City - Regular Meeting

Can you hear me? Recording in progress. recording is on. Yes. Okay. Good evening everyone. Uh, welcome to the Pacific Grove City Council meeting. This is the regular meeting Wednesday, February 18th, 2026 at 6 PM. We're in council chambers, city hall, 300 Forest Avenue in Pacific Grove, California. I now hereby call this meeting to order. And um we're going to we have uh Council

Member Buri appearing via Zoom from Chicago, Illinois. And we also have Council Member Ralph on Zoom. So at this time, I'll ask her to state the record uh for her Zoom appearance. Thank you, your honor. I'm participating tonight under the just cause provision of the Brown Act. I have alone in the room and no one under 18 is in the home with me. Thank you very much. Council member Rouse will be appearing via Zoom as well. Uh the other for the record, the other five council members are present in chambers tonight. And at this time, I'll ask Council Member R to lead us in the pledge of allegiance.

Thank you. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you very much. And at this time, I'll we're up to item one, approval of the agenda. Do I have a motion to approve tonight's agenda? Motion to approve. Motion by Amelio, second by McDonald. Uh we'll take a roll call vote, please. Sandber. Thank you, Mayor. Mayor Promilia. Hi. Council member McDonald. Hi. Council members Watenstick. I R. Hi. Puri. Hi.

Hi. Mayor Smith. I. Motion carries 70. Okay. We will proceed with the agenda as stated. At this time, there are no presentations under item two. We'll move over to council and staff announcements and I'll recognize Mr. Lorca 3A for a report on close session. Thank you, mayor. With respect to the two items on the close session agenda, an update was provided to council. Council provided direction to staff, but no reportable action was taken. Thank you very much. Um, and at this time, we'll recognize any council members with council announcements. Council member Garfield. Thank you, your honor. Um, Sandra, can you call that up for the announcement, please?

Yes. Okay. In the February 5th through 11th weekly, um the um American Lung Association and the State Tobacco uh control division gave a scorecard to each of the cities on how well we're doing on controlling and mitigating smoke and secondhand smoke. Um, six years ago, I think it was six years ago, Pacific Grove received an F. It was alarming. And we proceeded to develop a very good, strong um, smoking ordinance in our city um, to protect both our residents and our environment. And today we received an A rating. So, often we pass ordinances and we don't quite know what the result was. This one we got a score. Um, we're not done yet. Uh we're still seeing way too much uh cigarette litter and um I will say that that Miss Halibby has collected some signage that we are going to be putting out and deploying in some hot spots to see if by better education we can actually start to clean up our coast zone um with these little toxic uh plastic um filters. So, we celebrate as they said, uh, let your light shine Pacific Grove and I am really hoping that all of the municipalities and the county in our area will join us because together we can make much more of a difference. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Uh, any other additional council members wishing to make an announcement? Okay, we'll go ahead and go to recognize Mr. Mogensson. Staff announcements. No announcements this evening, Mr. Mayor. Okay, thank you very much. I'll go ahead and move to general public comment. General public comment, item four must deal with matters subject to the jurisdiction of the city and the council that are not on the regular agenda. So, keeping that in mind, is there anyone in chambers or or in online that wishes to make a public comment? I'll take chambers first. We have one gentleman coming forward. We'll take him first and then online.

Good evening, council men and council women. Nice to see you here today. I'm here because I was thinking altruistically about the presence, purpose, and direction of this city council and the shoulders that it stands on from the recent past of two or three decades. And as I recall, most of you when you ran for office, you ran under the oposes personally that you wanted to serve the community. And if you're going to serve, that makes you, if you haven't thought about it, you're a servant. If you're serving, who serves? Servants serve. Waiters serve. You know, people serve who are servants in one capacity or another. And you're a if you're a servant, you have a master. And in some cases, the master is your boss. You know, if you if you're a butler or a waiter or someone who's serving in any capacity, you usually have a master, a boss. We call it a boss usually. And who's your boss? Who are you accountable to being someone who serves the community? You're accountable to the citizens of the community. You're not accountable to the staff or the political party from which your heart is invested in. Particularly because you run as nonpartisan people. You don't run as a Green, as a Republican, as a Democrat. You run as a nonpartisan, which is what you're supposed to be. But then what happens? Many of you are unable to break emotional ties with the political party, which you're particularly bound. And although you don't declare publicly that you represent that party, you do in fact in action, you know, often times, let's say some parties are more partial to maybe the the SEIU, the uh state and

