City Council - Regular Meeting

Thank you. do Thank you.

30 seconds.

To have a roll call vote, please.

Vice Mayor Reed.

Here.

Council Member Pratton.

Here.

Council Member Sandu. Here. Council Member Farmer. Mayor Rodriguez. Here.

If you can all join me for a silent prayer and the flag salute. Okay, Madam Clerk, can you read the replay statement?

This meeting of the Galt City Council is recorded with closed captioning. The recording will be cablecast on Metro Cable Channel 14, the local government affairs channel on the Comcast and DirecTV U-verse cable systems. The recording will also be video streamed at metro14live.saccounty.gov. Today's meeting replaced Friday, July 24th at 9 a.m. and Saturday, July 25th at 9 a.m. on Metro Cable Channel 14. Once posted, the recording of this meeting can be viewed on demand at youtube.com forward slash Metro Cable 14.

Thank you. Agenda item B, agenda approval additions and or deletions. Council, anything?

No. No.

Okay, and it doesn't look like there's any presentations. Can we have the public comment read?

Under Government Code Section 54954.3, members of the public may address the City Council on non-agenda items within the subject matter jurisdiction. The public comment section is for the City Council to receive comments, except for brief responses to questions. No discussion or action may be taken on any item that is not listed on the agenda. Please limit comments to a maximum of five minutes. Consistent with the city council procedural guidelines, the mayor reserves the right to shorten the time limit for speakers to ensure the efficient and timely completion of all city business on the agenda.

Do we have any public comment?

Belinda Ellis.

Thank you. I'm Belinda Ellis, and I run the Galt Cemetery, and I am here to share with you what I'm going to be doing because I know you will get phone calls because they think you all run the cemetery. So unfortunately, we are having to close our gates. We will no longer be open 24 hours a day for walk-in. We're going to be closing. Our gates will be open from dawn until dusk, due to the fact we've had a great deal of vandalism in the cemetery. So it is, it was in agreement or talking with our security patrols who are in the cemetery on a regular basis, so the ones who suggested it. The police department has been amazing. They've talked to the people who've had the vandalism stuff on their graves. We don't have anything, there's really nothing else we can do about it. But I want you to know because I know you'll get phone calls. I'm also gonna let the paper know and I'm gonna make sure we do it in our social media and change all of our signage. So we have a no trespass order on the cemetery. I am sure this too shall pass once the, once the people who have been laid to rest whose graves are targeted, once they are forgotten a little bit by not their family but by others, then it will stop. But for right now, I think it's still very raw to their friends and to maybe their enemies that they feel that they have to do this. So it's going to be ugly for a little bit. I feel I can handle it. Just if people call complaining about me, just tell them I'm nice, okay? So thank you, that was all. I just wanted to let you be aware that this will be starting October 1st.

Thank you. Any other speaker cards? No. Do we have any online comments?

No.

Okay. Reports by City Council members on regional boards, commissions, and committees. Mr. Vice Mayor.

I don't have anything.

Council Member Pratton.

Yes, I did attend the CGA meeting, Consumings Groundwater Authority meeting, on the 1st of this month. Not a whole lot to report out on the particular meeting. I do want to just make you aware that when we get to that item three that's coming up that's part of the CGA thing, I will be, if you will just ask for a motion, I'll make a motion. Obviously, we can still discuss it or whatever, but Fritz has done just such a great job on putting this together and making it work that I think we need to just move forward on it as quickly as possible. I have a bunch of other things that I've seen and done, but I'll wait and do all those at the end.

Okay. Council Member Sandhu.

Thank you.

And I don't have anything to report on either. Most of my things are on a summer hiatus, thank goodness, because it's hot. All right, we'll go ahead and move on to the consent calendar. It's recommended that items one through 11 be acted on simultaneously unless a separate discussion and or action is requested by a council member. I'll go ahead and read the subject matters. Number one, receive and file warrants for period ending July 13th, 2026. Two, minutes of the regular meeting of June 16th, 2026. THREE, AMENDMENT TO THE DEPARTMENT HEAD EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT REGARDING THE TIMING OF FINAL PAYMENT OF RECRUIT LEAVE BALANCES. NUMBER FOUR, AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE OLD TOWN WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT AND AWARD OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION SERVICES. NUMBER FIVE, CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC BENEFIT FUNDS, COUNCIL Number six, award of contract for street light maintenance and repair services. Number seven, fiscal year 2025 to 2026 year end budget adjustments and fiscal year 2026-27 budget amendments. for the solid waste fund and community facilities district 2020-1 fund. Number eight, notice of intent to levy Galt delinquent utilities, Galt delinquent citations in fiscal year 2026-27. NUMBER NINE, AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH GHD, INC., AND APPROPRIATE $140,626 FROM THE CITYWIDE IMPACT FEE FUND, FUND 011, FOR THE UPDATE TO BE update to the vehicle miles traveled citywide model. Number 10, enterprise resource planning amendment. Number 10, intend to renew GALT's cooperation agreement with the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency for administration of the city's community development block grant activities. Would anyone, does anyone want to pull anything? For discussion or anything?

Yeah, Mr. Mayor, I don't like to poll, but I like to F8. If Layla Manor can be a little bit to explain about that agenda item. And there is a 67 unpaid citation. What kind of citations are?

These are just outstanding utility billing and code violation citations. So that's what those are.

The utility billing code citation, can you be a little bit brief on code citation?

It's to reimburse the city for services provided to the community.

Under what kind of services? in the police department or in what kind of?

Councilman Santu, I might have additional information that Lila's providing. Basically, we do recoup our services through standard budgeting processes, but I believe these delinquencies are the result of unpaid citations. So when code enforcement IT GOES OUT TO A PROPERTY AND ISSUES A CITATION. THERE'S AN EXPECTATION OF PAYMENT. IF OVER TIME THEY DON'T PAY, WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY. AND THE CODE VIOLATIONS WILL VARY ON WHAT THEY ARE AND I DON'T HAVE

All right, I thank you for city manager. And these citation, when we going to put the levy, the citation is personal name and then property may be under trust or may be under more names, how you guys can do it, levy, how you guys, if there is any incident when you look them up, these parcel number, they are just only the same name, whatever the citation or is different? Madam, I would like to clear. For example, there is a citation on my name. And there is a property is under four names.

Right.

So are you guys clearing just... to penalize on that person or there is clarification or not?

It's my understanding that the citation and the levy will be on the property regardless of ownership. So if there's a renter on the property and there's a citation, the property owner and the levy goes to whoever is listed as the owner of that specific property.

So that's mean if the citation is the rental, and he's not paying the citation, then the levy can going to the owners? For example, there is a 60 unit apartment somebody, but we have some, so that's mean that going to us, we are not doing anything. on the citation the person is doing wrong? Are we doing anything or no?

Yeah, no, that's correct. Essentially, property owners are notified of an infraction, so it's typically, we usually go out, so the way the process will usually work is code enforcement will go and make contact with who's ever living at the residence and give them an opportunity to repair the violation in a period of time. Then they are given formal notice to repair in a certain period of time. If they do not meet that, they then start getting the administrative fines on a regular basis. So typically, like I haven't seen that like in a multifamily complex, you usually see like a single family home that's being a renter and you would have like a you know, an offsite property owner, but generally there's no mechanism to, you know, basically levy the renter. It goes to the property and then the hope is the property owner works with the renter to correct the infraction.

Thank you, Chris. And I just wanted to make sure I will be, if somebody ask me question, there was a couple of public question. I just want to make, I agree with the process. That's the same thing we're doing before. And just for the clarification. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Okay, and I just wanted just to mention, I just wanted to thank Public Works for the opportunity Reports that were in there for item four. I really appreciate it I thought they were very thorough and the the full contract was there and so I really appreciated that so thank you Do we have any public comment cards for? No public comment. Do we have any online comments? Yes, okay, so I'll entertain a motion for the consent calendar moved all second Okay, moved by Vice Mayor Reid and seconded by Council Member Pratton. Roll call.

Vice Mayor Reid.

Aye.

Council Member Pratton.

Aye.

Council Member Sandu.

Aye.

Mayor Rodriguez. Aye.

Motion passes 4-0. All right, moving on to our scheduled matters in our public hearing. I think we'll turn this over to Mr. Buckman.

Thank you, Mayor Rodriguez and council members. I'm Fritz Buckman, your Director of Public Works. The next three items involve conducting a public hearing and considering approval of the city, oops, I'm sorry. That's the wrong one. Conducting a public hearing and considering approval of the engineer's reports and levying annual assessments for the city's landscape and lighting districts.

