Sebastopol City Council
January 21, 2025

7120 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol, California 95472 Tel. 707.823.1153 Fax. 707 823 1135 www.cityofsebastopol.gov
City Council
Mayor Stephen Zollman
Vice Mayor Jill McLewis
Councilmember Phill Carter
Councilmember Neysa Hinton
Councilmember Sandra Maurer
City Manager
Don Schwartz
[email protected]
Assistant City Manager/City Clerk, MMC
Mary Gourley
[email protected]

CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MINUTES FOR MEETING OF JANUARY 21, 2025

As Approved by the City Council at their regular meeting of February 4, 2025

Please note that minutes of meetings are not meant to be verbatim minutes and are meant to be the City’s record of a summary of actions that took place at the meeting. The vote/action is the required information of the meeting actions that took place. Approved minutes are available on the City Council Meetings page.

Meeting to be held in Person and Virtual /Remote Participation In Person: 425 Morris Street, Sebastopol, CA 95472

CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Zollman called the meeting to order at 5:05 pm ROLL CALL:

Present: Mayor Stephen Zollman
Vice Mayor Jill McLewis
Councilmember Phill Carter
Councilmember Neysa Hinton
Councilmember Sandra Maurer

Absent: None
Staff: City Manager Don Schwartz
Assistant City Manager/City Clerk Mary Gourley
City Attorney Alex Mog
Community Development Director Emi Theriault
Police Chief Ron Nelson
SALUTE TO THE FLAG : Mayor Zollman led the salute to the flag.

REMOTE PARTICIPATION UNDER AB 2449 (IF NEEDED): To consider and take action on any request from a Council Member to participate in a meeting remotely due to Just Cause or Emergency Circumstances pursuant to AB 2449 (Government Code Section 549539(f)). Assembly Bill 2302 (2024) (“AB 2302”) revises rules for when members of local legislative bodies may participate in meetings remotely. Specifically, it amends the number of meetings that may be attended remotely for just cause and under emergency circumstances and clarifies the definition of the term “meeting,” for purposes of remote attendance. AB 2302 caps the number of remote meetings a member can attend each year based on the frequency of a legislative body’s meetings: Five meetings per year for those meeting twice a month.

All Councilmembers were present in person.

The Council conducted the following interviews:

INTERVIEWS:

1. Agenda Item: Conduct Interview for One Opening on the Public Arts Committee: Term: December 2024 to December 2028.
5:00 pm Interview with Gavin Waters
Reference Order Number: 2025-016

2. Agenda Item: Conduct Interviews for Two Openings on the Planning Commission: Term: December 2024 to December 2028
5:15 pm Interview with Paul Fritz
5:30 pm Interview with Jennifer E. Koelemeijer
Reference Order Number: 2025-017

3. Agenda Item: Conduct Interviews for Three Openings on the Design Review Board/Tree board: Term:

December 2024 to December 2026
5:45 pm Interview with Lynn Deedler
6 :00 pm Interview with Marshall Balfe
6 :15 pm Interview with Christian D. Macke
Reference Order Number: 2025-018
PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS/INTRODUCTIONS: None
STATEMENTS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Conflicts of interest may arise in situations where a public official deliberating towards a decision, has an actual or potential financial interest in the matter before the Council. In accordance with state law, an actual conflict of interest is one that would be to the private financial benefit of a public official, a relative or a business with which the Councilmember is associated. A potential conflict of interest is one that could be to the private financial benefit of a Councilmember, a relative or a business with which the Councilmember is associated. A Councilmember must publicly announce potential and actual conflicts of interest, and, in the case of actual conflict of interest, must refrain from participating in debate on the issue or from voting on the issue and must remove themselves from the dais.

There were no stated conflicts of interest.

PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA (FIRST COMMENT PERIOD): Up to Twenty (20) Minute Time Limit (Two Minutes for up to ten speakers). Additional public comment will be held at the end of the discussion and action items for up to an additional twenty (20) minutes. Mayor has discretion to allow for additional time beyond the 20 minutes allocated for public comment dependent upon the subject matter or number of speakers.

Process for calling on Speakers: Mayor or designee shall ask for public comment as follows: Speakers to be called on in an alternate manner (One speaker in person to be called on first; then one speaker remote to be called on second with additional speakers to be called on in the same manner) based upon the time limit.

The following member(s of the public spoke:
• Maria
• Oliver
• Kyle
• Sunny
• Myriah
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 aloud the title of each consent item (either full agenda title or a simplified version of the agenda title), and ask if a Councilmember wishes to remove one or more items from the consent calendar; and then open public comment to the members of the public in attendance. At this time, a member of the public may speak for up to two (2) minutes on the entire consent calendar and request at that time that an item or items 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. Council Members 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.

Items 4-19 were previously acted upon during the City Council’s December 17, 2024 meeting. The City recently received a letter demanding the City cure and correct alleged violations of the Brown Act related to the agenda for the December 17, 2024 meeting. While the agenda for the December 17, 2024 meeting substantially complied with the Brown Act, in an abundance of caution, the City Council will be ratifying and re-approving all action items from the December 17 meeting in order to correct any alleged violations.

Mayor Zollman read the consent calendar.

Mayor Zollman asked if any Councilmember wanted to remove an item from the consent calendar.

Councilmember Carter requested Item Number 22 be removed from the consent calendar.

Mayor Zollman asked for public comment for items on the consent calendar.

The following member(s) of the public made public comment:

Kyle
Mayor Zollman called for a Motion.

MOTION:

Councilmember Maurer moved and Vice Mayor McLewis seconded the motion to approve Consent Calendar Items 4 through 21 with Item Number 22 removed.

Mayor Zollman called for a roll call vote.

City staff conducted a roll call vote.

VOTE:

Ayes: Councilmembers Carter, Hinton, Maurer, Vice Mayor McLewis and Mayor Zollman Noes: None

Absent: None
Abstain: None

4. Approval of Minutes of Special City Council Meeting – Closed Session Meeting of December 2, 2024 (Responsible Department: City Clerk)
City Council Action: Items 4-19 were previously acted upon during the City Council’s December 17, 2024 meeting.

The City recently received a letter demanding the City cure and correct alleged violations of the Brown Act related to the agenda for the December 17, 2024 meeting. While the agenda for the December 17, 2024 meeting substantially complied with the Brown Act, in an abundance of caution, the City Council will be ratifying and reapproving all action items from the December 17 meeting in order to correct any alleged violations.

Approved Minutes of Special City Council Meeting – Closed Session Meeting of December 2, 2024 Minute Order Number: 2025-019

5. Approval of Minutes of Regular City Council Meeting of December 3, 2024 (Responsible Department: City Clerk)
City Council Action: City Council Action: Items 4-19 were previously acted upon during the City Council’s December 17, 2024 meeting. The City recently received a letter demanding the City cure and correct alleged violations of the Brown Act related to the agenda for the December 17, 2024 meeting. While the agenda for the December 17, 2024 meeting substantially complied with the Brown Act, in an abundance of caution, the City Council will be ratifying and re-approving all action items from the December 17 meeting in order to correct any alleged violations.

Approvaed Minutes of Regular City Council Meeting of December 3, 2024 Minute Order Number: 2025-020

6. Approval of Minutes of Special City Council Meeting – Closed Session Meeting of December 9, 2024 (Responsible Department: City Clerk)
City Council Action: City Council Action: Items 4-19 were previously acted upon during the City Council’s December 17, 2024 meeting. The City recently received a letter demanding the City cure and correct alleged violations of the Brown Act related to the agenda for the December 17, 2024 meeting. While the agenda for the December 17, 2024 meeting substantially complied with the Brown Act, in an abundance of caution, the City Council will be ratifying and re-approving all action items from the December 17 meeting in order to correct any alleged violations.

Approved Minutes of Special City Council Meeting – Closed Session Meeting of December 9, 2024 Minute Order Number: 2025-021

7. Approval of Adoption of Ordinance Number 1151: Ordinance to Repeal Ordinance Number 1132 (Electronic Filing of Campaign Finance Disclosure and Statements of Economic Interests) (Responsible Department: City Clerk/City Attorney)
City Council Action: City Council Action: Items 4-19 were previously acted upon during the City Council’s December 17, 2024 meeting. The City recently received a letter demanding the City cure and correct alleged violations of the Brown Act related to the agenda for the December 17, 2024 meeting. While the agenda for the December 17, 2024 meeting substantially complied with the Brown Act, in an abundance of caution, the City Council will be ratifying and re-approving all action items from the December 17 meeting in order to correct any alleged violations.

Approved Adoption of Ordinance Number 1151: Ordinance to Repeal Ordinance Number 1132 (Electronic Filing of Campaign Finance Disclosure and Statements of Economic Interests) Minute Order Number: 2025-022

8. Receipt of Code of Conduct Policies (Request for Councilmembers to Sign Yearly) (Responsible Department: City Clerk)
City Council Action: City Council Action: Items 4-19 were previously acted upon during the City Council’s December 17, 2024 meeting. The City recently received a letter demanding the City cure and correct alleged violations of the Brown Act related to the agenda for the December 17, 2024 meeting. While the agenda for the December 17, 2024 meeting substantially complied with the Brown Act, in an abundance of caution, the City Council will be ratifying and re-approving all action items from the December 17 meeting in order to correct any alleged violations.

Received Code of Conduct Policies (Request for Councilmembers to Sign Yearly) Minute Order Number: 2025-023

9. Approval of Local Appointments List (Maddy Act Government Code Sections § 54970- 54975) This is a current list (As of December 31, 2024) of City Commission/Board/Committees: Planning Commission, Design Review, Public Arts and Climate Action Committee (Responsible Department: City Clerk) City Council Action: City Council Action: Items 4-19 were previously acted upon during the City Council’s December 17, 2024 meeting. The City recently received a letter demanding the City cure and correct alleged violations of the Brown Act related to the agenda for the December 17, 2024 meeting. While the agenda for the December 17, 2024 meeting substantially complied with the Brown Act, in an abundance of caution, the City Council will be ratifying and re-approving all action items from the December 17 meeting in order to correct any alleged violations.

Approved Local Appointments List (Maddy Act Government Code Sections § 54970- 54975) This is a current list (As of December 31, 2024) of City Commission/Board/Committees: Planning Commission, Design Review, Public Arts and Climate Action Committee
Minute Order Number: 2025-024

10. Approval of AB 1600 Report for Fiscal Year 2023-24. "AB 1600" refers to Assembly Bill 1600, a California state law that establishes guidelines for the collection and usage of "development impact fees" imposed on new development projects, essentially requiring local governments to justify and transparently

account for fees they charge developers to fund necessary public infrastructure related to new development; it's often called the "Mitigation Fee Act. AB 1600 requires agencies to annually report on the fees collected and their use. (Responsible Department: Engineering) City Council Action: City Council Action: Items 4-19 were previously acted upon during the City Council’s December 17, 2024 meeting. The City recently received a letter demanding the City cure and correct alleged violations of the Brown Act related to the agenda for the December 17, 2024 meeting. While the agenda for the December 17, 2024 meeting substantially complied with the Brown Act, in an abundance of caution, the City Council will be ratifying and re-approving all action items from the December 17 meeting in order to correct any alleged violations.

Approved AB 1600 Report for Fiscal Year 2023-24. "AB 1600" refers to Assembly Bill 1600, a California state law that establishes guidelines for the collection and usage of "development impact fees" imposed on new development projects, essentially requiring local governments to justify and transparently account for fees they charge developers to fund necessary public infrastructure related to new development; it's often called the "Mitigation Fee Act. AB 1600 requires agencies to annually report on the fees collected and their use.

Minute Order Number: 2025-025

11. Approval of Agreements with the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) for Implementation of a Local Transactions and Use Tax for ¼ cent sales tax as approved at the November 5, 2024 Municipal Election and Agreement with Sonoma County for Regarding Measure U and Measure I. In exchange for the City waiving collection of a portion of the ½ cent sales tax authorized by Measure U, Sonoma County will pay the City an amount equal to what the City would receive if it collected the full amount (Responsible Department: City Attorney)
City Council Action: City Council Action: Items 4-19 were previously acted upon during the City Council’s December 17, 2024 meeting. The City recently received a letter demanding the City cure and correct alleged violations of the Brown Act related to the agenda for the December 17, 2024 meeting. While the agenda for the December 17, 2024 meeting substantially complied with the Brown Act, in an abundance of caution, the City Council will be ratifying and re-approving all action items from the December 17 meeting in order to correct any alleged violations.

Approved Agreements with the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) for Implementation of a Local Transactions and Use Tax for ¼ cent sales tax as approved at the November 5, 2024 Municipal Election and Agreement with Sonoma County for Regarding Measure U and Measure I. In exchange for the City waiving collection of a portion of the ½ cent sales tax authorized by Measure U, Sonoma County will pay the City an amount equal to what the City would receive if it collected the full amount Minute Order Number: 2025-026

12. Adoption of a Resolution approving the Final Map and Subdivision Improvements Agreement for the Canopy Subdivision located at 1009-1011 Gravenstein Highway North, APN 060-261-026 & 028(Property), and accepting the dedication of public easements for utilities, emergency vehicle access and public (pedestrian and bicycle) access (Responsible Department: Engineering) City Council Action: Items 4-19 were previously acted upon during the City Council’s December 17, 2024 meeting.

The City recently received a letter demanding the City cure and correct alleged violations of the Brown Act related to the agenda for the December 17, 2024 meeting. While the agenda for the December 17, 2024 meeting substantially complied with the Brown Act, in an abundance of caution, the City Council will be ratifying and reapproving all action items from the December 17 meeting in order to correct any alleged violations Approved Adoption of a Resolution approving the Final Map and Subdivision Improvements Agreement for the Canopy Subdivision located at 1009-1011 Gravenstein Highway North, APN 060-261-026 & 028(Property), and accepting the dedication of public easements for utilities, emergency vehicle access and public (pedestrian and bicycle) access
Minute Order Number: 2025-027

13. Discussion and Consideration of Staff Support for Climate Action Committee. Staff recommends modifying the commitment as outlined in Option 2, setting a limit of 10 hours per month for staff time to support the CAC. If Council prefers to focus staff time entirely on revenue-generating work and other Council priorities, staff recommends Option 1 as previously discussed. (Responsible Department:

Planning/City Manager)
City Council Action: Items 4-19 were previously acted upon during the City Council’s December 17, 2024 meeting.

The City recently received a letter demanding the City cure and correct alleged violations of the Brown Act related to the agenda for the December 17, 2024 meeting. While the agenda for the December 17, 2024 meeting substantially complied with the Brown Act, in an abundance of caution, the City Council will be ratifying and reapproving all action items from the December 17 meeting in order to correct any alleged violations.

Approved modifying the commitment as outlined in Option 2, setting a limit of 10 hours per month for staff time to support the CAC. If Council prefers to focus staff time entirely on revenue-generating work and other Council priorities, staff recommends Option 1 as previously discussed.

Minute Order Number: 2025-028

14. Consideration of Council Approval of the Sebastopol Fire Department Stipend Policy. There is no budget amendment required for approval of this policy. (Responsible Department: Fire/City Manager/Human Resources)
City Council Action: City Council Action: Items 4-19 were previously acted upon during the City Council’s December 17, 2024 meeting. The City recently received a letter demanding the City cure and correct alleged violations of the Brown Act related to the agenda for the December 17, 2024 meeting. While the agenda for the December 17, 2024 meeting substantially complied with the Brown Act, in an abundance of caution, the City Council will be ratifying and re-approving all action items from the December 17 meeting in order to correct any alleged violations.

Approved Sebastopol Fire Department Stipend Policy. There is no budget amendment required for approval of this policy
Minute Order Number: 2025-029

15. Consideration of Council Approval of Fire Captain Job Description and Salary Range. There is no budget amendment required for the approval of the job description or salary range. (Responsible Department:

Fire/City Manager/Human Resources)
City Council Action: City Council Action: Items 4-19 were previously acted upon during the City Council’s December 17, 2024 meeting. The City recently received a letter demanding the City cure and correct alleged violations of the Brown Act related to the agenda for the December 17, 2024 meeting. While the agenda for the December 17, 2024 meeting substantially complied with the Brown Act, in an abundance of caution, the City Council will be ratifying and re-approving all action items from the December 17 meeting in order to correct any alleged violations.

Approved Fire Captain Job Description and Salary Range. There is no budget amendment required for the approval of the job description or salary range.

Minute Order Number: 2025-030

16. Consideration of Contract Amendment for Scope of Work for City Gate Contract for Fire Department Reorganization Items for an Additional Allocation of $25,000. The FY 24 25 budget has budgeted and allocated $50,000 for Consolidation Negotiation Advising and the City hired CityGates for fire negotiation items. This item requires Council approval for City Manager to sign this contract which is above the purchasing authority. $25,000 will be transferred within the fire department budget which is within the City Manager’s authority. There is no increase to the budget. (Responsible Department: City Manager) City Council Action: City Council Action: Items 4-19 were previously acted upon during the City Council’s December 17, 2024 meeting. The City recently received a letter demanding the City cure and correct alleged violations of the Brown Act related to the agenda for the December 17, 2024 meeting. While the agenda for the December 17, 2024 meeting substantially complied with the Brown Act, in an abundance of caution, the City

Council will be ratifying and re-approving all action items from the December 17 meeting in order to correct any alleged violations.

Approved Contract Amendment for Scope of Work for City Gate Contract for Fire Department Reorganization Items for an Additional Allocation of $25,000. The FY 24 25 budget has budgeted and allocated $50,000 for Consolidation Negotiation Advising and the City hired CityGates for fire negotiation items. This item requires Council approval for City Manager to sign this contract which is above the purchasing authority. $25,000 will be transferred within the fire department budget which is within the City Manager’s authority. There is no increase to the budget.

Minute Order Number: 2025-031

17. Consideration of Council Approval to Proceed with Update to Staffing Assessment Study. This item has been budgeted in the FY 24 25 City Budget for $10,000; therefore there is no budget amendment required. This item was reviewed by the Budget Committee at their meeting of December 2, 2024. City staff is requesting Staffing Assessment be Completed prior to the 2025 Goals and Priority Setting (Responsible Department: Assistant City Manager/City Clerk) City Council Action: City Council Action: Items 4-19 were previously acted upon during the City Council’s December 17, 2024 meeting. The City recently received a letter demanding the City cure and correct alleged violations of the Brown Act related to the agenda for the December 17, 2024 meeting. While the agenda for the December 17, 2024 meeting substantially complied with the Brown Act, in an abundance of caution, the City Council will be ratifying and re-approving all action items from the December 17 meeting in order to correct any alleged violations.

Approved Proceeding with Update to Staffing Assessment Study. This item has been budgeted in the FY 24 25 City Budget for $10,000; therefore there is no budget amendment required. This item was reviewed by the Budget Committee at their meeting of December 2, 2024. City staff is requesting Staffing Assessment be Completed prior to the 2025 Goals and Priority Setting
Minute Order Number: 2025-032

18. Consideration of Approval for Budget Amendment for Additional $1500 for newly elected Councilmember to attend the League of CA Cities /CAL Cities New Mayors and Council Members Academy, January 22-24, 2025 in Sacramento (Responsible Department: City Clerk) City Council Action: City Council Action: Items 4-19 were previously acted upon during the City Council’s December 17, 2024 meeting. The City recently received a letter demanding the City cure and correct alleged violations of the Brown Act related to the agenda for the December 17, 2024 meeting. While the agenda for the December 17, 2024 meeting substantially complied with the Brown Act, in an abundance of caution, the City Council will be ratifying and re-approving all action items from the December 17 meeting in order to correct any alleged violations.

Approved Budget Amendment for Additional $1500 for newly elected Councilmember to attend the League of CA Cities /CAL Cities New Mayors and Council Members Academy, January 22-24, 2025 in Sacramento Minute Order Number: 2025-033

19. Designating Voting Delegate and Alternate(s) to Vote in the Mayor's Absence for the 2025 Sonoma County Mayors and Councilmembers City Selection Committee Meetings and Sonoma County Mayors and Councilmembers Board and General Membership Association Meetings (Responsible Department: City Clerk)
City Council Action: City Council Action: Items 4-19 were previously acted upon during the City Council’s December 17, 2024 meeting. The City recently received a letter demanding the City cure and correct alleged violations of the Brown Act related to the agenda for the December 17, 2024 meeting. While the agenda for the December 17, 2024 meeting substantially complied with the Brown Act, in an abundance of caution, the City Council will be ratifying and re-approving all action items from the December 17 meeting in order to correct any alleged violations.

Approved Designating Voting Delegate and Alternate(s) to Vote in the Mayor's Absence for the 2025 Sonoma County Mayors and Councilmembers City Selection Committee Meetings and Sonoma County Mayors and Councilmembers Board and General Membership Association Meetings Minute Order Number: 2025-034

20. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of January 7, 2025 (Responsible Department: City Clerk) City Council Action: Approved City Council Meeting Minutes of January 7, 2025 Minute Order Number: 2025-035

21. Approval of Sponsorship of Sebastopol Walks 2025 Program: There is no City funding required for sponsorship of this program. (Responsible Department: City Clerk) City Council Action: Approved Sponsorship of Sebastopol Walks 2025 Program: There is no City funding required for sponsorship of this program.

Minute Order Number: 2025-036
APPOINTMENTS:

23. Agenda Item: Consideration of Appointment for One Opening on the Public Arts Committee: Term:

December 2024 to December 2028.

Applicant: Gavin Waters
Mayor Zollman asked for questions of staff. There were none.

Mayor Zollman opened for public comment. The following member(s) of the public spoke during public comment. NONE
Mayor Zollman returned the discussion to the Council.

City Council Discussion, Deliberations, and/or Direction to Staff No further discussion.

MOTION:

Councilmember Maurer moved and Councilmember Carter seconded the motion to appoint Gavin Waters to the Public Arts Committee, for a term of four years December 2024 to December 2028.

Mayor Zollman called for a roll call vote.

City staff conducted a roll call vote.

VOTE:

Ayes: Councilmembers Carter, Hinton, Maurer, Vice Mayor McLewis and Mayor Zollman Noes: None

Absent: None
Abstain: None
City Council Action: Approved appointment of Gavin Waters to the Public Arts Committee, for a term of four years December 2024 to December 2028.

Minute Order Number: 2025-038

24. Agenda Item: Consideration of Appointment(s) for Two Openings on the Planning Commission: Term:

December 2024 to December 2028
Applicant: Paul Fritz
Applicant: Jennifer E. Koelemeijer

Mayor Zollman asked for questions of staff. Council asked questions of staff. Council requested separate votes on each applicant.

Mayor Zollman opened for public comment. The following member(s) of the public spoke during public comment. NONE
Mayor Zollman returned the discussion to the Council.

City Council Discussion, Deliberations, and/or Direction to Staff There was no further discussion.

MOTION:

Councilmember Hinton moved and Councilmember Maurer seconded the motion to appoint Paul Fritz to the Planning Commission, for a term of four years December 2024 to December 2028.

Mayor Zollman called for a roll call vote.

City staff conducted a roll call vote.

VOTE:

Ayes: Councilmembers Carter, Hinton, Maurer, Vice Mayor McLewis and Mayor Zollman Noes: None

Absent: None
Abstain: None
City Council Action: Approved appointment of Paul Fritz to the Planning Commission, for a term of four years December 2024 to December 2028.

Minute Order Number: 2025-039 A
Mayor Zollman opened for public comment. The following member(s) of the public spoke during public comment. NONE
Mayor Zollman returned the discussion to the Council.

City Council Discussion, Deliberations, and/or Direction to Staff The Council discussed the appointment and appointee requirements of position.

MOTION:

Vice Mayor McLewis moved and Mayor Zollman seconded the motion to appoint Jennifer Koelemeijer to the Planning Commission, for a term of four years December 2024 to December 2028 as amended:

Contingent upon a business license prior to the next Planning Commission meeting.

Mayor Zollman called for a roll call vote.

City staff conducted a roll call vote.

