City Council - Regular Meeting

We'll call to order the live regular city council meeting for August 19th, 2026 at 6 p.m. Roll call, please.

Council Member Wooten.

Here.

Council Member Santana. Here. Council Member Hernandez. Here. Vice Mayor Palma is absent. Mayor Chaput.

Here. All right. Please join us for the pledge and invocation. Pledge.

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.

Lord, we just thank you so much for this awesome weather, Lord, the harvest that's going on. Lord, we just pray that it's bountiful, and Lord, we pray that the price is good for our farmers. Lord, to keep our economy going here in Live Oak. We're just so blessed with the firemen and the protection we have for our city, Lord, and we pray you be with them, that you keep them ever alert for issues in our city lord and we just pray for our community lord that you would keep us in your under your hand lord in jesus name we pray amen all right is there any corrections or changes to the agenda no changes all right well with that we'll

Move to public comment. Any person wishing to address the City Council on general jurisdictional matters or on consent calendar items may do so at this time. If you're commenting on an agenda item, your comments will be heard at that at the time that that item is scheduled for discussion. The City Council adopted a time limit of three minutes per person. The Brown Act does not allow for council discussion of items not on the agenda. Council members may only A, refer the matter to staff, ask for additional information, C, request a report back, or D, provide a limited factual response for items not listed on the agenda. Is there any public comment?

CHRISTIE WOODARD- No public comment.

All right. Then we'll move to the consent calendar. Is there any items anybody wishes to pull?

A move to approve.

All right. I'll second that.

Council Member Wooten? Yes. Council Member Santana? I'm going to abstain. I wasn't here. Council Member Hernandez? Yes. And Mayor Chapdelaine? Yes. Motion carries.

All right, we'll move on to our public hearing item, nuisance ordinance update. Recommendation is conduct a public hearing, and upon close of the public hearing, introduce an ordinance repealing and replacing Live Oak Municipal Code Title 8, Chapter 8.24, nuisance abatement code, and repealing Chapter 14, neighborhood and community preservation program, and waive the first reading. And we'll turn that over to our community and economic development director.

