Yes.

Can you hear me?

Recording in progress.

Yes.

Welcome to the Pacific Grove City Council meeting.

This is a regular meeting, Wednesday, February eighteenth, twenty twenty six, at six PM.

We're in Council Chambers of City Hall, Three Hundred Fourth Avenue, Pacific Grove, California.

I now hereby call this movie to order.

And we're gonna we have uh Councilmember Baduri appearing via Zoom from Chicago, Illinois.

And we also have Councilmember Raoul on Zoom, so at this time, I'll ask her to state a record for her Zoom appearance.

Okay, your honor.

I'm participating tonight under the Just Cause provision of the Brown Act.

I'm alone in the room, and no one under eighteen is in the home with me.

And at this time, I'll ask Council Member Rao to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Thank you.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation under God and a visible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you very much.

And at this time, I'll we're out to item one, approval of the agenda.

Do I have a motion to approve tonight's agenda?

Motion by Emilio, second by McDonald.

Uh we'll take a roll call vote, please.

Thank you, Mayor.

Mayor Patan Mamelia.

Hi, Councilmember McDonald.

Hi.

Councilmember Smart and Stick.

I.

Hi.

Hi.

Mayor Smith.

Aye.

Motion carries 7-0.

Okay, we will proceed with the agenda as stated.

At this time, there are no presentations under item two.

We'll move over to council and staff announcements, and I'll recognize Mr.

Lorca 3A for a report on closed session.

Thank you, Mayor.

With respect to the two items on the closed session agenda, an update was provided to council.

Council provided direction to staff, but no reportable action was taken.

Thank you very much.

Um at this time we'll recognize any council members with council announcements, Councilmember Garfield.

Thank you, Your Honor.

Um Sandra, can you call that up for the announcement, please?

Yes.

Okay.

In the February 5th through 11th weekly, um, the um American Lung Association and the State Tobacco Control Division gave a scorecard to each of the cities on how well we're doing on controlling and mitigating smoke and secondhand smoke.

Um six years ago, I think it was six years ago, Pacific Grove received an F.

It was alarming.

And we proceeded to develop a very good strong smoking ordinance in our city to protect both our residents and our environment.

And today we received an A rating.

So often we pass ordinances and we don't quite know what the result was.

This one we got a score.

Um we're not done yet.

Uh, we're still seeing way too much uh cigarette litter, and um I will say that that Ms.

Holliby has collected some signage that we are going to be putting out and deploying in some hot spots to see if by better education we can actually start to clean up our coast zone with these little toxic uh plastic um filters.

So we celebrate, as they said.

Uh let your light shine, Pacific Grove, and I am really hoping that all of the municipalities and the county in our area will join us because together we can make much more of a difference.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Uh, any other additional council members wishing to make an announcement.

Okay, we'll go ahead and go to recognize Mr.

Moganson's staff announcements.

No, no, it's this evening, Ms.

Mayor.

Okay, thank you very much.

I'll go ahead and move to general public comment.

General public comment item four must deal with matters subject to the jurisdiction of the city and the council that are not on the regular agenda.

So, keeping that in mind, is there anyone in chambers or in online that wishes to make a public comment?

I'll take chambers first.

We have one gentleman coming forward.

We'll take him first and then online.

Nice to see you here today.

I'm here because I was thinking altruistically about the presence, purpose, and direction of this city council and the shoulders that it stands on from the recent past of two or three decades.

And as I recall, most of you when you ran for office, you ran under the auspices personally that you wanted to serve the community.

And if you're gonna serve, that makes you if you haven't thought about it, you're a servant.

If you're serving, who serves?

Servants sir, waiters serve, you know, people serve who are servants in one capacity or another.

And you're if you're a servant, you have a master.

And in some cases, the master is your boss.

You know, if you if you're a butler or a waiter or someone who's serving in any capacity, you usually have a master, a boss.

We call it a boss usually, and who's your boss?

Who are you accountable to?

Being someone who serves the community?

You're accountable to the citizens of the community, you're not accountable to the staff or the political party from which your heart is invested in, particularly because you run as non-partisan people.

You don't run as a green, as a Republican, as a Democrat.

You run as a nonpartisan, which is what you're supposed to be.

But then what happens?

Many of you are unable to break emotional ties with the political party, which you're particularly bound.

And although you don't declare publicly that you represent that party, you do, in fact, in action, you know, oftentimes, let's say some parties are more partial to maybe the SEIU, the uh state and local unions.

And I notice in a lot of negotiating that this and other councils have been very partial to giving raises, which result in pension increases, more benefits, so on and so forth to the city staff.

And I think that when they do this, they disregard who put them in office, and who they're really supposed to be serving, who they're supposed to be responsible to, and that's to be to the citizens.

And the citizens have one problem living in this area, it's expensive.

