allow access to interior bathrooms.
• That's what this $6,000 would be, a reimbursement for expenses associated with safe parking locations. • I will point out that at the moment, this would be a fund that would be available. • There aren't specific safe parking locations that are targeted for these funds, but we expect and hope that with the assistance of the outreach worker, there will be additional safe parking locations, and this would help facilitate those situations so that they would not be out of pocket for offering their lots for this purpose.
Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• I just want to add a comment as I was looking through the budget, I was hoping there were some smaller items that we could designate as kind of community-based projects, either for our service organizations or some other group to raise money for.
• So I was looking for things, under $10,000 basically and I was wondering if this fund could have that sort of approach to it and that appeal that folks would be able to contribute a little bit to facilitate that parking spot however the holder of the location needed help.
• So, now I'm going to ask our Councilmember who's involved in this service and action group, is that something that has an appeal as a possible fund development project? • One approach would be to fund this line item for a certain amount • You could do a matching grant sort of concept.
• I'm sure that we could put together a way to solicit funds for safe parking. • I do know that the service clubs are always interested in assisting with any sort of services for the unhoused and the rotary clubs might be interested.
• This might also be something that we could wrap into our ask with the County.
Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• I suppose the related question, Councilmember Gurney, would be whether, you know, does this concept reduce the amount that could be requested for safe parking? • I think safe parking is one of those areas where if we need to start tightening the belt, we can do that. • On the other hand, $6,000 is not going to give us much tightening of the belt, and we are, in fact, asking local private generally churches to go out of their way to make their space available. • So, I would be hesitant to reduce this amount but would be happy to do some outreach to local service clubs.
Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• My interest is involving as many people as we can in the big problems that we do face that are bigger than our community, because I think that's a meaningful activity for people. • So, I'm fine with this number here, and I would encourage us to pursue these ways with the County to get the money from that source to look to our community to see if we can build support amongst the service organizations or, I don't know, people of faith, whoever it might be, who could take some responsibility in addition to donating a location or time to be a supervisor or volunteer check in. • I just think we're past the time where our five-member Council and our small staff can assume we can do everything and provide all the services we need, so I'm looking at that big embrace of the community to see how others can help us. Let's partner.
• I think from a general budget perspective, this is not a large amount.
Item Number 4 Mayor and Councilmembers association clerk contribution and this is an item that the Council discussed.
Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• It was brought to us by the Vice Mayor who sits on an ad hoc with that Association, and so there is an opportunity that I volunteered us for with input from senior administration to act as the fiscal sponsor, which would cut this in half, and so this would be an item funding for a position that would make that organization much more functional and useful to us as electeds, to future electeds, and to electeds all over the County and the cities where we get together and discuss items of great importance to all of us and are able to just work together instead of in vacuums in all of our little cities and our little City Halls. • I'm really in favor of this if we can have it but even at the full amount, I think that it's probably a worthwhile investment.
• Discussed fiscal sponsorship. That would quickly reduce if the City was the fiscal agent • When I put my hand up at the prior meeting, there wasn't a lot of opposition, for Sebastopol to be the fiscal agent. I think we can have it if we want it.
• City staff said that it was not going to be a burden, and that it would be relatively simple and that it would, you know, save us money.
Item Number 5. CalPERS Retirement/Pension Reserve Transfer Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• I see that the budget committee as a whole is recommending $100,000 and given that this is money that we still have, it's not really an outlay.
• It's simply moving money from one fund into another fund that will end up saving many times that amount of money.
• People who have been on the Council with me over the years know that this fund was my idea to start off, and every year, I pound the drum to increase our transfer into that reserve, so I'm in favor of the larger fund, given that it's not really an outlay.
Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• I'm not sure who stated the $30,000.
• Was that from Administrative Services?
Director Kwong commented as follows:
• It was brought up that this current year, that there was a $28,000 that Council approved for transfer into that fund.
• We know that it's very important to the Mayor about putting away for future and that the Council is taking care of the City and putting this away, and the subject just came up, and I was rounding up the figure from $28,000 to $30,000
• There's no rhyme or reason as to why I come up with the $30,000. It's just the rounding. • Then the budget committee said that they would like to see $100,000 in it. • So that's where it landed into the recommended column.
Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• Well, thank you for that explanation. I understand rounding up like that. • I think the $100,000 is one of those flex numbers to go from $30,000 or $28,000, this last year, right now, to $100,000, I think it's a big jump considering we don't yet know all the items that we might want in the here and now rather than that future item.
• I do agree with the Mayor, and I appreciate his bringing this up every year with so much dedication. • I would like to see us make a contribution.
• I'm just not committed right now to absolutely for sure $100,000. • So I see that as a bit of a flex number.
Vice Mayor Hinton commented as follows:
• I just want to bring some more history to this discussion. • Mayor Slayter is not the only one that beats the drum on this every year. • Let me remind the Council that I have served on the subcommittee. • $100,000 is the smallest contribution in the five years I've been on budget committee that we have done on the transfer.
• We've done $100,000 or even more. I can recall $300,000. • We only did $28,000 last year because we were looking at a really rough budget, and that brought us within our percentage at the time.
• I think before we got any reimbursements on COVID money from the government that we kind of got in the landfall after we had finished the budget process for the most part. • So the $28,000 was a random number last year.