Good evening, mayor and members of city council. So tonight we do have our nuisance ordinance update. Thank you. So the purpose tonight is to update the city's nuisance ordinance to help streamline processes, address our current needs, and provide staff with adequate legal tools. And through this process, what we're recommending tonight is to do a full repeal and replacement of the city's municipal code, Title 8, Chapter 8.24, the Nuisance Abatement Code, and repeal Title 14, Neighborhood and Community Preservation Program in its entirety. So right now in our code the nuisance is listed in two different chapters which can be a little bit confusing and so what we're doing is just cleaning it up making it all under one so it's a bit easier to follow. And so a little bit of background. So the council has expressed some desire to enhance and promote maintenance of property in the city with the intent that it'll promote livability, enhance the community appearance, and raise the social and economic conditions of the community. So here you'll see there's a picture of some blight that was in the city and through our code enforcement we're able to get it cleaned up and that is due to our nuisance abatement ordinance. And if we could go to the next slide. So some of the common nuisance throughout the city You'll see we've got some deteriorated buildings. So our code enforcement officer worked with a property owner to get this cleaned up so you can see the before on the left and after on the right. And we also have, this would be considered just personal properties in the front yard. So under the new definitions that are provided in the ordinance. So as you can see, there's mattresses as well as other items in their front yard. And the after picture, it's been cleaned up. And another one is going to be what we've added in is going to be for vacant buildings, just to make sure that the landscaping is still maintained. So this site especially, it was recently just purchased, so they are going to be renovating it. But you can see just the cleanup, it makes a huge difference in the neighborhood. So for the proposed ordinance, so what we've done and what's being changed is going to, it complies with the current legal requirements. It updates and adds nuisance definitions. That was one of the feedbacks I had received from our code enforcement officer was it's really hard to go out there and tell someone it's a blight or a nuisance if there's no definition of what a junk is or like overgrown weeds and that makes it really difficult for them because what might not be a blight to one person you know your definitions can vary so what we've done is we've added definitions provided some streamlined clarified processes as well as providing some enforcement mechanisms So again, some of the substantial modifications. We've clarified the violations, fees, notices, and the appeal process right now is very vague in our code. We've also reviewed and confirmed definitions. We've added requirements for property owners regarding weeds, vegetations, and rubbish on their property. Requirements for vacant buildings as well as tractor trailer parking has been clearly defined. So when it comes to code enforcement, our goal is to encourage voluntary compliance through noticing and education. So with that we do, we'll go out there, we'll tell them what the nuisance is or what the violation is and work with the property owner. And then, but what we've done here is just to really help with addressing these, we've put some tools in place. So that will include the administrative citations, special assessments, property liens, public notices. And then the authority to clean then bill, and that is more so when it's going to be a building violation, so something that's hazardous where the city, working with the city attorney, we could go in, clean it up, make it safe, and then we can go ahead and bill the property owner. So here we have our typical code enforcement action. So this might be blight in front of a resident. So as I mentioned, a code enforcement officer, we can receive a complaint via the web application, a phone call, email, or they could come into City Hall. And our code enforcement officer, they'll do an on-site inspection just to verify the complaint. And once the complaint is verified, so the code enforcement officer will make initial contact with the property owner. It could just be a verbal conversation, it could be an email, or they might even leave their card on their door. Anyway, just so there is some sort of communication. and then there will be a follow-up inspection for compliance and if the property is still in violation then a formal notice is sent with a reasonable timeline to be established and then once the notice has been sent if the violation still um is there, then they will initiate the administrative process. So again, we're trying to work with the property owners or whoever is in violation, whether it is a business or a residence, just to help them out, kind of tell them what the process is, and then go from there. So again, if the property remains in violation, then we go to the administrative process, which is going to be the notice to correct. Thank you. So at the end of the time period, the code enforcement officer will re-inspect the property, determine whether or not the code violations have been corrected. So if they haven't been corrected, then they will receive their first notice of violation with the penalties, which are listed on the notice of violation and penalty order. If it's corrected, the case is closed. And so typically on the letter, it'll say you have until this date to clean it up. The inspector will go out, reinspect the property. And again, if it gets cleaned up, the case is closed. If not, it'll go to the second and third violation. And so if the violations are still outstanding, staff can seek city council approval to assess the penalties. including any costs associated with an appeal, whether it be a special tax to be included upon the county property tax rules. With each notice, they will have an opportunity to appeal. So there is an initial appeal, which is within the 10 days, they can appeal to the city manager or his or her designee. And so it'll be heard with them. Unless they determine that the initial appeal is not appropriate, then it'll be heard before the city council or the hearing examiner. And then it goes to your regular appeal hearing. And so again, that's when you have your appeal hearing with the city council or the hearing examiner, which is appointed by the city council. determine that at a future date of who that will be or how we want to move forward with that. But that is a recommendation from staff. So either it goes in front of the hearing examiners, in the code it is written that it is three members, or it can be heard in front of the city council. With that being said, we are also recommending to update the master fee schedule to reflect the changes that are in the new ordinance should it be adopted. And so on the left, you'll see it's the existing code enforcement. So it's broken out between non-building safety code as well as the building and safety code enforcement. So you can see the first violation, second violation, and each additional. But what we're proposing is just to have one for code enforcement. So you'll see the first violation is going to be $100 per violation listed on the letter that was received. So if it's three violations, it'll be 100 per. So it's a total of $300. The second violation is $200. The third violation is $500. Each additional of the same provision is going to be $500. And again, so these are also regulated by a government code. So this is the max that you are allowed to charge for these. We've added in the code enforcement appeal so the initial appeal is $300 and then the appeal is $950 and that appeal is actually already in our master fee schedule so it's not a new fee. So tonight, our recommendation is to conduct a public hearing and introduce an ordinance to repeal and replace Live Oak Municipal Code Title 8, Chapter 8.24, Nuisance Abatement Code, and repeal Title 14, Neighborhood and Community Preservation Program, and waive the first reading. I just want to know, I do have title in red because I put chapter in the recommendation on the staff report, but it should be Title 14. And I'm happy to answer any questions.

Okay.

Council Member Santana, did you have any questions?

Yes. Thank you for the report and bringing this before us. So what exactly, so we can't, there's nothing in here comparing what was the original and what's the newer one.

That is correct. So what I did was it is a new ordinance. I could, in our next staff report, show what's different. But I do have Title 14 was included in your staff report. But a lot of it does carry over into what is being proposed. So it is just more just in one versus broken out into the two different codes of our municipal code.