Move it on, on the side.

Can you click back into the PowerPoint?

It's right here. Here?

There we go, okay.

This map shows the city's three lighting landscape districts. The one in pink is the Westside Galt Lighting, Landscape, and Maintenance District, what I'll call Westside LLD. As you might expect, it's on the west side of town, primarily. The orange is the Northeast Landscape and Lighting District, which I'll call the Northeast LLD. As you might expect, it's on the northeast part of the city, primarily. And finally, the third and final district is the cleverly named Lighting and Landscape District number three, which is also on the west side of the city primarily. For the Westside LOD, the district includes 1,077 predominantly single-family residential parcels. There were no annexations, de-annexations, mergers, or subdivisions of the existing parcels during the past year. The assessments per parcel are fixed and have not changed since the district's inception in 1990. The assessment for a single-family residential parcel ranges from $36.62 to $221.80 per year, depending on which benefit zone the parcel lies within. Fiscal year 26-27 district expenses are projected to exceed revenues. The city's approved budget for 26-27 includes about a $415,000 Measure Q contribution to maintain current service levels. The Northeast LOD has just under 3,300 predominantly single-family residential parcels. There are also no annexations, de-annexations, mergers, or subdivision of existing parcels during the past year. Like the first LOD, the assessments per parcel are fixed and have not changed since the district's inception in 1990. The assessment for a single family residential parcel ranges from $51.70 to $301.85, depending on which benefit zone the parcel lies within. The fiscal year 26-27 district expenses are projected to exceed revenues. The fiscal year 26-27 city budget, approved city budget has a contribution of about $1.3 million to maintain current service levels. And finally, LLD number three includes 307 predominantly single-family residential parcels, no annexations, de-annexations, mergers, or subdivisions of existing parcels occurred during the past year with this district as well. The assessments can, in this case, be adjusted by the change in CPI or 1.5%, whichever is greater. The change in CPI this year was 2.9%, so this adjustment was applied for fiscal year 26-27. The proposed assessment for a single-family residential parcel is $439.42, which represents a $12.38 increase from last year's assessment. Fiscal year 26, 27 district expenses are projected to exceed revenues and the approved city budget includes a measure Q contribution of about $307,000 to maintain current service levels. This concludes my presentation. Staff's recommendation is to adopt resolutions as shown on this slide. I'd be happy to respond to any questions the council may have.

Thank you. Council, any questions?

I'll start. One, for the LLDs, for the services that are provided in those areas, do we handle those services directly by the city or are those contracted out?

THEY ARE HANDLED INTERNALLY THROUGH PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS AND I DON'T THINK THESE DISTRICTS FUND ANY OF THAT SMUD FOR THE STREET LIGHTS AND I BELIEVE THERE IS ONE OF THE DISTRICTS, LLD NUMBER THREE HAS A COMPONENT THAT GOES TO FIRE.

And then my next question was more of a concern than anything with the amount of money between those three LLDs that is being taken from Measure Q and supplementing the LLDs, right? I wasn't up here when we passed Measure Q, but it was my understanding that when we put it out to the people that the Measure Q money was supposed to go to Parks and Rec and not supplement half, because I mean, I'm not gonna add it up all, but that's like almost $2 million. out of the four million that we're getting from Measure Q. And so that only leaves less than half to actually go where the people wanted it to go in Parks and Rec. And that's it.

I guess the question was originally before Measure Q was Parks and Rec footing that bill originally?

Well, I would actually like to say something to answer Council Member Reid's question. The resolution that was adopted um as the counterpart when the ordinance was sent out to the voters for the measure it did not only include parks and rec it included landscape lighting maintenance services and i remember that specifically because there was quite a bit of discussion on the council about that and it was actually both so the the intent of the resolution that was passed when the when the measure went out to the voters the voters were given the resolution and it was specifically told the council had specifically passed a resolution saying if you pass it, these are the two priorities. So that is consistent with it, the resolution. Now the amounts are obviously up to any council's discretion, but in terms of what the intent was, parks and rec and landscaping.

I mean, another concern I have is the amount that these It's going to cost. The cost is just going to keep going up and keep going up. And I don't know if it's going to if Measure Q incomes are going to match that. And so my worry is that more and more money is going to start going to the LLDs and less and less money is going to be going to Parks and Rec.

you touched on basically a greater issue within the city and not just the LLDs. I mean, you have areas of the city that actually pay no lighting and landscape district or community facility district fee to help do landscaping and lighting issues within those districts. or non districts, at some point, and I think we've been talking about it for a long time, that the city does need to consider consolidating and going to the voters for a community facility district that covers the cities, those white areas, in addition to these lighting and landscape districts. It's very difficult to get that approved through the voters. Basically, they're voting to increase their taxes to do that, but it is a problem in the city, not just with the LLPs.

I know you had a number of how many homes were covered under each of those LLDs. Do we happen to know how many homes in Galt are not paying into an LLD? I know we have our new CFDs for the new houses and those kind of things, but I mean, I know you probably don't have it off the top of your head, but at some point it would be curious to see what those numbers actually look like.

How many houses are not paying into an LLD or a CFD?

Yeah. Okay. Because if we needed to do a citywide, what does that actually look like?

We can get you that figure. It's the majority of the city is not included within an LOD or a CFD. Interesting. And if I could quickly clarify my answer to Vice Mayor Reid, too. Most of the streetlight maintenance is actually by contract, managed by Public Works, but it is a contract vendor that provides the bulk of that maintenance. And LOD number three does not have a fire component. That's through a CFD.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

So Mayor, now the question, I would like to clear that issue Council Member Reid bring that this was discussed in a previous council. And the reason I believe in, because I'm one person out of five, because there is much more greater number of houses can be affected. and I think nobody wants if the house is 30 year old, 20 year, and the new CFD is started not that many years. So this is a topic we need to discuss before, you know, city manager before they bring that issue to the council member, and council was not agree to put the property tax increase, all these, because there is maybe 80% houses, more than 80% houses can be affected. That's just clarification, maybe not 100%, that's why I understand. My other just clarification to the amount we increasing on the property, this from the engineering report, right? And that's we doing every year, right?

Could you repeat the last part of your sentence?

Yeah, I was asking you that amount we increasing each parcel, all these LLD, is we doing every year? This is not certain, is not just this year, right? Correct. The year before, that's the amount, right?

Two of the three are frozen, because they were pre-proposition 218 districts that don't have inflation adjustments built in. LLD number three is the newest, and it's got a predefined inflator built in based on the consumer price index, and that adjustment was 2.9% this year, and so that's how much we adjusted the rates.

Okay, thank you for the clarification.

Okay, Mr. Pratton?

I'll just comment that, you know, we have an election this year. We're going to have a new council at the end of the year. This is definitely a subject, I think. We need to visit early in the year, next year, with the new council.

Yeah.

March 2027. March?

You'd be invited anyway.

Okay, do we have any public, or we have to open a public hearing first, right? Okay, so, and I'm gonna open the public hearing for all three, correct?

Yes, all at the same time.

Okay, so for items G1, G2, and G3, we'll open a public hearing. Do we have any public comment? No public comment. Do we have any online comments? No. Would anyone like to speak on this? Okay, seeing no public comment, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing, and I will entertain a motion which I believe can include all three, if you want.

I'll do a motion to approve all three, which is, as they're written, G1, 2, and 3. A motion to approve G1, 2, and 3.

I'll second that.

Okay, so we have moved by Vice Mayor Reed and seconded by Council Member Pratton. We have a roll call.

Vice Mayor Reed.

Aye.

Council Member Pratton.

Aye.

Council Member Sandhu.

Aye.

Mayor Rodriguez.

Aye. Motion passes 4-0. Thank you, Mr. Buckman. All right. Item number G4, approval of the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan Update and Water Shortage Contingency Plan. Mr. Buckman.

Thank you again, Mayor Rodriguez and council members. Again, Fritz Buckman, your Director of Public Works. This item involves conducting a public hearing and considering approval of the city's 2025 Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency Plan. At this point, I'd like to turn over the presentation to Kristin Linhart with EKI Environmental Water, who will provide a brief presentation on the plan.