• I think Councilmember Glass and I came up with that number because it got us right into the percentages where we need to be and it was the smallest amount we've ever transferred to the pension liability fund. • So, $100,000 gets us back on track. Although it is lower than we've done in some of the previous years.
Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• I would be in support of a substantial pension transfer. I do see $100,000 as a substantial pension transfer.
• But I, too, see this as a number that could go up or down depending on how we end up with our other numbers, and with our final reserve amounts, because we do want to be strong in our reserve amounts. • So, I don't know what we'd do with that number at the moment, whether we pencil it in at $100,000 or as an item that we might discuss or lower later on.
• That's absolutely fine by me.
• I will tell you that if we're pinning down what number are we going to lower, the Relaunch position or the pension transfer, if in fact we're at that point, my mind would be in support of the Relaunch position and lowering the pension transfer.
• So, I do see the pension amount, that line item, as flexible, but I'm happy to pencil in $100,000 with the understanding that we can revisit it and reduce it once we have full numbers in front of us.
Councilmember Gurney commented as f9ollows:
• That's where I am too.
• I think I'm hoping that Councilmember Glass will be back for some part of the budget discussion where we have five of us, which is a comfortable number, because it's an odd number. • So, I would suggest we put it in, in pencil, and y'all aren't surprised if we present, in the future, wanting to bring it down somewhat.
Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• However, I continue to think that this is not even keeping up with our current liability. • This is digging the hole deeper.
• We'll leave it at $100,000 for now.
Item Number 6: Grant Writing
Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• This is housed in the planning department. So, I think I am generally in favor of this. • However, I'm not sure that I understand the world of grant writing well enough and really to just kind of have what is a number that's informed but not really researched as far as what would be appropriate. • My sense on this one is that grants we have seen over the years for the City they've done good work for us financially, so I see the benefit of it but I also worry about just sort of a generalized person who probably is very good at the job, but would it make sense for us to have targeted specialists and I realize that is an additional workload and an additional management task. • I just don't know enough about this.
• So, I think in general terms, I'm in favor of it, but I can't just say, yes to this and just leave it up to wherever.
Vice Mayor Hinton commented as follows:
• So, just to give you a little bit of feedback, we did discuss this at length at the budget subcommittee. • After the discussion, we really kind of broke it down with our planning department and our other departments and said, okay, how many grants are we talking about? • What kind of specialists? Exactly what you just pointed out. In what departments? Because again, the parentheses is Citywide.
• We've heard from a lot of members of the public, from Climate Action Committee, that it was not really how we broke this grant writing position down.
• We did envision that we would be looking at different people, that it would be coordinated by department heads depending on what grants we were going for, and that this was a number and we weren't sure that they would need this whole number.
• It depended how much it cost each grant to have this specialty work. • So, there was some discussion, if I recall, with Councilmember Rich, to make this number $30,000 • We were listening to staff tell us we've been successful getting some grants that staff has written in the past, and we've also lost grants that we've invested money in, in the past. For mostly roadwork projects. • I don't know if we need to really budget $60,000 or if we need to budget $30,000 but it's meant to be used by staff with specialists, not to, in my mind, fund a specific person to write all these grants. • Different from the variety of needs we're going to be facing in order to try to access available funds. • Planning department was the place to live with oversight of Director Svanstrom this was set up by Citywide funds and $60,000 from what we've been informed these expert costs seemed like the reasonable amount to use in this initial year in order to try to see if we could make something of this. • If we have too little money in there we're not going to be able to maximize our efforts so it seemed like a reasonable amount.
• To the extent Mayor Slayter if you want more information on the dollar amount it might be worth asking for staff's input.
Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• I think we miss a lot of grants because we don't apply because our staff has so much work to do they don't have time to search all of the grants and opportunities out there. • That concerns me because we're missing money and two we have an overworked staff so I think this concept of a fund to retain specialists really an official one for this upcoming year because as many of our speakers have said there is money out there and we need to leverage ourselves out there to get the money.
• So I think it's important to do that.
• There's quite a lot of support for climate action grant writing but I think it's our responsibility to make this Citywide because we do need help with our applications to Cal Trans for their competitive grants. • We do need help. We have a lot of expertise to do that successfully given the Caltrans numbers. • We need help for parks and open space, with land acquisition, we don't have a park in the South part of town.
• We need help potentially with gray water systems, something that we could do that we haven't even ventured into yet that may be very available in this next year and future years. • Maybe there is something that our interest in Sonoma Clean Power would compel us to do. • I think we have a real strong reason to keep this in the budget and be effective finding a specialist and then releasing our staff to their department head to keep everything going forward as routinely and perhaps more swiftly than it has.
• We just have a lot to accomplish and this is one way we'll be able to do that. • So I very much support this expense.
Item Number 7: Police Depart Staffing
Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• That takes us to item seven which is the request from the Police Department for additional staffing and while the ad hoc on staffing has not yet met because the staffing study has I believe just been delivered, not had a meeting or even seen that item yet I understand that every single department is under-staffed. • I understand the Police Department is under staffed.
• However, in absence of even having opened the front cover of the staffing report I'm not in favor of this given that big bulk of work of the report that I've not yet cracked open. • So, that's where I am on this. I'm not saying yes or no, I'm just saying this is too early.
Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• I'm in the same place where you are, Mr. Mayor.
• I find this too big, too much. Just too unexplained. Without context. • We have a lot of staffing needs and I think the Council is particularly sensitive to support for our management team, our leadership team and I would just like to put this on the wait and see list.
Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• I note that the comment from Councilmember Gurney was that there isn't context or sufficient information.
• We do have Chief Kilgore in the meeting here.
• To the extent the Council is interested perhaps we might ask him why is that these positions cannot wait if in fact that's what he's saying until the results on the staffing report. • Is there something that makes them the need to fill these imminent time-sensitive. • I think it would be worthwhile asking him so he could hopefully present us with his arguments in support of them. Prioritize them in some way.
Vice Mayor Hinton commented as follows:
• The Chief speaking to it is the best solution but if you look at the policing detail budget expenditures on page 105 the Police Chief did advocate for another police officer primarily to avoid overtime which if you look at the spikes up in overtime you will see.
• So there's some staffing issues going on at the Police Department. • I agree with the overall that we are waiting for the Citywide staffing report but I also have to say that I think it's a good idea to look at this one.
• This is public safety and if we're down a police officer and we're utilizing a lot of overtime what we heard from the Chief in the budget subcommittee is this is a little bit more time-sensitive. • So I think the Chief should speak to it.
• It is why we did no recommendations.
• But just to give some context of why this is here and I agree we should let the Chief address it.
Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• As Vice Mayor Hinton has alluded to our overtime budget is significant. • This year as we close out the FY '21-'22 you will see we spent to close to or possibly exceeded $360,000 in overtime this year.
• That's due to a multitude of reasons, officers injured, on leave, whatever the reason may be. • Since we last met with the budget committee last week I was down two officers and two sergeants due to injuries.
• Currently I'm down one sergeant and two officers due to injuries with no time frame for two of those three to come back any time soon.
• That continues to burden our police officers who have to continue to work the overtime. • I have officers and sergeants who are working upwards of seven to eight days in a row, 12-hour shifts. • That is not sustainable. It is not good for their physical health, it is not good for their mental health. It is not good for their work/life balance.
• In additionally in addition to the priority of an additional police officer, the additional dispatcher is also needed as a priority.
• I'll go without an administrative assistant and continue to do the administrative work that is not typically the responsibility of a Police Chief.
• But I need to make sure that my staff, my officers, and my dispatchers are cared for correctly. • That their physical and mental health are the utmost importance to the public safety of this community. • I'm currently down one dispatcher because we promoted a dispatcher to the records manager position. • But she's working double duty now. She's working as the records manager and working as dispatcher because we have not filled her position yet. Hopefully we'll do that soon. Is an ongoing issue. • The staffing for this Police Department has remained the same for many, many years. • It has not changed with the times that we continue to change. • The work required of a Police Department and of the City staff as it continues to become more tedious, especially around matters related to responses to mental health crisis, responses to public records act request and continual burial in more and more responsibilities and work. • Our Police Department cannot continue to provide the level of public safety that has been provided in the past with the current staffing that we have.
• We will continue to exceed our overtime budget and we'll continue to overwork our personnel. • At some point this time we will not have any personnel to work the streets to provide sufficient enough safety because of the lack of staffing that we have.
Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• It sounds like you're prioritizing, Chief Kilgore, the police officer estimated at 2$34,000 and the dispatcher estimated at $146,500 on the dispatcher is that correct? • Are those the two positions you're prioritizing.
Chief Kilgore commented yes.
Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• On the dispatcher position I understand you're experiencing a real burden, staffing burden there, but it sounds like it's because you have a position open that hasn't been filled. • Is that the cause of the problem?
• Because if so, that is justification for hiring a seconds is dispatcher in my mind.
Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• That is the cause. We are down a dispatcher because of a vacancy. • We are also down a dispatcher because of a long-term health matter. • As a result our dispatchers continue to work significant amount of overtime in order to cover those positions.
• The absences of both of those positions will take the long-term toll. • If we had sufficient staffing where we added additional police officers we could cover those positions by back filling those overlap dispatcher that we normally would have or overlap officer we'd normally have and we're at the point now where we're covering 24 hours a day 7 days a week and it is tasking on our folks to be able to take the time off that they are afforded through the accrual process as an employee of the City and when they do take the time off it creates a burden on the other folks who are still continuing to work.
• So we've got to continue to try to fix the issues that we have with our staffing and I'm very confident that the staffing study, which I have not seen either will reflect that. • I would also like to note that the Council had contracted Jerry Threet as an independent auditor. • His report reflects the need for increased community engagement and outreach. Increase training of our staff. Increased staffing is what is needed to accomplish these recommendations. • We continue to try to fulfill the recommendations that have been put forth in that audit and continue to try to meet the expectation of what is needed.
• We've not even gotten to a point we can try to attempt to exceed the expectation of the recommendations.
Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• I think it would also be helpful at some point to get input on whether it's important to fill either of these positions in advance of the staffing study from our City Manager because I hear concerns about over work issues and from departments other than Chief Kilgore's but that's the only question I have at the moment.
