Sebastopol City Council
July 5, 2022

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 July 5, 2022
As Approved by the City Council at their regular meeting of July 19, 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)).
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 6:03 pm.

ROLL CALL:

Present: Mayor Patrick Slayter – By video teleconference Vice Mayor Neysa Hinton – By video teleconference
Councilmember Una Glass – By video teleconference
Councilmember Sarah Gurney – By video teleconference
Councilmember Diana Gardner Rich - By video teleconference

Absent: None
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
Toni Bertolero, GHD/Engineering
Planning Director Planning Director Svanstrom 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: There were none.

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:

[email protected]

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.

Angel Ford commented as follows:
• I just want to say I didn't come into all this process of doing presentations on a weekly basis because I love doing it or every two weeks.
• I did it because of the process that was I feel deeply flawed when the Council made its decision. • However, the more I learn about EMFs and how far reaching and ambiguous it is and how damaging it is to our health, the more I want to share, so I am reading tonight from the environmental health trust.org. • A Website, they list the scientific evidence that supports what's the health impacts that EMFs and radiofrequencies are having.
• An ever growing body of evidence shows that cell phones and wireless radiation at even very low levels can harm our health in a number of different ways.
• There is no doubt that there are harmful biological effects documented by scientific research.

• I want to just dive into what I really want you to be sure to hear. • Research has found that women who carry cell phones in the bra have elevated breast cancer risk. • That's a study 2020
• In 2012, Yale research demonstrated that when pregnant mice were exposed to cell phone signals, their offspring had much greater levels of hyperactivity, impaired memory, and impaired brain development in the part of the brain linked to ADHD.
• Several research reviews indicate reproduction problems from cell phones. • Systemic reviews associate with impacts to sperm and decreased testosterone leading my researchers conclude it's recommended to keep the cell phone away from the pelvis as much as possible. • Experimental research shows that animals exposed potentially to cell phone radiation develop more damage to critical parts of the brain involved in thinking and impulse control • Finally, a major research study found decreased memory among teenagers with higher cell phone exposures to the brain after one year of repeated exposure replicated previous findings.

Linda Berg commented as follows:
• I've been thinking and I just wanted to point out from my perspective about our wonderful police and Fire Departments that in my perspective, I see these as Sebastopol's family jewels and we need to celebrate and support them rather than criticize them or get rid of in this case the Fire Department • By the way, I just happened to come across a training group and then I just threw out if they wanted to stay independent, and I got affirmative reactions from several of them and so I think you need to give this a little more thought about getting rid of our independent Fire Department • Thank you very much, Angela. We have a right to be safe and I'm talking about again the electromagnetic fields and all of the signals that do come out of all the electronic wireless devices, and it will be coming out of our sidewalk, cooking us alive if you go through with the wireless water meter fiasco. • It occurs to me that you all, the City Council has an obligation to investigate my allegations of fraud, bad faith, and malfeasance and more fraud
• I’ve offered you 932 pages, which have already been gone through and are nicely flagged for the pertinent stuff.
• You need to say show me, and you need to do the same thing, and that's regarding the public contract and my allegation about the altered survey of the traffic done by our past Planning Director Sandi Maurer commented as follows:
• On October 19th, 2021, Mayor Glass asked for clarification on how the smart meters work. • The Public Works Director referred her to the technical professional Kathy Richards because he said I want to be sure the information you are getting is 100% accurate. • Kathy Richards said that the meters do not transmit any RF at all between the four daily transmissions. • This was an absolute misrepresentation of how the meters work. • Kathy Richards is a sales account manager for badger meter, not the technical professional. • The City Council and the public were misled.
• We hired an RF engineer to explain how the smart water meters work, and this is what he told us. • A smart water meter is capable of four milliseconds of transmission every 100 milliseconds. • They transmit in the same frequency range that they may be used for radar. • They transmit post electromagnetic radiation which is the same kind of radiation the government suspects is causing Havana Syndrome.
• They emit spurious emissions in the 30 megahertz which are created by harmonics. • They have a troubleshooting mode when the meter transmits more often and water absorbs radiation. • Consider that in relation to climate change. Water absorbs radiation.

• All these cell towers, smart meters, cell phones transmitting all these frequencies. • We live in a moderately dense neighborhood in West Sebastopol and none of my direct neighbors have smart meters, thanks to the Council and staff who repeatedly defend us against PG&E smart meters. • The cul-de-sac is where our neighbors gather. During the pandemic we met three times a week, we talked a lot, got to know each other, and met for coffee and doughnuts, happy hour and played bingo. • I need my neighborhood to stay a safe zone with no smart meters. • An opt out will not fix this, and thank you for your consideration again.

Arthur George commented as follows:
• West County Homeless Advocate.
• This message is to thank the Council and its Committee on the Unhoused, Councilmembers Una Glass and Diana Rich for last week's town hall meeting and the report quantifying expenditures and results. • The keyword that seems to emerge from the report is collaboration. • Some of the numbers reported at the town hall showed an increase in housing at Park Village including persons relocated from Morris Street more than 100 persons relocated through the efforts of outreach worker Jennifer Lake and movement from Water Street to the Horizon Shine RV village. • But video at the town hall showed the faces and stories of unhoused persons, inspirational, certainly not gentrified but real.
• The work continues, not everyone has been housed and yes, new arrivals appear on the plaza and elsewhere.
• Councilmember Glass codified where expenditures have come from and where they are going and remarkably little is at Sebastopol's additional expense. • We appreciate the proposed new budget includes renewal of the outreach worker and warming and cooling public safety stations as weather extremes dictate. • Written comments fault the City for the purchase of Sebastopol Inn, that was a County expenditure for a private hotel property implanted upon the City.
• Even there the town hall specified the genuine benefits and comprehensive services to those individuals. • Councilmember Una Glass is a member of the Continuum of Care, stated she will work to see future County expenditures obtained best results for the dollars expended. • Collaboration has been our default mode, not protest. • We have all had an intentionality to work towards some solution rather than just rabble rouse on one side or obstruct on the other.
• There are too many people who have collaborated to name them individually, the women volunteers on Morris Street, people staying awake in Zoom meetings, the City Council for shouldering the cost of litigation, various departments for getting things right in the first place, Public Works leadership and workers who generally did the heavy lifting, Chief Kilgore and the police. • Thank you all for collaborating.

Martha Glaser commented as follows:
• I'm going to actually do something different tonight for me, I'm going to actually first speak for a minute about Woodmark, and I just have a question actually directly to the Council. • I am a stake holder, I guess you'd say with a lot of friends and history at Bears Meadows, the property, the townhouse development of 27 units next to the Woodmark project, and I have tenants, friends who live there way below market price and sponsoring them, a younger family, and so of course I understand the great need for affordable housing everywhere and certainly in Sebastopol and certainly this piggybacks on what Arthur was just talking about and the needs that the City has

• I'm very happy for the help that the City has been giving in designating property for unhoused people and to make enough property available for lower income people is obviously very essential. • My question is was there never the possibility for a compromise that would have allowed fewer than the 83 units at Woodmark, and I'm wondering why the public's concern was never taken to heart and never made any kind of impact in the City Council and in the Planning Department. • A letter that just came through and there was one week and it timed out today at 5:00 and would have required a $1,070 appeals to ask a question or to ask for another possibility. • So really my only claim is the same claim as a lot of people, which is I'm concerned about traffic patterns. • I'm concerned about too many cars already.
• I'm concerned about traffic accidents with children walking and people bicycling, and I'm just concerned about evacuation in case of a fire.
• So I have one second so that's all, and I'm against the EMF meters. We all know that.

Paul Andre Schabracq commented as follows:
• I'm talking about the smart water meters, and I'd just like to point out that Councilmembers and staff justified the purchase of these meters on the basis that it would conserve water, save energy, reduce greenhouse gas.
• However, on February 7th, 2022, Gabe Johnson account executive for Syserco wrote that there has never been a claim that these new meters would save energy, save water, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and that's a quote.
• This contradicts Syserco's previous expressed claims to the climate action and to the City Council that the wireless meters would save water and energy.
• It's apparent that the Council and staff made decisions based on incorrect information, and I would just like to point out it takes political courage to do the right thing and to reverse course. • I urge you to do that.

Dorothy Schwartzberg commented as follows:
• I just want to speak against the water meters.
• You've heard about how it affects the environment, that electromagnetic frequencies are absorbed by water, which is news to me and I am one of the people who is affected by electromagnetic frequencies. • I have an illness that is made much worse, problems with concentration, energy, and a lot of pain, and what you would call malaise.
• That's my personal, but there are many others, and I would like to emphasize that EMFs, it also affects the young as well as the old most, and the young people who are developing now may not develop very well having problems with brain development, with physical development, this is very serious. • The information that we are usually given about the effects of electromagnetic frequencies is controlled by politics, and the information minimized, the harm is minimized on a regular basis. • Therefore, most people don't pay attention to this important fact or important effect of EMFs. • I beg the Council to please take it into consideration. • There are elderly people who are suffering.
• There are younger people who are suffering, and you have the power to do something about it. • It's also a very strange deal that you made there with a lot of money going out without it being very carefully written out as to what the fees are all about • It's worth going over again and making sure because I don't think we have as a Council made a due diligence in this decision.

Mayor Slayter responded to public comments as follows:

• There was a question about the Woodmark project, and within the bounds of the Brown act and the need for recusal, I saw the Planning Director, so I'm hoping that she can help us understand what the answer is to the couple of questions.
• Can you inform us about what the number of units and the question was about was there ever a compromise between the density that is proposed versus a lower density and then also can you address what the cost of an appeal would be, key dates along that time line, and also about the traffic study and a potential of some discord between a study and something else.

Director Svanstrom commented as follows:
• Discussed Density Question
• There are 84 units in the proposed projects, 83 of them are low or very low income. • There are actually a few units below the maximum zoning allowed in our zoning coordinates for that site or for the two sites when they're combined.
• I know that was something that was raised with the applicant. • In the State of California, you can't require someone to reduce the density, the number of units they're allowed by the zoning ordinance, and in fact, under the state's density law, they would be 150% • Rather than 80, 88, I believe, is the maximum zoning, they would have actually been allowed to go upwards of 100.
• They did not request that.
• They have been through a couple of preliminary reviews, which were discretionary with design review board. In that process they made some design changes.
• They did reduce the amount of grading significantly and the height of retaining walls and moved them away from adjoining neighborhood property trees.
• Those are some of the biggest concerns that some of the neighbors had. • In terms of the density, they did apply for state tax credits, and which I've expressed in meetings because it is a little unfair to small towns like us where we don't have very large sites, having a 48 or 60 unit minimum to be competitive for tax credits is unfortunately one of the ways the state has written those regulations.
• They didn't reduce the number of units, but they did change the mix, so they're not all family anymore. • There are some for single bedroom units, and so a mix of people, not all three bedrooms as it was originally, so they have made some changes to it.
• In terms of the appeal and I did talk and I know John Jay did as well with Martha Glaser earlier today, that is the correct appeal, I believe all planning entitlements have a seven-day appeal period, and that's calendar days.
• Discussed the May determination, which required the applicant to resubmit as well as this determination where they did not need to resubmit, but we will still be drafting conditions of approval and requirements that the project must adhere to over the next month or so. • That is sort of the time line for appeals, but also for any planning appeal. • The time line moving forward in our next steps, which are to look at conditions of approval for the project, and I know one of those at bear meadows was regarding site access to the bear meadows terrace.
• Obviously they won't be allowed to cut off any vehicle access to the site that would be an issue for our Fire Department for access as well.
• That is certainly an objective standard that we can condition. • In terms of traffic, we are still requiring them to look at the traffic around site, so the site access coming in and out of the driveways.

• As you know, the City actually is looking at doing a new pedestrian crossing on the west side of Robinson Road on Bodega, with some sort of pedestrian either rapid flushing beacon or hawk, and we have asked the applicant, and they have agreed to supply the numbers of traffic coming in and out of the site at the various driveways so that we can determine the appropriate level of pedestrian improvement at that site, and/or signal warrant, although we don't believe in discussions with our traffic consultant, but that would be warranted, but there will certainly be pedestrian upgrades there as well as all alone Bodega with the Bodega Avenue project
The larger level of service is not actually metric anymore, and it would not change the project, so that relates to the larger number of trips coming and going through town • A lot of the trips on Bodega are actually pass through trips where people aren't the City's not in control of people going up to the coast and back and forth.
• That would not change anything about this particular project. • It would still be allowed as is, so we'll get those numbers to factor in as well just from the prior information that we have from them, and they will be subject to the traffic impact theme, which is used to make improvements in the City, which account for the increase in traffic and managing things like the pedestrian signal and other improvements that are improvements to traffic.

Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• I think that's all good information, and certainly the public process on this continues, and I'm not sure what next dates there will be for a public meeting on this, but if you have questions, members of the public, questions or concerns, go ahead and e-mail them in. • Staff is compiling them, and that's the only way to address these things is to make your voice heard. • I encourage everyone to do that.

Director Svanstrom commented as follows:
• The one other thing I would note, we do have all the current project documents including a determination letter on the planning department's special project page so that includes all of the grading documents, the site layouts.
• Everything is there if you're wanting that information.

Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• Understanding the lack of staff and the need to do other things that are of a higher priority, staff is making significant efforts towards keeping that page up to date with all the information as soon as it's possible but sometimes possible is a few day delay unfortunately, but that's just due to the size of our staff
• Before we close public comment, I'm just going to go ahead and make a little bit of a statement here about the horrific events that happened outside of Chicago in highland park. • Yet another example of a system that is not functioning to the betterment of us as a society. • There are lots of things that we can change.
• It's just a difficult situation when we have a minority that is dictating what the majority would like to see changed.
• It's not just assault weapons. It's not just large magazines. It's human rights. It's equal rights. • I have hope because I'm by nature a positive person, but I also am a realist and I understand that we just need
• Like a favorite family member of mine used to say, just be a duck. • Be calm on the surface and paddling like crazy underneath to try to get things in order.

• So my heart goes out to the folks in Highland Park, the young family that was quite literally ripped apart, it's just heartbreaking.

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.

Councilmember Glass stated she had a conflict of interest on Community Benefit Grants (Center for the Arts) as she gets paid by the Sebastopol Center for the Arts and will be recusing herself for discussion of that item.

Mayor Slayter stated he had a conflict of interest on Community Benefit Grants (Rebuilding Together) as he is on the Board and will be recusing himself for discussion of that item.