You know, we don't need more taxation, we don't need more property taxes, which you play a minor role in.

We don't need more sales taxes, we don't need little add-ons on the uh tax rolls, and I want to encourage you to consider the presence, values, interests of the citizens of the community.

That's all I want to say, not to staff or other entities or other past political parties you may have been associated with.

So thank you very much for letting me speak.

Let's have a good meeting tonight.

Thank you.

All right, online.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council.

The city and the Pacific Grove Museum has partnered with Xerxes Society to harm monarch butterflies in violation of your ordinance.

If you don't know, Xerxes MODIS project glues microwave transmitters on the backs of monarch butterflies that pulse every three seconds, 24 hours a day, and puts microwave sensors in their home groves, like here in Pacific Grove.

Why is that a bad idea?

Microwave radiation is a toxin and it damages DNA, it causes cancer, tumors, heart attacks, birth defects, mutations, seizures, strokes, brain damage, it harms neurology, fertility, blood hormones, memory, learning, and in birds and insects, it also harms their ability to navigate by the earth's natural electromagnetic frequencies.

All the pulsing wireless smart meters, the Wi-Fi in your homes, the motels around the grove and at the adult school, your smartphones, the answer is yes, and it's part of what's stressing their species, but to glue it on their bodies, in addition, these are the equivalent of 22 pounds for a human.

That's very heavy.

If we have to carry it, we have the ground under our feet, but butterflies have to fly, and they have to fly thousands of miles through all kinds of weather.

They have never ever flown with anything on their backs, let alone this very heavy weight.

These are courageous, gutsy butterflies, and I am shocked at Pacific Grove and the fake environmentalists who approved this.

I told a European scientist who studies microwave impacts on insects, and he was aghast, asking, why is it so hard to be the mature adult in the room?

Emma Pelton of Xerxes and CDFW told me that CDFW just gave them a permit and said there was no environmental review, no public notice, no public hearings, and no public comment periods.

With hearings in environmental review, they and you would have been inundated with science on the toxicity of the RF EMF emissions.

I asked the council to halt this project and its participation in it immediately.

This is in complete violation of not just your ordinance but all moral morals in any universe.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Christy Italiano Thomas.

Hi, excuse me, good evening.

I just wanted to speak to uh Ms.

Garfield's um little announcement on the smoking ordinance, and that is as a regular city volunteer picking up trash and cigarette butts.

I just wanted to point out that uh no ordinance is gonna quit uh have people quit smoking, and in reality, no one is out enforcing that people can't smoke outside.

But what you could support is you know, PG's got sustainable Pacific Grove, PG Cares also partners with Keep America Clean, in which Terra Cycle recycles the cigarette butt.

So what we what's what's really helpful because people are gonna smoke is the receptacles that we put out and that even Carmel Cares gave to our city.

So if more of those would be out, people would use them in the heavy smoking um areas, so that's where you could really support the butts being picked up.

Thank you.

Anga Lawrence and Dimer.

Thank you.

I wish our council staff and public were more versed in our Pacific Grove city charter.

We were held hostage in the February 4th City Council meeting for no good reason.

We did not need a unanimous vote.

We only needed for the drone urgency ordinance.

We only needed five votes.

Article 5, subsection D of our city charter, and I am appalled that that did not happen.

Thank you very much.

No further hands are raised.

Okay, thank you very much.

We'll close general public comment, and we'll bring it to the next item on the agenda, which is the consent agenda.

Deals with routine and non-controversial matters, may include action on resolutions ordinances or other public hearings for which testimony is not anticipated.

At this time, is there anyone uh on the council wishing to pull an item?

Off consent.

Seeing none, is there anyone in chambers or online wishing to pull an item off consent?

That'll be online, mayor.

Right, take it back to the council for action.

A motion to approve consent.

By uh Mayor Pertam Amelio, do I have a second?

Second.

We have a second by uh Councilmember Garfield.

Uh we'll take a roll call vote, please.

Thank you.

Mayor Pro Temelio.

Councilmember Garfield?

Aye, Councilmembers McDonald?

Hi.

Adjury.

Rocking stick.

Aye.

And Mayor Smith.

Aye.

Motion carries seven zero.

Thank you very much.

Um so that'll bring us to our regular agenda.

We're now at item 11A.

This is uh the resolution on the special election.

Uh 11A, and I will turn it over to our city attorney, Mr.

Lorca.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, this has its origin.

There's an exhaustive um chronology of the background of this.

It has its origins before my time with the city, but um uh your former city attorney, Mr.

Purick, uh now working as special counsel has worked this up and provided this chronology.

Um, this is something that this council considered before, and it's back before you as directed uh for a vote whether or not to submit to the electorate.

Um, do we have any additional presentation tonight uh by anyone?

Or is that no, Mr.

Mayor?

