How do we give us a h do we give us a h do we give us a h do we give us a h do we give us a h do we give us a h do we give us a h do we give us a hug All right, now all the council members are present.

I call to order the August 20th meeting of the City of West Sacramento City Council, the West Sacramento Redevelopment Agency, and Finance Authority.

We will begin with the land acknowledgement.

We would like to acknowledge that the land on which we live, Work Learn, and commune is the original homelands of the indigenous people of West Sacramento, who have stewarded this land throughout the generations.

We acknowledge and we thank the original inhabitants who have occupied, maintained, and secured this place, and who still exist on this land.

We respect and celebrate the many diverse indigenous people still connected to this land on which we gather.

The council met in closed session this evening.

Mr.

City Attorney, do you have any items to report?

All right.

We need to we need to get your mic on.

We would like to invite our guests to join council and staff in the pledge, which will be led by Mr.

Clay.

Merrill, please come to the podium and lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

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

One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

As is noted on our agenda, City Council is prohibited by state law from discussing or taking any action on items that are brought up under item one for public comment, but it provides an important opportunity for a public forum.

The public is given an opportunity at this time to address city council on issues not listed on the agenda.

And we do ask that anyone wishing to address the council on this or speak on any other items this evening, please fill out a request to speak card and turn it into the clerk.

And we asked, um, and once upon once the uh we asked to the request to speak cards um be brought up to the conclusion of the staff report um on any particular agenda item that is uh taken up today once the staff report has been read and we open the item up for public comment.

The clerk will announce your name for you to walk to the podium to speak.

Now in front of the clerk, there is a timer to ensure that everyone has a chance to be heard, and we ask that all comments be limited to the specified number of minutes.

I will um add that we have a special meeting, and there are two number ones, I think on the um consent uh calendar.

So if you can please specify which item if you wanted to speak on either one.

There are two agendas.

One is a special meeting and one is a regular meeting.

Uh, just to make sure that you can distinguish that if you have any request to speak on any one of those two.

Um but they will both be brought up under the consent calendar.

Also in front of the clerk is an analog flip chart, which indicates which agenda item the council is currently considering.

And we also recognize that for some speaking in public can cause anxiety.

So we request that there be no applause or booze, pet calls, or other demonstrations.

Furthermore, so that we may maintain a civil discourse here in the chambers.

We ask that those in attendance and those who address the city council abide by the code of conduct posted and not speak in loud threatening or offensive, use of or disrespectful language that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the meeting.

Now this brings us to item one presentations by the public on matters not in the agenda within the jurisdiction of the council.

And each person has three minutes to speak.

Madam Clerk, are there any requests to speak?

Yes, ma'am.

Clay Merrill.

Mr.

Merrill.

Good evening, Mayor Guerrero and fellow city council members.

Great to be with you.

Clay Merrill, your local government affairs representative for Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

Just want to make you aware of two events that are coming up.

Um one is a Coffee Connect on Wednesday, August 27th from 8 a.m.

to 10 a.m.

This is going to be at Lanisa's Cafe on Jefferson Boulevard.

We are hosting this event for our customers and your constituents.

So members of our customer team will be there to answer questions and connect more with our customers in West Sacramento.

I've sent a digital flyer to each of you.

And if you can help promote that event for us, we'd appreciate that.

Also, we have uh solidified a date of Monday, September 29th for another uh customer event at the community room in the West Sacramento Recreational Center.

Times are still being figured out, but we will be there for the day answering questions related to customer bills, and we'll have members of our team there to help review their accounts and assist with questions and concerns related to their energy bills.

So as we have those details more fleshed out, I will make you aware of that so that you can also help us uh promote that.

So more information to come, but we appreciate your support and thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Merrill, and I encourage um that uh staff work with Mr.

Rarrill on the time to be in the evening for that event.

Guy Stevenson.

Madam Mayor, City Council members.

Uh I took a ride the other day, and you know, I brought this up about the food vendors.

So this is what I'm gonna do.

If something is not done with these people, because some of them not only have one cart, but they have several.

So you know what that means?

That means they make probably six to seven thousand dollars, and they're not regulated by the health department, they're not regulated by uh any city where you gotta have a license to do business, and these people are making money now.

I know you're probably thinking, oh, it's a racial thing, it has really nothing to do with it, don't matter what re uh race you are, if you're doing business illegally, then come to the city and get a permit, get a license, have the health department check your food out before somebody gets food poisoning.

So that's that.

The other thing that I was gonna say is this little wonderful service that you people over have over here called via.

I know that they just did a uh changing of the guards, whatever you want to call it, uh city uh manager for this area.

I know that she is left, and they got a new person, and they're it absolutely knows nothing about the business.

And then the guy that's in charge of buggy.

They got rid of him too.

And you know, you people sink all this money in there, but do you want to raise you wanna raise uh the fares to these senior citizens, these disabled people?

You got measure o you got how much money did you guys give those people 10 million bucks in three years, and their service is bad, bad.

And I had a long conversation with the CHP just the other day, about their aggressive driving because they want to get to the calls as fast as they can.

They don't, they got people that are signing up.

They got people that don't show up because they you know what they say?

Oh, we're independent contractors, so we can do what we want.

So if that's the way you people want to do business, and I really don't understand why you're doing business with a company like that that's in the east coast in New York.

So is Buggy, they're in the East Coast, which is a big sewage plant back there, and I mean it's it is, and I I don't understand why you people want to raise the price.

It's ridiculous to me.

It makes absolutely no sense because you got measure o money, use measure o money, keep it like it is, or you're gonna lose a lot of writers.

Nobody's gonna pay 28 bucks to write in that thing.

I'm surprised anybody's paying at all.

Thank you, Mr.

Stevenson.

Michael Root.

Good evening.

Um I'm a con just a concerned citizen.

I wanted to speak.

Number one, you guys have a thing on the agenda about the uh capital projects.

I live in the state streets, and you guys are wanting to put another 10% on top of the 10% you've already approved.

Um, I just retired from the from the industry.

You guys need to stop and have some more inspections on the project over there.

The project is not, it's very it's run very incompetent.

They they are they're terrible.

The streets are the streets are vibrating.

They're not supposed to be out there in the morning.

They're they ran three.

Yes.

If this is related to that agenda item, um this process public comment is for items not on the agenda.

Oh, this part is?

Yes.

Okay, I'm sorry.

Well, I have a list of for that too.

Do you want to um submit a request to speak for?

I put it on both.

I check both on my card.

We'll need to wait.

Do you have anything else to add before?

I have some.

I have a list of other things that are on.

Please, that'll be great.

Thank you.

Um, well, number one, there's a the you we have spots over in the state streets and on park for the old scooters that were the rentals.

Um, why can't we get rid of that?

Nobody uses them, the rental scooters are not around.

They're taking up spots.

People are hitting them and running over the the cones.

That needs to go away.

Um we used to have code enforcement that came through the neighborhood and stop people with trailers that are sticking out on the sidewalks.

I get tired of having to call code enforcement because I don't want to be the guy running around rating.

We used to have people that actually went around and saw that kind of stuff.

There was a pile of brush that somebody threw in the street that sat across the street until I called it sat there for four weeks.

Okay.

Not we we don't have it when I call code enforcement.

Well, we don't have the people.

Well, you got to get the people.

We have a on Park Boulevard, we have a horrible problem with speed.

I've been passed in the center lane, I've been passed in the in the bicycle lane, and we need to get some more enforcement out there.

It's not happening.

That's why the guy got killed at 16th and park.

Okay, because people fly down that street.

Okay, one another safety issue, the off-ramp coming off at Jefferson is terrible.

We got to get those homeless people off of there from begging because people come down the off ramp and think they're a do-gooder and they want to stop and give the guy 10 bucks at a green light when there's semis and everything else coming down off the freeway.

It's a horrible, horrible safety issue.

Okay.

Um, like I say, code enforcement and most of the stuff is like we need to go back to the way that it used to be, you know, police response, you know, and maybe I think we need to hire some more police, whatever we need to do.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Matt Weaver.

Good evening, Madam Mayor, Council members.

Pleasure to be here today.

I'm in gym attire, so forgive me for not wearing city council attire.

Um, in a few things, first of all, watch the last couple of meetings, and there's plenty of good stuff going on in the city.

I don't think most people take time on a Wednesday hot summer evening to talk about good stuff, but kudos to the city on some great news with parks and what I'm seeing on the streets with uh more patrolling.

I mean it's very noticeable already.

So that's very cool to know that that's actually work in progress.

Uh, but I want to talk about a couple of things.

Oh, and I also want to just give credit to the council and your accessibility and responsiveness.

I've had for lack of better word, beef with some of the decisions, some of the things I read and see.

And I think I can get a better response from this council than I can most large and small companies and even departments within the city.

So kudos to you all on that.

Now to my beefs.

Um let's talk about that for a second.

Um, maps.

Maps are a big discussion.

I think they have been since Christopher Columbus discovered America and put a new name on the map.

And we just keep going west and put new names on maps.

And I think you guys have like close sessions about lawsuits about maps and districts.

And I think the state of Texas wants to do something with maps, and the state of California wants to do something with maps.

Who's making the damn maps?

Who's in charge of the maps?

Do governments always do good things with maps?

Or do governments manipulate property values?

School districts, quality of life for people quietly, most of the time not publicly, with manipulating maps.

Nobody ever wants to take credit for it and say, I made that map.

A great example is your north and south overlay maps for the retail cannabis um priority that the city council said a couple years ago.

Said here in this council chamber, there shall be no unreasonable restrictions on the placement of these as long as it's a generally available commercial.

Suddenly, there's maps.

There's maps that zone out an entire city block that say, you can't do this here.

And then I turn around and watch my city council and the same representation of the district where I run a business, give a drive-and-go cognac stop on Jefferson and 15th.

So you can't do retail cannabis on 15th Street in Jefferson, but you can drive up and get a full tank of unleaded and a bottle of cognac.

Who's responsible for these maps?

I am going to publicly protest and make sure the retail cannabis movement in the city of West Sacramento goes nowhere until those maps are visited.

So if you plan on awarding that, or if you have, I'm going to be here on record saying I'm going to take legal action against that award because of the maps.

Latino information and resource center.

Maria, if you can provide your name with your organization, please.

Oh, yeah.

With this data tu nombre.

Okay.

Good evening, Council members and staff and West Sacramento residents.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak.

My name is Maria Grijalva.

I'm the director of the Latino Information and Resource Center.

I'm here to update the community and enter into public record the latest on our redistricting efforts.

Or actually, it was listed in as item one in the closed session, existing litigation.

We're the nonprofit organization that helped eliminate Jim Crow voting in West Sacramento.

In 2018, we filed to get rid of at-large elections.

West Sacramento used to have district elections until the former mayor Cabalden implemented Jim Crow voting.

Well, I'm here to report that my attorney Scott Rafferty is finally getting paid after seven years, mind you.

He's getting a little bit over a hundred thousand dollars.

I think the public deserves to know that.

And this is what our taxpayers uh are are going to.

So our taxpayers paid our city attorney to fight tooth and nail to keep at-large elections in place.

Back in 2018, we paid the city attorney's firm Cronick about $300,000.

How much do you does everybody think we paid fighting at the appellate level at the appellate court?

I assume another 200,000 uh dollars.

So, anyway, I wanted to let everybody know that that is the latest.

And I also wanted to remind everyone for the public record that the former mayor had me falsely arrested during his re-election when I was supporting Joe Deanda.

This is public information, and it's important that our community know the facts.

He filed a bogus complaint with the California Department of Fair Political Practices Commission, the FPPC, on October 2nd, 2018.

By October 9th, the complaint was referred over to his buddy, West Sacramento resident aka Yolo District Attorney Jeff Freisig.

So October 9th, I was falsely arrested, even though there was never any violation of the law.

None whatsoever.

In fact, it's been uh uh seven years to this date, the Fair Political Practices Commission has not cited me for anything that Jeff Freisig was charging me criminally in court for donation I made.

I mean, everybody that knows knows it's about a donation.

And so, anyway, so it's important that the community deserve to be informed and have transparency because it's important to know where our tax dollars are going.

Okay, thank you so much.

Thank you, Ms.

Grajava.

We have no additional requests to speak on this item.

All right.

Thank you, Madame Clerk.

Next is our consent agenda items two through seven.

Are there any requests to remove an item for questions or presentation?

None.

And I do um wanted to open it up for public comment, Madame Clerk.

Are there any requests to speak?

Yes, we have a request to speak on item two.

Michael Root.

Welcome back, Mr.

Roo.

Okay, well, um, like I started to tell you.

I I see that the there's a I wasn't even gonna speak on this except that I came and read the agenda today and you guys are and I also heard from a neighbor that they're coming, they're trying to come after another another 10%.

Well, that that according to the thing, then that's gonna be a 20% increase in their thing.

They're they're not clean, they're not neat, they're they're they're they ran three grinders down my street at 6 30 this morning.

They're they're uh they were still working when I left to come to the meeting here.

They're I don't think that we need to have some better inspection out there on the project so that the city doesn't need to spend 20% more over the budget of the project to for not good work.

We're paying for quality product, we should get a quality product, but if it comes to it after, then they can go after the inspection reports.

This is the way I dealt with business when I was in the industry.

You don't you don't start getting money ahead of time and I mean I I feel like it's gonna get into a bad uh a bad way with the contractor because he's gonna try to nickel and dime us, which is what a lot of them end up doing.

And I don't think that's uh an extra 20% on uh you know if they want to file some claims and uh go after it after the project is finished for justification.

That's one thing, but I don't think that the city should be on the hook for you know uh incompetent or lack of a good product.

Thank you, Mr.

Roof.

Okay, thanks.

No additional requests to speak on the consent agenda items.

All right, thank you.

Madam Clerk, I'll accept a motion to approve this consent agenda.

So moved.

All right.

Um Madam Clerk, um, Councilmember O'Cala moved and council member early seconded.

Please call the roll.

Council member, aye, council member early, aye.

Council member Roscoe, aye.

Mayor Pro Tim Silpisi O'Hall.

Aye, Mayor Guerrero, aye.

All right, next, I'd like to open the special session.

Um, special meeting.

Um, and we have one consent agenda item.

Are there is there a request to pull for discussion?

If not, I'll accept a motion to approve the consent agenda item.

Second.

Mayor for Tem Sopezia Hall moved and Councilmember Ocala seconded.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Councilmember O'Callah.

Councilmember Early.

Aye.

Councilmember Roscoe.

Mayor Pro Tim Silpesio Hall.

Hi.

Mayor Guerrero.

I all right.

That is approved.

I'm closing the special meeting and returning to our regular meeting.

Um next we have our public hearing agenda item eight under community development is a public hearing regarding an appeal to proposed tentative parcel map number 5247 at 3071 Davis Road.

And uh I am required to read um the following.

It's the Zapara Appeal Hearing Procedure Summary.

The City Council's adopted hearing procedure policy ruleman numeral three-a-three requires that the mayor read a summary of the procedures into the record.

The following is that summary, which can also serve as a script for the hearing process, which is why I'm reading it.

The mayor will open the hearing, mayor will ask all mayors of the council to publicly announce any testimony or evidence received outside of the hearing process, ex parte communication.

