City Council - Regular Meeting

The United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Here. Here. Here. Here.

Here.

All right, do we have any special presentations tonight? Or announcements? No, okay, I didn't think so. Just making sure. All right, we are going to move on to public comment. For those of you that have been attending regularly, slight change. We, in the past couple months, have turned this into a bit of a back and forth, and we are going to move away from that in the interest of... And so instead what we'll do is we'll proceed with public comment as normal, three minutes to speak on any item not on the agenda. We'll do our best to take notes and then when applicable, we'll try to address any questions and answer them during the council and staff comments, but it won't be so much of a back and forth. On that note, would anybody like to speak during public comment on any item not on the agenda?

And for first time commenters, I will be keeping track of your three minutes for you. I'll let you know when you have 30 seconds remaining and again when your time is up. Will we still have time to comment on the main agenda?

Absolutely, yeah, there will be a public comment period, same three minute rule on any item on the agenda itself. Yep, right up there. Thank you.

Hi, uh, Raven Stevens from Mount Shasta. I'm here today to try to get the, um, back on the agenda, a review of chapter 13.95, which is called the extraction and exportation of groundwater from the city of Mount Shasta. Um, the reason I'm asking is because it specifically allows for an exemption to be made for water bottling companies and, Not only is that antiquated, but it's just not a great idea. We need public comment and we need the city to do its due diligence and to allow for the city council to take comments from staff and to make proper decisions about what they want to do. Just a brief piece of history is that it was put in in the mid-1990s by people from Dannon, and they did that with the city and the county, and they put that line in that's on your sheet there for the exemption that you'll see, item C. Okay. And that's the piece that that I think needs to be removed. The problem with, with exemptions is that it makes the permitting become ministerial instead of discretionary. And a ministerial permit means you guys don't get to talk about it and discuss it. Whereas a discretionary permit allows there to be some information brought in about the times we're living in, whether we're in deep drought or not, um, those kinds of things. Um, so it doesn't mean that you can't have a water bottling company within the city limits. It just means that you guys get to make the decision and that's the important thing. So that's why I'm asking today. So thank you. And then I wanted to, I, the, um, the public works guy isn't here but I just wanted to say I've got an electric bike now and I'm riding and man there's a lot of gravel on the sides 30 seconds a lot of gravel on the sides of the road and not only that but there's blackberry bushes reaching out to grab your shins and it's not pleasant and to go around it then all of a sudden you're in traffic and stuff so I won't mention the potholes because I know you guys are always working on those. But the gravel, you know, is mostly off the road, but it's really on the sides and the curves. So thank you.

Thank you very much. And another public comment? All right.

Namaste, ate, and aloha. Aloha. Afa, I don't think we missed a city council in like a year or something, a year and a half almost, except for the very last one, which was Arreia's birthday. So I was not gonna come over here for three minutes and then go to Pipeline, so that's what we did. And it seems like a lot happened in a month, but the only thing that I can relatively tell you guys about is I went to the mayor of Huairica and spoke to her for about half an hour, and let her know about everything that's coming up with the tiny houses on wheels and the ordinance that's getting updated and planning commission and first and second reading and she's really excited about watching that process come along and then learn more about it as they get there. And so I know a weed is in the same position and so we're still very optimistic about that whole pathway and we're very grateful. Aria and Anastasia have a lot of really big swinging info to share. So that is it for me. Thank you, thank you, thank you for everything that you guys always do. Aloha.

Thank you.

Hi, Johanna for Manchester. I just have a quick request. I saw everyone getting ready for the 4th of July holiday on Pine Street. They were weed eating. one of the things they were re-eating was the California poppies. And, you know, we have like a beautification committee, and poppies are the California state flower, as you may or may not know, and they're these beautiful orange little flowers, and it's like free beautification, and at no cost, and the part that I saw, and I left messages for Public Works, but they just raised them all down flat, and there were these huge bushes of poppies, and so I would just ask if it's too late for this year, at least for future years, that we consider keeping them, because it's free beauty at no cost. And I'm not sure if it's illegal to pick or kill the California poppies. I'm not sure what the rules are on that. But anyway, I just thought it would look beautiful because it's right on Pine Street where they have the parade for 4th of July. So just add a little extra pop of color. Anyway, that's it. Thanks.

Thank you.

Hello. Good to see everybody again. Araya, half of Ohana Connect, Ohana Malama Lama. Just want to give you guys an update on all the things we're doing. We do have the official nonprofit. Also, our membership has been growing. We have about a dozen members now for Ohana Connect. Our mixers have been going well. We've had on average 25 to 30 attendees on every single mixer so far, which we think is great for a brand new organization. People are excited about it. So we had our first members only event about a week or so ago. That was really fun. It was hosted by one of our members. We did a fun little theme I came up with called Conscious Millionaire. We brainstormed how Us realizing our dreams and becoming successful in the things that we're doing has a ripple effect in the community. It's the same thing we always talk about, the ripple effect of how when we're successful, we can help our neighbors, we can help invest in other local businesses, other community members, and that money can circulate within the local economy and help everybody grow and create better opportunities for everyone. We also have our next mixers coming up this Thursday. Each one of our mixers is usually hosted by one of our members. This month's member is Ora Hava. She's very sweet, and she does a lot of animal communication, and we're excited to feature her and invite everybody to come join us on Thursday evening from 5 to 7 p.m. at Ori Home, which is the Indian restaurant over there on Chestnut. Okay? Thank you.

What?

Oh, also I got invited to speak at Rotary, so I'll be at Rotary on August 12th, giving a presentation.

Okay, thank you.

Hello, my name is Anastasia Sprout, and I want to tell you about an opportunity that's coming up. This is something that my organization, which is a non-profit called SOAR Global, PMA, is putting on with Ohana Connect, and it is a 14-week business planning class So a nod to our brothers and sisters at JEDI. We're just adding to the mix. This one is from dreams to reality. It's a way that I formed my business, and so I wanted to encourage others because it's really helpful. So if you know anyone who has a dream of a business but needs some loving and support along a 14-week class, it's going to be held at my home and office near the Mount Shasta High School. And it starts July 19th. It goes Sunday afternoons through August 18th. So it is a commitment, an hour and a half each week. It will be in person, up to 12 people, as well as online, up to 100. We're not expecting it to be massive, but... especially for, in my mind, vision for maybe some younger people who have never started a business before. The whole second part is all about the dollars and looking at cost of goods sold and kinds of things that I didn't learn in school. And then also for people who may have businesses, but they're looking at expanding or maybe even making a career change, wanting to do something new. So thank you so much. And anything I forgot?