Does this work? Okay, good evening. I'm Kristen Lindhart, a hydrogeologist with EKI Environment and Water. The city brought us on board to prepare the city's 2025 Urban Water Management Plan and Water Storage Contingency Plan. The California Urban Water Management Planning Act requires water suppliers who provide at least 3,000 acre feet of water annually or serve over 3,000 connections to prepare an urban water management plan every five years. Here in the city of Galt, we have over 7,900 water service connections and we provide over 4,500 acre feet of water on an annual basis. The urban water management plan is an assessment of the reliability of water sources over a 20 year horizon. Our 2025 plan has been extended to 25 years through 2050 to be useful through the next five years of water supply assessments. Here you can find an outline of the plan itself with our water shortage contingency plan being section eight within the urban water management plan. We will be discussing some section highlights in the presentation. However, the lay description of this plan is a great place for a full overview. This slide shows our actual 2025 total water use demand on the left and our projected demand from 2025 through 2050 on the right. We forecast a steady increase in demand starting with our 2025 deliveries of approximately 4,529 acre feet to approximately 6,646 acre feet by 2050. In 2025, the single family residential sector made up about 58% of the city's water demand, and by 2050, we expect that to increase up to 60%. The water demand projections for the single family residential, multi-family residential and commercial sectors where the city expects to see growth were calculated by applying the sector specific water demand factors to the projected number of accounts in those sectors. The water demand projections for the remaining sectors where no growth is expected were estimated using the average of the historical water demand for those sectors over the past five years. This graph again shows the 2025 actual water deliveries on the left and has five year increments all the way up to 2050. Each color represents one of our water supplies. Blue is groundwater from the Cosumnes Subbasin and purple is your recycled water from the city's wastewater treatment plant. Groundwater supply is assumed to be equal to demand and the recycled water supply is limited to the maximum internal wastewater treatment plant demand over the past five years. The city of Galt relies solely on water from groundwater. Historically, the groundwater supplies available to the city from the underlying Cosumnes Subbasin have always been sufficient to meet the city's demands, and city wells have not dewatered, even during historical drought periods. The city's projected groundwater demands have been incorporated into all of the modeling and water budget scenarios developed for the Cosumnes Sub-Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan. The modeling results do not indicate a shortage of water supply for the city in any year type and even in the extreme climate change scenarios. Therefore, it's appropriate to assume that the city's groundwater supply should be 100% reliable and equal to the projected potable demands under all conditions. We utilized EKI's drought response tool to develop the prescriptive requirements for the water shortage contingency plan and updated those to align with the current city's procedures and past drought experiences. The urban water management plan describes the city's demand management programs that contribute to a robust water supply. These programs include water waste prevention ordinances, water waste violations, advanced metering infrastructure, public education and outreach, and leak detection reports. So in summary, the city's plan meets all statuary requirements, demand is expected to increase as the city grows, efficient water use is ensured by the city's conservation programs, and water supplies are projected to meet needs through at least 2050. Groundwater supplies are sensitive to climate change fluctuations, but so far have been reliable in all year types. And the water shortage contingency plan lays out your procedures for responding to drought or emergency disruptions. I'm happy to take any questions.

Thank you. All right, Council, Vice Mayor Reid, do you have any questions? Council Member Pratton?

Yeah, I do. If you go back to slide four, current and projected system demand, one more. There you go. So 19% is other, I believe, right? Non-revenue water?

Mm-hmm.

Could you explain that one?

Yeah, so non-revenue water are your water losses, the water used for flushing your fire hydrants and things like that.

Does that include like watering in the parks?

No, that's usually under the landscape sector. Yeah.

Yeah, they're covering all the other stuff, so this just seems like a big other. Yeah, that's why I was trying to figure out what else is in there.

There's no purple on the landscape.

Oh, yeah. My question is, you mentioned something in the report, 157 parcels. How many parcels are in the city limit, and how many are in Sacramento County?

That's a great question. I do not have the answer to that.

And my other question is, what's the amount? Is $35 something partial we are expecting, right?

Yeah, I think you're talking about the sustainable groundwater management fee. Then that item comes later. This is the urban water management plan. This is related to groundwater also, but it's a different item.

Okay, so you want me to ask later? Okay, thank you.

I do have a quick question. On the current and projected water supply, was there a population number we used to say in 2050 we're anticipating to have X amount? Do you know what that number was?

Not off the top of my head. I can look it up really quickly. if you would like me to?

Maybe just if Mr. Beckman can get it to me. I'm just curious as to what, because I know that that number has changed dramatically throughout. I mean, we thought we were already going to be at 50,000 right now, and obviously we're not there. So I'm just curious what our new projection is.

Yeah, we took that into consideration that the expected increase hasn't been as large as expected in the past. So we did bring it down a little bit, too.

I KNOW THIS IS ABOUT THE CITY OF GAULT AND THAT'S ALL THAT WE CAN CONTROL. AS MUCH AS WE CAN CONTROL THAT. BUT WHAT IF SAY SOMEONE IN THE COUNTY JUST RIGHT NEXT DOOR WANTS TO PUT IN A BIG DATA CENTER OR SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T HAVE ACCESS TO MAYBE TREATED WATER SO THEY HAVE TO ACTUALLY GET WATER FROM THE GROUND. right now you're saying our aquifer or whatever we're tapping into is at 100% where we shouldn't have anything unless something egregious happens. As a data center, is that something that could actually cause us some concern?

It's always a possibility. But in relation to the Cosumnes sub-basin, you all are in a very good position where the water levels are much higher than other areas.

Any new development like that that's not in current land use plans would have to deal with the groundwater sustainability agencies involved. And if it compromised the plan, they might have to mitigate for that somehow.

And I think one of the good things that our public works people have done is the wells now, right? In the past, the wells have been, and correct me if I'm wrong, 800 feet. And our public works has done, has went above and beyond. And our newest wells are down to 1600 feet now, which is double what almost everyone else is. So, you know, and there's a lot of reasons for that, but it's them looking forward into the future and making sure that we do have access to that water at those depths.

And higher quality water.

Yeah. Kind of to your question, so the CGA, Consumers Groundwater Authority, right, that is kind of what they're working on is to try to determine what happens if somebody over there taps into the water, right? I mean, they don't fully understand and know yet. how amador affects scalt right that's that's what they're working on in that program so being new to that i'm learning some of those things and it fascinates me that we don't have more information on that you know because i'm on air quality they know a lot of things the groundwater which is just as important there's a lot they don't know yet so those are the right questions and those are the questions they're asking and trying to um monitor and track what's going on throughout the basin in order to understand better those questions.

Thank you. Yeah to answer your population question so for 2025 we had a population of 26,000 and we used a 1.5 percent annual growth rate which ends up around 37,800 in 2050.

37,000 interesting Nowhere near our 50.

I mean we were supposed to be at 50 right now Thank you, I appreciate Mayor Rodriguez-Barton any further questions by the councilmember we recommend that conducting a public hearing and considering adoption of resolutions approving the 2025 urban water management plan and water shortage contingency plan and

Thank you. Okay, if there's no further questions for council, I'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Are there any comment cards? No. Do we have any comments online?

No.

Anyone wanna speak? All right. Seeing no comments, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing. And I will, can we, oh, it is all just one. I'll entertain a motion on this topic.

I'll move to approve G4 as posted on our agenda.

Okay, moved by Council Member Pratton.

Second.

Seconded by Vice Mayor Reed.

Roll call, please. Vice Mayor Reid?

Aye.

Council Member Pratton?

Aye.

Council Member Sandhu?

Aye.

Mayor Rodriguez? Aye.

Motion passes 4-0. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, we'll go on to our regular calendar. Item H1, November 3rd, 2026 ballot measure to change the city treasurer and city clerk position from elected to appointed. Ms. Mendez.