And I'll ask now, was there any ex parte communication?

No, no, all right.

The mayor will ask um there and I have none.

The mayor will ask all council members to announce any conflicts of financial interest with the material effect, and member shall disqualify herself.

Actually, Mayor, um I one year ago, roughly one year ago, I did speak to um the individual.

I don't want to uh put with the person's name.

Okay, that uh with actually um uh staff.

Oh, I don't know if that tone says thank you for sharing.

Yes, okay, and um we have our our attorney here who's helping us with this special hearing.

Would you like to um announce who you are and and your your role here today?

Yes, my name is Ryan Raftree, and I am uh my name is Ryan Rafftery and I'm here serving to assist the mayor in the process and procedures of the hearing I have no input or say on the actual substantive nature that is being heard or rather to guide the mayor.

Thank you um Mr.

Rafferty and um so whenever we have any questions such as this we will ask Mr.

Rafferty for the procedure and then we will ask our city attorney for any guidance on on the policy or any part of the hearing.

So that's the two attorneys that we have here and their roles.

So we've got legal covered in case anybody has any questions in which direct which um direction to ask your questions.

So the um the mayor will also ask council members to announce any conflicts of financial interest with any material effect and member shall disqualify herself which I don't think anybody has and the mayor will ask the hearing examiner if any exhibits were received past the 10-day due date um which is august 11th 2025 that the council may want to consider admitting um and it is the council the decision as to whether to accept any late exhibits um so with the hearing examiner present were there any um late um exhibits that were submitted that we can consider there was um madam mayor there was a uh what's been marked as appellant exhibit a and it was submitted after the deadline it is a petition from the neighboring individuals of the appellant uh with regard to their desires in this particular appeal of note for you and for the council is that when coming into this particular appeal it was being appealed under two grounds um number condition number seven and condition number fifteen in this petition the appellant is withdrawing essentially their appeal as to condition number seven which would leave the council only one issue or condition to debate about today.

All right thank you you have the authority to accept it if you want even though it's outside of the window if the mayor so chooses and the council at this time uh Mr.

Hearing Examiner do we decide whether to accept it yes you would you would decide amongst the council whether or not you want to accept this petition as an exhibit I would like to consult with our our um staff on their recommendation for this or the city attorney whoever wants to yes please.

I haven't actually seen the petition so I'm the petition is from the neighbors the petition purports to be from the neighbors there are signatures but there's no printed names next to them but they did list their addresses and uh copy of the petitions being provided to you.

Okay.

So then are we seeing that number seven the appeal letters claim that required utility underground is that what we're seeing we're gonna remember it deals with the condition of the frontage road one of the apple seven and that's been withdrawn as an appeal the frontage yeah yes that is what that okay so only on issue that at this juncture is 15 as the sole issue that's before the if you accept that petition because that petition is based on the condition that they're only appealing that number 15 I think there may be a tiny bit of confusion that the appellant can clear up the petition is from neighbors it Mr.

Zaphar is not a party on that petition so I think he needs to answer the question as to whether he is withdrawing a portion of the appeal and he'll have that opportunity to speak.

So I think maybe we can wait until his he speaks and you can ask him specifically.

Is he withdrawing his appeal as to either of the questions.

That's my and I just speak in accepting that particular petition, that was what the appellant had represented when I what I've been advised by the so the appellant presented this petition as part of his late submission of his exhibit to and is so the appellant is the one that presented it.

No, it's it was presented, I believe, by his wife.

Oh, okay.

The the petition was dropped off at the city clerk's office yesterday afternoon.

There was a conversation with regard to the meaning of this particular petition.

Where's Mr.

Safara?

Who is this?

Yes, you can say that go ahead, sir.

I think we can we can take this a little bit out of turn.

Let him answer the question as to whether he's withdrawing either part of his.

I'm the one that did create that paragraph.

I am not an attorney.

I was just encouraged by one of our neighbors to say, try to find out what the rest of the community feels about this particular requirement uh condition of approval.

And so it only represents the undergrounding requirement, not the others.

And I wanted the the neighbors to understand that I wasn't appealing the whole thing, although I would like to.

I realize that we have to have a win-win here if we have something that I have to give up.

So I'm willing to do that, but I'm that has to do with the undergrounding, and I'm the one that wrote that, and I'm the one that secured the signatures.

So just to clarify for procedural purposes, you're withdrawing your appeal then to condition number seven with regard to the frontage road.

Yes.

Okay.

He's saying undergrounding, you're saying frontage.

I'm genuinely confused.

I think number seven is fronted and number 15 is uh the underground.

That is correct.

Okay, but there were two original bases for the appeal.

One was the condition that required undergrounding.

That was condition 15, condition seven related to frontage improvement.

What I understand you to be saying is you are now withdrawing your objection to the frontage improvement condition.

However, you continue to want the council to consider whether the whether you should be required to do undergrounding.

Correct.

All right, I think that's what I understand as well.

Okay.

That would mean you're appealing.

Yes, I'm gonna reflect back.

Okay.

If you're if you're okay with that, um so frontage, you're saying yes, the neighbors want it.

I want it, putting words slightly in your mouth.

Yeah, that is putting words in my mouth.

Neither the neighbors nor I want that.

Okay.

Nor do we feel that it's necessary, but it is one of the non-negotiable requirement by the planning department that I, as the the one dividing the land, bear that cost.

Begrudgingly agree, yes.

Okay, all right, perfect.

Thank you.

That's a good word.

Thank you, sir.

Did I stay here or no?

We're we're okay.

We need to finish reading.

Long list of things.

So we so we are are we I think at this point we now understand what the additional late submission is and and decide whether to accept this late exhibit, which will remove um appeal number seven, which is the front end.

It it doesn't rem it doesn't remove condition seven, it's just the petition from the neighbors.

Is it stating their opinion?

Stating their opinion, but the um appellant is saying that he agrees and is willing to take that off the table.

That's what he correct.

That's what he said.

Everybody okay with that staff?

You're all good?

We need a vote on it, or is that just uh I don't think we need to vote on it.

I don't I don't think it requires a vote.

It's his petition and his appeal, and therefore he can withdraw any grounds that he wants.

Um, is everybody okay with it?

Alright, we're all good.

Okay, next is staff will present the staff report, place relevant documents into the record, and respond to questions from city council.

Staff may present any test testimony and relevant evidence not previously presented in the written report.

Not yet.

Evidence, I still got a few more bullets to read Elijah.

Evidence is relevant if it proves or disapproves a material fact in dispute.

The mayor will specify the time the applicant has for his or her presentation rebuttal.

And I am looking at I wanted to ask counsels and also the applicant whether um 20 minutes is enough.

Okay, good.

I thank you so much to present their appeal.

No testimony or witnesses will be heard at this time.

All public comments testimony will be heard during the public comment testimony.

Um, and members of the public andor individuals in support or against the appellant will be given the opportunity to present testimony.

Public comment testimony will be limited to three minutes per person.

Mayor will specify the time the appellant has for his or her response to the testimony or evidence.

Appellant will be given five minutes to respond, but may not introduce new testimony or evidence or restate direct testimony.

Staff may provide responses to testimony received from the appellant applicant public and may be asked to answer questions from the city council.

The mayor will close or continue the hearing.

The city council will deliberate on the matter and adopt findings if appropriate.

The final decision may be deferred for preparation of draft findings consistent with the preliminary decision.

All right.

Elijah, you may proceed.

Thank you.

Elijah Ortega, Associate Planner, Community Development Department.

So item number eight tonight is an appeal of tentative parcel map number five two four-seven, located at 3071 Davis Road.

Staff's recommended actions are as follows.

First, to conduct the public hearing for the appeal, and second to adopt resolution 2567 to deny the appeal and confirm the planning commission's approval of tentative parcel map number five two four seven and affirm the CEQA finding.

So the project is located on a five-acre undeveloped property at the intersection of Davis Road and Seymour Avenue.

The property boundary is outlined here in red.

This property and much of the surrounding area is zoned rural estates and is located within the rule core area of the West Sacramento General Plan.

So here is the approved plan to split the five acres into four parcels, each one and a quarters acres in size.

The dashed line areas represent the driveways and building sites, and the dotted areas containing the parcel numbers are where the septic system leech fields are.

Each property does have its own septic and well system, the locations of which were reviewed and approved by Yellow County.

Septic was approved for these properties as there is no sewer service on Davis or Seymour, with the closest connection being twelve hundred feet to the north on Marshall.

And you can see here that parcels one and two take direct driveway access from Davis Road, and parcels three and four have a shared driveway with access from Seymour Avenue.

So the appellant's appeal was filed on May 12th, shortly after the planning commission approved the map.

The appeal requested the city council to amend condition of approval number 15 regarding underground utilities.

And as we just heard the applicant confirm, uh rescinding other requests for appeal on condition of approval number seven regarding frontage improvements.

So all property subdivisions in the city are required to comply with municipal code Title 16.

Title 16 applies to all property divisions regardless of the number of parcels being created, meaning it applies equally to both parcel maps and subdivision maps.

Among the requirements in the municipal code is a requirement for undergrounding of overhead utilities.

Specifically, this requires the subdivider to underground existing overhead utilities along the property frontage.

The appellant did request a waiver of this requirement from the planning commission, as may be provided in subsection three, and the planning commission denied this request.

Requiring utility undergrounding has been a long-standing policy of the city and is reflected in a number of council adopted policy documents, including the West Sacramento General Plan, the Southport Framework Plan, and the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan.

More recently, utility undergrounding has a heightened importance as overhead utilities lose power more frequently and for longer durations of time during extreme heat waves, high wind events, and storms.

In addition to loss of power, downed utility lines pose a significant public safety hazard in neighborhoods like this, where roadways are narrow and access is limited, especially if a downed utility pole blocks roadway access.

So underground utilities serve to create a more stable and reliable utility network overall for residents and provides greater climate resiliency for the city.

So staff has prepared this diagram here where you can see that there are four utility poles along the property frontage, which would be required to be taken down.

The overhead utilities in this neighborhood consist of electrical service and cable service.

Because electrical service is provided by PGE, the appellant would be required to open a formal project with PGE to design and estimate the undergrounding.

The appellant would also be required to coordinate with the cable provider located on the overhead line to bring that service underground as well.

And this type of work is typically done simultaneously with both utilities placed in a joint trench.

The appellant has provided a number of informal cost estimates for the undergrounding project.

However, at this time, no formal estimate from PGE has been received.

Without a formal estimate and design, staff is unable to verify what the cost of the undergrounding project will be.

The appellant also claims that four new utility poles would be required to be installed on neighboring properties as a result of the project.

However, in order to determine if new utility poles would be required and where those new poles would be located, would also require a former formal project design from PGE.

The appellant also claims that similar projects were not required to underground utilities.

Staff prepared this diagram showing recently approved maps where overhead utilities were considered.

The appellants' property is shown in red, and similar projects shown in purple, green, yellow, and blue.

Beginning first with the property that was indicated in purple at 3895 Marshall Road.

This project is a nine-lot subdivision with 700 feet of overhead utility frontage approved by the planning commission in 2023.

The project was required to underground the overhead utilities along the property frontage on Marshall Road.

And here's an image of the property frontage on Marshall Road showing the overhead utilities removed as was required.

Moving next to the property that was indicated in green at 3245 Marshall Road.

This project is a four-lot parcel map with 600 feet of overhead utility frontage approved by the planning commission in 2021.

The project is required to underground the overhead utilities along the property frontage on Marshall Road.

Here's an image of the property frontage on Marshall Road showing the overhead utilities that will be removed.

There is currently construction of homes ongoing at this property.

However, the homes will not receive a certificate of occupancy until the undergrounding work is completed.

Moving to the property in yellow at 2370 Harmon Road, this project is a four-lot parcel map with 200 feet of overhead utility frontage approved by the planning commission in 2023.

The planning commission approved a waiver of the utility undergrounding for this project due to cost and no net gain in removed utility polls.

And here is an image of the property frontage on Harmon Road, showing the overhead utilities that will remain in place.

And lastly, the property in blue at 2135 Davis Road.

This project is a three-lot parcel map with a hundred and fifty feet of overhead utility frontage approved by the planning commission in 2024.

The planning commission approved a waiver of the utility undergrounding for this project due to cost and no net gain in removed utility polls.

And here's an image of the property frontage on Davis Road showing the overhead utilities that will remain.

So going back to the exhibit here, these examples demonstrate that the planning commission has waived underground the undergrounding requirement for small projects with minimal overhead utility frontage.

Well, the appellants project is only four lots.

It has over 900 feet of overhead utility frontage, more than all four of the other similar projects.

The primary reason for that is that this project is located on a corner lot with utilities located on both frontages.

I did have this presentation prepared with the assumption that the appellant was uh asking uh for an amendment on the frontage improvements, which is addition number seven.

Uh so I'm gonna skip this uh section of the presentation.

So, as a reminder, staff is recommending that the council conduct the public hearing and adopt resolution 2567 to deny the appeal and uphold the conditions of approval for utility undergrounding.

Uh, this concludes staff's presentation, and I will be available for questions as needed.

Thank you.

Thank you, Elijah.

Next uh, we will have the um Mr.

Zapara.

Are you going to be the one presenting?

We'll have um 20 minutes.

Just to address planning's last statement, uh, two specific projects near me that are similar, we're not required to take down uh the street poles.

Everybody knows that from the street to the individual uh developed home has to be underground.

That's not up for dispute.

It's taking them down in the street.

And it was planning in our last meeting that put a graphic on the screen that showed four additional poles, maybe more, going up to support the undergrounding of these four poles.

That didn't come from PG and E, it came from planning.

So to come tonight and say that, you know, it's just gonna take these down and everything's gonna be honky-dory.

There's no new poles going up, it's just simply not true.

And he is correct.

No one knows the cost.

There's no one in this room, me planning, no one knows the cost of taking these particular poles down.

Taking one down, taking two down in a straight line is one thing.

Taking a corner pole down where it's going four directions is an entirely different animal.

If those then have to be taken across the street, then the newly paved Seymour gets torn up in at least two places.

On top of that, PG<unk>E just replaced two of those four poles this last year, and uh replaced one uh to the east on Davis Road in the uh lot just next to mine.

So they have every intention of maintaining those poles.

They told me that they're not fond of moving power underneath the deeper ditches because now you're looking at a 15-foot trench, so you don't run into that thing by cleaning the ditches.

So there's uh uh quite a few mitigating circumstances for uh the pole removal and undergrounding, but though I did not want to agree to widen the road, uh I do understand it's a city ordinance, and I do understand the need for some of these roads to be wider.

I just don't think any individual uh person such as myself, which is not a developer, not a subdivision uh creator, should bear that singular cost.

I think the city should share that cost, but dealing with planning as I have done to point, I realized that was never gonna happen.

So that's why I withdrew the request.

But it is flat out impossible for me to do both.

To widen the roads, move the ditches, create new shoulders, pave what I've had done, it's gonna be well over 200,000.

The minor estimate that PGE gave me for moving these particular poles starts at 450.

One of the subcontractors told me it could easily go to six or six fifty just for those four poles because they're those four poles.

If there were no homes on the other side, or if this was a field and we're starting a new street, that's an entirely different thing.