Okay. Yes. Before when we changed things, the city attorney would put in a certain color what was a new change compared to the original ordinance, and then we could compare the two. So you said 8.24, 8.24050, right of entry. So I'm I'm not for more government control. I'm for less government control of the property owners. So there's been some instances where people are going on other people's property and trying to control it and they get shot. and things like that and so you mentioned that code enforcement just worked with the property owner and showed us how it got cleaned up peacefully so i have some concerns about that so right of entry and part of the right of entry it says the enforcement officers may enter such premises at all reasonable times to inspect this the same or perform any duty imposed upon him or her by this chapter So it sounds like the code enforcement officer can enter the property at any time.

If I could jump in, I just want to add a couple of things. First off, the two existing codes, they're really being repealed in full. I think there was a little bit just on clarification on how we're putting back Section 24. We're pulling out the old 24. We're putting the new 24 back into that chapter. But really anything to do with the existing nuisance ordinance on the city books. So the current city ordinance has been 1970. There's two conflicting code sections that conflict with each other and they don't lead to a positive outcome. And that's really reflected in that the city hasn't had a true enforcement case on record. I couldn't find where they actually went through an administrative case successfully. And so this is what we're doing is pulling those two out and putting a new one in into one section. And what we've taken is standard language that's been adopted and approved in our region from Marysville that's gone through a lot of the recent code testing and been verified with the hotel recently. And then we've also, our code enforcement officer has a history with Yuba City where we really like the definitions where we go through and says, okay, it's not just because he doesn't like the color of your lawn. It's got to be more than two feet tall or more than 18 inches. And we've gone through and really defined what those definitions are so there's clarity about tarps or different things and so the new section the new code that we're proposing is a full new code and the right of entry that is standard language really to give authority for safety circumstances and there's additional language in there about whenever practical and there should be any the officer shall contact the occupant of such premises prior to entry if possible and so there's there's definitely some language in there that's standard that's been approved and other agencies, and it's really only for emergency situations.

So 8.24080, violations and penalties. Such person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor for each day. Such violation continues and upon conviction, therefore, shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $1,000 or by imprisonment or not longer than six months or both. Such person, number two, such person shall be prosecuted in civil action brought by the city, the city attorney, or other authorized legal representatives. May bring action in a court. of competent jurisdiction to enjoin any nuisance. Violation of this chapter or violation of any other ordinance of the city. So I understand other jurisdictions might be gaining more government control over private property owner's property, but I would like a list that I can compare what was original ordinance and what you're changing now because there's a lot of information here and um i don't think that the city should be going on people's property or putting them in jail or things like that so we don't have any money in our budget supposedly so cost a lot of money go to court cost a lot of money to do this sort of thing so um i would just like what we're changing and what we're proposing to change and what the original ordinance is. And I also think the public has a right to know a little bit more about the changes we're making. So that's just my opinion. Thank you.

Okay. Just to speak on that a little bit, from what I'm seeing here, everything aligns with the state code as well, from what I see, and it follows the state's health and safety, normal health and safety codes, normal right of entry. So we're not, for clarification, we're not going beyond what state law is already, right?

That is correct.

Okay. Thank you. And then the other one, just when it comes to the penalties, After the notice of enforcement, is that a per day fee? I know some of them are. While they're out of compliance, it's 100 per day, or is this just per violation until it's resolved? How does that one work?

Right here, it says per day.

Okay. That's what I understand. What would you add to that if I could?

This is a sensitive issue, and I wanted to bring clarity. And this is where it is different and in a way better for the community versus many of the codes are per day right off the bat. And so just for clarity, the process is written in where if we receive a complaint, They get a notice to correct. They have 10 days. If they don't fix it, it's a $100 fine. Then there's 10 days to fix it. If they don't fix it, then it's a $200 fine. It's compounded. So they would owe us $300. If they have two weeks, if they don't fix it again, then it's a $500 fine for the third violation. If they don't fix it after the third time with a six weeks minimum, and there's appeal processes all the way through, and there's options to work with, then after the third After you've got to the first 100, 200, 500, then it goes by day. And the reason is that it really needs to be at a substantial level. There was thought put into that. We didn't want to go by day, and it gets complicated on how do you calculate it in the beginning when you have first, second, third violations. But we thought it's important to go by day at some point. Because if not, if you have a large issue, say a legal use comes in, they might just pencil it out and say, hey, the best I'm going to get is a $10,000 fine over the year if every time I have to go out and give a new notice and wait two days, it doesn't really pencil out to maybe a substantial amount. And so that's the reason why we left the by day after the third notice. And there's appeal processes for each one of those first, second, third where they could come in and appeal.

