City Council - Regular Meeting

Evening, this is a regular joint meeting of the Oakley City Council the Oakley City Council acting as the successor agency To the Oakley redevelopment agency and a special meeting of the Oakley public finance authority This meeting is called to order at 6 30 p.m.

I will ask the clerk to please call roll Councilmember Fuller Here councilmember Shaw here also member Williams here vice mayor Meadows here mayor Henderson here

Here, would everybody please stand and join me 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.

Item 1.3, special recognition to the Freedom High School stunt team. If I could have Coach please meet me up front at the podium. So tonight we have the honor for the first time in the history of Freedom High School of 29 years to have our first state champions come out of the school. And two weekends ago, they were crowned the state champions for Division II Freedom High School stunt team. Congratulations. This is through your unwavering dedication, elite teamwork, athletics excellence that etched your names in history for this community. And we are so honored as a city to call you ours. So congratulations. Coach, would you like to give a few words?

Thank you guys for having us tonight. We really appreciate it. Super excited to bring this state title to Freedom and to Oakley. And just want to give a big shout out to our athletes. They are super dedicated. They practice six days a week. And even the off season, they're practicing. So just big round of applause to them. Congrats, girls.

And what I'd like to try to pull off is that we can get the whole team up here and we can get a team shot. We're probably going to have to make a couple rows. Congratulations. Item 1.4, receive an update, Contra Costa County Transportation Authority Citizen Advisory Committee, and we'll get a report from Andrea. We'll give you just a minute and we'll let the crowd move around.

Hello, Mayor, Council Members. I have thoroughly enjoyed my time beginning to absorb what's going on with the Citizens Advisory Committee.

A little bit closer? OK.

I'm a bit of a soft talker. I am still getting up to speed, learning, educating myself about what's going on, what they're talking about. So I will do my best in explaining what's been going on for the last few months. So the period that I'm reporting on is February to April 2026, and giving you a bit of a meeting synthesis. So over the course of February, March, and April 2026 meetings, the Citizens Advisory Committee focused primarily on transportation funding compliance, Measure J growth, management program, or the GMP, allocations, and regional transit funding discussions. The meetings reflected on ongoing emphasis on accountability, local infrastructure, maintenance, and preparation for future transportation revenue initiatives. So here are some of the key themes and actions. Public transportation funding and regional revenue planning. In February 2026, the committee received an informational overview regarding Senate Bill 63 or SB 63, a proposed public transit revenue measure intended to address regional transit funding sustainability. Staff from various cities presented the measure as part of broader efforts to stabilize and modernize Bay Area transit systems. No formal recommendation or vote was taken at that time, but the discussion signaled increasing regional concern regarding long-term transit operations funding and infrastructure investment needs. The discussion suggests that future county transportation planning will likely involve increased collaboration with regional transit agencies, potential voter-approved funding mechanisms, greater emphasis on multimodal transportation investments, and continued evaluation of transit reliability and financial sustainability. Measure J growth management program or GMP compliance reviews. A major recurring agenda focus in all three of the months during the meetings involved review and approval of GMP compliance checklists for local jurisdictions. These approvals are necessary for cities and towns to receive Measure J local street maintenance and improvement funds. The committee reviewed and advanced the following jurisdictions for funding eligibility. I'll leave that there for a moment. Big dollar amounts for cities of Richmond, which was discussed in February, Moraga, which was discussed in March, also Orinda, discussed in March, and finally, Martinez, discussed in April. The committee's recommendations indicate continued compliance by participating jurisdictions with Measure J requirements tied to growth management, transportation planning coordination, traffic mitigation measures, and local roadway maintenance accountability. The funding allocations demonstrate the county's continued prioritization of maintaining local transportation infrastructure while ensuring jurisdictions meet regional planning standards. Preparation for future GMP compliance cycles during April 2026 meeting the committee also reviewed draft calendar years 24 through 2025 GMP compliance checklists and discuss future presentation content and review procedures What they were trying to focus on here was ensuring that with each presentation that they looked for going forward, that each city that presented, presented in a consistent way. So instead of it feeling hodgepodge, even though it wasn't, they wanted each city to present A, B, C, rather than A, C, D, in that type fashion. So this item was informational only and intended to refine evaluation processes moving forward, and this discussion reflected on an effort to improve consistency and transparency in compliance reviews, continued refinement of reporting standards for jurisdictions, and anticipated future funding and accountability cycles under Measure J. So the overall assessment between February and April 2026, the advisory council meetings reflected a stable but important operational period for the authority centered on ensuring continued local eligibility for Measure J, which is affordable housing, transportation funding, monitoring transportation infrastructure investment priorities, preparing for future compliance review cycles, and beginning broader regional conversations regarding long-term transit funding sustainability. The committee's work during this period reinforced both fiscal stewardship and regional transportation coordination, while positioning the authority for anticipated future transit and infrastructure funding discussions. So in conclusion, the committee's work continues to support continued infrastructure, again, infrastructure investment on a regional transportation basis, as you would anticipate, and coordinating throughout Contra Costa County.