But for me to underground the polls and do the road improvements before it's all done and said could easily reach one million dollars.

It's not possible for me to do that with this project.

My understanding is that it needs to be commensurate with the project.

This would not be.

So I maintain I'm giving up one to hopefully receive uh a waiver on the other.

And I don't need 20 minutes more.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Zapara.

All right.

At this time, we will ask for members of the public, Madame Clerk.

Um, are there any requests to speak on this item?

Janna Haynes.

Good evening, counsel.

Uh, my name is Janna Haynes.

Oh, sorry, my timers.

Oh, short minutes.

There we go.

Take the whole time.

Okay, ready.

Uh, my name's Jana Haynes.

I am the daughter of the applicants.

Um, I've been a West Sacramento resident for 15 years.

I live in Sulpezial Halls uh district, and my parents moved here to be near me, to be near my kids.

I have sorry.

I hope not to do this.

I have two kids, they're six and eight.

They attend Stone Gate, and my parents moved here to be with us, to be near us, to be near my children.

Um, so that they could grow up near their grandparents, and they bought this property to give them somewhere to play and be with them.

They bought it two years ago, and they still have not made any substantive steps towards what they're trying to do, which is build a house and build a house that they can live in for the rest of their lives while my kids grow up.

And one of the things that I just want to consider is that they're not developers.

The only reason they want to subdivide is to fund this build, they cannot build without it, and being treated as developers because there may or may not be four houses at some point, is unfair.

They're gonna build one house, period.

Whoever buys those properties may build houses, they may not.

Somebody may buy two lots and then they'll only build one house.

There's no guarantee that there will be four homes in this five acres at any given time.

And so to place the undue financial burden on the one person who you know is gonna build a house is not it's not fair, as he said, it's not um, you know, relevant to the project.

Um, you know, my parents are incredible neighbors, they have been sowing their finances into this city and into this property for two years, so far with with no real return on their investment.

Um they they eat at these restaurants, you know, they spend their tax dollars here.

And if the goal of this particular requirement is to underground the lines for safety, if you don't waive this appeal, it's not gonna happen.

They will have to pick up and leave.

They cannot stay on this property if they cannot build this home, and they cannot build this home if they have to underground the lines, and so one thing begets another.

They cannot move forward with this particular project if this requirement stays in place, and you still won't accomplish your goal, which is undergrounding the lines for safety purposes.

That will remain, and whoever buys the property next may not build, and those lines will still never get undergrounded.

Um, and so if that is the end game, this is not the way to accomplish it.

Um, there has to be some other way to do that without driving away good residents that are making good decisions about improving their neighborhood for the sake of being here with their family.

So thank you.

Thank you so much.

Amy Morrill.

Hello, my name's Amy Morrow.

I am a licensed land surveyor living in West Sack for over 30 years.

I am the one trying to help the Zaparaz get this map.

Um a lot of discussion has been going on about the polls and their location and whether it makes any sense to underground just to put up new polls across the street.

So I was very pleased to see that there have been some projects where there are no net gain has prevailed, and the project was allowed to continue without disrupting the whole neighborhood, just to erect new polls and go into that incredible cost.

Um we've been through this process for about two years now.

At first, there was no issue with the polls, and then we were told there was an issue with the polls, and then we were in meetings where we said this usually gets waived, and it's very possible for it to get waived, and we were told that the polls could remain.

So I've revised the map again, like the 13th time, I think, and then all of a sudden it says they have to be underfounded.

So it seems like the common sense went out the window.

Um, but it's very encouraging to see that it can happen, and in his unique section and piece of land, it just doesn't make sense.

So I would ask that you waive that requirement.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have no additional request to speak.

Right.

Um at this time, um we will see whether the appellant um would like to respond.

If you don't, if you have five minutes to respond.

I don't I don't need five minutes, thanks.

Uh about two years ago, maybe two and a half years ago, I had in public, right in this counter over here, uh discussion with Dave Tilley, who at the time was in charge of the planning.

Um I didn't know the pecking order at that point.

I don't know where Andrea Oce was at that time.

We did not have a conversation, but at that conversation, and I do believe Elijah was present.

Dave Tilley said, Well, we can't promise anything, but the likelihood of those polls being undergrounded being waived is probably pretty good.

So I advanced our project based on that conversation.

Uh our surveyor is correct.

Amy was in a meeting just a couple of months ago with us about this particular concern, and the city engineer, Mark Collier and Elijah were present, and at that discussion, it was determined that the polls would not be an invasion into improving the frontage, i.e., that they could stay.

She was asked to correct her map to represent that.

And it was a shock to me when I saw the uh condition that they were going back to.

No, we're asking for the whole enchilada.

And so we called for a special meeting, not a council, a planning commission meeting.

So uh Amy and myself, uh, that was one meeting, but then just a couple of months ago, I took a true developer with me, and we had a personal meeting with Andrea O'S in the room, and we laid out all the reasons why we uh felt that this was an undue burden, and they heard everything.

Everybody talked about what it would be, and they said, Well, we'll we'll you know, take a little bit of time, we'll talk about this.

Two weeks went by.

I got a phone call from Tristian, who is the second person I've dealt with, not really, just by invitation by uh introduction.

Having gone through three different heads during YOLO County's situation, each one, my unique project was the first one they had dealt with.

The head of YOLO County's environmental department, my project was each of their first project.

Things changed, changed, changed, changed, and I spent tens and tens of thousands of dollars with YOLO County.

I am now doing that with the city.

Planning has delayed, delayed, changed their minds, made map changes that would indicate in my favor, and then pulled back on that.

And then when I get the agenda for tonight that we're recommend they're recommending that this August council deny this appeal, it just boggles my mind.

Here I'm willing to put down another couple of hundred thousand dollars, which it's no big deal to anybody else here, but to me, it means that I am not gonna get as far along in my project as I would like if I'm able to build at all.

So I'm just saying right now, there's a bit of an impasse between myself and planning, and I am asking that we split this thing.

I'll do the road improvements, and you lay down your request for undergrounding.

So I am I am appealing that particular condition.

Thank you, Mr.

Zaparo.

Sorry, thank you, Mr.

Zapara.

Um, now we have staff that you may provide responses to the testimony we see from the appellant applicant um public and um be able to answer any questions from the council members.

Thank you, Madame Mayor.

Uh so there's been some discussion about a meeting uh that occurred in April with city staff uh regarding uh the utility polls related to the frontage improvements.

Um so at that time, staff did hold a meeting with Mr.

DePara Zapara and his surveyor, and it was discovered that there was actually an error in the map which showed that the poll at the intersection of Davis and Seymour would be within the traveled lane of the roadway after the frontage improvements were uh constructed.

Uh so that was an error.

So we had Mrs.

Zapara and his surveyor go back and revise the map to show that that was actually not going to be the case, and that the road widening could occur without any conflicts with the utility pools.

Now, staff doesn't have the authority to waive the undergrounding requirement unilaterally, only the planning commission can do so.

Uh so I think there was obviously some confusion and and communication there with Mr.

Zapara, but just to clarify, it was discovered during that meeting that there was an error on the map that was prepared that we had them correct.

At this time, that's all I have prepared in terms of response to Mr.

Zapara's testimony.

Thank you, Mr.

Ortega.

Don't leave.

Let me see if any of the council members have any questions.

Councilmember Early.

Okay.

Um so I I just uh I want to clarify and make sure I'm I'm understanding the information that we've gotten here.

Um it sounds like uh we do have situations in which uh we do waive um the undergrounding, and um it sounds like potentially they're associated with the the amount of distance, maybe the feet.

Um it sounds like potentially it's also associated uh with whether there'll be a net gain in regards to to cost.

I don't know if I said that correctly.

Um is that policy?

Are we, is that an official policy, or how does that how does that work?

So uh those are all uh topics that have been considered by the Planning commission on prior maps where utility undergrounding has come up.

Got it, okay.

Um, so there is a world uh where it sounds like some of the conversations that um Mr.

Saparo and his surveyor had um starting a couple years ago where although clearly staff doesn't have that authority, that there could have maybe been some assumptions or uh potentially suggestions that hey these situations have happened in the past um in regards to waiving um and potentially that was based on that understanding of that is an option of the project move forward.

I think that's more commentary than anything, but um okay.

I I can't imagine a world I'm actually dealing with this right now, um, in which you go into a project, um, understanding it to be one thing, um, and then whether it is is forces outside or um contractors that you're working with, in this case the city, the the county, that there are understandings that then change over the course of of several years.

Um I can imagine the frustration.

I I understand the the costs, and I do think that from the point of view of anyone wanting to build um in our city, that it is important to have uh a level of understanding of what are the policies, what can I um really understand and depend on, right?

That way I can appropriately estimate costs of this huge investment.

Um and I always say we're we're fortunate to have people who want to come and invest in our city, whether that be a business or whether that be um building and and developing as well, because again, I I feel like our city benefits from that investment, and so we want to encourage and incentivize that.

Um it I do know that it sounds like potentially our team will work on um or would ask or request that our team work on um having that level of transparency and consistency regarding this policy, and from what at least I've heard um that I think that because of um the subjectivity right that exists right now around this, um, that I would lean towards wanting to um uh not actually have Mr.

Sapporo put in undergrounding for for various reasons, whether it's the cost, also over the past couple of years, and I've spoken to Mr.

Sparrow, the confusion around some of this.

Um, and this isn't my district, and so I I feel very comfortable and confident that that is something that um our residents and the local community would want um to be able to see this through.

So that's I that will that is where I would lean towards in this.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Early, any other questions are coming.

Council member Mayor Pro Tem?

My mic, okay, my mic's on now.

Um tell me a little bit about um the polls or the undergrounding in this neighborhood.

Um are a majority of the homes still above ground, and this will lead me to my next question.

The majority of the residences in this neighborhood uh are served by overhead power.

Is there a possibility that sometime in the future these property owners in a larger scale would get together and decide um as a district as a neighborhood um organization to uh work together at a larger scale in underground the utility lines?

Yeah, hi, good evening, Tristan Osborne, the planning manager here at the city.

Um I think that is a possibility.

You see that type of thing for different infrastructure districts, um, different corridors where where folks can opt into to a district that would probably need to be spearheaded by the city initially to look at something like that and see if it was feasible.

Um, but it it would be an option we could look into further.

That's what was my only question.

I wasn't ready, wasn't going to apply now yet.

No other questions.

Okay.

Um so we can bring it back to council now and deliberate on the matter and who um take actions on whether to adopt the findings, um approve the rejection of that the appellant has requested.

Um and the final decisions um will be worked on with staff.

So I just wanted to see where council would like to go with this.

Madam Mayor, before we begin, if I just may you still have the outstanding issue of the appellant exhibit A.

Like if you're accepting it, then a copy should be given to all of you.

Oh, I think you have accepted it, but you haven't received a copy.

I did ask for a copy, but then it would be accepted as part of your evidence for consideration.

That's all right.

Thank you.

I just want to make sure you have that before you close it.

Thank you so much for really good.

All right.

Everybody now has exhibit oh, there goes Norma.

Exhibit A.

Everybody can see exhibit A and understands it.

Yeah.

Okay.

And um I personally have um taken a look at I'm a planning commissioner in the past and have heard similar um matters.

Um have also seen past commissioners after me um waive the requirement and and it and that happened in the planning commission.

Um I'm I'm a proponent of undergrounding.

However, placing the cost on one homeowner is um is pretty significant and impossible.

And I think that um taking a look at a CFD, but there is so much vacant land and a lot of the homeowners have large acreage that it it's just gonna be um really expensive, not just for one block but for like a whole strip because you're gonna have to balance out from what I understand.

If you put in if you pull out a pole and you don't take care of it down the road somewhere, you're just gonna have to compensate.

I I don't know all the mechanics, but what little I know.

I I do think it's um it's quite the juggling act when it comes to power poles.

Um in my experience, these power poles have come down um during severe storms.

So I I do get that we will be hearing from our you know, residents.

Mr.

Zaparman, give them your telephone number.

I'm just kidding.

It's uh we will be hearing from them.

Um and and they'll blame P P G and E.

And um it's something we really push PG and E to come out and repair these um down power poles as soon as possible.

Um and uh undergrounding is is has been a priority um in every jurisdiction.

I've only wish PGE would step up and um do their part because it's safer, um, prevents um you know climate action catastrophes such as fires and other um incidents throughout you know the city that we've seen happen throughout the city.

We've seen a fire from a power pole.

Um we've seen them down, we've seen you know the lines spread all over this you know neighborhoods.

Um we get complaints from certain parts of the city more than others, um, but I think it's spread evenly some extent.

So you'll you'll um you'll hear about it when you have your storm if you haven't had one yet.

Um but uh but yes, I think um I appreciate you presenting Mr.

Savar, your um your request.

I know it took a lot of work and courage, and we've been through a long time at this, and um, you know, I will likely um will probably um be in support of rejecting um staff recommendation.

Any other comments from who's council member?

Okay.

Um as somebody who spent uh considerable amount of time in the dark over the last uh this past week uh having um a tree fall on a downed power line.

I understand the importance of ensuring that neighborhoods don't go down when our power lines are getting severed and uh people are left in the cold and not in this case, but in the past we have left been left for sometimes upwards of weeks when um we don't have a response in the state streets uh to to our problems.

Um so I do appreciate the effort for our city to move forward with undergrounding.

I think that that's the wave of the future and how we should be treating our city and the as we upgrade into a better complexion for the residents and and just giving them a better community as far as um having these old infrastructures graduated out and moving forward I think that that should be our policy uh moving forward.

Um when I'm looking at this I can't look for me as a policy maker um at the virtues of any individual representative of a of a project.

For me I I mean I I appreciate that um you know subjectivity in in this case um it makes me feel a little uncomfortable.

I want to make sure that there's a policy in line that I can follow and be guided by instead of having these one-off decisions because I I don't want it to ever be a situation where oh we're being unfair or we're making decisions from the dais as to how we move forward on making these decisions.

Instead I'd rather see um you know have have more uh uh of a solid precedent moving forward um with that stated I do agree with my colleagues in um with this particular issue and I'm I appreciate that the appellant brought this before the before the council um and I appreciate that we have the opportunity to look at this issue and move forward with it as this this being an example of um the very difficult decisions that we have to make and and and that's not to discredit the planning commission's position because I understand the overarching policy uh direct direction that we would like to move as a city um so with that I um I appreciate the the withdrawal on the front end I think that is a very important uh position excuse me not position it's a very important decision to that needed to be made um not on behalf of the appellant but rather as a city we definitely need those front end improvements on this one however um I'm gonna sit with my fellow council members and um in an agreement.

Okay I'll go um yeah so coming into this meeting I was looking at you know our two different conditions seven and fifteen and uh the improvement to the rural road standard was really important um for the safety of the neighborhood to get the fire truck in and out um so I'm it's it's such a wonderful thing to see um that being agreement that we could take that off the table and be in agreement that the railroad um improvement rural road standards would happen um as for the undergrounding of the power lines when I was sitting um with staff on the briefing um one of the things I really struggled with was the inconsistency that we had um over the years on what got undergrounded and what didn't and um that led to a conversation about actual policy to be consistent because I want to be fair um and based on the feedback we're getting about the cost and no net gain and I I hear your frustration of being in this for two years um and hearing different things from different people.