And that's the way I was reading it. It looked like kind of like a hybrid or an update to, like you said, some of the, between the different ones. Okay. That's all the questions I have. I'll have some more comments. But Council Member Walton, go ahead.

I think it's good to get this out there because I've been noticing more and more in our community of how we're not looking like a very desirable place to be. So I think we need to bring the city jurisdiction on that and to try to, you know, resolve these issues. So I think it's great.

Thank you. Council Member Hernandez?

Yeah, no questions. Kind of same thing that you've said as well. You know, just appreciate you guys, you know, looking into these things that kind of fall by the wayside a little bit and just tightening up those ordinances for sure. So thank you.

All right. Is there any public comment?

We do have to open the public hearing.

Oh, yeah. Sorry. I'll open the public hearing at 625 p.m. We have Alan Deluck.

Hello, mayor and council members. I was looking through this. And as far as the, I agree with most of it, definitely there is a problem in this town that probably needs to be taken care of. However, I would like to point out under section 8.24.100, Item I, when we define some of the specific instances, it's on page 33. We're talking about garbage containers. Pretty much says you only have 24 hours, 12 hours before and 12 hours after the garbage pickup where your garbage cans can be in public view anywhere. Well, on Sunday, I drove around in the KB homes over there, and I'd have to say over 50% of the people, they keep their garbage cans within public view, but they're up close to the house, and they're not really, you know, a nuisance in my mind. And I don't know how many people have chain link fences or they have gates that are very narrow or don't have much access. So if you're forcing people to put all their garbage cans in their backyard every time, I think that's a bit excessive. I'd like to see that particular item struck or at least reworded. I don't have a problem with people not leaving their garbage cans at the curb all week long. Like when I go on vacation, my neighbors will come over while I'm gone, and they'll take the garbage cans to the curb. And then when they get empty, they'll take them back up. But if I have to lock my gate, then I can't do that anymore. And really, that's about the only thing I had to comment on there. Thank you.

Thanks.

Thank you. No further comments. No further? All right.

With that, I'll close the public hearing at 6.27 p.m. I'll bring it back to the council for any other discussion.

I think we need to fix what he mentioned, and I'd like to know what is new and what is old side by side, if he could possibly do that. I'd appreciate it. Sometimes we work 12 hours and we commute, so our garbage can is going to be out there. So that's a little extreme, I think. And there might be some other things in there that I missed that are like that. To me, it's government control. You can't leave your garbage can past 12 hours. What if you're working a double shift as law enforcement or fire or something? i don't think that's too cool so that's my thought thank you okay i'll just ask uh city attorney or ben is there uh any

Yeah, I mean, this is really your community, and we're open for feedback. This was language that was selected in an adjacent agency, but by all means, you guys could have four boats in your front yard if you want it. It really is. It's just, what does the community want? And we are happy to reword it, or it could be a way back near the garage or a certain distance from the sidewalk or something. We could come up with some wording. Logistically... we would reintroduce that and then and then the way the code work the way the ordinance change usually works is you introduce it like we're doing tonight you come back in a future meeting you adopt it and then it goes into effect 30 days and we would have some outreach with that and so we'll work with the attorney and figure out um but definitely this is the period to tell us if there is some sort of thing that you think maybe is a little too much or not or not enough um you know every community is a little bit different code enforcement i would say definitely We're cognizant of that, right? You know, we're not Walnut Creek. We're not going to go bust the kids for every basketball hoop. There's bigger issues. And so with that, we're complaint driven, and we focus on the priorities. But if there is something in here, we're happy to adjust it.

Sounds good. Just for clarification, it's not something we can redline tonight. And we still have to reintroduce. And then if we were to adopt it, amendment process would then just redo it at that point? And then we still have to do another public hearing and all that for even an amendment. It's the same process, right? So when would this come back? If we were to bring it back, you have to do with the additional, could it come back next meeting or with the advertisement and those other things? Is it like two meetings out? How does that work?

Yeah, it'd probably be the second meeting. OK.

How urgent is it? I know there's at least some more serious cases out there that has been limiting staff on moving forward on some of those.