VOTE:

Ayes: Councilmembers Carter, Maurer, Vice Mayor McLewis and Mayor Zollman Noes: None

Absent: None
Abstain: Councilmember Hinton
City Council Action: Approved appointment of Jennifer Koelemeijer to the Planning Commission, for a term of four years December 2024 to December 2028 as amended:

Contingent upon a business license prior to the next Planning Commission meeting.

Minute Order Number: 2025-039 B

25. Agenda Item: Consideration of Appointment(s) for Three Openings on the Design Review Board/Tree board: Term: December 2024 to December 2026
Applicant: Lynn Deedler B
Applicant: Marshall Balfe D
Applicant: Christian D. Macke A
Mayor Zollman asked for questions of staff.

Mayor Zollman opened for public comment. The following member(s) of the public spoke during public comment. NONE
Mayor Zollman returned the discussion to the Council.

City Council Discussion, Deliberations, and/or Direction to Staff There was no further discussion.

MOTION:

Councilmember Hinton moved and Councilmember Maurer seconded the motion to appoint Lynn Deedler, Marshal Balfe, and Christian Macke to the Design Review Board, for a term of two years December 2024 to December 2026.

Mayor Zollman called for a roll call vote.

City staff conducted a roll call vote.

VOTE:

Ayes: Councilmembers Carter, Hinton, Maurer, Vice Mayor McLewis and Mayor Zollman Noes: None

Absent: None
Abstain: None
City Council Action: Approved appointment of Lynn Deedler, Marshal Balfe, and Christian Macke to the Design Review Board, for a term of two years December 2024 to December 2026.

Minute Order Number: 2025-040

ITEM REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR:

22. Approval of Resolution Ratifying and Adopting Option #2 for Solid Waste Collection Agreement with Sonoma County Resource Recovery for garbage, recycling, and organic waste collection services and inclusion of franchise fee as discussed and recommended at the January 7th 2025 City Council Meeting.

The requirement is for the City Council to adopt a resolution incorporating the rates and the Franchise Fee to be paid to the City of Sebastopol by the vendor per the Ordinance. The selected Contractor shall pay applicable franchise fees established by the City which is 10% of Gross Revenues for Collection Services provided in the City. There is no negative fiscal impact to the City budget with the adoption of the Resolution. (Responsible Department: Assistant City Manager) Assistant City Manager Gourley presented the agenda item recommending the City Council approve the Resolution Ratifying and Adopting Option #2 for Solid Waste Collection Agreement with Sonoma County Resource

Recovery for garbage, recycling, and organic waste collection services and inclusion of franchise fee as discussed and recommended at the January 7th 2025 City Council Meeting. The requirement is for the City Council to adopt a resolution incorporating the rates and the Franchise Fee to be paid to the City of Sebastopol by the vendor per the Ordinance. The selected Contractor shall pay applicable franchise fees established by the City which is 10% of Gross Revenues for Collection Services provided in the City.

Mayor Zollman asked for questions of staff. Staff asked for questions of staff.

Mayor Zollman opened for public comment. The following member(s) of the public spoke during public comment.

1. Sunny

2. Kate

3. Kai Boyd

4. Allison

5. Martin

6. Kyle

7. Roxanne

8. Jo

9. Ron

10. Hapsawka

11. Adam

12. Woody

13. Leticia

14. Jim

15. Oliver

16. Carrie

17. Alissa

18. Steve

19. Maraline

20. June

21. Dr Rico

22. Myriah

23. Barbara
Mayor Zollman returned the discussion to the Council.

City Council Discussion, Deliberations, and/or Direction to Staff The Council provided additional comments regarding options.

MOTION:

Vice Mayor McLewis moved and Councilmember Maurer seconded the motion to approve the Resolution Adopting Option #1 for Immediate Rate Adjustment as shown in attachment to staff report and adopt resolution setting franchise fee as discussed and recommended at the January 7th 2025 City Council Meeting. The requirement is for the City Council to adopt a resolution incorporating the rates and the Franchise Fee to be paid to the City of Sebastopol by the vendor per the Ordinance. The selected Contractor shall pay applicable franchise fees established by the City which is 10% of Gross Revenues for Collection Services provided in the City.

Mayor Zollman called for a roll call vote.

City staff conducted a roll call vote.

VOTE:

Ayes: Councilmember Carter, Maurer, Vice Mayor McLewis and Mayor Zollman Noes: Councilmember Hinton

Absent: None
Abstain: None
City Council Action: Approved the Resolution Adopting Option #1 for Immediate Rate Adjustment as shown in attachment to staff report and adopt resolution setting franchise fee as discussed and recommended at the January 7th 2025 City Council Meeting. The requirement is for the City Council to adopt a resolution incorporating the rates and the Franchise Fee to be paid to the City of Sebastopol by the vendor per the Ordinance. The selected Contractor shall pay applicable franchise fees established by the City which is 10% of Gross Revenues for Collection Services provided in the City.

Minute Order Number: 2025-037
Resolution Number: 6643-2025
Mayor Zollman called for a break at 8:30 pm and reconvened the meeting at 8:35 pm.

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS/PRESENTATIONS: Informational Items or Presentations are items that are informational only and do not require action by the City Council. Presentations shall be scheduled as necessary for the promotion of an event or service or general information items to the Council and should be limited to ten (10) minutes total in length of item (total length includes questions of Council to presenter and public comment). NONE PUBLIC HEARING(s): NONE
REGULAR CALENDAR AGENDA ITEMS (DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION):

26. Consideration of Approval of Measure H Funding Agreement with County of Sonoma (Responsible Department: Fire)
City Attorney Mog presented the agenda item recommending the City Council approve Measure H Funding Agreement with County of Sonoma.

Mayor Zollman asked for questions of staff.

Mayor Zollman opened for public comment. The following member(s) of the public spoke during public comment.

Kyle
Mayor Zollman returned the discussion to the Council.

City Council Discussion, Deliberations, and/or Direction to Staff MOTION:

Mayor Zollman moved and Councilmember Maurer seconded the motion to approve the agreement with Sonoma County to facilitate the receipt of Measure H sales tax revenues, with such changes as approved by the City Attorney as long as such changes don’t increase the obligations of the City.

Mayor Zollman called for a roll call vote.

City staff conducted a roll call vote.

VOTE:

Ayes: Councilmembers Carter, Hinton, Maurer, Vice Mayor McLewis and Mayor Zollman Noes: None

Absent: None
Abstain: None
City Council Action: Approved the agreement with Sonoma County to facilitate the receipt of Measure H sales tax revenues, with such changes as approved by the City Attorney as long as such changes don’t increase the obligations of the City.

Minute Order Number: 2025-041

27. Consideration of Adoption of the Sebastopol Active Transportation Plan (Responsible Department:

Planning)
Community Development Director Theriault presented the agenda item recommending the City Council approve Adoption of the Sebastopol Active Transportation Plan.

Mayor Zollman asked for questions of staff. There were none.

Mayor Zollman opened for public comment. The following member(s) of the public spoke during public comment.

Eris
Kyle
Oliver
Robert
Jim
Carl
Steve F
Steve P
Linda
Mayor Zollman returned the discussion to the Council.

City Council Discussion, Deliberations, and/or Direction to Staff There was no further discussion.

MOTION:

Councilmember Hinton moved and Mayor Zollman seconded the motion to approve Adoption of the Sebastopol Active Transportation Plan.

Mayor Zollman called for a roll call vote.

City staff conducted a roll call vote.

VOTE:

Ayes: Councilmembers Carter, Hinton, Maurer, Vice Mayor McLewis and Mayor Zollman Noes: None

Absent: None
Abstain: None
City Council Action: Approved Adoption of the Sebastopol Active Transportation Plan.

Minute Order Number: 2025-042

28. Approval of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Sebastopol Employee International Union (SEIU) (Public Works and Administrative Staff) for a One Year agreement – January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025 and Approval of Budget Amendment for $140,500 for negotiated items. (Responsible Department:

Assistant City Manager/Human Resources)
Deborah Muchmore, Human Resources Consultant, provided the agenda item recommending the City Council 28.

Approval of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Sebastopol Employee International Union (SEIU) (Public Works and Administrative Staff) for a One Year agreement – January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025 and Approval of Budget Amendment for $140,500 for negotiated items.

Mayor Zollman asked for questions of staff or consultant. There were none.

Mayor Zollman opened for public comment. The following member(s) of the public spoke during public comment. NONE
Mayor Zollman returned the discussion to the Council.

City Council Discussion, Deliberations, and/or Direction to Staff There was no further discussion.

MOTION:

Mayor Zollman moved and Vice Mayor McLewis seconded the motion to Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Sebastopol Employee International Union (SEIU) (Public Works and Administrative Staff) for a One Year agreement – January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025 and Approval of Budget Amendment for $140,500 for negotiated items.

Mayor Zollman called for a roll call vote.

City staff conducted a roll call vote.

VOTE:

Ayes: Councilmembers Carter, Hinton, Maurer, Vice Mayor McLewis and Mayor Zollman Noes: None

Absent: None
Abstain: None
City Council Action: Approved to Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Sebastopol Employee International Union (SEIU) (Public Works and Administrative Staff) for a One Year agreement – January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025 and Approval of Budget Amendment for $140,500 for negotiated items.

Minute Order Number: 2025-043
Resolution Number: 6644-2025
6645-2025

29. Approval of Annual Report and Continued Use of Existing Surveillance Technology (Responsible Department: Police)
Chief Nelson presented the agenda item recommending the City Council receive the Annual Report and approve Continued Use of Existing Surveillance Technology.

Mayor Zollman asked for questions of staff. The Council asked questions.

Mayor Zollman opened for public comment. The following member(s) of the public spoke during public comment.

Kyle
Mayor Zollman returned the discussion to the Council.

City Council Discussion, Deliberations, and/or Direction to Staff MOTION:

Vice Mayor McLewis moved and Mayor Zollman seconded the motion to receive the Annual Report and approve Continued Use of Existing Surveillance Technology .

Mayor Zollman called for a roll call vote.

City staff conducted a roll call vote.

VOTE:

Ayes: Councilmembers Carter, Hinton, Maurer, Vice Mayor McLewis and Mayor Zollman Noes: None

Absent: None
Abstain: None
City Council Action: Received the Annual Report and approved Continued Use of Existing Surveillance Technology Minute Order Number: 2025-044
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: Two minutes per speaker for up to twenty (20) minutes total for public comments but can be reduced at Mayor’s discretion depending upon the number of speakers or Mayor has discretion to allow for additional time beyond the 20 minutes allocated for public comment dependent upon the subject matter or number of speakers. NONE CITY COUNCIL/CITY STAFF REPORTS/COMMUNICATIONS/ANNOUNCEMENTS/FUTURE MEETINGS:

30. City Manager and/or City Clerk Reports: (This will be either verbal reports at the meeting, or written reports provided at or prior to the meeting)
City Manager Schwartz provided a report.
• Departmental Reports
Reference Order Number: 2025-045

31. 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 reports at the meeting, or written reports provided at or prior to the meeting)
• Budget Committee Report out (January 13th Budget Committee Meeting) Reference Order Number: 2025-046
Councilmembers provided report out from various committees.

32. Council Communications Received (Information/Meetings/Correspondence Received from the General Public to Councilmembers)
CLOSED SESSION: NONE

ADJOURNMENT OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Mayor Zollman adjourned the January 21, 2025 City Council Meeting at 9:35 pm to the City Council Meeting of Tuesday, February 4, 2025 at 6:00 pm, Sebastopol Youth Annex, 425 Morris Street, Sebastopol, CA.

Respectfully submitted,
Mary C. Gourley
Assistant City Manager/City Clerk
Attachment: Zoom Raw Minutes

City Council Meeting - January 21, 2025
Please stand by for realtime captions.

Councilmember Hinton ?
I'm here, but without power.

Mayor Zollman ?
Present.

There is the grand about looking at housing options, and I'm excited to be a part of that process, I have been involved in a lot and I still have a lot to give and I'm hoping to give it another turn.

Thank you. I really appreciate your intention to make our small town a better place and recently you sent out an invitation, I think it was a movie, in Petaluma, looking at ways that other towns make their town great, so I really appreciated you letting us know about that, and I appreciate your focus, and thank you for all of your work, I don't have any other questions, I just really appreciate your work.

Yes, I sent you the one I went to last year and it was very inspiring, documenting people doing small interventions in their towns and it's really exciting to see what other people do.

I love the part about your focus which is innovators and I relate to that and I appreciate it, thank you.

Turning to my colleagues, questions?
I don't have any questions, I really appreciate you being on the commission, I know it takes work and you serve very well whenever I reach out to you about anything, you are happy to express it and I was able to share your knowledge like in the article that was in the Sebastopol times about how we can look at rezoning and certain things. As a councilmember, sometimes we are involved in so many things that it is helpful to have a relationship with the planning commissioners that want to talk to us about things and you are one of those people that reaches out, so thank you for your service, a sheet you applying.

I was just going to say, I appreciate your tenacity, that is a lot of years donating, just talking about the email that you sent, I really appreciate it.

I can also say thank you for you committing so much time, for the forward thinking efforts about our town, I don't have any questions really.

And I want to say thank you for all of your time, I'm sure you have been aware about the ongoing thing about the potential merger, so I was wondering what your thoughts are about that.

I have a lot of thoughts on that, I think that it could be a good thing, I'm not necessarily opposed to that, there's a couple things I think would be important if that happens, the design review board now has some earmarked positions, it would be important for the planning commission to have a couple of those earmarks for people with specific design skills. Particularly, there should always be at least one architect on the planning commission and hopefully one landscape architect on the planning commission so when those kinds of -- when we are doing the design review, there's people that can speak to the design in that way, as an architect myself, I have been in front of other city bodies when the planning commission is also the design review board and when none of the commissioners have any design experience, it is really hard and it doesn't really elevate the design conversation when that happens. So I think that would be an important thing if the two bodies merged. Also, I'm not in favor of expanding the size of the planning commission just to make that happen, I think the planning commission is fine with five. I have worked many years to get it down to that number, when I first started there were 7+ alternates, and we had a meeting of eight people, and now that we are down to five, I don't think we lost anything in terms of the conversations that we have. I still think people are engaged, imagine if there were eight of you, how long your meetings would be, so I would encourage you, if we do merge, to still keep it at five. And I also think, as we are talking about this merger, it is also an opportunity, we think the whole design review process, it could be done in a way that is more beneficial to everyone because the way it works right now, I don't think it does result in this the best design, especially for the big projects like the canopy for example, they had already

come to the planning commission to get certified. They had, I mean they spent probably over half $1 million easy on that application, and then they have the design review. At that point, what is design review going to say that they are going to change it, now that the project is done. Everything is designed. The whole process needs to be re-evaluated and we talked about this and I would suggest having a subcommittee at the planning commission to rethink the whole design review process and what we can do to make it better for everyone and one of the tools we have. A couple years ago, I was on the subcommittee that did this, we came up with subjective design standards for the SP nine projects, I would be surprised if we had more than five of either of those projects in the next 10 or 20 years, I don't think that is going to be a funded project, but we spent a lot of time on the design standards, we should look at applying those more broadly, to meet the objective design standards, there's no discretion in the design process at all, so that is one way we can reduce staff time, it just makes it easier for everyone, they can design to the standards. And if you want to do something outside the standards, that means you need to get that reviewed but if you want to meet the standards to make your project go more smoothly, that should be an option.

Thank you, any follow-up questions?
You opened up a can of worms, I apologize for that, but it could be appropriate, I don't really know, but I'm wondering how you could present this subcommittee or make it happen so that we see more visibly what processes can be improved upon for the planning department. And you don't necessarily need to answer that but I'm just curious.

Typically when we have subcommittees for other elements, whoever is on the subcommittee goes out and discusses and comes up with ideas, we will work with staff and bring it back to the full commission for discussion and we have the evaluation before fully adopting it. So it wouldn't be just decided on by two people of the commission and it is already done and nobody knows anything about it, we would have to come up with findings and document it and help staff go through the staff report about it and put it up in the public meeting for discussion, where the city members of the commission and members of the public can review what is proposed and the commission would make the recommendation, and that would have to be adopted by you all, so there would be another opportunity for public feedback and your input, so I think there's several layers to how that would eventually help them together.

Great, and I think we are at the 15th minute mark unless there's other questions.

I appreciate the opportunity.

Thank you again for applying and your time. Moving on to the next interview for the planning commission, Jennifer Koelemeijer . I'm sorry.

Just really quick, are we okay with the way we are moving? If we can stick to 15 minutes because there might be people who want to comment for that specific interview so if we have some scheduled at 5:15 or 5:30, just to make sure we are following the times on the agenda.

I thought we finished Mr. Waters a little bit earlier.

I just want to make sure that we are not going early, so the follow-up appointments, if somebody is here for the planning commission and it didn't start until 5:30, they want to show up at 5:30 but if we are earlier, they might miss the interview.

Great, thank you, so is it okay to start with the next interview, since it is not slated until 5:30 point I would say, five minutes is probably fine. But as we are moving forward, if we can stick to the meeting times on the agenda.

Okay, thank you vice Mayor, so the next interview, Jennifer Koelemeijer and thank you for your application and for your time.

Hi, my name is Jennifer, and we have lived in Sebastopol for about 10 years and we raised our kids here, this is a community we really love and very much invested in helping maintain its uniqueness and its vibrancy and to grow the vibrancy in the downtown area, focusing on public transportation and accessibility both walking and biking and public infrastructure is also very important. But,

primarily I want to get involved to help support the community, bring people together and help build our downtown vibrancy.

Thank you, questions from my colleagues?
Hi, I believe your application, you stated that you are going to be moving into downtown, into a business but the category is a business owner. Is that, do you have a date you are moving? I live in the grand S.T.E.A.M. district so I will simplify on that, I'm in negotiations to live downtown, and I don't have a signed lease yet but I should have that in the next couple days but I also qualified as a resident.

Thank you for clarifying.

Thank you for applying, and what kind of business are you opening? It is retail and workshop. We are going to be offering retail for the practical arts so knitting, crocheting, fermentation presentation, gardening, cooking, so all of the tools needed to do that in the classes to support the knowledge that relates to building a community and creating experiences and the tools needed an education to do those things.

I'm trying to think of some questions for you, have you been to a planning commission? I have, I have only attended online and some of them were watching afterwards, I just started thinking about getting involved in November. So I attended one meeting and there were some cancellations.

Okay.

Other questions, vice Mayor?
Hi, we know each other, our kids went to school together for many years, so I just asked the same question tonight, is there anything you would like to see different, or let the committee know, is there anything from your perspective. And I don't have an answer or anything, I'm just curious, whenever somebody is coming on, they have fresh eyes on things.

In the committee or --
In the committee, because we are talking about all these changes. I don't expect you to have any strong opinions, just some observations.

What was just said was really how I feel about it, I think that combining design and the planning committee makes a lot of sense, and I think there's also some value in maintaining a five person commission. It makes it easier to get things done. I think it makes a lot of sense to combine them and I can imagine it is difficult with the process right now, it is not as effective as it could be.

Thank you for applying.

Any questions? If not, the former question I had about the combining of the two which is definitely still under consideration, so going back to the other question, I asked the prior applicant about conflict, so if there is conflict, what is your go to?
I served on several school boards and I think the conflict is normal and going to happen and they can actually create better thinking. So if it is managed right and you go into it with a curious mind-set, wanting to learn and understand and to collaborate, it can be very productive.

We didn't always agree, and here we are, France. So if that speaks to anything.

And I hate to go back to this but I'm reading the staff report and I just want to clarify, it is looking like the way it reads, lives outside city limits but owns a business within city limits. Is that the way it is termed or is it either or? Can we have some clarification on this? I can see it is listed differently up above but this is how the staff report is listed so I just want to make sure. Making sure we are not bringing in somebody that is not technically qualified right now because that would not be the right move.

Thank you and good evening, just based on the categories that the applicant mentioned, there are a couple different ones that she could possibly qualify under, the language I'm seeing is she is a resident area of the Union school District, I don't know that necessarily has to have the residence in city limits without being a question we would have to ask.

What the code provides is that members shall be residents of the city, that is one option, or should be owners of the business within the city and a resident, except that up to one person can be appointed who is not a resident or business owner but who is a resident of an era -- area serving one of those school districts.

I'm just trying to line it up with what category is okay because if somebody feels that, it's just not listed. Maybe Paul knows.

I just want to make sure, if the preference is to have Paul to come up and address the question, because I don't want the people in zoom to be lost.

I believe, and I could be wrong, I believe, she lives just outside city limits, and she does not own a business in town so I think that technically is her -- if we are only allowed to have one.

It is listed that way in the report, and I do remember establishing these rules when I was on the Council, so I want to make sure we are following --
That had been adopted in the past couple years. We could not allow anybody outside the city limits - - actually, I take that back, it was 9472, and in the school district.

I'm not sure if it would help, but the business is already created and I'm simply waiting for the business license to be submitted, which requires an address, I just want to make sure, we can push to do it correctly.

I understand, I appreciate you applying.

And my business partner does live in the city district, so I could change my address to her house if that would resolve this issue.

Our consent calendar tonight is because of this misstep, I just don't want to misstep.

Of course, the planning commission doesn't explicitly say whether it needs to be an owner or business within the city, or if it could be located at someone's house. As of now, it sounds like there is no business within the city so that would not qualify. If tomorrow the business license is established for a person's house, I think that would be within the discretion of the city, for city council to determine yes that qualifies as a business within the city, or you certainly can delay appointment until the retail location --
Based upon that, what is the recommendation of staff?
I would say that she would be eligible under lives outside city limits and owns business inside city limits but a caveat that she provides a business license that shows business is located within city limits, that said, it could be home occupancy permit as I understand it.

If the Council wants that, you could make the appointment subject to bring in documentation that shows a business license for a business within the city prior to her first meeting or something like that, to confirm that she can't take the oath of office until the documentation is turned in.

Second, I believe we have it currently scheduled for March 25th. January 25th, I'm sorry.

I'm still not clear, so it is January?
Yes, the planning commission meets on the opposite Tuesday's.

I'm just wondering, just trying to think time-wise, whether she has the ability to get it in before the next meeting.

Okay, hopefully we have all the information.

And I want to say business licenses are over-the-counter.

If there is nothing else, we need to move along, but anything else you want to say in summary? No, thank you for considering me and I can submit the business license to resolve this. Thank you for your time.

Moving along to one of three interviews we have for the DRP.

Mayor, can we just take a five minute pause to go into the next, 5:45, we are a few minutes early, we have to give people the opportunity.

Okay, thank you.

So, I think we are going to start, the next applicant is here. So, I.T. is good, yes, we are going to call the next applicant, that is going to be Lynn Deedler , if you could come up to the podium. And the

interviews are 15 minutes so try to keep to the schedule, thank you for being here, and for your application and your time. Just start with whatever you would like to say and we will open it up for my colleagues to answer questions.

Sure. Okay where do I start? Okay, I have been on the design review board for 18 years, I feel the need to look after this town, how it looks and how it feels. Anyway, with my background, most of my working life, I have been a commercial building contractor in Sebastopol , I have built five buildings from the farming supply to big O tire and everything in between, and each of those buildings I have suggested improvements to how it looks, how it works, and each of the owners of those buildings said yeah, let's make that change. And I had to go back before the design review board and make those changes. So I have been on that side before and I actually appealed a few decisions way back when, I took to the design review board as well, actually the city Council.

Anyway, one of the things that really describes how I feel was written at the top of the design review guidelines, for the city of Sebastopol , it said basically if you do not work to protect your town and its character, soon it will look like everywhere else in the world. And I have taken those words seriously and I think there is great character, particularly in the downtown area of this town that is really worth protecting. That in recent years there have been some buildings going up that I don't think belong here. And all of them are banks, the exchange bank, where Mary's pizza used to be, not on the street but back, it is a very modern look, it is black and it has these giant V-shaped posts with a huge roof over the rest of the building, and it is a beautiful piece of architecture, it just doesn't belong. Next to the store down here, we have the Chase bank and that looks like a typical bank from the mall where you have hamburgers for sale, again, it is a fairly nice building but it just doesn't fit next to a classic food store in Sebastopol . That is about it, I have a lot of other goals to bring before the board and I could go over those.