I think that sounds perfect. It is very minimal investment, too.

Yeah, it's $44 for OHANA members and $88 for non-members, and membership is only $30. So doing the math, we really want everyone to be able to take it who wants to take it. And there's a book that you have to buy, but it's available free online. So, yeah, we want to get people in those businesses and get them started. Thanks. I have an offering. Offering.

Oh, it's on. I'm breaking the rules already and making this a back and forth. If you would like, I'd be more than willing to donate my time to one of those sessions to give CPA advice to anyone that would like it.

We would be delighted. Received. Thank you. We'll get with you in the calendar. Okay. Thanks so much.

Thank you. Any other public comment on any items not on the existing agenda? Going once. Okay. Awesome. Well, we will now bring it back for council and staff comments. Over here.

Over here.

Okay. How about some staff comments?

Okay. People that have been coming to council for a while are aware of the Loge Summit View Inn saga and the building permit for this hotel. I'm sorry, business license for this hotel is still under the Loge. They changed the name to Summit View Inn. Now they have The property has changed hands, but the same investors are behind each of these iterations. And they're trying to get a business license, which has been denied. Like the Loge and the Summit View Inn before, they were not paying their TOT taxes. We had to sue them twice to get back a considerable amount of money, including fines and fees. and attorneys fees and the loge finally went bankrupt leaving us with a lot of unpaid tot again fines fees change name summit view so this new entity was originally claiming that they don't owe any of this back tot or fines and that's not true found revenue and taxation state code says absolutely they are And so we denied them a business license and they've been trying to negotiate and say, well, we'll pay part of the TOT. And they've been saying that they're paying bits and pieces of this two weeks ago was $12,000 and change. And we still haven't received the funds. And they They wrote today to say there was $6,000 and change that they were also remitting. We haven't received it. It shows as pending. I don't know where that is, but bottom line is right now they don't have a business license. They're still operating. We issued a cease and desist in the beginning of June. They're still taking online reservations, Priceline, Trivago, all of them, and taking TOTs. which is essentially embezzlement of government funds. It's an ongoing challenge, just I wanted to make sure everybody knew about it and we're working on it, working on an injunction with the county that would allow us to close the place up with a cease and desist. They're supposed to be closed. They have a closed sign in there, but they are taking guests. So that's an ongoing issue. It just, it's beyond me. It's as if there's a belief that this won't catch up to them. Okay, the next bit is, I think as a city, and we would bring this as an item to council, with the former Crystal Geyser site and the orchard and the desire to use both of those, there seems to be willingness from Supervisor Valenzuela to support annexation of those two properties, and so we would like to get rolling on that and get that you know, done because it is a long process. Um, and then we don't have all the details, but, uh, we were contacted, uh, you know, by an entity. Um, we're gonna meet with them later in the week wanting to use the, uh, former Crystal Geyser site as a, um, uh, to build a data center. Um, so yeah i had the same reaction um so we'll hear them out but um i in unless there's some magical thing they do that other data centers don't i can't imagine it's this would be good for the community unless council has any questions on other issues oh one more thing for council person stack life Um, we need to get on the agenda, um, a desktop review for the geotech report for the ice rink. Okay.

Okay.

Question for you. Uh, would annexation of the property, um, give the city more or less control over, I have to assume more control over what happens there.

Uh, more control. Um, it's, it's, there's a couple of things. It's better for developers because the lot sizes are, um, smaller. Uh, you know, there's better return on investment. It gets us, uh, more leverage in control of the water supply, which we need, um, you know, one of their higher producing wells to round out water pressure in the city, especially as the West dries out. Um, and so it's, it's a, it becomes a bargaining chip and we have, have some leverage there. It's just, um, you know, and we have more say on, uh, what gets developed over there more directly. And, um, You know, I think ultimately if we have the sale for what happens on those two sites, we're going to get a better product. And frankly, I don't know if it stays in the county's hands. I'm not sure that anything would get developed.

Sounds good. Thank you. Any other? All good? All right. Any other staff comments, updates? Okay, moving on to item six, committee updates. We've got the Downtown Enhancement Advisory Committee, Library Tax Advisory Committee, Beautification Committee, and the Active Transportation Committee.

The DEAC met briefly and they kind of went over the list of ongoing projects and like, you know, Power Box Art, wanting to get that off the ground. uh, mountain runners, uh, um, and you know, the, the 4th of July celebration stuff. Um, uh, and, uh, the, uh, continued discussions about, um, uh, by October. Um, and you know, we're, we're banging off issues as we can. And again, very high functioning group.

Good to hear. And I know I've mentioned it before, but you never know who's watching that wasn't before. So we do have currently two vacancies on the beautification committee and one vacancy on the downtown enhancement advisory committee. So if you are interested in joining either of those illustrious groups, please inquire downtown at city hall. I'm sure they'd love to have you. All right. And by the way, Jeremy, a side note, whatever you did with the microphones tonight, sounding great. Moving on to item seven, the consent agenda. The city manager recommends approval of the following consent agenda items, all resolutions and ordinances on this agenda or added here too, shall be introduced or adopted as applicable by title only and the full reading thereof is hereby waived. A, approval of minutes, June 8th, 2026, regular city council meeting.

I move to approve consent agenda item A.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed or abstained? Okay, moving on to item eight, and this is on packet page 16, if you're following along. Public hearing for the mobile home rent stabilization ordinance. On February 23rd, 2026, the city council directed staff to draft a mobile home rent stabilization ordinance. We're now gonna hear from Kim.