My guess is we had different planning commissions at a different time very subjective everybody's got a different opinion about all of this and that's not I I don't believe that's how we should govern.

And so looking at this specifically I agree with my colleagues I think moving forward with the rural road standards um is important and I'm glad we came to that agreement but not having a requirement to underground the power lines um and like we said rejecting the staff's recommendation on that.

I would love the opportunity to in the future to look at a district in that area and see if there's a way that we could work with the residents if desired to do a larger underground project because these rural neighborhoods um you know if we work together with economies of scale there's opportunity to do that together um but putting the burden on one property owner in this area um just doesn't seem to make sense at this time based on kind of the history we've had remember I just want to say I I respect the work that our staff, the planning commission does, but this is one time that I do not agree with the recommendation that was made along with my colleagues.

I'm in agreement.

With that, I want to just thank staff for all your hard work.

I know it's a lot of hard work to um hope you all can continue to work together.

You proceed moving forward.

Um do want to ask um for a question to our um hearing examiner.

We accept the exhibit to waive condition number seven that was that the appellant presented as part of.

Is that like a motion we make?

And then we also reject staff recommendation.

Is that the motion we should?

You would say that you accept the withdrawal of condition number seven as the appellant requested, leaving only the decision with regard to condition number 15, and we hereby reject the staff recommendation.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for that.

Do you need a motion?

We need a motion for that exactly.

Okay.

And you want it to be, I'm just gonna try.

I'm gonna try this.

Um I would like to motion to accept the appellants um withdrawal withdrawal, thank you, on number seven, the frontage, and reject staff's uh recommendation for undergrounding.

Sounds great.

All right, there we go.

If I could make one suggestion, yes, of course.

I think that's fine, but we can revise the resolution to reflect that.

And if you're all comfortable with that, we can make that provision with Mr.

Rafferey's help and then present it to the mayor for a signature.

Yes, we're all good with that.

All right, and and then for clarity, um, next step for our applicant.

Oh, I appreciate that.

Well, staff be reaching out to them to talk about next steps in this process.

All right.

With that, Madame Clerk, Councilmember Early moved, Mayor of Tempo PZ.

Please call the roll.

Councilmember Ocala.

Aye.

Council Member Early.

Aye.

Councilmember Roscoe.

Mayor Pro Tem Sophie's Johol.

Hi.

Mayor Guerrero.

Aye.

Thank you so much.

Done.

Next is item nine under finance is a public hearing and consideration of adoption of resolution 25-78 amending the book of fees.

Oh, Miss Andrea House.

I got the gavel.

All right.

Andrew are you waiting on a presentation?

Are you at the I am actually?

Just checking in on that.

I can I can begin now.

I can talk, and that is not the right one.

But okay, even more reason.

I'm gonna go ahead and dive in.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

I'm Andrea Auscher, Director of Community Development.

Um I'm here tonight to present the proposed update to the city's book of fees uh for the community development department.

Uh this item was uh the topic of uh the development of improvement enhancements uh or enhancements workshop that occurred on the July 16th City Council meeting, um this item requests that the city council conduct a public hearing and uh that the city council consider adoption of resolution 2578 to amend the community development related portion of the city's book of fees.

First, I'd like to start with introductions.

I'm joined once again by Director of finance, Reberta Raper, uh senior finance Analyst Mark Rodeville, and Courtney Ramos, the senior vice president for uh matrix Consulting, our partner in this process.

Why we're here uh just as we discussed in July, it's the first full-scale review of the community development fee since 2017.

In July, we shared preliminary findings and received valuable feedback from the council.

Tonight's action is to consider formal adoption.

So what this is and what this is not, I wanted to pause for a bit and just clarify exactly what we're doing here tonight, just importantly, what we're not considering.

This is an update of user fees, the charges applicants pay for specific services or products provided by the city, such as permits, plan checks, and inspections.

This is not an update of development impact fees.

Impact fees are one-time charges on new development projects to help fund public infrastructure projects, roads, parks, utilities, et cetera.

Those are separate and are not part of this action tonight.

We are also not updating any of the pass-through fees.

Those are fees that would go directly to other agencies like our school districts, state regulatory fees, etc.

Those remain outside the scope of this update.

Tonight's action again is really just focused solely on the fees that recover the city's cost for providing particular specific development services to applicants.

The process and timeline thus far, the city engaged with Matrix to conduct the cost of service study, their bottom-up analysis, as I talked about in July, calculated the full cost of providing services across planning, building, engineering, code enforcement, sustainability, fire prevention.

We presented the high-level summary to the chamber's economic and government affairs committee in June, and held a workshop with you in July and presented the findings then at the chamber's EGA committee meeting at their August 12th meeting.

So some of the key issues that were revealed under the study included that most categories we were not recovering the full cost for service, particularly in planning development engineering and code enforcement, also building.

In some areas, such as permit renewals, fees are higher than actual costs, and we are adjusting those downward.

We also restructured some of the key divisions for clarity and transparency to cover long-term planning and technology investments, which are critical.

We are introducing a general plan maintenance fee and updating our existing technology surcharge.

Finally, we'll be updating the book of fees annually to reflect adjustments in the costs of service and to phase out in applicable fees while incorporating new items as they come online.

So some examples of the changes of building permits, we've simplified, they're more predictable in our fee structure.

In the planning fees, we are refining our deposits to come closer to our actual costs, memorializing fees that should have been memorialized a while ago, and have eliminated obsolete fees.

In terms of code enforcement, we are capturing new fees for different types of inspections and establishing flat rate adjustments.

We're aiming to create a fee structure that is more user-friendly, that is clarity that provides more clarity, is more transparent, and aligned with actual workload and the cost of the work effort.

So alignment with July workshop feedback that we received from the council as we move forward with this update of the book of feedback and uh we wanted the guidance from the council to understand more clect the end result that is before you tonight.

Uh we uh did uh those case studies to highlight uh and to analyze uh what those ultimately those changes would be and what the uh fees if they were raised, what the impact would be on the uh bottom line.

Uh secondly, for clarity, another strong theme that we heard from council was making the book of fees more user-friendly.

Um we focused on usability, uh developing we will ultimately develop a an online fee estimator uh and a calculator, so that will provide a lot more clarity for um for the development community and for those that are simply like Mr.

Sopara, for example, the small um applicants that are simply trying to uh divide their lot.

Uh third is outreach.

We uh emphasized the importance of engaging our stakeholders in this process.

We are proactive and connecting with the chamber of commerce.

Um I also wanted to um uh introduce that uh Chris Valencia from the Building Industry Association is here with us tonight.

We've connected um and we talked through uh the book of fees changes uh this week.

And we gathered the input from the count the chamber once again after I was with you last month and received their feedback where appropriate.

Uh, in large part, they were supportive.

Um we heard a lot of support in the fact that we're making things more clear, uh more concise and more transparent for the public, as well as predictability.

That was a very important component.

Uh, in short, the draft update reflects the council's feedback and in analyzing our case studies and providing real world context.

We um just want to ensure the community and industry that we are continuing to engage.

In terms of strategic alignment, this um update supports the council's uh 2025 strategic principle of sustaining our core services and infrastructure.

It reduces reliance on um general fund and community development fund subsidies, ensures compliance with state law, and positions us for long-term fiscal sustainability.

So, in summary, this update is long overdue.

Uh, it brings our fees in line with actual service costs, uh, ensures fairness for applicants and reduces the burden uh potentially on the community development fund and um general fund.

So staff respectfully uh recommends that council uh consider adoption of resolution 2578 after opening the public hearing and receiving any testimony.

That concludes my comments and I'm available for questions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Andrea.

Any questions among the council members on the presentation?

Right.

Um I'll open it up for public comment.

Madam Clerk, are there any requests to speak?

Yes, ma'am, Chris Valencia.

Right, Chris, come on up.

Hello, madam mayor and members of the city council.

My name is Chris Valencia, and I'm here on behalf of the North State Building Industry Association representing more than 500 members of the home building industry.

Oh, we appreciate the outreach that staff has made in regard to this update to the book of fees that you are considering.

BIA appreciates the need for a healthily operating planning and community development department, especially as the city is taking steps to be a strong partner in building homes.

As you do continue to consider fee updates, I urge you to take a holistic mindset, remembering that small increases here and there can add up during a time of increasing economic uncertainty.

It is important that we do not overburden our businesses that are facing the same fiscal challenges, doing what they can just to keep their doors open.

Again, we do appreciate this collaborative approach and continue to look forward to working with the city of West Sacramento.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Any other requests to speak, Madame Clerk?

There are no additional requests to speak on the site.

All right, closing the public comment, bringing it back to council.

Are any questions?

No questions.

I do have some questions.

Um you mentioned, and I remember in the past, um, service costs and making sure that the fees are being able to address some of the costs.

So the service costs being staff time to be able to review plans, and um and to reduce that.

Sometimes, if um, for example, there could be um a fire, you know, fire marshal permit that needs to get done, and and there is another permit from another department that needs to get done, and sometimes they don't always agree.

It could be conflicting information to the applicant where they would need to make an architectural design change, and and then it goes back to everybody.

And I was hoping to figure out if this process helps streamline those potentially you know conflicts so that so that we can see reduced staff time as well.

Yeah, and I would offer that uh while the book of fees doesn't specifically address that, um, the process improvements that I brought back brought to the council that we've been working on for a couple of years now, and that we are moving forward with, um, will assist us in helping streamline that so that we can make sure we're all in alignment and we reduce any redundancy that is unnecessary in our permitting process.

Um, there there is there is one example um uh where the recent Jurassic Park 15th and Jefferson, that particular location, where the fire marshal requested a fire lane that is not um on the owner's property.

And um those are some of the situations where I find it hard to be able to meet that requirement.

Um is you know, just to explore workarounds so that uh so that if um an applicant is trying to do something that is productive in the city, um, you know, something that is uh gonna provide rec good recreational opportunities, but also keep those that are frequenting this place um safe because I do take into consideration what the fire marshal's concerns are.

But if there's a way to do a work around, it's it's just hard, especially with union, I don't know, who's the union specifics property.

Yeah, that I think is like mission impossible.

But if there if if there's a way to bring that collaboration to the table to help that applicant get that access way through Union Pacific or any one of us can help reach out to bridge the you know that come you know the that conversation so that we can continue to expedite and move applications along and um things like that.

I know this is a book of fees, it's costs and trying to bring transparency, which I greatly appreciate.

Um, and I'm gonna you know dig a little more.

I just couldn't see exactly all the details at this time, but um, because of the eye surgery, but I do want to say that um this is a long time coming.

I'm glad you've worked very hard on this, and thank you for bringing it back.

Um, and and I appreciate all the hard work that all the staff has done on this.

With that, if there are no other comments, uh accept a motion to approve, early moves, second.

Okay, um, Madam Clerk, council member early moved, Mayor Patem Sapizi Hall seconded, please call the roll.

Councilmember Okala.

I council member Early.

I Councilmember Roscoe, Mayor Pro Tem Sophizio Hall.

Hi, Mayor Guerrero.

Hi.

All right.

Next, under the regular agenda under Capital Projects is agenda item 10, consideration of West Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency and amendments to the joint powers agreement and feature composition of the Wasafka Board.

Flood Protection Manager Paul Jerksen is here to present.

Welcome, Paul.

Good evening, Mary Gabero and members of the city council.

Um tonight I'm gonna ask that you I'm gonna request that you consider the uh JPA amendments that have been provided to you in the uh council agenda package as well as um consider the recommendation for the West Africa board composition.

Um as you know, I believe this is a follow-up to the withdrawal of the reclamation district 537 from the joint powers um agency, the agreement from the West AFCA, which you approved in June.

Um since that time, I've worked with both the city attorney and the West Safe attorney to look at the JPA, the joint powers agreement, um, and also discuss different approaches to looking at the composition of the particular West Safe Code board.

The joint powers agreement has been updated to make it contemporary with state law.

There's also been some items that just needed some regular cleanup in terms of referencing some of the state laws and just bring it um making it more modern.

As you know, staff's recommendation tonight, in terms of the JPA board would be to continue to have one member of the city council, one member um representing the reclamation district um 900, as well as another member who would be a resident of the city and may be either a re either a city council person or a trustee from the reclamation district.

Um that appointee would come from both either the city council and or the reclamation district.

The JPA board as it currently stands would vote on those nominees.

That is the staff recommendation.

Can we um clarify that, please?

Yeah, I'm there's actually a little clarification.

I think the idea that is reflected in the staff report that was provided to you this evening, and the modification to the JPA is that Paul's essentially correct.

The council would appoint one member to WASAFCA RD 900 board would appoint one, then those two appointees would select a third member.

That third member could be a member of the council, could be an RD trustee, doesn't have to be either of those, so long as they are a West Sac president.

So the process would be you would select a representative RD 900 would select a representative, then those two representatives would select a third member.

I think the clarification is that's a little confused now because um the mayor normally made the appointments of um both of us uh to serve on the safe co board.

How would how would this be different?

I realized Tom Maremus was how was Tom Remus originally?

He was on way before I was.

He was appointed by uh 537.

Uh that's right.

So because there's no longer a third member agency, we're relying on the existing member agencies to make um to make nominations, that would be then approved by the existing West Safeco Board.

Is that correct?

And the idea would simply be the sitting members of the West Safe Coard, one from the city council, one from RD 900, which are both city council members.

Right.

So the mayor would still make the mayor would make the appointment to the council of the council representative through the normal process.

The mayor makes an appointment, the council confirms.

RD 900 would make an appointment through whatever process RD 900 uses for making an appointment, but it would be one of the RD 900 board members.

So today that would be another council.

Okay, because RD 900 currently is all council.

Then those two individuals and and for purposes of the JPA, we're referring to them as a council representative and an RD representative.

I see the practical reality is they're both going to be council members.

Those two individuals then would select a third member, and the reason for that recommendation is because if you don't do that, your WSAFCA board consists of two members, and that means if one isn't available, there can't be a meeting.

Every decision has to be unanimous.

It just our recommendation is that's that's not a very practical way to run an organization, have two members.

Yes.

Yes, just to uh to clarify tonight.

The only item of business before us is to clarify who it is that's representing the city of West Sacramento on the Wasafo board.

No, the action before you tonight is to approve reaction for approval.

We are actually for approval of the amendments to the powers to the agreement as well as the appro in terms of the membership of what the membership of the JPA board would consist of.

Okay, sorry.

And the reason we framed it that way is because the membership of the joint powers agreement, the composition of the membership is spelled out in the joint powers agreement.

So by approving an amendment to the agreement tonight, you will be memorializing, at least you'll be memorializing the city council's uh decision on how that joint powers agreement should work.

Okay, but in that process, just to make sure I understand the um the members that would be representing a WSAFO, one from RD 900, one from the city of West Sacramento City Council would appoint a third person who could be either a city council member and RD 900 member or a citizen.

Could be just a member of the public so long as they were a resident of West Sacramento.

I see.

Thank you.

And then the other piece that got added just since I'm talking, is there was a question about what happens if the two members cannot agree on the third member?