• I'd appreciate hearing from the City Manager at some point.
Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• Staffing study is hot off the press
• We can certainly go to administration and find out their preliminary views on it. • The need is profound, there's no doubt.
• I'm sure what that staffing study is going to tell us, it's certainly what Mr. Threet’s report and I'm glad that the Chief brought that up, that to have the Police Department provide the services that this community would like to see in a way that this community would like to see them delivered, that doesn't come free. • The Council needs to acknowledge that that an increase is not optional. It's mandatory. • We need to figure out how to fund departments in a way that we have healthy employees, that we have adequate staffing, coverage that's needed and that's Citywide, that's every single department. • I'll ask administration at this point if you have preliminary thoughts on what you've seen in the staffing study that may help us inform or help inform the Council as to what we're looking at here.
City Manager/Attorney McLaughlin commented as follows:
• I will say, Mayor, that I appreciate your remarks just now because I agree with them completely. • We have had the advantage of being one of the few people here right this minute who has actually seen the draft staffing study.
• I think I would be in the position of at least in theory agreeing with all, or almost all of the conclusions that's are reach in that study which, as you pointed out, Mayor, is Citywide. • The only other observation I'd make at this point would be that the four positions you're looking at here in the Police Department there's not an equal need for the four. • I have been supporting the idea of an additional police officer now for several years. • I agree with the comments that the problems, I think, in dispatch, are primarily due to not having filled a vacancy plus the factor that has been hitting the Police Department and some other departments here recently with the medical issues and things of that nature. • So they're not created equally.
• The Council possibly could discuss whether it would make sense to fund one or two of these early. • The staffing study is ready to go to the committee so I don't think it will be long in the future before we or the committee is able to see it for themselves and start formulating their own recommendation to the Council based on the information has in that staffing study. • So when I heard the word premature earlier, that makes sense because of where the staffing study is right this minute.
• Part of me understands the need for all four of these positions but then I think there's a need Citywide as well and other departments can make some of the same statements that I heard about staff fatigue, inability to take earned vacation, et cetera.
• That's in way more than one department where that is occurring. • So given the staffing study is ready at this moment to go to the committee and we're ready to schedule that meeting within the next day or so, it might make sense to pin this for at least a short time.
Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• I have a question, would the staffing study come to all Councilmembers, not just the committee? • I don't know why we all wouldn't be able to see it.
• Let the committee thinking about it, study and have meetings and come back with a recommendation, I for one would like to see it sooner rather than later so will we all get copies? City Manager Attorney/McLaughlin commented as fo9llows:
• We haven't discuss that with the committee.
• I see your point, Councilmember Gurney.
• We haven't distributed it now because we thought we should clarify a few things and do what staff does to a draft to make sure it's ready to go be seen.
• Give it to the committee for a while. Then talk to them about future use of it. • Certainly should go to the Council as soon as it possibly can.
Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• If it's a draft report by a consultant I'm not expecting the committee to edit the report. • I'm expecting the committee to read it, talk with staff and discuss the recommendations as length and then make the committee report to the full Council.
• I would be uncomfortable if it is informed once with the consultant. • I want to move on to what I'm hearing from consultants we don't have enough revenue streams and other cities have much more favorable form tot that brings me to the question, do we know the current status of the hotel project?
• Increasing TOT is one of our hopeful things out in the future and it would be good to have some reassurance if that were possible.
Director Svanstrom commented as follows:
• So the hotel project, this is the hotel across from the square on Depot Street and Petaluma Avenues. • They are building permits. Permits on three major buildings are ready to go. • They've gone through the entire building permit process and entitlements for Planning are good until October this year.
• At that time will need to pull building permits at that time or would expire. • I do know from conversations I've had with them on a regular basis that they are working. • With COVID they had to completely redo their financing for the construction, as you can imagine and they are working on that.
• I did get a contact from their civil engineer regarding the frontage improvements since Caltrans has changed a few of those items so they are, it sounds like, working on those components of that. • My guess would be for a spring groundbreaking. They are continuing to make progress towards that. • The City Manager and I have had conversations with them to this effect and Councilmembers were quite - - quite concerned and anxious and anticipating this.
• They did note that they have spent millions of dollars between the design, the engineering, the entitlement process and fact they have gotten through to get building permits ready for issuance, even during COVID, they continued with that, is a good sign.
Vice Mayor Hinton commented as follows:
• A couple things that I wanted to bring up.
• Well, one, is I really think we should pencil in, I feel comfortable at least the police officer tonight, I think that possibly we could ask our Chief to do a little simple calculation about if we add an officer how much OT we'd save right off the bat.
• I hate to delay something that involves public safety and obviously there are personnel out. • I know all our departments have needs but, they're not, I think, in the same situation right now. • So I feel comfortable penciling that over.
• At this time and then maybe he could also do a project where I could learn more about the dispatcher • I assume these are going to be recommended items anyway and I feel like we need them sooner than later.
• Regarding the draft that as a subcommittee member I haven't even seen yet our standard protocol has been that people that serve on the committees are generally doing some work before that goes out to the full Council that has happened in more instances than I can name from consultants so I am supportive of the way we've done it before and not that anything would be change the because I would never change anything for the full Council that's part of why we have added these requests for the police officer tonight in full disclosure and transparency for discussion.
Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• I'm in agreement with Vice Mayor Hinton's suggestion regarding the Police Department's request. • I'd like to see us pencil in the $234,000 for the officer. • I'm persuaded by the reminder of the comments in the Threet report that we all took very seriously which we have to recognize our Police Chief also took very seriously and responded to very promptly and thoroughly reporting back to us.
• I hear a note of just deep-seeded concern for his officers and for public safety in general. • But what I'm hearing is concern for his officers, a department that leadership for him is very important in that department.
• He's not requesting on behalf of himself. This isn't an assistant that he definitely would need as many of our departments need assistants.
• This is a request on behalf of his officers so I would like to see us pencil in that amount. • I'm not persuaded that the others need to be pushed forward beyond the staffing study. • I also note our City Manager made it clear he felt additional police officer was important and that he wanted to see that position staffed for many years.
• That's persuasive for me.
Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• The idea that we're spending so much has been a concern of mine for years and the transition of leadership over the last handful of years I don't think has served that department as well as a calm, steady, long-term hand on the tiller, that just makes a difference. • I continue to have a little bit of just procedural concern over prioritizing one department over another. • However, I also know that this is not a new request. We see this every single year. • Prior Chiefs have also asked for a new position and every year it says, the Council says, oh, well, maybe next year. Maybe this is the year that we make good on that. I too can change my mind. I can be persuaded.
• I think I would also be in agreement with my colleagues to proceed with the police officer position at this point.
• The others pending review given the staffing study.
• Chief, what does recruitment look like these days for someone who would fill this position? Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• We have run a process for entry level and lateral officers. We do have some applicants but we don't have many.
• Unfortunately we find often that candidates no matter where they apply when you have whatever number of applicant that's you have a wash out in the background process. • I'm not looking to fill the position with someone who provides a warm body. • I'm looking to fill the position with a quality officer and a quality dispatcher who meets the values and can strive to attain the and accomplish the mission that we as a City want. • I would rather go absent of a body than fill a body with just a warm body. • We're going to hire the right people. We're going to hire the people who reflect our City values and our department values.
• That's a difficult hurdle to get over.
• But as far as a priority goes, we do have a officer process in process right now. • We have a dispatcher process in process right now.
• As far as the priorities go. It would be police officer, dispatcher, police technician and then administrative assistance.
• I will put the needs that I have as an administrator and leader and manager of this department on hold to be able to mitigate the effect of the burden that is placed on our personnel who are out there doing this job every single day.
• I will continue to come in on my off time and do the administrative work that I have to do in order to get it accomplished if we can have Council's approval to fill the needed position that's we have needed for a very long time.
Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• The need for administrative support honestly, I count that as a failure of Council's over the years that somehow we think that senior administration needs to be doing those types of work. • Chief, it's not just your department.
• The amount of not paperwork but pixel and keyboard work these days that is needed has just increased. • The PRA's just the filing of state things when it comes to things like our water system. • All of that it's just increased and we've not really kept up the way that we need to.
Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• Chief, I very much appreciate hearing from you and your remarks make a lot of sense. • Your very consistent so thank you for your explanation. • Someone asked minutes ago if you had any calculation on how the expense of a new officer would offense set the overtime, any impression about that?
Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• I really don't know. I would like to think in and state confidently that it would reduce our overtime by at least one-third, maybe a half.
• But also to keep in mind we have to put these people through training when they come on board so if we have a new officer coming on board who has never been on the street before or who has minimal experience they have to do a minimum of 10 weeks in a FTL program field-training officer program and that's typically more on the lines of month to five-month program. • It's the same for dispatcher as well.
• If we have a lateral candidate that comes on board we may get them through quicker but what I will not do is compromise their safety and service we provide to our City to get them off training just to fill the need for getting more officers or more dispatchers out in a solo function. • So, I don't think we would start realizing the savings until probably around the first of the year. • Possibly sooner depending on who we hire.
• But I would say more realistically, it would be around the first of the year, maybe the first quarter of 2023 and then we'll start to see that decline in overtime.
• Because once we get more staffing on board when we have absences related to injuries or to vacations or personal time they may take off we can then put the officers into that position and it's not filled with overtime it's filled with this is just what their schedule is.
Councilmember Gurney commented as fo9llows:
• Thank you, that is helpful too.
• It is pretty hard to predict, I understand.
• I would be comfortable penciling that one in, the one police officer position, but for me it's a pencil-in.
Vice Mayor Hinton commented as follows:
• Could we ask staff when we pencil in items if staff is not able to do it in real time here I'd like to see those numbers change and maybe add up at the bottom on an excel spreadsheet so we can keep track of where we're at here.
• Keeping track of all these moving amounts is a challenge. • I'd like to see the penciled in next time when we come back, thanks.
Councilmember Rich commented I just want to make sure this is a question to our City Manager and Assistant Cit Manager who are the only one who's have seen the staffing report, can you confirm that in fact these four positions have been considered in the staffing study.
City Manager/Attorney McLaughlin commented as follows:
• I think at this point in time I'd like to defer that comment because I would say this all of the departments have had their needs assessed.
• I always like to not piece meal what's in that report. The committee has not seen it.