local unions. And I noticed in a lot of negotiating that this and other councils have been very partial to giving raises which result in pension increases, more benefits, so on and so forth to the city staff. And I think that when they do this, they disregard who put them in office and who they're really supposed to be serving, who they're supposed to be responsible to, and that's to be to the citizens. And the citizens have one problem living in this area. It's expensive. You know, we don't need more taxation. We don't need more property taxes, which you play a minor role in. We don't need more sales taxes. We don't need little add-ons on the uh tax roles. And I want to encourage you to consider the presence, values, interests of the citizens of the community. That's all I want to say. not to staff or other entities or other past political parties you may have been associated with. So, thank you very much for letting me speak. Let's have a good meeting tonight.

Thank you. All right. Um online

telephone number ending in 902.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council. The city and the Pacific Grove Museum has partnered with Xerxes Society to harm monarch butterflies in violation of your ordinance. If you don't know, Xerxes Modus Project glues microwave transmitters on the backs of monarch butterflies that pulse every 3 seconds, 24 hours a day, and puts microwave sensors in their home groves, like here in Pacific Grove. Why is that a bad idea? Microwave radiation is a toxin and it damages DNA. It causes cancer, tumors, heart attacks, birth defects, mutations, seizures, strokes, brain damage. It harms neurology, fertility, blood, hormones, memory, learning, and in birds and insects, it also harms their ability to navigate by the earth's natural electromagnetic frequencies. Is wireless and 5G harming them? The AT&T cell antennas on Wilky's in all the pulsing wireless smart meters, the Wi-Fi in your homes, the motel around the Grove and at the adult school, your smartphones. The answer is yes. And it's part of what's stressing their species. But to glue it on their bodies, in addition, these are the equivalent of 22 pounds for a human. That's very heavy. If we have to carry it, we have the ground under our feet. But butterflies have to fly and they have to fly thousands of miles through all kinds of weather. They have never ever flown with anything on their backs, let alone this very heavy weight. These are courageous, gutsy butterflies. And I am shocked at Pacific Grove and the fake environmentalists who approve this. I told a European scientist who studies microwave impacts on insects and

he was a ghast asking why is it so hard to be the mature adult in the room. Emma Pelton of Xerxes and CDFW told me that CDFW just gave them a permit and said there was no environmental review, no public notice, no public hearings and no public comment periods. with hearings in environmental review. They and you would have been inundated with science on the toxicity of the RF EMF emissions. I ask the council to halt this project and its participation in it immediately. This is in complete violation of not just your ordinance but all moral morals in any universe. Thank you. Thank you,

Christie Taliano Thomas.

Hi, excuse me. Good evening. I just wanted to speak to uh Miss Garfield's um little announcement on the smoking ordinance and that is as a regular city volunteer picking up trash and cigarette butts. I just wanted to point out that uh no ordinance is gonna quit uh have people quit smoking and in reality no one is out enforcing that people can't smoke outside but what you could support is you know PG's got sustainable Pacific Grove PG cares also partners with keep America clean um in which Terraycle recycles these cigarette butts. So, what we what's what's really helpful because people are going to smoke is the receptacles that we've put out and that even Carmemell Cares gave to our city. So, if more of those would be out, people would use them in the heavy smoking um areas. So, that's where you could really support butts being picked up. Thank you. Angel Lawren,

thank you. I wish our council staff and public were more versed in our Pacific Grove City Charter. We were held hostage in the February 4th city council meeting for no good reason. We did not need a unanimous vote. We only needed for the drone emergency ordinance. We only needed five votes. Article five, subsection D of our city charter. And I am appalled that that did not happen. Thank you very much.

No further hands are raised. Okay. Thank you very much. We'll close general public comment and we'll bring it to the next item on the agenda, which is the consent agenda. deals with routine and non-controversial matters and may include action on resolutions, ordinances, or other public hearings for which testimony is not anticipated. At this time, is there anyone uh on the council wishing to pull an item off consent? Seeing none, is there anyone in chambers or online wishing to pull an item off consent? That'll be online, mayor. Right. Take it back to the council for action. A motion to approve consent by Mayor Pertimio. Do I have a second? Second.