And so what I what I have suggested in the joint powers agreement is in a scenario where the two members, the city council member and the city council representative and the RD representative, both come to a meeting and have a nominee that they would like, and they cannot agree, they would draw lots to make a decision.

So it would be cut of cards for the coin.

It sounds a little odd, but that is not an unusual way of resolving situations like this for public bodies when you've got two qualified represent or two qualified nominees, and the you know the two members cannot reach agreement on it.

So they do have.

Okay, council member early moved.

Uh Mayor Pretemps PZ hold second, and Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Councilmember Alcala.

I council member early.

I council member Roscoe.

Mayor Protensal Pizio Hall.

Mayor Guerrero.

I all right.

This item is approved.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is item 11 under capital projects is consideration of resolution 25-90, amending the capital improvement program and appropriating funds for the fiscal year 2025-2026, budget related to the enhanced infrastructure financing districts.

Mr.

J.

Shahal, please present on this very important item today.

Thank you, Mayor.

And on behalf of the department of the city, I get to present on the AFT bond proceeds funding plan.

Um, this I wouldn't be here uh today standing in front of you if it wasn't for all the efforts put aside by all our city departments.

Uh our city manager Aaron Laurel has championed this uh effort on for many many years.

Um also I want to acknowledge um Ariana Damien, our assistant city manager of community service, our finance director, Roberta Raper, uh Tracy Michael, economic development and housing director, our community investment uh manager Mark Polhemas and Peter Abraham, our capital improvement manager, and David Wong, our principal engineer.

Um, they all worked very tirelessly on what I'm gonna be presenting today, and um hopefully, able to move this thing along.

And to summarize what the actions are gonna be in item number 11 is to adopt resolution 25-90.

That's approving the amendments to the capital improvement uh plan for fiscal year 2526 and appropriate funding, appropriate funds eligible for reimbursement.

And a quick recap, um, this is the first EIFD bond issuance in California's history, and for the city of West Sacramento, and to kind of go back on on the background here on August 21st, 2024, the EFD public finding financing authority authorized the issuance of the IFD bonds.

On April 17th, 2025, the validation, a very important point in the process was approved by Yolo County Superior Court, and the issuance of bonds could be proceeded.

On July 11th, another very important date.

Um, the bond proceeds were received by the city, and the clock started.

On August 20th, today we are coming forth to appropriate the bond proceeds towards capital projects.

And to recap on some of the some of the basics that were covered previously, the EIFD number one map is composed of 14 different sub-areas that cover about a quarter of the city's land area.

This area includes all the areas that were previously included in the former redevelopment agency.

And as a reminder, district revenues generated are not a new tax on property owners.

They are a result from increase in assessment values from each district's base year that was established in 2017.

And now to go over some of the goals of the EAFD funded facilities.

To highlight based on the community investment plan that was that was created in 2012 and adopted by council.

These projects were designed to assist with infrastructure with infrastructure and investment gaps, provide stable source for revenue for capital projects, and leverage and induce private investment, as well as other local and outside funding sources, such as grants from both state and federal agencies.

An important part on this slide that is on the bottom there is 85% of these bond proceeds must be spent on eligible projects within three years of the bond issuance.

So that started in July.

Some allowable uses under the EFD law include roads and transit, parking, parking and facilities, ground field remediation, affordable housing, other public facilities, and public safety safety facilities.

And now I'd like to highlight some of the EIFD capital projects that are seeking reimbursement.

Through the EIFD law, we are able to reimburse up to five thousand five million dollars, and three 300,000 of that is for administrative costs, and 4.7 of it can be administered to projects.

These identified projects that are on the screen right now are projects that had either measure G and Measure V funding.

So those projects would those funds would go back into those funding sources.

Those funds both are very aligned to what the EIFD law has, with the EIFD structure was created under, and are versatile in providing city city other city projects with funding.

So the funding that you see on the screen right now is what we're seeking back for the reimbursement that goes back one year prior to that July 11th date.

So it goes all the way back to July 11th, 2024.

These are all funds that these are all amounts that were incurred expenses by the city on these projects.

Now for all the new capital projects and expenditures that we're we're going through.

This list totals the total bonding amount that we're going after, and we're appropriating to every one of these projects.

The projects that you see on the screen here include the return of funds to measure G and Measure V, and also the one project to highlight the Washington neighborhood park, another million, a little over a million dollars will be going back to measure G.

That is not expenditured yet by the city, so that would be another fund that would be that would be transferred back.

And the top of the list, it has the reimbursement cost of $300,000.

So total $54.7 million that would be going towards projects.

And these aren't the total amounts for projects.

I want to make that very clear.

These are adding funding to existing projects that we have in the workflow.

Many of these projects are in design and construction phases, and a very important aspect for everyone here to highlight again is that three-year expenditure.

So these projects have to be expenditured 85% by the three years, and that is why we came up with a strategy to pick to pick the projects that are on the list.

They will be the in those phases by that the that timeline.

And right here to kind of capitalize and and show um the spread of the projects there are seven transportation projects and I Street Bridge is one of the main ones that composes of that 32 million.

So you see that 32 million dollar number about 21 million dollars of that or 20 million dollars of that is going to I street bridge project so that is set aside for that.

The facility projects um include design for a new police station, some of the work that we're doing for the community center across the street here and then parks and trails for the Washington neighborhood park.

So with that there's six facility projects seven transportation projects and three parks and trails projects.

So to recap the on the agenda item tonight we're gonna be approving the amendments to the capital improvement plan for fiscal year 25-26 and appropriate the funds for eligible reimbursement.

That is a conclusion of my presentation please ask if there's any questions.

Thank you Jay.

Council members any questions today sure go ahead council member early.

I I just wanted to um say I'm really appreciative to staff and how you all continue to find creative and innovative ways to fund the many projects that are needed in our city I wanted to um highlight on there that there are a couple of projects particularly um in my district including Enterprise Crossing as well as um Jefferson um further down towards Foxburg that will be on here and I think that this council has done an amazing job of responding to uh residents um and constituents need and want for investments um in our streets and so I just want to say how much I appreciate you guys all right I do I guess go ahead and go ahead mayor um no I just also I mean this is related is that you know West Sacramento being one of the on the forefront of of AIFD policy and being um that model for jurisdictions throughout the state I many don't know or maybe they do that our our city manager was instrumental in in making sure that that was something that we were doing in West Sacramento and that way we are leading the way with this list of incredible projects that we are able to cut ribbon after rivet after ribbon because of our staff looking for opportunities to use these these additional funds that would have otherwise not been available.

So I just I'm really inspired by the presentation Jay and thank you so much for um bringing this before us.

I'm sorry Madam Mayor please oh no I'm glad you provide an opportunity so um so um Jay thank you so much for for this I do have some comments in the end um that I'll present um about the project and taking a look at um how we um contract out these projects the bidding process and everything I'll be referencing um one finding um but uh for now I just wanted to see if um there were any public comments you know so I wanted to open up for public comment madam clerk we have no request to speak on this item all right closing public comment then bringing it back to council um in reviewing for example um one uh project that BNM builders had come in um with the history of prevailing wage theft and um I didn't vote for that item in the past because of that history um I did support the tennis court um but did see that uh they did come back with the prevailing wage theft um uh fine um because uh you know we our our staff did work collaboratively from what I understand um but the department of labor um and as a result of um justin who has been alerting us through a bid advisory that we do work hard um on taking a look at modifying our low bid process because our lowest bidder process is is could be could be a hang up if there's a big gap.

The gap is you're gonna get a a um uh uh bidder who's gonna come in and and try to find a way to take it off the backs of um those that are doing the work and I think our values are to protect the workers who do the work here in the city, make sure that they get paid well and um to get they get paid um with the experience and the skills that they have to you know to do the the work um and also to pay for the apprenticeship training requirements that they are required.

And this is all by law a requirement.

This is not something that the city is um writing into a contract.

This is by law why they're getting fined.

And if we can put in in a provision to not allow bad actors to come in and um receive a contract, especially if they it's recently happened here in our city in one of the projects that we um awarded, I would like to see um something to accomplish that and prevent that from happening again.

Um and in uh taking a look at the other projects, I do know that construction costs are going up and making sure that we have a buffer.

Um, if we needed to um increase the amount, how do we accommodate for that during the course of the process?

We have three years to get um the funds out the door, or I think that's what the process is or awarded.

Um is there a time frame where we can make sure that um what we decided here is is gonna get taken care of and giving you that you know additional um expense, you know.

So, you know, as we saw the state streets, what's going on, the you know, there there is a 10% increase there um during the course of of that project itself, um, to make sure that you know we are um adding and factoring that in.

Yeah, so to answer the question on kind of like contingency and and how we how we go about that, um, freeing up that money in measure uh G and V does give up give us that extra ability to to distribute that to projects that are on this list in the future if they did have any funding shortfalls.

However, all those projects will be coming back to council when they're there's contracts awarded.

So whether it's in a design phase, we'll be coming back to con council when there's a construction contract awarded with those um finer, more more finite uh numbers.

And uh and pertains to labor, all of our um current contracts we what we do is uh we also internally audit them, but we do have a third party on all of our contracts, and we work very closely with the DIR.

Unfortunately, there are contractors that that do have those violations, but um working closely with the DIR to cure those, they have the ability to cure them.

Um so we we do follow that process very closely.

Uh we do monitor that if anyone is actually debarred.

Um that is that is a process that has to happen through the D um DIR.

So uh unless they are debarred, we are not able to reject them based on just based on that.

You know, I I had a situation where I did not vote for it, but my colleagues thought that was bad and tried calling me out on it in various venues, um, including the press.

I I vote with my values.

I vote to make sure that we are bringing in you know bidders that are gonna be doing their part and taking care of the employees, and I'd like to see some change happen.

I don't like you know somebody who is trying to make sure that they are um uh voting for a contractor who's gonna get the job done right, and you heard a resident complain about the quality.

Make sure that the quality of the project is done well, and that's where I'm I'm you know wanting to make sure that you know I will continue to elevate this BNM builders and all the bad work they did because it's factually correct, um, because I think we need to make sure that as a city we bring in um those that are, you know, if there's a way to exclude BNM builders in the future.

Um I'd like to be able to do that in whatever mechanism, whatever policy mechanism we can establish.

I'm very interested in seeing what we can accomplish with that.

Jay, could I I want to jump in here just to uh we can get back to that topic in a second, but I wanted to highlight a couple things on the uh funding allocations that we're proposing tonight that uh relate to your other question around um you know, when we go to bid out these projects, if we have uh higher costs than what you see here, uh what do we do?

A couple couple notes on that.

One um most of these projects have multiple funding sources, so so there is this is just the uh the CIP portion that is EIP funded.

Um so there is um potentially other funding that can be brought to bear for most of these projects.

Uh Jay mentioned already that the uh sort of replacing measure G funding frees up dollar for dollar uh those funds that could be uh brought forward for these.

The other one that it's a major factor here, and I know I've I've covered it in uh some of our briefings is the the biggest ticket on here is the ice street bridge replacement project.

Uh what we know right now is the number you're seeing on this on this list is the approximate amount that we expect to have to come up with for our share of the project.

However, uh that project's being bid out right now, there's financing costs, and a lot could change between now and when that project's ultimately awarded a contract by the city of Sacramento.

So uh it's a possibility.

We may be back in the future, whether it's from uh a larger look at this entire list or on a project by project basis as we bring contracts forward uh to make adjustments if we need more money for uh the i Street Bridge project to come up with our local share.

And that'll be a decision the council will make when that time comes.

But um I just wanted to emphasize that this may not be the the uh total and final list of of the allocations project by project.

Um it's our best guess today, but uh there could be changes down down the road a little bit.

Um I think on the the topic that that you raised, Mayor, um that's probably a conversation we should continue to have and then we can ask our staff to explore and our attorney to explore uh what if anything can be done under the current um set of laws that we deal with uh to deal with the situation that you're referring to.

Uh but for tonight I think it's it's important to kind of uh hear your point, but keep the focus on uh the task at hand, which is considering the amendments to the CIP.

And I and I understand it's just that with um these projects when you come forward, they have a clock, and what happens is you you let us know that it's a grant.

If we don't spend it, we lose it.

In this case, it's EIFD, and we don't want to lose it.

We want you to be able to um bring to us quality um bidders um to make sure that we don't find ourselves in a situation where we have a hang up and meet and and reject somebody that has a history.

Absolutely.

Experience and qualification is one of those that we have um upped up and and kept pretty high, uh high standard of.

So these projects are are kept on a different radar from the city standpoint um and from the contract standpoint as well.

So in addition, I um would like to see, and I didn't see here listed, um, are the Brighton Broaderic streets.

Uh they have been um, you know, the roads are significantly deteriorating.

I I drive out there, you know, to um attend events, and and I am having to go 10 miles per hour just to make sure I don't hit some ditch, you know, um take out my car.

It's it they very much like the state streets um were in the past, and I'd like to be able to see some investment in the future um in in the uh Brighton Broadway community and the streets.

Yeah, so you won't see that type of project on this list when it's uh related to road um road maintenance.

Uh, road maintenance is not actually eligible under the EFD law.

However, uh with the passage of measure O, there are new resources for uh road maintenance and uh we have a schedule, we have the uh uh the pavement management index that you're you're familiar with.

Um so that's an update we can bring forward and and uh show you uh when we expect to see um some of the areas that you mentioned in addition to others around town that uh need some attention uh when we can expect to see those uh come forward.

But we do have new funding resources for that purpose.

Okay, thank you.

Mayor may I ask a question.

I just have one more.

Sure.

Thank you.

Um on the new police station, um, I just want to say I I definitely support the new police station recommendation here.

Um it's much needed, so thank you so much for working with um Westside PD to pencil that in.

Um our police officers are um you know um sitting in closets writing away the reports, doing um their detective work, investigations, things like that.

Um they're you know, very much hard at work, but um they're you know, just sitting in very tight quarters.

So thank you for putting that there.

Look forward to seeing what the outcome.

Yeah, that's a big project.

So I I look forward to seeing that project come to fruition.

And with that I'm done with um with my comments.

Thank you, Arcola.

Thank you.

I was really happy to see Sacramento um Avenue on there.

But I do have some questions.

Um I've seen district one and I've seen district two sidewalk really bad in those areas.

Um Aaron that's being taken care of.

So yeah, so the the sidewalk uh program we as you know we had a inventory that was done throughout the city that identified where sidewalk gaps um are and aren't and and part of that process is now identifying as we do projects whether it's Sacramento Avenue which is a great example uh has several gaps in it um how how can we leverage the projects that we're already doing to um account for those sidewalk gaps there are other parts of town though that have uh gaps that aren't you're not gonna see a major CIP project that's gonna take care of it and uh I believe we do have funding and maybe uh Jay or Ariana can chime in here um that was actually allocated um I think in Measure O as well but there we're looking at other funding sources uh to fund that sidewalk equity program to be able to take care of segments that are not part of a larger CIP project so anyone wants to add anything there.