Thank you, I think we are going to open it up for questions first. Councilmember Carter? I don't have any questions, but thank you for 18 years of hanging in there and establishing some character within the city. Any questions, councilmember Hinton ? So, I sat on the Council when you were on the design review board, then you weren't, now you are back on the design review board and I've heard in the statements that you just made about having a very specific type of architecture that you like, and a good example and I have heard it from you before, you don't like that exchange bank building. Which a bank there is fine and I think it is convenient, I can't imagine on the busy street having to turn around and enter it from the highway side personally, I'm not a design professional in that way so just from a practical standpoint. And I want to point out that Chase bank was a part of a lawsuit, as you probably know, we have no design oversight on that, in fact I sat on the subcommittee, we had to move around the garbage containers but we had our hands tied. That is unfortunate for you, I agree. I guess, as a member of design review, you are a member of a body and you have really strong opinions and yet the body has to make the full decision, and how do you feel about that? Do you feel frustration or do you feel like okay, I'm just getting my thoughts out and even if it doesn't go my way, it's okay. I'm just curious about that. Because you have spent a lot of time on that board these past number of years.

You have five people and they all have different opinions, that's just the way it is. If everything is good, I think you can talk to these people, and you work those things out. You know, you put your ideas out there.

Can ask a follow-up question? We heard earlier from Paul Fritz, for example the canopy project, design review comes last and everything else comes first and by then, the change is being made and he advocated that maybe we should look at the process, how do you feel about that? It depends on what you call the rest went first. I think the process, the way it is going now works well, that the framework of the building seldom has to change much. It's the exterior surfaces and entryways, a lot of small details like access and garbage, where you put the meters and those things, those are overlooked. I don't see it as an issue.

I just had a question, you said 18 years, that is a long time and I'm just curious, I know you mentioned the buildings redevelopment and recommendations, it made me wonder, over time we all evolve and I'm just curious how your view on design has evolved over time and how it has changed, you've been doing this for a long time to how it is now and how does that impact how you approach all of these different projects that come before you.

I have traveled a lot of small towns in this country and particularly in the Midwest, where you have a lot of towns that kind of look like Sebastopol and you see new buildings going in and some of those just fit, they did that well. And some of the buildings that get added, like some of these banks in Sebastopol I feel just looked different and aren't even the character of the town. So I made a point, from town to town, I take my camera and I say, here's something that matches. It has been an interest of mine, having a sense of what harmonizes, what stands out. And of course, architects want it to stand out. The building owners wanted to stand out. And sometimes that doesn't work with the overall harmony of the town, the feel of it. And the architects can be very persuasive, they know all of the big words, and they can pull people one way or another. It takes experience.

I appreciate that and I know we are getting short on time, so thank you.

Yes, and my other colleagues hit on this, the potential merger, it doesn't sound like it could be completely opposed.

Well, it is not my choice. Just your own thoughts?
I see a lot of reasons why it would not work particularly well.

And as far as conflict, it sounds like you put your ideas out there, and you advocate as much as you are wanting to advocate and obviously moving on, how the decision comes out, is that a fair summary?
The design boards I have been on have been very professional.

Great, thank you. Any other questions from our colleagues? That kind of spawned another question between the two boards, I'm curious what might be specific reservations you have about the merger, anything come to mind that is helpful or not helpful? There's actually quite a few things and I would like to send them all to you in writing, because to explain them, it would be hard with the time left.

Sorry about that.

I would like to express my appreciation for the passion and the care that you bring to your work and how much you care about this city. And I'm so grateful, thank you so much.

And thank you. Anything else you would like to say for the last couple minutes, just any summary? Just we will see.

Thank you for your time. It does seem like I need to take four minutes, we are going to keep our schedule, we are going to start exactly when things are advertised, so we are going to start with Marshall Balfe in four minutes, thank you.

I think we are about ready to start, are we okay on your end? Okay, we are going to start with our second interview for the design review board and that is with Mr. Marshall Balfe , you can come up to the podium. First, welcome and thank you very much for your application and for your time here this evening, and as we have done with other applicants, we will just let you start and say whatever you would like to say in addition to your application.

I came here seven years ago, just to retire and be close to my daughter, and I learned very quickly that this is a very special place. And I am astounded that the architecture in the town hasn't been ruined by a lot of contemporary buildings. And as I said, I'm a big believer, putting a big glass and steel building, I don't know if there's anyplace that is appropriate, and I have to confess that I have done quite a few contemporary buildings, commercial buildings in my career. And I have evolved, especially here, context is important, traditional elements are important, it is refreshing for me to see contemporary textures in the building or elements in the building and I think that can look really good and we have tried to do that a number of times myself. And in designing, you were talking about whether the system of the planning commission coming first was really coming later, I was on

a commission before and elsewhere and the design review came first and sometimes it was a big project and we would have workshops and the concept would change dramatically in the workshops.

And everything would just get thrown away and put back in a new direction, then we would have a meeting and so on and so forth, then it would get to the planning commission, and the fact that we are wanting to turn that around, I think it is important and I'm not too concerned about it because there are architects on the planning commission, hopefully we don't go too far astray. But anyway, really I'm better at answering questions than giving speeches. Although I have had to give a lot of speeches.

Very good, I will turn it to my colleagues. Questions? Maybe on my right? Sure, thank you for your service, you have been on for four years.

Yes.

And I know that other questions are going to come about probably with the possible merger but, maybe can you give some examples of a good project in the last four years that you feel like the design review board may impact, and you might approve something or make some changes that you think were impactful to the overall design?
Well, I think the canopy project was one that -- I don't like to see that in a small town and I hope that it can be handled a little differently, so that it wasn't just rubber-stamped in the concept and at the same time, it came to us already approved. And if we get housing which seems to be important over the last several years, if we get housing and we get a lot of it, I always question just how much we can actually do without the feeling of the city starting to change. But anyway, I had to support that because we need housing everywhere, and lately in the last 10 or 15 years, that is all I have done pretty much, housing. And I was excited that when we came here I discovered living here was like everybody's backyard, and 15 years ago I had to fight to get a second unit, it was just terrible the battles that I went through and I didn't always win. I actually like the mandate. But, the projects that we did a good job on, I wish I would have known that question ahead of time.

It's okay, I will land on canopy. Thank you.

Thank you. Other questions?
Are you applying for the alternate position again, is that correct? Well, that is where I've been and I assume that is where I will stay, if you decide for me to stay but, I'm open to anywhere. I don't know, I will keep applying for this board as long as you will have me.

I'm just looking at your application and trying to see, are you applying for -- what are you applying for, if not the alternate position, which position?
I would rather be a regular member.

Okay, and under what, do you live within the city?
Yes, I live right off of Florence Street, a couple houses up.

So you are applying for either A, B, or D and D is the alternate.

I don't know about those letters.

I think that is correct.

Okay, and your preference is to not be the alternate point That is correct.

And you have been the alternate for the last four years? What is your role? Well, the role is supposed to be that I can stay when the voting comes around and if there's not a forum, then I can vote but I have been to almost all the meetings, which I don't know why I wouldn't be allowed to, but it has been great to contribute. Which is why I wanted to do this.

Any other questions? My usual question is about conflict. Conflict on anybody, if there is conflict, where and what is your go to when there is conflict?
The only conflicts I have had so far are that I live too close to a certain project, but I don't see any conflicts.

Okay. Thank you. Any questions? Anything that you would like to say just as far as a wrap up?

Well, if you do merge the board with the planning commission, I don't know how that is going to occur but I would like to have a chance to apply for that.

Perfect. Thank you, there's nothing more, thank you very much for your application and your time this evening. Just for people who are joining, we need to start with items exactly on time, so we will pick up at 6:15.

Okay, Mary? So, our third applicant for the design review board, Mr. Macke , thank you for your time, and similar to the other ones, we are just going to let you give a brief overview of anything you would like us to know before we get into questions.

Okay, thank you, I have been a landscape architect since 2006, I have received my license in 2015 and started my own landscape architecture firm a couple years later, 2017. My wife and I moved to Sebastopol in 2021, to buy a house with some dirt and a well obviously, and we were raising our son at the time, and we have another child on the way, we are just looking for a place to put down our roots and grow old and just be a part of the community and about a year ago, I saw an ad with a notification saying that Kerry branch was going to step down as the architect after eight years so I reached out to him, we had a couple meetings and he suggested I try out or apply for the position, so here I am.

Terrific. Councilmember Carter?
This is a random question, but I'm wondering if you had a favorite side of town or a particular style that you love?
Yeah, I love the hills as it rules East, we are down on Hessel, the cool side of town which we have learned, that is absolutely true, it'll be nice and sunny appear. Architecturally, it's really just fits, I heard the gentlemen speaking earlier this evening about character and context and it's tough to say, I don't have a favorite style I guess, I appreciate detail, I have worked in the commercial space for Disney, I worked in Southern California for a while, and to get homeowners down there that really appreciate the experience, whether it is guest or resident experience, and switching more into hospitality and high-end estate work, experience and details are paramount so having a keen eye to that, anything that is crafted with detail could be beautiful. In the right context.

Thank you, other questions? Okay, so yes, you have heard other questions about the potential merger and that has been discussed, different context, and wondering what your thoughts are? It sounds like the process in general needs tweaking, it doesn't seem like it is efficient and understanding the budget issues and the limited time and resources that staff has, any sort of efficiencies I'm sure would be appreciated across the board. I would like to echo what I believe Paul said earlier about just ensuring there is at least a landscape architect, a civil engineer perhaps, someone in the profession that has an I.T. design and understands the complex issues that goes into these projects these days, it is a lot different building today than it was five years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago even. And ensuring that we have the right people at the table and there is a good mix of folks.

Thank you, other questions or concerns?
Your application was very impressive of all that you have achieved so far, and anything that you want to talk about in terms of what you are most proud of in terms of your work? I was on the board of directors for a transition town, which it started in England 30 years ago, as a small town, similar in size to Sebastopol in the UK and they created a model to transition the town of of peak energy and they look at all things energy, sustainability, water, power, transportation and that model is replicated and I was on the board of transition when I lived in Laguna Beach, Orange County, for nine years, I was on the board for five years directing the programs and we had a garden installations at people's houses and we advised the city on transportation plans and water reuse infrastructure that don't have a purple pipe system still down there. It is slightly different. But I'm just proud of the impact that us as a grassroots organization could do and me and a few others that were highly involved were able to use our expertise and we saw that it was creating impact on the town, it was a lot of fun partnering with the different groups.

Thank you.

I was curious, it says you haven't attended a meeting, so I'm just curious, do you feel like you can be at all of the meetings, and when people run for council and they have never been to a meeting, they are shocked about these.

I have been to design review board meetings in the past, also a little over a year ago I completed the application and I have since attended a couple meetings, this was my first city Council meeting but I'm sure most of you are aware of the Sebastopol times newsletter, it is a sub stack, they are on the beat, man. And just reading back to the city documents, there is a plethora of information on the historical town plans, I was directed to a bunch of good resources and information. I feel like I have been kept abreast of the major issues and I have been on the applicant side of many cities, many jurisdictions so I have a general understanding of the rules and protocol and how it would go. As far as personality, I think that question is probably coming next. I think just as far as conflict, just default to the guidelines, default to staff, seek counsel from folks that have been there and what is written, what is established, what is protocol.

Thank you.

Thank you for your application, you have really deep credentials which is really helpful and even though you haven't attended a meeting, you met with the previous person that held the role, a lot of times you can get much information from that so I appreciate the new face, sometimes we need volunteers and I appreciate you stepping up.

Thank you for anticipating all the questions. Anything you would like to say in summary? Nothing, just that I appreciate the opportunity.

Thank you very much for your time and your application.

Mary, we talked about rolling right into the normal part of the meeting. So we will start as we normally do, we just finished our interviews and as far as a proclamations and presentations, there are none, so moving on to statements of conflicts of interest, from anyone, my colleagues? See none.

We are going to move into public comment for items again not on the agenda, this is the first comment period, I will state the following, this is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on matters within the jurisdiction, which are not otherwise on the agenda, due to the length of recent council meetings, I strongly encourage comments be submitted to city council by sending them by email. With public comment written in the subject line, I will also state at the beginning of our agendas, just as a reminder, please note that the presiding member of the legislative body can remove any individual disrupting the meeting, that actually disrupts, disturbs, impedes or vendors disorderly conduct of the meeting. Mary, if you could do public comment.

Thank you, as you stated, this is for items that are not on the agenda for tonight, if you would like to make a public comment, it is two minutes, we will go to Chambers, then out to zoom. So, Chambers first, and I will jump in when you have about 30 seconds left.

Hello everyone, my name is Maria, I'm a resident and former advocating consultant, I recently conducted the housing assessment back in 2024, but I'm here to talk about the Woodmark apartments, I recently learned they had 48 units available for former applicants and I learned about those probably mid to late December and I met Laura at the Board of Supervisors meeting where we had a brief conversation about these apartments. I told Laura there was a conversation I had with previous members around the county about the apartments not being able to get filled because of the documentation requests in the USD requirements. When I called recently to volunteer my time to provide bilingual navigation support for the farmers that were applying, they told me the units were already filled, I asked if they were filled by farmworkers and they said no and I asked when they were converted to regular affordable housing units and filled by non-farmworker families. They decide -- said the decision was made in late December. I wanted to bring this to your attention, I don't know if you have any power or if there's anything you can do about it but I wanted to let the public know and become aware this is a situation happening, there are two phases to this project.

Phase one has 48 units and phase two has 36 affordable units that would be technically affordable

not for farmworkers. We are looking to find a resolution to develop 36 farmworker units that are applied for by farmworkers and not affordable housing and 10 units from the 48 unit batch vacate and they are allowed for farmworker inhabitable's. But we do need to hold them accountable.

Thank you for your comment. We will go out to zoom. Kate, you can unmute yourself, please. Go ahead.

Is this the time where I can just share a comment about the ecology about the Sonoma County research recovery contract?
No, that is on the calendar itself, so this is the opportunity to speak on an item that is not on the agenda.

Okay, pardon me, I will mute.

Thank you, back to the chambers.

Yes, I just saw last week that they launched a city oversight committee [Indiscernible] which is similar to what we did in the sales tax manager so I'm just wondering if it is a good idea to have a sales tax oversight committee to make sure they are going where they need to go. That was my comment, thank you.

Thank you, next I will go out to resume. Kyle, you can unmute yourself. Go ahead, please.

First thing, I would hope that the city would address at some point publicly, transparently what happened with Woodmark. I'm deeply concerned that there was public outcry about those units not being filled and something changed along the way that allowed Woodmark to make those, so if they were conversations between the developers and city officials, those conversations need to be more forthcoming than what we have seen so far. The other thing I want to follow-up on, we passed the sales tax manager under the guise of fiscal emergency in with the passing of that sales tax measure, there was defined boundaries around with the use of that would be. Since that, we have seen radical increase in budget adjustments to the general fund that are going towards salaries. And if you look over the last year or two, we had radical increases of both management salaries and now we've got two meetings in a row where we have increases to employees salaries. What they might not know is that the benefit package under that is about 6% with the salary is, so when we are making these salary increases and we are gobbling up a significant chunk of the sales tax increase is, we are radically declining the opportunity that we have to be spending that sales tax revenue that hasn't even come in yet on things like infrastructure projects and things that are defined by the. I would like to get some sort of a count of what has been spent and start with increases to the salary of the consistency manager and move forward from there. Thanks.

Next, I will come back to the chambers.

Could I ask a process question before my comment? The question is, if an item gets pulled from consent calendar, do we comment on it during the consent calendar? When we get to the consent calendar, the mayor will read the items, the mayor will ask if the Council never wants to remove any items, if it is removed, the protocol is that it goes to the end of the meeting. However, the mayor has the authority to reorder the agenda, so he could move it closer and it would be that time that you would talk on that item.

And it does say on the agenda, under consent calendar, at this time a member of the public to speak up to two minutes and at that time, request that an item or items be removed from discussion, does that mean public commenters have the power to remove an item? You can request it, but it has to be a councilmember that will pull the item.

So I could request and they would have a chance to pull it after public comment.

I don't think the clock has started. We are just going to pause there, so you can settle that as permissible and we can start the clock.

My name is Sandy, I may Sebastopol resident and teacher, I love supporting our local farmers and artisans. And I'm asking that city planners allow the market to resume opening at 9:00 a.m., especially on days with extreme heat, many people want to shop to avoid the heat and with a ratio of farmer to non-farmer vendors, I think this decision should be up to the market manager. In the

winter, farmer participation is lower and sometimes irregular so having to keep the 80-20 ratio means the manager has to tell many non-farmer vendors that they cannot participate and the city supports the market spending into the West America bank parking lot to make passage easier for people with strollers and wheelchairs. My other comment is I want to remind the Council that we have two citizen advisory committees, climate action committee and for future decisions of all greenhouse emission and production and waste, please use those and respect those groups, the people that have donated their time and include them in the process. I was shocked that they weren't included. And please, with future decisions, keep in mind the goals of the Sebastopol general plan, as a leader in environmental protection, stewardship and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from city operations and community sources, encourage histories to engage in voluntary efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption and continued efforts to reduce solid waste generation throughout the life of the general plan. These are in our general goals, keep them in mind and respect them, I don't feel like they were.

Thank you, next I will go back to zoom, Mariah, you can unmute yourself, please. Go ahead, please.

Just a couple things, I wanted to report that the chamber and the downtown Association had a really productive meeting last Tuesday, we had a great turnout and honestly in just over two years I have been in my position at the chamber and had these meetings, this was the most positive collaborative meeting that we've had and moving forward, it is a really big step in the right direction. What concerns me is over the past week or so, a lot of business owners have reached out to me and they don't feel supported by the city for a number of reasons and I think that sentiment that Sebastopol is not a business friendly city , I just want to address that and see how the chamber can collaborate more so we can put that -- quit that narrative. It is not good for us when every time you turn around there's an article in the paper about fighting in Sebastopol and people aren't going to want to open businesses here, these articles aren't about the wonderful things that happen every day in this town because that is not click bait unfortunately. But I just wanted to reach out and hopefully we can find ways to work together to change that narrative and make sure our businesses feel supported.

Thank you, next I will come back to the chambers, if there's anyone that would like to make a public comment for an item not on the agenda, I will go back to zoom, if there's anyone on zoom that would like to make a public comment for an item not on the agenda, please raise your hand virtually. Public comment is closed.

We will be moving onto the consent calendar, there are several here, I'm giving the authority to read a summary of each of them, so we will start with consent item number four, approval of minutes of the special city Council meeting of December 2nd, number five, approval of minutes of the regular city Council meeting December 3rd. And number six, approval of the minutes of special city council meeting December 9th, 2024. Seven, approval of adoption of ordinance number 1151: ordinance to repeal ordinance number 1132. Number eight, receive a code of conduct policies, 10, approval of a B 1600 .11, approval of agreements with the California Department of tax and fee administration for implementation of local transaction and use tax for a quarter cent sales tax as approved at November 5th, 2024 municipal election and agreement with Sonoma County regarding measure you and measure I .12, adoption a resolution approving the final map and subdivision improvements agreement for the canopy subdivision located at 1009-1011, grievance time highway north. Number 13, discussion and consideration of staff support for climate action committee. Number 14, approval of the Sebastopol fire department stipend policy. Number 15, consideration of city Council approval of fire Captain job description and salary range. Number 17, Council approval to proceed with update to staffing assessment study. Number 18, approval of budget amendment for additional $1500 for newly elected council member to attend the league of California cities, new mayors and councilmembers Academy. Number 19, designating voting delegate and alternates to vote in the mayor's absence of 2025 Sonoma County mayors and councilmembers city selection committee meetings and Sonoma County mayors and council member board and general membership association meetings. Number 20, approval of city Council meeting minutes of January 7th, 2025.

Number 21, approval of sponsorship of Sebastopol walks 2025 program. Number 22, approval of resolution ratifying and adopting option number two for solid waste collection agreement for Sonoma County resource recovery for garbage, recycling and organic waste collection services and inclusion of franchise fee as discussed in the January 7th, 2025 city Council meeting. Those are the contents of our consent calendar, I will look to my left to see if anybody would like to pull any items.

I would like to pull number 22 just to give our city a chance to discuss.

Any on my right?
I agree on that decision, thanks.

Okay. So, as Mary stated, normally pulled items from the consent calendar appear at the end of the calendar, I do have discretion based upon level of interest, so at this point I would like to ask the chambers for those that would like to comment on item number 22 which is the approval of ratifying adoption of solid waste. Okay, there does seem to be significant interest in this item and also I have discretion to limit items on the amount of time from two minutes to one minute, however receiving a lot of comments from the public about having done that the last time, I'm willing to do two minutes, even though I have the discretion of the body, does anybody have any opposition? I agree with the two minutes.

Any opposition? Seeing none, we will start at two minutes and given the number of people present, it is my preference to put this first to be considered.

Can we at least consider doing the appointment, we have all the folks that have been here for the interviews and everything, just knowing how long this might take with a few people.

It is up to the mayor, what I might suggest is we take public comment on the consent calendar.

That is what I meant, I just didn't want to skip over all the folks who have been here since 5:00 waiting to hear about their appointments.

Yes, I have received a request for a brief break.

If you would like to make a public comment, I will go to the chambers first, then go back out to the zoom. Seeing none. Kyle, can you unmute yourself, please? Go ahead, please.

I maybe wanted to give a little bit of airtime to the large number of items on this consent calendar as a result of the suggestion of a violation, it is important to acknowledge that, I understand there is a written explanation as to what that might be but it is also important that the city takes ownership on that and think through and maybe community out to the public ways in which they can make those types of omissions in the future. One in particular that I continue to see is that there's regularly on the website a zoom leak that is busted zoom link and that is week after week incorrect and in order to access the correct link, one has to go to the meeting agenda, click on the link and put the passcode.

Again, there's conversations you could be having with I.T. professionals in making sure you have your data security process but the last thing I want you to have is a zoom link that is broken consistently week after week. So remove it if need be, put the link on the website, rather than forcing somebody to get all the way through to the agenda item, that is fine, but I think it goes along the same lines of what you've got as a potential Brown act violation and I would like to maybe see the city address those and how they can do better in the future, thanks.

Thank you for your public comment, I will come back to the chambers, if there's anybody that would like to make a comment on the consent items one through 21. I will go back to zoom for the last time, if there's anyone that wants to make a comment, please raise your hand virtually. Seeing none, public comment is closed.

I will make a motion to approve the consent calendar.

Second.

Thank you mayor, moved by councilmember Maurer and seconded by councilmember McLewis , with item number 22 removed. The motion passes unanimously.

We will resume in three minutes, thank you.

Perfect, so I heard a request that before we get to the item of number 22, which we are going to hear, that there is a request for the appointments, is that what I heard?

Yes, they have been waiting since 5:00.

Sounds good, we are going to call the appointments, which is number 23 and the applicant that we heard from earlier was Mr. Waters, so I will start with councilmember Maurer .

I'm sorry, we still need to go to public comment on these items, so if there's no objections by the staff, that would be great.

No questions on my left, on my right, no questions.

Thank you, this is public comment for the consideration for the appointment for the public arts committee, if there's anyone that would like to make a comment on this appointment? Seeing none.

Going out to zoom, please raise your hand virtually, there is no public comment.

If I can get a motion.

I will make a motion to approve the appointment for a public arts committee.

Seconded.

Motion and second, there's no further discussion.

I appreciate those in the public, and I want to say thank you for his appointment on this committee.

Thank you mayor, seconded by councilmember Carter to appoint Kevin Waters to the public arts committee to a term of four years, councilmember Carter? Councilmember Hinton, councilmember Maurer, motion passes unanimously.