Thank you. Any questions? Council Member Williams.

I just want to say thank you so much for the PowerPoint. So good, and it's so nice to just see it all concise and all of the information. So thanks for bringing that all back to us. I appreciate it.

Thank you very much. We'll move on to 2.0, public comment. At this time, the public will be heard on items not on the agenda. I have one public comment card submitted, and no public comments were made online tonight. Public speaking will last for three minutes. Time will be monitored in front of the mayor's seat. At one minute, we'll get a beep, and when time expires, please refrain from applaud, cheering, booing, or any other outbursts so everybody can be heard. My one public comment is Sean Ireland.

Good evening, Mayor Henderson and council members. My name is Sean Ireland. I'm speaking tonight as a resident on behalf of the Planning Commission. With the ACDTI lawsuit against the Summer Lake HOA on tonight's closed session agenda, I ask the council to keep one basic rule of fairness in mind. New development should pay for itself, and existing homeowners should not have to fit the bill. This council applied this exact principle at the April 28th meeting during the Stone Creek subdivision item. Back then, the issue was fencing. Vice Mayor Meadows rightly pointed out why existing neighbors should have to maintain hundreds of feet of fencing that could only exist when a developer wanted to build new homes. The council found a practical answer. You approve the item with the condition that fences on the developer's property, making the future buyers responsible for them, or making the future buyers not responsible for them. That's the right approach. The burdens created by new development should stay with that new development, not pushed onto existing neighbors. I'm asking the city to bring that same mindset to the Summer Lake case. Here, the HOA is being sued over $5 million in drainage improvements tied to a proposed new development. Our current infrastructure has served this community perfectly well for over 20 years. If extra drainage capacity is required to make a new project possible, it's fundamentally unfair to make current homeowners pay for it. I know the city cannot stop a private developer from suing the HOA. I'm not asking for that. But the city can choose how it responds to that lawsuit. As this case moves forward and in your discussions tonight, I would hope that the council would look beyond just what the city is legally forced to do or strictly liable for. Please look at how the city can support the Summerleague residents who already live here and work with the community towards a fair solution. Existing homeowners should not be left alone to carry a financial burden created by new development. Thank you.

Didn't have any additional public comments we'll move to item three councilmember comments I Don't see any councilmember comments So we'll move to consent calendar Is there any items of consent calendar you made like removed yes four point one four point three four point four and There is if not I'm looking for a motion move the remainder second we have a first and a second a roll call though, please Councilmember Fuller I Councilmember Shaw yes councilmember Williams.

Yes vice mayor Meadows. Yes mayor Henderson. Yes the motion carries 5-0 4.1 councilmember Fuller I

Yes, again the same thing. I don't just our minutes could be better It's not miss grasses ability. She has the ability. We just won't allow her to be better So I will vote no Move approval 4.1 second roll call vote Councilmember Fuller No

Council Member Shaw? Yes. Council Member Williams? Yes. Vice Mayor Meadows? Yes. Mayor Henderson?