Good evening Ariana Dami, isn't city manager uh community services yes um there is some work being done behind the scenes to both find alternative funding sources for the sidewalk gap um the steps um program that Aaron mentioned and also some work being done to um develop um a sidewalk ordinance that was something that was discussed um at the strategic planning session earlier this year um so in combination of both of those um we are looking at different strategies of how we can tackle those um gaps both in-house potentially and also creating capital projects to to deal with them so it's it's like a multifaceted approach is there a timeline for that for which part for actual construction of these sidewalk um so the steps will depend on when available funding is and how we can incorporate the different phases within capital projects um and the sidewalk uh ordinance is scheduled to come before you later this year okay thank you comments or questions right we're all done all right so we um have the exciting task of being able to approve uh the enhanced infrastructure financing district budget for 2025 2026 I'll accept a motion to approve so moved okay council member okay moved and mayor potemso pizza whole second and madam clerk please call the roll council member aye council member early council member mayor pro tem so peasio mayor guerrillo I thank you so much everybody for all your hard work um exciting to get this done thank you uh next is item 12 workshop and consideration of the on-demand rideshare program and resolution 25-83 requesting authorization to execute and submit the fiscal year 2025 2026 Transportation Development Act claim to the Sacrament Area Council of Governments and the associated amendments to the fiscal year 2025-2026 operations and maintenance budget um and Stephanie Chan who's our excellent um staff person I know you've been working really hard on this so thank you so much for all your hard work um very knowledgeable and um great expertise in this area look forward to hearing your presentation great um thank you good evening mayor and council members again my name is Stephanie Chan I'm a senior transportation um planner with the community development department um tonight overall staff is recommending city council uh approve resolution 2583 in relation to the TDA claim and the related budget um adjustments uh for fiscal year 2526 and to authorize the city manager to or does it need to execute and submit the fiscal year 25-26 TDA claim.

Staff is also recommending city council uh receive staff's presentation and conduct a public workshop to receive public feedback on the on-demand ride chair program and the uh proposed fare increases.

Staff is recommending that city council approves an increase in the via pass fares from uh 14, 15 dollars to 28.

We provide discounted fares for eligible discounted riders.

So we propose to continue that program, and that's why you see the 28 regular and 14 discounted.

As you remember, the on-demand rideshare program was launched into 2018.

Since the program's inception in 2018, the city used Transportation Development Act funds to support the program.

The city had prior year TDA reserves, which were expected to and have been used up in the fiscal year 24-25 budget.

So that just ended.

As such, throughout 23 and 24, staff conducted various workshops with the TMI Commission and the City Council on the future of the on-demand rideshares program funding and how to deal with this upcoming shortfall and whether there were options to consider service parameter adjustments, such as changing hours of operation, adjusting the service area, looking at different fare options in order to manage the budget.

In June of 2024, the council approved a new three-year initial term professional services contract to continue with our incumbent service provider, NOMAD Transit, also known as VIA, to provide us with this on demand service.

The City Council also directed staff to continue a full operations of the program and approved a one-time 3.16 million bridge district fund infusion to help support the program.

Even with the funding approved or into the budget, staff indicated that additional funding would be needed to support the program beginning in fiscal year 26-27.

As such, the on-demand program continued as a corner to corner service with the same hours of operation and fares as shown here.

Another change that we implemented, or like a thing that we started piloting in the last fiscal year, was that we launched the West SAC Downtown Sacramento On-Demand Rideshare pilot.

Following a memorandum of understanding with SAC RT and Yellow TD, as well as a clean air fund grant award from the Yolo Solano Air Quality Management District, the city launched a pilot in October 2024 that provided rides between West Sacramento to and from three downtown Sacramento zones.

They were the Kaiser offices, the Sack Valley Station, and a corner at N and 8th Street that provided connections to a larger the larger SAC RT transit network.

The Kaleem Air Funds originally subsidized the fares for these rides, which were actually pretty successful, and the funding was fully expended by December of 2024.

The city continued the pilot with regular fares.

Since 2018, we've provided over a million rides to this service in fiscal year 24-25.

The service provided a total of 198,000 rides, completed rides.

So we actually hit our millionth ride in the fiscal year 24-25.

And to provide some more detail on the on-demand rideshare pilot into downtown Sacramento.

Here's a snapshot of the ridership completed in relation to the overall ridership.

So in the red you'll see the pilot rides that were completed and the green are the intra-city rides only in West Sacramento.

Overall, the pilot typically consisted of 10 to 13% of monthly completed rides.

Ridership continued to remain stable after the free fare promotion ended in December.

Following the pilot, like free fare, the promotion ending, the city released the survey to gather feedback and data.

The results of that survey are included in your agenda packet as attachment four.

Based on the ridership data as well as the success of the pilot, the city worked to extend the MOU with SAC RT and YOLO TD.

We plan to test changes to the pilot zone.

We are planning to remove the SAC Valley Station pickup drop-off zone due to low ridership and confusion between the drivers on where to drop off riders as well as its proximity to the Kaiser downtown zone.

We're proposing a new fare structure specifically for rides that start or end in the downtown zones.

That is a distance-based structure with a $4.50 base fare plus a $1 per mile charge with a maximum fare of $12.

And we're proposing to eliminate downtown Sacramento rides from eligible via pass redemption.

We plan to continue monitoring and testing pilot changes with Yellow TD and SACRT staff through 2027.

With the details on the ridership and the performance in fiscal year 24-25, we ended up spending actually $108,000 $108,000 less than expected.

This table here shows originally our estimated costs at the beginning of fiscal year on the middle column, and to the right is the actual cost and funding that we utilized.

So we saw a little bit of savings in fiscal year 24-25.

This was generally due to a discount given to us by prepayment, prepaying the via funding up front, as well as not fully utilizing all the vehicle hours that we were intending to utilize.

So as previously mentioned, we are funding the on-demand rideshare program with TDA funds and a one-time bridge district infusion.

TDA funds are actually first used for SAGOG and YOLO T expense, yellow TD expenses, and then the remaining funding is available for local use.

So for fiscal year 25-26, after the SACOG and TDA expenses are claimed, we expect that there's about 1.23 million available for local use.

For this contract, we're seeing a shortfall of 1.08 million.

And then we don't have any identified funding currently if the TDA fund allocation and expenses remain pretty constant.

We anticipate that there is about a 2.4 million dollar gap onwards each year.

So currently via fares are $3.50 for a single ride and $15 for a VIA pass.

A via pass allows a rider to ride up to four rides a day for seven days.

Eligible discounted riders receive 50% off fares, so that's riders who are eligible for their senior ride or for ADA purposes.

And then we utilize this fare and reinvest it into the program to support the program.

And as you can see from the table to or the chart to your right, um, the we the number of completed weekly bookings by fare type via pass accounts or rides actually account for 40 per 5% of our completed weekly rides.

And so the city highly subsidizes the rideshare program.

Um this is kind of the estimated cost per ride through the past few fiscal years in fiscal year 24-25.

Um we think of the cost of operations divided by ridership, um, it's about $16.08 per ride.

City staff is proposing to increase increase via pass from $15 to $28, keeping the same number of rides per day for seven days.

Eligible discounted riders will continue to receive 50% off fares.

We are not proposing a change to single rides.

And so as I mentioned, fare revenues are reinvested into the program.

The current like costs or the current cost of the fares.

If you are to purchase a Via Pass or think about purchasing a Via Pass, you're likely to purchase it after five rides.

And if you take all the rides, it's like you're paying approximately 54 cents per ride or 26 cents if you're a discounted rider.

Increasing it to 28 dollars per via pass is more in line with it being a frequent like via rider program.

It will people will likely purchase a via pass after they take eight rides.

And if all 28 rides are taken, they're kind of paying one dollar per ride.

Currently, like I mentioned, via pass riders are actually a significant portion of our uh weekly fares.

Um to put this in perspective of our contract and our budget, via pass riders account for only 16% of our monthly rides, but they require 49% of our vehicle hours.

Of the 16%, 2% of our via pass users are considered power users, meaning they take more than 50 rides a month, and they account for 12% of our vehicle hours.

The VFS fare proposal will align the price with regional transit passes.

Um here is Yolo TD's various monthly transit passes that ranges from $84 to $100.

They also do a discount for senior and disabled riders.

At the bottom, in comparison with the Via Pass program.

Our current via pass is six, if you were to purchase consecutively for four weeks, our via pass is $60.

And we are proposing to align it more with our regional transit partners and increase the cost.

So if you were to purchase a via pass consecutively for four weeks, it's $112.

Again, you receive the discount if you are an eligible discounted rider.

Similarly, this slide provides SACRT's transit passes costs.

Their monthly pass is $100 for the basic adult fare.

Again, they have some discounts depending on your eligibility.

Um other markets with VIA has also have also increased their via pass.

Arlington, Texas increased their via pass from $15 to $25 in January 2021.

They also added a new monthly via pass program for $80 in September 2022.

Palo Alto increased their via pass from $20 to $40, and their monthly via pass from $65 to $130 in December of 2024.

I like to note that these markets have different fair basic fare structures in the city of West Sacramento.

So the city, Arlington, Texas, actually has a distance-based pricing fare structure.

The minimum is like $3.

If you go to the transit center, it's always a $3 flat.

But otherwise, depending on how far you're riding, it could go up to $5.

In comparison, Paul Auto's regular fare is just like a flat fare of $4.

We presented this information to the TMI commission in July.

Overall, the TMI commission supported the staff's recommendation on the via pass fare increase.

The commission also gave other feedback and reiterated their interest in exploring exploring further per service parameter changes to help manage the program.

Again, those can be changing the hours of operation, activating mode choice, so requiring people to take the bus if it's a appropriate route, increasing or changing our fare structure or um you know, changing our service area or things like that.

And then they were also um showed some interest in exploring other discounted fares um for uh discounted fares for additional eligibility criteria.

This has kind of been brought up to city staff in the past.

Um we reiterate that um it requires staff time and can constant monitoring um to review eligibility criteria and affirm that um the eligibility eligibility criteria remain consistent so if you are a low income um that's something that can change over time and something that staff would have to constantly monitor which adds into um kind of the operational cost of the program there's also other general feedback on service reliability and the downtown sacramento pilot um I can get into that if you have any questions um if city council approves staff recommendation as proposed staff will um plan to implement the changes simultaneously between the via pass changes and the downtown sacramento pilot changes as to not confuse riders um if city council does not support the fare changes um there will be no via pass uh fare changes made and staff will continue uh with parameter testing to downtown sacramento pilot um with that um i can end my presentation and turn it back to council thank you stephanie bringing it back to council are there any questions for Stephanie yes mayor pretends a piece of hall thank you um appreciate the presentation and all the work that's gone into this um I I'm struggling with the significant increase to the via pass fare actually doubling it um was there any look at um other options that you know 350 a ride becoming 450 a ride um that plus one the extra dollar for the additional rider that becoming two dollars and what those numbers might look like and if there's if if there's any leeway there or if we phased in uh we didn't we didn't jump by 50% maybe we only did halfway like what were the budget implications did anything else get looked at other than just doubling the via pass fare um yes we did look at other options and we um there we did consider a a like change to the regular fare and that can be something that um staff um can um move forward with if city council directs um the main reason for the via pass is because forty five percent of our weekly rides are um taken using via pass if you increase the base fare people are more likely to just purchase the via pass itself it's cheaper um like I mentioned in the previous slide um you kind of only to make it make sense like at the current price um if the current if the current fare is 350 and the via pass fare is 15 dollars you would if you're taking more than five rides a week you're probably buying via pass um and because of that um via and like um as we mentioned via pass is accounting for a much a significant majority of our vehicle hours the vehicle hours are how we are billed by the program um so like it's like about $567 per vehicle hour on the road and so um we felt that the via pass ridership needed to be managed in relation to the um base fare or instead of the base fare um can you go back to the slide with uh when you were comparing rates and you had a slide with um yellow transportation district yellow bus yes um so our via pass monthly cost would go to 112 dollars and that's higher than three of their routes if I'm reading that correctly that's correct it's higher than our local intercity and their like combined SACRT and YOLA bus.

You have to think about this also as like via pass or via itself is a corner-to-corner service and um transit you go to a bus stop walk there.

What is it currently so it would go to higher but is it is it currently lower I just want to make sure I'm keeping a I'm sorry can you yeah I think you said it would go to a hundred and twelve.

Yes so oh and currently it's 60.

So if you were to purchase it consecutively for four weeks as a compared to a monthly um transit pass.

Okay so so currently we incentivize um folks to ride via rather than incentivizing them to ride YOLO backs.

That is correct.

Okay.

I have I have thoughts but I want I interrupted you.

So I'm no I just I have a lot of questions about how we're how I understand what we're trying to do.

Um I think I'm coming from um via being such a needed service and just such a significant increase to the via pass holders and I'm just I'm trying to get to the space where I feel comfortable doubling the cost yes on residents who are relying on this to get places um and I'm a verbal processor so sometimes I've got to walk through this stuff.

Um can I also add I forgot to say this during the presentation we are still continuing the discounted a discounted fare for eligible discounted riders in other markets they don't do a discount for their via pass program.

The via pass is the flat fair that those fares I mentioned so in Arlington it's um twenty five dollars for everyone it doesn't matter if you're senior or disabled um it's and then the monthly one is eighty dollars um same with Paulo alto they don't do a discount for seniors or disabled or whoever they determine eligible.

So one we were sat in on our two by two with the school district earlier this week and one of the conversations came up about student writers and they are not currently at a right discounted rate are they?

No.

Is that something we've ever considered um it is something that has it can't has been presented to uh city staff I think there was a white paper in the past that also indicated that um it's also just significant you know oversight from for a city to staff to um kind of manage it and um the the school district also has their own bus service um the school bus services so um but if it is something directed by council is something we can uh move forward with uh let's continue the conversation mayor I also have some oh yeah no we'll go council member alcohol is before me I I don't care yes I already cut okay real quick all right um I was looking at the graphs that you did and the majority of the riders seem to be seniors and that concerns me a lot not the increase is considerable.

They're on limited income um they I also looked at the other grid many of them use it to go home after shopping and of course school kids.

I'm having real trouble with that increase.

It's just it it's hard and um I just can't imagine how they're gonna function.

I mean is as it is they're homebound a lot of times and via has allowed them more accessibility you know to get out and do the things they need to do.

I I don't see seniors income increasing in any way if anything it's been diminishing.

So um does it have to be doubled?

I mean could couldn't we do this in in stages?

I mean I understand the you know the cost of of it's still an incredible amount for someone to navigate especially when they're seniors.

My mom just turned 90 and you know I I realize when I um when other seniors are out there I hear them often talking about how difficult it is to make ends meet so um this affords something the bus service can't also you said you know it's it it brings them a lot closer and seniors have difficulty.

Many of them use walkers.

Some of them use wheelchairs.

Things are tough enough for them.

So is there any way that can we can consider maybe just incrementally doing this.

Um we can consider that it's at the discretion of the city council.

How how much how much discretion?

I believe we have.

I will defer to our I think the point is, I mean, this is all your your setting policy here.

So this is completely within your purview, but what you're what you're uh thinking seeing tonight, just to kind of reframe the discussion a little bit, uh very simple terms.

Uh we have a funding shortfall that we're we're staring down via.

Um that technically is is happening currently.

We're we're currently making it up with a creative way of funding uh through other sources once those sources aren't available to us.

Um I believe you you uh put a two point four million.

That fiscal year will have about a million dollar gap, but eventually it once it normalizes to the next year, we're about 2.4 million um short to be able to provide the same level of service.