Good evening, council members. Okay, so agenda item number eight. This was last before the council on February 23rd. The direction at the time was to develop an ordinance for rent control for the one singular mobile home park that's within the city limits. So in your staff report packet tonight is a first version draft of that ordinance. It was modeled after talking to the community residents and reviewing the other ordinances that other cities and counties within the state of California have done, looking at their best practices, what's worked for them, pouring through all of the invoices and documentation that we've received over the last few months and then putting together something that makes sense for Mount Shasta due to scale size of our town. It's not an ordinance that's overly in the weeds because we don't need to be overly in the weeds, but the idea is that it gets the point across and does enough to protect the residents at the Shasta Horizons Mobile Home Park. Also on your desks is an addendum To agenda item number eight, staff received an email this afternoon from Mr. Travassos, the park operator of Shasta Horizons. Mr. Travassos presented you in your emails a PowerPoint presentation about why a stabilization ordinance is not necessary. There's also a rental assistance flyer, a copy of a flyer that's been distributed to the residents. There are letters in here from existing residents, but more importantly, there is an attachment E of that packet, there's a statement called net change and recurring charges from Richard Travasse's. The assertion is that the rent increases have not exceeded 6.1%, but that math doesn't math with staff's version of math. So I took a look at the numbers. It looks like when you, When you add together all the line items in Excel file, it doesn't really look at duplicates or extenuating factors. In particular, on page 24 of this addendum, units 20, 22, and 30 are counted twice, which throws off the percent change. There's also at the end of the year in 2025, unit 41 was not occupied. So it showed zero rent, which also skews the numbers. So when you take those out or reprogram those numbers to show rent as of January 1st to rent on December 31st, the average then is 10.1%, not 6.1%. And if you look at page 25, Unit 20 was increased 16.5%, Unit 22 went up 35.8%, and Unit 30 went up 35.3%. So that's the math that staff came up with this afternoon based on those numbers that were provided to us. But all in all, in summary, based on the information that you have in your staff report packets, staff is recommending tonight that the city council adopt the mobile home rent stabilization ordinance first reading. And Todd and I are available if you have any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Kim. It looks like we got a question over here. Please.

Kim, would you be so kind as to go through and give us a little, just brief top line history of rent that includes utilities versus rent that doesn't include utilities and gets charged separately. So we are actually comparing apples to apples.

It is a puzzle, thank you.

Well, it's actually not that complicated. And I'm kind of stunned that just seems to be a certain level of gall that has an inherent assumption of stupidity on our behalf that we just won't catch this. Please tell me I'm wrong or help me understand. Sure.

There was a staff report that was prepared for the April 27th meeting. That staff report included all the numbers that I had available to me at the time. And the table essentially summarizes which months the base rate went up, which months the trash was pulled out of the rent so that it was charged separately. The bottom line is that Monthly cost is a summary of both rent and utilities. And between 2022 and today at present, different points along the way, trash would be taken out and itemized separately. Water would be taken out and itemized separately. But overall, the total cost of monthly out-of-pocket expenses for any particular space renter, those dollars went up inherently well beyond the 6.1% that the park owner is stipulating.

Over the three-year period, maybe I'm stupid, but it seemed to be pretty close to 40% over three years. It's a lot. It's a lot. If you take rent plus utilities, whether it's included or charged separately, add them up, they've gone up about 40%, 39%. That is correct. Okay.

Thank you. Please.

I think another important item to note is that this is like per unit. We can't increase by more than X percent because, you know, the argument could be, you know, at the very bottom, that's what he was going off of was the 6.1 in accumulation of everything. But I'm trying to read through the verbiage to make sure that it's per unit and not overall increase. It is per unit. Okay.

I read through this after you sent it out, and I just wanted to make sure I was catching it correctly. There is the vacancy control measure that you included here. Can you just walk us through that little bit of it? It was something like can't be raised more than past 90% of the highest one or something like that.

There is a control for vacancy. Yeah, there is.

Other questions over here? Anybody else?

Okay.

All right. Oh, please. No, go ahead.

Sorry, my brain's slowly catching up. So I agree there's a question coming that's going to start as a discussion, but it's not. I agree that this amount of increase is not okay. My worry is... what domino effect do we anticipate this happening? And how do we avoid becoming a regulatory system for businesses in town? And at what point do we say no versus yes? Is it a case by case? Have we thought that part through?

I suppose it's a good question that merits discussion amongst everybody this evening. It's a good starting point and a lead into the discussion that you're about to have. Okay.

Any other questions before we open it up to public comment? All right, at this point, I think we will open it up to public comments. So anybody who would like to speak for three minutes on this topic, please come forward, say your name and location and what you've got to say. Thank you.

My name is Corey McNulty, and I'm here on behalf of Shasta Horizon Mobile Home Park. I want to be very clear tonight. A rent stabilization ordinance for this park is not only unnecessary, It is a bad policy for the residents, it's a bad policy for the property, and a bad policy for long-term affordable housing in Mount Shasta. Let's look at the facts. The actual rent data shows that the park's rent increases have been moderate and responsible. Our latest increase was just at 3.8% CPI. Our average in-place space rent is $505. That is not runaway rent, that is not abuse, Those are very favorable numbers in a time when insurance, taxes, utilities, labor, materials, repairs, and operating costs have all gone up substantially. It is also very important that rent and utilities are not to be mixed together to create a larger number. Utilities are pass-through charges. That is, the park does not control those rates and we do not profit from them. Calculating utility increases or calling utility increases rent increases gives the public the wrong picture. Shasta Horizon is still one of the most affordable housing options in the area. The rent is far below comparable mobile home park rents throughout California and even below similar rural Northern California markets. So the issue before you should not be based on a motion or a single complaint. It should be based on the full picture. And the full picture includes the work that has already been done. Since ownership took over, the property has seen road improvements, amenity remodels, laundry room and bathroom renovations, infrastructure repairs, tree maintenance, general upkeep, and continued property improvements. There are more future plans for the park as well. Those improvements do not happen by accident. They require income. That income is what pays for maintenance. It pays for repairs. It pays for contractors. It pays for staff. It pays for emergency work. It pays for the long-term upkeep of the property. If the city limits income but does nothing to limit the rising cost, then eventually something has to give. We have also taken direct steps to help residents who truly need assistance. The park has offered reduced rent and has offered multi-year lease options for low-income tenants. That is direct targeted help. That is practical help. An ordinance eliminates these efforts. I respectfully ask the council not to punish a property that is already keeping rents below market, already investing in the community, and already working with residents who need help. For those reasons, I strongly urge the council to reject this ordinance. Thank you.