Good evening, Mayor and members of City Council. Amy Mendez, Assistant City Manager. The item before you this evening is a request to place a measure before the voters on the November 2026 ballot asking whether the City Treasurer and the City Clerk positions should transition from elected offices to appointed positions. Before discussing the recommendation, I'd like to emphasize that this proposal is not about the individuals that are currently serving in these positions. Both the city treasurer and city clerk were elected by the voters in 2024 and continue to serve their elected terms. This discussion is about the governance structure of these offices and determining the best model for the city moving forward. At its core, this recommendation is about good governance. State law requires every general law city to have both a city treasurer and a city clerk. California law also gives voters the option of deciding whether those positions should be filled through an election or through an appointed process. If approved by the voters, this change would not take effect until the expiration of the current terms in November 2028, or if either office becomes vacant before then. The city has considered this question before. Ballot measures regarding an appointed city clerk were presented to Galt voters in both 2014 and 2018. In 2018, the measures received just under 50% support. Since that time, however, the professional, technical, legal, and financial responsibilities of both the city clerk and city treasurer have continued to expand, making this an appropriate time to revisit this question. One of the most important points to understand is that these are not policymaking positions. Unlike the city council, these offices do not establish city policy. They are highly technical administrative positions responsible for carrying out many of the legal, financial, election and public accountability functions that keep local government operating effectively. The city treasurer is responsible for safeguarding and overseeing more than $168 million in public funds. That includes managing investments, monitoring cash flow, overseeing debt obligations, and ensuring the city's financial activities comply with state and federal requirements. These responsibilities require sound financial judgment and specialized knowledge of municipal finance and investment policies. Likewise, the city clerk serves as the city's official records officer, legislative administrator. The clerk administers municipal elections, ensures compliance with the Brown Act and Public Records Act, maintains the city's official records, and supports the legislative process for the city council. These duties are critical to managing public trust and legal compliance. Over the years, both positions have become increasingly technical. Municipal finance has become more sophisticated, election laws continue to evolve, transparency requirements have expanded, and public agencies face growing legal and regulatory obligations. These responsibilities now demand specialized education, professional training, and practical experience. Yet under the current elected model, the only qualifications required by state law are that an individual be at least 18 years old, reside within the city, and be a registered voter. There is no requirement for financial expertise, election administration experience, records management, training in public administration, or any professional certification related to the duties of the office. The recommendation before you recognizes that the importance of these offices warrant a professional selection process. An appointed model would allow the city to establish minimum qualifications, recruit from a broader pool of candidates, evaluate education, certifications, and experience, conduct performance evaluations, provide ongoing administrative oversight, and ensure continuity within these critical functions. It also provides greater accountability by allowing the city to address performance issues if they arise, helping reduce legal, financial, and operational risks. It's also important to recognize that this recommendation reflects the approach already taken by most California cities. More than 75% of California cities appoint their city clerks and more than 80% appoint their city treasurers. Galt is now among a relatively small number of cities that continue to elect these professional administrative positions. Finally, I want to address what is often the biggest question associated with proposals like this, which is accountability. This proposal does not reduce public accountability. In fact, it changes how accountability is achieved. First, the voters decide whether this governance change should occur at all. Second, voters continue to elect the city council. which remains directly accountable to the community. If approved, the city council would establish qualifications, conduct appointments in a public and transparent manner, evaluate performance, and ensure that qualified professionals are serving in these positions. That creates an ongoing accountability framework that simply does not exist under the current elected model, where there is no ability to require professional qualifications before taking office. Ultimately, this recommendation is about aligning professional qualifications with professional responsibilities. These offices are essential to protecting public funds, administering elections, maintaining transparency, preserving official records, and ensuring legal compliance. As municipal government has become increasingly complex, many California cities have recognized that these positions are best filled based on demonstrated competence rather than an outcome of an election. Tonight's recommendation does not make that decision for the voters. It simply asks the city council to allow the community to decide whether Galt should adopt the same governance model that has become the standard throughout California. For those reasons, staff recommends that the city council adopt the resolution placing this measure before the voters at the November 2026 general municipal election. I'd be happy to answer any questions if there are any, my council or the mayor.

Thank you, Ms. Mendez. Council, Vice Mayor Reed, any comments, questions?

Just a comment. When she said that's the way a lot of cities are going nowadays, I looked up on the Sacramento County website to see how all the rest of the cities in the county fare in that. And so what we have is the city of Citrus Heights appoints both of those positions. So does the city of Elk Grove. So does the city of Folsom. And then there's us. The city of Eyalton, however, still has them elected, both of them. And then the city of Rancho Cordova and the city of Sacramento all have those appointed. And then I always like to compare us between Elk Grove and Lodi because those are the two closest cities, so I had to go look at Lodi. And both of those positions in the city of Lodi are also appointed and not elected. And that's all.

Mr. Patton.

That's good information. I would say I probably voted against this the last time because I wasn't really educated on it. Learning more about it and understanding how it works, I definitely am in favor of going forward with this. If we approve this, I believe somebody on council can be in favor of the education piece of it. And I don't know if we would just do a thumbs up to appoint somebody for that or? Put somebody in charge of that? Because I know that we can only educate on that, right? Right, right. We can't.

I think the council members individually have the ability to educate. I don't know if an appointment of anyone to be the mouthpiece is necessary. You all have the ability, as you said, to educate, not advocate. So...

Frank, I believe that Council Member Pratton is asking for one of the Council Members to draft an argument in favor of the measure to be placed in the ballot pamphlet, the voter pamphlet.

That'd be a good way to do it. And I'm suggesting that be Council Member Farmer, who's not here. I didn't call him on this, but I just felt he's really, really good at that. You know, we have other folks up here that are good at it. I'm not real good at that kind of stuff. So I know we have others.

Yeah, the current resolution under the Elections Code, you have the ability as a council to delegate one of your own to prepare an argument. and sign it, there's pros and cons to that. One may argue that that's good, it's council's endorsement, but I think approving this to go to the ballot is also council's endorsement. Sometimes it's helpful for the voters to see people in the community that, I mean, the theory is if it's coming from the council, there's at least some desire to move this forward anyways, so, It's the council's decision, but there are, we didn't do it for Measure Q, for example. We let the community write those arguments. But it's a policy decision. Mr. City Manager looks like he's dying to say something. Do you need to add?

Well, we did have this discussion. Chris and I talked about this a bit, and I You know, I'm sure the consultants would probably tell us that's probably not the best way to do it, but I just, I support it because I support having somebody on council do this because Because Council Member Farmer is so good at it, that's all. And, you know, I just think the community.

I guess we should find out how he feels about it.

I agree. I agree. I agree, but this is my only opportunity.

This is my only opportunity to discuss it, so I have to say it now. But I believe it should be leaving on the individual council. Maybe some council, they can advocate a different way. So this gender item is not in the public yet, because I just seen only last Thursday. So yes, in the future, I should be doing whatever Mayor Perron asking, but at this time, I should be, my opinion is leaving individual council members, thank you.

Well, we could readdress what you're talking about at a later council. We could bring it up as a future agenda item, correct?

The resolution that we're adopting, we're sending to the county now, and that has to be part of it.

That we're going to have a council member, right?

Yes, it has to be delegated in the resolution that we're going to be forwarding to the registrar voters.

And it doesn't have to be a council member. I mean, I understand that it can be written by others or whatever.

Right, we just can't delegate, designate anyone other than council members. So that would have to come organically from members of the community.

Yeah. So we can't have our chief legal counsel do it for us?

I write the impartial analysis, which is dry as three-day-old toast. So I don't write any arguments.

Mr. Sando, did you have anything else?

Yeah, I have a few question and few comment on this agenda item. You know, this agenda item, first of all, I would like to thank you for the staff, their report, their time, and analysis. And report show it was tried to do back in 2014 and 2018. There's two times it failed. The negative to this side is when anything we put on a measure, it fail, it cost money to the city. And our responsibility is very careful where we're using the money, hopefully it's worth it. Second thing I would like to wanna make sure clear the public This is the difference between elected official and there's your point of position. elected position is voice of the people. 26,000 population this town, their voice. And appointed position is not fully voice of the, and also depend upon who will be responsible to appoint it. And the other thing on the report, I'm agree there is a lot of city doing, but every city they have their own. It does not fit, that's not mean that it really fit in the one city, sometimes the other city does not fit that. And the other thing on the report is mentioned somewhere they said if the position is if the measure suggest the power should go to the city manager. And I respect all the city manager before, the current city manager and the future. But thing is, we will be very careful and I believing and I will clear from the attorney we are not making that decision tonight. And yes, I am agree. certain level to put this measure on the ballot because the last time it was almost 49 to 50%. and last eight year the changes, new generation come in, so I like to hear for their voice. That's the only reason I'm gonna say to just to measure this to the voter. But we should be very careful. If that measure passed for the appointment, these two positions belong to the public, and there is a direct connection with the public. I will make sure, very considering carefully, who will appoint that. And I like to, this is not maybe this time, but I like to, still I want to keep that voice with the people. If the council have the authority, my term going to expire, I think mayor going to expire, term two, Sean going to expire, in the next council should be that authority to the council. Then it's going back to the voters. And the other thing, last my question to the city attorney, what are we voting tonight? Tonight we just voting to only put that measure to in the voting, not we making any decision. Who will be appointed and what kind of decision.