So what we're what we're trying to do tonight is just kind of gauge the council's tolerance for you know, we're giving you some options on adjusting fees that will help with fair revenue that will reduce the uh that fiscal impact on uh the gap that we're gonna have to come up with somehow if we're gonna continue to offer the same level of service at the same price.

Yes.

Um I would also reframe this at like as again, if this is a policy discussion and the overarching program, um, you know, we have brought um previous um options to council of parameter changes again, such as changing our hours of operations, changing our service area, changing um fears, whether it is your single ride or the via pass, um activating mode choice.

It could even become something as far as like if you are an eligible rider, you can ride on via pass, or via.

If not, you cannot ride on via.

Okay, good.

Okay.

I have some questions, and then my colleague um Councilmember Roscoe has some too.

Um, so so a couple of things.

I I really appreciate uh this conversation, and I know over the years that I've been on this council, um, that you're absolutely right.

We've talked about various options for via.

And um, and I realize also in light of all the different things, right?

The past couple of of meetings that we've had on quite frankly, all of the services that we subsidize as a city.

The reality is there's only so much money, and there's only going to be so much money just moving forward, right?

Um Measure O is absolutely going to be able to support many of the things that we need.

I'm not suggesting measure O for this.

Um, however, uh that only is going to go so far as well, right?

Um, and so when I think of when I think of via, I was not here in the at the dawn of time, like my colleagues.

Um, but when I think of it in regards to transportation, I think of it as an augmentation to our public transportation um and our yellow TD buses that we again already pay for through our taxes, um, and not as supplanting um public transportation.

And and I think what we have done over the years, and and again, I didn't realize, and if you could go back to the slide that has the passes and the costs, that we are um in essence, uh no go back to yes, uh keep going, the fairs, the thing, thank you so much.

Um, that we are in essence incentivizing um residents to not take um YTD, right?

To take the bus, um, because it is cheaper to go point to point uh with uh via than it is to ride our local public transportation.

Um, and that's problematic for various reasons, right?

It's problematic for um vehicle miles traveled and um the environment and and that and also it's problematic from a perspective of our public um taxpayers, our residents are basically paying twice for public transportation.

They're paying for via.

They're also paying for yellow transportation, our YOLO buses as well.

And so, um, not a conversation we're necessarily going to or an issue we're gonna solve in this moment, but I do think we um need to start to have some real um strategic thoughts and intentions and plans around how do we ensure, and again, you've you guys have brought this to us over and over again.

How do we ensure that those who can and should be riding um YOLO TD and our YOLO bus are able to ride YOLO bus.

And then in those cases, those who need to go point-to-point or some of those other things, that via is again augmenting our public transportation.

We have more of a well-rounded holistic approach in West Sacramento to our transportation in which we are scaling up and using all of the transportation options available uh to our residents uh versus slowly um and uh and I think unintentionally undercutting um our public transportation through our cost structure, and then again transferring uh that costs and the um supplementing of that to our residents, and so that's that is my thoughts on this.

Um what I would also say about um raising the cost, I do understand that uh it's that is going to be hard.

Um, I too would want some sort of phased-in approach versus here's the cutoff and now it's it's doubled, and so would love to see staff provide some options of how can we slowly get work our way up to um increasing costs, and then again once again looking at how both of our our different public transportations could be working um better together so that we are not spending more than we need to because the pie is only so big, and if we are um subsidizing every single service in every single way, um, and we are are not efficient or thoughtful about that, um, then ultimately our our our residents are gonna end up paying the costs and we're not gonna be able to continue to do that.

And um, for some context on um council member early's point on how much we spend on uh yellow bus.

If you look at TDA claim, which I the TDA claim, which I believe is the attachment to on your agenda report, um if you look at table or TDA-3, it gives you the um expenses for the fiscal year for fiscal year 2526, the estimated expenses for YOLO bus um that we're paying out of TDA is about approximately three million.

So that's why you see the 3.2 million is the funding we give to YOLO TD and SACOG for YOLO bus and then SACOG for planning purposes.

Thank you for, I mean, for highlighting that, right?

And so we're already putting in right, um, a little over three million to our bus system.

Um, Councilmember Aqla, this is what we talked about in regards to our routes.

And so, and then think about this, right?

The conversation that we had or the report that I did our last meeting around YTD talking about hey, you guys don't have the ridership needed, right?

We're we're thinking about cutting your routes because you don't have the ridership needed.

And again, we're unintentionally doing that because we're undercutting that with having it be cheaper, and again, people are going to budget accordingly, right?

I don't fault anyone.

If it's cheaper to ride via and it's more convenient and it's gonna go directly to the place you want to go, of course you're gonna ride that.

Um, but then what's happening is we're continuing to pay three million and having less routes.

Councilmember Orozco.

Thank you.

I mean, council member Early really did cut uh into a few points that I wanted to make.

And I think I'm the only one on this council who was here when we actually implemented this policy back in 2018 as a pilot.

At the time, I don't know that we'd anticipated it was gonna be so successful and that our uh community would embrace such a valuable asset.

We had all these other transportation options we were launching at the time, whether it be bikes or scooters, um, or other opportunities.

This was the one that apparently stuck in West Sacramento and became a model around other places as well.

Um but the program is taken on a different, it's now a different beast than it was in 2018.

And while we were ready to to launch the pilot for a certain amount of money, each time this each time via comes before the council, it's being augmented and augmented and augmented to the point where now I believe that the cost and expenses to operate the program are becoming to a point where it is it's a very big budget item for our city.

And these are I I didn't ask this question, perhaps I should have led with it.

If one if a person was to do a door to door, such as Uber or Lyft to get around, what would be the comparison from via to say pay out of pocket for those types of ride shares?

Of course, depends on how far you're going.

Um for example, the recent ones I have done some testing on because we were trying to figure out how the best can um set the pilot fares into downtown.

Um you from some areas of West Sac, it will cost $25 on ride share to go on Uber Lyft.

So we try to strategically calculate what would be a competitive cost, still under our cost of operations for the pilot rides.

Um I haven't really looked too deeply on the Uber list within the city.

I can give you an example.

It would from my house in South Court around the Nugget market, it would take me about $14 to get to Rayleigh Fifth.

Excuse me.

But under V it would be $3.50.

Okay.

Okay.

So that's a significant difference.

Now, I'm not opposed to the fair increases in general terms.

Okay.

I I do echo some of my sentiments, and I appreciate the sentiments some of my colleagues that you know we want to definitely protect vulnerable communities from being tremendously impacted by these fare increases.

And I understand there is a discounted rate.

Perhaps, and I'm not as familiar whether or not we have specifics, we do, I think we do, right?

Do we have a specific senior pass for via?

Um, okay, so we are specifically targeting those who might have it difficulties paying for this service, but it's kind of like learning ladder, which ultimately became obsolete.

That was it.

Learning ladder was um a city supported uh uh pre universal, it was under the idea of universal preschool, and we were offering this phenomenal program uh to residents of West Sacramento, so that their children could get early childhood high quality or early childhood education.

It was a fantastic program that was modeled and revered uh region wide, statewide, whatnot.

Unfortunately, the cost that's exceeded our our ability to pay for this, and and it wasn't even the low-income folks that I had imagined being to able to benefit from this program were kind of they there were some, but it was a lot of other parents that could have paid three times the amount for daycare, but they were getting a wonderful value out of coming to Learning Lab.

Okay.

And um, with that stated, I want to make sure that we're protecting vulnerable communities, but also cognizant of the fact that without without covering the operating costs of this program, we might not have a program down the road.

And I I well, I don't know if phasing is the answer to it necessarily, because I mean ultimately costs are going up everywhere.

We're all getting the squeeze.

And I have low-income family members who you know probably wouldn't be able to afford the fare as it is right now.

But with that stated, I think that there needs to be creative ways of protecting folks who can uh that that won't be able to afford uh or that might be incredibly price sensitive.

But when it comes to uh forgive me if I got this wrong, it just doesn't I was looking at the the increases in other jurisdictions.

How are our increases in comparison to there was a jurisdiction in Texas and maybe Palo Alto?

Was it more modest or was it uh greater?

So um it's slightly higher than the increase in Texas or um Arlington, they but they increased theirs in 2021.

And then um when Palo Alto increased theirs, um theirs is now 40 dollars for a weekly pass.

Okay, so we would still we'd fall below the 40.

Yes, we're at uh we're pro staff is proposing 20 dollars.

I mean, it's certainly a benefit, this this program, and as as council member earlier mentioned, it's it was a an augmentation to offer a unique service within West Sacramento to increase mobility within our population.

It has been a wild success, but it also costs a lot of money, and gas prices aren't going, they've been rising over the years, and um, in order uh to provide this amenity to our community, we just need to be very conscientious of how it is that we're going to fund it.

Because if we're wanting to spend sixty million dollars on improving Bright Park and we want all of these amenities throughout the city, we also have to think about how it is that we provide uh funding for them.

Can I may I sure go ahead?

Um you had mentioned the possibility of if somebody and this is coming up on the this conversation about being a holistic program and to uh uh support our public transportation, not replace our our buses.

You had mentioned um if somebody calls a via, but uh bus route would match that, uh that being a possibility of something that we could do.

Yes.

Um so via has a technology where um currently it does show your the transit lines, it is uh something that was previously presented to um TMI commission and council.

Um essentially it's anti-cannibalization of uh public transit.

So if there is a uh public transit public bus route that will take the rider where they need to go um and it is coming within the same amount of time, um then it would not allow the rider to take the via ride and require them to like they wouldn't be able to take book the via ride at all.

Um and then they'll just they'll be like shown the transit ride.

Currently it's just like a transit option is shown, but they can choose whether or not they want to take via still.

Um yes, but it is a feature that we can enable if directed by council when we had previously presented it.

Um the TMI commission wasn't very supportive of it because they felt that there should be rider choice in the mode they use.

Um and um I don't believe City Council really commented on it beyond what they heard from TMI Commission.

Sure.

Just just the last thing on this, um, as we're thinking about more of a holistic approach.

Right now, Yola Transportation District is working on the short range transit plan um for the county, including West Sacramento.

This is again what you heard me touch on before, and so I do think there is an opportunity if when I thought about one of the things right that you just said in regards to if there's a bus and it comes in the same amount of time and it's gonna bring you right to the same place, and I think unfortunately all of those um and and options, right, because of the nature of via is naturally going to then lean towards via being more efficient, getting you where you right want to go taking less time potentially um that we should at least consider really looking into our short range transit plan to figure out if there are ways particularly using our via data that our buses could be um better responsive to the needs of our community based on what the ridership we're seeing and the distances and where um our folks are more traveled uh with via to see if some of the routes could be adjusted to then compensate for allowing via to do more of the augmentation, so that's my last comment.

I know mayor, you had a couple comments.

Thank you.

So it seems like we are not ready to raise the rates at this time.

I do want to remind um council that we can continue to approve the resolution.

Um, um, but hold off on increasing the rates, um, and we can postpone that decision.

We can break break up the um the decision here, and I'm gonna ask for the city manager at the appropriate time to um to help.

I'm just gonna I'm just gonna put that out there for now.

I think that that's accurate.

Um I think the priority for tonight is uh the TEA claim needs to be submitted to SACOG.

There's a time frame for that.

Okay.

Uh the the other part of this is the the via discussion uh was intended to offer you kind of a workshop.

If you're ready to move forward, you can, but we can also take the feedback and and come back with a separate item.

Thank you.

And Stephanie, just quick question.

Um in your communication with VIA about this proposal, um, did they offer any alternatives to take a look at lowering the cost?

Of the contract or of yes.

No.

Okay.

So is there a way to go back and renegotiate the cost of our contract?

We're in a three-year contract.

So and there's um a three percent escalation area fiscal year in line with like their estimated CPI increases.

So this year the vehicle hourly rate is 3% higher than last fiscal year and next fiscal year will be three percent higher.

Okay.

Okay.

Since the beginning of time as uh council member early referenced 2018, I I um viewed via as a competitor to YOLO County transit um and and the bus.

And um that was an area that I had concerns with.

Um seeing today that there that the rates are an incentive to ride via, um, very effective and um seeing that we are at a point where it's um gonna be costing us more, but in taking a look at today who the ridership is, um, who is benefiting from it, it is our most our lowest socioeconomic residence here to get to and from work to get I think taking a look at historically and working with you.

Um the the um transportation modes are to get to work, um, for the elderly to get to um either appointments or to get their groceries um to get to the community center, is speaking with Charlotte Dorsey, um, she said a lot of people use it there, um so it maintains you know um that uh group the opportunity to not isolate, but also self-care and live independently.

Um for our youth to get to school.

Um so I believe that there was a good percentage of our youth who do um ride via.

It's a safe mode of transportation and uh taking a look at um options for our youth, we want to maintain those options.

I I do see that council's a little worry about um increasing the rate so significantly, and I'm I I feel the same way to take a look at and not incrementally, maybe one time rate increase.

Um, but I think having that data back as to the impact of that rate increase as well, seeing you know how how much of an impact it is having on those that are writing um with the new rate is very important um since we haven't had that rate increase.

Um I also am interested in the survey I saw on social media about the rate increase and the results of that survey.

I did read some survey background information in the back of the report, but if there's any additional survey information on we did receive some public comment saying they were not supportive of the rate increase.

Um, I did reach out to um some residents and uh some reached out to me personally who are not supportive of the significant rate increase.

It's just a sticker shock.

Um yes, we contributed to the incentives, and here we are having to figure out how to make ends meet.

Um if we need to modify the program to shorten the hours, um figure out other ways so we can cut back on costs, that might be another way to take a look at this.

Sure.

Um just to remind council, I think we did kind of present those uh options of cutting hours.

Um service hour or hours of operation changes did not um actually significantly adjust the budget given that we um kind of align how many vehicle hours through the day with the demand.

So like if we're cutting our low service hours, those are kind of the hours where we're not getting many rides anyways.

Um and I think like if we were to cut out like Sunday service, it was only going to save us like I want to say like a hundred or two hundred thousand dollars for the whole year was not significant in the overall like annual budget of the uh program.

Um in terms of um some additional via um pass data.

Again, we are um staff's recommending a via pass change, no change to the uh regul regular single fare.

Um and I do have a little bit more data uh on the via pass riders.

So we have um uh there are a percentage of riders or or number of riders who are taking like a significant number of via pass rides a month.

Um as I previously mentioned the via pass is currently um if you take like five rides, you kind of like pay the same cost in single fares, so like you'd probably buy a via pass.

Um there as um there's a significant portion of our rides that are taking the more rides you take, like the cheaper each ride is, the less fare revenue is reinvested into the program.

And um there like so we have based on like this kind of information of how many uh rides people are taking per month, via did kind of an analysis of how much ridership might be impacted by um the via pass fare change and they estimated a decrease in um eight percent of ridership and a decrease in um in about 17% of uh via pass holders.

That's a significant decrease that would occur.

Well, yes, and the via pass holders are again, they'll probably shift to buying a single ride because that is I see.

It'll be it'll be cheaper to get that way based on how many rides they're taking.

So is that in taking a look at the rationale to raise the rate, it is to maybe move people to something that is more realistic on their travel habits.