I think that was the um the summation of the presentation.

This is the basically the same ordinance information that you saw a year ago that's now been updated by um by one year's time worth of a CPI, but uh and also this is a going to the ballot.

That's that's the vote rather than just a simple passage.

That's correct, correct.

The electorate.

Okay, got it.

All right.

So we'll go ahead and go send out the public comment.

Public comment on item 11a uh relating to sending to the ballot um increase stipend for the council.

So uh chambers first.

Well, of course.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

My name is Bill Camp, president of City of Pacific Group, and I'm here to advocate for placing this measure on the ballot.

Um, I think it has a number of things that are important for the city uh uh to merit it.

Uh one is that um a higher uh salary for the council can expand the pool of candidates who um run for city council, and I think that's important in a couple ways.

One is that citizens who would suffer a financial cost for participation in the council will at least have some compensation for their efforts and ideally bring in people who are younger, employed, have kids, and bring an important voice to the council.

Uh it it can broaden the representation of our community.

There's another uh potential benefit, and in fact, I think it's fairly essential.

This is going to be the first in November, the first district election uh for our city, and it is very important to have every district a contested election.

And the reason is it ensures that candidates bring not just their personal agenda, which we all do, um, but are connected to voters in the process of earning their seat, and councils can face significant dysfunction uh without that connection.

Then there's the issue in my mind of perceived value of your effort and your perception and a public perception of that value.

And I hope you'll agree that 27 years is longer than most of us would like to have before they get a pay adjustment, and so that's one of the simple aspects of this.

But the other one is that I know that many people would wish that government services would be free of cost.

Um, but your services and government services have a value to our citizens, and your work to provide that value uh also has value to the city.

So my experience has been that members of our community recognize that the council is very challenging and time consuming job.

Uh they appreciate the folks who step forward to serve in that role, and I believe this community would support the measure that you are considering.

And I think we're on a tight timeline to get this job done, by the way.

So I hope we can move expeditiously to uh take all the steps that are necessary for the March 6th filing.

Thank you.

Thank you, Bill.

Uh online.

Oh, actually, we have one more on chambers, okay.

Yes, hello, hello again.

I think one side, one part of me says, you know, this is the right thing to do, to uh put it to the people for a vote, which is what I read into this, that on June, I think it's 2nd, 2026, as part of the uh California primary election.

We're gonna have uh maybe a reasonable turnout.

I don't expect it to be very large.

People seem to uh not pay attention to these types of elections and these types of issues.

So uh I think it's gonna be a roll of the dice, how it's gonna work out.

I don't think it's really gonna be a representation of the majority of people, many of whom don't even pay attention to what's going on in the city.

So that's very sad.

We see a lot of people raving about uh protecting our democracy, and then we don't really have a lot of participation.

I mean, look around the room here, how many people come and speak, how many people speak online.

We should have town hall meetings on this issue.

I hope it's gonna be part of the agenda, you know, where we could have something at the community center, Robert Down School or wherever, you know, to or Chautauqua Hall, maybe, to uh discuss this and decide if it's warranted, if it's justified, if it's tradition, if it was in the founding fathers of Pacific Grove in the city charter to make this from a service volunteer participation, which you all agreed to under the terms that exist right now.

And you know, this all started when you decided to many of you voted to, not all wasn't unanimous, voted to give yourselves a raise, basically.

That's what a lot of people perceive this, perceive this as a part-time job.

You're getting paid a salary, maybe with some benefits.

And um, you know, that's not was that was not the intention in the founding of Pacific Grove, nor all of the years of council service, including one former city uh mayor, Mr.

Kemp, spoke in favor of this.

Um, he didn't uh do it, I don't think, for part-time income.

And the story about bringing in younger people and people who can't afford to be on the council.

Um, I don't think the intention was ever to be a part-time job to offer people a carrot to come and serve.

Look, you're gonna make some extra spending money if you come and serve on the council.

I don't think that's a good motivation.

So that's just my point on this, but yet you're gonna put it to the people.

And you know, I mean, I think it's a good idea that the people have a vote on it, either through a referendum or through an election item.

So thank you so much.

Thank you.

I'll go online.

Uh Christy Italiano, Thomas.

Hi.

I just think it's so thought provoking that the last time the city had put a measure on an election like this was 18 years ago in 2008.

And at that time, 18 years ago, it cost 46,000 dollars.

And what's concerning to me is that the city, maybe you don't know yet, I don't I don't know, but has not clearly stated what this single measure is gonna cost the residents.

When I'm thinking it's yet another unnecessary spending on the part of this this council, but without knowing the cost, how can you be bringing this forward?

In other words, the city pays almost the full price of a general election for a standalone low turnout primary primary ballot measure.

And you know these are lower, and I don't know, it seems very contrived here to me.