Moving onto number 24, the appointment of the planning commission, we heard from applicant Paul Fritz and Jennifer Koelemeijer, are there questions about these appointments? The question was about Jennifer's application and whether or not we can approve her, how is that going to work?
If it is the will of the Council to appoint her subject to her turning in a business license for a location prior to the first, the next planning commission.

Are there any questions from my colleagues before public comment? I would like to take these separately please.

For the applicant, Paul Fritz, let's go back to that. Do you have a public comment for Mr. Fritz? This is for the consideration of the appointment of Paul Fritz, if you would like to make a public comment, I will go to chambers first, seeing none. I will go out to zoom, please raise your hand virtually, seeing none, no public comment.

Any other questions, is there a motion for Mr. Fritz?
I would move that we appoint Paul Fritz as one of the openings on our planning commission for the term of December 2024 through December 2028 point
Second.

Appointing Paul Fritz to the planning commission for a term of four years, councilmember Carter? Councilmember Hinton, councilmember Maurer, vice member McLewis .

Are there questions from my colleagues? Looking to my left, and to my right.

Again, I will go to chambers first. Seeing none. I will go out to zoom, if you would like to make a comment, please raise your hand virtually. Public comment is closed.

Thank you, is there discussion from my colleagues in reference to this applicant? Looking to my right, and my left, seeing none, entertain a motion?
I will make a motion, contingent on appointments to the planning commission, term December 2024 through December 2028 with the caveat that she will turn in the business license before -- did you say the next meeting?
You can do whichever meeting.

I just want to make sure, okay, so before the next meeting.

Perfect, I will second.

Appointing Jennifer Koelemeijer to the planning commission for a term of four years, contingent upon the business license being submitted to the planning department prior to the next planning commission meeting. Councilmember Carter? Councilmember Hinton.

Abstention.

Councilmember Maurer ?
Yes.

Mayor Zollman ?
Yes.

The motion passes.

Moving onto number 25, consideration for the appointments of three on the tree board, we will go for each of the three, Lynn Deedler and Trent eight and Mr. Macke, any questions from my staff or the public?
One question about the one person that might
I'm sorry, I'm wondering, is that rotational or is he automatically subject to being an alternate or is that a choice?
The Council can appoint him to be an alternate or not, but there are requirements for how those five positions are filled on the main end, two have to be classified as a licensed architect and one of them is a licensed landscape architect, one of them has to be someone who is a landscape architect, building designer, building contractor, two people can be other things and the alternate. So already on the COUNCIL, you are on the committee where those roles are filled, so where you are looking to fill tonight is one A, one B, and the alternate. The current alternate, if I'm reading the staff report correctly is only qualified to be in the category D.

I think he is qualified for all three, but I don't know if, I will be weighing in on the way they applied.

I think that does seem accurate unless staff reads it different, they did apply for various positions and they were based upon their positions, so then I think that would be the way I understand it at least, so with that, other further questions? Let's go to public comment.

Thank you, this is public comment on the appointment to the design review board, again I will go to chambers first. Out to zoom, please raise your hand virtually. Seeing none, no public comment.

I'm happy to make a motion to appoint on the three openings on the design review board and the tree board, the term of December 2024 through December 2026, Lynn Deedler, Marshall Balfe in category D as the alternate and Christian Macke, in category A.

I will second.

Appointing the three applicants to the design review board for a term of three years, Lynn Deedler, Marshall Balfe and Christian Macke, councilmember Carter ? Councilmember Hinton, councilmember Maurer, vice Mayor McLewis, Mayor Zollman, the motion passes unanimously.

As I indicated before, we are taking agenda item number 22, just again, to read this for those who are following at home, the approval of resolution ratifying option number two for solid waste collection agreement for Sonoma County resource recovery for garbage, recycling and organic waste collection and the inclusion of our finance treaty as discussed in the city Council meeting, the requirement is for the city Council to adopt a resolution incorporating the rates in the finance fee to be paid for the vendor per the ordinance, the selected contractors shall pay applicable finance fees established by the city which is 10% of the collection services provided to the city. It is important to remember, the responsible department is the assistant city manager.

As stated at the last city Council meeting, the Council did approved by a 3-2 vote, to give the franchise agreement to SCRR, and there was a recommendation for option two, the franchise fee has to be approved by city Council resolution which is the four the city council tonight, so the item that is before the Council tonight is the ratification of the option two as well as the resolution approving the franchise agreement and that is what is before the Council tonight.

Questions from my colleagues before we go out to the public? Seeing none.

Thank you Mayor, this is for the ratification of the options as recommended at the last city council meeting and the resolution containing the franchise fee as well, if you would like to make a public comment, again it is two minutes, we will go to the chambers first, and keep going back and forth. If you can't see the timer, I will jump in when you have 30 seconds.

Hello, I remain deeply disappointed in the Council's unwillingness to address valid public questions about the negotiations on January 7th, I want to flag out the process leading to the vote to avoid a contract to SCCR. I ask that you tabled this item and delay the vote and until our questions and concerns are answered, prior to January 7th, the last time the issue was brought before the public was October 15th, and then complete silence until the staff report was published New Year's Eve, they gave the staff members just a few days to analyze and make an important decision on January 7th, the choice was to better understand the details and consider public concerns or rubber-stamp the ad hoc committee. The constituents were blindsided, public comments were cut short and many questions ignored, this is not an example of transparent governance and has led to the concern of validity in negotiations and the public process. Some of these concerns include non-transparency and how the points were awarded in the evaluation process, there were no details or explanation of the criteria of categories or justification for the points awarded, for example, ecology received five fewer points. Sustainability, why did ecology score only one point? Community employment and partnership, why did SCRR only see one point higher , when we have been deeply involved with working with school businesses and community groups to reduce waste. The criteria shared at the April 2nd meeting under sustainability, the following criteria -- You have met two minutes, next we are going out to them. Kate, you can unmute yourself.

Well, I'm also really disappointed in the vote for option two, I'm confused, I would like more addressing of our concerns. My biggest concern is the disincentive rising consumer recycling, especially for our small businesses and public schools. They need bigger bins for compost and recycling, otherwise they put it in the trash because it is cheaper and I feel like the evaluation of this, between these two options was not made clear. I'm very concerned, I wonder why it was pushed through with so little input from other stakeholders in our city. I'm a resident here, I have lived here for 15 years and also the length of the contract for 15 years, this deserves more time. So please, I asked the Council to delay the vote and ratified option two until you can address the concerns more adequately, thank you.

Thank you, next I will come back to chambers.

Hello, I'm the owner of Rialto in the city of Sebastopol, the city should be ashamed of itself, there was a complete lack of transparency in the process, we were notified by Rick comedy, we received no public notification from the city, this cannot be legal, you should be ashamed of yourselves, this was highly inappropriately conducted and this is a huge black mark on the city of Sebastopol and a huge disincentive to do business, if I were able to move my business out , I would because this is disgraceful.

Thank you for your public comment, next I will go to zoom. Go ahead, please.

I am a teacher in Sebastopol and apparent -- a parent, this is a recent issue brought to my attention and for environmental and business reasons, it just doesn't make any sense, and moreover, this has been a very faithful business and forged a very healthy relationship with the community, with various goals, they even funded a film that we worked on together and have been proactive on numerous levels, it has been a fantastic business. I don't understand, if more than half of the businesses in the town need recycling, why would we suddenly start charging per recycling and disincentive rising that for everybody? Why would we want it to go all the way up to Windsor and then back to Marin County? That doesn't make any sense. For business and environmental reasons, it's fine but, we have been operating in good faith with our city and forging those relationships, it feels improper to reward that with a lack of good faith and a lack of penalty. So, thank you.

Thank you for your public comment, next I will come back to the chambers.

My name is Martin Bennett, I'm representing 15,000 hotel and food service workers across the Bay Area including 400 hotels in the county, and the Executive Director of the North Bay jobs of justice, to organize ecology in 2017 and 20 18th -- 2018. Please do not approve the contract with SCRR tonight, now is the time for re-examination of that decision , I'm particularly concerned about the labor issues, it is unbelievable that the subcommittee could rate SCRR with higher community and

employment category. SCRR is nonunion , while SCRR may have raised its hourly wage rate, there is a huge difference between the two firms concerning labor standards, as union members for ecology workers contractually receive the following, which SCRR workers do not, protections against arbitrary discharge, a grievance procedure, a seniority letter, guaranteed printable -- predictable wage increases, the ability for better paying jobs and opportunities in training and advancement, particularly for the lowest paid workers. More important, health benefits and worker retirement benefits. It is an employee owned company. Is SCRR willing to increase worker income to match her ecology? A re-examination will enable councilmembers to analyze in depth the difference between union and nonunion and examine the success five contract to -- That is two minutes, thank you for your public comment, next I will go back to zoom, Kyle, unmute yourself, please.

I would like to express concerns shared by many residents, the lack of transparency in how this counsel considers public input during its decision-making process, while public comments are welcome, there is little evidence that our voices influence the policies and decisions being made, transparent government allows more than simply public comment, it demonstrates how that informs your decisions. Many councils do this. Minutes directly addressing concerns during meetings or explaining how public perspectives shape their final votes. Yet in this chamber, such practices seem rare and in some cases, state laws or procedures mandate public input, especially for critical issues like zoning or budgeting. Ethical leadership calls for proactive engagement and accountability, residents need to see that the time and energy we invest to participate is valued. When our input is ignored or appears to be ignored, it fosters distrust and discourages civic intimate -- engagement. I encourage you to practice how public comment is observed, we deserve to see a direct connection between what we say and what you do, this is about ensuring trust, making sure your practices reflects the values in the communities you were elected to serve. Thank you.

Next I will come back into the chambers.

I'm Roxanne Goodfellow, I'm really concerned about not just the lack of transparency but the lack of factual information about how this was determined. I went through a lot of paperwork and I couldn't find anything that led me to believe that those negotiations took place in a way in which the interests were truly represented. I just don't understand how that could happen. Even in the recommendation that was made by the outside consultant firm, they made some things very specific, one of which was the need to give the public some time and the business community some time to digest this, to have questions. There was a 45 day period that would have normally happened under prop 218. I don't know why that didn't happen, somebody mentioned it in the newspaper on one of the articles in the PD, I would really suggest in order for us to move forward as a business community, to have some equity because there doesn't seem to be any at all, thank you.

Next I will go back to zoom.

Yes, high, my name is Joe McCormick, I have lived in Sebastopol and raised my boys here for 25 years , I also work in Sebastopol and I work for Ty Boyd and the team at Rialto Cinemas, I would be devastated to think that the way this process was conducted might lead to businesses leaving Sebastopol . We really can't afford more businesses either to be dissuaded from setting up in Sebastopol or leaving, so I would like to understand how this process could lead to such ferment in the community, such that a business such as mine would consider operating elsewhere because of it, thank you.

Next I will come back to the chambers.

Thank you, my name is Rory Lopez, professor at Sonoma State University, also a representative on the North Bay labor Council so I'm here to speak on behalf of labor and the community. The fact that this is a nonunion company is a very big problem, I heard something about the budgetary impact, that happened when union workers get their paychecks as if they spend their money locally and the retirements, all of that coming back around to us and we benefit from it as a community. A nonunion outfit, and I'm going to basically without repeating what Martin said, I support all of their comments,

also flipping things from Windsor back down to Marin County, that goes against the environmental principles. So this is, also this issue of transparency which I wasn't aware of before but this is very clear, this was not done properly, not in a transparent fashion and it is going to be a problem in the sense that this will be seen as an antiunion move by the city of Sebastopol which would be very unfortunate. I urge you all to please delay this and to reopen discussion with the community and give time for proper feedback and and from from the city.

Thank you, next I'm going back out to zoom. Can you unmute yourself, please? This is Sandra, can you hear me?
Yes, thank you, go ahead.

Okay, we have been residents for 38 years, we live in downtown Sebastopol, I'm a proud union member , a retiree from the County of Sonoma public health department and we have real concerns about several things, we really hope that you put off approving the contract until all concerns have been addressed, not just heard, but addressed. We have concerns over the values of our businesses, those businesses make our community what it is and without them, we cannot have the number of visitors and people that come here to spend their money in Sebastopol which really helps our economy and our community. I have real concerns about knowing how it has many years of service, serving many places in the larger Bay Area, as it is quite different with this other carrier which I had concerns when I learned there only contract so far has been Windsor and I'm not sure for how long because I don't really know all the details yet. If it hasn't been for local journalism through which I learned about the issue, I never would have known so I'm really thankful to the local journalist who brought this forward. And although it may shine a light that might not look as positive as we wish, it is important to bring the facts and truth forward particularly in this time, so thank you for listening and I hope you will reconsider at least putting off the decision, thank you.

Thank you for your public comment, I will come back into the chambers.

Good evening, my name is Adam Dunn, I have been a resident of Sebastopol for about four years, and I'm disappointed I have to come here to engage in the civic process around this topic , I was disappointed to recently learn about the decision to move forward with such expediency around SCRR and removing the contract for the city. At the end of the day, this isn't how I taught the view in the vision of what government should be, it should be in service of the people that you were elected to serve and it sounds like from everything that was said that you have failed in that endeavor so I ask that you pause and consider and take action around the comments and the research of the people from labor and the environment, as I have been in Southern California, the temperature of the globe, and further vacant businesses on Main Street, increasing costs and challenges for small businesses at a time where we need more of them to offset the budget deficit in the city, it does not seem like the best. I want to ask you please slow down and listen to your constituents and take those into account when you make your final decision, thank you.

Next I will go out to zoom, unmute yourself, please. Thank you. Go ahead, please.

First I wanted to say, I live in the greater Sebastopol area . My identification in the zoom box says the climate center and I want to make it clear that I am not -- my video is not working either, I tried to put myself on the screen, I'm not speaking on behalf of the climate center, I'm speaking as an individual resident and I want to mention that I struggled to log in, so thank you for mentioning that to broken links, it took me quite a while to figure it out. Speaking to the issue, I just want to add one thing, if you look at that recording from the previous meeting when this came up, it is evident that the information wasn't there, there were so many questions and pieces of information that there were no answers that night, and the Council didn't have full information. It is self-evident this requires more time so please allow time for a full transparent re-evaluation of the decision that was previously made on this, thank you.

Next I will come back to the chambers.

Thank you, my name is Leticia, I did send you an email and I have been a resident of Sebastopol for over 40 years, I do not have a business that I care about my local businesses and I'm deeply

concerned that these increased costs are going to cripple our businesses here in Sebastopol which are already struggling and when I struggle, we struggle because they are our economic engine and our sales tax that we just raised was generated a lot on their revenue. People have spoken before me that are much more eloquent than I am and have obviously read these contracts and I haven't, but I do understand them as a former comptroller of the University for over 20 years and I think you need to just step back for a moment, listen to us, and reconsider what you have already decided and help us help you make the right decision for the future of this town, thank you.

Next I will go back to zoom, Jim, if you can unmute yourself, go ahead, please.

So, I'm really disappointed at the Council, even though I can see councilmembers Maurer and McLewis were very strong in their report and there was 100 hours of research, to me there should be a one page summary, executive summary, this is why we made this decision and if it is so complicated that you have to read a long one, that is a problem, you might go in-depth and explain why this is happening but I'm really disappointed, it happened so fast, so many people were blindsided, I wouldn't have known this was happening. And I really think you should pause and answer questions because you are going to live with this decision and if it turns out that SCRR turns out to be a problem which who knows, you are going to be having this thing around your necks for a while so I think you owe it to the community to have a short explanation as to why you think this is a better one and it doesn't seem to come across every time I talk about it, and we know rates are going up and we are going to have a choice of who pays what, it is kind of complicated. But you can explain it to us and you can make it clear to the business owners why this is the best solution. That is basically all I have to say, I think we need better communication and my wife would also like two minutes, so after you come back to the chambers, I will raise my hand again.

Yes, they have done a brilliant job selling themselves, but it is the facts basically in the contract with the city of Sebastopol in 2017, with our previous garbage company and when they came up for negotiation last year, they wouldn't budge, they wanted to put up all of our garbage bills 57%, and you said you had to claw back the money you were losing on your contract with the city. This was last year.

There is no need for crosstalk.

Okay, fair enough, but fundamentally, this had to go out to the RFP because of that, so basically the city took a year negotiating and put the RFP out when the research was obviously discussed at the last meeting and here we are, for me basically, the contract needs to be done, we need to stop this idea, if we had a bit more time, they could pull back the contract and get a better deal. I think it is overcome you have to sign the contract and let the new garbage company take over and start to build a good rapport with local businesses. My feeling is, there is a lot of misinformation being spread around. The communication has not been good but this has been a really slow process, I have been in the room for most of the meetings and I'm pretty happy with it frankly. Thank you.

I will go back to zoom.

Can you hear me?
I can hear you, I will jump in when you have about 30 seconds left.

Okay, thanks, we love the values of the city which we believe include environmental progress, supporting union labor and supporting our vibrant downtown businesses and generally caring about each other and respecting each other. I agree with Jim that counsel should breakdown the report, summarize and explain to the public you're thinking in a way that allows proper Q&A and I'm very sad about how this might affect our businesses and our businesses have been having a really rough time, we have been trying to help Sebastopol have a vibrant downtown and support our businesses and it is like pulling out a rug from underneath beloved businesses. So I'm asking if you would please make a course correction in the process, not necessarily the final result but the process, right after New Year's having this 70 page report which nobody has time to read and the sudden decision with very little public input seems unkind and disrespectful to the town. And midcourse correction

does not show weakness but it shows humility and the ability to step back and reconsider and I'm asking you to please reconsider the way this has been done and please do it right, thank you.

Next I will come to the chambers.

Good evening, my name is Alyssa Johnson, we want to ensure the community, and the nonprofits, the business customers and the Council that we are here to work with everybody and we will continue to do the same things we've done in Windsor with our nonprofit supporting events, sponsoring events, working with schools, working with the food pantry, we do a lot of things in Windsor and we plan to do the same things here in Sebastopol. And I wanted to thank you for the opportunity.

Next I will go back to zoom. Steve, can you unmute yourself please? Thank you. Go ahead, please.

I would like the Council to take some time and relook at this decision. We have managed to have both the business community, the environmental community and the labor community all pretty much say this was not good enough. Are questions that were put forward were not answered and I really think if you look back at the other big processes the city has gone through the last few years, the fire consolidation, the tax measure, the water and sewer rates, these were multi meeting processes and this was a very big decision, 15 year contract. If at all possible, this should have been split into two decisions, one was who are we going to award the contract to in the next decision is what is the contract going to be made up of. That could have been negotiated, if we could get a good enough contract, we could switch to the other one. It would have required a different process from the getgo, we gave way too much leeway to staff and to councilmembers when this was a very big decision and was not given its proper due, thank you.

Next I will come back to the chambers, if there's anyone that would like to make a public comment, see none, I will go back to zoom in -- can you see the timer? No, I can't, thank you very much, sorry I couldn't be there tonight and I'm just joining now, I'm at work and I'm training people so I have not been paying attention to prior comments, excuse me if I repeat anybody's concerns. As a business person downtown, I have seen the downtown struggling in a lot of different ways and it really concerns me that we are trying to raise costs on businesses that are already struggling. Personally, my garbage is under a lock because there are so many businesses and people in town that drop garbage into my canned or public cans and I sort through that and I understand how it happens but if you are going to raise costs, that is going to happen even more and the public cans are going to be taxed. On top of that, they are wonderful to work with, I have no problem, my employees all understand the system, we are not wasting space, we are utilizing everything we do. We are mostly compostable and our garbage is all food waste and it's very affordable, I understand it would go up. The prices I'm looking at with SCRR is significantly more and on my five dollar or six dollar items, that is going to show pretty easily when I have to start incurring extra costs because of waste management. And I really appreciate you reconsidering tonight, there's so much valuable knowledge in that room and I appreciate that you are listening to other people and I hope you continue to listen to our voices, thank you very much.

Next I will come back into chambers, if there's anyone in chambers, see none. I will go back to zoom.

Hi, this is June. And I want to echo some of the comments of others tonight, ever the asking that the Council please pause and restore trust because it is going to be hard for folks that have higher bills for their waste and recycling and they really need the time to feel heard and have questions answered. People have ran the report but there were a number of really good questions I came forward at the last session about this going. People have been very knowledgeable in the field of waste management and those questions were not addressed in the report or in the room and I think people have input even on how the evaluations were done and have information to share that might change perspectives but in any event, it is a serious level of information that needs to be looked at and understood and to bring the community together so at least people don't feel disregarded or rushed or that something was shoved through without the proper amount of dialogue among the

communities, so I really want to just to reiterate that, it would be great, the community could move forward together if we had more time or dialogue, more understanding and really some serious answers to not just how people feel but serious questions that did not inform the decision, we weren't able to see how important it was and we need to feel those planes have been taken into consideration around scoring and other topics, thank you so much.

I just wanted to illustrate the ratio of how many people are speaking in support of recology and the only folks who have spoken tonight and so far for SCRR , really take that into account of what it means to represent the constituents of the city and what would it look like to advocate for folks in the city for businesses for our folks who are advocating on union workers. Thank you.

Thank you for your public comment, next I will go to zoom, Mariah, unmute yourself, please. Go ahead.

Thank you, I wanted to piggyback on what I said in the earlier public comment. This culture of the business community feeling unsupported by the city and feeling unheard, this is a perfect example.

What Kyle said was interesting and makes sense, what's the point of public comment if you get 99% of the people asking you to do one thing and then you declined to do so and hear them. And ultimately that creates this culture where the business community doesn't feel like their counsel is here to support them and with the sales tax revenue, I think it is almost 40% of the annual income of the city, prioritizing taking care of these business owners is so important and I spend every single day, I walked the street and I talk to business owners and most of the feedback I have gotten lately, can you help us? Because we don't feel like they are helping us and are there for us so for that reason, I'm speaking one more time, I know it is very difficult but people are giving you their feedback and these business owners, like another person mentioned earlier, they are a vital piece of our community, they are the heartbeat and we need to support them, so that is my two cents, thank you.

Thank you, next I will come to the chambers.

My name is Barbara, this is the first time I have ever spoken at one of these meetings although I come very often with my husband, and to hear Ty talk about the added expenses to the theater, we live in a charming town and within the last year, we had moved and I walked everywhere, we need to support the people that provide things that are different and unusual and bring people together here and when I read the brochure that they put out the theater, I thought oh, my gosh. I'm glad you are looking at it again because it's really important that these folks feel supported, otherwise our town is not going to look the same. Thank you.

Thank you for your public comment. Next I will go back to zoom, if you would like to make a public comment on the franchise disagreement, please raise your hand virtually. Seeing none. I will come back to the chambers, public comment is closed on this item.

And I'm going to make what we normally do as a regular comment and the fact that reactions from the public, we are here to hear their words and not hear their reactions, so I wanted to point that out, we are back for discussion. Looking to my right and my left.

As a part of the ad hoc, I'm going to give a little more information, I keep hearing from people that this is too fast, there's no transparency, there's a lot of different comments, and I hear what everyone is saying to be honest with you, 90% of the people I have seen in this room more than a couple times so I want to read off the dates and just start with that. April 18th, 2023, when we drafted this staff to negotiate, that was almost two years ago, and during that time, it wasn't going well, recology has not budged with anything and I did not enjoy the process, every time they came back, they had the same numbers so I'm going to finish the dates here. May, June, 2023 we created the ad hoc committee and Sandy and I volunteered to donate our time to try to negotiate on behalf of the residence here, and just remember, I own a business in town and I'm a resident, we have huge dumpsters, my rates are going up and I'm the one recommending it, so please keep that in mind when I sit here and talk about these things. My rates will go up as a business owner. May to June, we created the ad hoc committee.