Um it's primarily that our via pass via pass is a significant component or of our weekly and monthly ridership.

It takes up a significant amount of our um vehicle hours, aka our contracted budget.

Um we are still proposing to keep our base fare the chain same.

People can still purchase a single fare at the same price.

We're just asking to recover more in our weekly pass fares.

The more rides they take, the less fare revenue comes back into our program because the via pass is set at 15.

If we can raise it, then um it can help recover more fair revenue in the program and also treats it more like a frequent rider program.

Um currently, again, five rides a day throughout the whole week means like taking less than one ride a day each day for the week, and you're considered a frequent rider.

Okay.

No, I get it, that makes sense.

Uh so you know, at a certain point, you know, from doing presentations about um via and who's actually using um, you know, via we we in our city about 22% of the disadvantaged community compared to 12% statewide.

And those are the via users.

They're the ones that are going and working in Walmart or um other local centers here.

Um so they're the ones that I I don't know, like they're gonna be going, maybe they're going back and forth to pick up their children.

Um after school.

You know, there's one parent, and then going back to work again, doing another or doing another job.

Um they have to work two jobs.

I I don't know why this may be happening, but there is gonna be an impact to that person's quality of life.

And um, and I do get a sense that you're able to obtain um income history of, you know, or maybe it's just based on where pickup is um located that that's kind of like the background that you're gathering.

Um our income data is mostly based on survey, so it's who chooses to respond to the survey.

Of course, we do have like anonymized details of like where rides are picked up and dropped off, um, and you can consider that a proxy of ridership in disadvantage areas versus other areas of our city and correlate that with um your level of income.

But we don't actually have any um the whole platform is anonymized.

We don't have like true demographic data, we don't have true um economic data, it's all from surveys.

I see.

Um I would like to have more data to make some decisions um moving forward.

I I do get your angle of the data.

I get it it makes sense, but I could also take a look at scenarios as to why some people are using it more frequently than others.

I jump in my car to go pick up my grandson and bring him back home, get back to work, jump in my car again to go take them to um, you know, an after school practice of some sort, get back in and you know it's just as people have children or relatives or whatever.

Um there are more than one trip to get out and about.

Um so it's it's hard to quantify what what an individual and why they're in needing this pass.

Um and uh increasing the cost um is gonna have an impact.

And I'd like to understand um a little more who, where, and if we have um the data on, you know, what people's feedback was on increasing the rates, I'd like to have that data as well.

Um, I did see it out there in social media, and I just wanted to have um what that feedback was.

Um you heard from council, you know, um, where we're at.

I do feel like we want to make sure that, you know, I know this council really cares about the quality of life of our residents, and um, you know, that's one of the reasons why VIA was established is to improve the quality of life of our residents and um seeing it come to fruition, it's it's coming at a cost.

Um and uh, you know, I do I do see some council members here who are very compassionate and care about um the residents that we serve and so we just want to make sure we're making the right decisions that um doesn't impact their quality of life.

Um just uh if you if I can attempt to kind of uh give a conclusion of where what we heard tonight, what we could do next, um if that would be helpful at this point.

Um so we did hear a lot of feedback tonight from the council was very helpful.

I think uh the benefit, one of the benefits of via is that we are able to access pretty good data, unlike some other forms of uh public transportation.

Um we can do our best to kind of uh give you more in terms of uh ridership data that kind of what the mayor was just speaking about, but also I think more importantly, um some different options to how we might go about achieving the same goal.

And just to be clear, the goal is to bring um our our fares more in line with what our costs are.

We're not gonna capture 100% or even close, obviously.

But what you see right now is we have a problem uh just a couple years away where we we don't have uh sustainable service, and we don't have an answer at this point in terms of how we're going to fund it on sustainable basis.

So while it has been wildly successful in terms of the usage, um it's only as good as how long we can sustain it and and where the money's gonna come from.

So the fares have to be part of the solution.

Um we hear you tonight that what we're presenting may not be um the the perfect solution, but uh but we will come back with some other options um and additional data on some of the questions that were asked tonight.

Um, but I'll just emphasize, you know, as as as the manager understanding that this this program is important to the city and it's important to the residents, the last thing we can do is status quo, uh, because we we will not be able to afford it within three years.

And so um the the feedback was helpful, so we can we can come back with more information, more options, but um I think the the imperative is is still in front of us all right with that I'll accept a motion for uh I think one and two there's three and four there um which motion which would you I mean we don't know where we're all at yet so three and four is accepting the rates that um staff recommended and one and two is the TDA.

So I will uh make a motion to accept um staff recommendation for TDA I just I want to make sure that's for SACOR correct yes okay that has to get done not three and four just I'm gonna I'm making separate motions okay yeah just um am I doing this right Jeff well I was gonna suggest if you want to break it up maybe if you just say I'd move the first recommended action first two well you you said you wanted to break it up three and four oh first one at a time one and two are linked together.

One and two are linked together okay okay which one is around the TDA I want to make sure it's one and two okay so then I'm I'm wanting to move move forward staff recommendation for one and two for submitting for our TDA for say COG.

Second right um Madame Clerk um council member early moved and we are for Tim seconded on one and two.

Council member Ocala council member early council member rosco mayor potimsalpizio hall mayor grero aye and we hold off on three and four is that we're we've provided feedback for three and yes we'll uh we we we'll take that as much like we do a workshop we'll take that feedback um kind of circle back with with staff and we'll be back with uh some other options okay thank you so much Stephanie and you know you're doing such great work um it's bringing it early very thoughtful um you know what you're doing here and I think I'm gonna have to sit down with you and go over all of this um so thank you for everything you're doing right now we made it to the end of our agenda next under general administration function part two we have reports from council assignments yes I can't remember real quick um this last Sunday the Solano Air Quality Management District um staff came out along with the director Gretchen Bennett Holy Cross Church and they distributed two hundred and fifty air purifiers it's really great those are really necessary especially when we have um smoke events uh where air quality days and they take all the pathogens out so it was um really something important for a community to have um Westorona received them because um the applicants had to have lived on quote tribal land or state designated disadvantaged communities and the mayor mentioned West Sacramento definitely meets that criteria next um Saturday this coming Saturday on the what is it 23rd I believe the 23rd from 12 to 2 p.m they're gonna have another distribution and this time at the uh Kerner library that's it's we've got would you like me to report out on the part two by two you can yes you can report by two by two um so on August 18th we had the meeting of the city school two by two committee uh we have heard an update on the uh SROMR MOU and the city and the school district here in the final stages of drafting that MOU next stop uh next steps excuse me it'll be coming to council in a workshop format for our feedback uh that'll happen September October uh and then we uh we chatted about Bright Park uh we have and this is a repeat for a lot of the stuff that we've that city council already knows about um but uh LOI to purchase the property the next step is the purchase sale agreement um we are working to pre-purchase a bunch of items to save money uh parks departments working to relocate the sports teams and then the bid package is getting put together and as we heard in our last city council could start as early as uh late this year uh we had a lovely update on the home run internship program um talk about wildly successful programs that one is one as well uh we had a hundred and twenty students apply for 60 available positions had a great conversation about um what it would look like to expand the program um and just appreciate the school district in their partnership for that and let me mention this too we also appreciate the school district for the partnership in Bright Park and the sale of that property because we wouldn't be to where we're at right now without their support um and then we did talk a little bit about via for students um and we eventually bring that up as council workshop as well anybody else all right council calendar good evening um just one update tonight on this Friday is the police department's new hire and promotional ceremony that's gonna be at the in the galleria downstairs and starts at 5 30 manager report uh yeah have a few things tonight so uh first off measure o um as you know we have several road projects underway um all around town um we have a lot of equipment that has been ordered and is on the way uh we have many many positions that have been uh filled or in the process of being filled uh but back to that first part the the road projects that are underway they really are kind of sprinkled throughout uh many parts of town um we are working so fast that we don't have our signs up yet but I wanted to assure you that we will be uh producing signs and posting signs letting residents and businesses know uh about their measure of dollars at work uh but if you see a road project going on in in West Sacramento right now it's very very likely it's it's funded at least in part by Measure O so I at least uh we'll continue to form the council in the newsletter um on where and when those signs will be going up uh we have new sign making equipment too that that will be part of that so that's been part of the the holdup but it's it's in the works um second um I wanted to highlight that tonight is actually Paul Hosley's last meeting with us um very very uh bittersweet moment um he is retiring uh at the end of this week as you know uh but this is his last council meeting um just want to uh recognize Paul for a lot of things I mean he he really um in his in his uh regular job took the cities in the last 10 years he's been in the city 10 years um our our social media platforms our presence uh with the media just the overall program that he's put together and built over the last 10 years uh really took it to new heights uh set new standards um there's a couple uh more um special things for me though that I I think back on Paul's career especially during the COVID era um all the all the crazy things we were having to deal with as a city um his job took on a lot of new challenges and he met them head on and was a great uh resource and asset to us uh through a very difficult time there uh similarly but probably lesser known Paul's actually been uh we worked statewide over the years on fire incidents helping uh Calfire and other agencies uh manage uh disasters as a PIO uh he had a really amazing career blending private sector and public sector he was the news director at KGO in San Francisco before uh a while before coming to the city uh but in addition to his ten years of the city so just want to thank him for his service here uh recognize him he'll be staying in Davis uh so not going far uh but enjoying his family is his grandkids new grandkids and hopefully playing lots of golf so uh just wanted to congratulate Paul and uh make sure we we have recognized him here at council.

Uh last uh September 17th is our our next council meeting um neither Amanda nor I will be in attendance for that but we have very capable backups that uh you may be familiar with so uh Ariana will be acting city manager for that meeting and uh Doug Droz our deputy city manager will be sitting in Amanda's seat so please be nice to them and uh we will have a a a good agenda so uh the show goes on and that that meeting will be happening so that's my report for tonight thank you.

Thank you and uh is it is it appropriate?

Can I just come up?

Absolutely.

I was gonna say, I wanted to actually applaud.

Um congratulations, Paul.

And of course, we would like to share a few words with you.

Council member Adolescope.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Yeah.

Um Paul, I mean, gosh, this is this is really hard because um you know we we've over the last few years recognized a few exit plans from several greats that have brought our city forward.

Uh I remember still back in 2016 meeting you and not knowing how to even talk on a microphone in front of people because um it was a new endeavor, and uh to have you always behind the camera to cheer on all of us to be our best in order to represent our city with our hearts and our and our minds and to to bring our best foot forward.

Um it's been wonderful to work with you.

I I look forward to seeing you, and I'm glad to know that you won't be too far away.

But I also just want to let you know that you have meant immense, you've had immense value in the city, and I'm so glad that you chose the city of West Sacramento as your home to do your incredible work.

So I know I speak on behalf of my colleagues when I say you will be incredibly missed, and I really hope that you come around with your iPhone, even if there's someone else really holding the official uh position.

But yeah, please come and visit us because I know I speak for all of us when I say you'll be incredibly missed.

Yeah, um, so I I this is bittersweet.

I uh congratulations on retiring um because you're gonna get to spend time with your family.

Um, but but I too have been encouraged by you and supported by you to make sure we're getting in front of the camera and really sharing the story, because that's is very important that that folks know all the great work that this council's doing, that the staff is doing, that the city um um is is really getting done on behalf of our citizens and our our residents, and they know about that because of all the work um that you do, and so I echo my my colleagues' comments and I thank you.

You won't be that far away.

I hope you continue to come to our events um because that's what you want to do when you're retired, right?

Is continue to go to work events.

Um, but you will absolutely be missed.

You'll come to mine.

Thank you.

So I'm totally tearing up right now because my um every week on Tuesdays I meet with city staff and I come into the third floor and I always peek my head around the corner, Paul's desk.

And when he's not there, it's like okay, I wonder where Paul is.

And then um when he's there, we get to catch up.

And I'm gonna peek, I'm gonna continue to peek around that corner, and you're not gonna be there, and I'm gonna miss you.

And I just echo what my colleagues say.

You've been a phenomenal cheerleader for us and a supporter, and just simple things because we don't have staff, and so we go to events and we never get pictures of ourselves.

And when you capture a great picture of one of us at an event that we're able to share with folks, it's just you're thinking about us when you don't have to be thinking about us, and I just appreciate you so much.

And I'm gonna miss you, and um, I look forward to you enjoying retirement and not coming to events.

Unless you want unless you want to.

So thank you for everything.

Paul, thank you again.

And Berna hit right there about the pictures, they're fantastic.

You tell a great story about the city of West Sacramento and the people here, and that's really gonna be important.

Um, I have a good friend who's an historian, and I was showing him some pictures that we've taken over the years, and he says, This is great.

So it's people are gonna know what happened with the city, and that's in large part because of you.

Thank you.

First of all, I can't believe Kitty Noid also didn't know what to do behind a mic.

She's a natural.

Um, Paul, you you have always known how to bring the best out of all of us, um, from making sure you had the run of the show days in advance, you know, answering questions, setting up press conferences, always being in touch with the press.

I think that is key, you know, for a city.

And you you accomplished that.

You went above and beyond getting the communications out and also putting us in front.

It was always, you know, very pleasant surprise to see whenever we did um, you know, uh a groundbreaking or a ribbon cutting, press was present, and that's because you knew and had the best connection to make sure they were present and to make sure that all of what we are accomplishing here is highlighted, elevated, and as a result of you, I get to hear from a lot of people say West Sacramento is doing great things.

So um that's because of your work um in getting the you know the through the media and getting the word out, um, but also helping us to you know um be the face and uh giving us the ability to you know represent the city well.

So you you have done an incredible job to help each and every one of us, especially, you know, when during COVID, I know behind the scenes, I'm sure you were crunching behind your computer, trying to get that information out.

It was really hard for all of us, but being there during that time.

Um I I greatly appreciated your work um and the entire team um to make sure that everybody was safe.

Um so thank you so much for all what you've accomplished.

Congratulations, um, and for your entire career in this dedicated role of um communications.

It's huge for any local government or for any entity.

It's pretty significant.

So you leave behind a legacy, Paul of excellence.

So continue what you're doing, and that your family is proud and and welcomes you with open arms as you retire.

Thank you so much, Paul and Windows.

Oh, really?

Right now, thank you, Paul.

One more time.

Thank you.

All right, city attorney report.

Nothing report.

All right, staff direction from city council members.

Um, I guess this is um agenda item 14.

We have a request, have a request to provide a proclamation recognizing U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, retired Colonel Ted Caldwell for his distinguished service and significant contributions to the city of West Sacramento.

Thank you so much for putting it here.

Um, and we will coordinate in giving him a city council proclamation here in City Hall.

I'll accept a motion if you're all okay with getting this done.

Early moves, yeah, second.

Okay, um, Madame Clerk, Councilmember Early Move, Mayor Patemps, because you hold second, please call the roll.

Councilmember Ocala.

Hi.

Council Member Early, Councilmember Roscoe, Mayor Pro Tensel Pizzi Oh.

Hi.

Mayor Guerrero.

I, all right, any feature agenda item requests by council?

Questions?

Anything?

Nope.

All right, we are adjourned.

I think these are all leaking.

Are they all leaking?

Yeah.

Okay.

I'm crying.

I don't want to say