Councilmember Rich commented the Police Department needs have been considered as part of the staffing study is what I should have asked.
City staff stated the City wide staffing assessment is City wide.
Item Number 8. Cooling Center for Four Events
Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• We have four events at $8,000 is the request.
• The budget committee is recommending the full amount of $8,000 that's $2,000 per event and that would be for what is that item?
• What is that actually cover? It doesn't say here. I mean, is for rent of a facility? Or what is that? Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• This request is coming from the ad hoc committee for the unhoused and the amount indicated would be used to either purchase or reimburse for the purchase of supply that's are needed in the heating and cooling center.
• This assumes that the heating and cooling centers would likely be offers at no charge, although depending on the number of centers there's an opportunity for instance to reimburse the community center.
• So I guess primarily water, blankets, refreshments, food, often if is a cooling center there's a need to provide soup, the advocates, the volunteers make the soup but reimbursing them for the expenses worthwhile.
• Sleeping bags are often donated but often there aren't sufficient numbers so it is reimbursements for expenses associated with heating and cooling centers within Sebastopol.
Fire Chief Braga commented as follows:
• Yes, Councilmember Rich hit it right on the mark, also, just to share with you yesterday, we opened up a cooling center and at the community center and for today, since we were at triple digit temperature today.
• Tomorrow we're looking at a 20-degree drop in temperature • So we don't see the need for the cooling center for the rest of the week but as it really has been outstanding to work with the executive director and operations manager at the community center. • They're just wonderful. All I have to do is make a call and they are open for a cooling center. • I will share with you a conversation I had with the Sebastopol community church. • Last year they did open as a warming center for the unhoused for a few days. • Their PG&E bill was over $1,000. Just for that month. They typically, their PG&E bill is typically $200, $300 a month. For that particular time frame was over $1,000. • I think this will go a long way if we can tell the community center and the community church and any other organization that is helping out our City with a cooling center or a warming center that we can help them out financially.
• I think $8,000 is a good starting point.
• I would probably recommend come next year and next budget year we readdress that, look at that, and hopefully we can afford to put a little bit more in each year. • I think it's going to be needed. That's not going away. Our climate is not going away. • We're seeing more intense heat in longer periods than we ever used to. • Of course, we always need a place to warm up, especially for the unhoused. • So I want to thank Councilmember Rich, I believe, it was your movement last year for the community church to open up for the unhoused and if we can help them financially pay a bill or two and then have supplies handy, I think our City would rank very high in that effort.
Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• It seems very much like a sort of a humanitarian effort that we need to do. • I also think it is a great reason for the community center for instance to raise funds. • If they can promote themselves as a cooling center or heating center, I think our community and the people in the West County would be very generous in terms of donating sleeping bags or food or crates of water.
• We respond to disasters and we respond to threats with generosity and I hope our partners in these cooling and heating centers, warming centers, will also look for that generosity amongst our community and be supported by others in the City.
Item Number 9: This item has been recommended to be reviewed during mid year budget.
Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• This is the City Hall front counter extension. It's a request for $25,000 and then the committee is recommending to review mid-year.
• That's the only one in that category.
• I don't think we need to get into the nuts and bolts of what this actually would be physically. • I think the suggestion to review it mid-year not that I want to kick the can down the road but it seem likes a reasonable request.
• I'm not sure how much foot traffic we're seeing at City Hall, is the front door even open yet? City Manager/Attorney McLaughlin commented as follows:
• We're not exactly staffed up as we used to be for walk-ins. • But appointments are made and those that need to interact with City staff at City Hall they are admitted. • We haven't seen any reason to really change that.
• We still have the concerns about potential pandemic issues, et cetera. • We are maintaining that status quo that way.
Public Works Superintendent Del Prete commented as follows:
• Mid-year review is appropriate because this design came up a little bit late. • I'm still working with the building department.
• I need a full CASP report for ADA before I can implement changes so I'm working closely to try to get that accomplished.
Vehicle Replacements:
Vice Mayor Hinton commented as follows:
• We reviewed this as it says, the Police Department asked for two vehicle replacements for $200,000. • Historically, as, I think the Council knows, we have a vehicle replacement account that we have set aside for the budget subcommittee has recommended $40,000 set aside into that account for the Police Department at this time and for the fire department at this time. For future needs. • That's where we kind of stood.
• We want to look at vehicle replacement on a Citywide level not just by department. • I would also be remiss if I didn't bring up there was a lot of discussion about the possibility of possibly ending our motorcycle patrol position in lieu of maybe electric bike position and we had some discussion about our canine position and what kind of use our canine which we've had for a number of years was getting as a wind-down possibly.
• So that was kind of our discussion around this and the budget subcommittee recommended $40,000 set aside for both departments into the vehicle reserve.
Mayor Slayter commented this is general fund money moving into the vehicle reserve earmarked for these two departments.
Vice Mayor Hinton commented at this time so we could assess more about what our Citywide needs are and also, whether these vehicles would really need to be replaced this year and look at that a little bit more closely.
Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• Just to be clear, here, that was the budget committee's recommendation, that $40,000 be moved from the general fund into the vehicle replacement budget for the reasons and purpose that Vice Mayor Hinton described.