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 asked if any Councilmember wanted to remove a consent calendar item.

Councilmember Gurney requested item number 4 be removed.

Mayor Slayter opened for public comment on the consent calendar.

Aaron Burton commented as follows:
• I'm the field representative with SEIU local 1021, and represent the Public Works staff and the admin staff here at the City.
• I just wanted to take an opportunity to really thank the City Council and the management for their partnership in reaching this agreement.
• I know that there's a lot of uncertainty.
• There's been a lot of unknowns, but we really felt we reached an agreement that really respected the work of our members and their commitment to the City, so I just wanted to take a moment to really thank everyone for that.
• We also look forward to continuing to work with the City on looking at additional staffing and incentives for education once the staffing assessment is completed, so we look forward to continuing to work on that.
• Lastly, I wanted to thank the Fire Department and Chief Braga in particular for allowing us to use the firehouse for our work site meetings.

• So once again I just want to thank the City, thank you for recognizing our members and thank you for your partnership.

Linda Berg commented as follows:
• I wanted to thank Councilmember Gurney for bringing out that item four. • Every little bit of sunlight onto City business is useful for all of us, beneficial for all of us. • You are part of the glue that keeps this town together, and thanks for that. • Also, if the previous speaker sounded like a very nice fellow, I'm unclear on what he and his group did. • So could you answer and tell me what his group is and with whom, please? Jacques Levesque commented as follows:
• Thank you on behalf of the Sebastopol Police Officer's Association and a member of the negotiation team this year to say thank you to everyone involved with the negotiation process and to the City. • I said it before, I've worked here almost 15 years now, so you guys really do take care of your employees, and we do appreciate that, so I just wanted to say thank you and express our gratitude on behalf of the SPOA.

Mayor Slayter responded to public comments as follows:
• Question as what is SEIU. It is the service employees international union and the local 1021, and that is our Public Works employees as well as our administrative staff that is within the union. • Mr. Burton is the field representative for our local SEIU employees for Public Works and helped negotiate the MOUs
• MOU is memorandum of understanding, which is another fancy way of saying the contract the City government has with the labor groups, the ability to organize is protected by law, and I think we're all better for it.

Mayor Slayter called for a motion.

MOTION:

Mayor Slayter moved and Councilmember Glass seconded the motion to approve Consent Calendar Slayter Item(s) Number(s) 1, 2, 3, and 5.

Item number 4 was removed.

Mayor Slayter called for a roll call vote. City staff conducted a roll call vote.

VOTE:

Ayes: Councilmembers Glass, Gurney, Rich, Vice Mayor Hinton and Mayor Slayter Noes: None

Absent: None
Abstain: None
CONSENT CALENDAR:

1. Approval of Minutes of June 21, 2022 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes (Responsible Department: City Administration)
City Council Action: Approved Minutes of June 21, 2022 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Minute Order Number: 2022-212

2. Approval of Minutes of June 28, 2022 City Council Closed Session Meeting Minutes (Responsible Department: City Administration)

City Council Action: Approved Minutes of June 28, 2022 City Council Closed Session Meeting Minutes Minute Order Number: 2022-213

3. Resolution Authorizing Continued Use of Teleconference Meetings Based on Circumstances of the COVID-19 state of emergency and that the following circumstances exist:
a. The state of emergency as a result of COVID-19 continues to directly impact the ability of the members of City Council and the members of the City’s subordinate Committee’s, Commission’s, and Boards to meet safely in person; and
b. The State of California and the City of Sebastopol continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing.

Resolution needs to be submitted to Council every 30 days. Last approval: June 7, 2022.

City Council Action: Approved 3. Resolution Authorizing Continued Use of Teleconference Meetings Based on Circumstances of the COVID-19 state of emergency and that the following circumstances exist:
a. The state of emergency as a result of COVID-19 continues to directly impact the ability of the members of City Council and the members of the City’s subordinate Committee’s, Commission’s, and Boards to meet safely in person; and
b. The State of California and the City of Sebastopol continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing.

Minute Order Number: 2022-214
Resolution Number: 6448-2022
Item Number 4 Removed from the consent calendar.

5. Approval of Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs); City Employment Contracts as Listed Below; and Pay Rates and Ranges (Responsible Department: Administrative Services/City Administration) a. Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Public Works and Administrative b. Sebastopol Police Officers Association (SPOA)
c. Management and Mid-Management Employees
d. Public Employee: Amendment to Contract of Employee (Employee: City Manager) e. Public Employee: Amendment to Contract of Employee (Employee: City Clerk) f. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing and Approving the City of Sebastopol Current Pay Rates and Ranges (Salary Schedule)
g. Adoption of Amended Personnel Rules and Regulations
City Council Action: Approved Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs); City Employment Contracts as Listed Below; and Pay Rates and Ranges (Responsible Department: Administrative Services/City Administration) a. Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Public Works and Administrative b. Sebastopol Police Officers Association (SPOA)
c. Management and Mid-Management Employees
d. Public Employee: Amendment to Contract of Employee (Employee: City Manager) e. Public Employee: Amendment to Contract of Employee (Employee: City Clerk) f. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing and Approving the City of Sebastopol Current Pay Rates and Ranges (Salary Schedule)
g. Adoption of Amended Personnel Rules and Regulations
Minute Order Number: 2022-216
Resolution Number(s): 6449-2022
6450-2022
6451-2022
6452-2022

4. Approval of Request from Gregory Beale / The Beale Group for a Fee Deferral of the Art In Lieu Fee of $33,000 for the Livery project at 6950 Burnett Street (Responsible Department: Planning) Director Svanstrom presented the report.

Mayor Slayter opened for questions.

Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• I'll just share the question I asked Planning Director Svanstrom, I was just wondering if there might be a time limit put on this deferral.
• I'm very much in favor of the deferral because delaying it could threaten their financing, and I hope none of us has any intention to do that.
• I was just a little uncomfortable knowing that the deferral could last like forever who knows how long in a world of uncertainty where financing isn't certain, work force isn't certain, the supply world, the supply chain isn't certain, and I was thinking to just add a time limit to it one year or two years event in something didn't happen and the project didn't go forward, the deferral could simply be re-upped if that were the new facts on the project.
• I hadn't realized it when I contacted Director Svanstrom, I also looped in Margie Mills Thysen, the chair of the Public Arts Committee, and then Planning Director Svanstrom and she informed me that the Public Arts Committee hasn't been informed of this, and Margie was very interested to know, and she also felt more inclined to put a reasonable time on the deferral just so we would know. • I was very relieved when Planning Director Svanstrom mentioned that she added in this oral report that we did something very similar for the hotel, but when we did all the deferrals for the hotel, we had no idea we would be waiting until this very last minute on permits that could expire if there isn't a shovel in the ground or something, and I thought it might just be practical to put some reasonable time on this and then if there is an explanation that can come in to extend it further, do that with a real simple review. • So my one suggestion was to add a time limit and I think chair would have a better sense of that. • It sounds like maybe a year would be practical, if they think they're coming in six months, a year wouldn't stress them out.

Director Svanstrom commented as follows:
• I think that would be quite reasonable.
• I did ask last minute when this got pulled.
• So I checked again with Greg Beale to see if he would be able to be here. • However, I don't see him here to respond to that.

Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• Thank you, Planning Director Svanstrom for checking with him, and I'm hopeful that all the Council will support the deferral and that having a time limit, a time expression, not a limitation and ultimate expiration or denial would be acceptable.
• That's issue I was hoping to discuss, Mr. Mayor.

Mayor Slayter opened for public comments.

Kyle Falbo commented as follows:

• I'm just hoping that we can get maybe a little bit more details on this delay, in particular how long prior to this point there has been delay in this project's process, and if historically there were other projects that had seen this long of a delay.
• I hope that we aren't setting a dangerous precedent moving forward.

Linda Berg commented as follows:
• If you could tell me where this is going to be located on Burnett Street, I'm sure I know where it is, just not looking at the address, I'm computer free and cell phone free due to electrical sensitivity. • If you would tell me basically where this is located. • It occurs to me too with all these projects that I'm hearing about, the Woodmark, there's 84 new residences proposed there and in the works in Bodega, is anybody looking at the traffic infrastructure • I don't think it's a good idea to add that much more traffic to Bodega Avenue, which is highway 12, that is currently backed up all the way to Llano in the afternoons. • You need to start thinking about the consequences of these projects that you are approving. • I'm all for art and thank you Councilmember Una Glass for the open studios. • That's just genius, and just a wonderful thing, one of the many wonderful things about this area.

Mayor Slayter responded to public comment as follows:
• Discussed the comment of delay in project
• I'm not sure I understand the first question about has the City caused a delay in this project. • The City has not caused a delay in this project.
• It is entirely within the hands of the developer of the proponent of the project to make submittals and get things reviewed, and this is a simple fee deferral request for the project, it's not anything else. • It's not an approval of the project. It's not an approval of the art. It's a request for a deferral. • Then the other question is where is the project located? It is at 6950 Burnett Street which is two blocks long in our downtown
• That would be the Northeast corner of that intersection at South Main and Burnett, and it is an adaptive reuse of an existing building.
• So the impacts in traffic and parking and all those other things are factored in given that it's a reuse and a remodel.
• So, again, not really relevant to what we're doing here this evening.

Planning Director Svanstrom commented as follows:
• The location is across the street from the City parking lot • If you're not good with numbers and intersections, probably the easiest way to locate it - it starts South of the U.P.S.Store, I think the U.P.S.Store is actually part of it, which is staying as is. • It is adaptive reuse, and the interior square footage is actually being reduced a little bit. • Making more atrium and outdoor space as the entry.
• In essence the uses are changing a little bit, but it is, yes, already built square footage within the City. • Just in terms of the delay, this has actually been buzzing along as a project • I think they had one amendment with it that when changed, they moved right into the building permits, this is our normal time process for that.

City Council Discussion and/or Deliberations:

Councilmember Rich commented I support the proposal made by Councilmember Gurney, especially since it's supported by our Planning Director Svanstrom, seems reasonable to put a one-year limit on this extension of

time, and I would encourage the company involved to go the route of art, I'd much prefer to see art installed in that project rather than money paid to the City for art.

Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• I think the application and the request for the deferral does state that they're interested in on site art, so I think they're already completely aligned with you on that. • I'm just going to throw one thing out for everybody to consider while you're talking is that given the supply chain issues and the difficulty in the labor market right now, sort of my insider knowledge of the industry, I would propose that we provide an 18-month deferral rather than a 12-month deferral just because of the current weirdness in supply chain and labor markets • If that would be okay that's where I'm okay with 12 months, but I'm also just stating that an extra six months may be the most appropriate and helpful thing at this point.

Vice Mayor Hinton commented as follows:
• I was going to state that one year seems too quick to me. I would be 18 months or even up to two years. • It's amazing how things move along, and we know with Ned Kahn’s art piece that's taken us a really long time, and even the art walk that we've approved has taken quite a bit of time. • So I would lean towards a two-years extension, and if they can get it done sooner, great.

Councilmember Glass commented as follows:
• I'm supportive of the 18-month extension.
• I am definitely in support of making an accommodation because this is a project of a Sebastopol resident, the developer is a resident of Sebastopol.
• This isn't an outside developer.
• This is somebody that is going to, I think, significantly improve the aesthetic value of a building that used to be kind of the old round table pizza building.
• I think it's going to be greatly improved by the developer, and so I think it's going to add a lot to our downtown, so I am all for making an accommodation.

Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• I was considering what I said, and I thought a year was too short. • I was going to go for two, so it's really, I think, helpful to get the recommendation from our Planning Director given supply chain issues and all the points that the mayor just made. • I planned it two years, and I would like the deferral to be subject to a further extension with review by the Council if that was acceptable as well.

Director Svanstrom commented as follows:
• The intent of the deferral is for them to submit the artwork and get approval from the Public Art Committee, not for the artwork to be produced and on site. • Our code requires that they'll install it and they'll keep it on site and all of the requirements that are in the public art code.
• They would have until the end of construction to get the artwork installed, and so I just want to make sure what you're deferring is not for the installation. • It's for the sort of application and approval of the concept.

MOTION:

Mayor Slayter moved and Vice Mayor Hinton seconded the motion to approve Request from Gregory Beale / The Beale Group for a Fee Deferral of the Art In Lieu Fee of $33,000 for the Livery project at 6950 Burnett Street • 24 months or prior to the construction completion whichever comes first.

Mayor Slayter called for a roll call vote. City staff conducted a roll call vote.

VOTE:

Ayes: Councilmembers Glass, Gurney, Rich, Vice Mayor Hinton and Mayor Slayter Noes: None

Absent: None
Abstain: None
City Council Action: Approved Request from Gregory Beale / The Beale Group for a Fee Deferral of the Art In Lieu Fee of $33,000 for the Livery project at 6950 Burnett Street • 24 months or prior to the construction completion whichever comes first.

Minute Order Number: 2022-215
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS/PRESENTATIONS: (Please Note: Although informational/presentations items are routinely informational in nature, some informational items may contain request for actions such as support, direction to staff, follow up, or receipt of item based on the presentation/information provided.) NONE

PUBLIC HEARING(s):

6. Continuation of CIP Hearing From the June 21st 2022 City Council Meeting Capital Improvement Program Budget Hearing (Responsible Department: GHD/Administrative Services) PUBLIC HEARING(s):

5. Continuation of CIP Hearing From the June 21st 2022 City Council Meeting Capital Improvement Program Budget Hearing (Responsible Department: GHD/Administrative Services) Toni Bertolero, GHD, provided the agenda item recommending the City Council adopt a resolution approving the Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Year 2022-23, and note changes to the CIP, if any.

Mayor Slayter opened for questions of presenter.

Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• Thank you for the presentation.
• It's really helpful to bring us up to speed on these projects. • I just had a question, I'm looking at this staff report, and I'm wondering how if you look at page 6 of 65 in the staff report, there's a summary of projects and it says fiscal years '22, '23 summary, proposed fiscal year 22, '23 projects.
• When you compare that list to the one you're seeing on the slide here, are the projects on this slide the limited ones that are already funded versus the ones on the longer list are proposed not necessarily funded?
• Would that be the difference?
Toni Bertolero commented as follows:
• Everything on this list as well as the list in the agenda report, they should all match up, everything that's on this list, I haven't completed all of them yet, should be the same ones you see in your agenda packet.