And yet it wasn't enough when residents passed a referendum to prevent council from self-approved raises.

And that the and speaking of the previous, not Vince, uh previous mayor, nobody's saying that they don't deserve a raise.

The whole thing is setting the present precedent that no council should be giving self-approved raises.

And I hope this goes through to have the um charter changed to prevent this whole thing that's that's gone on.

Um that's why I have a hard time believing that you are relentless.

This council has been relentless in moving forward again.

And this is even a higher uh slightly higher pay increase and placing it on this June low low uh turnout election.

You know, if transparency and voter participation really mattered, why would you choose the most expensive path for the smallest audience?

And again, the city manager or the attorney should be telling the public, the taxpayers, how much this self-serving ballot measure is gonna cost.

Thank you.

Okay, my client.

Hi, I'm Carol Marcourt, and I live in Pacific Grove.

And I was part of collecting signatures for the referendum and to uh withdraw the um the decision to raise taxes that was made I think last September.

And I'm willing to do that again because I think we should put this on the November 6th ballot.

It shouldn't be part of a special election, and I'm all for people with employment.

I I greatly admire Bill Kemp, and I'm greatly in favor of people with kids in employment to be on the city council, but I think we need to be part of the city charter, and I don't think the city council should be in the position of electing to raise your own um salaries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

One of your goals is to be fiscally responsible and transparent.

I'm not sure what other government entity gives them, well, even puts it on the ballot, as a five percent raise per year for 27 years.

Um and it's even higher when this ballot measure came back this time.

I mean, this ordinance here is it's even higher than when they gave it to themselves.

I mean, a few dollars, but I mean, excuse me, even our city employees were struggling to pay the three percent um cola, and here it's five percent a year.

Oh, we deserve it, pat ourselves on the back.

Well, you better learn some city charter before you pat yourself on the back this way.

And um, as far as this special election to add it into the primary, yes, it's gonna cost way more, and everybody knows it.

We have beat this to death in public hearings, and there's been oh some really waffling with staff of what it really is gonna cost, but it we pay per voter, and so we'll have less voters, but it'll bring the cost up, and yes, putting it on this ballot, but hey, they are so hot to trot, they are so good to go and give themselves an immediate raise that here we are putting it on the special election.

Can't wait till November when it would cost less, about eleven thousand or so.

No, no, no.

But we are fiscally responsible.

I don't think so.

I think it's about time you actually showed this for what it was immediate greed.

I mean, our city is struggling because of, well, because of a lot of things, and I'm gonna call it a lot of piss poor management before, but um, and continuing.

And here we are.

Yeah, put it on the ballot.

I for one voted every election, even if it's a primary, and I will be definitely doing a resounding no.

Thank you very much.

No further hands, I raised mayor.

Thank you.

Go ahead and close public comment.

Bring it back to the council for discussion and action.

Um my position on this is that uh it needs to be uh it's the same as it was before.

I uh um this is important to the future of the community to f future candidates.

Uh and we need the candidates to be able to know what's what they're gonna, you know, what their pay is gonna be, and that's this coming into June.

They will know at that point what what the poll will be at the beginning of the next term.

Uh it's not immediate, it actually is written to be at the beginning of the next term.

Um, and so I'm not still support it.

I and I and the the voters will decide whether this happens or not.

So um those are my comments any additional council comments Councilman Walking and I'll get to you sorry about that thank you your honor um first of all I'm happy that this is uh going to ballot this is something that I I supported from the very beginning and I am happy to see it come to this uh the state um I hear people when they're talking about uh concern over fiscal responsibility and the cost of bringing this to ballot but uh as as Mayor Smith just pointed out if we if our our our goal as my goal is to try to get people involved in uh local government try to encourage people to run for city council uh and mayor but primarily city council because now we're going to a districted uh uh election system if we're going to make districting work if we don't pass this in June then we don't have that motivating factor to push people to uh to put throw their hats in the ring and try and run for city council um in the fall if we pass this in the spring then we then then we have that motivation for this coming election in the fall so it's it's either we wait until 2028 to have this in place or we can move on this now and have it in place for for this year's election.

And uh so yeah the there's there's there's a pinch there's a pain factor with bringing it to the ballot in June um acknowledged um but there's a benefit to it as well and if we don't move on putting it on the ballot in in uh uh in june then we're not going to see the the benefits of it it's not going to be a motivating factor to try and get people to uh to make districting work to to run for city council in their district until 2028 so I I think that's that's the crux of where I'm at on this issue.

I wanted it to go to the the the people if you want to vote no vote no I support this uh both the election and I support the raise um as a a a way to motivate uh people into civic participation I don't just see it as a carrot of uh um uh financial and financially incentivizing people there I'll acknowledge there's an element of that for sure but it also helps cover the cost of service for uh for missed work for for daycare for um the how it potentially impinges on people's ability to support themselves it gives them some relief from that and that's that's the big factor for me um I think I'll I'll leave it at that I think I covered all of my points.