• However, I think it's important to note that the Police Chief's request was that $200,000 be allocated year out of the general fund to purchase two new vehicles, that was my understanding. • To the extent we do have the Police Chief still here more information is needed on that request for purposes of this discussion I'm sure he would be happy to share that with us.
Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• Historically, if this is for two police vehicles and I know everything is more expensive and everything is on supply chain issues and computer chips, cars, you know, all that. • We've never spent $100,000 on a police car, is that what the going price is for a cop car? Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• That's our estimated price with the cost of everything increasing, the cost of a vehicle has increased exponentially.
• Outfitting the vehicle is also something that has to be done and then we have to mark the vehicles as well.
• Our vehicle replacement plan right now, I believe, is on somewhere between a eight-year and ten-year plan.
• Our vehicles are running 24 hours a day 7 days a week. They're not a typical City vehicle. • Also running at a, get there quick, slow down, and it's a constant. • So the wear and tear on these vehicles is significantly more than just a vehicle being driven at a regular speed and to and from home, or something to that effect. • I got into a vehicle the other day and felt like I was sitting on a rocking chair because the seat is broken down to that point.
• That doesn't create a good environment for our officers and personnel to be able to operate in. • We've got to look at some sustainability and some different possible options as to how we can replace these vehicles on a sooner than ten-year rotation basis because the mileage on them does not reflect the wear and tear that is on those vehicles aqnd we continue to replace them. • am not advocating for removing our motorcycles, just because we would look at a possibility of electric vehicle fleet or electric motorcycle fleet does not necessarily mean that we would be getting rid of those positions.
• Traditionally a motorcycle does cost less than what a regular vehicle does. • But as we look at the possibility of electric vehicles we also have to keep in mind that we have to provide the infrastructure for the charging of those vehicles which is a costly bout as well. • Approximately somewhere around what the belief if we went to a full electric vehicle fleet we would have to have at least four super chargers or turbo charger and four trickle chargers to run the infrastructure for that, that's approximately a purchase of around $100,000 per charger with the infrastructure built in as well.
• We're a small department so I would not advocate for us being a test case for the EVs in the Police Department world.
• But I do know that larger departments have small EV fleet that's they are basically testing for the vehicle manufacturer.
• That's such a rapidly-changing landscape for those vehicles that it may be too early for us to adopt them but I don't know that it is that far down the road either. • So it is something that is viable for us but we would have to make sure that the infrastructure is put in place for us to be able to do that first.
Mayor Slayter commented I can think of a lot of partnerships available when it comes to that kind of infrastructure.
Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• I'm leaving both these in, the recommendations of the budget committee, the $40,000 and the $40,000. • We do have a considerable sum still in the equipment technology and vehicle replacement reserve on the form that we have on page 34. There's $895,000 there.
• So I think with additional money, we have some working money and it's a huge decision. • I would encourage us to consider electric. We just can't wait forever to make the change. We can't stall the change.
Chief Kilgore commented I would like to go back to advocating for that grant writing position because if we have a grant writer and can certainly look at these things in a much-more timely manner to get them accomplished through the grants that are available.
Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• I would agree with Councilmember Gurney.
• This is the reason for the reserve fund we established is to have vehicles replaced when they need to be replaced.
• That's just what happens, vehicles wear out.
• Certainly acknowledge that the SPD is probably harder on vehicles than any other department.
Superintendent Del Prete commented as follows:
• They don't have any tractors though.
• We are hardest on tractors.
Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• We've not talked anything at all about the individual departments. • We got through a lot there but I'm hopeful that our long discussion about that this evening will inform a more brief discussion once we have all of the other numbers that we're still waiting on that have been referenced by me so in many times this evening.
Councilmember Gurney commented I'm fine continuing this, I was just going to ask Mr. Mayor and Vice Mayor agenda review committee as you look ahead into July as we might have special meeting dedicated to the budget only.
Mayor Slayter commented Agenda Review Committee meets tomorrow and there's other topic special meeting that's are floating so watch your inbox for forward calendars and hold the date things.
MOTION:
Councilmember Rich moved and Councilmember Gurney seconded the motion to approve the Resolution continuing the current fiscal year budget of 2021-22 into the next fiscal year; approving interim expenditures prior to adoption of the budget for Fiscal Year 2022-23.
Mayor Slayter called for a roll call vote. City staff conducted a roll call vote.
VOTE:
Ayes: Councilmembers Gurney, Rich, Vice Mayor Hinton and Mayor Slayter Noes: None
Absent: Councilmember Glass
Abstain: None
City Council Action: Approved Resolution continuing the current fiscal year budget of 2021-22 into the next fiscal year; approving interim expenditures prior to adoption of the budget for Fiscal Year 2022-23.
Minute Order Number: 2022-209
Resolution Number: 6445-2022
12. Public Hearing – City Capital Improvement Program Budget (Responsible Department:
Engineering/Administrative Services) (This may be heard and if not completed continued to the July 5, 2022 Council Meeting)
MOTION:
Mayor Slayter moved and Councilmember Rich seconded the motion to Continue the Public Hearing to July 5, 2022 at or after 6:00 pm and approve the Resolution continuing the current fiscal year CIP budget of 2021-22 into the next fiscal year; approving interim expenditures prior to adoption of the budget for Fiscal Year 2022-23.