Yes.

The motion carries 4-1.

Item 4.3, Council Member Fuller.

Yes. We've been hit and hit and hit by assessments tax, and the solution is always to go back and do something else. And this is what I see this one is we're just finishing up with measure B and a lot of others that are nebulous and I Don't think that we really need to do this Shove it right back at the citizens tonight, so I will vote no Move approval 4.3 Second we have a first and a second a roll call vote.

I

Councilmember Fuller?

No.

Councilmember Shaw? Yes. Councilmember Williams? Yes. Vice Mayor Meadows? Yes. Mayor Henderson? Yes. The motion carries 4-1.

4.4, Councilmember Fuller.

The same one, and this one was even further. We're going to discuss a rate hike at a public hearing, but the public hearing is on June 9th, and I'm assuming it'll be during the council meeting. And I don't think the public should have to come to a council meeting to object to any rates or maybe endorse them. And I'll vote no.

Move approval of item 4.4.

Second.

We have a first and a second. A roll call vote.

Councilmember Fuller no Councilmember Shaw yes on some member Williams yes vice mayor Meadows yes mayor Henderson yes the motion carries for one I don't five public hearings we have none tonight item six

Regular calendar, 6.1, adopt a resolution to approve of a joint authority, a joint powers agreement appointing a member and an alternate to the joint powers committee for multiple, for community facilities district and a JPA establishing facility agreement. And we'll have our public works director.

Good evening, Mayor Henderson, Vice Mayor Meadows, council members, members of the public. My name's Billie Lee, Saint-Chalern. I'm the public works director, city engineer. And tonight before you, we are adopting a resolution for the approval of the joint powers agreement, JPA, appointment of board member and alternate, authorize the joint powers authority to establish one or more community facilities districts and authorized the JPA to establish a joint community facilities agreement. The Contra Costa County Regional Alternative Compliance RAC system is an innovative regionally supported approach to fulfilling state-mandated stormwater treatment obligations. The RAC system allows both public agencies and private developers to purchase compliance units generated by certified off-site green stormwater infrastructure projects constructed elsewhere in the county. On May 12, 2026, the previous city council meeting, staff presented a work session with the city council to discuss the city of Oakley's participation in the RAC JPA. Discussions revolving the term of the operations and maintenance agreement being 30 years was a concern to council. The O&M agreements will be negotiated between the buyer and the seller of the compliance units and will be project specific. This is yet to be determined. Payments can be upfront for O&M in an escrow account for public improvements. O&M funding for private improvements can be assessed through a community facilities district, CFD, and paid through property taxes. If a private entity defaults, a lien on the property can be placed, similar to other CFDs we have established in our city. Participation in the JPA is a mechanism that will allow the City of Oakley to participate should the need for a project arise. A board will be formed made up of member agencies to define specifics of the RAC system, including the fair share contribution from each participating agency. The funding for administrative costs of the JPA could be revised should the member agencies agree to change the methodology based on population size of the participating city instead of equally shared by the participating agencies. To date, the following cities have expressed interest in our bringing forth the same resolution for approval of the RAC JPA. Antioch, Concord, Contra Costa County, Hercules, Martinez, Moraga, Orinda, Pinole, Pittsburgh, Pleasant Hill, Richmond, and San Pablo. Tonight, staff is recommending the city council to approve the following. Number one, participation in the Contra Costa RAC JPA and approving the joint powers agreement and authorize the city manager to execute the agreement. Secondly, appoint the public works director city engineer, that would be me, as the JPA board representative and appointing the assistant engineer as an alternative. The third item requested is authorized staff participation in the RAC system, including participation of an ordinance to revise the city's stormwater ordinance to incorporate participation in the RAC system as an approved alternative compliance for meeting applicable stormwater treatment requirements. Item four, authorized staff to collaborate with the RAC GPA administrator to support RAC system implementation. And last but not least, approve the resolution to authorize the JPA to establish one or more community facilities district, accept applications from property owners, annex properties into the CFD, and levy special taxes to finance ongoing maintenance costs for offsite green stormwater infrastructure projects, and approve a joint community facilities agreement. I'm open for any questions that you may have.