Thank you. Looks like a couple people coming up.

Hi, good evening. My name is Kim Lattice, and I just want to see everybody up here now because I was all the way in back. Okay. I recently became the community manager of Shasta Horizon Mobile Home Park, and I'm speaking on behalf of the management this evening. Because I am new to the community, I came into this with fresh eyes and no preconceived opinions. Over the past couple weeks, I've spent my time reviewing our records, talking to residents, and learning about the history of our community. And I'm referring to our Mobile Home Park community. And I'm trying to understand the concerns that have brought everyone here tonight. I appreciate this opportunity to speak, and I respectfully ask that before adopting an ordinance, that will permanently regulate the only mobile home park in the city limits, in the city of Mount Shasta, that you consider whether you have been provided with a complete picture. The staff report relies primarily on billing information provided by residents. Management was never asked to provide our financial records, explain our billing practices, or verify the information before the ordinance was prepared. As a result, we believe the report does not fully reflect the actual operation of our community. For example, it discusses the increase in total monthly charges while the proposed ordinance itself distinguishes base rent from utility pass-through charges. Those differences matter when you're evaluating rent increases. The report also does not mention that rents were reduced for many residents in 2023, nor does it reflect the voluntary assistance program ownership created to help qualifying low-income homeowners. Shasta Horizon only has 24 occupied spaces with approximately 16 residents who have continuously lived in the community since before 2022. The average space rent remains well below many comparable parks, and ownership has continued investing in the property while working to maintain affordability. So I would just simply ask two questions. First, before regulating the only mobile home park in the city, shouldn't the council review information from both residents and management? And second, if there are legitimate questions about how the data was compiled, would it not be prudent to postpone tonight's vote long enough to ensure your decision is based on complete and accurate information? Thank you very much for letting me speak.

Thank you.

Hi, Johanna . I'm not too familiar with this, but I just would like to caution everyone that since this is the only mobile home park and it's a very affordable option for everyone, I'd like to, I guess, echo what they were saying with we should be very careful about making this a permanent decision. Because it is an affordable option and it is possible it may impact this location that we currently have for affordable housing, which we're all looking for, but it may also impact the future of other mobile home parks who may want to open up shop here, including our tiny homes ordinances that we're looking at. I just think it's something you need to consider, and I absolutely agree that utilities, those are a pass through and should not be considered in base rent increases. Keep in mind, like for apartments, I'm not sure exactly, I think mobile homes are locally regulated, not by the state, but for apartments, there's an overall maximum 10% per year, which is a formula based on CPI, plus whatever percentage of that with a overall max of 10. So even if CPI is really high, you can't go over 10. But even at 6.1%, you know, that's not... That's not unreasonable. And then if you're including utilities in the 10.1%, and I don't know if there's any rounding in there, because on the PDF, they're whole numbers, not decimal. So I couldn't tell if it was how the rounding went. But anyway, I just think utilities should not be included in your assessment of this. And maybe... You, it would be good to consider waiting a little bit more since affordable housing is an important topic for our city. Anyway, those are my two cents. Thank you for your time listening to this. Thank you.

Thank you.

Rosalind, I don't live in a mobile home, but I have seen a jump from $35 a month, and that included trash, to over $120 now. And that is like minimal water. And I don't have a choice of who comes and gets my trash. I can't go to the dump and dump it myself because of our regulations. And so I think somewhat is looking at keeping our prices under control and making it affordable to pay for our water and sewer and trash here. So I think the city has a part to play with these huge jumps in cost. And you have to kind of look at yourself and say that we're not going to raise our rates over a percentage. It's been since, what, 2015, there's been a huge increase in the cost of living here. So please look at more of the deeper problem. that some of us that are on fixed incomes that raising the rates, you're going to start losing more than what 400 people have left this town that need to look at that part of it too. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello.

I'm Rebecca Fairless. I live at the Shasta Horizons Trailer Park. I kind of agree with what the management is saying about looking at the expenses for the improvements that they've made. I'd kind of like to see that myself. They keep telling us that the rent's going up because they're putting in all of these improvements, but I don't know what they are. Also, we got a notification in March that the utilities were all being raised again, and we're now paying $41 a month for trash disposal. So that's for the privilege of putting my one 13-gallon bag of trash in the dumpster every month, I'm paying $41. I don't know how that compares with the city of Mount Shasta. I don't live in town. I think the other thing that everybody needs to remember is, yeah, rent on apartments goes up 10%, Living in a mobile home park is more affordable, but we all own our homes and we all pay taxes and insurance on our homes. People who live in apartments don't have to do that. So just as a reminder. Thank you.

Thank you.

Raven Stevens, Mount Shasta. I live in Shadow Mountain Mobile Home Park, just south of the one you guys are discussing. And just for comparisons, we have paved roads, a pool, a clubhouse, laundry room. We pay 590 in base rent. We pay the city fee for sewer, which is 73. And our trash is not $41, it's $21.50. So I just wanted to give you guys a comparison. Thanks.

Thank you for that. Any other public comment out there before we bring it back for discussion? Okay, we'll bring it back for discussion now.

Oh, no, yep. Is it okay, Kim, do you want to respond to a couple of those comments? I mean, I think there are good arguments on both sides, but there are a couple things like... you know not having uh you know rent increases from uh the manager of the mobile home park and that we we had provided by um uh you know the manager of that park all of that

Right. So two things. Number one is back in November, December staff did get dollars and cents, hard numbers from, um, from park management. So we do have an Excel file with those numbers from November that we use as a baseline or starting point. Um, the other, the other item to know is that the latest analysis, including what's discussed tonight between the 6.1 and the 10.1, those numbers are for base rent only. They do not include the utilities.