We met with recology and we negotiated and they did not want to extend the current agreement that

we had, I keep hearing people talk about the agreement and where it is at but the fact is, recology did not want to extend the current agreement and I was told that they needed to recoup the monies they have been losing on these contracts that they took and I see people shaking their head but I was in the room so I'm going to tell you, that is what was said to us. The final rate proposal prior to cessation of negotiation was for a 50% increase in rates from July 2024 through July 2027, the city could not agree to such an increase. We went back and forth and every time the numbers came back, sometimes we met with local people, sometimes they brought the general manager, it was always different people to talk to us but it was always the same numbers, 57% increase and it fluctuated a little bit based on the time frame, and -- I apologize, I'm so frustrated by this because I spent so much time on this and I want people to understand that I don't take it lightly, when people say we treat this like trash. You should see the text messages I have been receiving, I have received threats, I have been called names, I have been excluded from the business community, I'm just so frustrated by how nasty it is, when you look at the national politics going on and I see it happening right here and I see a company who lost a bid out there with liars everywhere, stirring up trouble, and while Sandy and I and the ad hoc committee and the city staff spend hours negotiating with the very people who are spreading this information, some people's rates will go up, and I tell you that it is a seesaw. What we learned also is that residents have been subsidizing the recycling for other businesses, so then we have this conundrum. Do we allow the residence to continue to subsidize the waste that the businesses have here? Which residents want to subsidize the businesses who have an increased waist? That is what is happening and when we learned that, we need to take this into account when we start looking at these things. So we did that, so I'm going to continue with the dates. February, 2024, city Council voted to conduct a competitive request for proposals, April 2nd it came back to the city Council, these are all public meetings. And sometimes we only had recology and SCRR in the room and a couple other people, and nobody showed up and I am a business owner and I keep hearing business owners telling me, I'm busy. I own a business and I'm on city council and I managed to show up. That is why I'm here, I was frustrated by a decision made by this council. So I showed up, I volunteered and I came here. April second, 2024, the whole counsel sat here and we talked for one hour and debated on how we rate the RFPs coming forward, we went back and forth, we discussed should we prioritize rates or this or that. We have discussed it all publicly for everyone and nobody showed up, so I don't know. Nobody showed up, so we decided, what we prioritized the most was rates. That is a public document if anybody cares to look at it and that happened April 2nd.

June 4th, another meeting, we approved the draft agreement for release, another public meeting that nobody showed up for. August 26, 2024, created the ad hoc committee again for the approved criteria and I want people to know that none of the councilmembers were involved in the negotiations, but we did do the interviews but we were not involved with any of the negotiations. I have been accused of kickbacks for heaven sakes. It is ridiculous, the amount of vitriol we have all taken simply because we wanted to negotiate a good rate for our residents and we did not feel that recology was negotiating in good faith. October 10th, 2024, authorized ad hoc committee an evaluation panel, city Council members on the ad hoc committee were not a part of the negotiating process, only on the rating of the proposals. I asked about that because I have never done a 15 year contract and just so you know, I used to negotiate million-dollar contracts, I've had business owners telling me, what business do you have doing that, you own a chocolate shop? Well, I have another life, I do that for fun. SCRR weighted average single-family rates were the lowest after all of these months of negotiating, and you know what? The one issue that comes out again and again is downtown, this has been coming up since I have been attending council meetings for nine years, every three months somebody asks that the downtown recyclables that are being thrown into a regular trash can, this is an example, this is a sticking point for many people. Why is this happening? They just said I don't know. For me, these are just little things that stick in my mind. I was there for the interviews. We could all go to town forever about process, I'm a project manager, the first thing they do is they go look at the process because they can poke holes everywhere and try to delay

things. The fact is, we spend a lot of time here and I understand that some people feel like this was a quick response or they didn't know and I'm sorry for that. I'm sorry that not everybody new and maybe there are things that we can learn from this and put things out differently but I beg you to stop behaving the way I'm seeing national politics happening. I have tough shoulders but I'm telling you, listening to my child cry because he saw something on the movie theater and his friends were asking him about it, I think that is despicable. On top of it, SCRR was the highest ranked proposal because of deliverables for all customers, also greater willingness to work collaboratively with the city to address service concerns and customer service needs. I keep hearing people say they want to hear stuff, and I'm so frustrated. I'm ashamed of the way people have treated us and I don't understand why people don't see, we've had recology all this time, it is just about business. I can't believe that people are yelling at us saying that they want more money. We have negotiated this rate, 95% of the residents will have lower residential rates, so it's trying to find that balance. My question is, who wants to raise all of their rates even higher to pay for subsidizing businesses? It is a tough thing, we have to sit up here and think about everyone as a whole, not just one entity, but looking at everyone.

If we would have done that, I would have went with rates that are lower for my business because that would have been selfish for me. But, I wanted to look at everyone as a whole and figure out the best rate for everyone involved and 57% increase that initially came out and yes the numbers did come down a little bit, but not very much. SCRR still had the best rates and I understand that people are going to refute all these things but I want you to know, I have been in the room, I spent all of this time, I read all the contracts from every city to understand what we should be looking for in a company and what we all prioritized were the rates. And is it perfect for everyone? No. Nothing is perfect for everyone at any time but we had to figure out what the balance was and that is where this recommendation came from, at least from me and I appreciate people listening but this has, I just can't believe how I have been treated this past week, it is deplorable and I'm ashamed of the people that have treated me that way, sending me text messages at home and all the way people have treated us here. Anyway, I just think it needed to be said and I appreciate everybody listening but I beg everybody to take a step back and to behave appropriately first of all. I moved my son to this town 10 years ago because I loved how I was treated and I have to tell you right now, he's asking me why we ever moved here because people are being so mean. Business owners, residents, people stopping me on the street, I never knew that people could be so nasty and I blame recology for that because you have been out there stirring up trouble. Yes, I have seen the flyers, so everyone can shake their head that I have seen people tell me who they talk to about it. So at any rate, that is how it happened, and I'm going to answer questions but I'm not going to take anymore vitriol about people calling me names and questioning my integrity. I'm getting nothing from this besides a big headache.

Thank you, we will take a pause, okay.

Thank you mayor and thank you vice Mayor, I was also on the ad hoc committee and I want to address the criticism of our process that we weren't transparent, that we should delay, that this decision was invalid, et cetera. So, first of all, when we are looking, we started a year and a half ago, so this wasn't a quick process. The contract had a deadline and it still has a deadline. So, recology was good enough to extend that deadline and initially, we gave them the opportunity to win that contract, we extended the contract based on negotiations, those negotiations failed with recology, they drew a very hard line , that is my experience, they drew a hard line around what they were going to charge. We weren't comfortable with that, we weren't going to do that with our community, no way. So we put it out for an RFP, we had six people on that ad hoc, the assistant city manager, two councilmembers, the city engineer and two members of the public works, the director and the assistant director. And what we did is we had proposals before us, we had to read these proposals, if you have ever read a garbage proposal, it's probably not the way you want to spend your weekend but I spent probably three or four days reading these proposals, maybe more because they are thick and it is a lot of information to try to understand and you have to come up with questions. And the questions went back and forth between the committee and the companies. All of this is confidential. I

could not talk to anybody about the negotiations. I couldn't go out, I can't get feedback. So this is a really key point in my opinion, this confidentiality that I had to maintain, so somebody said why didn't you bring it to the public so we could discuss it? It is confidential, how can we discuss it? You know, so help us decide, no, it is confidential, we cannot expose that to the public. So, I have a few comments about that, I want you to know that this ad hoc committee helped by a three person consulting team called R3 and they had three people, and they helped us with information so it was easier to understand and we had many interviews, reading the proposals. And then we had a meeting with the ad hoc supported by the consultant team who did not vote, it was just the ad hoc who voted and we scored each of the different -- we gave rates 30% which was a lot because what we hear from the public is that they are just getting nickeled and dimed everywhere they turn so they didn't want the rates to go up. I mean, rates are going up, but that was something that we felt was really important to protect, so we waited the 30 points, and the process was that we made those decisions with consensus-based scoring. That means we all on the ad hoc had to agree with whatever number we were going to assign to that certain category. I'm sorry, I don't have those categories in front of us, but while I believe labor is so important, it wasn't the only factor in the decision-making. Rates wasn't the only factor in the decision-making. There are issues that were confidentially exposed that you can read about on the Internet, about the company. So I want to be careful here, but each section was scored with those six people, that is how we made that decision and it was 100% agreement. We had to take our time to get to that agreement, six people making that agreement. And after all that, we looked at the scores and once again, we were in 100% agreement with those six people, looking at all the issues including environmental, including labor, including service, including trucks, the whole thing. And we came to the decision, it was 100% unanimous decision that we felt that SCRR was the best service, the best rates and the best overall scores for our town. That is how we made that decision. And to say that we should somehow now delay when we gave recology not one but two chances to win this contract, a third chance is just a nonstarter. Recology could have done it differently, but they chose not to.
[Captioners Transitioning]

I FEEL CONFIDENT IN RESPONSE TO THE CANS DOWNTOWN AND ALL THAT WAS IN THE TRASH, SCRR SAID THEY WOULD DO THAT. IT FELT GOOD THAT THEY WOULD ADDRESS THE PROBLEM WHEREAS RECOLOGY WOULDN'T. IN THE SCORING THAT GAVE SCRR A POINT OVER RECOLOGY. I INVESTED A LOT IN THIS PERSONALLY. I

HAVE INVESTED A LOT OF TIME, A LOT OF MY HEART AND I WILL TELL YOU THAT BY THE END OF THE WORK TOGETHER AS AN AD HOC COMMITTEE. I FELT REALLY GOOD ABOUT OUR CAN -- DECISION. TO HAVE ALL OF THIS FIRESTORM COME OUT BEFORE WAS REALLY QUITE A SHOCK. SOMEHOW WE HAD FAILED THE PUBLIC. I JUST KNOW THAT I PUT MY BEST EFFORT INTO IT. AND I AM AN ENVIRONMENTALIST. I DO CONSERVE. I DO BELIEVE THAT IS SUPER IMPORTANT. I

UNDERSTAND THAT THIS WAY OF CHARGING IS GOING TO PUT PRESSURE ON SOME BUSINESSES TO FIND DIFFERENT SYSTEMS TO CREATE LESS WASTE. I THINK ALL OF US NEED TO BE LOOKING AT CREATING LESS WASTE OVERALL. I AM WILLING --

ONE THING I WANTED TO SAY IS FOR YOUR BUSINESSES I REALLY, SCRR HAS REACHED OUT TO SOME BUSINESSES. IF YOU DO NOT TALK TO THEM YOU WON'T FIND OUT WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN WORK TOGETHER. I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO TALK TO THEM AND COME UP WITH SOME NEW SYSTEMS. PERSONALLY I

DON'T THINK IT IS A BAD THING TO HAVE TO COME UP WITH NEW SYSTEMS WHERE YOU ARE REDUCING WASTE OVERALL. THAT IS BETTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT.

SCRR IS COMMITTED TO WORKING WITH BUSINESS. THEY CANNOT DO THIS IF YOU WON'T TALK TO THEM. I BELIEVE SCRR WILL BE A GOOD ENVIRONMENTAL PARTNER. I AM NOT WILLING TO DELAY THIS ANYMORE. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING MORE THAT I WILL UNFOLD. THERE IS NOTHING MORE THAT CAN

CHANGE FOR ME HERE. I HAVE DONE THE WORK. I'M SORRY THAT YOU FEEL LIKE YOU WERE LEFT OUT OF THESE DECISIONS. I UNDERSTAND, MOSTLY I UNDERSTAND THAT PEOPLE LOVE RECOLOGY. THAT IS WHY YOU ARE HERE. THEY HAVE BEEN A GOOD BUSINESS PARTNER FOR YOU. THEY WERE NOT GOOD WITH US.

THEY WERE NOT IN TERMS OF THE NEGOTIATIONS. I VOTED TO EXTEND THE CONTRACT WITH RECOLOGY. THOSE NEGOTIATIONS WERE VERY DISAPPOINTING.

GARBAGE CONTRACTS ARE NOT SIMPLE THINGS. THEY ARE HUGE THINGS. THEY ARE BIG DEALS. CONSIDERING THE CONFIDENTIALITY THAT IS REQUIRED BY US, TO

BE CRITICIZED AND SAY THAT SOMEHOW WE WERE NOT TRANSPARENT IN THAT

PROCESS WHEN WE HAVE TO MAINTAIN CONFIDENTIALITY, IT MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT TO BE TRANSPARENT WHEN YOU HAVE TO KEEP THINGS CONFIDENTIAL.

I'M SURE YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THAT. ABOUT THE UNIONS, SCRR SAID THEY HAD

INVITED -- THEIR EMPLOYEES HAD VOTED ON IT AND CHOSE NOT TO GO INTO THE UNION. I THINK THAT IS ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING. I DO

WANT TO EXPRESS MY APPRECIATION TO RECOLOGY AND ESPECIALLY YOU, AMBROSIA, BECAUSE I KNOW HOW MUCH WORK YOU HAVE DONE IN THE CITY. I

AM SORRY FOR YOUR LOSS AS WELL BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN A REALLY GOOD PARTNER AND A GOOD EDUCATOR. YOU HAVE BEEN REALLY HELPFUL. I KNOW THIS IS A LOSS FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO LOVE THIS COMPANY. THANK YOU.

CAN I ADD ONE THING? I WOULD LIKE TO APPROVE THE FRANCHISE FEE, BUT I

WOULD LIKE TO SWITCH IT TO OPTION ONE INSTEAD OF TAKING THE THREE YEARS

TO STEP IN RATES I WANT TO DO THE RATES, RIP THE BAND-AID OFF, AND TO WITH THE FIRST TIME. IT WILL BE A NEW COMPANY, NEW TRUCKS, AND I THINK IT

WOULD BE BETTER CONSIDERING EVERYTHING WE WENT THROUGH RATHER THAN DRAGON THEM 5% THE FIRST YEAR, 10 THE NEXT, 10 THE NEXT. I CAN JUST HEAR THE COMPLAINTS. I WOULD RATHER GO WITH THE 15% INCREASE IN YEAR ONE. I'M NOT MAKING A MOTION I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE.

MAI TAI, THAT I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT.

AGAIN TAKING A PAUSE I WANT TO EXPRESS GRATITUDE AGAIN TO MY COLLEAGUES FOR ALL OF YOUR WORK. THIS IS NOT JUST SOME UNNECESSARY DEFERENCE. FOR ALL OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE WEIGHED IN JUST GIVING DEFERENCE TO COLLEAGUES. THAT IS A LITTLE INSULTING. WE ALL READ THE PACKETS. WE ALL HAVE OUR OWN FIDUCIARY DUTY TO READ AND KEEP UP WITH THE FACTS OURSELVES. I STILL THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO THANK COLLEAGUES FOR EXTRA WORK THAT THEY PUT IN. WITH THAT, I WILL OPEN IT UP TO OTHER QUESTIONS WE ALREADY DID THAT. SORRY.

I WILL RESTATE. THIS IS SUPER DIFFICULT. ESPECIALLY -- IT IS REALLY HARD

WHEN IT IS I COUNCIL THAT HAS DIFFERENT OPINIONS AND SOME OF OUR

COLLEAGUES THAT HAVE DONE A LOT OF WORK AND WHAT PEOPLE LIKE TO CALL THE DEEP DIVE WHICH I HAVE NOT DONE THAT LEVEL OF WORK. I THANK THEM FOR THE WORK. I HAVE A HARD TIME, AS I SAID TWO WEEKS AGO, TO NOT GIVE OUR COMMUNITY MORE TIME ON THIS. MAYBE THAT IS JUST WHAT I'M KNOWN FOR BECAUSE I DID IT WITH FIRE. WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT THAT. I FEEL LIKE I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS, I DO NOT THINK IT MEETS THE 45 DAYS AND I KNOW IT WAS A CONFIDENTIAL NEGOTIATION. I DID VOTE FOR THE RFP TO GO OUT

BECAUSE WE COULD NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH RECOLOGY THAT THAT POINT

AND WE HAD TO GO TO WITH BID PROCESS WHICH THEY CAME DOWN IN RATES SO THAT WORKED FOR US. NOW THE RECOMMENDATION IS A DIFFERENT WAY FROM THE SUB COMMITTEE, BUT THIS IS A $78 MILLION CONTRACT OVER 15 YEARS. IT'S

BEEN POINTED OUT TO ME TODAY AND I HAVE TRIED TO DO SOME RESEARCH ON IT

THAT THE TWO AMOUNTS ARE DIFFERENT AMOUNTS. RECOLOGY IS $4.5 MILLION A YEAR AND SCRR IS $5.2 MILLION A YEAR . SCRR IS SAYING THEY WILL RIGHT SIZE

SO THE PRICE COULD GO DOWN, BUT UNFORTUNATELY BECAUSE THEY DID NOT

HAVE THE CONTRACT THEY COULD NOT TALK TO ANYBODY UNTIL THE VOTE HAPPENED TWO WEEKS AGO. FOR ME IT IS STILL REALLY CONFUSING AND REALLY HARD. I HAVE NOT JUST LIVED IN THIS TOWN 10 YEARS. I'M A FOURTH-GENERATION SEBASTOPOL PERSON. IT'S A REALLY DIFFICULT COMMUNITY SITUATION. IT IS A LONG CONTRACT . I FRANKLY DO NOT SEE WHY WE CAN'T DELAY IT A LITTLE BIT

WHEN WE DON'T CHANGE TO GIVE THE NEW HOLLER A CHANCE TO AT LEAST TALK TO THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE TRUTH IS. I

THINK IT IS ALL CUSTOM AND IT'S REALLY HARD FOR ME EVEN TALKING TO BUSINESS OWNERS, FOR THEM TO KNOW HOW TO COMPARE IT. UNTIL A REP GOES IN AND LAYS IT OUT FOR THEM AND GIVES THEM SUGGESTIONS. WHETHER IT IS TRUE OR NOT, I DO NOT HAVE THOSE ANSWERS. I FEEL LIKE I CANNOT APPROVE, VOTE TO APPROVE A $78 MILLION CONTRACT FOR OUR COMMUNITY WHEN I JUST LEARNED ABOUT IT ON NEW YEAR'S, BASICALLY. I WAS ALSO OUT OF TOWN. I WAS NOT AROUND. IT WAS A BIG RAMP UP. I WISH MAYBE WE COULD HAVE HANDLED IT DIFFERENT. WE ARE FIVE INDIVIDUALS. WE HAVE DIFFERENT FEELINGS AND OPINIONS. WE LOOK AT LIFE -- I JUST DID A LITTLE PERSONALITY PROFILE. I KNOW I AM DIFFERENT FROM MY COLLEAGUES. IT'S FINE. THAT'S WHY WE ARE ELECTED.

WE ARE DIFFERENT PEOPLE. HOPEFULLY WE REPRESENT ALL OF THE COMMUNITY.

I WOULD REQUEST A DELAY. I KNOW THAT WE ARE TRYING TO RATIFY THE PAYMENT OPTION. IT'S BEEN SPELLED OUT TO US WHAT THE ACTION IS TONIGHT, BUT I DO KNOW THAT WE COULD DO A DELAY. I THINK THAT WOULD GIVE THE COMMUNITY TIME TO TAKE A BREATH. CERTAINLY FOR ME TO TALK TO MORE PEOPLE. CERTAINLY FOR MORE BUSINESSES TO BE VISITED AND FEEL HEARD.

BECAUSE FEELING HEARD IS IMPORTANT. EVEN IF WE DISAGREE. THAT WOULD BE MY HOPE TONIGHT. I APPRECIATE EVERYTHING THE CITY STAFF AND MY COLLEAGUES DID. IT'S A LOT OF WORK. I SAID IT BEFORE AND I WILL SAY IT AGAIN.

IT IS FRUSTRATING. RECOLOGY HAD IT . WE DID NOT HAVE TO GO OUT FOR AN RFP IF WE COULD'VE COME TO A DECISION. I HAVE SEEN THE NUMBERS. 2000

RESIDENCE TRASH RATES ARE SUPPOSED TO NOT GO UP THIS HIGH WITH THE NEW HOLLER. 2000 RESIDENTS. THAT'S THE LITTLE LADIES ON RETIREMENT INCOME THAT NEED A SMALL BEEN AND PROBABLY DON'T EVEN FILL THAT UP. I DON'T

KNOW, THAT IS MY HEART SPEAKING SO I WILL BE VOTING NO TONIGHT AND ASKING FOR MORE TIME. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER HINTON. COUNCILMEMBER CARTER?
IT IS OKAY. I ASKED FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS TO TALK ABOUT THIS NOT TO BELABOR THE POINT. BUT TO HAVE SOME ELUCIDATION ON THE FACT SO WE COULD BE CLEAR AND MOVE FORWARD AS A CITY. WHILE IT APPEARS SUBJECTIVE WITH THE CRITERIA, I STILL WOULD LOVE SOME SUPPORT FOR THAT. AS I HAVE

DONE RESEARCH ABOUT THIS PROCESS AND OTHER CITIES IT IS KIND OF A NORMAL SITUATION. ALTHOUGH I DON'T LOVE IT AND I WOULD APPRECIATE IF GOING

FORWARD WE COULD DEFINITELY WORK ON BREAKING THIS UP SO WE COULD

HAVE A DIFFERENT TYPE OF PROCESS WITH MORE CLEAR INFORMATION WOULD BE GREAT. JUST TO PROTECT OUR COUNCILMEMBERS THAT ARE ON AD HOC AS WELL,

OFFER THEM SPACE AND HAVE A DIFFERENT TYPE OF CONVERSATION SO IT DOES NOT SEEM ONE-WAY DURING CERTAIN EVENTS FOR THESE KINDS OF THINGS. I RATHER FEEL LIKE WE WERE SET UP TO FAIL NO MATTER WHAT. SCRR WAS NOT

GIVEN A PROPER INTRODUCTION THAT WAS HAPPY NOR WAS RECOLOGY ABLE TO

-- THERE IS SOME TALK ABOUT RECOLOGY BUT THIS IS KIND OF THE WAY THE PROCESS WORKS AND I DID NOT KNOW THAT. COMING IN THE WEEK BEFORE THE

VOTE I FELT VERY INUNDATED TRYING TO CATCH UP AND FIGURE OUT BOTH HOW

THE POLICY WORKS AND HOW I CAN BE ASSURED THAT -- I HAVE SAID THIS BEFORE. LIKE WALKING INTO A HOUSE AND SOMEBODY SAYS YOU HAVE TO BUY IT IN THE NEXT FIVE AND IT'S IT SEEMS LIKE A LOT. IT IS OVERWHELMING. IF THERE'S

TIME TO BE ABLE TO JUST LOOK AT THE FACTS AND JUST SEE IT, I REALLY WOULD

NOT FEEL IT WAS DETRIMENTAL TO ANY OF THE PROCESS OR TO ANYBODY'S FEELINGS. I WOULD HOPE THAT ANYBODY THAT WOULD WAIT FOR THESE FACTS

TO COME OUT AND JUST BE HELPFUL SO WE ARE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE AS WE GO FORWARD. THE KIND AND THOUGHTFUL AND RESPECT HOW WE COME TO OUR WAY FORWARD. IN THAT REGARD, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ASK FOR A WEEK, BUT

NO DISRESPECT FOR BELABORING THE POINT JUST SO WE CAN SUPPORT THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY IN THIS TRANSITION. MY COUNCILMEMBER MAURER ALSO SAID, PLEASE REACH OUT TO SCRR. I DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS LEGAL OR NOT

LEGAL BUT I UNDERSTAND QUITE A BIT ABOUT UNDERSTANDING THE

INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROPOSALS IS UNDER REVIEW FROM BEING ABLE TO TALK ABOUT. I AM NOT PRIVY TO THIS STUFF. THAT SAID, I WOULD PUSH FOR A WEEK TO JUST ABSORB THE INFORMATION. I WOULD LOVE IF ANYBODY, I DON'T

EVEN KNOW IF I CAN ASK SCRR TO SPEAK AGAIN OR ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR

HELP US OUT IN UNDERSTANDING THIS OR ARE WE ONLY TO TALK ABOUT OPTION ONE, OPTION TWO, THIS KIND OF THING.