Yeah, I mean, the existing has been in place since 1970. It's just you haven't made movement for that. And so now that we have a code enforcement officer in place, it's a tool in the toolbox because there's some of these cases that just blow us off. And so ideally, we work with them, we give them notice, and people will say, OK, I was unaware, and we work through it. The habitual folks, the people that clearly don't want to, it's that tool to move forward and to, hey, we're not messing around now. It's going to be a fine and a violation. And this is a real deal for the council because you're going to hear feedback because it's a small community. It's going to be somebody's brother-in-law's cousin, and they're going to hear about a ticket because maybe the garbage can's out too long or the boat's sitting there and they're happy with it. And so it's really, we're happy to take it back and tweak it. you know, to make it what's right. But we're really looking out for the blight in how to deal with those illegal land uses and some of these that are really causing problems.

Yeah, and then the only hesitation I'd have, and maybe you know, maybe you don't, maybe you need to check, but does it go back to, is that language also in the zoning for the residential zones? Because I know in some cases, some of those requirements you know, as far as the neighborhoods, as far as, like you said, boats and those types of things are, you have duplicates in the zoning ordinance as well, right?

So I will say our code is very vague. If you go look at the RV trailers, it's two sentences. I'm not exaggerating. So, you know, where this does allow a bit more information, more definition, it's very definite. But I do understand the garbage containers, right? 12 hours. But I will say code enforcement is like if someone calls, you know, and then we'll go out there. No, our code enforcement officers aren't going to go out there and say, hey, that's 12 hours and two minutes. You know, it might be a little bit longer if someone complains. you know, then we might go out there and, you know, just talk to the homeowner. But I will say there are parts in here where it does refer to other sections, but I don't think that they're totally related. Okay.

And that's a good point. Like, so say take the garbage. If we went at the administrative process to start with that, we would have to give him a notice to correct. He would have 10 days to do it for free. So I would hope he moves it within 10 days. And then if he doesn't move it, then it would go to a formal notice that's certified mail and has another 10 days before it goes to it. So the likelihood of starting the administrative process for a garbage is very, very low, unless the person is just really unresponsive. Okay.

To the chair. Yeah. I don't want anyone coming to my house saying you have to move your garbage again. So, especially the city. I just don't think that's right. That's my house, that's my property, and there are neighbors and people that will do that. They'll call into the city and they'll go, oh, garbage can's out, 13 hours. So I believe at one point a couple of us council members got tickets all in one day in the city for different things. A trailer was parked, a camp trailer or something was parked over a certain amount of hours. And when my father passed away and he was suffering from cancer, he thought he mailed his tags off and his vehicle was at my house. And they're there giving me a ticket. So I just think that the way it is right now, I mean, if you have to do what the state tells you to do, that's one thing. But if the city is saying that you have to move your garbage can in 12 hours, that's extreme. The problem in the city is we have certain things that... we look past and that are the laws in the city and there's not follow-up on it so i think you know there's semis all over there's fifth wheels parked on in front of houses where you can't safely make a turn so um i just think some of the stuff is just too extreme if we're not keeping up on the stuff that we already have how are we going to put more restrictions in here and be able to follow up on those. And if we have cases that they're not paying attention to us, this isn't going to make them pay attention to us. We'll end up in court if we keep pursuing them. And then the city will have to pay for all that. And if we're short on funds, I don't think that's a good idea. If the state tells us we have to do something, certainly we need to do that. But as I mentioned, I'd like a list of what we're changing. You mentioned things are too vague. I would like to look at the things that you think that are too vague and compare it to what is new in here. And I would just like to request that. before I make any decisions. But that's just my opinion. This was a country town. I mean, if you go to Sutter, people have their garbage cans out. They have them out for a couple of days, maybe when they're camping or whatever. So we don't live in an HOA, and I don't want to. How extreme are we going to get? The garbage can thing, I didn't pick that up. So I kind of like a list, so I don't miss anything. But that's just my opinion. Thank you.

CHRISTIE WOODARD- To the chair? TODD BANDUCCI- Yeah, go ahead. CHRISTIE WOODARD- To clarify, it was 24 hours, I think, that you had mentioned for trash can pull-in back? TODD BANDUCCI- 12.

CHRISTIE WOODARD- 12 after, OK.