Questions for staff? Council Member Williams.

So I did hear you say in your staff report that you guys are going to try, should we authorize this, you will try to follow Vice Mayor Meadows' suggestion regarding population size rather than an equal share?

Certainly. I think that's a fair item to fight for. So that's, as a member, I would push for that.

And then it also sounded like there was going to be follow-up for some of the outstanding questions, like what happens after the 30 years? Who's paying for it? Is it going to be an eyesore and things like that? So it also sounded like you all were going to address that. Did I catch that correctly, too?

That's correct. Right now, we're just forming the JPA, what we're calling the RAC. essentially each item would be specific to a project so between sellers and buyers on how the the funds or the units are being bought and the onm contribution to whatever that facility may be so this doesn't lock us in we may never use it as mentioned in the last presentation it could just sit there but it is another tool in the toolbox to be used should the need arise

Okay, great. Thank you so much.

Vice Mayor Meadows.

I just clarified, if I'm wrong, just let me know. So this JPA will be set up to provide the bioretention for stormwater. Property owners do not have to join in or do not have to buy units in the project. They can provide that same facility on site. That's correct. Like we are doing now. The same thing for any local government or any government. They can opt to buy units in a basin or they can provide their own infrastructure, correct?

That's correct.

So it's all voluntary?

Correct.

I don't see any further questions. Is there any public comment on this? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the council for discussion or a motion. Council Member Fuller.

Yes. Immediately when I saw this, I was disturbed. JPA's joint power arrangements. Um, has affects me since I've been here, uh, in Oakley, whether on the council or otherwise, I think the biggest one is Bart and Bart is by regional. Why we get joint powers and all this is they get to vote regionally on taxes that come about now, Contra Costa County. uh... has historically or at least in the past couple of years two or three years has voted no on the tax in fact they didn't even make fifty percent uh... yes it was over uh... over fifty percent no the thing is the san mateo and san francisco and santa clara they got in there and they overwhelmed us and we pay a tax that we didn't want and that's under jpa i'm also thinking of the marine We have representation in regards to GPAs, but we also have the marine... Marin County Electric Company, Marin County Electric Company, they're the ones that most of us or many of us have if we have solar. And the reason we have solar is they produce green energy, and they provide us when we don't generate enough solar in our homes. And they make the net energy metering. They charge with net energy metering. Metering, now, is anybody here happy with their NEM bill tune up last March or April? In other words, they tune up in March or April and I Mine went from 600 to 1,000. And others have said that they've experienced the same thing. We have representatives. We have Vice Mayor Meadows is on the MCA board. And he represents us. And the alternate is Council Member Shaw. But again, we are going to pay the green energy out of a GPA. Marin County it's a regressive type fee so Marin County with their extra income and further it doesn't affect them as much as us but when we get an end bill that is a third more than what we paid the year before that that uh... that gets me so uh... we do have one other these uh... association the bay area governments uh... she needs to build williams is on councilmember williams they're the ones that tried book bucky with tried to get tax for affordable housing that would very much favor berkeley and alameda and those counties but they were going to tax try to texas that But those are the type of things I'm seeing in these regionals. We walk in there, and then we get hammered one way or another in our residence, and so we're not protecting the residence. Also, the actual idea of the... putting the storm drain and making a GPA and you can purchase. I believe that favors the developer much more than the residents. And I say it favors the developer because it allows infill. In other words, vineyards over there at Empire and Main Street, that we see, that kind of enjoy. Somebody could come along and say, hey, I could put three houses in there, but I couldn't do it with storm drains. However, they say, I'll buy the storm drain credits from the GPA. level that vineyard over there and build and they will ask for an exemption under the planning commission so the idea that we're creating a mechanism for infill infill is little segments of property that are not profitable in terms of developing their own storm drains but they can uh... manufactured now That's why I see where this will go. We have a lot of little lots that will go there. I think my biggest one, biggest fear, is down there at Brownstone and Maine. It goes down there. That's commercial, and I can just see somebody coming in with a commercial and saying, hey, I'm ready to build. And whatever they may be. And it's supposed to be commercial. So I've spoken enough. I'll vote no.