Yeah thank you thank you councilmember Garfield Councilmemberfield and and uh councilmember walking stick thank you for those points I think they're very valid and I support them um so interestingly um twice in the past city council members in the city of Pacific Grove have followed our charter and have voted for a raise through a simple ordinance not a vote of the people but a simple ordinance twice before we followed the charter to do this people wanted to vote so we're gonna vote um and now people are talking about changing the charter but we followed the charter so just remember that um and I think that one of the important things to remember about this is while we're nobody's gonna make money a lot of money on this especially after taxes serving on city government shouldn't cost you it shouldn't be an expensive endeavor we have people who've cut back their hours we have people who take fewer clients we have people who've uh not taken a job or taken the other job, or they don't spend as much time at their job.

And that is to say nothing of the events that we might attend or um donations we might make when we buy a ticket to this activity or that activity to support the city.

So there are ex real expenses involved in sitting on city council.

Um I think that it's interesting that here we are a looking at a raise a year later in another year of inflation uh cutting into our 420 dollars.

So by delaying this, we've actually made the gap between the last raise, not 26 years, not 27 years, but by the time this would go into effect, it would be 28 years.

Um so for the folks who'd like for us to run the city like a business, um, I would say that there are very few businesses that go 28 years without making a salary adjustment for some of the people who serve that business.

Anyway, I'm very much in support of this.

I think we're doing our job.

I think we're being prudent.

Um the entire cost of this raise is the equivalent of a light poll.

Um, and so I think it serves the community to get the best people possible to give us the best perspectives going forward.

Um I think this council is an example of how well it works when you have that diverse opinion.

The majority of the people in this council work, they have jobs, they have families, they have they're not retirees with ample time to play at city council.

Um, this is the real representation of the real Pacific Grove, and I'd like to see that continue.

Thank you.

Uh mayor, and then I'll go to Councilman O'Donnell.

Okay.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um what everybody else said, I'm not gonna repeat.

Um, but I am going to mention a couple of things.

Um 27 years ago, the minimum wage was 425.

And I don't know if anybody at minimum wage 27 years ago would still be working at 425 an hour, plus housing, the average cost of homes at that time in California was a hundred and thirty-five thousand dollars as compared to now.

So I'm in I'm not gonna repeat everything else everybody else said, and I'm not gonna mention all the cities in the county that have had pay increases.

I'm not even gonna mention them, but I think this is very important that in the future.

This is for the future city councils.

I'm in very supportive of this because I think it's after 27 years, it's time.

That's all.

Thank you.

Councilor McDonnell, Mayor.

Um Yeah, so um, there was a couple of questions I have that I just want to ask here so that they're in the public.

First of all, I had also noticed the slight increase in the cost from when it was brought forward last year to now, but that is because we're in a new year, so the now instead of 26 years, it was calculated on 27 years.

Um, so that's why it is slightly higher based on that.

So there was um a question about so that the charter has come up.

Is are there any contraindications for us doing this process in relation to the charter?

There are not with respect to the mayor's mayor's compensation and that of the council members.

The charter talks about, you know, the general law, the state law.

State law uh contains a provision uh in the government code that allows the mayor to receive more than the council members do.

Okay.

And I apologize.

And that provision is the criteria for that provision is an elected mayor.

Those provisions don't distinguish between uh general law cities and charter cities.

Yeah, it seemed very vague.

Um, and so the idea is that therefore we are following the state guidance, state law, which includes the constitution, statutes, regulations, and all that, but as specifically applicable here, provisions of the government code that are applicable both to uh general law cities as well as charter cities.

Okay, great, thank you for that.

Um, because I want to make sure that we're addressing all the concerns that the public might have as we're discussing it because this is sort of our opportunity to do that.

Um, one other thing is I had noticed that there was something in here about cost of benefits, and just wanted to confirm there aren't actually any additional costs to benefits in the sense that there wouldn't be any um of the typical things we would consider benefits, but even the PERS and the PARS, those are paid for by the council members, not by the city staff.

So the only things would be I think it was workers' comp and there was one other category.

Can you confirm that please?

Uh yes, that'd be Medicare.

So Councilman McDonnell, you bring up the point that we, you know, we were looking at this afternoon, and perhaps the financial impact of this of the staff report was a little bit um needs a little bit of correction.

Um so there's two things to that.

And the first is that um the the cost of the council stipend increased difference that's proposed within the ballot measure here, um, would actually only be a total of 1,188 additional dollars annually.

It would only comprise of the Medicare and the workers' comp portion.

Any of the PERS or PARS is 100% currently paid by council members.

So and the city already pays for that workers' comp.