And I would just like to note that in speaking with residents of the park, up until 2022, the utilities were included as part of rent of those spaces. So while I do understand the legal distinction, if that has been a part of your rent for 10 years and then it suddenly gets pulled out and you're paying it on top of the legally allowable increase, at the end of the day, you don't care how it's coming out of your pocket, it is still an increase. So I think that does make a difference. And then I think Ms. Fairless made a very good point about the difference between California rental liabilities, AB 1432 that regulates apartments or other rentals, caps it at a 10% increase. but it specifically excludes mobile home parks because of the difference in that people own their own homes. And unlike an apartment renter, which generally is not on the hook for repairing a roof or a refrigerator or a gas line that goes out, you are on the hook for all of that. Um, and so I think this is much more in line with the California civil code cam and you may have pulled this, um, that has to do with mobile home parks that straddle two jurisdictions, which basically is the same as ours with a 3% CPI, uh, or, uh, with a cap of 5% total. Um, so is that, I mean, that's really in line with, with the ordinance that you wrote for this one. Um, and I think the state makes a distinction when, where it can, similar, similarly.

Correct. The numbers that staff came up with were more indicative of what's currently in Northern California.

I can tell.

Please, Jeffrey, let's hear your thoughts.

Please excuse me. This is going to take a while. We rarely try and operate against the free market. Operating against the free market assumes we know more than the free market will adjust to whatever the areas that it's focused on. And generally, we don't. So we don't. When this first came to us late last year, there were generalities and vagueness and a few numbers here and there that painted a picture that led to the impression that the new operators were doing a fine job. And I just said, look, we really just need the numbers. It's not that complicated. Rent that includes Space rent plus utilities does not equal just space rent. You can't compare those things and say, well, it only went up 6% or whatever the number was because the number actually is about 40% over three years. Now, look, you may have been investing that money. Various people that we have contacted say, well, we're not sure where it is. And yes, while I understand space rent and management of those properties have insurance, home insurance, which has been going up, isn't paid by you, the operator. That's paid by the people who own their mobile homes. They bear those cost increases, not you. And over time, once the final numbers came in, and asking you and getting the actual numbers from you, again, this isn't difficult. It is rent when utilities used to be included in what is broken out now as space rent, or space rent plus water and sewer, all utilities. If you compare those two, apples to apples, you've gone up 40%, not six or eight or 10 or three years, 40 over three years. Now, that is not reasonable. That, especially when the picture was painted earlier that nothing like that was happening, And yes, we have gotten your numbers, and no, there's a nice talk around, but the real bottom line is, and I want you to be clear about this, at least from my perspective, I'm not speaking for anybody else here up on the city council, but I need you to be clear that you tried, as clearly as I can see it, you have done a very good job of misdirecting, at least me, until actual full numbers came in, a true apples to apples comparison. And when that became clear, shame on you. I want you to let that sink in. Shame on you. You should know better. I'm probably somewhat clear about where I stand on this by now. But I should probably stop talking.

Thank you. John? John? Either of you?

Just for everybody in the audience and anyone else that might be watching this indirectly or whatever we are regulating the base rent exclusively not including any of the utilities utilities now as this mobile home parks management has done has separated those out and they will go up separately because they always go up that is correct base rent only yeah and i don't understand the 41 thing um Yeah, because waste management charges all minimal users, like myself, $24 a month. Okay, so clear. It's just rent control, which is not uncommon in California.

Yeah, there's something like 106 jurisdictions, I think, and counting that have done this.

To the chair.

Please.

Sorry, we can't do... Well, we are a city council so we get to do that. So what I was going to say is I think I answered my own question from the question section of how do we make sure that we don't become a regulatory. And I think Jeffrey answered that question for me is we only get involved when it's blatantly obvious that we get involved and we don't make this our day job. So I just wanted to answer my own question.

Fair enough. Glad we were able to clear that up. Any other discussion over here? I mean, I know where I stand after having met with folks plenty and reading the ordinance. More discussion on this side? I think we're ready to move towards.

John, you got it?

Sorry. Please.

In the, this is a question that I think may, they may need our help with is in terms of the trash when they're not seeing the actual bill, because they're not getting that bill because it's divvied up so much. Is there anything that we can do to protect that piece of it? That isn't super unfair.

Well, you're starting a separate agenda. So you want to, at the end of the meeting, just say you want to tackle that. Just food for thought on that. Yeah, yeah. All right. I'm going to move to... to a second reading, waiving the actual reading today, of Chapter 5.90 of the Mobile Rent Stabilization. Yeah, so I'm going to move to a second reading without, by title only, the Mobile Rent Stabilization Code, Chapter 5.90, the City of Mount Shasta Code.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed or abstain? Okay. All right. Moving on to item nine. And this is actually on packet page six. Nope. 26-27 budget adoption. Staff has prepared a proposed budget for the 26-27 fiscal year, and we will now hear from our finance director, Melissa.

Thank you, Mayor and Council Members. Just do a quick recap, I think, of where we left off last time. I believe we got through all of the department heads' presentations in regards to their department budgets. I had given an update on revenue, at which point the team was asked to go back and make reductions based on the revenue projections. So I have handed out, and there's one on the back, but I prepared for you a list of where the cuts were made. So there's a revised proposal for five of the departments, including a proposed reduction to the Visit Mount Shasta marketing budget. And then all other expenses that were previously listed marketing budget. And then all other expenses that were previously reported have stayed the same. That got us from a proposed excess revenue or budget of $45,574 to now a budget that will be a small deficit of $27,126 based on the cuts that were made by each of the departments. Following up from there, I think where we were at When we left off, I was going to do a quick review of the FTE. That's on page 43 and 45. That might be the old packet, sorry. But just wanted to just go through a quick review of that, that we have had a few reductions in staff, as the departments had mentioned, in their budget for 2020. 2526 were budget for 20 2526 were flat on that for 2627 proposal I'm I thought Ken would be here to go over the enterprise funds, but I will quickly do that. There's no significant changes there Those are on Sorry, my pages might be different than yours, 81 to 103 towards the end of the packet. I'm happy to try to answer any questions if you had any about that. There's, again, no significant changes, and all of those funds other than the drainage are in excess, small excess. And then I believe last time, because we needed to get that done for the Transportation Committee, you guys approved the LTF claim, so I won't review that again, but that is in this budget, and we sent that over to them. You approved it last. And then a quick review of the grant budget numbers that were included in the packet towards the end of the packet was previously pages 110 to 105 to 118, sorry. We have the Lake Street grant project that will continue into the 26, 27 years. I'm projecting that to be just over $2 million. Although I think at the last meeting you may have... approved addition to a contract, so that number may not be included here yet. I'll do a budget adjustment when we adopt the budget. Fund 28, which is gas tax, there's no significant changes there. And then we have continued grant funding for the EPA grant of $225,000. I believe you guys talked about the master plan last time, and I think we're within budget for that. The Prop 68 parks funding, if we don't get that spent soon, it will go away as far as I understand it. So I did budget to spend all of it. There's no specific project at this time. And then the wildfire mitigation grant work continues on that. And for 26, 27, we'll spend about 250,000 on that. That was all I had at this point. I didn't know, we didn't have any public comment, I don't believe last time. So I think we need to open it up for public comments since it's a public hearing. And then I'm, you know, if there's any deliberations, happy to listen to that.