Awesome overshaw So just to clarify all the examples that were mentioned about the JPAs This would just be Contra Costa County That's correct.

It's Contra Costa County and any other participating agencies that want to be part of this JPA and it's totally voluntary as far as which properties would it would impact and no new fees would be required or taxes from any existing properties. It would be developer driven if that developer or private entity wishes to enter into this RAC system because they don't have any other alternative. And staff would review their application and review their stormwater control plan to make sure that the example you provided, being that they could build three more houses in an area, we would make sure that that doesn't happen and that this would be the last resort, meaning there is no other alternative for them to be able to fit a bioretention area on site because they're constrained.

That was my other question, is does staff have any discretion as far as when a developer applies to use this, we do get some oversight on it? Yes, absolutely. Thank you.

Or used by cities.

Come again?

Not just developers. It could be used by the local government.

Correct. It could be for our own CIP projects where we are limited with public right-of-way to be able to fit a bioretention area or any C3 facility.

Council Member Williams.

I think it's important to go back to what's been brought up a couple times that this is voluntary and that it's not a tax that's being imposed on our residents. I feel like we sometimes have misinformation given to people that there's going to be taxes and this is an additional assessment. When I look up how this JPA, from what it looks like on our resolution versus how the governing documents were set up for BART, how it was set up for MCE, it very clearly calls out how participation, who pays what in each of the different things. So I just wanted to clarify and make sure that this is not a tax on individual homeowners. There's no special assessments being added to anybody's property tax bills. If a developer or if a city government wants to do this because it makes sense for their project to work, then it's voluntary and they have to negotiate the terms. And just because it's part of this, just because we're joining as the JPA, the city of Oakley still will have input and ultimate decision making over if one is done, where it's done, if we're paying into one, if we're getting money from one, right?

That's absolutely correct. If an agreement was to be determined between a buyer and a seller for a particular project within their city, we would bring that forward to the city council for approval.

Okay, great, thank you.

Vice Mayor Meadows.

I just want to point out, MCE is also optional. You can opt out and you can opt back into PG&E. So you don't have to be a rate payer of MCE. And saying that, some of the jurisdictions are as low as 80% with MCE.

If there's no further discussion, I'm looking for a motion.

Do we need these individually or? I know they were just, oh, no. So I move to adopt a resolution for the approval of the joint powers agreement appointing a board member and alternate authorizing the joint power authority to establish one or more community facilities districts and approve the GAP to establish a joint communities facilities agreement.

Second. We have a first and a second. Call for a roll call vote.

Council Member Fuller?

No.

Council Member Shaw? Yes. Council Member Williams? Yes. Vice Mayor Meadows? Yes. Mayor Henderson? Yes. The motion carries 4-1.

Item 6.2, adopt a resolution approving the Sixth Amendment to an employment agreement between the City of Oakley and Joshua McMurray. Staff report will be done by Mr. Cole.

thank you mayor council this item is before the council to consider the approval of a contract amendment for the city manager there are two features this is the sixth amendment to the city manager's contract the city manager has been your city manager officially since november of 2021 he began as the interim in april of 2021 so we're now almost five years from the official date and over five years from the unofficial start date. So the council has directed the consideration of two changes to the city manager's contract for this year. One would be a 7% increase in his base salary. That would take the salary to $333,596 per year. And then second, the council has directed the consideration for a bonus for last year's performance. that would be five percent of the city manager's current salary so the salary that has been in place for the current fiscal year that began on july one that amount is fifteen thousand five hundred and eighty nine dollars uh so there are some report out obligations before we take this action or before the council takes this action. There's been a little bit of a change. We've talked a lot about SB 707. SB 707 recodified the provision of the Brown Act that requires that any change in the executive compensation be announced and the financial impacts of that be vetted orally in front of the public before any action is taken. Technically, SB 707 expands that to other officers such as department heads or other executives, but this provision of the Brown Act has, I believe, been in effect for the past 10 years. I think it goes back to 2016. I did ask our administrative services director to calculate the total cost because we know there are PERS and other things that go along with the salary. And that is explained in the fiscal impact statement of the staff report. But that would be $43,400 for the salary increase portion. of what is proposed here and um the our director has advised that that is being considered as part of your budget that will be presented at our next meeting so a budget amendment is not necessary that will be something that you would approve as part of your next fiscal year's budget so with that i will be happy to answer any questions questions for staff