So the two that it would just be a slight increase based on the increase in the salary amount, it's something that's already there.

Correct.

It's not a brand new thing.

Yeah, yeah.

So that I would so since it's roughly double the stipend, it would be roughly double that.

So it'd be about 2200 a year total.

And that's for all seven council members.

Yes, okay, great, thank you.

Um, and I I we we keep getting stuck in these challenging situations.

So the public indicated by the referendum that they wanted to bring this to the vote.

Um, and and so this really is us doing that.

And I know that I know I had supported it going to the voters in the first place as well.

So there's the challenge of it could cost slightly more.

It's still um, it's not a special election in the sense that we're not paying for the whole thing.

There is still uh a primary election, but the cost would be slightly higher based on dividing it across voters across multiple counties, and I guess that goes across not just Pacific Grove.

If other counties also have, or other cities, excuse me, also have something on their ballots that helps defray costs as well.

Do I understand that correctly?

Councilman McDonald, so the the county um elections department, um, as the city clerk has received, uh, puts out a guide for districting and they give us some election cost estimates.

However, there's many factors that go into it.

And I think the best thing we could rely on currently is probably seven to ten dollars per voter.

But again, that could slide around based on how many different things are on the ballot, um, how short the measure is, how long it is, lots of factors in that.

And that's what's really frustrating, it's not an attempt by council or city to be non-transparent.

It's the fact that our guidance from the county is very vague because it it is based on factors that we don't have control over, and basically we find out at the end what all the costs are, it gets divvied up across all of the different cities.

Okay.

Um so yeah, so so the challenge that we're in is kind of as council member walking stick alluded to, is we're we're kind of at a turning point where we're moving into the district elections.

Um we do have uh some areas where it's been more challenging to find candidates.

Um, I would agree there is definitely a real cost of participation in in reducing work hours to have the time to commit to this, um, because uh it is true we don't just come to the meetings.

There's the weekends we spend reading the agendas for the meetings, doing our notes, communicating to get our questions answered, um, attending our regional meetings, our liaison appointments to the boards, commissions, and committees, and then actually working on other things within the community we find important, whether that be time we spend with community members working on things like housing.

So, so there's because we're dedicated and and want to make a difference for our community, that that's why we're investing the time to do this.

But I do think it's important to make it um again, you're never gonna get rich doing this job, but I think it's important that it's it's not a hindrance from it being possible for more people.

Um, so I do appreciate that you know I agree I that it's a great idea to bring it to the community.

The community wants a voice, and that gives them this gives them the opportunity.

Um, so I can see an argument and a slight amount of cost potentially by waiting to do it in November, but then we risk not potentially getting as good of candidates for, or or the number of candidates maybe for that November election.

So in my mind, it it seems like it's in the interest of the community to have things in place so that they can get candidates who who would then have more likely maybe some bandwidth to participate.

And um so yeah, so I think that I I appreciate that a lot of the public, even um I've had a lot of people say even if they signed the referendum, it wasn't necessarily a no-one on the increase necessarily, it was more about the public wanting to have a say.

And I actually agree with that statement.

So it's it's kind of democracy at work doing that.

So now it just becomes a matter of when it happens.

So we're moving in the direction that was requested.

And I think that because in particular of the district elections coming up and wanting to make sure that we are creating the opportunity for good candidates, that the June one makes more sense for the long-term outlook for the community.

Thank you.

Um, thank you, Mayor.

Um, and uh I'm for this item.

Uh I think the it's it's uh high time we uh we have this on the ballot, move forward with it.

Uh I think one of the things that I'm as I'm hearing through uh each council member's uh opinion here.

Uh one of the the agenda item actually has a little area which says um focused priority area, and for whatever reason the agenda item marked that as not applicable.

I would argue that uh this is applicable.

We're trying to get well qualified candidates in the focus priority area.

I could I could say it could be community redevelopment or development.

Uh so I I'm all for it.

I I would say that uh a couple of questions that I have is uh probably for the city manager.

Um, do we have any other?

I don't think we do, but you tell me do we have any other ballot measures lined up for June, or is this the only one?

Uh Councilmember Dory, this would be the only one.

Okay.

And uh I think the other the other item that I have here is the is the fact that uh the reason why we're here is because we haven't taken care of the uh cost of living allowance for council.

So it's banned over 27 years and so on, but but really with the ordinance as is written right now, we're again setting this up to be uh another substantial increase in the future.

So uh what I was gonna ask was to see if uh we want to put uh what a year over year increase for cola within the ordinance itself.

So we we as a council do not end up in the same situation every so often.

And I know this is uh has a timeline kind of crunch, uh, but that's where I am with this is uh if if we had something like that, uh we wouldn't be uh in the spot today.

Uh and then uh there there was an impartial analysis uh kind of coded over there.