I guess what I'm hearing from Ben is, and you Jaspreet also, is that while that's in there, I think it's something that definitely needs to be addressed. It's not something that we should remove it. What I'm hearing too is that it's going to take another almost 60 days to get there. What we can do is potentially allow this to go through. We re-amend so it gives the current things that are actively being pursued some teeth. We won't be addressing the garbage issue because it's going to be time prohibitive for staff to get out there and address everyone's garbage cans because they're frequently out there. What I will say is I think there does need to be a policy regarding garbage cans because I have neighbors who block one side off for parking and the other side off for parking. It gets frustrating. So there does need to be at least some sort of time constraint of like, please pull them back into your house, on your property line, whatever you want to do, but don't block off public parking. So I think that that's something that needs to be addressed. I think I'm going to assume, but please correct me, if we take these situations to court, we could also put in there attorney's fees and court costs will be included. You lose, you pay us back. So I would assume we won't be going after cases that we will ultimately really lose. We're going to do our due diligence. So I'm assuming things like semis and things like that can't be addressed because we have no teeth in the game. So they're looking at us like, good luck. So I think this would only help all of those major things. I think the garbage is on the short end of the list. I'm not saying it's not a valid concern. So please don't take it that way. I think passing this now is a smarter decision so that we can readdress, you know, let you guys have some time to kind of just fine tune that and bring it back. So thank you.

To the chair, is there a charge to do this and then amend it? Another charge? Or...

There's charges to re-advertise and do all that through the Appellate Democrat, right?

Yeah, there's a process to reintroduce or to amend.

I'd like to go ahead and make some comments. So just for this one, and again, I really appreciate the comment, but also to Put it into perspective, it's been in the code. That's not a change. It's already been in the code since 1996. So if you're not getting tickets, you know what I mean? We're not... The attorney has something to add.

He might have an option here.

If all you're doing is making a minor change in response to public comment, like, say, changing it from 12 hours or 24 hours to 48 hours, that wouldn't require republication. You could make that change. Make that motion. If you wanted to change it from behind out of public view to onto your property line or something like that, again, you could make those kind of minor changes without having to republish. Okay. Perfect.

Yeah.

All right. In that case, Ben, what would you recommend that language to be? You know what's...

It's really your community. I've seen the wars about parking and people leaving them out there really just to kind of protect this parking issue. I will say we took this from Yuba City, so we didn't catch that on the change. And I've never had really an issue with that. But if it is a standard in this community that they just pull them up to the fence and people are OK with that, I would just say behind the curb. We can modify it to behind the curb, behind the sidewalk.

Yeah, maybe within your property.

Within 24 hours.

Yeah, what is the normal line? Because like the fences, we have that line of sight for fences, and it's like 15 feet, right, basically? Yes, it is 15 feet for residential. So I mean, I would be open to like, you know, out of the first 15 feet within 48 hours or something like that? Yeah.

418 seems a little bit long. TODD BANDUCCI- Out in the street. But that's two days. There's two days out there.

TODD BANDUCCI- Yeah, well, let's keep. And this is what I was referring to. Right now, in the code, it has that 12 hours. So I think.

In the current code?

TODD BANDUCCI- The current code, yeah. And it's from 1996. So I mean, I think we could add that 15 feet and keep the 12 hours, unless you want to go to 24 or something like that. I agree. Even now, at times, if folks are away a little bit or just not paying attention, they'll make their way, or windy days, they make their way out and block the sidewalk and those types of things. But yeah, behind the fence may be a little excessive. So, okay. Yeah.

I'd be worried with... defining it with a fence is that not everyone has the fencing. So, however, is it, you know, from your property, your residence, it needs to be within so many feet at least. I mean, you know, you want it as a lawn ornament, good luck, you know, whatever.

Yeah.

Whatever you want to do.

That's why I kind of take it back to that safety factor that we have for, you know, fences can only be so high, that kind of thing. So I could do that. I would propose to change that to that out of the first 15 feet. That's good.

Within a 12-hour period?

Yeah, just keep it within the 12-hour period.

We could, you know, what's 24? I'm thinking to myself, if I left for work early and forgot to get it, you get it when you get back from work, you know, and you sleep in, you get it, we'll say within 24 hours.

Do we still have street sweepers?

You still have street sweepers.

See, that's the problem that I have. It does have another, yes. Is that you need to get them in off the street. Otherwise, we're paying for street sweeping. We never get it. And it just so happens that Wednesday's trash day, Thursday's sweep day. So that's always been a quirk in my mind. I always try to get, I'll go push my neighbors up onto his driveway just so the street super can sweep.