Councilmember Williams.

Can you just let us know what the cost of living increase was this year?

it's a seven uh cost of living was i think about three percent okay so it the the so we're doing a seven percent increase so three percent of that would be like a cola yeah the four percent is higher the delta above that i thought it was 3.8 or something for the cola this year but It depends. I think it's an April to April calculation, but it's somewhere in the threes. It could be as high as you mentioned. I apologize. I don't have that available right now.

Okay. And then as I understood the bonus in your staff report, you were saying that it was for performance last year, but as I understood it, I believed we were actually doing a longevity bonus, not. Like the performance increase would have been over and above the COLA. So that three-ish percent was the performance. And then seeing as Mr. McMurray is, I think, the fourth or fifth most senior city manager in all of Contra Costa County. I believed that was what that was, so is that correct?

I apologize, and the resolution does indicate that it is to promote the long-term retention of the city manager. So I stand corrected, and I appreciate the correction.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions to staff? Do we have any public comment? Not seeing any public comment, we'll bring it back to council. I move approval of item six.

My light's on. Point two.

Go ahead and put your motion out there and then we'll bring it back to Council Member Fuller. Move approval of item 6.2.

I'll second, but were you going to let him speak?

We have a first and a second. I'm going to bring it to Council Member Fuller for the final discussion before we call for a vote.

Thank you, Mayor Henderson. Yes, I find the... amount that's being discussed, excessive, exorbitant, and unwarranted, and I will vote no.

With that, I see no further comments. We'll call for a roll call vote.

Council Member Fuller?

No.

Council Member Shaw?

Yes.

Council Member Williams? Yes. Vice Mayor Meadows? Yes. Mayor Henderson?

Yes.

The motion carries 4-1.

item seven reports item 7.1 city manager's report mr mcmurray good evening mr mayor mr vice mayor members of the city council and members of the public just want to notify everyone of a few events we have upcoming here at the city on june 5th we'll have friday night bites as normal uh being the first friday of the month but we have our second concert uh paired with that event that event will start at 5 pm here at the civic center park We have our Juneteenth event here on June 13th, also at Civic Center Park, 10.30 a.m. to 1 p.m. And lastly, we're gearing up, as I mentioned at the last meeting for Summerfest, going to be a great family-friendly event happening on Saturday, June 27th, from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. And that concludes my report. Thank you.

Item 7.2, Oakley City Council reports. Councilmember Fuller.

Yes, I did get a chance to visit Dakota Dog Park, and whoever saw the, not upgrade, but refurbishing of it, I'm not quite sure, but it was... It was one of the best I've seen. Plenty of grass, lots of padding, shades there, water's not overflowing, and very well done. I would ask the city to put out warnings about kids. I know there's a little one around the corner that you can see, but when I was there, there was a toddler I was just learning to walk. Maybe 13, 14 months that the parents just thought it was great running around and scared the heck out of me. I always advise people, my dog is great, and so are other dogs, but all dogs will bite, especially if suddenly confronted in the nose by a face they didn't see. And also there was a young child in there, same thing. I must say the young child was very much... supervised came over and wanted to pet my dog and of course i i enabled it but maybe just warning signs again that they're when they're at that age they're right face to face with the with the dog and i hate to have somebody startled or a bit in that type of situation so but overall it was a very pleasant day in the park there

Council Member Schaaf.