I know it says impartial, but but I will I will just state that uh uh there is a I mean uh a council member or the mayor has the right to to refuse to pay.

So that's always there, and I want that analysis to reflect that.

But I'm in support of this, uh, and thank you.

Sandra is Ms.

Councilmember Al still online.

Well does she have her hand up so?

Um, I'm just gonna make before I recognize council member.

I'm gonna make a quick quick point.

Um, the escalator I believe is illegal.

We would discuss that the previous session and most reports online, but I'm pretty sure the escalator is illegal.

State law by state law.

So we'll go ahead and recognize uh councilmember out this time.

Thank you, Your Honor.

Um, I won't beleagure the the points that everyone has made.

I think they've done a great job of you know reminding everybody that this June election is not a special election, it is a primary election.

We're gonna have it whether or not uh this is on the ballot or not.

Um I think it's the right time to do it.

The people that are uh running in July should know what that pay is.

That was some objections from some of the folks before.

Um I agree with council member Garfield that no one should have to lose money to serve on the city council, whether it's child care or elder care or travel or whatever uh comes up.

Um so I think that this is the right time to do it, and uh I'm fully supportive of this moving forward.

Thank you.

Um at this time I'm gonna move with the help of the city attorney.

I'm gonna move recommendations one, two, three, and uh call for a second.

Second okay, we have a motion and a second on items one, two, and three recommendations.

Um that sufficient legally okay just the local vote.

Okay, and um don't want to address councilmember's comment.

Uh I I don't favor adding an escalator because I don't want to make any hurdles or issues with our the ballot measure or make it challengeable.

And I I don't see Mr.

Peric didn't chime in, but I I think we already discussed that, and it was deemed to be Mr.

Peric is here, he's on the oh there he is.

Yeah, so the answer is you could not have an automatic, you cannot have an automatic increase.

Um, and I think you already mentioned that, so um that's where you are on that.

Okay, great.

So any further discussion by uh anyone including council member?

Uh council member Garfield in discussion.

Yeah, there is one point in here that this cannot be revisited for five years, and we haven't brought that up, and I wanted to clarify it's something that that is um uh the city attorney can help me find that is it's the last last section of the ordinance.

Section nine.

Section nine, okay.

It proposes that we um that this will sit for uh five a period of five years and cannot be revisited by future councils.

So it gives us a time where again the council salary will be behind inflation, but it will not be an immediate turnaround.

And I don't know that we brought that up um in our discussions.

I just wanted to point that out that that's part of this um uh conservative fiscally responsible um proposal.

All right, thank you very much.

If there's no further discussion, we'll roll call vote, please.

Thank you.

And can I just get whose second that was that Mayor Pratem?

I'm sorry, what?

Thank you.

Uh, sir.

Yes.

Maybe uh council members Garfield?

Yes, McDonnell?

Yes.

Hi.

Rocking stick, aye.

Motion carries 7-0.

All right, thank you very much, everyone who's involved in that process.

It was a lot of work from a lot of different people.

Thank you, Mr.

Perrick.

Thank you, Bark Williams.

And thank you to our city attorney for taking it over and running with it.

Thank you to staff.

We appreciate it.

And now we'll go on to uh item 11b budget amendment request for Calhome Reuse.

And I will recognize Mr.

Biggs or Anderson.

Uh Mayor Smith.

Uh Mr.

Anderson will be doing the presentation, a presentation this evening.

Okay, Mr.

Anderson.

Good evening, Mayor Smith and Council members.

Oh, sorry.

Um, we have a resident who has been approved for a housing rehabilitation loan, and we're in the process of re-um applying for CDBG uh funding to do this program.

In the interim, we've got money that's in our cow home reserves that we want to move over to use that money for this um approved loan.

Um, and we're asking to have that done.

It's 199,000.

And the balance in our reserve is 273 86.

I'll answer any questions you have.

Thanks.

Um, just Mr.

Briggs, can we just clarify that this is gonna be a lot?

It's a supposed to rehabilitate an existing single family dwelling, just so the public knows what you actually have to think.

This is a homeowned by a qualifying homeowner for our program, and the funds will be used to rehabilitate, as you mentioned, is the existing single family dwelling make it uh more livable again.

Okay, thank you very much.

We'll go out to the public comment.

I see no one in uh in the chamber and no one online there, okay.

All right, yeah, the the record will reflect that we have a lot of employees in the chambers tonight, okay, and not a lot of public members.

So bring it back to the council for action.

Um councilmember Garfield.

Thank you.

I just want to make sure I understand it.

So you have an opportunity to do what's supposed to be done with these funds, which is salvage someone's home so it's livable, safe, all that they qualify.

Great.

We have money that we can pull to put into the pool to then use, and there's a grant coming that's gonna fill up the pot again so we can do this with other homes in the future.