We have a second by uh Council Member Garfield. Uh we'll take a roll call vote, please. Thank you. Mayor Proio, Council Member Garfield, I. Council members McDonald, hi. Auri, hi. I walking stick I and Mayor Smith I. Motion carries 70. Thank you very much. Um, so that'll bring us to our regular agenda. We're now at item 11A. This is uh the resolution on the special election uh 11A. And I will turn it over to our city attorney, Mr. Lurca.

Thank you, mayor. Um, this has its origin. There's an exhaustive um chronology of the background of this. It has its origins before my time with the city, but um your former city attorney, Mr. Purick now working as special counsel has worked this up and provided this chronology. Um this is something that this council considered before and it's back before you as directed uh for a vote whether or not to submit to the electorate. Um um do we have any additional presentation tonight uh by anyone or is that

No, Mr. Mayor, I think that was the um the summation of the presentation. And this is the basically the same ordinance information that you saw a year ago that's now been updated by um by one year's time worth of a CPI but and also this is going to the ballot. That's that's the vote rather than just a simple passage. That's correct. Correct. The electorate. Okay. Got it. All right. So we'll go ahead and go send out to public comment. Public comment on item 11A uh relating to sending to the ballot um increased stipen for the council. So, uh, Tim Chambers first. Well, of course.

Good evening, mayor and council. My name is Bill Camp, president of City of Pacific Grove, and I'm here to advocate for placing this measure on the ballot. Um, I think it has a number of things that are important for the city uh uh to merit it. Uh, one is that um a higher uh salary for the council can expand the pool of candidates who um run for city council. And I think that's important in a couple ways. One is that citizens who would suffer a financial cost for participation in the council will at least have some compensation for their efforts and ideally bring in people who are younger, employed, have kids and bring an important voice to the council. Uh it it can broaden the representation of our community. There's another u potential benefit and in fact I think it's fairly essential. This is going to be the first in November the first district election uh for our city and it is very important to have every district a contested election and the reason is it ensures that candidates bring not just their personal agenda which we all do um but are connected to voters in the process of earning their seat and councils can face significant dysfunction without that connection. Then there's the issue in my mind of perceived value of your effort and your perception and the public perception of that value. And I hope you'll agree that 27 years is longer than most of us would like to have before they get a pay adjustment. And so that's one of the simple aspects of this. But the other one is that I know that many people would wish that government services would be free of cost. Um but your

services and government services have a value to our citizens and your work to provide that value uh also has value to the city. So my experience has been that members of our community recognize that the council is very challenging and timeconsuming job. uh they appreciate the folks who step forward to serve in that role and I believe this community would support the the measure that you are considering and I I think we're on a tight timeline to get this job done by the way. So I hope we can move expeditiously to uh take all the steps that are necessary for the March 6 filing. Thank you.

Thank you, Bill. uh online. Oh, actually we have one more on chambers. Okay.

Yes. Hello. Hello again. I in one side one part of me says you know this is the right thing to do to uh put it to the people for a vote which is what I read into this that on June I think it's 2nd 2026 as part of the uh California primary election we're going to have maybe a reasonable turnout. I don't expect it to be very large. people seem to uh not pay attention to these types of elections and these types of issues. So, uh I think it's going to be a roll of the dice how it's going to work out. I don't think it's really going to be a representation of the majority of people, many of whom don't even pay attention to what's going on in the city. So, that's very sad. We see a lot of people raving about protecting our democracy and then we don't really have a lot of participation. I mean, look around the room here. How many people come and speak? How many people speak online? We should have town hall meetings on this issue. I hope that's going to be part of the agenda, you know, where we could have something at the community center, Robert Down School or wherever, you know, to at Chakqua Hall maybe to uh discuss this and decide if it's warranted, if it's justified, if it's tradition, if it was in the founding fathers of Pacific Grove in the U city charter to make this from a service volunteer participation, which you all agreed to under the terms that exist right now. And you know this all started when you decided to many of you voted to not all wasn't unanimous voted to give yourselves a raise. Basically that's what a lot of people perceive this perceive this as a part-time job. You're getting paid a salary maybe with some benefits. And um you know that's