We're just allowing the voters to decide whether they would make those offices appointed. We're voting to let the voters vote tonight, to put it simply.

Thank you, thank you. And that's kind of my comment and my clarification. I will support that tonight, put this measure to the order. And that's it, thank you.

did you have anything else? I have thought long and hard I too Mr. Pratt and voted no twice for this because I didn't understand and I think that if this needs to be successful the city's responsibility is that education piece tremendously because it does feel like to the average voter that we're taking a vote away from them however I have sat back and thought as a voter WHAT ON EARTH HAVE I DONE WITH WHAT ON EARTH HAVE I DONE WITH THE CITY CLERK? THE CITY CLERK? I MEAN, THE AVERAGE CITIZEN I MEAN, THE AVERAGE CITIZEN PROBABLY DOESN'T EVEN KNOW THAT PROBABLY DOESN'T EVEN KNOW THAT THERE'S A CITY CLERK OR WHAT THERE'S A CITY CLERK OR WHAT THEY DO. THEY DO. AND MY FEAR IS THAT SOMEONE AND MY FEAR IS THAT SOMEONE RUNS AGAINST SHAWN FERRELL, RUNS AGAINST SHAWN FERRELL, SOMEONE LIKE ME, AND GETS INTO SOMEONE LIKE ME, AND GETS INTO THAT POSITION AND NOW HOW MANY THAT POSITION AND NOW HOW MANY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS DOES HE You want that in my hands alone when I have four support people with me to make those decisions and a full staff professional staff to help me make decisions, great. But if I am that lone person making that decision, there's no more city the next day after I'm elected. And probably the same with the city clerk position. So now that I know how they enter workings, not saying that there aren't professional and qualified candidates out there. There could very well be an 18-year-old that could get out there and has the education and the know-how and could be wonderful. THE OTHER DRAWBACK OF AN ELECTED POSITION, I WAS JUST THINKING ABOUT THIS TODAY OR AS WE WERE SITTING UP HERE, WE GET LOTS OF OPPORTUNITIES TO GO AND LEARN HOW TO BE COUNCIL MEMBERS AND I KNOW THERE'S LOTS OF TRAINING AND EVERYTHING THE CITY CLERK HAS GONE THROUGH. I'M SURE THERE'S TRAINING PROVIDED FOR THE TREASURER THAT WE CAN SEND THEM TO. AS AN ELECTED VOLUNTEER, YOU CAN SAY NO. I'm not gonna go get that training, I'm just gonna wing it. That's pretty scary. That is pretty scary. So now knowing how pivotal these roles actually are. So again, I am in favor of putting this, giving the people a voice in this. I do agree with Mr. Sandhu that I do think that the positions, the appointments do need to stay under the city council because that is one way that the voters can still vote. and have an influence on those appointments. Anyway, that's enough for me. Sorry, I'll get off my soapbox.

All right, I'll make a motion to approve H1 as it's written.

And so do I need to add that piece, Mrs. Mendez, to?

Well, we have a motion. Let's see if there's a second.

Okay, I'll second that.

Okay, we have a motion on the floor from Vice Mayor Reed and a second by Council Member Pratton.

Did you want to modify the motion? Is that what you're looking at? It can be separate, is what you're saying. Yeah, well, let's... If we approve this.

Yeah, so, no, what I want to make sure is before we have a discussion that we had a second on the floor. So... Yeah, we could, if the question is can the resolution be modified to designate a council member to make the argument, it can be modified. And we can incorporate that into the motion.

Or do we want to separate those and leave this as the way that it is and then put that as a future agenda item?

What I'm saying is this needs to go to the council, this needs to go to the registrar as one packet. Because this is part of the resolution that is placing it on the ballot, and there are a bunch of things you need to check in that when you send it to the registrar, and this is one of them. Got it.

So, but can someone else, a third party, submit something?

Correct.

So...

Arguments are due, arguments I think are due August 10th. I wanna say it's in the resolution, is it August 10th? So yeah, anyone can submit an argument for or against by August 10th.

So we could pass this, what has moved and seconded. I mean, because it's in, I hear what you're saying and I would love to do it. The problem is he's not here.

Yeah. So I. We could do the motion and pass or fail and then if it passes we could recommend. I mean, we don't even really have to vote on that.

That could just be a... Well, what I don't want to do is... See, we're dealing with the registrar who's running this election for us, okay? They're the ones consolidating it. What I don't want to do is I don't want to make a complicated or contingent resolution, and they're going to be emailing Tina saying, what does this mean? And they may say, because they're going to be the bureaucrat at the end of this, and we have no say, they may say, you guys have to call a special meeting to clarify what the council's real intent was. So the problem is, whatever we send, I want it to be very clear, black and white, one way or the other. I understand what you're saying, and I think if we were running the election, we could totally do that. But we're going to be at the whim of the county registrar's office, and since they don't want any on them, they are going to be very meticulous with us.

So I don't want to put words in Mr. Sandu's mouth, but it sounded like you weren't 100% that the council should... endorse it basically is what this is. Yes. So if that's the case, I don't want to trap a council member into this that doesn't necessarily want that. But it does not prevent Mr. Farmer from putting one in himself.

I agree. So I'll back off.

Okay. Is that right, Frank?

Actually, I don't think the council members can unless they've been designated. Okay. by the council.

Well, but if he does it himself.

I understand what you're saying. I understand what you're saying, but council members can't do it unless they've been designated to do it because or else it could be viewed as, it's advocacy. This is the one carve out for advocacy, but it's because they're designated by the council at this meeting.

Can the designation be a separate motion?

It could be a separate motion It could be a separate motion Another thing I would like to make a comment because this is not a public result at this time I'm personally I will leave on the border and I'm not have no Advocacy any this time neck the appointed position or electric vision So I'm talking about this is not to the public yet, so I don't advocate any yes. I'm just going to vote tonight to put this measure on the wall and let public make a decision. That's the answer.

Without the influence of the council as a whole saying you need to vote yes, right? Yeah, that's fine. Yeah, so I...

I think we just go forward. Okay. Motion on the floor and... Okay.

Okay, we'll go ahead and do the roll call vote just for, so the motion, Mr. Sandu, is just to put it on the ballot.

And I want to make clear, and I know this is alluded to, but we've had enough instances where things were alleged to have been in hiding, but Council Member Sandu's comments made it clear. The ordinance, I want to make sure you all read, the ordinance that's going to go before the voters says the initial appointment will be done by the council. Future councils may, but don't have to, delegate that appointment power to the city manager. It just provides that in the ordinance, but it does not, require a future council to do that. Again, it's just there for flexibility should, for some reason, a future council want to. So I just want to make clear, if that language comes up, I don't want someone to be surprised that it's in the ordinance. It is, but it says that future council would have to designate or delegate that power to the city manager by future ordinance. So it's not even something they could do in a resolution or a motion. They would have to adopt an ordinance at two separate readings to delegate that power to city manager at a future time. So I just wanted that to be clear on the record. And if you already understood that, I apologize, but I wanted it to be very clear.

Thank you. Okay, roll call.

Vice Mayor Reed.

Aye.

Council Member Pratton.

Aye.

Council Member Sandu.

Aye.

Mayor Rodriguez. Aye. Motion passes 4-0.

All right. So now I'd like to move to make a designation of Council Member Farmer if he's. inclined to do it right and i don't know if i don't know if somebody else on the chair would i just think he's the right guy to do it that's all of all of us um and i knew that had to get done tonight so he's not here i'm gonna i'm gonna move to make designate for him to do that piece and uh if he's not interested that's fine if you guys want to vote against it or not even second the motion that's fine too But I agree with what you're saying, Mayor, that the education piece of this is critical. And I think Sean could be a strong piece of that. If he's interested.

Okay, so your motion is to appoint Sean to be the spokesperson basically for... To what's it called?

What's the... Prepare and submit an argument on behalf of the City Council.

Does it make Sean to do that? No.

So we have a first, do we have a second?

Second. Let's see what happens.

Okay, any other discussion?

Okay, roll call. Vice Mayor Reed? Aye. Council Member Pratton?

Aye.

Council Member Sandhu?

I be abstain.

Pardon me?

I will be abstain, no more. I will not say yes or no.

Oh, you're abstaining?

Yes.

Councilmember, I mean Mayor Rodriguez.

Drum roll.