Yes, we've applied for a grant, and we hopefully are going to be successful at receiving that grant, but we also have loan payoffs two to three per year that are additional funds that come into the program that we would be able to loan out again in the future.

So it's considered program income.

It's sort of a self-perpetuating program.

It's just that 199 suddenly started to sound like a lot.

Um, and it's then you think about it, you go.

Well, that means that the need is very extensive for this particular project.

Um, is there any chance that we won't get that grant and we won't have funds coming in?

It's it's always possible.

It is a grant and it is competitive.

Um, so but we're putting our best foot forward to get a positive outcome on it.

So it's something we don't hear about very much.

So again, thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

Uh Councilmember.

Thank you, um I'll just speak you back on council member uh Garfield's questions there.

Um just uh just so I understand that is this the only application that we have, or or are there more applications in the queue to so to speak?

Thank you for the question.

Um, this is the only one we have currently.

Um we did two over the summer, um, that were in the same ballpark in the 190s, and um this would be the third one that we've got.

And I've got another one in the works um also that's going to be a smaller project, and we'll be doing hers in the next few months, whatever.

Thank you.

Yeah, and so sorry, just for to clarify a few things here.

I haven't seen maybe I'm off, but I haven't seen this coming before.

So I just want to clarify a few items.

So is this uh if that 74k is not enough for whoever applies, we're just gonna place everybody in a queue.

Is that is that how it goes?

How this goes.

Uh yes, we would um take a look at anticipated funds coming into the program and then base our uh future budget uh requests on those funds that we expect to come in, and then that would sort of help guide us into uh determining the number of projects that we could fund in the upcoming years.

So and and then is if circumstances change, we could come forward in the future again once we receive that these funds to request that additional budget amendments be made.

Okay.

Um and is is this uh 199k that we're dispensing right now?

That satisfies everything that the owner wants.

So the owner has his own his or her own set of funds that they're also using.

In other words, they're not gonna come back with an additional request, correct?

That's correct.

Okay.

Uh yeah, and I I I would say that uh this seems like the the straightforward thing to do.

So I'm I'm like yes for this.

Um I just um I was just trying to understand a few of the and does the does the city like kind of do we do a deed or something how do we like have the one ninety nine K.

How is that like protected?

Uh it is uh we do require a deed uh put on the property it's a a notice of payment back to the city in case we um there's default but we also have requirements that if the title on the property change hands then these funds that we loan out come back to the city so we have a couple protections in place okay all right very good thank you appreciate it.

Welcome thank you councilman McDonald yeah thank you mine were along those same lines because it isn't explained in the agenda just also for the public record um so the way the program works is it's it's there's a program where we get funding from outside sources that the community can borrow which is great because a lot of people may have um you know a home that has a great value but not a lot a lot of income necessarily to to do maintenance and things like that that need repair so it actually is a great program to help our local community members so I love that about it but it is indeed a loan correct and so I appreciate you clarifying that that it's it's a perpetually renewing but then also we have the request the ability to request additional funds to do more projects is that correct that is correct this is a loan it's not a a grant so this money at some point in the future will come back to the city we do charge a very simple interest rate it varies between three and five percent it's not a compounded interest but um we do get a little bit of money or the money money that we're loaning out there is working a little bit so it helps helps fund the future rehabilitation projects.

Thanks and I this is one program I've always really liked because it's a way that we can help the community in a way that is much more cost effective for them so um I will heartily support it thank you.

Councilmember Raoul thank you your honor uh council member mcdonald just said exactly what I was gonna say I think this is one of the best city uh one of the best city uh programs that we have um and I'm really happy to hear that more people are taking advantage of it and um I I would uh vote to support this thank you uh mayor pro temilia let's um I think this is gonna be best for this the city um I'm gonna let's see uh Mr.

Larca do we have to go one through uh two through three uh Mr Millie I think you could just uh do a motion to introduce and hold a first reading of the ordinance okay I'm gonna make a motion to full of the ordinance number three introduce and the first removal of the amongst the uh 25.06 from 36 budget for the physical school 46 and do you want to include number four in that as well yes I'll second it all right we got a motion on the uh recommendations number two and four we have a motion and second any further discussion on the item yes some discussion we need to thank the staff they're making a big difference thank you yeah that's a good point there's a reason I haven't seen this in a long time and because that's a great thing yeah brilliant thank you very much I have uh mayor put him um motion and second by mayor yes thank you mayor patem a milion I mayor smith aye council members marking stick I don't know aye in confound carry says seven zero thank you council staff appreciate all the work.

Let's get to keep those houses going.

Re- remodeling.

Um, I think that we are hit the end of the agenda here.

I'll check my stuff here.

Yes, I don't see anything else.

So uh thanks everyone for coming in in person and participating online.

Uh have a great night and make meetings adjourn.

Good night.