not was that was not the intention in the founding of Pacific Grove nor all of the years of council service including when former city mayor Mr. Kemp spoke in favor of this. I he didn't uh do it I don't think for part-time income and the story about bringing in younger people and people who can't afford to be on the council. Um, I don't think the intention was ever to be a part-time job to to offer people a carrot to come and serve. Look, you're going to make some extra spending money if you come and serve on the council. I don't think that's a good motivation. So, that's just my point on this. But yet, you're going to put it to the people and, you know, I mean, I think it's a good idea that the people have a vote on it either through a referendum or through an election item. So, thank you so much.

Thank you. I'll go online. Christy Italiano Thomas.

Hi. I I just think it's so thoughtprovoking that the last time the city had put a measure on a election like this was 18 years ago in 2008. And at that time, 18 years ago, it cost $46,000. And what's concerning to me is that the city clerk, maybe you don't know yet, I don't I don't know, but has not clearly stated what this single measure is going to cost the residents when I'm thinking it's yet another unnecessary spending on the part of this this council. But without knowing the cost, how can you be bringing this forward? In other words, the city pays almost the full price of a general election for a standalone low turnout primaril primary ballot measure. And you know, these are lower. And I I don't know, it seems very contrived here to me. And yet it it wasn't enough when residents passed a referendum to prevent council from selfapproved raises. and that the and speaking to the previous not Vince uh previous mayor nobody's saying that they don't deserve a raise. The whole thing is setting the pre precedent that no council should be giving self approved raises. And I hope this goes through to have the um charter changed to prevent this this whole thing that's that's gone on. Um that's why I have a hard time believing that you are relentless. This council has been relentless in moving forward again propo and this is even a higher slightly higher pay increase and placing it on this June um low low uh turnout

election. You know, if transparency and voter participation really mattered, why would you choose the most expensive path for the smallest audience? And again, the city manager or the attorney should be telling the public, the taxpayers, how much this selfserving ballot measure is going to cost. Thank you,

Carol. Hi, I'm Carol Marquort and I live in Pacific Grove and I was part of collecting signatures for the referendum and to withdraw the um the decision to raise taxes that was made I think last September. And I'm willing to do that again because I think we should put this on the November 6 ballot. It shouldn't be part of a special election. And I'm all for people with employment. I I greatly admire Bill Kemp and I'm greatly in favor of people with kids and employment to be on the city council, but I think we need to be part of the city charter and I don't think the city council should be in the position of electing to raise your own um salaries. Thank you. Angel Lensson. Thank you, Mayor and Council. One of your goals is to be fiscally responsible and transparent. I'm not sure what other government entity gives them well even puts it on the ballot as a five% raise per year for 27 years. Um and it's even higher when this ballot measure came back this time. I mean this ordinance here is it's even higher than when they gave it to themselves. I mean, a few dollars, but I mean, excuse me. Even our city employees were struggling

to pay the three% um cola. And here it's 5% a year. Oh, we deserve it. Pat ourselves on the back. Well, you better learn some city charter before you pat yourself on the back this way. And um as far as this special election to add it into the primary, yes, it's going to cost way more and everybody knows it. We have beat this to death in public hearings and there's been oh some really waffling with staff of what it really is going to cost, but we pay per voter and so we'll have less voters, but it'll bring the cost up. and yes, putting it on this ballot. But hey, they are so hot to trot. They are so good to go and give themselves an immediate raise that here we are putting it on the special election. Can't wait till November when it would cost less about 11,000 or so. No, no, no. But we are fiscally responsible. I don't think so. I think it's about time you actually showed this for what it was immediate greed. I mean, our city is struggling because of well because of a lot of things and I'm going to call it a lot of piss poor management before but um and continuing and here we are. Yeah. Put it on the ballot. I for one vote at every election even if it's a primary and I will be definitely doing a resounding no. Thank you very much.