Well that threw me, Mr. Sandu. Because I'm gonna say no. Okay. Because I don't want Mr. Sandu to feel like words are being put in his mouth to promote it. But so it passes to when then?

No, it fails because this is a resolution. Resolutions require a majority of the total membership of the council, which requires three votes. So it fails.

Sorry.

AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF COUNCILMEMBER SANDU'S COMMENTS, THE PERSON THAT WOULD BE SIGNING, ALTHOUGH IT WOULD BE COUNCILMEMBER FARMER'S NAME IN THIS SITUATION, IT WOULD BE ON BEHALF OF THE BODY. SO IF THERE ARE DESCENDING VIEWS ON THE COUNCIL, WHAT YOU JUST DID BY VOTING IT DOWN IS NOT INAPPROPRIATE IN VIEW OF TRYING TO SPEAK FOR EVERYONE. SO YOU COULD HAVE GONE EITHER WAY IS MY POINT. Yeah, it wasn't inappropriate.

Okay. Yeah, no, I think it's all fine and dandy, and I do agree with the council member that we really kind of got this one thrown on us a little bit.

Right.

But again, we can't discuss these things behind closed doors anyway, so.

Right, well, and I think if, If Council Member Farmer was here and heard his, you know, if he was like, yeah, I really, really want to do it, I probably would have been more inclined. That's fine. I mean, not that I think he's against it. I don't know how he feels, to be honest with you. I don't know either.

You just don't want to give it to him when he's not here. That's the best time.

Well, we should have done it because he wasn't here. That's what he gets.

I would like to just... touch on the campaign piece well the education piece as it relates to the outreach and the community education we do have a really robust plan there's a web page that's already been developed we are have been creating it we've got marketing material and um newsletter articles that have been drafted you know things that we will DO TO EDUCATE THE COMMUNITY THAT WASN'T DONE IN THE PREVIOUS BALLOT MEASURES. SO I THINK THAT'S THE KEY COMPONENT THAT WAS MISSING FROM THAT BACK IN 2014 AND 2018. AND SO THAT WILL, I THINK, REALLY BE BENEFICIAL ON BOTH THE CITY TREASURER AND THE CITY CLERK PIECE. SO WE HAVE THAT READY TO GO. THAT'S GOOD TO HEAR.

OKAY. MOVING ON. Resolution to City Council, City of Galt, California, approving side letter agreement. All right, Ms. Coby.

Good evening, Mayor and Council, Tricia Coby, Human Resources Director. Before you tonight is a resolution approving side letter agreements to both the current and previous Memorandum of Understanding with the Galt Police Officers Association. As a CalPERS contracting agency, the city is required to ensure that all compensation reported for pension purposes complies with state retirement laws and regulations. During a compliance review, CalPERS identified language in our MOU that required clarification to ensure it fully met reporting requirements. The issue is not the city's intent to provide compensation, but rather the language describing certain compensation items needed to be more specific to comply. To address this, the city and the GPOA have mutually agreed to sign letter agreements that clarify the language in both the current and previous MOUs. These clarifications ensure the agreements align with CalPERS requirements for reporting compensation. Approval of this resolution will protect the city from potential liability associated with pension reporting for two GPOA retirees and reduce the risk that eligible compensation could be excluded from a retired employee's pension calculation. These side letters do not create any new compensation or increase employee pay, They simply clarify language that was previously approved by the city council. There was an additional recommended change to section 5.6 of the 2527 side letter, which has been placed at the dais for your review, and copies are available in the back for the public. The change is not substantial, but required for compliance. Tonight, staff recommends that the Council adopt the resolution approving the side letter agreements to both the 2225 and 2527 GPOA Memorandum of Understanding. And I am available for any questions you may have. Thank you.

Council, any questions? Mr. Sandhu?

No, no question. Thank you. The report is already self-explanatory. Thank you.

Okay, do we have any public comment? No public comment. And online? No. Okay. All right, I'll entertain a motion.

Moved. Second.

Okay, moved by Vice Mayor, excuse me, Reed, and seconded by Council Member Sandhu. Roll call.

Vice Mayor Reed. Aye. Council Member Pratton.

Aye.

Council Member Sandhu.

Aye.

Mayor Rodriguez. Aye. Motion passes 4-0.

Public Works is on spotlight again, establishing sustainable groundwater management fees in the city of Galt. Mr. Buckman. Aye.

Thank you. Good evening again, Mayor Rodriguez and council members, Fritz Buchmann, your public works director. The item before you is to consider establishing sustainable groundwater management fees in the city of Galt. First, I'll provide some background. California's Sustainable Groundwater Management Act was enacted in 2014. It requires groundwater sustainability agencies, or GSAs, to develop groundwater sustainability plans, or GSPs, for each medium or high priority groundwater basin in the state. And I'm gonna apologize in advance for the use of acronyms, but it's just the nature of the beast here. GSPs are required to result in sustainable groundwater use within 20 years. Failure to reach sustainability will result in state intervention into local groundwater management. And that is going to involve mandatory groundwater extraction reporting and pretty exorbitant fees, and it's not a scenario we want, trust me. Galt overlies the medium priority Consumers Groundwater Sub-Basin and the City elected to be the GSA for its portion of the Sub-Basin. The City and six other GSAs in the Sub-Basin established the Consumers Groundwater Authority in November 2021 to jointly develop and implement a GSP. This slide shows the Cosumnes Subbasin with Sacramento County and City Galt and Galt Irrigation District kind of on the west side, Clay Water District, Slough House Resource Conservation District, and Omichumnee-Hartnell Water District in the center east to west, and Amador County Groundwater Management Authority on the east side. It's about 220,000 acres and about the total groundwater extraction each year in the subbasin is about 110,000 acre feet. So the CGA developed the consumer sub-basin GSP. The GSA has adopted this GSP and CGA submitted it to state DWR before the January 31-22 statutory deadline. The plan aims for sustainable groundwater use in the subbasin by 2042 through projects and management actions projected to reduce groundwater pumping by approximately 10,000 acre feet per year, which correlates to about 10% reduction in groundwater pumping over 20 years. DWR approved the GSP in October 2023. And SGMA requires ongoing groundwater monitoring, annual reports on groundwater use and basin conditions, and that GSPs are updated every five years. SGMA allows GSAs to charge fees to cover the cost of ongoing GSP administration under Water Code 10730. And to provide a uniform basis for these fees throughout the sub-basin, the CGA commissioned a fee study that it approved for use by the GSAs in 2024. It's about a 30-page study, and I'm gonna summarize in half a slide here, so bear with me. The initial revenue needs for annual GSP administration and CGA operating costs were estimated at $661,500 per year. Costs associated with state-mandated requirements, totaling about 170,000, were allocated equally to all direct groundwater-using parcels within the basin. resulting in an annual base charge of $39.59 per parcel per year. Public water systems were charged $5.98 per acre foot, extracted based on the total revenue need divided by the total groundwater extraction in the sub basin. And the total estimated revenue from public water systems is about $29,000 a year. The remaining revenue need of approximately 445,000 was allocated to approximately 44,500 acres of irrigated agriculture in the sub-basin, resulting in a fee of $10 per irrigated acre. So just like the bulk of the groundwater is used by ag, the bulk of the fee burden went to ag as well. The recommended fee program is consistent with the CGA fee study. Key program features include that fees may be adjusted each year based on the change in the consumer price index for the San Francisco Bay Area not to exceed 5%. Fees may be reduced if revenue needs for a given year are projected to be lower than what the maximum allowable fee would provide. and property owners may contest the fee charged to them by submitting an appeal form to the Public Works Department. If dissatisfied with the department's determination, property owners may appeal to the City Council. Other notable considerations regarding the proposed fee program, GSAs must choose to regulate de minimis groundwater extractors or domestic well owners in order to levy a fee on them. And the first resolution in your package accomplishes that. The GSA must hold at least one public meeting to provide information regarding the proposed fee, and tonight's council meeting is the second public meeting in which the fee's been discussed, with the first being a community workshop on July 1. GSA consideration of establishing the fee must be publicly noticed in accordance with Government Code Section 6066, and that has been done. The GSA is required to make available to the public data upon which the proposed fee is based at least 20 days in advance of considering the fee. And this information has been available on the city's website since July 8th, so well over 20 days. The fees will apply to 157 parcels with private wells in the city and 174.4 irrigated agricultural acres. The estimated 2627 revenue is just over $7,300. The private property fees will be collected through the county's annual property tax rule and three public properties will be hand-billed. The city's water utility is also subject to the fee, and the fee for 2627, it will be 26,000, roughly $500. This concludes my presentation. Staff's recommendation is to adopt resolutions as shown on this slide, and I'd be happy to respond to any questions the council may have.