TONIGHT OPTION ONE AND OPTION TWO OUR AGENDA ITEMS. YOU CAN

CERTAINLY EXPRESS YOUR OPINION THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK WITH COMMUNITY MEMBERS. IF YOU WISH TO HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT RATES TONIGHT YOU CAN ASK SCRR THOSE RATES . THE MAYOR IS WILLING TO REOPEN THE QUESTIONS.

OKAY. I DO NOT FEEL LIKE I AM GOING TO RELITIGATE THAT LITTLE BIT RIGHT NOW. I'M JUST GOING TO TAKE ONE SECOND AND GATHER MY THOUGHTS TO FIGURE OUT. CAN I REQUEST A WEEK, NOT TO LITIGATE THIS BUT JUST TO GIVE SOME TIME FOR QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED? THERE ARE A FEW PEOPLE WITH DIRECT QUESTIONS. THIS SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD LOOK UP.

I'M GOING TO INTERJECT AT THIS POINT BECAUSE WE DID HAVE TIME FOR QUESTIONS. WE WENT OUT TO THE PUBLIC. WE ARE NOW IN THE COMMENT SECTION. I JUST WANT TO BRING THAT OUT. ALEX, YOU CAN ADDRESS THAT.

CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT COUNCILMEMBER CARTER, YOU ARE ASKING FOR THE POSSIBILITY FOR MORE TIME. YOU COULD. IT WOULD BE UP TO THE WILL OF

THE COUNCIL, BUT CONTINUE TO SEND IT TO A LATER DATE AND NOT TAKE

ACTION ON IT TONIGHT TO PROVIDE FOR THAT MORE TIME THAT WOULD REQUIRE

THE SUPPORT OF THE MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL TO APPROVE THAT MOTION BUT YOU COULD MAKE THAT MOTION. I WOULD TURN TO MARY TO ADDRESS, ABOUT WHETHER IMPACTS THAT MAY HAVE ON THE TRANSITION PLAN. WE DO NOT HAVE

A SIGNED CONTRACT YET SO THERE WILL BE DELAYS FROM THEM IMPLEMENTING THE TRANSITION PLAN. I DON'T KNOW HOW SIGNIFICANT.

CAN YOU UPDATE US ON THE NUMBER, I DON'T WANT TO SAY JUST BUSINESSES.

THE NUMBER OF ACCOUNTS, I GUESS, THAT SCRR HAS TOUCHED BASE WITH? I WILL ASK FOR CLARIFICATION BUT I BELIEVE IT WAS 78. I DO NOT KNOW IF THAT AMOUNT HAS GONE UP SINCE A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO. 79 ACCOUNTS THEY HAVE

EITHER REACHED OUT, LEFT INFORMATION OR REACHED OUT AND TALKED TO SOMEBODY ABOUT IT.

SO THEY ARE ACTIVE AND THE PLAN IS TO CONTINUE TO DO THAT? THANK YOU.

I WANT TO ADDRESS WHAT COUNCILMEMBER HINTON IS ASKING FOR WHICH IS A DELAY. I UNDERSTAND YOU WANT TO GIVE THE COMMUNITY MORE TIME, BUT

THAT ALSO TAKES TIME AWAY FROM SCRR BEING ABLE TO GO OUT AND WORK WITH THE BUSINESSES. SCRR TOLD US THEY ARE COMMITTED TO HELPING THE BUSINESSES TO RIGHT SIZE THEIR GARBAGE AND RECYCLING AND COMPOST. THE

MORE TIME WE TAKE TAKES AWAY FROM THAT EFFORT AND THEIR ABILITY TO MAKE THE TRANSITION. THERE IS A DEADLINE FOR THIS CONTRACT. RECOLOGY'S CONTRACT ENDS JUNE 30 ON THE NEW CONTRACT STARTS IN JULY. THE MORE

TIME, THE MORE THE COUNCIL DELAYS, IT TAKES TIME FROM SCRR BEING ABLE TO MAKE THE TRANSITION.

THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER HINTON.

I WAS GOING TO ADDRESS THAT I DO UNDERSTAND THE AGENDA TONIGHT THAT THERE'S TWO OPTIONS. ALTHOUGH I DID NOT SUPPORT IT IN THE LAST VOTE, DID SUPPORT THE SECOND OPTION WHICH IS THE RAMP UP. I'VE HEARD FROM TWO

COUNCIL MEMBERS TODAY THAT THEY WANT TO CHANGE THAT SUPPORT AND DO THE 100% RATE CHANGE UPFRONT. I READ SOMETHING. I WAS TRYING TO FIND IT THAT I THOUGHT THE RAMP UP WAS IN OUR BEST INTEREST. I'M NOT SURE WHERE I GOT THAT IN WRITING. I DID WANT TO SAY THAT EVEN THOUGH I WILL PROBABLY BE VOTING NO TONIGHT, I WOULD ALSO NOT SUPPORT THE IMMEDIATE RACE. I

WOULD ASK THE COUNCIL TO SUPPORT THE RAMP UP VERSION WHICH HAD ALREADY BEEN APPROVED. THAT IS NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, TO JUST

ADDRESS COUNCILMEMBER MAUER I'M ASKING FOR A BIT OF A DELAY IN ASKING

FOR NOT OUR NEW GARBAGE HAULER DID NOT SEE BUSINESSES, BUT I THINK BY

DOING MORE BUSINESS OUTREACH I THINK IT COULD HELP US FEEL A LITTLE BIT

WETTER ABOUT POSTPONING THE VOTE BY A FEW WEEKS, NOT BY MONTHS AND MONTHS.

OKAY.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY HAVE BEEN REACHING OUT. THEY REACHED OUT TO BUSINESSES AND THEY ARE MAKING PROGRESS AND THAT. I WANT TO TALK TO US BRIEFLY ABOUT OPTION ONE AND OPTION TWO. OPTION ONE IS A 15% IMMEDIATE RATE INCREASE. OPTION TWO IS 5% THE FIRST YEAR, 10 THE SECOND, 10 THE THIRD, AND 2+ CPI ON THE FOURTH YEAR. I DID THE MATH AND DEPENDING ON WHAT THE

CPI IS, OPTION ONE ACTUALLY COULD SAVE RESIDENCE AND BUSINESSES MONEY IN THE LONG RUN. IT DEPENDS ON THE CPI. IF THE CPI IS MAXED OUT AT 5%, EVERY YEAR IF IT IS 5% IT DOES NOT MATTER WHICH WAY YOU GO. THERE IS A CHANCE RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES COULD SAVE IF YOU DID OPTION ONE FIRST. IT JUST

SEEMS LIKE A NEW COMPANY, LET'S JUST RIP THE BAND-AID OFF AND GO WITH THE FULL RATE. IT WILL BE JUST THE REGULAR CPI INCREASE THAT OUR CAT AT 5%.

RECOLOGY ALSO CHARGED CPI AND RAISE THEIR RATES. IT'S JUST PART OF HOW THEY WORKED. I'M CONCERNED WITH YEAR TWO IF YOU DO THE STEP IN. YEAR 15% NOT THAT BAD. YOUR TWO ANOTHER 10%. I DO NOT WANT TO DO THAT TO THE RESIDENCE. THAT IS WHERE I'M THINKING.

OTHER COMMENTS? I WILL GO AHEAD AND WEIGH IN. THIS WILL NOT BE A SURPRISE WHEN I MADE MY COMMENTS BEFORE. YES, I CAN SAY PERSONALLY I'VE RECEIVED A LOT OF COMMENTS AND INITIALLY WE ALL HAVE OUR REACTIONS.

THEN IT COMES DOWN TO THE FACT THAT THIS IS JUST SAD. IT SAID THAT THIS IS

WHERE WE ARE AS A COMMUNITY WHERE WE CANNOT JUST TAKE A PAUSE AND UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE HAVE A PERSPECTIVE AND TRY TO LEAN IN.

APPARENTLY WE HAVEN'T. NOW IT COMES TO US AS AN ELECTED TO MAKE THE

BEST CHOICE WE CAN AND MAKE THE BEST DECISION WE CAN ON BEHALF OF THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY. AS IT HAS BEEN STATED BEFORE, NOT ALL OF US ARE GOING TO BE HAPPY. OBVIOUSLY. WE SEEN THE DIFFERENT THINGS OUT IN THE COMMUNITY. WE'VE BEEN APPROACHED BY DIFFERENT PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY. I HAVE TO SAY IT'S FROM THE BUSINESSES. I AM A BUSINESS OWNER.

I UNDERSTAND BUT I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE BUSINESS OWNERS TO

UNDERSTAND, LOOK AT IT FROM A REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE THAT EVERYTHING DOES GO UP IN PRICE. HAVING SAID ALL THAT AS IT HAS BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED, MOST OF OUR SINGLE RESIDENCE WILL BE BETTER OFF WITH THIS. FOR THOSE OF

US THAT HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING ALONG WITH THIS, THEY HAVE FACED INCREASES IN A LOT OF ASPECTS OF THEIR LIVES. I TAKE THAT VERY SERIOUSLY

ABOUT IF I WAS LIVING ALONE AND HAD MY OWN RATE INCREASES TO THINK ABOUT WHAT WHAT I EXPECT FROM MY ELECT KIDS TO DO. THE COST FOR THAT SEGMENT OF OUR COMMUNITY DOES WEIGH HEAVILY ON ME. ALSO AS I SAID

BEFORE, I DO TAKE THE LOT AND I DO UNDERSTAND THE CONSEQUENCES FOR NOT

NECESSARILY HAVING ABIDED BY IT AND ALSO NOT SETTING US ON A TRAJECTORY TO ABIDE BY IT. I AM NOT OKAY WITH SUBSIDIZING. I DON'T KNOW

HOW IT HAPPENED BUT I AM DEFINITELY NOT OKAY WITH HAVING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE COMMUNITY HAVING TO SUBSIDIZE OTHER ASPECTS. IT'S NOT ALL RIGHT WITH ME. I SAID IT BEFORE AND I WILL SAY IT AGAIN. ABOUT WHAT I SAID

BEFORE ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE NEED TO INCENTIVIZE, NOT HAVING THE THINGS TO BE RECYCLED IN THE FIRST PLACE. I THINK THE NEW PROPOSER AND NEW VENDOR HAS DONE THE RIGHT INCENTIVIZING. WE ALL SHOULD BE MINDFUL.

WE ALL SAY WE WANT TO SUPPORT DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES. GET OUT THERE AND SUPPORT THEM. STOP PURCHASING FROM AMAZON WITH THE STYROFOAM AND OTHER THINGS. JUST COME DOWN AND SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL BUSINESSES. THAT

WAY YOU WON'T HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHERE YOU NEED TO PUT YOUR RECYCLING. I WANT TO STRESS THAT. ALSO, I ASKED QUESTIONS BEFORE BECAUSE WE ALL HAD TIME TO ASK QUESTIONS. I ASKED ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF DELAYING THIS. WHEN I HEARD THE LAST TIME WAS STAFF NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO

UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHY AND WHAT QUESTION WE WOULD WANT TO PUT FORTH IF WE ARE ASKING FOR A DELAY. I UNDERSTOOD THE CONSEQUENCES. I

HEARD FROM SEVERAL OF MY COLLEAGUES APPEAR THAT THE CONSEQUENCES OF

DELAYING FOR EVEN A LITTLE WILD DOES NOT SET US ON A GOOD PATH AS FAR AS DEALING WITH A NEW VENDOR. THOSE ARE MY POINTS. I STATED THEM BEFORE AND RESTATED THEM. THAT IS JUST THE WAY IT IS. I WILL STICK WITH MY ORIGINAL DECISION OF GOING WITH THE NEW VENDOR. I INITIALLY WANTED, BECAUSE I SENSE THE UNHAPPINESS OF EVERYONE TO GIVE THEM THE RAMP UP.

NOW I AM UNDERSTANDING AND HAVING LOOKED AT IT MYSELF I'M DEFINITELY

OPEN FOR GOING WITH OPTION ONE WHICH IS TO JUST BE STRAIGHT FORWARD WITH THE NEW RATES WILL BE SO EVERYONE CAN PREPARE. AGAIN, WHAT IS

HEAVY ON MY MIND IS THE FACT THAT WE ARE AN ELDERLY COMMUNITY AND WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE ON FIXED INCOME. I THINK IT IS CRUEL TO NOT HAVE ANYTHING THEY CAN ANTICIPATE. I AM DEFINITELY OPEN TO HEARING FROM MY

COLLEAGUES AGAIN ABOUT WHICH ONE BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT I AM SUPPORTING THE NEW VENDOR. THANK YOU.

THIS IS JUST A MINOR STATEMENT ABOUT OPTION ONE AND OPTION TWO. THERE'S ALSO THE TIME VALUE AND MONEY OF THESE THINGS. OPTION TWO SAVES NOT A

SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF MONEY, BUT IT IS LIKE $10,000 OVER FIVE YEARS FOR A BUSINESS BUT IT'S ONLY A FEW HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR RESIDENTS.

OTHER COMMENTS FROM MY COLLEAGUES AND/OR A MOTION?
I WILL MAKE A MOTION. IF WE ARE GOING TO MAKE A MOTION FOR OPTION ONE HOW DO WE NEED TO CHANGE SINCE IT SAYS RATIFYING OPTION TWO.

I WOULD JUST CHANGE IT TO SAY APPROVING OPTION APPROVE OPTION ONE FOR THE IMMEDIATE RATE ADJUSTMENTS AND ADOPT THE TAX RESOLUTION.

DO I NEED TO READ THE REST,
YOU CAN SAY AS SHOWN.

APPROVE OPTION ONE FOR IMMEDIATE RATE ADJUSTMENTS AS SHOWN AND

ATTACHMENT TO THE STAFF REPORT AND ADOPT THE TAX RESOLUTION SETTING THE FRANCHISE FEE AT 10% FOR SERVICES PROVIDED.

SO MOVED.

SECOND.

ROLL CALL.

THANK YOU. MOVED AND SECONDED FOR THE FRANCHISE FEE OF 10% OF GROSS REVENUE. COUNCILMEMBER CARTER .

YES.

COUNCILMEMBER HINTON.

NO.

COUNCILMEMBER MAURER.

VICE MAYOR McLEWIS.

YES.

MAYOR ZOLLMAN.

YES.

WITH THAT, WITH MY COLLEAGUES LIKE A BRIEF BREAK? WE WILL TAKE A FIVEMINUTE BREAK AND RESUME AT 35 AFTER THE HOUR. [ THE MEETING IS ON A 5 MINUTE BREAK AND WILL RESUME AT 8:35 PM PST.

CAPTIONER STANDING BY ]
OKAY. WE ARE STARTING AGAIN. WE ARE RECONVENING FOR THOSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SEATS. WE ARE GOING TO PICK UP WHERE WE LEFT OFF. THAT IS WE HAVE DONE CONSENT, WE'VE DONE APPOINTMENTS, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.

WE ARE ONLINE NUMBER 26? LET ME REORIENT MYSELF HERE. WE ARE CALLING ITEM NUMBER 26. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF MEASURE H FUNDING WITH THE COUNTY OF SONOMA RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT FIRE.

I AM PINCHHITTING TONIGHT. GOOD EVENING. AS THE COUNCIL IS WELL AWARE THE HALF CENT SALES TAX TO SUPPORT FIRE SERVICES. THAT MEASURE WENT INTO EFFECT IN OCTOBER. THE MONEY IS STARTING TO BE COLLECTED. UNDER THE

MEASURE H, IN ORDER TO GET OUR ALLOCATION OF THE MONEY THE MEASURE REQUIRES WE ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY. THE DRAFT AGREEMENT REALLY REFLECTS THE LANGUAGE IN MEASURE H. IT ESTABLISHES WHAT THE USES CAN BE. IT ALSO REFERENCES THE MAINTENANCE AND EFFORT

REQUIREMENT THAT REQUIRES THE CITY TO USE THE SAME PERCENTAGE OF ITS GENERAL FUND BUDGET ON FIRE SERVICES AS IT DID IN FY 21-22 GOING FORWARD.

THIS AGREEMENT BASICALLY MEMORIALIZES THAT AND ALLOWS THE CITY TO RECEIVE ITS ALLOCATION OF FUNDING. IF THEY AGREEMENT IS APPROVED BY THE

CITY WILL GO TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AT THE FIRST MEETING IN FEBRUARY FOR APPROVAL. ONE THING TO NOTE IS THESE AGREEMENTS ARE GOING OUT TO ALL THE CITIES IN THE SAME FOUR-MAN TEMPLATE. THERE ARE

STILL SOME ONGOING DISCUSSIONS WITH THE COUNTY ABOUT CHANGING SOME

OF THE PROVISIONS TO BE MORE BENEFICIAL FOR THE CITIES. RIGHT NOW, FOR EXAMPLE, THE INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT LANGUAGE IS VERY ONE-SIDED. WE ARE TRYING TO GET THE COUNTY TO AGREE TO MEMORIALIZE THAT. THERE'S

ALSO SOME OTHER LANGUAGE IN THE AGREEMENT THAT SOME OF THE OTHER

CITIES ARE TRYING TO GET NEGOTIATED BECAUSE, AS I'M SURE THE COUNCIL IS AWARE, THE CITY IS IN THE PROCESS OF REORGANIZING THE FIRE DISTRICT. SO

FOR US WE WOULD ONLY BE RECEIVING MEASURE H MONEY THROUGH THE END OF THE YEAR. THE OTHER CITIES WILL BE STUCK WITH THESE AGREEMENTS AND ITS TERMS FOR THE FULL LENGTH. THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT OTHER ITEMS THAT

REALLY DON'T AFFECT US NECESSARILY LIKE WHAT HAPPENS IF THERE IS A

SEVERE ECONOMIC DOWNTURN AND THAT SORT OF THING THAT MAY HAPPEN DOWN THE LINE. WHAT WE ASKED TONIGHT IS A SLIGHT MODIFICATION TO THE

PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION JUST TO HAVE THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE

AGREEMENT WITH SONOMA COUNTY TO FACILITATE THE RECEIPT OF MEASURE H

SALES TAX REVENUE WITH SUCH CHANGES AS APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY AS LONG AS THEY DO NOT INCREASE THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE CITY. IF THE

COUNTY AGREES TO MAKE THE CONCESSIONS AND THE LANGUAGE WE COULD ADOPT THOSE AS PART OF THE AGREEMENT. WITH THAT I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

LOOKING TO MY COLLEAGUES. TO MY LEFT, QUESTIONS? TO MY RIGHT? NO QUESTIONS. GOING OUT TO THE PUBLIC.

THIS IS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE MEASURE H FUNDING AGREEMENT. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT I WILL COME TO CHAMBERS FIRST.

SEEING NONE I WILL GO OUT. KYLE, CAN YOU UNMUTE?
IF I CAN.

GO AHEAD.

I WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT THE CITY ATTORNEY USE OF THE WORD

STUCK WITH THESE PROVISIONS SOMEHOW SUGGESTING THE AGREEMENTS THAT THE OTHER CITIES ARE MAKING OUR KIND OF STUCK WITH THESE CLAUSES. IN A

WAY SUGGESTING THAT WE ARE IN AN ADVANTAGE BY GOING INTO THIS STILL TO BE COMPLETED CONSOLIDATION. AS MUCH AS THERE HAS BEEN HUGE ADVOCATES

ON THE CITY COUNCIL SIDE ADVOCATING TOWARD CONSOLIDATION, HERE IS A

PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHERE NOT CONSOLIDATING ACTUALLY BENEFITS OUR CITY. OUR CITY HAS HISTORICALLY UNDERFUNDED THE FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR DECADES. IT'S A COMBINATION OF HAVING A VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT THAT

HAS ALLOWED US TO NOT FULLY FUND OUR DEPARTMENT AT THE SAME LEVEL THAT OTHER MUNICIPALITIES HAVE. WHILE THOSE OTHER MUNICIPALITIES ARE

FIXED AT THIS RATE AT A HIGHER PROPORTION OF THEIR GENERAL FUND THAN

WHAT THE CITY OF SEBASTOPOL HAS, THE BENEFIT OF THE TAX REVENUE IS ACTUALLY QUITE LARGE COMPARED TO THE AMOUNT WE ARE CONTRIBUTING. IF

YOU LOOK AT THE BUDGET OF THE CITY, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WITH THE SALES TAX REVENUES, IT'S A HUGE FLUSH OF FUNDING. IT IS REALLY STILL SURPRISING

TO ME THAT WE ARE SO GUNG ABOUT HANDING OVER THE KEYS, HANDING OVER

OUR PUBLIC GOOD OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO ANOTHER DISTRICT, HANDING

OVER ALL OF THESE RESOURCES TO ANOTHER DISTRICT WHEN WE ARE ACTUALLY

GETTING A REALLY GOOD DEAL IN THIS FUNDING WHEN YOU LOOK ACROSS THE REST OF THE COUNTY. IT IS ALL BASED OFF OF REALLY STRANGE INTERPRETATION OF A PRETTY FLAWED CONSULTANT REPORT. WE ARE THAT MUCH FURTHER TO THE FINISH LINE. AM I RIGHT?

THANK YOU. NEXT I WILL COME BACK INTO CHAMBERS. IF THERE IS ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT. SEEING NONE, I WILL GO BACK TO ZOOM. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND VIRTUALLY. SEEING NONE, PUBLIC COMMENT IS CLOSED.

THANK YOU. BRINGING IT BACK TO MY COLLEAGUES FOR QUESTIONS, A POSSIBLE MOTION? COUNCILMEMBER HINTON?

JUST TO ADDRESS THAT WHILE WE ARE GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS OF

REORGANIZATION POSSIBLY, THIS AGREEMENT, YOU ARE ASKING US TO APPROVE

AND YOU WOULD GO AHEAD AND MAKE ANY CHANGES WE CANNOT NEGOTIATE TO OUR BENEFIT. THE MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC BRINGS UP A GOOD POINT THAT RIGHT NOW WE ARE SIGNING THIS AND WE DON'T KNOW IT WILL GO ALONG.

CORRECT. THE CITY IS GOING TO BE SIGNING THE SAME AGREEMENT THE OTHER CITIES ARE SIGNING.

ANY POSSIBLE CHANGES THAT ANY CITY NEGOTIATES WILL IMPACT ALL OF THE CITIES.

CORRECT.

THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I WILL GO AHEAD AND

MAKE THE MOTION THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVES THE AGREEMENT TO

FACILITATE MEASURE H SALES TAX REVENUES ALONG WITH THE WORDS ALEX JUST PUT THEIR.

WITH SUCH CHANGES HAS APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY AS LONG AS THEY DO NOT INCREASE THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE CITY.

I WILL SECOND THAT.

THANK YOU. APPROVING THE AGREEMENT WITH SONOMA COUNTY TO CIVILITY --

FACILITATE THE RECEIPT OF MEASURE H FUNDING AS LONG AS CHANGES DON'T -- INCREASE THE OBLIGATION OF THE CITY. COUNCILMEMBER CARTER.

YES.

COUNCILMEMBER HINTON.

YES.

COUNCILMEMBER MAURER.

YES.

VICE MAYOR McLEWIS.

YES. MAYOR ZOLLMAN.

S.

MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

NEXT ITEM.

GOOD EVENING. THE STAFF IS PLEASED TO BRING FORWARD THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN. THIS IS THE SECOND COUNCIL MEETING ON THE ITEM. I AM GOING TO TRY TO GET MY SHARE TO WORK. JUST A MOMENT. I THINK I'VE GOT IT NOW. IS THAT VISIBLE? HERE WE GO.

COULD YOU SPEAK A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE.

YES.