Absolutely. Thank you. We'll bring it back for any questions from council here. Over here? No? Okay. Well, now I think we will get to the aforementioned public comment. Would anybody like to comment on the budget?

Can I? Oh, yep. Wait, hold on. Please. So... if we want to get this under the wire, there's a potential that we do, um, a special, what I'm waiting for, because this is a public meeting is word from, uh, John Kenny or Tamara Warren about whether we need the full 10 days notice on the second, uh, you know, um, uh, you know, on the second part of, um, you know, uh, on this public hearing, um, or we can wait until the 13th and be just shy of two weeks late.

Sorry, just I think to clarify, Because we didn't have public comment last time on the specific budget, we posted another public hearing to be held tonight. As far as I understand for the budget perspective, we just have to have one public hearing and then we can adopt a budget after you've approved it and deliberated. Since I've been out, my proposal was that we adopt a budget on July 13th, given the staff meeting that we had had to make these revisions. I think there's a proposal on the table to have a special meeting to adopt the budget. I don't think that has to go through a public hearing process since we've already held public hearing. So if you wanted to have a special meeting before July 1st to get your budget adopted, then we could do that because we'll listen to public hearing tonight and you guys will deliberate and we can approve a budget. Otherwise, we can adopt the budget on the 13th as I understand that's happened in the past that it hasn't been adopted by the first. My goal was to have it adopted by the first, of course. So I think that's the options, if you will.

All right. Well, we'll now move to public hearing. Okay.

Okay. Oh, okay. I just had a quick comment. I don't know what the requirements are for that. I keep hearing this extra park grant money that we haven't found a project for yet. So if we don't have something for it, I don't know if this is allowed or not, but a suggestion as a parent and occasional city park user, maybe there's some things in here that could use some cleaning up and upgrading. There's all these old abandoned like horseshoe things. It's like, they're almost just a trip hazard because they're not kept up. so we could make them nice and usable, or take them out, replace them with something else. And also, as much as I grew up, I was born in 1979, I grew up in the 80s with the crazy old school stuff. That playground over there is super creepy. The playground with the clown faces and it's halfway in the woods and the weird thing. It's kind of creepy. Maybe we could upgrade that, make a cool little, I don't know, a little ropes course or something fun that would be fun for people that isn't super creepy. Just a suggestion.

Or lean into it and have a haunted park. Just saying.

That looks like me.

Another one for public hearing. Oh, we got two more. We got a traffic jam at the podium.

Sitting in the front, not looking behind me. I apologize if this is a newbie error and there's already this in place, but I'm wondering about a Mount Shasta Artist Appreciation and Awards event annually where grants are given to artists, just a way of acknowledging this is a very artistic community and maybe that's already happening, but I'm curious if it would be so meaningful for the city to acknowledge people in that way. So that's a thought.

I think that's a great idea. And I think actually the Siskiyou Arts Council would probably be an excellent organization. And I'm happy to, if you want to talk after this, I'm happy to put you in contact with them and some representatives from them.

But I like the idea.

So park money, we do need roofs. So priorities like keep up the buildings. That's part of the reason why you say you wanted to keep the meeting here is for the money. So it's kind of odd that it wouldn't be dedicated to this. So I understand that the budget has changed and it wasn't put in the packet to the public. Is that what I understood?

It's in the packet.

It's been in the packet the meeting for what?

Sorry, you have it right here. This is the third meeting.

Yeah, it's been in the packet twice.

Okay. And there are some supplemental documents available for review as well on the table in the back next to the packet.

Your mic almost worked. Okay, it just sounded like you said something had changed.

Yeah, the document I kept from the last meeting had different page numbers than the document that they're reviewing.

Oh, okay. Yeah, because, I mean, reading it over, it just seemed like some of the budgeted items really jumped significantly, and it was kind of hard to determine why so many of these line items jumped so much from the actual of last year and the proposed in the future. But that's a pretty long conversation about line items, and, well... I look at numbers, but okay.

Thank you. Anyone else for public hearing? All right. Okay. Well, we will now bring it back to council for discussion here. Please.

Just a simple clarification. This is a budget for the city of Mount Shasta, which is not included in the space that we're sitting in or the parks. That's a separate district. They have their own budget and their own funding. They go through their own process. It's not saying that we couldn't make donations, but this is not a parks and rec budget.

Thank you. Sure.

Just to add to that, you know, I've had several conversations with Shannon Shaw, who runs the parks, and, you know, they're – given that we've been turned down and – on our last reprogramming and we need to get this out the door. There's a lot of stuff that parks needs to have happened. And, you know, we've got a list of things that we'd like to bite off for parks. And Shannon is working on getting cost estimates for those various projects. And I'll call her and, you know, just let her know again that time is of the essence. And there's a yawning chasm of need here at Parks.

Sure, sure does.

Well, they're not alone. John? No? Okay.

We have to come back in July and approve this?

Okay. Is that right?

Well, what we need to know...

I don't think I've been involved with a budget process that we didn't have done by before July 1st. I don't think I've been involved since 2016 in a budget process that wasn't completed by June 30th. That's all.