Thank you, Mr. Buckman. Council, questions? Mr. Reid?

All right. Of the, I think it was 157 properties, how do we get three of them that are hand-billed and everybody else has to pay through their taxes?

They're publicly owned properties, so we can't collect them on the tax roll. Oh, all right. So we will bill them directly. Unfortunately, it's only three. So we're leasing to them or something? For example, one is a school district. They have some irrigated acres on the school property. It's one of the high schools. I can't remember which one. The other one is the Galt Cemetery District. They own two properties that we will hand bill for. But they're only paying. The school district has an irrigated ag component. The cemetery district parcels are only the base parcel charge of $35.59. So it's a pretty modest fee.

Mr. Pratton? I know you're coming to make a motion. No questions.

I'm ready to move this one on.

We thought this was about water. This is right up your alley.

Well, you can ask him more. He can answer anything. I'm telling you.

Mr. Sandu.

No, just, you know, the 150 that parcel there in the city. 157 parcels, yeah. How many in the city and how many in the county?

They are all within the city. This fee will only apply within the city.

So 157 parcels, they are in the city limit.

They are all within the city limit. 140 of those, just FYI, will only pay the base parcel fee. There's only irrigated agricultural acreage on 17 of the parcels.

And that fees we are proposing, I think $39 something, right?

$35.59 for the base parcel charge, and then an additional $10 per acre for irrigated agricultural acreage, and then the city water utility will pay about $26,500.

And the reason city doing, but we have to make the cost, right? That's why we're doing this one. I just want to make sure clear to the public, we are not making, city not making any profit on that.

Oh, no, no, no, this covers our cost to comply with state law.

Okay, and all the parcel, they have the same fee, $35, no matter how big parcel is, half acre, two acre, five acre?

That's correct, it's independent of parcel size. The only fee component that subject, that's affected by parcel size is the agricultural acreage fee.

Okay, and any parcel, they already have the water and sewer, city water and sewer, we are not doing that, right?

yeah the individual property owners that have city water do will not pay this fee directly they pay it indirectly by paying their water bill and the water utility will cover you know pay its fee right because i'm talking about they already paying in the city utility so they're not

paying through the property tax, except any parcel in this area, right?

That's correct. They're paying through their utility bill. The private well owners pay individually through the county tax roll.

All right, thank you. Thank you for the clarification. That's it, Madam.

Okay, sorry, Matt. I do have some questions. Then I'll release you. That $26,000 that the city's paying for their portion of it, where's that coming from and is that going to need to start coming out of our utility bill? Like does each home now need to pay an extra $5 every month or something?

No, no, it will be covered. There's sufficient funding through the rates, what they're generating already to cover the fee. In the grand scheme of things, it's a pretty modest contribution given the scale of the water utility.

Okay, and then just out of, so how are you, when you said that there's the 17, we moved out of the 157, the 17 that will pay per acre, or pay the, they'll pay the 35 plus $10 per acre. That's right. If it's just fallow, Do they still have to pay that $10 per acre?

No, we made an effort to try to determine through aerials and other means whether they're actively being irrigated. And you have to look at the properties. It's not cut and dry. It takes some judgment to make these calls in some cases. And looking at the properties at different times of the year. But in most cases, we could tell whether they had a well and whether it was actively irrigated based on whether it was green all year or not. What was a little more nuanced is when properties were partially irrigated. And in fact, probably our biggest ag property owner Mr. Kessler, we made some adjustments based on information he provided to us already, so we reduced his acreage based on information he provided to us. So it requires some judgment and some back and forth, and that's the reason we have the appeal process.

And all of the 157 have been contacted. They know that this or should know that this is all taking place.

Yes, they were all notified regarding the community workshop on July 1. And so by mail several weeks before the workshop. And then, of course, this hearing was noticed in the papers and went through all the normal noticing a public hearing goes through.

And when will this start showing up on their property tax bill?

We will submit it shortly. I'm assuming it gets adopted early next month to the Sacramento County Auditor Control Office for inclusion on next year's tax roll.

Okay, I think that's all I've got. All right, Mr. Pratt.

All right. I'd like to make a motion to approve H3.

Actually, I'm sorry, I've got to stop you. Do we have any public comment?

I'm sorry, yes. H3 as posted in the agenda.

Okay, so we have, it's been confirmed we don't have any public comment. So we have a motion on the floor. Second.

Okay, go ahead.

All right, it's been moved by Council Member Pratton and seconded by Vice Mayor Reed. Roll call, please. Vice Mayor Reed.

Aye. Council Member Pratton.

Aye.

Council Member Sandu.

Aye.

Mayor Rodriguez. Aye.

Motion passes 4-0. Excellent. All right.

Not that it would have changed my vote, but Mr. Buckman, how many people actually went to that meeting? I'll report that out on my... Oh, okay, never mind. Okay. I'll wait for him.

I don't want to steal his thunder, I'll do it.

All right, sorry, man.

Okay, any communication? Just a reminder, the August 4th City Council meeting is canceled due to National Night Out.

Okay.

City Clerk's Report. So the recommendation is to review and consider appointments to the Measure R Independent Citizens Oversight Committee. There are three vacancies with terms ending April, 2029. Galt Municipal Code Section 3.40.150 states no committee member may serve more than two consecutive three-year terms. Two applications were received from returning applicants, Marcia Mooney and Paul Harvey. If selected, it would be their final term. The remaining vacancy resulted from the completion of Glenis Nelson's two consecutive turns, making her ineligible. So the city is still advertising for that third vacancy.

So to reappoint, it will need city council vote.

not individual council members.

Okay, are there any questions? No. Okay, I will entertain a motion to appoint the two who have applied. Or do we need to take public comment on this?

Yes.

Okay, is there any public comment? No public comment. Anything online? No.

Okay.

All right, now I'll entertain a motion.

I will move that agenda item. I'll second.

Okay, moved by Council Member Sandhu and seconded by Council Member Pratton, roll call.

Vice Mayor Reed?

Aye.

Council Member Pratton?

Aye.

Council Member Sandhu?

Aye.

Mayor Rodriguez? Aye.

Motion passes 4-0. Just a quick question, and this might be a legal question. What happens if we don't, what happens if we can't find people for that oversight committee?

Well, as long as we have a quorum, it can continue to function as a body. The body doesn't dissolve if we have less than a quorum. Sorry, your city manager is distracting me.

Do you need to be excused?

No, I mean, as long as we have a quorum, we can continue to bring the committee out.

So with these two appointments, we'll have four?

Okay, just because I saw on one of the applications, she said often or several times they didn't have a quorum, so it just made me start thinking.

And if you don't have a quorum, they can't convene, and then if it becomes an issue, then the council may want to, if it has the ability under the Measure R sales tax ordinance, to reconsider how many people are part of the committee. Okay.

And you have to have that committee?

You have to have, I think a committee is contemplated as part of the Measure R ordinance. Okay. I'm not sure if it specifies how many people have to be on it, but I'm sure it does have the oversight committee as a requirement. So, and if you can't feel the quorum, then you just, there's really nothing you can do.

Okay.

Just curious.

Okay, moving on. Item K, comments by staff.

Parks and Rec Director Solis.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but July is Parks and Recreation Month. I just want to acknowledge that to you and go over a couple things we've done in July. One is our Independence Day celebration that we recently had. Our IDC Saturday market kicked off our events at 7 a.m., our 14th annual Officer Ton 5K, our IDC parade. Those are great tanks there. I'd also like to thank Councilman Sandhu. With his help, we're able to get these back every year. He provides rooms for the entire group. Our fireworks in the pool and our veterans viewing area. Here are some of the sponsors, again, Best Western, SMUD, Cal Waste, Top Tier Tree Care, NC Burns and Son were a big, vital part of this, getting that event together, along with our staff, Jackie, John, they did an incredible job, Public Works, PD, I mean, this was a team, you know, we did it as a team. We couldn't have done it without any of these other departments in there. I also want to acknowledge that we are now the 2026 NCLSL Motherload Conference champions. Our Gull Gators won that over the weekend. We held our championships here on site. Last minute change of venue to our location. Everything seemed to go great. Obviously, we won, and so it even made it better. And then some other events that we've had are Concerts on Sea and our Movies in the Park. Those are just some of the events that we had in July in Parks and Rec Month. So if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. If not, that's it.