A short report. Since our last meeting on the 16th, I attended the Oakley Rotary Gala, which was very well attended and a fun day. On the 19th, I got to come down here and attend Oakley Public Works Day. So thank you very much for letting me be a part of that. Seeing the kids really excited about all the equipment and how big the signs are in person. It's really cool to see. On the 21st, I had another Cal Cities East Bay Division board meeting and the 23rd Oakley Memorial Day event.

Vice Mayor Meadows.

Since our last meeting, I also attended the Rotary Gala. We had an MCE board meeting last Thursday that we had a closed session item that lasted for three hours. Two weeks ago, I attended CCTA board workshop, two-day workshop in Arenda. We talked about some of the stuff that was presented tonight on CCTA and getting ready for the potential ballot measure in 2028, a renewal measure, Jay. Then last week we had a CCTA board meeting and then also attended the Memorial Day celebration this last Saturday.

Council Member Williams.

Since our last meeting, I attended the Mayor's and Councilmember Roundtable. At that meeting, we talked about unfunded mandates and just going back to our budget discussions that we were having, talking about how we need to keep reaching out to our legislators, also discussed working with neighboring cities and how many city councils across the state do joint council workshops with neighboring cities, which I thought was interesting. Also had a very long Green Empowerment Zone meeting. We were talking about supporting sustainable aviation fuel. Phillips 66 is piloting using feedstocks, which is like used cooking oil, but they've got a mandate to use non-crop based feedstocks. And this will help with costs and not depend on the state of Hormuz. The governor's budget is calling for a $1 to $2 tax break for utilizing that type of fuel. SFO has several airlines that are already using it. So we did support that. And we also talked about the opportunity zones, which I attended the work session, so I'll talk about those in a minute. There's new census tracts that are gonna be considered. We also were talking about the new green workforce and community benefits, and we were talking about research updates and policy discussions, and with a particular focus on workforce and community support. Interesting to note that Bay Area manufacturing sectors employ over 300,000 people, and a little under half of those do not require four-year degrees. Wages tend to be from $18.70 per hour all the way up to $62.40. So clean energy manufacturing is a new industry. Those wages have not yet been averaged in Department of Labor numbers, but the study interviewed over 30 firms in California. and they were finding out that the technician jobs typically don't require college degrees, and they're starting at mid-20s per hour with comprehensive benefits. Specialized tech positions are in the 40s, so while they do fall well below wage and benefits of unionized refinery jobs, they're still an option, especially here for Oakley, where we don't have jobs like that. I DID ATTEND TWO OF THE OPPORTUNITY ZONE WEBINARS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT ON BY THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE. IT IS GOOD INFORMATION FOR THE NEXT ROUND OF OPPORTUNITY ZONE IDENTIFICATION AREAS, SPECIFICALLY LOOKING AT INDUSTRIAL OPTIONS, BUT IT DOES SOUND LIKE THEY'VE TIGHTENED RESTRICTIONS SO I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'LL BE ELIGIBLE. That was good to hear about. And last but not least, the Memorial Day Remembrance Service. Beautiful recognition of our service members and their families who all gave the ultimate sacrifice. So thank you, staff, for that. It was a good one.

And since our last meeting, I attended the staff appreciation lunch at the rec center on the 15th, also a movie in the park on the 15th. I had the honor of opening the Special Olympics on the 16th at Freedom High School where over 600 competitors were there on our school grounds. on the 19th iron house sanitation district meeting they approved their 218 proposal on rates and then staff did an amazing job on the memorial day ceremony on the 23rd that completes my report future agenda items any future agenda items tonight Seeing none, eight work sessions. There's none. Closed session, 9.1, refer with legal counsel on existing litigation pursuant to government code 54956.9D1. We have six cases we'll be reviewing tonight. and with that uh prior to adjourning uh i want to say uh lieutenant cartwright thank you for your service and the city appreciates everything you've done for us and with that we'll adjourn the meeting