So we have two options. One, I need to know if this budget is approved to move forward for adoption. So that's kind of where I'm at. And if that's not the way it's been done in the past, I wasn't directed differently. So I'm sorry. So if you approve the budget tonight, if it is the way that you want to see this move forward and get adopted, then we can have a special meeting, it sounds like. We're investigating that with the attorney. and what that would look like if you're available. And if not, then it would be adopted on July 13th. And I'm sorry, I was under the impression and was told that it had been adopted beyond July 1st before.

We're at where we're at.

I do think we should probably try for a special meeting to adopt it before the end of the fiscal year, if we can. But I'm all for adopting this in order to move forward.

All right, so move to approve the Mount Shasta City fiscal budget for the years 2026-27. With the following edit, the library fund number on the summary sheet is still backwards. The revenue is 340, and the expenses are expected to be about 290. And this is to include the general fund, enterprise funds, and various other funds.

Okay. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed or abstained? All right. Awesome. Thank you. Um, do we want to discuss now whether or not there's a, or is that a later discussion? The future agenda. Excellent. All right. We will now move on to item 10, a public hearing on vacancy report. Um, government code 3 5 0 2.3 requires that the city hold an annual public hearing on vacancies and recruitment and retention processes. And we will hear from Melissa.

Thank you, Mayor and Council. This is a fairly new legislation. We did do this report last year. It was more mid-year. And so the process hasn't changed. I did include our hiring process in there, other than we are requiring the oral board to be at least three, a minimum of three staff. It can have more. This one said specifically three. Oral boards are made up of a variety of different people on the board, depending on the position. So other than that, that process has not changed. And then I did a recap for you as required. I also had sent information, provided information to the Teamsters Union as they're allowed to speak on this agenda item if they so choose. They forego that this time. And so I just included here for you the number of positions that turned over from last July. And it's a pretty significant amount for the size of our city. And I'm happy to answer any questions.

All right. One more vacancy in the fly population. We'll bring it back for questions here. Any questions on the vacancies over here? No. Okay. We'll now take this one out to public comment. All right. We will bring it back for discussion. Okay. All right. Doesn't seem like much. So let's see. I don't, I guess we're just receiving this report, so we will consider it received and we will now move on to thank you for that. Melissa, we'll move on to item 11, the local agencies investment fund authorization staff has prepared a resolution authorizing investment in the local agencies investment fund.

So thank you. Um, I'm sorry, there's not a staff report here. I was kind of getting this ready before I left, but, um, I, I contacted the LAFE to find out if we were to move funds to them or take funds away, not that we would because we don't have much in there right now. We have about $250,000, but we have had significantly more in the past. And so I was investigating how that process worked and come to find out that they couldn't talk to me because I'm not on the list. When I started to name off some names to try to get an idea of who was on there and where to start my investigation. None of the people that I know of on this board were on the list. So I've found the last resolution. I've included that in your packet. I've included the form that is required by LAIF in order to update the information. And so we would just, with your approval, included a resolution. We would fill out the form once approved. And it would be Todd, myself, and Lindsey who used to be Jody's, so that position does administrative oversight.

Makes sense to me. Anybody else? All right. Well, we'll go to public comment. Glad to hear it. We'll bring it back for discussion. All right. Let's see, this one actually is going to require a vote.

Rachel, what CCR are we on? Okay, I move to approve resolution CCR 2611, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mount Shasta authorizing investment of monies in the local agency investment fund for the three people that Melissa referenced. Second.

All right, all those in favor? Aye. Aye, any opposed? Okay, moving on now to item 12, investment policy and signing authority. Legislation requires that the city council review its investment policy on an annual basis. Melissa, this one's all you tonight.

Yeah, sorry. I have a lot here just because I'm trying to incorporate these in the budget process as we move forward. I made a heavy lift of a change in the budget presentation. I'm not sure that it went that well, but I will try to include these. My plan is in the future. So you did adopt the investment policy not that long ago. It hadn't been reviewed in many years. We made small changes. I do hope to bring more revisions in the future, but basically it hasn't changed since the last time we did this, which was probably in August or September of last year. Just trying to sync it up with the budget. And it does have to be adopted annually.

Right.

Okay. Any questions on this one?

Okay.

Well, let's go to public comment. Seeing none, we will now bring it back for council discussion.

I move to approve CCR-26-12, resolution of the City Council of the City of Mount Shasta approving the signature authority for city funds and the city's investment policy. Second.

All right, all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed or abstain? Okay. Cruising right along, we'll move on to item 13, the annual appropriations limit. California law requires that the city establish an absolute limit for appropriations from the proceeds of taxes each fiscal year. We're going to go over once again to our finance director.

Again, this will be something that I hope to include in the budget going forward. It does change annually. The appropriation limit typically goes up Our budget is not anywhere close to our appropriation limit. So it's just an annual approval.

All right. Any questions? All right. Well, you all know where this one's going. Right out there at a public comment. All right. Seeing none, we'll bring it back for discussion.

I move to approve resolution CCR-26-13, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mount Shasta establishing an appropriations limit for fiscal year 2026 to 2027. Second.

Okay. And all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed or abstain? Okay. Item 14. Do we want to do this one? Are we good to go without Ken here? Yeah, okay. All right, it's the approval of contract with Scott River Pump and Irrigation. After receiving no bids for the repair or replacement of a failing pump at the wastewater treatment plant, staff contacted Scott River Pump and Irrigation to request a quote.

Yes, so we went out for an RFP. There were no RFP responses. We made some calls to some local firms. THE MAIN RESPONDENT WAS SCOTT RIVER PUMP AND IRRIGATION AND THE BID WE WERE LOOKING FOR WAS ONE THAT INCLUDED A RECENTLY REFURBISHED PUMP MOTOR AND WE GOT WHAT WE CONSIDERED TO BE A GOOD PRICE AND THAT IS $19,783.87. Of course, it's carrying sludge up to one of our settling funds. And where is this money coming from? It is... Yeah, the White Sword Exchange Fund, Enterprise Fund, obviously.

Makes sense. Any questions over here? Questions? All right, let's go to public comment. Oh, we got one.

So I was wondering with this rebuilt pump, how long are we looking at with just rebuilding this?