I just love the video. That's why I know it's Parks Month, because of the video that Jackie did. I just love that our staff are becoming movie stars now all the time.

No further comments.

Okay.

All right, comments by city council, by city council members for future agenda items. Vice Mayor Reed.

All right.

So we'll start with the comments and then we'll go to the future agenda items.

First, I can't thank the staff enough because I know everybody was involved in the 4th of July thing. I got to go to the barbecue at the hotel and all of the different things that went on on that day. It was a very long day, but it was a very fun day. And I know that everybody was involved. So I want to say thank you. I got to ride around with Mr. Solis a little bit, putting up the flags, moving some stuff. So that was fun. The fireworks, once again, was great. I sit there at the end of every July 4th going, I don't know if it could be better. And then the next year it comes and it's better. So that's good. Thank you. THANK YOU FOR GETTING BACK TO ME THANK YOU FOR GETTING BACK TO ME AND WORKING THROUGH THE AND WORKING THROUGH THE MORINGO ROAD CONSTRUCTION. MORINGO ROAD CONSTRUCTION. THAT THE POLE IS GONE NOW. THAT THE POLE IS GONE NOW. THE ROAD IS GETTING FIXED AND THE ROAD IS GETTING FIXED AND THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER TOLD ME THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER TOLD ME THERE'S A CHANCE IT COULD BE THERE'S A CHANCE IT COULD BE DONE IN TIME FOR SCHOOL TO DONE IN TIME FOR SCHOOL TO OPEN IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS. OPEN IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS. SO THAT'S GREAT BECAUSE THAT SO THAT'S GREAT BECAUSE THAT AREA CAUSES A LOT OF TRAFFIC AREA CAUSES A LOT OF TRA So the first one is emergency services on the east side of the tracks. And there's a couple of aspects to that. One, I would like for this agenda item to include some data from the police and the fire department on how much this is restricting access to the east side for emergency services. A second part of that is an overview of a potential long-term solution. So this probably would fall into Public Works on what would it look like if we were to put a under-crossing or whatever that's called. What would that look like? How much would it cost? Things like that. And then the third aspect of that is asking the city manager or city staff to set up another meeting with the railroad to discuss stopping in the middle of our town and completely disrupting our way of life because they need to stop their train somewhere. I know Council Member Farmer had said that they had those meetings in the past and the train was going to try to stop more south of Galt or between Galt and Elk Grove, but it seems like there's an increasing amount of times now that the train is starting to stop back INSIDE OF TOWN. SO THAT'S THAT ONE AGENDA ITEM. AND THEN THE SECOND ONE COMES AFTER A CONVERSATION THAT I HAD WITH CAPTAIN SMALL ABOUT THE MENTAL HEALTH INDIVIDUALS THAT WE WERE GETTING FROM THE COUNTY THAT WERE RIDING WITH OUR POP OFFICERS. AND CAPTAIN SMALL INFORMED ME THAT THAT SOLUTION HAS BEEN BASICALLY CANCELLED BY THE COUNTY AND THOSE SERVICES ARE NO LONGER PROVIDED TO GALT THROUGH THE COUNTY. And so I was hoping that we could get a little understanding of how that went while it was here, how many interactions, how beneficial that was to our community. Number two, the replacement plan for that, because those needs are still there. What is being done? And he kind of gave me the answer to that, but I'd like it more for all the rest of the council members. And then the other aspect is any gaps that we see that could possibly be filled by the mobile integrated health unit that Consumers Fire has. Because they say that it's housed in Elk Grove, but they say that it is accessible to the city of Galt. So of those services, what can that mobile integrated health unit provide to our mental health needs here in the city of Galt? Those are my two future agenda items. And that's it.

So you just need a consensus, right? I mean, I support that.

Yeah, I don't have a problem with it, yeah. With both? Yes, with both, I'm sorry.

Okay, all right, Council Member Pratt.

I don't have any future agenda items at this time. A few events that I went to, 629 GHS had a meeting for their bond. They will be going to the voters for a new bond. No comment on the bond other than I did attend, and if anybody's got any questions, I'd be happy to discuss it with them. 7-1, the CGA meeting that I already talked about, and later in the evening, the new water fee workshop. Not a big attendance. There was probably three couples, four couples, and then about five individuals and myself. And it was well run. Education was good. I was a little surprised there wasn't more people there, because we did hear a bit of concern and folks getting worried about this. But it was a good presentation. It went off quick, and everybody that left there seemed like they were happy with the information. It wasn't like some of the other meetings where we received the pitchforks in the beginning. 7-3, the tank show. Thank you, Councilmember Sandu, for putting that on. That was awesome. 7-4, of course, the parade. Mr. Solis was awesome. Well attended. I heard some comments about attendance and such, and I felt that the attendance looked pretty good. I don't know if we have numbers or if you track that at all. But it just felt like because of the new route going out and around, there were folks were spread out just a little bit more, but I think if you looked at it all.

The information I'm getting is 4,300 people in the downtown area.

Okay, wow. On the 6th, I went to Walker Park. You forgot that one. Yeah, I did. And did the break ground there. That was very good. Definitely could tell it's an election year for Congressman Matsui. She spent some time there, but she always does a great job. Went to a Parks and Rec meeting on the 8th. I was the only one in the audience, so... It was quiet, but it was a fairly long meeting. They had a lot to talk about, and it was well done. 7-11, I went to the concert on C Street, so it was the first time I'd been able to get to one of the concerts. The music was great. They did a really good job. Everybody that was there seemed like they really enjoyed it. Staff looked like they did a great job putting it together and pulling it off. 717, so I went to the state of the county presentation in Elk Grove where Pat Hume spoke. It was a good presentation. Again, I'm not going to go into details. Anybody wants information, I'll be happy to talk to them about it. But Pat Hume does a great job of supporting us, and so I wanted to have some support there, and we did have a few other folks in attendance there. So, you know, the thing is National Night Out coming up. I will need a ride for that. Thank you. And hope everybody attends that. That's all I have.

Council Member Sandhu.

Thank you. There's a couple things. First of all, thank you for the staff, their hard work, all the staff doing the hard work and their reports especially give a very good report to the council to make a decision every council meeting. Thank you for the city manager. I also like to thank you, even there is no public comment today, but I like to thank you for the public. And there can be no future agenda item, but I'm just thinking maybe in future, and I will certainly discuss with the city manager before I bring that agenda, ask the city council to bring that agenda item. And I also attend a few things, couple of ribbon cutting ceremonies on the Walker Park, and the other ribbon cutting ceremony today before to come to the council. I know all the, they invited all the council, they have to come here, but I, On the behalf of all the council, I appreciate the business. There is a new restaurant on Twin City by Tractor Supply that Indian American. So these are good people. So when you get a chance, that's it. That's it tonight. Thank you.

Right. I also want to reiterate how wonderful the Independence Day parade and all of the everything that goes around it. I've only heard phenomenal things about it. People have been so excited. I actually had someone come and knock on my door. It was a neighbor. And she said, you're in charge of those things, right? You did a really good job. And I said, oh, thank you. No, I said, stay. Yeah, we have a great staff. It was a great event. Just everything around it. I also attended Walker Park. It's great to see that we're getting some attention from ELECTED WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE CAMPAIGNING MAYBE THEY NEED TO CAMPAIGN EVEN MORE AND THAT WOULD HELP US BUT IT'S GREAT THAT WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH THAT PARK. I KNOW THAT PARK HAS BEEN SLOW AND IN PHASES BUT IT'S GREAT TO SEE IT MOVING FORWARD JUST EVEN LITTLE BY LITTLE SO IT'S GREAT. I ALSO NEED A NATIONAL NIGHT OUT RIDE. OKAY. OTHER THAN THAT, JUST AGAIN WANT TO REITERATE MY GRATITUDE TO STAFF FOR ALL OF THEIR HARD WORK ESPECIALLY PUBLIC WORKS FOR THEIR REPORTS. I KNOW I KIND OF MISSED THE harped on that earlier but I really appreciate them they're very clear and concise and I really appreciate all of the staff reports and all that staff are doing I know we're under you know GALT is growing so we're doing a lot and there's a lot going on and staff has a lot on their plate so I really do appreciate all that has all the work that's being done with a smile on their face right so all right well with that no other comments we'll go ahead and close this meeting