Mayor Slayter called for a roll call vote. City staff conducted a roll call vote.
VOTE:
Ayes: Councilmembers Gurney, Rich, Vice Mayor Hinton and Mayor Slayter Noes: None
Absent: Councilmember Glass
Abstain: None
City Council Action: Approved Continuing the Public Hearing to July 5, 2022 at or after 6:00 pm and approve the Resolution continuing the current fiscal year CIP budget of 2021-22 into the next fiscal year; approving interim expenditures prior to adoption of the budget for Fiscal Year 2022-23.
Minute Order Number: 2022-210
Resolution Number: 6446-2022
CITY COUNCIL/CITY STAFF REPORTS/COMMUNICATIONS/ANNOUNCEMENTS/FUTURE MEETINGS:
13. City Manager-Attorney/City Clerk Reports: There were none.
14. City Council Reports/Committee/Sub-Committee Meeting Reports: (Reports by Mayor/City Councilmembers Regarding Various Agency Meetings/Committee Meetings/Sub-Committee Meeting /Conferences Attended and Possible Direction to its Representatives (If Needed) on Pending issues before such Boards)
(This will be either verbal or written reports provided at the meeting) Mayor Slayter reported out as follows:
• Santa Rosa GSA: We approve the annual budget and unfortunately, every single member has seen an increase in their fee, which is reflected in this budget t • Sonoma Clean Power: We just approved the budget and with the incumbent investor-owned utility and their electric delivery rates, ever the creasing.
• That’s the component that's basically use of the wires to get electricity to you. • Those rates continue to increase and they find justifications for increasing of the rates, which is problematic.
• People who are customers see herky jerky rate changes throughout the year. • Sonoma Clean Power does it once a year, if at all.
• That basically is a status quo as far as rates go.
Vice Mayor Hinton reported out as follows:
• Legislative committee meeting. Last Friday. I'm happy to send out the matrix for that meeting. • There was an item discussed about whether or not to send a letter or not on its behalf and the committee was split on the decision.
• It's to do with cleaning the forests out, basically.
• I will try to get more information on that. There was no action taken.
Councilmember Rich reported out as follows:
• Zero Waste Sonoma continuing to do an excellent job representing all the jurisdictions on zero waste issues
• There's particular compost provider that is failing and is no longer in business and it's a local person. • So, that's been a difficulty in compost processing. The compost work is being picked up by other companies. You may hear that out in public discussions, been a bit controversial. • Coalition held their summit. It was a success. Lots of nonprofits. Lots of services clubs there. • The ad hoc committee for the unhoused, has the town hall coming up. So, please put it on your calendar June 30th, 6:00 P.M. It will be via zoom video that integrates interviews with residents of Park Village and Horizon Shine is part of that town hall presentation. I think that will be interesting for everyone to see. • The continuum of care meets tomorrow I will be attending as proxy for Councilmember Glass • The Sonoma Marin mosquito control district. The primary point is it's a very well organized and run operation. But the primary message there is I thought very encouraging. They are bringing on a lot more educational efforts, which they slimmed down in the face of the pandemic. • Outreach engagement is happening and Climate Action Committee, Councilmember Gurney reported out as follows:
• The future of transit ad hoc committee continues to meet on three County-wide trends as operators continue their effort to collaborate and coordinate.
• This is a climate project with grant money. We're ahead all of the bay area counties because there's great interest in the consolidation and collaboration. Things like phone lines, websites, fairs, the ease of transit, etc.
• There's money from the Governor for air free transit program. • That's something for Sonoma County wide and get more money. • The library advisory board continues to meet regularly. • The youth member has graduated and going on to Stanford University. She's been a remarkable youth member. Very engaged with code programming.
• Councilmember Rich mentioned the Climate Action Committee. I want to also endorse them as a group of volunteers. They really are our brain trust. They continue to work in our civics park fellow on the climate action framework.
• The community center is coming back. They are being on their programs and events. • They've appreciated their funders and recently had author talk and there's more cultural events coming from now until November and December
• The Mayor and I will be meeting with Relaunch soon and getting back to the group with the update there.
Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• One final thought and that's for our local elections official who is our City Clerk/Assistant City Manager • Like so many, it was referenced in public comment this evening. The January 6th committee hearings going on and the pressures that happened for those local people who with are of us, by us and for us. • So when the quiet competence and professionalism that our local elections official, you provide, it doesn't go unnoticed and it seems like good time to thank you again for all that good work that you do. • It's every year, not every two years. Every year with every election. • Thank you for that work. We all appreciate you and we don't say that enough.
15. Council Communications Received: There were none.
16. Future City Meeting Dates/Events (Informational Only): (See City Web Site for Up-to-Date Meeting Dates/Times)
ADJOURNMENT OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING
June 21, 2022 City Council Regular Meeting will be adjourned to the July 5, 2022 City Council Meeting, 6:00 pm, Zoom Virtual Meeting Format
Mayor Slayter adjourned the June 21, 2022 City Council meeting at 10:15 pm to the July 5, 2022 City Council Meeting, 6:00 pm, Zoom Virtual Meeting Format.
Respectfully Submitted,
Mary Gourley
Assistant City Manager/Attorney/City Clerk