In terms of lifespan?

Lifespan, yes. That's a good question. I don't know if there was a...

I'm not sure. I can't.

Okay. Cause what, since 2015, we've been throwing money hand over fist at the sewer plant. And I don't really feel that we've gotten a real oversight on where it's sitting now and what's going on with the sewer plant, what has been utilized or not, when was the last time things were replaced, start seeing that it's aging out after. what not quite 20 years and our sewer bill is up to what 75 dollars or so and you're looking at raising it more and we're not getting feedback about all the money that was supposed to be a Cadillac project that we were going to have a sewer plant that was going to take care of things and we've received so many violations from 20 on, and then we had to throw more money at it. And none of that has, you know, COVID and everything, but really been brought up to the community of what's going on with the sewer plant. Are the ponds being used or not being used? where we are with this and now we have another failure in the sewer plant and we have to throw more money at it so it's a little baffling of who's making recommendations and really what's going on with this sewer plant thank you any other public comment we'll bring it back for discussion

Well, please.

When I started 12 years ago on that city council, we were just starting to take up the new sewer plant. We didn't need a new sewer plant. We had to have a new sewer plant by state law. Just grasp this, state law, the levels. This is not a back and forth here at the moment. Just try and take this in. And the sewer plant, we had to go through this process to meet new state regulations assigned to us being the first city after the water flows through the dam at the head borders of the Sacramento. Very sensitive area. This pump, so we're clear, is in the leach fields that existed long before we started working on the sewer plant. is technically related to the sewer plant and the big project, but for all intents and purposes has nothing to do with it. It is just a part of a temporarily used leach field that we use during the summertime primarily, and we use it not all the time, just when we need to. Like all equipment, over time, it just needs to be repaired. And frankly, they're not going out to buy a new one. They're going to use parts of the existing thing. It's just a testament to the folks that run that place what a great job they're doing on it.

Appreciate the clarification. Thank you. Any other discussion on the pump? Seems like a pretty necessary repair. I don't think we want to let things not get repaired there.

I move to approve a contract with Scott River Pump and Irrigation to replace the failing pump at the one of the two leach fields at the city wastewater treatment plant at a cost of $19,783.87. Second.

All right. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed or abstain? Okay. Moving on to item 15, SB1 project list. To claim Senate Bill 1 transportation funds, the city must submit a list of projects to be funded in the coming fiscal year.

Under SB1, we get an allocation. This year, it's $91,000. It's not a lot of money. But to receive that allocation, we've got to say what we're going to use that money for. Two projects, one being chip seal in an expanded area so we can kind of – it's not – hold on. Okay. So it's not, um, it allows us not to reconstruct roads, but to fill potholes and, um, you know, create smoother surfaces. And, uh, um, some of the money will be used to overlay, uh, a portion of, uh, South Mount Shasta Boulevard, um, from McLeod to Reem. Uh, it's not a lot of money, but, um, we need to declare that, yes, we want the money, and this is what we're going to use it for.

Okay. Any questions about that? We're going to claim money. All right, we'll go to some public. One second here. One second. I'll allow it. All right. We're going to go public comment. Sure.

As Anastasia Sprout of Mount Shasta, as a bike rider, I really appreciate the pothole repair. Thank you.

Excellent. Seconded. Any other? All right. Well, we're going to bring it back for discussion. Any discussion about claiming our portion of funds?

I move to approve Resolution CCR-26-14, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mount Shasta adopting a list of projects for fiscal year 26-27 to be funded by SB1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017. Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed or abstain? All right. Seeing none, we will now move on to item 16, council reports on attendance at appointed or outside meetings. Anybody? Oh, Collier group. Okay. Anybody else? All right. Let's move on to number 17, future agenda items. Anybody have... Future agenda items, please.

Yes. I would just like to see if there's any interest from council in looking over the trash issue for the people at the mobile home park.

I'll second that.

Yep. Sounds good. And then two other ones. I would like to look into the water bottling exemption that Ms. Stevens brought up. I think it's worth taking a look at there. And then the other one that I've been hearing from folks around town, this might be more of a long-term, so I don't know, 60 to 90 days, but might as well get it on there, is some sort of residential vacancy tax. I've been hearing a lot of buzz about that, and I think it's worth exploring. Oh, did I... Oh, never mind. Well, let's... Did we not talk about that? Okay, well, just seconding it. All right. A reminder, yes. We will continue to add it to the future agenda items.

Not to be a buzzkill, but given the volume of work, there are certain things we're going to need to prioritize. And I hate to put Raven off. I get her point. So I think we need to figure out where that falls on the agenda. And, you know, and frankly, there's another one we should add, and that is a specific pro proposal on staff time and cost for starting an annexation. So I think that's pretty high priority, especially as we're starting to move with the landing and yeah.

Yeah. Let's get that annexation on there as well. Cool.

So are we going to use our city attorney to do that? Or are you going to find somebody else?

Our own Kim has worked on a couple annexations.

Leading into the city attorney situation, do you want to agendize that?

Oh, in terms of what we talked about? Yeah, I think that, yes, we do. I've got names of three law firms. We've worked with John. for a long time and you kind of have them as emeritus status. You get them on the phone, he answers questions. He's the most inexpensive attorney that we have, love him to death. But work product is impossible and I think we need to look for a firm that's going to deliver us product more quickly.

To the chair? Yes. Should we also schedule the special meeting for the budget adoption if that's council's pleasure? Like now?

So I don't know if there was an issue with next Monday, but to me it's like, if we can make that happen, let's do it next Monday.

I might be out of town. I might be out of town. I'm still waiting on our scheduling for the next stage of our project. I can be here.

It should be easy peasy, quick and easy.

All right. Any other future agenda items for now? Sounds like we've got enough on the docket. Sounds like Kim is going to be quite busy. Councilman Collins, can you make next Monday for a special?

Can the two of you make it?

Okay. Well, in that case, we're moving on to item... 530. What's that? 530. 530.

Are we meeting here? Or do you want to meet at... Monday, 530 here. Yeah.

Yeah, you'll have a quorum. I may make it. We'll see.

All right. Moving on to item 18. Everyone cover your ears.