BY WAY OF REMINDER THIS IS AN ITEM THAT HAS SEEN FIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS IN THE PROCESS. THERE WERE THREE MILESTONE PROPOSALS THAT WERE BROUGHT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THIS IS THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE ITEM. THE FIRST WAS AT THE NOVEMBER 19, 2024 COUNCIL MEETING. AT THAT TIME, MUCH OF THE DISCUSSION FOCUSED ON THE CHARACTERIZATION OF TWO OF THE MAIN TRAILS THAT WERE SHOWN. THESE WERE CHARACTERIZED AS ASPIRATIONAL TRAILS. THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER

ITEMS THAT WE WILL BE DISCUSSING FURTHER IN THE PRESENTATION. BY WAY OF

REMINDER, THIS PROJECT IS ACTUALLY NOT OF THE CITY DIRECTLY BUT OF THE SONOMA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY. REPRESENTATIVES, THE GROUP THAT HELPED PREPARE THE PLANS ARE HERE TONIGHT. WE WOULD LIKE TO THANK

THEM FOR USING THEIR STAFF TIME AND GRANT MONIES FOR THE PROJECT AND

FOR SLUGGING THROUGH A LONG MEETING TO STAY TOWARD THE BITTER END FOR THIS ITEM SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. IF YOU WANT TO RAISE YOUR HANDS, THIS IS AARON AND DANA. THEY WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE LATER IN THE PROCESS. STAFF IS REQUESTING FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER

ADOPTING THE PLAN AS WRITTEN THIS EVENING AND TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT

THIS PLAN WOULD BE ABLE TO BE ADOPT DID NOT ONLY ADOPTED AS WRITTEN BUT BE ABLE TO BE MODIFIED AT ANY TIME IN THE FUTURE. IT IS JUST AT THIS

TIME WE ARE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE WORK THAT IS BEING DONE AND TO ADOPT IT. WITH THAT SAID, I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT STAFF

WORKED ACTIVELY AND A CTA CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT TO MAKE SURE ALL

COMMENTS THAT WERE PREPARED WERE PROVIDED BY THE COUNCIL OR THE COMMUNITY WERE ADDRESSED IN THE UP DATED PLAN. THIS MAP BY WAY OF

REMINDER DEPICTS THE DRAFT PLANS CHARACTERIZATION OF TWO TRAILS THAT ARE ASPIRATIONAL. I THINK THE INTENT ORIGINALLY WAS BECAUSE WE DO NOT

HAVE FULL PROPERTY CONTROL OF EACH SEGMENT OF THE TRAILS, THE CONCERN

WAS THAT WE SHOULD BE DESCRIBING THEM AS ASPIRATIONAL UNTIL SUCH TIME

WE COULD NEGOTIATE WITH PROPERTY OWNERS TO GET THE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT ABILITY. THAT SAID, THERE WAS CLEAR DIRECTION THAT WE WOULD WANT TO HAVE THEM CHARACTERIZED AS PLANNED TRAILS. THE MAP WHICH IS ON PAGE 26 OF THE UPDATED PLAN IS NOW CHARACTERIZED AS PLANNED TRAILS NEEDING FEASIBILITY STUDIES. THE BENEFIT OF THIS IS THAT IT

WILL HELP STAFF AND THE CITY TO APPLY FOR FUNDING TO OBTAIN THOSE FEASIBILITY TRAILS AND MOVE FORWARD TO THE NEXT PHASE. NOTABLY, THE

TABLE FOR PLANNED INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS FOR WALKING, BIKING AND ROLLING HAVE NOW BEEN UP DATED TO SHOW BOTH AS TIER 1, HIGHEST PRIORITY TRAILS, ON THE PLAN ITSELF. THERE ARE THREE ESSENTIAL AREAS OF REVISIONS THAT COUNCIL PROVIDED STAFF DIRECTION ON. THESE INCLUDE REVISED POLICIES TO INCORPORATE. ONE OF THE PRIORITIES IN ADDITION TO

THOSE SHOWN HERE, ONE OF THE MAIN PRIORITIES WAS THE PAVING OR SIMILAR MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES. THE IDEA WAS IF THE CIP HAS PAVING PROJECTS THAT

MIGHT BE AN OPPORTUNITY SINCE WE ARE ALREADY DOING THE PAVING PROJECT TO INCORPORATE TRAIL PAVING AND MAINTENANCE. ANOTHER AREA OF GENERAL

COMMENT AND COUNCIL DIRECTION WAS THE REVISED PROJECTS SHOULD INCLUDE PRIORITIES PLACED ON MAKING THINGS HAPPEN. FOR EXAMPLE, AS

ACCOMPLISHED AND INCORPORATED IN THE MAP THE FEASIBILITY STUDIES SHOWING AS NOW PLANNED TRAILS NEEDING FEASIBILITY. THE LAST GENERAL

AREA OF UPDATES SUGGESTED BY THE PUBLIC AND DIRECTED BY COUNCIL INCLUDED REVISED IMPLEMENTATION. A COUPLE OF THESE I WANTED TO

HIGHLIGHT WAS A REQUEST TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING FUNDING, USE OF MEASURE U AND NOT FISCALLY CONSTRAINED. THAT IS HIGHLIGHTED ON PAGE 44. ADDITIONALLY IT WAS ASKED THAT AN APPENDIX WITH THE PROJECT PRIORITIZATION DETAILS BE PROVIDED. THIS IS ON PAGE 47. THIS IS

ESSENTIALLY THE SCORING RUBRIC OF HOW THE PROJECTS WERE PRIORITIZED BASED ON VARIOUS CRITERIA. THESE INCLUDE 87 SEPARATE PROJECTS RELATED

TO EXISTING FACILITIES THAT NEEDED UPDATES IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER AS

WELL AS THE NEW TRAILS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED. IF COUNCIL HAS QUESTIONS ABOUT THOSE DETAILS, AGAIN, THEY ARE HERE THIS EVENING. AT THIS TIME,

COUNCIL RECOMMENDED ACTIONS ARE TO DISCUSS THE STAFF REPORT, TAKE

PUBLIC COMMENT AND TAKE ACTION BASED ON THE GRANT GUIDELINES AND ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES. IN ADDITION TO THE

RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF TO APPROVE THE UPDATE AS WRITTEN WHICH

CAN BE UPDATED AT ANY TIME IN THE FUTURE, OTHER OPTIONS INCLUDE

APPROVING THE UPDATE AND IMMEDIATELY DIRECTING STAFF WITH SPECIFIC MODIFICATIONS OR CHOOSE NOT TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDED UPDATES. THIS CONCLUDES THE STAFF REPORT. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF MYSELF OR THE SCTA WE WELCOME THEM.

QUESTIONS FOR MY COLLEAGUES? QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC.

THIS IS PUBLIC COMMENT. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT WE WILL DO CHAMBERS FIRST AND THEN GO TO ZOOM.

I DO NOT SEE A TIMER. I AM MAYOR'S WE WERE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF SONOMA COUNTY BICYCLE COALITION. I WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO ADOPT THE PLAN AS IT IS. I DO NOT THINK FURTHER DETAILING IS GOING TO MAKE A SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE. THERE IS A LOT IN THERE. A LOT ASPIRATIONAL AND THE IMPLEMENTATION IS GOING TO BE THE CHALLENGE. MORE TIME SPENT TWEAKING IT I DO NOT THINK WILL BE USEFUL. TO SEE THE TRAIL FEASIBILITY

STUDIES THERE'S ALWAYS THE BALANCE BETWEEN GOING FOR THE LONG TERM

COSTS A LOT OF MONEY BUT WILL BE REALLY COOL AND WHAT CAN WE DO RIGHT NOW. FINDING THAT BALANCE IS GOING TO BE IMPORTANT MOVING FORWARD.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS IN THE PLAN AS WE TALK ABOUT IMPLEMENTATION

UNDER MONITORING PROGRESS IT SAYS EACH OF THE PLANS HAVE THIS AND IT, THAT YOU WILL REVIEW THE PLAN EVERY YEAR AND PROGRESS TOWARD IT. I

WILL BE GIVING YOU THE HEADS UP THAT A YEAR FROM NOW WE WILL BE SHOWING UP TO SAY WHAT GOT DONE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS HAPPENED IN

PREVIOUS YEARS NOT JUST HERE BUT IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS IS WE HAVE A

PLAN AND THEN NOT REALLY LOOKING AT IT OR REVISITING AGAIN TO SEE WHAT HAPPENED. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT OUR ORGANIZATION WILL BE LOOKING AT.

SEVERAL OF YOUR POLICIES ABOUT ENCOURAGEMENT AND MORE EDUCATION HAS VERY MUCH TO DO WITH THE PROGRAMS WE ALREADY DO. OUR SAFE ROUTES TO

SCHOOL, BIKE TO WORK DAY, CYCLING ADULT CLASSES AND WEBINARS THAT WE HAVE DONE WE LOOK FORWARD TO FURTHER PARTNERING ON THAT. I THINK THAT

IS ALL THAT I HAVE
NEXT I WILL GO TO ZOOM. KYLE, CAN YOU UNMUTE YOURSELF AND SEE THE TIMER?
I WILL MAKE IT QUICK.

I WANT TO START BY COMMENDING THE CITY. THIS IS FORWARD THINKING AND

COMPREHENSIVE AND REALLY REFLECTS A GENUINE COMMITMENT TO SAFETY AND CONDUCTIVITY AND SUSTAINABILITY. THE INCLUSION OF VISION ZERO

PRINCIPLES THE COMBINATION OF LOW STRESS BIKE FACILITIES DEMONSTRATES A THOUGHTFUL AND PROGRESSIVE APPROACH. THESE ARE EXACTLY THE TYPES OF STRATEGIES THAT CAN TRANSFORM SEBASTOPOL INTO A REGIONAL LEADER. THAT SAID, THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT. I URGE THE CITY TO EXPLORE

EVEN OLDER INNOVATIONS SUCH AS COPENHAGEN STYLE PROTECTED INTERSECTIONS, GREENWAYS FOR CYCLISTS. THIS CAN SIGNIFICANTLY ENHANCE

SAFETY AND EFFICIENCY MAKING BIKING AND WALKING EVEN MORE APPEALING

STRENGTHENING CONNECTIONS TO TRAILS AND INCREASING PUBLIC OUTRAGE

WILL ENSURE THE PLAN MEETS THE NEEDS OF BOTH RESIDENTS AND VISITORS.

ONE AREA OF CONCERN I STILL HAVE IS THE LACK OF ROBUST PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS TO THE PARK AND NEARBY CITIES. THE PLANT IS AN EXCELLENT JOB FOCUSING ON WALKING AND BIKING AND TRANSIT. AND EQUALLY

COMPONENT IS ESTABLISHING A DIRECT BUS ROUTE OR SHUTTLE BETWEEN THE

PARK OUTSIDE OF THE ONE ROUND TRIP EACH DAY WOULD NOT ONLY SUPPORT

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION BUT ALSO REDUCE VEHICLE DEPENDENCE ESPECIALLY

FOR STUDENTS AND COMMUTERS TRAVELING TO THE UNIVERSITY ARE OTHER MAJOR EMPLOYERS NOT TO MENTION THE SMART TRAIN ACCESS. WE WOULD LOVE TO HEAR ANOTHER UPDATE AS TO WHY WE CONTINUE TO ONLY HAVE ONE ROUNDTRIP TO AND FROM THE SMART TRAIN. I HOPE YOU WILL CONTINUE TO CHAMPION

TRANSPORTATION WHILE EXPANDING THE VISION TO IMPROVE TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS. THANK YOU FOR THE LEADERSHIP ON THIS ISSUE. I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THOSE IDEAS IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE.

NEXT I WILL COME BACK TO CHAMBERS.

I THINK IT IS GREAT. THAT IS GIVEN PRIORITY. I THINK A LOT OF THE SIDE BOX -- SIDEWALKS NEED WORK. THERE ARE SOME AREAS WHERE THE SIDEWALK JUST

KIND OF STOPS AND THEY HAVE TO WALK ON THE ROAD AND BACK OFF AGAIN SO JUST SPEAKING FROM LOCAL PEDESTRIANS. A LOT OF THAT AS WELL.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PUBLIC COMMENT. ROBERT, COULD YOU UNMUTE YOURSELF.

YES. THE COUNTY SPENT QUITE A BIT OF MONEY PUTTING IN BIKE LANES ALL UP AND DOWN 116. THEY TOOK AWAY PARKING PARTICULARLY ON THE NORTH END OF TOWN WHERE I LIVED. THE FACT IS THERE IS STILL NOBODY RIDING BIKES ON ANY OF THOSE BIKE LANES. IT FRUSTRATES ME THAT WE SPEND OUR TAX MONEY ON THINGS PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO USE. I DO NOT DISAGREE THAT WE NEED A

MORE BREAKABLE CITY AND IT'S PRETTY CLEAR FROM THE PUBLIC INPUT TO THIS THAT NOBODY WANTS TO RIDE THEIR BIKES IN TOWN. THEY WANT TO RIDE ON TRAILS. TO ME SOMEBODY SHOULD TAKE A PEN OR PENCIL TO THE LIST OF ALMOST 100 PROJECTS AND CUT IT DOWN TO FIVE OR 10 THAT MAKE SENSE WITH THE TRAILS BEING AT THE TOP IF THAT'S WHERE YOU WANT TO PUT YOUR ENERGY.

IT'S A REALLY SMALL CITY. THERE'S ALMOST NO CITY STAFF. THEY DON'T HAVE TIME TO THINK ABOUT 100 DIFFERENT PROJECTS. YOU HAVE TO GIVE THEM THINGS PEOPLE THINK ARE REALLY IMPORTANT AND HAVE THEM FOCUS ON THAT. THAT IS THE FLAW IN THIS PROJECT. I THINK IT IS NOT HARD BECAUSE YOU LOOK AT FLORENCE AVENUE. YOU CANNOT DRIVE DOWN FLORENCE AVENUE WITHOUT HAVING TO MOVE OVER TO LET A CAR THROUGH. I THINK THERE WERE PUBLIC

COMMENTS LAST TIME OF OTHER CITIES WITH BIKE BOULEVARDS THAT THE STREETS ARE NOT WIDE ENOUGH FOR THAT. WE NEED TO, SOMEBODY NEEDS TO GO THROUGH AND GET THIS DOWN TO A GOOD PRIORITIZED LIST. I AM IN TOTAL AGREEMENT WITH OLIVER. IT IS ABOUT THE TRAILS. LET'S START FIXING THINGS PEOPLE USE LIKE THE SIDEWALKS.

THANK YOU. NEXT I WILL COME BACK TO CHAMBERS. IF THERE IS ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT. SEEING THEN I WILL GO BACK TO ZOOM. JIM, CAN YOU UNMUTE? KENNY SEE THE TIMER?
I CAN. I AM IN SUPPORT OF THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN. I MADE COMMENTS ON IT. AS AN ELDER NOW ACCORDING TO MANY STORES AND TOWNS I'M ALSO ON MY E BIKE. THE AFFORDABILITY MAKES ME FEEL MUCH SAFER ON THE STREET. ANYTIME I CAN GET OFF OF THE MAIN STREET I DO. I GO DOWN TO BUSINESSES. I WILL GO DOWN TO WHERE I HAVE TO GO AND I WILL GO IN BACK OF

THE HOSPITAL THERE. THERE IS A LOT OF LOW HANGING FRUIT THAT WOULD MAKE PEOPLE LIKE ME THAT TRAVEL AROUND HAVE A LITTLE BIT EASIER TIME.

ANYTIME I CAN GET OFF THE STREET, I WILL. SOME OF THESE THINGS ARE LIKE GOING FROM WHERE THE WATER IS SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO GET BACK ON 116.

LITTLE THINGS CAN BE DONE THAT ARE NOT THAT EXPENSIVE. THE BIG ASPIRATIONAL TRAILS I AM IN FAVOR OF. IF WE CAN GET THE GRANT MONEY ON THE PROPERTY RIGHTS I'M ALL IN FAVOR OF GOING THERE. I THINK IT IS GOOD TO HAVE THOSE PLANS, BUT I WOULD ENCOURAGE MAKING LITTLE IMPROVEMENTS.

THE OTHER ONE IS LIKE WASHINGTON AVENUE WHERE IT STOPS BEING A ROAD AND GOES TO THE PARK. THERE IS OFFENSE YOU CANNOT GET THROUGH ON A BICYCLE WITHOUT STOPPING AND GETTING OFF. THERE ARE LITTLE TINY THINGS

THAT WOULD MAKE THE BICYCLE LIFE A LOT EASIER THAT ARE NOT VERY MUCH MONEY. I AM GLAD WE HAVE A BIG LIST. I HOPE WE CAN TAKE CARE OF SOME OF THE SMALL ONES SOON.

THANK YOU. NEXT I WILL COME BACK TO CHAMBERS. SEEING THEN I WILL GO BACK TO ZOOM. CARL, CAN YOU UNMUTE.

I'M CERTAINLY GLAD TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT. I AM NOT SEEING THE TIMER BUT I WILL KEEP IT SHORT. I WANTED TO MAKE A COUPLE OF POINTS. ONE IS THAT I

LIVE IN A HOME THAT FRONTS ON THE WEST COUNTY TRAIL RIGHT NEAR WHERE IT CROSSES ELLIS COURT. A COUPLE OF THINGS HAVE RESULTED FROM THE PLAN.

ONE IS THE ABSENCE OF PARKING NOW ON THE HEADING UP HILLSIDE WHERE ELLIS COURT COMES OUT UNDER HEALDSBURG. THE BLESSING IS THAT ONE CAN

EMERGE IN AN AUTOMOBILE AND SEE THE CARS COMING TOWARD YOU COMING UP HELP. WHEN THERE WAS PARKING THERE BEFORE THE BIKE LANE WAS THERE I

FEARED FOR MY LIFE ALMOST EVERY TIME BECAUSE IT WAS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE DOWN HEALDSBURG AVENUE. PUTTING THAT BIKE LANE AND THERE HAD

PERHAPS AN UNINSPECTED CONSEQUENCE OF MAKING IT SO MUCH SAFER TO EMERGE FROM ELLIS COURT AND MAKE A LEFT TURN. I SUSPECT THAT IS TRUE FOR OTHER STREETS ALONG THERE AS WELL. I AM ALSO A WALKER AND A BIKER. ONE OF THE REASONS WE PURCHASED THE HOUSE THAT WE LIVE IN ABOUT 11 YEARS AGO WAS BECAUSE THE WEST COUNTY TRAIL RAN RIGHT IN FRONT OF IT. ONLY

HAD TO DO WAS GO TO THE END OF THE DRIVEWAY AND I COULD WALK OR BIKE IMMEDIATELY ONTO THE TRAIL. I UNDERSTAND AT LEAST ONE OF THE

ASPIRATIONAL TRAILS HAS SOME PUBLIC OPPOSITION OF PEOPLE WHO LIVE ALONG WITH THE ROUTE WOULD BE.

YOU HAVE ABOUT 20 SECONDS.

I JUST WANT TO ASSURE THE COUNCIL AND THOSE RESIDENTS THAT HAVING THE TRAIL IN FRONT OF THEIR PROPERTY WILL BE A BLESSING AS IT HAS BEEN FOR US.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PUBLIC COMMENT. NEXT TO CHAMBERS.

I AM STEVE FINKELSTEIN. I WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT. TWO OR THREE SPEAKERS AGO A GENTLEMAN SAID THERE IS NOBODY ON THE BIKE PATHS. I DON'T

THINK HE GOES OUT THERE BECAUSE I GO OUT, NOT AS MUCH AS I SHOULD BUT I

SEE LOTS OF BICYCLISTS AND THEY ARE WHAT THEY CALL ROAD BIKES, NOT MOUNTAIN BIKES. THAT MEANS THEY WANT TO PATHS AND THEY PROBABLY NEED MORE TO GET TO OTHER AREAS OF TOWN OR OTHER CITIES. I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF MORE BIKE PATHS. I KNOW IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO WORK THAT IN WITH

THE PARKING WITH THE STORES AND STUFF THAT I'M SURE THERE'S A WAY TO

FIGURE IT OUT TO EVERYBODY WINS BUT AS ONE BIKER I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE. I WOULD PROBABLY GET OUT THERE MORE OFTEN, I PROMISE.

NEXT BACK TO ZOOM. STEVE, CAN YOU UNMUTE.

YES.

CAN YOU SEE THE TIMER.

I CAN.

GO AHEAD.

I WANT TO CONGRATULATE THE CONSULTANTS AND STAFF. THE FINAL DOCUMENT IS MUCH IMPROVED FROM THE EARLIER DRAFT THAT WE SAW. IN

PARTICULAR, THE RESPONSIVENESS OF THE SCORING AT THE END WAS VERY MUCH APPRECIATED. THE MORE DETAIL ON THE TRAILS AND THE ELEVATION TO TIER 1. I STILL HAVE ONE CONCERN. IT IS IN THE FINANCE SECTION. SCHEDULED IN THE PLAN TO SPEND $2.6 MILLION ON A CORRIDOR STUDY OF THE TOTAL OF $6.2 MILLION SPENT. THAT'S LIKE 42% IS ANOTHER STUDY. I ASSUME THAT IS ON TOP OF THE EXISTING CORRIDOR STUDY THAT IS GOING ON RIGHT NOW IN DOWNTOWN. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE APPROACH THIS WITH EYES WIDE OPEN. WE SEE THE LOW HANGING FRUIT BIGGER IMPACT ITEMS, PRIORITIZE THOSE, WORK ON THE LONGERRANGE THINGS BUT REALLY TRY TO AVOID SPENDING SO MUCH MONEY ON

PLANNING WHEN WE HAVE A GOOD LIST TO WORK ON WE DON'T NEED TO SPEND 42% ON A CORRIDOR STUDY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PUBLIC COMMENT. I WILL COME BACK TO CHAMBERS.

WHEN ANYBODY LIKE TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT? SEEING THEN I WILL GO BACK TO ZOOM. IF ANYONE ON SCENE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. LINDA, CAN YOU UNMUTE. CAN YOU SEE THE TIMER.

I CANNOT.

I WILL JUMP IN WHEN YOU HAVE ABOUT 30 SECONDS.

CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I HAVE DONE ZOOM LIKE THIS.

WE CAN HEAR YOU PERFECT.

I'M GLAD I'M NOT ON THE COUNCIL. THIS IS JUST SOME OF THE HARD DECISIONS YOU HAVE HAD TO MAKE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR HARD WORK. LET ME GET ONTO MY COMMENTS. I LIVE ON ELEANOR AVENUE. ON PROJECT 83 ON PAGE 33, THERE'S MENTION OF AN ELEANOR AVENUE FANNING AVENUE. UNFORTUNATELY I MISSED THAT WHILE I WAS READING THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN. THE MAP IS ON 36 IF ANYONE NEEDS TO LOOK AT THAT. ELEANOR AVENUE WHERE IT WOULD END UP GOING TO THE TRAIL IS QUITE A STEEP DROP OFF. THERE IS OFFENSE THERE RIGHT NOW. I AM ASSUMING THAT'S WHERE THE IDEA OF IT IS GOING TO BE PLACED. I

KNOW THAT WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE WITH MY NEIGHBORS WHO DID NOT KNOW THAT THIS WAS HAPPENING. NONE OF THEM WERE ABLE TO

ATTEND SO I'M GOING TO TRY TO SPEAK NOT FOR ALL OF THEM BUT FOR THE ONES I KNOW THAT HAVE CONCERNED ESPECIALLY THAT LIVE CLOSE TO THE CORNER.

YOU HAVE ABOUT 30 SECONDS.

I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW HOW DID IT IT DECIDED THAT THAT DID TO BE DONE? AND

THERE IS CONCERN ABOUT THE TRAIL BEING OPENED UP TO A NARROW ROADWAY AND IS THERE GOING TO BE A FEASIBILITY STUDY. IT IS NOT INCLUDED. I HAVE A

FEELING MY TIME IS UP, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT. IT WAS NEVER DISCUSSED AT ALL.

THANK YOU.

IS THAT IT?
THAT IS IT. THANK YOU.

NEXT I WILL COME BACK TO CHAMBERS IF THERE'S ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT. SEEING NONE. I WILL GO BACK TO ZOOM IF YOU

WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND VIRTUALLY. PUBLIC COMMENT IS CLOSED.