• All the ones that you see without the word "new" behind it, these are continuation of projects from prior years, basically kind of like carryovers if you will.
• These are the ones that are fully funded. It's fully funded if you approve it tonight.

Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• Thank you for starting your report and letting us ask questions as we go. • You mentioned the Quick Strike deadline of September 1st, and you're hopeful that project will go. • I think we have to congratulation ourselves again, you particularly and GHD for getting the Quick Strike money for us, that was a lot of work.
• But the OBAG money for phase one on Bodega is also subject to a loss with a deadline if that project isn't underway soonish.
• Is that right in my memory that we have kind of a time commitment there as well to start? • We do have a time commitment?
Toni Bertolero commented as follows:
• That one has a little bit longer time frame.
• The Quick Strike is a lot quicker.
• That one's September 1, the Bodega Avenue phase one, which is the OBAG 2 grant that you're mentioning.
• That one has a funding obligation of January 1 of next year.

Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• We all know how fast time goes by when projects are getting prepped. • I just want the Council to realize, there's some urgency to both those, and I'd like the public to know we're at risk of potentially losing money if we don't get going and using what we have obtained successfully with your help.

Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• I'm not sure how much we're going to get into this questions about the project number 0517-21-01. • That's the Palm Avenue Street improvements, and that the Council directed changes to that project in the increase in cost and I just want to find out where that is, get us all up to the same level understanding.

Toni Bertolero commented as follows:
• I have a slide where that is identified, and if we can wait on your question, and we can bring it at that time.
• That is one of the new projects and like I said, I wanted to spend a little bit more time on the new projects since this will be the first time that Council has heard of it, at least from the CIP standpoint.

Councilmember Rich commented could you please remind us on these new projects where the funding would -- what the source of the funding would be, for instance, the 62,000 for the Ives Park master plan implementation phase two.

Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• There's a steep learning curve to the CIP, and I know you understand that the way that it works at this point having sat on the budget committee, but for the benefit of members of the public who may not understand the complexity of the CIP, perhaps I'll give a little bit of a primer. • We have all these projects that are listed as capital improvements.

• Some of them have secure funding, and they're moving forward very rapidly like the Bodega Avenue project.
• Others are a bit more aspirational and require significant amounts of money down the road. Say like the remodeling and reconstruction of Ives Park.
• So it takes time to assemble money from different sources, so it's not like the City budget proper, the general fund, which is one pot of money in the Council with input from staff and from the public doles it out to all of those sources.
• For the CIP, there's not one central bucket of money. • It comes from all over the place, and it's tied to different things, and it can only be used for certain things oftentimes.
• So being able to understand what the funding is and the format that we now enjoy with the CIP that was started a few years ago under the previous engineering manager where we have the funding sources listed and then also the work that requires the spending as kind of line items so that the Council and the public and staff can look at this, and as an example on the page I have up is storm drain and outfall maintenance, and so there's one that's a million dollars that's unfunded, but it's off in the future. • Hopefully we can figure out how to fund that in the future, but it's much better than it used to be. • I'm not sure how it could have gotten any worse.
• I think my colleagues would agree with me there, the CIP ten years ago was a very difficult document to understand.

Toni Bertolero commented as follows:
• That's actually very helpful, and if I could just add one more thing and that is as you mentioned, the future projects, we don't necessarily have funding yet for those because that's why we're seeking grant funding and seeking funding sources.
• However, for the fiscal year 22/23, the annual budget, that one does have funding identified, and so if we have a project in there, that means there is a way to pay for it. • As I mentioned on the Burbank Farm, that one has sort of a conditional approval that that we're still waiting on.
• So even though that's identified as a project, it's because we have received notice that the grant application has been accepted, and that we are basically waiting for that approval. • In answer to the question with respect to the Ives Park master plan, if I look in the budget report, the CIP budget report, it identifies that the funding, $62,000 for this project, so $50,000 is from Measure M parks and 12,000 from the traffic fee fund.
• That's because of the potential for the intersection improvements at Jewel and Willow.

Councilmember Glass commented as follows:
• I just wanted to add in to the historical perspective and the Mayor's description of how bad it used to be versus how great it is now, and I just have to say this is so much more clear and just wanted to invite the members of the public to look at the individual pages in the CIP, because you can actually see this is the plan over many years.
• This is when we're expecting the funding to come in from different sources, and we in part, I have to give a shoutout to our Administrative Services Director Ana Kwong s she got this software implemented. • We used to have a spreadsheet that was like the mother of all spreadsheets • This is just such an improvement, so thank you to Director Kwong and Toni Bertolero with making this being implemented.

Councilmember Gurney commented I just hope someone can help me really quickly and remind me is the $150,000 to the road pavement fix it fund part of this budget? Director Kwong commented no it is not.

Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• So it's a similar situation where like our liability, we have a problem and have expressed a commitment to address it.
• But problem is we haven't funded it.
• So let's keep that in mind as we look forward to the budget.

Parklets:
• South Main Street Parklet. This is a new project in fiscal year 2022/23. • this was based on Council direction at the last meeting that we had regarding parklets. • There are three parklets in the City, and they're all temporary in nature. • We have an encroachment permit with Caltrans for three locations, that will be through the end of this calendar year for all three parklets.
• However, we were given Council direction to pursue a permanent parklet on the South Main Street location.
• So we had since recently heard from Caltrans regarding this parklet. • That they will now require for permanent parklets, they have requirements for lease agreements and rental fees.
• That is something that because of this new finding, we think that it's going to be very difficult and costly to pursue a parklet on South Main Street.
• That was the last direction that we got from Council
• However, this one the Council may want to think about how it wants to approve or deny this particular project because the whole issue of parklets is something that staff will be bringing up to Council at a future meeting to discuss it in more detail.
• Tonight's meeting is really not the intent to go over parklets, but really to go over this particular project that was the last direction that we received from Council on the CIP project.

City Manager McLaughlin commented as follows:
• I just wanted to clarify for the Council that we had advised you a week or so ago of this recent development with Caltrans at this time.
• We did not think that we had received the permit for the temporary parklets to continue for another year.
• That permit had been verbally promised to us several months ago. • We did not think that in light of this new information that we were going to receive received that. But it has been confirmed.
• So we do have the Caltrans permit for the parklets for the next year. • What Toni Bertolero is referring to is the hoops that we will have to jump through in order to create a permanent parklet with permanent Caltrans approval.
• That will be a very expensive proposition, as Toni Bertolero outlined. • We really don't have I don't think the opportunity tonight to go through that in as much detail as it deserves, but it is definitely a subject that needs to be brought back to the Council in the near future. • We have issues with another parklet for which there was a recent auto accident. • The parklets are a subject that I think the Council will have to continue to look at and discuss.

• But for purposes of tonight, what Toni Bertolero is alluding to is the cost that was proposed to be in the CIP to create a permanent parklet.
• That particular figure I think it's safe to say is way underbudgeted right this minute for what it would take to actually create a permanent parklet given the new Caltrans requirements. • So that's in summary of where we are.
• I wanted to correct the previous information that had been given to the Council. • We do have these permitted for another year, as we had previously reported in a temporary format. • That will be good through the end of this calendar year. So it's through December. We're halfway there. • By the time we found this out, it's half gone. So we really only have a half a year left of the temporary permit.
• Then we definitely would have to do something dramatically different to continue any of these parklets.

Bodega Avenue dig-outs and repairs.
• Again, this is a new project. This is year 2022/23. This is actually a large maintenance project, if you will. • It will support the Bodega Avenue phase 1 and phase 2 project. • We actually pulled it out of the Bodega Avenue projects so that we could do what you call dig-outs and repairs because there is a lot of potholes.
• There is a lot of failing pavement on Bodega Avenue.
• The idea is to do an early on project as sort of a stopgap repairs for continued deterioration of the road. • As you know, it's taking us quite a bit of time to get grant funding for the phase 2 project. • It's also by the time we get an approval for phase 1, time will have passed, and that roadway will continue to deteriorate.
• We're hoping to get this project out the door a lot sooner so that it will help with the drivability of the road and help protect the road as best possible before those two projects, before the cavalry comes to really fix the road, if you will.
• So that's the purpose of this.
• I did want to mention that this is not a throwaway project. • This is work that would have had to have been done as part of the Bodega Avenue phase 1 and phase 2 projects.
• We're just doing that part of it sooner versus later.

Palm Avenue Street improvements.
• Again, this is a new project in fiscal year 2022/23 based on a Council direction. • Not just to make it a one-way street. It's a one-way street westbound on Palm Avenue. • Council had provided direction to add new sidewalk and pavement resurfacing. • The one thing that is different that I think I mentioned earlier and that I clarified is that on the pavement reserve fund, the pavement reserve fund can only pay for the pavement resurfacing portion of this work. • The general fund would actually have to fund the new sidewalk and the pavement striping and signing costs.
• I wanted to clarify that the pavement striping and signing cost is from the general fund, but it can actually be included in the Public Works operating budget because they do have an annual budget for signing and striping.
• This project is small enough that it could be included in the Public Works operating budget. • However, the Public Works budget does not have sufficient money for the sidewalk and so with this project, if it's approved, Council will be authorizing a funding for that are new sidewalk.

Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:

• I'm just wondering, which sidewalk is that? The North side • This is why I am asking The North side has a sidewalk gap. • Public Works has just taken out a big tree there.
• So I'm looking at it thinking there is a great application for a complete streets project • We have a protected sidewalk on South main and a protected sidewalk on Petaluma Avenue, but we don't have the complete sidewalk that connects those two. • So it seems to me like that might be a great application for help with funding to make that fully passable with a complete sidewalk.

Toni Bertolero commented as follows:
• That would be a good grant application.
• However, there isn't one that I'm aware of at this time. • So typically what we do is if there hasn't been an identified grant application for project, we would actually defer to it the next fiscal year.
• The one for this fiscal year would all be with current funding, which means it would be under the pavement restoration or pavement reserve fund and general fund. • The question for us is defer for a possible grant application and maybe success or put it in the pipeline now?
Vice Mayor Hinton commented as follows:
• If I'm understanding it correct, the $140,000 is just the sidewalk. • Then the street comes out of the other budget.
• What's the breakdown for the sidewalk?
Toni Bertolero commented the $140,000 is for the entire project. Sidewalk, signing and striping, and then the street resurfacing.

Vice Mayor Hinton commented what is the amount that can't come out of the special account for paving? What's the breakdown of the $140,000?
Toni Bertolero commented as follows:
• The breakdown is the budget shows $120,000 for the construction. • I would say close to $100,000 come out of the pavement reserve fund because the cost of resurfacing is very expensive.
• The sidewalk and the signing and striping which cannot come from the pavement reserve, that would have to come out of the general fund.
• We don't have the bids yet obviously, and we didn't break it out that way, but I would say it's about $25,000 for that portion of it.

Vice Mayor Hinton commented as follows:
• When we approve this, we thought it would cost about half. • Now I'm wondering since this was approved at Council direction and it's being moved forward, in your opinion now that it's costing us double, should we be approving this this quickly over something else that might in your opinion be a higher priority?
Toni Bertolero commented as follows:

• It's usually it’s hard for cities to pay for sidewalk, because generally sidewalks are the responsibility of the property owners, as you know.
• So usually with a new project, with a new house that gets put in or house gets improved, they have to do sidewalk improvements.
• That's just part of their property frontage.
• So the City is making a commitment to pay for that sidewalk improvement. • I would say that there are two choices.
• I wasn't there, to be honest, when the Palm Avenue project went to Council at that meeting, and I don't know how it came to be that there was a decision to expand the project from just adding signing and striping to adding the sidewalk and the pavement resurfacing. • It's always difficult when you're doing pavement resurfacing that's out of sync, if you will, from the City's pavement management program report.
• The City actually has a pavement management report that says here are all the streets in the City. • Here are the pavement condition index, and here is a priority listing of what streets should be done based on their condition.
• I don't believe Palm Avenue was one of the ones that were slated for improvement yet. • But that's not to say that you can't do those improvements now if there is a need for it, if there is a public concern for that roadway.
• This is the time to do it. I would say, yeah, it makes sense.

Vice Mayor Hinton commented as follows:
• However, I kind of like what Councilmember Gurney had to mention about trying to get grant funding for it.
• There might be an opportunity for that.
• So that is something that we could take a look at.

Toni Bertolero commented as follows:
• It's a small project, however, and it's very difficult to get funding for a small project. • Because as you know, once you start applying for a grant application with the federal government, what we say is you Federalize It, which means your environmental review goes through the roof and all of the sudden this project isn't $140,000, maybe it's closer to $180,000 because of that. • There is that to consider.
• That's the reason why we try to only do projects with grants that are large projects because there is some economies of scale of Federalizing It because of the environmental constraints.

Vice Mayor Hinton commented as follows:
• We've kind of passed over this parklet, and now we know we have new information. • I don't know if this is a question for you or the City manager. • Are we thinking we should move forward with allocating this money in the CIP to a parklet project, but we now know that maybe this isn't the best parklet project for the long haul. • I'm wondering how we should handle this.
• Because I'm not necessarily now that I have new information in favor of allocating this money to this South Main Street Parklet specifically, as stated in this proposal tonight. • How do we deal with that?
Toni Bertolero commented as follows:

• I think that's a very good question, and I think that as I mentioned, we will be taking this to Council at a future meeting.
• I think that the City Manager mentioned that as well, because there is going to need to be more discussion on it.
• So the project could look different. Because a project could look different, it could be on a local street, for example. It may not be on a Caltrans right of way.
• Council may decide there are too many hoops to jump through for that. • What could happen for the South Main Street Parklet, you could just not approve that project and then when it goes back to Council at a future meeting, approve a different CIP project at that time.

Vice Mayor Hinton commented just for the record, by approving this, we're not necessarily committing ourselves, because I do want that on the record that it is this project at this time, which is different than previous CIPs that we voted on and approved.