And I would just reiterate, going through the current code, and really the changes come down to what you mentioned, the administrative side of it, so the process of enforcement. I mean, I'm seeing all the same things, even the language about you know, the misdemeanors, I mean all that goes back to the normal code. That's the same as it was since 1996 as well. It looks like there was a pretty comprehensive update in 1996 that really most of this didn't change. It's just the admin side. And so that would be the rest of my comments. I do appreciate staff looking at this. I know that's been a huge issue is, of course, you know, compliance, voluntary compliance is always the best way to go. And we're successful, you know. Our neighbors are usually open to that and take care of it. But there is these tough cases that, like Ben mentioned with the current code, that there's There's no teeth, and it actually works against us. Number one, they usually never make it to fines and penalties because of the discrepancies between the two codes. And even if they did, a lot of the time they'll punt it and just pay fines or something anyways, like the cases you shared. So I think this is huge progress. It's something. Many councils have dealt with in the past, and we just never really got there. I think other things crept up above this. So I appreciate all your work on this and bringing it forward. Is there any other discussion? Then I'll entertain a motion, if anybody wants to make one.

Did you close the public hearing?

Yeah.

So what's the new wording, just so we can make a motion? or are we just waiting for that to be brought?

What are we doing?

I think it would be to pursue this recommendation with a modification to 824.100-I to adjust the garbage can behind the 15-foot front yard distance within a 12-hour period. Or 24. Did you say? I'm looking at you. We went back and forth. 12.

I think you said 12. 12.

That's 12.

I'll make a motion to the chair real fast.

Is there anything in here about the fireworks?

I want to say there's a separate section for fireworks in there.

Yeah, it is not in this section. It might be under the safety.

Councilmember Hernandez.

I'll make a motion to conduct a public hearing and upon close of the public hearing introduce the ordinance repealing and replacing Live Oak Municipal Code Title 8 Chapter 8.24 Nuisance Abatement Code and Repealing Chapter 14 Neighborhood and Community Preservation Program and waive the first reading with the adjustment on section 8.24 Point 100 dash I to adjust the garbage can to 15 feet within the front yard Okay, I'll second that Councilmember wotan.

Yes councilmember Santana. No councilmember Hernandez. Yes mayor chapter lane. Yes motion carries. I

All right. We're moving on to updates and announcements from city attorney.

Nothing to report.

Okay. City manager.

A few items. So council candidates. So the nomination period is closed. We have four candidates. Jeremy Chapdelaine, Ulysses Tejas, Cruz Mora, and Noel Grove are verified candidates running in this election. And so the season has started. Signs are up. And so more to come with that. It's sad to not see a couple existing council members go forward, but I definitely understand. Let's make some motions.

Totally.

This past week we submitted a grant application for the sidewalk gap closure project along Pennington under the SACOG grant program. So I'm hoping through discussions with SACOG and pushing that that we're successful. Valley's Pizza did pull their permit this week. The plans were ready and the permit was ready to issue. They did come in and pay for the permit fees for the shell and for the TI. My understanding, talking with the project manager with Hilbert's, that they're still working through financing and so they don't have a schedule for when that might start, but they did come in and pay for the permit. Beauty by the Buttes is a new business that pulled their business license in the Linda Lane complex. They're along 99. That's starting up. I was notified by Battalion Chief Epperson that due to the fire, Let me read this here. Type 6 engine. So it's labeled Grass 5. So it's a 550 Ford truck that we have that was called to the timber fire in Monterey County. So that with a couple personnel are headed to the timber fire. The city is reimbursed and paid for that time when they're out there. So hopefully it's... You know, fires are never good, but they're using the tools and resources, and we receive funding back from the use. The Live Oak Food Truck and Vendor Festival, the fall festival with the timing, with soccer, with school starting, with everything going on, the committee has requested that it's moved to a Thursday, being a vendor festival, so September 24th, 5 to 9. We're looking to with different things going on we're recognizing the softball team at our 916 council meeting And then I would just add that The mayor and I met with Senator Dolly's office, the field representative last week, really trying to push some federal options for the safer grant for fire funding and then also potential funding for the community building. So there's some need for love there, and we're hoping that maybe through the CDBG program of federal funding or maybe through the federal earmarks that we can find some funding. So we're trying to position ourselves for that so we can find some funding for that. That's all I have to report for the week.