THANK YOU. BACK TO THE DAIS FOR COMMENTS, POSSIBLE MOTION.

I WOULD JUST LIKE TO THANK EVERYONE WHO HAS WORKED ON THIS. I AM SO

GRATEFUL THAT WE HAVE A ROADMAP FOR WAYS TO MAKE SEBASTOPOL MORE PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE FRIENDLY. I DID SUPPORT THE TRAILS. I AM SO GRATEFUL TO SEE THEY HAVE BEEN INCLUDED AS A PRIORITY PROJECT IN THIS PLAN. I DID ROUNDUP WITH PHIL AND WE HAD AN INITIAL MEETING WITH THE ARCHITECT. WE

ARE GOING TO BE, I WANT TO SEE THIS HAPPEN SO WE ARE GOING TO BE MEETING

AND TO TAKE ACHES -- EACH SECTION APART SO WE CAN DETERMINE WHAT IS THE SIGNAGE NEEDED, WHAT IS THE ROUTE, WHAT IS THE SURFACE NEEDED.

HOPEFULLY WITH OUR DOING THAT WITH OUR LITTLE COMMITTEE WE WILL BE

ABLE TO HAVE THAT BACK FOR STAFF TO HAVE IT MORE READY FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY. WE WILL HAVE ALREADY DONE A LOT OF RESEARCH FOR WE WON'T JUST IGNORE WHAT YOU HAVE DONE IN THE PLAN. WE WILL BE WALKING IT FORWARD. WE REALLY WANT TO SEE IT HAPPEN TICKET WILL BE A BENEFIT FOR

ALL THE RESIDENCE, FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN, IT IS A WAY OF ENJOYING NATURE, HAVING THESE PATHS. OUR RESIDENT HAS DONE SO MUCH TO WALK THESE PROJECT FORWARD FOR THE PAST 10, 12 YEARS. I AM SO GRATEFUL FOR YOUR EFFORTS AND FOR YOUR CONTINUALLY HOLDING ON TO THAT. I WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO CELEBRATE THE FACT THAT IT IS IN THE PLAN. I KNOW THE

MAP IS NOT EXACTLY CORRECT, BUT WE ARE GOING TO WORK ON THIS TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? POSSIBLE MOTION?

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT MAYBE SOMEBODY CAN RESPOND TO LINDA KELLY. THAT IS THAT TIER 3 SO WHAT THAT ACTUALLY MEANS FOR HER COMMUNITY AND HER NEIGHBORS. DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS IT SPECIFICALLY THAT ONE QUESTION BUT I WOULD LIKE SOMEBODY TO FOLLOW UP.

IS SOMEBODY COMING UP?
GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS AARON FERGUSON. I WAS THE CONSULTANT PROJECT MANAGER ON THE EFFORT. I AM HAPPY TO SPEAK TO PROJECT 83 WHICH WAS THE COMMENT THAT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD. A FEW THINGS. THE IDEA BEHIND THAT

PROJECT, IT'S RELATIVELY SHORT, IT WOULD BE POTENTIALLY A SHORT NEW CONNECTION TO A TRAIL TO TRY TO MAKE ACCESS EASIER. IT IS A TIER 3 PRIORITY

WHICH IS THE LOWEST PRIORITY AMONGST ALL THE GROUPINGS SO LIKELY PRETTY FAR OUT THERE. BEFORE ANYTHING COULD BE BUILT ENGINEERS WOULD

NEED TO GO OUT AND LOOK AT WHAT IS FEASIBLE GIVEN THE TOPOGRAPHY AND SO FORTH.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS AND/OR EMOTION? I CAN MAKE THE MOTION. I MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN AS PRESENTED THIS EVENING. IS THAT GOOD? SECONDED. ROLL CALL.

SO MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER HINTON AND SECONDED BY MAYOR ZOLLMAN TO MOVE AND IT GOT THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN. COUNCILMEMBER CARTER.

S.

COUNCILMEMBER HINTON.

YES.

COUNCILMEMBER MAURER.

YES.

VICE MAYOR McLEWIS.

YES.

MAYOR ZOLLMAN.

S.

MOVING ONTO THE LAST ONE. APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

WITH SEVASTOPOL EMPLOYEE INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR ONE YEAR AGREEMENT

FOR NEGOTIATED ITEMS AND THE RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER AND HR.

THIS IS THE ITEM TO ADOPT THE MOU. I DO HAVE HUMAN RESOURCES WHO CAN PROVIDE THE STAFF REPORT.

FOURTH STAFF REPORT OF THE NIGHT. I'M REALLY PLEASED, MAYOR, CONGRATULATIONS. COUNCIL. I AM REALLY PLEASED TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW THAT WE MET FOR THE SECOND TIME IN GOOD FAITH. AGREED-UPON THE ASSESSOR AGREEMENT. THE MEMBERS OF SEIU RATIFIED THE AGREEMENT. WHAT

IS LEFT IS FOR THE COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE AGREEMENT AND ALSO THE BUDGET AMENDMENT THAT GOES ALONG WITH IT. I THINK MARY HAS PROVIDED THAT SO I DO NOT HAVE TO REPEAT THEM.

QUESTIONS FOR MY COLLEAGUES? PUBLIC COMMENT?
THANK YOU. THIS IS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THE SEIU FOR THE ONE YEAR AGREEMENT. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT IN CHAMBER FIRST. SEEING NONE I WILL GO TO ZOOM. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND VIRTUALLY.

SEEING NONE, THERE'S NO PUBLIC COMMENT.

THANK YOU. COMMENTS AND MOTION? NOT SEEN ONE, I WILL GO AHEAD. MOVED TO APPROVE FOR JANUARY 1, 2025 THROUGH DECEMBER 31. AUTHORIZING THE

CITY MANAGER TO TAKE ALL NECESSARY ACTIONS FOR THE AGREEMENT INCLUDING RELATED CHANGES THREE TIMES, PROCESSES AND DOCUMENTS.

AND WE ALSO AMEND THE 140,000 FOR NEGOTIATED ITEMS.

YES.

THE SECOND WAS?
SO MOVED AND SECONDED. APPROVED THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

FOR THE INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR ONE YEAR AGREEMENT FOR NEGOTIATED ITEMS. COUNCILMEMBER CARTER.

S.

COUNCILMEMBER HINTON.

YES.

COUNCILMEMBER MAURER.

ONTO THE LAST ACTION ITEM. THE ANNUAL REPORT ON EXISTING SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY.

AS THE SAYING GOES, THE END IS NEAR SO I WILL GET THROUGH THIS AS QUICK AS I CAN. THE SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY COMMUNITY SAFETY ORDINANCE WAS PASSED WITH CHAPTER 8.80 TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE. THE ORDINANCE

REQUIRES AN ANNUAL REPORT THAT DETAILS THE US OF VARIOUS TECHNOLOGY

BY CITY EMPLOYEES, ACCEPTANCE OF THIS REPORT AND APPROVAL TO CONTINUE USING EXISTING TECHNOLOGY IS REQUIRED. I PROVIDED THE SAME REPORT LAST YEAR. ESSENTIALLY, THERE ARE NO CHANGES. I WILL HIT ON ONE POINT IN A FEW MOMENTS. THE ONLY APPLICABLE TECHNOLOGY ARE SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS

THAT ARE ON CITY-OWNED BUILDINGS AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT BODY WORN CAMERAS. NO CHANGES OR MODIFICATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE TO THOSE TECH ALLERGIES. NONE OF THEM USE ANY OF THE PROHIBITED TECHNOLOGIES OR VIOLATE THE POLICY. THERE WERE NO POLICE REQUESTS OR REQUESTS FROM THE

POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR ANY OF THE VIDEO THAT IS RECORDED ON THESE DEVICES THROUGH THE YEAR. THE ONLY TIME WE REQUEST THOSE WOULD BE FOR PROSECUTION INVOLVING A CRIMINAL ACT. APPOINT WAS RAISED LAST YEAR LATE IN 2023. THE LIBRARY DID INSTALLED CLOSED-CIRCUIT TELEVISION CAMERAS. AT OUR REQUEST THEY COOPERATIVELY AGREED NOT TO ACTIVATE THOSE CAMERAS. THEY STILL HAVE NOT BEEN ACTIVATED. THE QUESTION AROSE

TO WHETHER IT COULD OR WOULD APPLY AS LIBRARY IS IN A CITY-OWNED BUILDING. IT ONLY APPLIES SPECIFICALLY TO EQUIPMENT USED BY A CITY, DEPARTMENT AND ITS EMPLOYEES. THE LIBRARY IS A SEPARATE ENTITY, NOT A CITY DEPARTMENT. THE DECISION TO INSTALL AND ACTIVATE THE CAMERAS LIES WITH THE LIBRARY SYSTEM. BASED ON THAT YOU HAVE TWO OPTIONS. ONE IS TO

ACCEPT THE REPORT AND APPROVED THE CONTINUED USE OF THE EXISTING SYSTEMS. SECOND WOULD BE TO APPROVE THE CONTINUED USE OF OUR EXISTING

SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS AND DISCUSS AMONGST YOURSELVES WHETHER YOU

DESIRE TO DRAFT A LETTER TO THE LIBRARY SYSTEM TAKING A POSITION ON THAT. ANY QUESTIONS?
APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

THIS IS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE ANNUAL REPORT AND CONTINUED USE OF EXISTING SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY. KYLE, CAN YOU UNMUTE? YES I CAN.

CAN YOU SEE THE TIMER?
YES. I THINK IT IS GREAT THE CITY HAS A POLICY WHERE AGENCIES SUCH AS POLICE ARE REPORTING ON THE USE OF SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY. I THINK IT IS

IMPORTANT TO BE AWARE OF THESE TYPES OF TECHNOLOGY AND THE CAPABILITY OF SOME OF THEM. FOR ONE, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE YOU DO SOME RESEARCH ON YOUR OWN. THERE'S AN ARTICLE THAT CAME OUT EARLIER THIS YEAR THAT

LOOKS AT WHEN THESE SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS HAVE SECURITY FLAWS, VAST AMOUNTS OF DATA CAN BE LEAKED OUT FROM THE SYSTEMS. IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT SURVEILLANCE BUT IT'S ALSO ABOUT DATA PRIVACY. OUR CITY DOES NOT HAVE A GREAT TRACK RECORD WITH I.T. I CAN SAY $1 MILLION AND YOU WON'T KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT LOOKING AT THINGS

LIKE SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY ON THEIR USE, ENSURE THAT IT IS STATED BY

POLICE THAT IS ON BODY WORN CAMERAS AND BUILDINGS, BUT WE ALSO HAVE

INTERSECTIONS WITH CAMERAS AND I DON'T HEAR THAT BEING REFERENCED OR WHAT THE SECURITY OF THOSE STRUCTURES ARE IN PLACE. ADDITIONALLY, OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT WORKS WITH OTHER AGENCIES. WHILE WE MAY NOT HAVE

OTHER SURVEILLANCE TECH ALLERGIES THAT WE ARE EMPLOYING, WE ARE

REGULARLY WORKING THROUGH SOME USE AGREEMENTS, WE ARE WORKING

WITH OTHER AGENCIES AND THOSE AGENCIES MIGHT HAVE SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGIES. WHILE YOU MAY SIT HERE AND NOT ASK QUESTIONS TO POLICE

ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR POLICY AND IT'S JUST AN ANNUAL REPORT, I THINK

THERE'S VERY SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT SURVEILLANCE AND DATA PRIVACY

THAT WE SHOULD BE ASKING TO MAKE SURE THE DATA OF CITIZENS IN OUR CITY ARE SECURE.

THANK YOU. NEXT, IN CHAMBERS IF THERE IS ANYBODY IN CHAMBERS. SEEING NONE I WILL GO BACK TO ZOOM. WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. SEEING NONE, PUBLIC COMMENT IS CLOSED.

THANK YOU. I DO HAVE ONE COMMENT. I WANT TO THANK THE POLICE CHIEF AND ALEX FOR WORKING WITH THE LIBRARY. HERE IS SOMETHING I WILL POINT OUT

THAT THE LIBRARY IS A SEPARATE ENTITY. PART OF THE UPROAR ABOUT THE

CAMERAS AND HOW UPSET THE LAB WAS WOULD HAVE BEEN REDUCED GREATLY

IF THERE WERE MORE EDUCATION ABOUT HOW THE LIBRARY ACTUALLY WORKS

WITH ITS INDEPENDENT STUDIES AND ACKNOWLEDGING THE FACT THAT THE CITIES ARE THE ONES THAT CREATED THE LIBRARY TO BEGIN WITH. IT PROBABLY WOULD BE GREAT IF YOU SPENT MORE TIME ON THAT EDUCATIONAL PIECE. I WILL LEAVE IT ON THAT.

I JUST HAVE A THOUGHT. RAISED BY KYLE ABOUT DATA SECURITY. THIS MAY NOT

HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE POLICE CAMERAS, BUT I AM WONDERING WHAT

PROTOCOLS I HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE STRONG IN DATA LEAKAGE JUST IN GENERAL AS A CITY. LET ME THINK ABOUT HOW TO SAY IT. I CAN'T REALLY

REQUEST ANYTHING OF YOU BECAUSE I THINK REQUESTING ANYTHING ABOUT DATA SECURITY IS NOT SOMETHING I CAN DO. CAN I AT LEAST TELL YOU TO ALSO

KEEP AN EYE ON WHAT WE HAVE BEEN IN DEPARTMENTS THAT ARE NOT ASSOCIATED WITH CITY HALL.

YES. WE CAN LOOK INTO THAT.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR MOTION?
CAN I ASK A QUESTION.

PART OF THE REASON FOR ADDING THE OPTION TO SEND A LETTER TO THE

LIBRARY IS THAT I WOULD BET PRETTY STRONGLY THAT THE NEXT THREE OR SIX

MONTHS WE WILL GET ANOTHER EMAIL OR CONTACT FROM THE LIBRARY SAYING WE WOULD LIKE TO ACTIVATE THE CAMERAS.. SINCE I HAVE BEEN HERE WE'VE BEEN SAYING WE ARE NOT READY TO TALK ABOUT THAT YET. THERE WAS OPPOSITION BEFORE. WE WILL GET BACK TO YOU. I DO NOT KNOW IF THIS IS SUFFICIENT PUBLIC NOTICE TO THOROUGHLY TALK ABOUT IT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ISSUE IS NOT GOING TO GO AWAY. I WOULD APPRECIATE SOME

THOUGHTS OR AN AGENDA ITEM OR SOME KIND OF COUNCIL DIRECTION TO PROCEED WITH THIS . IT WILL BE COMING BACK TO US. NOW THAT THERE HAS BEEN THIS LEGAL QUESTION ABOUT WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY. NOW THAT WE KNOW I THINK WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE NEXT STEP IS. PERHAPS GOING TO THE LAB MIGHT BE A NEXT STEP, BUT IT FEELS LIKE WE ARE.

I THOUGHT ALEX DID SAY IN HIS PART BECAUSE I SENT YOU A QUESTION ABOUT THE STAFF REPORT. URINALYSIS IS BASICALLY WHAT THE CHIEF JUST SAID WHICH

IS, WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING LEGALLY TO DO OTHER THAN TO SEND OUR LETTER

TO THEM WHICH THE LAB COULD DO IF WE WERE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT WE WERE ASKING FOR.

THAT IS AS FAIR ASSESSMENT. I THINK IT WOULD BE GREAT FOR SOMEONE, THE

GENERAL MANAGER TO PUT TOGETHER SOMETHING FOR THE LAB TO HAVE THEM SHAPE THEIR LETTER OF CONCERN AND WE CAN BRING IT BACK. I WOULD BE MORE

THAN HAPPY TO BRING IT BACK TO THE COUNCIL

I DO NOT WANT TO DRAFT A LETTER REFLECTING DIRECTION WITHOUT HEARING DIRECTION FROM THE COUNCIL. I HAVE NOT HEARD THAT.

I AM UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE SO MANY PRIORITIES WE

NEED TO DO TO BE ASKING THE CITY MANAGER DRAFT A LETTER ON SUNDAY WE HAVE NOT DISCUSSED FEELS PREMATURE.

GREAT.

WITH NO LEGAL JURISDICTION I THINK THIS IS UP TO THE LAB. IF THEY WANT TO

DRAFT THE LETTER ON THEIR OWN AND REQUEST TO PUT IT THROUGH THE LIAISON WHICH WOULD BE YOU, I THINK WE CAN DISCUSS THAT. IT IS LATE

TONIGHT. IT'S NOT UP TO THE CITY MANAGER TO DO IT. I THINK IT IS UP TO THE LAB IF THEY WILL OPPOSE THE CAMERAS.

SOUNDS GOOD. IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE GETTING AT?
OKAY. I GUESS THERE IS A DIRECTION. SO WE WOULD NEED A MOTION TO ACCEPT THIS?
YES YOU DO.

IS SOMEBODY PREPARED.

IT WOULD BE OPTION ONE?
CORRECT.

YOU WANT ME TO MAKE THIS MOTION THE CITY COUNCIL RECEIVED THE REPORT, IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT?

THE MOTION BE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL RECEIVES THE REPORT AND AUTHORIZES CONTINUED USE OF SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY AND AUTHORIZE IT CONTINUES.

SO MOVED.

SECONDED.

THANK YOU. MOVED AND SECONDED. AUTHORIZING THE CONTINUING USE OF

SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY AND AUTHORIZE THE CONTINUED USE BY CITY DEPARTMENTS. COUNCILMEMBER CARTER.

S.

COUNCILMEMBER HINTON,
YES.

YES.

MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

MOVING ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 30.

CAN I JUST JUMP IN?
CAN WE DO PUBLIC COMMENT. THIS IS THE TIME FOR PUBLIC COMMENT FOR INDIVIDUALS THAT DID NOT SPEAK AT THE FIRST PUBLIC COMMENT. NOW IS THE TIME FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA. I WILL GO TO ZOOM IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO

MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT FOR AN ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA AND NOT SPEAK EARLIER.

RATE. NOW THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK REPORTS. THIS SEEMS TO BE THE MONTH THAT YOU HAD ASKED ALL DEPARTMENTS TO SEND THE REPORTS. I THINK THEY HAVE ALL BEEN INCLUDED.

ALMOST ALL. I DO NOT HAVE ONE FROM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. WE MISSED THAT, I SUSPECT BUT WE WILL HAVE THAT NEXT TIME.

THE ONE THING I WANT TO MENTION PARTICULARLY IN LIGHT OF THE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE TRAILS, WITHIN THE LAST EVEN 24 HOURS, WITHIN

THE LAST WEEK JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST WE HAVE HEARD THE SENIOR CENTER IS INTERESTED IN EXPANDING SPACE. WE

HEARD ABOUT THE TRAILS TONIGHT, WE HEARD ABOUT SOME INTEREST IN THE PARK AND THE CREEK. WE HAVE THE COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN UNDERWAY. THESE ARE ALL CITY FACILITIES WITH SOME INTEREST IN IMPROVING THEM. I SAY THIS ONLY TO HELP PLANT THE SEEDS FOR THE GOALSETTING SESSION WE WILL BE HAVING IN ABOUT A MONTH. YOU MIGHT THINK ABOUT THIS

IS A CATEGORY AROUND ADDRESSING FACILITIES COULD BE ONE OF THE

NOMINEES FOR GOALS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION FOR NEXT YEAR, SO I THOUGHT

I WOULD MENTION THAT THERE IS QUITE A BIT COMING FROM DIFFERENT FOLKS IN THE COMMUNITY. IT IS A GOOD TIME TO TALK ABOUT WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT.

WE WILL HAVE AN ITEM ON THAT TOPIC FEBRUARY 18 TO PREVIEW THE SESSION.

WE ARE ALSO PUTTING TOGETHER SOME OF THE BUDGET INFORMATION, FISCAL

INFORMATION. WE ARE GETTING SOME OF THE DATA COMPLETE ENOUGH TO REVISE THE FINANCIAL MODEL. SO THAT IS JUST GETTING UNDERWAY. THAT WILL HELP AND FOR MULTIPLE THINGS, PARTICULARLY BUDGET BUT CITY AS WELL.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER DEPARTMENT HEAD REPORTS? MOVING ALONG TO REPORTS FROM MY FELLOW COLLEAGUES. ANY FELLA REPORTS YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE. COUNCILMEMBER HINTON.

LAST THURSDAY I ATTENDED THE GSA MEETING GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY. I HAVE SOME FOLLOW-UP SLIDES I WILL TRY TO PHOTOCOPY ABOUT A COUPLE OF ISSUES THAT WERE DISCUSSED. IT WAS A SUPER MAJORITY SO IT WAS REQUIRED THE MAJORITY OF THE BOARD BE THERE. THEY APPOINTED NEW PUBLIC NUMBERS TO SOME ADVISORY SEATS. THAT IS PRETTY MUCH IT.

THANK YOU.

COUNCILMEMBER CARTER.

SINCE I AM ON THE ZERO WASTE COMMITTEE I WENT TO MY FIRST BOARD MEETING. IT WAS NOT ASKED AS EXCITING. I DID MEET SOMEBODY THERE THAT WAS IN MY PAST THAT I CANNOT BELIEVE. THIS PERSON WAS ABLE TO HELP ME UNDERSTAND OUR WASTE ISSUE. I THINK THAT WAS RELEVANT AND HELP WILL.

OTHERWISE, JUST APPROVING THE BUDGET FOR THE FOLLOWING YEAR WAS THE ONLY THING THAT WE DID.

WE HAD A BUDGET MEETING HERE. THAT WAS PHIL'S FIRST TIME. AS I SAID, WE MET ON THE TRAILS. WE HAVE A PLAN OF ACTION MOVING FORWARD TO GET THOSE READY FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY. I WENT TO THE SUPERVISORS MEETING.

THEY HELD A MEETING AT THE CENTER FOR THE ARTS. I WENT AND LISTENED TO THE COMMENTS THERE.

I ATTENDED THAT MEETING ALSO. I PUT IT OUT THERE PROBABLY INCLUDING US, AS SELECTED FOR THE CITY TO GIVE MORE NOTICE OF THAT WOULD BE GREAT. IT WAS GREAT TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC. IN ADDITION TO MY NORMAL MEETINGS,

THE PRESS RELEASE I HAD MENTIONED BEFORE QUITE A FEW OTHER ELECTED'S

AND THE SUPERVISOR AROUND TRYING TO GET MORE FUNDING FOR AN HOUSED

AND FOSTER CARE YOUTH BECAUSE IT IS JUST ASTONISHING HOW LITTLE THEY HAVE AND THAT FALLS UNDER MY LIAISON ROLE.

LET'S SEE. WE HAVE HAD THREE MEETINGS SINCE OUR LAST COUNCIL MEETING.

LOTS OF MEETINGS TRYING TO GET EVERYTHING TO BRING TO THE COUNCIL IN FEBRUARY. FOR ANYBODY THAT IS LISTENING, FIRE IS COMING TO DISCUSS. I WANT PEOPLE TO BE AWARE THAT IS HAPPENING. THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO APOLOGIZE, I JUST LOST IT HERE. THE SEBASTOPOL WORLD FRIENDS ASKED ME AGAIN TO REMIND PEOPLE THAT THIS COMING WEEKEND ON THE 25th IS THE SISTER CITY FRIENDSHIP DINNER. IT'S SATURDAY, JANUARY 25. I UNFORTUNATELY AM OUT OF TOWN. I DO NOT RECALL WHOM I ALTERNATE IS.

I CAN DO A VIDEO. I HAVE ANOTHER ENGAGEMENT SO I WILL DO A QUICK VIDEO AND WELCOME EVERYONE.

THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO BE SURE TO MENTION THAT.

PERFECT. WE WILL GO AHEAD AND ADJOURN THE MEETING. SORRY. I USUALLY DO THAT. I FORGOT. YOU WILL WILL
[ CAPTIONERS TRANSITIONING ] [Event Concluded]