City Manager McLaughlin commented as follows:
• I think that if you approve it tonight, then you are approving the expenditure towards this particular item in 22/23.
• Having been said, I guess you'd assume that's probably not a good thing, but you'll need to do something I think about this parklet in '22-'23.
• It just may be something entirely different than what you anticipated doing when the CIP item was created.
• Because $85,000 is almost assuredly not enough money to do what now would be required to create a permanent parklet at that location given what the City wanted to do plus the new Caltrans requirements. • This I think has to come back to the Council for a full review of all three parklets, and especially further guidance on this parklet for tonight's purposes.
• This is general fund money. I am just pointing that out if you allocate it tonight, you're making a commitment to go ahead and allocate and spend this money towards this particular parklet, knowing I believe that it would not be sufficient to complete the work given the new Caltrans requirements. • There is a lot of misinformation, to say the least out there about the whole parklet situation. • A lot of confusion.
• I wanted to state that I am in support of a parklet in this area. • I've always thought this was a very, very successful parklet and wanted to promote its continuation. • It's just that the terrain has changed here with respect to the new Caltrans requirements. • this item tonight is approving 22/23 CIP program as it's presented. • I think the Council needs to take a new look at that, and it needs to do it in the near future, again, because this is something that has to be dealt with I think by the end of the year, the end of the calendar year.
• If you take the $85,000 for some other purpose, you're probably going to have to give it back and a lot more if you want to do the parklet at this location.
• On the other hand, this $85,000 is kind of going in the wrong direction because it wasn't proposed to meet the Caltrans requirements.
• It was proposed primarily to design something the City would like to have there in a permanent way.

Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• We need to make sure that we're discussing the same project. • Because we have parallel topics going on here with Palm Avenue and also the parklet. • I understand how we've gotten here because they're both new and there is a lot to them.

• The parklet is on page 29 of the CIP. It's noted as the funding source as $85,000 from the building facilities infrastructure reserve, which Is a subcategory of the general fund. • It's an unrestricted reserve account.
• So clearly this would be an infrastructure project.
• I think that it's an appropriate funding source if the project goes forward. • But I think also the important thing to remember here is that this is in a lot of ways earmarking the money.
• This is not approving a project.
• The funding for the project, the entire project would come back to the Council, and I hear staff telling us that we will see that in the not very distant future to have that more robust conversation with all the Caltrans overlays and filters put on it.
• So we shouldn't get bogged down by Caltrans talking about our CIP across the board here.

Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• Most of my questions regarding the parklet have been answered. • I do have a question about the paving of Palm Avenue improvements. • When I look at page 36 in the CIP, it indicates that there is $140,000 coming out of payment reserve fund. • I'm hearing from you that in fact there is a portion that would come from general fund. • I think we need to clarify that in the document that would be my first question. Could that be done? • My second question would be we're going to be talking about the budget in a minute. • Is that that portion, the $25,000 that you mentioned that would be needing to come out of the general fund to cover the sidewalks if we approve this tonight, is that number anywhere in our proposed budget? • Because I don't recall seeing it.

Toni Bertolero commented as follows:
• What would happen is if Council decides to move forward with Palm Avenue, the Palm Avenue project, about $25,000 would have to come from the general fund, and then the balance of that, which would be the other $115,000 would come out of the payment reserve fund. • So that would be changed on the final.
• What you're looking at here is the proposed.
• After Council deliberates and they say, well, we decided not to do this project, but we like this project, those changes will be incorporated in the final document, the final CIP that actually gets adopted. • That would be an expense for 22/23
Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• If you could, as you're going through these presentations, make sure you identify for us any other numbers, amounts that would need to come out of the general fund that will be very important for our discussion about the budget, which currently doesn't include out of the general fund $25,000 for sidewalks.
• So if there are any other numbers, I think it would be helpful for you to identify those, please, as you're going forward.

Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• I have a question about a different new project.
• Perhaps it was on your slides, but I'm curious about the purchase of market rate units. • I'm just curious about just a real thumbnail sketch, what is that project and what do you see is the future of that project.

Director Svanstrom commented as follows:
• So one of the policies in our current housing element is to preserve the existing housing stock. • The Council has done a great job on directing staff and making it clear that non-hosted vacation rentals are something we want to look at really closely with it. • Looking at other ways of preserving housing stock and affordability of that housing stock, one thing I've been recommending the housing land trust on as a concept, and it is actually my review the housing element, the draft which will be coming out in a couple of weeks is to be a little more proactive on that. • What this would do is apply for a community development block grant and use some of our inclusionary housing funding to leverage purchasing existing homes that might be on the market, deed restricting them at probably a moderate income level in perpetuity with the housing land trust, and then reselling those units.
• That's one way for the City to get more deed restricted affordable housing in the City instead of that home, say, being sold at a market rate and then being on the open market from there.

Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• I would just ask Toni Bertolero whether there are any other projects that would require sidewalk work and would then dip into our general fund, other than the one you mentioned, the Palm Avenue Street improvements.
• Any other one you're aware of?
Toni Bertolero commented as follows:
• No.
• The other projects are paid for with other grant restricted funds.

Mayor Slayter called for a break at 8:04 pm and reconvened the meeting at 8:16 pm.

Mayor Slayter opened the public hearing.

Kyle Falbo commented as follows:
• I appreciate that we heard tonight about our pavement maintenance plan and capital improvement report that we heard back, way back in September 15th of 2020. • Unfortunate that the City has chosen not to actively approve for replacement of that position (Engineering Manager), and the lack of institutional knowledge that comes from a full-time City employee committed to the role our City needs.
• In that report, we learned that 1/3 of our City streets are rated as very poor. • Also noted in this report although historic and we heard tonight as well. Historically, the majority of pavement project funding has come from a quarter percent sales tax that in recent years has been used to balance other fund expenditures.
• It goes on to discuss regular funding sources available to the City and the hundreds of thousands of dollars that could be used to fund transportation, safety and paving. • The report is clear that even the expected reduction in revenue due to the pandemic, the City has chosen to reduce even further its efforts in transportation, safety, and paving. • So the agenda, or as part of what we saw tonight is this Palm Avenue. • I highly encourage the public to look at July meeting minutes? • If you search for "Palm Avenue" minutes, you'll find the meeting in which members of our City Council were suggesting rather than a sidewalk gap fill, they were suggesting parking spaces in this space.

• The City Engineer at the time suggested that the roadway was not, as we heard also tonight, didn't meet the conditions of being very poor
• But yet other than the Bodega Avenue back fill, which is actually a result of a delay in the grant process, we don't see any other paving projects in our City in the following year. • Highly encourage they fund the Palm Avenue project and consider increasing allocations to capital improvement projects in the future.

Jann Eyrich commented as follows:
• It's hurting the CIP, the South Main Parklet item. 85,000? I was unaware. • It's not a chip shot.
• But I'd like to bring up taking that money and devoting it of course to the Caltrans sustainable transportation planning grant. If it's that kind of transformation. • What I want to make a good point is there is an equity issue here, and you'll find that moving forward with the meetings that Toni Bertolero suggested.
• We got to keep an eye on the prize. It's transformative changes, improvements to this downtown core. • These are sensible. They're planned, and they're equitable. • If it's done well and this is designed.
• Little bits and little line items devoted to sections of this do not take into consideration how the delivery might fold into it.
• How other projects in town might be affected.
• So we don't duplicate whether it's sidewalks or whatever. • My main point is that Caltrans is dangling a carrot in front of us, and I want us to grab that. • I understand City Manager's perplexion, but these things need to be planned. This is part of design.

Steve Pierce commented as follows:
• I'd like to follow up with the bicycle plan.
• I know that a couple of months ago, the City sent out a survey. • It included Bodega Avenue bicycle survey questions and Ragle Road and some others. • But those were the two main areas of focus.
• I'm concerned that the bike path that is proposed will probably not be used very much. • Bicyclists in general don't feel very safe on Bodega Avenue for good reason. • The side streets will probably still be the main route even after the expenditure of bike lanes. • Money that could probably be used for safer bike areas than Bodega Avenue. • It seems like it's already well in the works and pretty much a done deal, but it's a bit concerning. • We have survey that comes out much later after the fact. • So my question is when will we get the results of that survey that was put out? • I also want to second the thought of the City examining the feasibility of getting involved in purchasing existing housing stock to make it affordable.
• I think we probably all saw the press Democrat article this last Sunday, the $700,000 cost for an apartment to be built with new construction.
• So affordable housing becomes an oxymoron, and we need to find way to make our existing housing stock become off the market and affordable for Sebastopol's future.

Linda Berg commented as follows:
• So one thing I'd like to encourage Kyle considering maybe running for City Council and anybody else that would like to bring constructive change to this town.

• I want to comment on the issue of the undergrounding
• Got a million plus available for the undergrounding of power lines. • That is really a big deal considering the health effects that come from the unrecognized by the public but PG&E knows darn well about magnetic fields that come from power lines. • Those undergrounds, if they're done incorrectly, as they are on North Main, I have gas meters, and I've been through part of this town measuring them at various times of the mostly night. • But any way, that is a huge thing that we can potentially reduce our cancer risks from the magnetic fields coming from power lines.
• I'd like to refer "great power line cover-up.” This is a book how the utilities and the government are trying to hide the cancer hazards posed by electromagnetic fields by Paul Brodeur. • It's a great book, but any way, PG&E knows darn well about the EMF health effects, consequences because they put out an annual pamphlet every year, and it's already come out earlier this year I think. • They've been putting out this pamphlet for over 20 years. • So what I am asking City Council to do is that I'm asking them to agendize this issue of PG&E's $1 million plus to underground power lines in order to get a better understanding of how this works and create a safer City. I'd really appreciate that.

Hearing no further comments, Mayor Slayter closed the public hearing.

City Council Discussion and/or Deliberations:

Mayor Slayter commented can you give us just the briefest of overviews about the Caltrans sustainability grant and what that could look like for the City?
Toni Bertolero commented as follows:
• That's something that we'll be discussing with W-Trans and we'll be bringing that to Council probably in the September meeting.
• We haven't seen the criteria yet for the planning grant, and that's the reason why we're waiting and holding off on it, because we don't know all the criteria. • We don't know what the scope of work would look like for W-Trans grant application proposal. • We need a little bit of time on that.
• That will be coming back in September, as I mentioned. • It's not something that you can sort of move money from one project to another, as you mentioned in the overview for the CIP there is a lot of restricted funds. • So you can't just move money from one project to another because it has to match up, and some of those projects are also grant funded.
• So when the transportation grant project is going to come back to Council, it will likely have to be funded from the general fund.
• I don't know of any other place where it could be funded unless there is the application part of it. • The grant itself would be for the transportation grant. • I believe it's for $75,000 is the max grant.
• But I'm not sure if the Caltrans will increase that this year.

Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• That part of that description leads into another question from a member of the public about the Bodega Avenue project and the proposed design, including a complete street with a bike lane. • Would it even be possible given the funding sources to revise the design, make it an incomplete street and devote the bicycle lane portion of the funding to some other project in town?

• Is that even feasible given the funding sources?
Toni Bertolero commented as follows:
• No, not at all.
• In fact, the reason why the City received the grant is because of the bike lanes. • So that's a major component of the grant and restriction on the use of it.

Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• Affordable housing. Since we're now into Councilmember comments, a little editorialization on affordable housing in a tremendous voice of support for the Sonoma County housing land trust. • There are ways that homeowners, property owners in the City can put their money where their mouth is. • If decades down the road you'd plan on inhabiting a different spectral plane and your house has ownership changes, there are ways that you can help the future of the City of Sebastopol by reconsidering some of what you leave behind.
• So housing land trust is a great thing. I'm just so happy any time we can partner with them to do that. • So I think that we have a couple of things to discuss, and I'm going kick it off with the Palm Avenue discussion.
• I'm very, very interested in getting the safety improvements made there. • This was not a project that was brought to us by engineering. • This was a project redesign of the roadway that was brought to us by law enforcement. • The Sebastopol Police Department brought this to us because of the unsafe condition at that East end of the Palm Avenue where it intersects with Petaluma.
• I would very much like to see the improvements made to the roadway. • The City kept a list, continues to keep a list of sidewalk gaps around the City. • We don't talk about the sidewalk gap, which the biggest one that everybody always brought up which is now on a route to having it eliminated up on Bodega Avenue. With the Huntley Square Housing Project. • We never really talked about the improvement of the roadway requiring the closure of the sidewalk gap. • We keep sidewalk gaps in sort of their own bucket.
• I think that this is a clearly a sidewalk gap that needs to go in the sidewalk gap buck, and we need to address the unsafe traffic condition straight away, which is the cheap part to do. • Is that something we can do is bifurcate it and not look at it as a total? Toni Bertolero commented as follows:
• I think the original project was just to do signing and striping. • That can be done as part of Public Works operating budget. Not be a capital project. • Once it gets over a certain amount, then it elevates itself to be a capital improvement project. • I suppose that the Palm Avenue Street improvements, project number 0519-22.03, could remain as an improvement project, and that the striping and signage could occur ASAP. • That's my understanding of the project is that the signing and striping could occur first.

Mayor Slayter commented are you saying to just remove that from the CIP project? Toni Bertolero commented as follows:
• No. I'm suggesting that we keep the sidewalk gap and the full improvements of that particular piece of roadway as a stand alone project while we fix the unsafe traffic condition. • It's still a project for the full sidewalk gap closure.

• The difficulty with separating it that way is that once you stripe it and then all of the sudden you have to come back, you'll have to restripe it again after the roadway is improved. Because then you'll have to restripe it.
• I don't think you'll have to do the signage, but you will have to restripe it. So you're doing the striping twice if you will.

Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• Since we're talking about Palm Avenue. That was the first one you wanted us to address. • I'm very much in favor of moving forward with the project. • It's important to me to close that sidewalk gap.
• When you think of it with the smart crosswalks on each end of that block, it makes no sense to push a pedestrian out into the roadway to use those crosswalks. • I want to give some anecdotal personal information.
• My husband Dan and I maintain the bulb outs at both of those smart crosswalks. • I'm very much surprised by how many people use both crosswalks, no matter what time of day we're down there gardening.
• I don't know where all the people go.
• Perhaps the dog walkers are going up to the Laguna uplands. • Some people appear to be on a lunch break from work going to local offices. • I had an office in the building 652 Petaluma Avenue and had the occasion throughout the day to walk on those streets.
• It makes no sense to me to have a dangerous sidewalk situation where you literally can't continue on the sidewalk between two smart crosswalks.
• So I think it's really important to do that whole package. • Have it make sense and have it be useful for the volume of people who walk there.

Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• But to the extent that there is need for money for the sidewalk piece of $20,000 to $25,000, I would suggest we might consider if we want to pursue this project pulling that money out of the buildings, facilities and infrastructure reserve fund, which in the proposed budget shows an balance of $763,000 and change.
• So just want to put that out there as a possibility.
• I have an overall question that I'd hope you would entertain, Mayor Slayter, which is that when I look at the CIP, I want to make sure that I am understanding the interplay between the CIP and the proposed budget.
• What I'm hearing I think is that the numbers in the CIP that have not yet been approved are not reflected in our proposed budget.
• I understand why that would be the case. But I want to ask that question, number one. • Number two, make sure that we understand any amounts that would be pulled out of the general fund so that we're aware of those when we go into our budget discussion. • I am identifying that because specifically on page 3 of the CIP, there is an amount that is identified as $60,000 coming out of general fund for CIP projects.
• So I just would like to know at some point from someone whether that $60,000 that shows CIP projects sourced from the general fund isn't any way currently included in our proposed budget numbers.

Director Kwong commented as follows:
• The $60,000 is made up of $25,000 for Calder Creek storm water. • The other is Zimpher and storm water projects.

• Those are the two projects that will be tapping general fund to pay for. • Those are in the proposed budget
Councilmember Rich commented are there any other amounts in the CIP that if we approve the CIP tonight, would not be already included in our proposed budget?
Director Kwong commented the number I just gave you was the one I was able to extract from the CIP version that was submitted for this agenda item.

Councilmember Rich commented is there anything else that will be approved tonight in addition to $60,000, then that's going to change the outlook of whether it's coming out of building or general fund or where it's coming out of.

Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• there are other numbers that are in sources of funding for the CIP. • Waste water, water fund type of projects.

Councilmember Rich commented are those numbers that we see in the CIP in general already embedded within our proposed budget?
Director Kwong commented as follows:
• Yes. They are embedded in various areas such as special revenue fund, like the Mayor was alluded to earlier, where there is restricted for such capital improvement. • If it's for enterprise fund, which is related to water and sewer, they are in the water and sewer fund.

Vice Mayor Hinton commented as follows:
• I think you're taking it one item at a time. So I just wanted to address Palm Street. • I wasn't a fan really of this, the one-way plan in the beginning, but I did feel very strongly that if we were going to go with that, that we needed to go beyond striping. • As I drive that every single day at least once a day, and that is my street that I do not go around like another colleague of mine. We had a big discussion about it. • So it is on our side of town. I know I was very vocal in saying that if we were going to do it, we really need to do the sidewalk and do it all the way, because it's a big change for our town. • That's been a two-way street forever. All the other streets are two-way streets. • If we're going change it to one-way, we need to make sure that it's not going to have people driving the wrong way on that street.
• So any way, I'm a fan of going all the way tonight if that is what we're doing for safety, as has been recommended by our chief of police.

Councilmember Glass commented as follows:
• So I'm just having a question which probably was already stated, but I missed it somewhere. • So the Palm Avenue improvements are slated to come out of payment reserve fund. • Payment reserve fund and road maintenance
• What's the balance of the pavement reserve fund now?
Director Kwong commented as follows:
• As of the close of 2021 books, it has $443,000.

• I don't anticipate any spending for this year, the year that was just over. • So that $443,000 probably will carry forward.

Councilmember Glass commented this would reduce that balance by $140,000 if we move forward with the Palm Avenue improvement, right?
Toni Bertolero commented as follows:
• It would be reducing it by $115,000.
• Remember the $25,000 for the sidewalk would either come from the general fund or it could come from the building infrastructure reserve fund if Council chooses to take it from that fund. • Because that infrastructure reserve fund has a balance I believe of about $700,000. • But that's not what is in the CIP document.
• So if you approve it, then you would approve the CIP budget with that change in the funding sources.

Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• South Main Street Parklet. I think the staff is I believe made it pretty clear the difficulties that we are facing right now.
• I can report that I had a meeting with the Governor's office last week. It was a very short notice thing. • One of their North bay regional reps contacted me, just wanted to get in touch and have a talk. • This was what I led off with was why in the world is Caltrans doing this seemingly midstream when it was allowed just fine.
• Now that the pandemic is supposedly receding, as we all sit here on zoom instead of in person, why the change?
• He promised to follow up. I did receive another e-mail from him on Friday. I know that things are being looked into. I don't know that this will lead anywhere, but I am hopeful that maybe they will. • That said, I think that in a lot of ways, this funding and this project are emblematic of us moving in a direction that we want for our downtown.
• Something that is less car centric, something that is more human centric. • The livery project is right across the street from this. • The South Main block is going to have a lot of energy now due to the temporary parklet. • It will have more with the livery project across the street. • In a lot of ways, us keeping this funding in the CIP I believe is a value statement in a lot of ways. • By removing it, I mean, maybe that's appropriate? I'm not sure. • But I would like to see this remain funded knowing that it will come back to Council soon with a full description and a full work-up of the difficulties and the opportunities in regards to the actual design of this thing.

Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for your interaction with the Governor's office. • I am really pleased that you did that and appreciate your leadership to tackle that issue like right out the gate there.
• I agree with you wholeheartedly that how emblematic this. • We've heard for a long, long time from many members of our community how much we would like this to be a less car centric speedway downtown.
• I think the parklets are a way to make that transition. • In fact, I was to suggest to Gregory Beal at the delivery that he consider one on the street Burnett Street to have a companion parklet down there.

• I think it's really important that we recall all of the support that the parklets received at Council level the last time we talked about it, including the parklet over on Depot Street in front of the businesses there. • So I would very much like to keep this in the CIP.
• We know from conversations that we don't really know what it's going to look like yet. • We don't know what it's going to cost yet. We don't know what our relationship with Caltrans will be, but I think it's time that we stop letting Caltrans determine the quality of our life. • We stop letting them push us around. Who says they can charge us for rent? Who says they can demand a lease?
• That's just Caltrans and I don't even know that they have a head on their shoulders • I think we should really push become on them and have the human centric, the pedestrian centric, the relaxed more quieter improved ambience downtown that everyone is really yearning for and has been yearning for so long, thinking before the core project even started up with their design conversations downtown.
• So I would like to keep this in for now knowing that we're going have a review time, that we'll be looking at the whole parklet issue it sounds like in August or September, that there are likely changes, and I'd like us to put out a message to our community that we support parklets and we would very much like them to work and will work to make that happen.
• So I'm in favor of keeping it in too, Mr. Mayor.

Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• I did float an idea to the representative from the Governor's office. • It was made half in jest, half not in jest is that rather than us pay Caltrans rent for parklets, I suggested that we charge Caltrans rent for the roadways.
• I mean, it's our City.

Vice Mayor Hinton commented as follows:
• I guess I'm a little confused and I want to hear from Toni Bertolero about whether to leave this in or out. • My leanings right now, and I'm glad Councilmember Gurney just brought it up is that I'm concerned about digging in and whether this Caltrans thing really makes sense. It's a lot of money for a parklet. • I'd rather invest that money on a private street where we have control. • When you bring up they're in front of on Burnett or the street right across that Councilmember Gurney just brought up, we own one side of the street in the public lot. • We have probably a partner right across the street in the new round table building that would be I would think be excited about having a parklet right there.
• That seems like maybe an alternative spot that I'd really be interested in exploring if we're going make an investment to make one on our own street versus bang our heads against the Caltrans situation. • So I really need to understand what I'm voting on if we're leaving this in or leaving it out, because I'm unclear about that, and I'm unclear whether it really makes sense as a City to invest in a parklet with Caltrans because it just seems like it's going to continue to be an issue. • I want to be in favor of parklets. I'm just not sure that those are the right spots I guess is the bottom line for me.

Toni Bertolero commented as follows:
• I think that when we come back to Council, we will not only be looking at the parklet itself on Main Street, we will also be considering parklets at other locations at a local City street. • I know that Burnett was identified as one potential.
• So when we come back to Council, we'll be presenting to Council as to what the options are.

• I think it will be better thought out at that point because we'll have more information from Caltrans as to how much it could cost totally, and also what it would cost if Council decides okay, that's too much money.
• We'd like to repurpose the money and put it towards a local street. • So if it was suggested just keep this project in the CIP, I think just for purposes of showing support for parklets in general, I think that's fine.
• Then when we come back to Council, we would have to revisit the budget any way at that time. • The money could be repurposed. $85,000 has been set aside for a parklet. • That could be repurposed to a different parklet or if Council chooses to stay with the South Main Street Parklet, we could use it for that.
• We could probably identify a different budget.
• We could just do a budget amendment at that meeting as well as part of the Council approval process.

Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• Given what I've heard, I'm in support of keeping this in the CIP, understanding that it might be modified in terms of the scope of the project as developments occur. • I think my main motivation is that given your discussions, Mayor Slayter and also the comments of the public, it's clear to me that the idea of pursuing a parklet or parklets supporting them in some way is still alive.
• It strikes me that having a line item with money attached to it in the CIP provides documented interest on the part of this City that might assist Toni Bertolero or Mayor Slayter or others in pursuing this with Caltrans or other entities.
• So I'd be in favor of keeping it in the CIP, even though my instinct is if, the project, if it moves forward, will look quite different.

Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• It is really important to have those commitments and policy statements available. • I think Toni Bertolero will say, unless it's not in some document and you can point to it, we really mean this, your grant application is going to fail. We really have to say what we want. • Then we have to go chase down the money and get it so we can build it. • We don't even know what the design is at this point in time, and we don't know if the $85,000 is even a real number. It low? Is it high?
• I know our Planning Commission chair Paul Fritz thought it was unrealistically high. • But maybe with new information, he'll think it's low. • I say we keep it in there so we can demonstrate a commitment to this idea and seek funding potentially based on it.

Councilmember Glass commented as follows:
• I'm just trying to get through the Rubik's cube of the budget document versus the CIP. • So the funding source is building is an infrastructure reserve. • I lost track of perhaps I just have not enough memory for the project that we just talked about prior to this where funding was coming out of a reserve fund.
• To dovetail this together, the CIP is saying a funding source is from the building facilities infrastructure reserve.
• So do we show in our standard budget document, not the CIP, the standard budget document what page is 103 building facilities infrastructure reserve, and does it show this $85,000 as budgeted to decline the balance of that fund?

• Just wanting to make sure I'm understanding the impacts of these allocations against funds.

Director Kwong commented as follows:
• The page for the building infrastructure is on page 35. • On page 36, where you see the$ 218,200, that made up of a variety of projects from the CIP. • It has the youth annex ADA upgrade. It has the transition plan for ADA projects. It also has the ADA transition plan improvement. The Ives Pool exterior shower and the South Main Parklet. • So if the South Main Parklet is $85.000, then it's included in this 218. • The $85,000 is in the 218 is in the CIP is in the budget.

Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• Discussed page 45. Storm water projects Outfall Maintenance • This is something that the previous engineering manager warned us was coming, that state regulations -- unfunded state mandate regulations were significantly increasing and that this was something that the City was going to be looking at three to five-year time frame at this point. • that was three to five years ago. So here we are.
• If I look at the first one for Calder Creek, we funded $25,000, and this gets back to Councilmember Rich's question about what is being funded from the general fund in the CIP. • These are those projects.
• So we funded $25,000 if there now, we funded it last year. • Every year there is this $1 million unfunded, unidentified number. • can you help us understand more about these outfall maintenance projects? • Kind of a nuts and bolts question if the City is response form these outfalls, there no assistance from other funding sources because the silt and the maintenance requirement, it can all be from these waterways being within the City limit.

Toni Bertolero commented as follows:
• It's really a maintenance type of project.
• The idea is through the $25,000 that's in there is really to look at kind of a biological resource study to see what's involved in removing it.
• As you know, you can't really touch anything without going through an environmental process. • There is going to be need to check in with U.S. Fish and wildlife, with California state fish and wildlife. • that's part of the permitting.
• It's probably a little bit more than that.
• The idea is try to receive a couple of places for that money to come from. • One is we're going to be looking at a FEMA and there is also hazard mitigation plan. • I know that Planning Director Svanstrom has been working on that. • Because some of these projects are included in that, there is potential for trying to get some money to get that.
• That's the only other place we can think of.
• Another source that we are looking at is when we look at the Ives Park master planning, you have to do a lot of work to clean out the creeks.
• The idea is to include that in a grant funding.
• Any way, that is an area that we're just going to have to be very creative about in trying to receive funding.

Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• If I look at the first one for Calder Creek. We have funded $25,000 and it comes back to Councilmember Rich's comment, we are funding it last year and this year. • Every year, there's a one million, unfunded and unidentified number and that's seven figures. • It's a big number. I'm curious can you help us more about the maintenance projects and a nuts and bolts question of if the City is responsible for the outfalls is there no assistance from other funding sources for silt and the maintenance requirements cannot all be from being in the City's limit? Director Svanstrom commented as follows:
• So that was the idea to also include that in some kind of a grant funding and so, anyway, that is an area that we have to be creative about and those were the resources from the FEMA and from where the mitigation was, and maybe, you can speak to it a bit since the mitigation plan is recently released? • That is back to FEMA for the final stamp of approval. • We will be eligible for the Federal Mitigation grants and because of the recent flooding and the annex facility, there's certainly a need that we can demonstrate for mitigation grants. • As we have been working on the Calder Creek project.
• There's also infrastructure grants that are sustainable and includes climate change addressing in terms of the larger floods and things like.
• I'm working with the institute that will be helping us look at and apply for coastal grants that are more for the engineering work within the park, but it does include the Calder Creek as it goes down towards the trail portion of it.
• So, I would say, for the Calder Creek project, there's probably, because it's a creek naturalization project and there's more funding available for that kind of stuff, that one is more likely to get a grant, I would think than the other creek, which is mostly underground under than backyards. • It does not matter unless we have a bridge.
• So, to me, that is less likely to be eligible for any sort of recent funding measures that we have seen.

Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• This is an interesting slow moving thing to watch.
• In so many ways, both metaphorically and in reality, is there anything that the public can do to reduce the silt?
• Would a public information campaign do anything? Or is it just silt? Flying dirt particles and dust? Toni Bertolero commented as follows:
• I think it's accumulated for so long that perhaps after it's cleaned up and maybe there can be a public campaign to say, okay, the slate is clean now. Keep it clean. • These are things that you can do to keep the particles out of the creek.

Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• I would appreciate getting input from staff regarding the idea of pulling the sidewalk funds that are needed for the Palm Avenue street improvement out of buildings facilities and infrastructure reserve fund?
• Is that a good idea? If so, what would be our procedure for making that happen, given that we have the vote tonight on the CIP and the budget discussion.

Toni Bertolero commented my understanding that it can pay for sidewalk, is that correct, Ana?