A question, do you have any update on the school district work over there on Larkin for the elementary school?

I do not, but I could definitely, I ran into Mr. Gilbranson yesterday and they're definitely busy in cleaning up that site. They pulled the demo permits and it's definitely underway and cleaned up, but all in their bond measure is on the ballot for this election in November. I will touch base and see if I get a status and I'll communicate it out.

Great. All right. Thank you. All right. Council member updates and we'll start at this end. Nothing for me.

Thank you.

Council Member Santana?

Yes. Thank you. I just wanted to update on how much money have we spent, how much money has come out of the general fund for this tax increase that's going to try to pass on the ballot for Sutter County.

So no funding has been spent. No public funding will be spent or has been spent on the Measure G campaign effort. Regarding the effort for a countywide tax revenue and a sharing agreement, there is There's no consultant that's been hired, and there's been staff time, primarily myself, in coordination with the county to work out some of the specifics regarding the countywide sharing agreement. I expect to bring that. The county's working on that agreement, and I expect to bring that forward to the council for review and consideration here in the next month.

Do you have any idea how much may be spent?

No money will be spent on the Measure G campaign.

OK. And I have a question for the city attorney. I've been seeing on social media a situation with Don Belza that's running for election. And he posted a picture with Doug. And he's been getting a lot of grief. about that. So I want to know, since three seats are available and it looks like Ashley and Bob won't be running, can city council members that are seated endorse or support, not financially, but just support candidates running? Because I saw in Yuba City that one of the city council members is endorsing Mark Boomgarner. And so I'm a little confused about what the fine line or limits is to that. Because I've been getting some calls.

I'm not sure what the issue was with regard to Mr. Belza and Congressman Doug. If you're asking if you're, as a council member, allowed to endorse somebody who's running for council, yes, there's no prohibition on that.

OK. Thank you.

All right. Updates for me, as far as committees, it's actually been pretty quiet. We did have housing authority. We didn't have a whole lot, right, Bob? It was just kind of normal business. We had an update on one matter that we had to discuss regarding potential agreement with Lake County to let them contract some services of staff. It was kind of a follow-on item. They were actually trying to join the Housing Authority. I believe we reported on it before. They have found a way that they can possibly contract services and get some of that help and not be part of the JPA. So that was really the main one we discussed there. Otherwise, SACOG tomorrow. Looking forward to that. There is, as Ben had shared, we put in for a system preservation grant. a couple months back, and it's on the agenda. There is two options for the board to consider as far as the award recommendations. Live Oak is in both either way, so they're recommended to be awarded on either one of the options. But of course, it's not final until it's final. So we'll see what happens there tomorrow with that. But that's about $1.1 million to do, where was it, the limit's been, or basically

So the city limit line on Broadway, Larkin, Broadway, and then Larkin on the east side of 99 all the way up to Riviera. Yeah.

So basically Larkin, city limit to city limit, and following it, crossing the highway. And so that's a big one. I know... Ben's been working hard. We also met with our grant folks to figure out what would rate the best for that one, and it really did. I mean, it's great to work with that consultant. To put it in perspective, out of all those big jurisdictions, Sacramento, Sac County, Roseville Rockland all those agencies ours was number score wise ranked what number four I think it was third or fourth and So that's huge. And hopefully, as Ben mentioned, we just applied for the other one. For the sidewalk gap on Pennington, that's also been a huge one. I think the recommendation was to go after this other program because it should score higher, and it's a higher dollar amount. That project's going to cost a bit more. But that's been a huge one. we've been working on i know when i took over that seat on the board we um pretty quickly we we had the director of sacod come up and do a field trip up here and that was one of our top priorities and um so they understand how important it is for this community and um been working on that and well same thing we'll keep fingers crossed on that we should know what three probably two or three months so from now with that one and that just goes back to the same thing I've been talking about in these updates is basically it's a it's an even year and a lot of these grants are in those even years so it's busy time it's just going to be back to back to back but we do have a lot of potential projects out there a lot of applications to get turned in. And I do appreciate staff working on those and really having those shovel-ready projects for these submittals. I mean, it's huge in that it speaks to what our city manager does with his other role as assisting with the city engineering, because he's doing a lot as well as the rest of our team to get those in. and make them as competitive as they were. So I just really appreciate that, and that's about all I have. I'll go ahead and adjourn at 6.59 p.m.