Director Kwong commented as follows:
• I believe so.
• There's not rules in place.
• It's infrastructure.

MOTION:

Councilmember Rich moved and Councilmember Gurney seconded the motion to approve and adopt a resolution approving the Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Year 2022-23 with the following changes:
• Leave parklet as part of CIP
• Fund $25,000 for sidewalk from Building and Infrastructure Reserve Fund Balance Pavement Reserve Fund for Palm Avenue project.

Mayor Slayter called for a roll call vote. City staff conducted a roll call vote.

VOTE:

Ayes: Councilmembers Glass, Gurney, Rich, Vice Mayor Hinton and Mayor Slayter Noes: None

Absent: None
Abstain: None
City Council Action: Approved resolution approving the Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Year 2022-23 with the following changes:
• Leave parklet as part of CIP
• Fund $25,000 for sidewalk from Building and Infrastructure Reserve Fund for Palm Avenue project.

Balance Pavement Reserve Fund
Minute Order Number: 2022-217
Resolution Number: 6453-2022
Mayor Slayter commented on the Palm Avenue, can that be temporarily changed while the design and engineering happens for the new design? Did you check with law enforcement on that? Toni Bertolero commented I think it's already pretty much designed and so, we just have to get it out to bid.

6. Continuation of City Budget Hearing from the June 21st 2022 City Council Meeting - Actions Include:
a. Approval of Resolution Approving and Adopting Fiscal Year 2022-2023 City of Sebastopol Budget; b. Approval and Adoption of Resolution establishing the appropriations limit for the City of Sebastopol for the 2022-2023 pursuant to Article XIII B of the California Constitution; c. Adoption of Resolution Approving Supplemental Law Enforcement Funds (SLEFS) Administrative Services Director Ana Kwong provided the agenda item recommending the City Council approve:
a. Approval of Resolution Approving and Adopting Fiscal Year 2022-2023 City of Sebastopol Budget; b. Approval and Adoption of Resolution establishing the appropriations limit for the City of Sebastopol for the 2022-2023 pursuant to Article XIII B of the California Constitution; c. Adoption of Resolution Approving Supplemental Law Enforcement Funds (SLEFS) Mayor Slayter opened for questions of presenter.

Councilmember Glass commented what was the overall impact of the bargaining agreements, what was the total impact on the budget?
Director Kwong commented as follows:
• Discussed the changes from the MOUs commitments at this point. • All the built in for the bargaining agreement would bring the deficit to $594,000. • The deficit before the changes was $155,000.
• $400,000 is the commitment
City Manager McLaughlin commented it is $438,655.

Vice Mayor Hinton commented as follows:
• Could you go back to the page where the special projects were that we spent the last Council meeting discussing?
• So, my question is, some of the math was not adding up today when we were talking about this police officer position with salary and benefits at $234,000.
• Can you explain where that number came from? What our step process when we hire a new officer? Director Kwong commented as follows:
• It was a request from the department to add a new position or a couple new positions and it was for a position that was requested and the police officer was requested at the higher step. • Because it was planning on having a lateral hiring instead of a brand new officer, so it was budgeted at d step, which Is at the most highest step. There's five steps, that was step four. • Usually with the budget, it, we don't know who we are going to get, so, as far as the benefits concern, it will be fully loaded, classic members for retirement, and family plan for all the medical, that would come with the person.
• So, $95,000 is salary and approximately $134,000 is in benefits.

Vice Mayor Hinton commented what would that step be if we hired at a step as we typically do in the City? Director Kwong commented she would need to review Step A.

Vice Mayor Hinton commented as follows:
• I'm trying reconcile, it seems like we just discussed with Council for a new police hire the opportunity to hire somebody when they were still in the academy.
• So, was that a different, even a different position? Because that was certainly somebody hired at step a? • The Police Chief is in the meeting, so maybe we should go to him? Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• The way it was factored in, we were looking at both new entry level officers and lateral officers in order for us to do this appropriately, it would make more sense to factor in a lateral officer who would likely be coming to us from another agency many of which pay higher than our agencies do. • Just as our newest lateral officer was, it was the situation with that officer. Who came to us from a higher paying agency.
• After you have factored in certificate pay and other incentive pay that the officers get, that's why it was factored in at this.

• The discussion that we had was the addition of an additional officer to our full-time employees taking us from 14 sworn members to 15 sworn members.
• That selection of an officer would be, could be a lateral, or could be an entry level. • May start at step a, or may start as high as step four of five. • So I believe, step d of five steps which the top step being step E. • Then certificates as well.
• So it was not a separate conversation.
• It's the addition of a new officer, but we don't know which we are going to get if we get an entry level, who's brand new or if we get a lateral officer it will depend on who applies and what we have our options of.

Director Kwong commented as follows:
• Step A is $81,267.
• Salary Only
• No Benefits
Vice Mayor Hinton commented are benefits based on the step level or are they based on just a same cost for benefits no matter what step level you are?
Director Kwong commented as follows:
• The benefit might be a small reduction and it's also depending on if the person is coming in as a classic employee, or is it coming in as a PEPRA employee.
• So that will making a huge difference as far as budgeting for benefits.

Vice Mayor Hinton commented is it our company or policy generally to bring in the step a, or certificates or factors coming in to play which then can be approved by yourself? City Manager McLaughlin commented as follows:
• Yes and stated a different way.
• It's exercised appropriately for what the candidate brings to the City. • So, it is often negotiated above step-a, step-a is the default position that if you bring in a new hire or the basic bottom level hire with nothing additional, it would be assumed they would start at step a, we have deviated from that plenty of times where is the person comes in with higher education levels or additional training or from another agency with experience, etcetera. • So, there's no hard and fast rule that you are trying to bring in somebody at an a, that is essentially the default position absent any other factors.

Vice Mayor Hinton commented as a budget subcommittee member for the last five years, I don't recall having budgeted above step a, obviously it's in City manager discretion if somebody brings additional qualifications.

City Manager McLaughlin commented as follows:
• I would just say that yes often times these are budgeted prior to candidates being identified. • After that they have to adjust the budget, like in mid year or what have you. • You bring in somebody in a higher step.

Councilmember Rich commented as follows:

• On this same topic, I had request, a definitional request for the public that is here and initially I would like to know whether we are capturing all expenses related to this officer with this number that we have here?
• We have talked about salary and benefits, but, aren't there additionally recruitment costs and training costs and other expenses?
• Are they bundled in within this $234,000? Or are there additional costs? Director Kwong commented I don't believe the recruitment and training for the additional body has been included in the budget.

City Manager McLaughlin commented any additional expenses you were putting in were not part of the $234,000.

Councilmember Rich commented my follow-up question would be probably to Chief Kilgore or someone, what amount, if we approve this position as we tentatively did it last meeting what additional amount do we need to consider for purposes of those additional costs or do you feel that you can somehow cover those with your existing budget?
Chef Kilgore commented as follows:
• We have a separate section that deals specifically with recruitment and the recruitment costs. • So, this, the salary factoring that was provided by the Administrative Services Director should include salary, and benefits, and any type of incentive pay such as certificates and I believe that the way that it was calculated we calculated that at the step four of five with all the certificates and incentives and benefits that would be applicable, which is what would cover the cost of a new officer coming in as lateral, typically any lateral that we bring in, We start at, depending on the experience, the highest we would start them at typically would be step d with all the benefits as you see, the numbers as given by the administrative services director.

Councilmember Rich commented I just want to make sure that you would have the money you needed for all expenses related to this position if that $234,000 was allocated.

Chief Kilgore commented we believe so, yes.

Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• It sounds like the understanding I'm getting here is that from the City Manager and from you, is that you want to have the discretion to hire a quality officer with the understanding and that's why you are asking for this amount of money at step four.
• But that if you find an officer that qualifies that you make an offer to, and he or she accepts it at a lower level.
• At a category A, B, or C, then this final expense to the City would be less? City Manager McLaughlin commented that is correct.

Councilmember Rich commented my definitional piece that I think would be helpful, if it can be provided in a brief fashion is the difference between the classic and PEPRA. Retirement package, what, what, what makes an individual receive one versus the other and what is the financial impact? Director Kwong commented as follows:

• The classic employees for those who were in the retirement system prior to 2013. • January 2013, there was a reform with retirement structure as a whole. • So, anyone who was in the system prior to that would consider a classic retirement type employees for the City, if you will.
• Anyone who enters in to the service after January 2013, I believe, would be considered and the cost difference for example, I don't remember exactly on top of my head. • The City liability to pay for their CalPERS retirement for classic employees is let's say 20%. • That would be the City cost.
• For those who are in the PEPRA component, it's 13%.

Vice Mayor Hinton commented as follows:
• I'm trying keep it straight because I'm not familiar with the terms. • What you are saying if we hired a let's say, a more experienced officer that was an officer before 2013, they are called a classic and the retirement is at the 20%, is that right? Director Kwong stated that is correct.

Vice Mayor Hinton commented nine years plus in policing would come in probably at the level 4 or d and then, somebody newer would be the 13.

Councilmember Glass commented did the Council discuss, and how does this fit in to the overall staffing assessment?
Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• We did talk about that at some length and we lamented the fact that the staffing study quite literally arrived in draft form, I think it was the very next day following the meeting. The budget discussion Council meeting.
• So, the ad hoc committee which was comprised of Vice Mayor Hinton and myself as well as relevant staff members have the draft and we are busy looking at it and the idea that we were making a staffing decision in sort of a vacuum absent input from the draft, even though the draft literally just had been published, the, the police department under different leadership over the last few years. • I cannot remember a single budget that did not come in with a request for at least one additional sworn officer.
• You know that and the staffing needs of the department, they are at razor thin margin and you add in officers who were off work for medical reasons for other reasons, to not have the coverage of the sworn officer to cover the other needs is needed.
• The Council made the recommendation for the single position absent input from the staffing study, understanding that historically it's something that has been needed. • Maybe that was where I should have, what I should have said from the start. • So, I think I have captured the bulk of what we talked about there.

Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• Just going to add one point, Mr. Mayor, and I think also in our conversation about that extra, the additional position with the chief, there's some optimism that having an additional position will reduce the total overtime, we will have a regular person on the job, which means fewer injuries and more opportunity for vacation time, to balance work life and all that you said, we are hoping the overtime budget will be reduced in some way to allow this hire.

• Without so much of affect to the budget.

Vice Mayor Hinton commented as follows:
• I want to point out to Councilmember Glass, if you looked at the budget and as Councilmember Gurney just said, we were down in FY 19 20 at overtime within a range, if we could add the officer and get overtime in line, we would be about even. Maybe not quite even. • That's the commit that we had from the Chief is to reduce overtime because we would have this additional officer to help fill in some of that where right now our officers are being tapped for the extra overtime.
• So, that's, you can kind of see it in the budget trend. • Just wanted to point that out.

Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• I know that the ad hoc staffing committee has not, has not really gotten in to the substance of the work. • But as I look at the, the numbers that we have been presented with by Director Kwong, we have a budget at this point, which reduces our reserve to 15% if we in fact cover everything that's in the proposed budget plus our obligations as a result of negotiations. • Plus, the items that we tentatively approved out of the City wide discussion list. • I'm personally committed to not going below that 15% reserve limit. • So, my question to the staffing committee is whether, and you may be unable to answer this question. • But, whether you feel it will hinder the work of the staffing committee to have us drop down to a 15% reserve in our budget at this point?
• Given the staffing assessment committee is I assume, I'm not part of the committee, looking at the need for possible additional positions, staffing needs.
• Which I assume would cost money, do we as a City Council need to consider setting aside, keeping some amount above our 15% reserve as available funding to cover those possible projects that the staffing committee might bring to the City Council?
Director Kwong commented as follows:
• I think that additional reserves are always prudent and being right down to where our policy of 15% that's not even working towards 15% is the bare minimum, per Council policy, and whether or not the additional head room and a larger reserve is devoted to staffing or a sidewalk or a parklet all the decisions kind of get made somewhat in a vacuum.
• Yes it makes good sense to plan ahead and it's the reason we have the staffing study and I absolutely guarantee that that staffing study is recommending increasing staff numbers. • What that looks like is the work of the ad hoc and coming back with a report.

City Manager McLaughlin commented as follows:
• Just wanted to add my two cents on that particular topic if I could. • There's two factors with the staffing study one is to determine the most pressing needs, bearing in mind the committee has not reviewed this or made any of the determinations, just telling you my view. • That, you will determine which are the higher priority needs in the City staff wise, and devise a timeline with a proposal back to the full Council to incorporate those recommendations in a sequence. • Obviously if you are going to maintain your reserve at the policy limit and we do not, and if we don't get unforeseen increased revenues and we could.
• But if we don't, then you will just be delaying the implementation of those decisions until the budget can afford it.

• So, I think the committee can do the bulk of its work without them saying, and we propose you hire next week.
• I don't think that's the anticipation of the ad hoc.
• I think what she was getting at was okay, if we are down to 15% and we are doing this additional hire it presupposes to making the response to the staffing assessment study, other than to provide an additional police officer for the next fiscal year.
• We are looking at the staffing assessment, and backing ourselves in to a corner. • If we are going to if we are making a 15% reserve down to 15% reserve. • There's no way we are going to add that is exactly what we are doing. • You know, the Council is so aware of the budget situation and the limitation of the budget and I think we all have a sense of staffing needs, across the City.
• Certainly not as detailed as what the staffing study shows. • But we are all aware of titles doing the work of two people, and it's not difficult to extrapolate that across all departments.

Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• I'm not sure I see it exactly that way.
• We are swapping the budget for an overtime employee.
• We are asked for one more sworn officer year after year, and I'm seeing it as separate from the staffing assessment survey, which, now that it's here, and we have an ad hoc committee reviewing it, I don't anticipate that we will hear recommendation from that group until probably September. • We have one more meeting in July, and we still have not finished the budget of one meet engine August. • It's being realistic and if there's recommendations to hire, it may roll to a mid year budget review and it may be, as the City Manager said, something that we need to delay. • I have to say, as the Councilmember who brought the reserves down to zero in the recession, we want to keep the employees and keep the City functioning at minimal level with the quality of professional services, we survived that and brought it up to 50% and the tremendous reserve that it is. • So I think there has to be a flexibility for situations of not emergency but just strategic decisions about who we need to do the work and how much work we have and when we have to put them in play • If we are at 15%, doesn't make me nervous and if we go below that, it doesn't make me nervous. • I think we have to have confidence in our decision making and in our setting priorities. • The police position is one we keep hearing about and we keep hearing about, and the staffing changes we keep hearing about it.
• We will have to dive in to it and do it and put the money to it. We are going to have to.

Councilmember Glass commented as follows:
• I just wanted to say, had we had the Council in making this commitment to an additional officer, and the commitment that we would be likely reducing overtime, have we asked for tracking of that and asking that we report on how much we actually are reducing overtime? • Over the next year, once a quarter or something, if this is really having the impact that we think it's going to have?
Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• I think that once we have the person off of training as a solo officer,. • So when we change from the ten hour shift to a 12 hour shift in the reduction that was produced from that.
• But, I would not expect it to happen until after January 1 of 2023.

Councilmember Glass commented as follows:
• I am just saying that it may be, interesting exercise because I know we have kind of gone through this overtime thing.
• We went through this with another department where we thought we were going to have reductions in overtime by investing in something and it did not entirely pan out, but I think it would be a good idea, if we just started tracking if amount of overtime per department.

Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• There's always the things that factor in that we just can't predict. • So, who knows.
• As you mentioned in the last Council meeting, at one point in the last month, I had two sergeants, two officers and a dispatcher that were all off on injury release. • So those are things that we cannot predict.
• But it's certainly something that we can do hypothetical comparisons that if we were only operating with the current number of officers that we have now, versus what we would be operating with, with the additional officer, you would see what the savings was overall.

Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• I just want to offer some information, I know we are still in question process here. • But I want to make sure that we understand that it's not likely it will be a wash. • We have FY 19-20 I'm looking at the budget book.
• In FY 19-20, the overtime for the police department was $230,000 approximately. • That was projected at $338,000.
• That was reflected in the comments of Chief Kilgore, it does not mean that we should not fund the position.
• I want to make sure that people are aware of that.

Mayor Slayter re-opened the public hearing from the June 21st 2022 City Council Meeting.

Kyle Falbo commented as follows:
• Police overtime is competing the allocated amount, last year it was more than double crunching the number on the police budget percentage of the overall budget. • Considering the MOU increase to salary on the department, with the largest FTE head count, if Council would approve the single requested position, this would bring the percentage to over 49.5%. • I find it interesting to find that's being used as an opportunity to make a lateral hire with specifics on how the decision for a lateral hire would decrease the overtime. • Finally where in the conversation on providing mental health crisis workers working in conjunction with the police
• The hundreds of thousands of dollars spent annually that we have not seen this present in even a draft staffing needs assessment that would have been covered so far.

Linda Berg commented as follows:
• Some of the City's ill advised policies are causing a lot of unnecessary work for City employees • For example, a few years ago I spoke with Ben who some of you may remember was a police officer, he had a degree in Chinese, very nice guy, he was voted the officer of the year and he told me a few years

ago, at the time, the City needed two more officers, and your policies are not making it better by not recognizing the building and the development is going to increase the problems here. • Somebody, needs to be done.
• These people we need to have more staff, we need to have better policies • We my have if Public Works if you would not done the stupid thing with the wireless water meters in the first place. All of the public records requests.
• Police Offer Ben quit, he is somewhere else. He was great. • You are making it, this, this City, a less than desirable place to work, I think. • It's embarrassing when our Police Chief has to do administrative work and stuff like that. • Use your imagination, raising money for the fire and the police departments in the City.

Suzanne Lande commented as follows:
• You are probably all going to think this is really an odd comment coming from me, but I think we need of which ever category of police officers someone with more experience and definitely somebody with mental health experience.
• That could benefit our law enforcement, I compare it to when I worked in, in nursing, it was what the person could bring, and I think mental health is incredibly important and it could be the category a or the other category, but I hope there's some input from the public about what's wanted. • Qualities
Councilmember Rich commented I know there's people here attending who likely want to make comments on community grants and or other item on the City wide discussion list, is the intent to have all of those topics commented on now?
Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• We can take public comment on items that individual Councilmembers need to recuse on. • It would have no bearing on the discussion for those individuals.

Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• I'm sorry, I was not clear.
• I know that, for instance, Mary Lou Schmidt is here from Gravenstein Health Action Commission and she'd likely want to comment on the community grant amount.

Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• Yes, this is public comment for the entire budget.
• Including community benefit grants and everything else. • Just to make sure that I have it correct about public comment on recused items, City attorney, did I accurately state that?
City Manager McLaughlin commented as follows:
• Mayor are you saying that you believe that those Councilmembers that need to abstain can remain for public comment? Mayor Slayter stated yes.
• I would advise that you separate out the comments from the items you need to recuse yourself from and log off zoom and we will call you back.
• It is not just part of the discussion. The conflict of interest covers any and all participation.

• It's sometimes difficult to figure out how to present that in a agenda item like this, it may be useful to separate out community grants for its own public comment and when you are doing that, saver the ones that you have to abstain from to do at the end of that.

Mayor Slayter commented so, the way that we will handle this, we will have public comment for all items in the budget including community benefit grants with the exception of the rebuilding together Sebastopol and the Sebastopol center for the arts items which will have their own individual public comment portions.

I think that will work.

Mary Lou Schmidt commented as follows:
• President of the Health Action Coalition.
• Which is a fairly new nonprofit that exists entirely with volunteer hours and grants. • This coalition, as a coalition, we have a lofty vision, which is West County being a healthy and safe place to live, work, play and belong.
• We are using the model of a self healing community, which has been a success in Washington State and has improved the rates of social problems within various communities. • I think they used it in 42 different communities.
• I'm here to support the grant, to keep it at that level. • We are at a great point right now in that we can hire a, we need data for the assessment to continue our work.
• We need grants to continue our work.
• We have a one grant and we are working with the schools for that. • This would allow us to hire a consultant to bring in all of the assessment that we need to figure out which, where our next steps are.
• The perfect timing is that the West County health clinic has hired a consultant to do just that from the health point of view, and that we can piggy back to that with the same person that will have a background in West County, and in the main issue is that West County is not always pulled out from Sonoma County or the 101 corridor.
• That's what we are trying to do.
• So, it's just my hope that our funding, or that our grant can be granted for the entire 10,000.

Kyle Falbo commented as follows:
• I will be quick, I'm hoping that the notes can be taken in some way and some of the things can be addressed
• Remove Cittaslow and demonstrate the benefit that's providing. • Dedicated sonic fiber Internet for Council at five times the cost of consumer fiber. Five K, explain. • Detail on the $250,000 in litigation expenses from the 21/22 budget. • Holly Hansen contract $ 52,000 in the manager's budget. Explain. • Estimated administrative services contract for last year was more than double what was allocated, please explain.
• Planning. Double the contract services allocated for last year. Please explain. • Engineering costs of increased by nearly 50% in just two years since the retirement of our engineering manager and providing $70,000 specifically for benefits to additional contract services beyond the contract engineering firm. Please explain?
Hearing no further comments, Mayor Slayter closed the public hearing.

Mayor Slayter responded to public comments as follows:
• Chief Kilgore, I know you are doing a deep dive in to the world of mental health professionals and how that dove tales with emergency service provision, can you let us know where that stands? Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• It's scheduled to come back to Council with an update of December, 2022 to see where things stand with the Santa Rosa police department and their current co-responder ultimate response that they are utilizing and provide a more effective and efficient way for us to respond to mental health crisis. • After they have had the opportunity to have the program established and see how they are looking at their expansion of the program.

Qualities of applicants:

Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• I think the Council is aware of what community value in sort of a nonspecific way, what the City holds as community values.
• Certainly last year, and the year before, during a lot of the social justice movements we had many, many discussions about what it means, it's difficult as somebody to put down in a job description. • It's the qualities that we are looking for and attitude and ability over experience you sort of get to pick.

Chief Kilgore commented as follows:
• Every time we have a hiring process, we have a member of the community that is usually a community member who is in some type of leadership role within the community and within the City, and not affiliated with any type of elected official or any of that. • It's usually typically a City leader.
• Some examples have been the executive director of the chamber of commerce. The executive director of the senior and the community centers as well.

Cittaslow
Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• It's a program that the City has been involved with for a number of years. • It is in a lot of ways a marketing tool, it gets us out in to the global community in a lot of ways • It appears to be an additional fee that we pay, but I'm not privy to the benefits that we receive for that fee.
• There's not a liaison position, I don't think there's been one for years. • It's a membership fee for the international organization.

Councilmember Glass commented as follows:
• I'm going to say what I know about it and it's that's an international organization that promotes relationships and international travel and etcetera, to the compatible cities. • A long time ago at the instigation of Councilmember Gurney. • We became members and it's committed to arts in the community, healthy food, and all of these things that have been kind of our City brand.
• So, what we get by still being affiliated in it, is we are listed in a directory of compatible cities. • It gets us a certain audience of European visitors.

City Hall/Library Landscape Project:

Superintendent Del Prete commented as follows:

• $5,000 library landscape project.
• At a request for some additional maintenance was a specialized planting at the library and City Hall landscape.
• I did reach out to a local botanical agency for quotes to maintain that landscaping. • The quote came in high. I tried to negotiate it down to $6,000. • I'm trying get additional landscape help there.
• Working with them, trying to haul the debris away for them and lessen the contract as much as we can in house with Public Works staff.

Litigation Budget:

City Manager McLaughlin commented as follows:
• Our City like all small cities, I mean, all small cities, utilize outside counsel, outside specialized counsel where necessary when issues are in litigation or involved personnel matters. • We have a number of those that are discussed with the City Council in closed session. • Those include personnel matters with discipline and Horizon Shine by neighbors. • It includes the use of the City well and attending meetings at the water quality control board and public record act requests in litigated matters.
• It is my belief having an in house staff member City Attorney that we are saving a considerable amount of money.
• We safe money by not having that arrangement in my opinion. • So that is it in a nutshell, litigation expense varies from year no year, honestly depending on what the City Council is doing.
• And who may take exception to that for everything from approval of City Council, and they take the potential to go in to litigation.
• So, as you see over the years, they go back far enough and we have years with zero. • We have typically been more or less, bullet the Council activities especially with regard to our unhoused population and to Morris Street situation, definitely, caused a higher expense this year among other reasons.

Community outreach coordinator
Councilmember Glass commented as follows:
• One of the questions was regarding mental health worker and our police officers and of course the police department that, who's job is to get unhoused people, people with social problems connected to mental health services and the County and they have as we, and I explained to the public on Thursday, there's been a service that has been provided by the County and by County health and agencies.

City staff commented as follows:
• Community outreach coordinator that is a contract position that the City has looked at for several years. • The community firms do all of the public outreach for the City, utilizing social media, City update, press releases.
• Things that come up outside the normal contract.
• So, it is a $40,000 contract and it does have $12,000 additional special event funds if needed and some of it goes towards if there's a emergency that we did all the COVID and what are the special weekly community news letters, special media and Facebook, and Instagram • Also graphic design services, it's a wide, wide range of things.

Contracts/Administrative Services

Director Kwong commented as follows:
• Those are the temporary personnel that the department continues to have vacancies on the positions. • You would see a reduction in salary, not budgeted, but the actual comes in lower than what was allocated and the contract services to cover the positions is charged to professional services. • That is what it means. Marin I.T., and the cybersecurity. Human Resources for special disability cases where it's really specialized.

Planning Department Contracts
Director Svanstrom commented as follows:
• I would love very much to get that back down to where it was. I was working with 50% of my staffing. • Granted I only have two people in my department, but I have had one person absent since April of '21 in one form or another.
• So I have had to use planning, and she is a graduate student and a planning technician in 1-2 days a week, filling in for staff that is not here in my budget, you will see my salary and benefits are $70,000 less than what the budget is.
• It could be contract services.
• All of that overage is generally the on call staffing $60-65,000.

Engineer Contracts
City Manager McLaughlin commented as follows:

They covered the territory before about the use of an engineering firm, full service engineering firm. • We were unable to successfully recruit for that.
• I would disagree with the statement that was made that somehow pavement work etcetera was delayed over the non-recruitment of an engineering manager employee, I don't believe that was the case. • I think it was primarily budget reasons. Also, affected by the pandemic. • So, I think we have addressed those other issues before City Council Discussion and/or Deliberations:

Vice Mayor Hinton commented as follows:
• I'm going to jump in on a couple of things that, now that we are to this section. • One if we are going to consider the new police position, I pulled up some information that is our current City policy.
• It's stated salary upon initial appointment with advancement within ranges. • Basically it says, that all of our positions are hired in or budgeted at step a, but the City Manager may authorize an advanced step placement above a, based the qualified candidates' experience. • I just feel very strongly that we should consider this position budgeted at step a, I was unaware that this number even though I sit on the budget subcommittee was coming in at step D. • I think we really need to be consistent and fair to all of our department heads, and it's very important to me to budget at the appropriate level for new hires until we have a employee targeted. • I wanted to kick off with that.
• I also am willing to address, we did hear from a member of the public on the budget subcommittee's recommendations for health action.
• We asked how we funded the money last year and how it was spent. • It felt like, even, I think, and I don't want to paraphrase what the committee did, but basically, it went to staff support it seemed like.

• I did pull up my notes and the money this year is, was requested for consultant at a rate of $85 an hour which would, I believe, be the same consultant that West County community services is using to pull out some sort of report, report out of a master report.
• This organization is not getting any support from the County. • A lot of their work is aimed at a broader source than just the City of Sebastopol. • That is why the recommendation came in at that.
• I just had those two comments as before we decide on the final budget here.

Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• One, I can address the topic of the community grant issue involving health action coalition, first, I just wanted to remind you, Mayor Slayter, that you have specified that public comment would be invited on the items the topics that you and or Councilmember Glass needed to recuse yourselves on. • I hate to extend this. But nonetheless, I thought it would be worthwhile reminding you that still needs to be invited, that's the one comment and the second one is the amount requested was $10,000. • It was a bit unclear exactly how that $10,000 was going to be used to the two of us who were considering the request.
• There was an underlying West County community health centers. • A data collection project, the coalition would build on it, but it was pretty clear that they would be doing a thorough project.
• It was unclear what it would purchase, other than $187,000 -- so it's a project that perhaps we as a City Council might want to look at later when there's more substance to the project request. • So, that was our thought on that request.

Councilmember Glass commented as follows:
• I just want to mention that and Councilmember Rich said it's West County Community Services is actually West County community health services that is collecting the data. • I believe what the point was, was that, and the point of them doing that we know what our needs are. • You get funding for the services that need to happen. • To advocate, they can speak for themselves better than me.

Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• Is this the time to ask questions about the community grant • Does that cover your conflict area?
Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• That's the direction that the conversation is headed that we need to get in to community benefit grants. • Let's go ahead and focus on that with the, let's do all of them, with the exception of the two that need to be off limits.
• So, I will start at the top of the list and we will just work through them and we can ask questions as we get to them.
• We have a series community project and the amount requested is $8,125 and the amount proposed is $8,125.
• I will preface this conversation with the reminder to the Council and the community that the Council does have a policy.
• The community benefit grant in the neighborhood of 1% of the annual budget. • So, that is a number that we have.
• It's sort of got derived holistically over a number of years and it was codified and made more normal.

• That's where we are on the bottom line.
• It's the under pinning of the conversation.

The Council discussed the Community Benefit Grants as follows:

Councilmember Gurney commented for items which were addressed by the budget subcommittee and they did not grant the full amount, we talked already about health action and another was Mr. Music, took it from $20,000 to $10,000. I was just wondering for the three other items, number 6, 9 and 11, why the committee made those reductions or denials?
Vice Mayor Hinton commented as follows:
• We allocated them $8,000 to work on surveys last year. We discovered, it does not seem they could get funding.
• We kind of felt like as Councilmember Rich said, that helped to get them a smaller amount and see if they can get what they need to do with that and go from there. • Mr. Music asked for more money because she decided he could get more money. Wwe specifically said why more money? Maybe you should ask your other sponsors for more money and then graciously said I would love the same support as before. So that's what we recommended. • I think the sea serpent asks for more money. Also, I think they asked for more than we recommended. • Them and the lion's club as we know, took away the ability for fundraising. • We felt they both do good works.
• They both are funding either low income in the case of sea serpents and local nonprofits and the Gravenstein Lion's Club, it was a good opportunity to give them, I think, another year of some additional subside, I think they both have fundraisers planned in the future. • We asked those questions and so, those were why the funding came in for those. • The teacher one we talked about them training teachers. • They knew the City funded things and they started to apply for the grant process. • They have other sources to get funding and they don't Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• They had trained some Sebastopol teachers.
• The primary, one of our, actually, our primary concern as we discuss this particular request is that this is a group that really trains teachers from a broad regional area. • So, we were really focused on, well which teachers are actually from Sebastopol schools? • Their reach was broader and they were direct about it. • There was a sense that they were just taking advantage of other funding opportunities. • We could not really, it was the nexus between Sebastopol and the money being granted that caused concern.

Vice Mayor Hinton commented as follows:
• They learned that Sebastopol had the community grants and that was why they originally submitted and continued to submit, because if you are getting funded then, you would continue to ask for funding. • So, anyway, we just were trying to narrow it in. We talked about the 1% and I know we came in lower. • But I think the spirit of funding these, is to fund it at 1%. • If we don't feel passionate we don't have to fill it to 1%. • We know that our budget was going to be challenged this year and so we wanted to recommend projects that we felt we should fund not just because their application was put forth.

• I also would just make sure that the City Council and the public at large remains aware of the Council policy.
• The Council policy on community benefit grants which shows up on page 57 of the budget booklet is direct.
• It's asking it’s indicating that it has to, the money needs to fund local nonprofit organizations. • That it has to address an under met ongoing community need. Demonstrate a long-term impact quality outcome. Benefit large cross section of the community.
• That was one of the issues with the garden project.
• When we looked at the factors, we ended up sorting it out in the way you see in the proposed budget. • I feel confident that we made the right proposal.
• But we recognized that it's a City Council decision of five and honestly that is one of the reasons why we did not push It all the way to the 1%.
• I would to add, it was done in public forum.
• These items and our entire budget was discussed at length in many, many public meetings.

Mayor Slayter and Councilmember Glass recused themselves for discussion of community benefit grants for Center for the Arts and Rebuilding Together.

Vice Mayor Hinton commented as follows:
• We will talk about rebuilding together center request and the center for the arts. • It's item 100-1001-4820.

Vice Mayor asked or questions. There were none.

Vice Mayor Hinton opened for public comment. There was none.

Mayor Slayter and Councilmember Glass returned to the meeting.

Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• We will do the balance of the budget.
• We have the community, well, to go in order, we have three signed MOUs with contractual obligations that we are object gated to respect.
• We are contracted. That's what contract means. There's not a lot of latitude in staffing costs due to that. • We discussed the community wide needs list at some length at our previous meeting, • Where that lands us, the Administrative Services Director has had the staff report that showed the level of reserve, which honestly the more useful number than the dollar figures. • It's a accurate barometer of where we are as far as our financial health. • That 15% for me, makes me nervous but at the same time, I see what the benefit of using the reserves that we have built up over time for this reason.
• We knew that we had three labor groups coming in with new MOUs that would need to be negotiated and I think that my personal opinion of those contracts is that what was negotiated is fair. • It is reasonable. It is appropriate.
• We need to compensate our professional staff, professionally. I think that's what the contracts do. • We have the, the community wide needs assessment. There's not a lot of fat or fluff on that list. • There's a lot of necessity that is noted there.
• So, while I'm not super comfortable with that 15% number.

• I wish it was say, 5% higher to Councilmember Gurney's point earlier in the meeting, I could probably be okay with the 15% knowing that our projection for revenues is conservative, it's always conservative, and there's just a lot of good work that can get done with this budget.

Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• Just want to make sure that we understand the chart.
• When you look over to the far right, it, I think our reserves are at 37.5% total. • Because we can include in that number, the signed reserves. • Is that the right way to read it.

Staff stated that is correct.

Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• This is a point, Councilmember Glass, you have made many times. • You know, so we have sort of like this operating reserves and we have all the other reserves that we are saving and building and building.
• It's an important context to put in the 15%.
• Maybe you will feel better.
• The 37.5 is a much better number than 15.

Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• What we are also doing in that community wide list is there's a meaning perfectly transfer to the retirement and reserve which, again that’s, that's accounting. • That's just moving money from one account to the other. That is not an expenditure. • It will be an expenditure when that money gets used to lop the purse mountain off. • It's accounting at this point.
• To your point, the 37% is a real number.

Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• I just want to close the loop there on the sidewalk on Palm Avenue. • That is included in the number.
• Right?
Mayor Slayter commented as follows:
• I believe that it was going to be new out of the infrastructure reserve. • So, do we have to add that project to this budget?
• That's what I'm trying to check. Because we talked about it about two hours ago. • The $25,000 would have to go in here.
• So, instead of $236, 200, it will be $236,200 plus $25,000.

Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• I want to make sure if you pass something that you understand is the sidewalk project in? • I believe the consensus was to do that.
• Discussed the City wide needs lists
Vice Mayor Hinton commented as follows:

• We did talk about this $60,000 number being spread across departments for all kinds of grant writing including the Caltrans grant, so I just wanted to, since one of our Councilmembers was not here, I think we penciled in $60,000, we were not sure it was going to take 60, Councilmember Rich and I talked to each department head about how much they thought they might need for customized grants and it was not up at $60,000.
• So, I think that is a number that may be should be penciled in, but you maybe it could be lower. Or we don't expect to spend it all.
• I think the City Manager really has to keep close tab on what the department heads are requesting for grant writing by department.
• So, and then, I stated earlier, and I feel extremely strong about that we should follow our own City policy. • Hire in the police officer position at step a, and if they end up being a lateral or a possess the qualifications that, that really falls per our policy under the City manager's direction, to approve, so, if we did that, that number according to my calculations would change to $220,267, it's not a huge change, it's more, we should follow our own policy and We should treat all department heads, I believe, the same. • Hiring in what our policy said.

Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• I think it's a good point to talk about following our own policy and we heard from Toni Bertolero said this evening that we have a policy of dedicating $150,000 to the pavement fund each year. • I don't think it's in the budget. I think we should add it in for Public Works as we are forever behind. • Our quality index went from 41 to 41. We will never catch up if we never do anything about it. • I think I'm right, it's not been added in to the budget as a contribution according to the policy. • I think we need do that.
• For instance, the idea was $30,000 on the pension transfer and it got $100,000. • So, I don't know if we have a policy of $150,000 to pavement and we put zero. • It's just not consistent for me, in terms of following our policy and degrading our every day quality of life.

Vice Mayor Hinton commented as follows:
• I'm going to jump in here and say, we were not presented that option, and so, it was not on my radar. • So, and not being here when a department head does not put it in their request, it just got missed and I do agree with you, I don't know that I'm comfortable going below the 15%. • But, if we carved some out of the grant writer and dropped that maybe to $40,000 carved out, down to step a for the police position all of a sudden, we have got maybe close to 55 and we can still stay at the 15%.
• I mean, I definitely think we should do a transfer over. It's where is the money coming from? Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• I am not comfortable going below 15%, I feel that the $60,000 is important for the grant writer. • We need to take a good shot at determining whether that grant writing opportunity can be fully taken advantage of.
• If it's not, we can shift money away at mid year.
• I would like to see $60,000 in the line item. In the issue of paving. • My question would be, if it's important to the City Council, do we have the option of shifting from buildings, falls, and infrastructure reserve fund which currently has $763,000. • Some amount of money that could go in to the repaving fund. • I would much prefer to see that happen, than to see us pick away at the items on the City wide discussion list.

• As to the police officer position, I guess, what I would like to know, if you don't mind, Mayor, is from our City Manager.
• If a category a position funding is approved here, and the qualified candidate turns out to be category A, which I think will cost 12 or so thousand or more dollars, will our City manager accommodate that request.
• How do you do that? Would he have to come back to us? • So, City Manager, can you help us understand how difficult that might make your decision making in terms of the qualified applicant?
City Manager McLaughlin commented as follows:
• I think I would treat it the same as any other time.
• Vice Mayor Hinton did correctly summarize that again, the default is at the a-step. • If there's an employee at the higher step, it makes the decision to agree and bring the person in at the higher step or disagree and not bring the person in at the higher step. • If it's not budgeted, then we would have to adjust it, for instance, mid year budget. • To cover that, because it was not previously budgeted.

Councilmember Rich commented as follows:
• So, in light of those comments, I would be in support of the proposal that Vice Mayor Hinton made to fund for the police department the position requested but that added amount that would cover the individual as a category a initial employee allowing our City Manager to make his usual decision to hire somebody at the higher level
City staff commented as follows:
• There are three actions can go with the budget, one is to approve and adopt the budget for fiscal year 22/23 and the second resolution would be adopting the resolution establishing the appropriation's limit and adoption of the resolution with the police enforcement fund.

City Manager McLaughlin commented as follows:

Motion would also:
• correct the various line items.
• adjust the City wide discussion list, police officer position. • transfer $100,000 to the pavement fund from the infrastructure reserve and make those motions prior to taking the three actions with the City clerk.

MOTION:

Councilmember Rich moved and Councilmember Gurney seconded the motion to approve:
• Reduce Dollar Amount from $234,000 to $185,000
• Hiring of Police Officer at Step A Entry Level (unless otherwise approved by the City Manager per Personnel Rules and Regulations)
• Annual Salary: $185,000 in total at A Step (Classic member/Family Costs) Mayor Slayter called for a roll call vote. City staff conducted a roll call vote.

VOTE:

Ayes: Councilmembers Glass, Gurney, Rich, Vice Mayor Hinton and Mayor Slayter Noes: None

Absent: None
Abstain: None
MOTION:

Councilmember Rich moved and Councilmember Glass seconded the motion to approve:
• $150,000 from Buildings, Facilities and Infrastructure Reserve Fund be transferred to the Pavement Reserve Fund Restricted amount only for pavement
Discussion:

Councilmember Gurney commented as follows:
• Recommendation as to priority for spending money on pavement repair • Priority of street repairs
Mayor Slayter called for a roll call vote. City staff conducted a roll call vote.

VOTE:

Ayes: Councilmembers Glass, Gurney, Rich, Vice Mayor Hinton and Mayor Slayter Noes: None

Absent: None
Abstain: None
MOTION:

Mayor Slayter moved and Vice Mayor Hinton seconded the motion to approve:
• Expenditure Transfer of BIF $25,000 to Sidewalk Portion of Palm Avenue Mayor Slayter called for a roll call vote. City staff conducted a roll call vote.

VOTE:

Ayes: Councilmembers Glass, Gurney, Rich, Vice Mayor Hinton and Mayor Slayter Noes: None

Absent: None
Abstain: None
MOTION:

Councilmember Gurney moved and Councilmember Rich seconded the motion to approve:
• Community Benefit Grants (Center for the Arts/Rebuilding Together) Vice Mayor Hinton 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 and Mayor Slayter
Abstain: None
MOTION:

Councilmember Rich moved and Councilmember Glass seconded the motion to approve:

a. Approval of Resolution Approving and Adopting Fiscal Year 2022-2023 City of Sebastopol Budget as amended in the previous motions;
b. Approval and Adoption of Resolution establishing the appropriations limit for the City of Sebastopol for the 2022-2023 pursuant to Article XIII B of the California Constitution; c. Adoption of Resolution Approving Supplemental Law Enforcement Funds (SLEFS) Mayor Slayter called for a roll call vote. City staff conducted a roll call vote.

VOTE:

Ayes: Councilmembers Glass, Gurney, Rich, Vice Mayor Hinton and Mayor Slayter Noes: None

Absent: None
Abstain: None
City Council Action:

Minute Order Number: 2022-218
Resolution Number(s): 6454-2022
6455-2022
6456-2022
REGULAR CALENDAR AGENDA ITEMS (DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION): NONE CITY COUNCIL/CITY STAFF REPORTS/COMMUNICATIONS/ANNOUNCEMENTS/FUTURE MEETINGS:

7. City Manager-Attorney/City Clerk Reports: There were none.

8. 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) There were none.

9. Council Communications Received. There were none.

10. Future City Meeting Dates/Events (Informational Only): (See City Web Site for Up-to-Date Meeting Dates/Times)

ADJOURNMENT OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING
July 5, 2022 City Council Regular Meeting will be adjourned to the July 19, 2022 City Council Meeting, 6:00 pm, Zoom Virtual Meeting Format
Mayor Slayter adjourned the July 5, 2022 City Council meeting at 11:10 pm to the July 19, 2022 City Council Meeting, 6:00 pm, Zoom Virtual Meeting Format.

Respectfully Submitted,
Mary Gourley
Assistant City Manager/Attorney/City Clerk