No further hands are raised. Mayor,

thank you. Go ahead and close public comment. Bring it back to the council for discussion and action. Um my position on this is that uh it needs to be it's the same as it was before. I um this is important to the future of the community to f future candidates. Uh and we need the candidates to be able to know what's what they're going to you know what their pay is going to be and that's this coming into June. They will know at that point what what the poll will be at the beginning of the next term. Uh it's not immediate. It actually is written to be at the beginning of the next term. Um and so I I still support it. I and I and the the voters will decide whether this happens or not. So, um those are my comments. Any additional council comments? Uh council member walking stick and I'll get to you. Sorry about that.

Thank you, your honor. Um first of all, I'm happy that this is uh going to ballot. This is something that I I supported from the very beginning and I am happy to see it come to this uh this state. Um, I hear people when they're talking about uh concern over fiscal responsibility and the cost of bringing this to ballot, but uh, as as Mayor Smith just pointed out, if we if our our our goal as my goal is to try to get people involved in uh, local government, try to encourage people to run for city council uh, and mayor, but primarily city council because now we're going to a districted uh, uh election system. If we're going to make districtricting work, if we don't pass this in June, then we don't have that motivating factor to push people to uh uh to put throw their hats in the ring and try and run for city council u in the fall. If we pass this in the spring, then we then then we have that motivation for this coming election in the fall. So, it's it's either we wait until 2028 to have this in place or we can move on this now and have it in place for for this year's election. And uh so yeah, the there's there's there's a pinch there's a pain factor with bringing it to the ballot in June. Um acknowledged. Um but there's a benefit to it as well. And if we don't move on putting it on the ballot in in uh uh in June, then we're not going to see the the benefits of it. It's not going to be a motivating factor to try and get people to uh to make districtricting work to to run for city council in their district until 2028. So, I I I think that's that's the crux of where I'm at on this issue. I wanted it

to go to the the the people. If you want to vote no, vote no. Um, I support this uh uh both the election and I support the raise um as a a a way to motivate uh people into civic participation. I don't just see it as a carrot of uh u uh financial in financially incentivizing people there. I'll acknowledge there's an element of that for sure. But it also helps cover the cost of service for uh for missed work, for for daycare, for um the how it potentially impinges on people's ability to support themselves. It gives them some relief from that and that's that's the big factor for me. Um I think I'll I'll leave it at that. I think I covered all of my points. Yeah. Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Garfield. Council member

and and uh Council Member Walking Stick, thank you for those points. I think they're very valid and I support them. Um so, interestingly, um twice in the past, city council members in the city of Pacific Grove have followed our charter and have voted for a raise through a simple ordinance, not a vote of the people, but a simple ordinance twice before. We followed the charter to do this. people wanted to vote, so we're going to vote. Um, and now people are talking about changing the charter, but we followed the charter. So, just remember that. Um, and I think that one of the important things to remember about this is while we're nobody's going to make money a lot of money on this, especi after taxes. Serving on city government shouldn't cost you. It shouldn't be an expensive endeavor. We have people who've cut back their hours. We have people who take fewer clients. We have people who've uh not taken a job or taken the other job or they don't spend as much time at their job. And that is to say nothing of the events that we might attend or um donations we might make when we buy a ticket to this activity or that activity to support the city. So, there are ex real expenses involved in sitting on city council. Um, I think that it's interesting that here we are a looking at a raise a year later and another year of inflation uh cutting into our $420. So by delaying this, we've actually made the gap between the last raise not 26 years, not 27 years, but by the time this would go into effect, it would be 28 years. Um, so for the folks who'd like for us to run the city like a

business, um, I would say that there are very few businesses that go 28 years without making a salary adjustment for um, some of the people who serve that business. Anyway, I'm very much in support of this. I think we're doing our job. I think we're being prudent. Um the entire cost of this raise is the equivalent of a light pole. Um and so I think it serves the community to get the best people possible to give us the best perspectives going forward. Um I think this council is an example of how well it works when you have that diverse opinion. The majority of the people on this council work, they have jobs. They have families. They have they're not retirees with ample time to to play at city council. Um this is the real representation of the real Pacific Grove and I'd like to see that continue.

Thank you, Mayor Millia. And then I'll go to Council McDonald. Okay.

Thank you, Mayor. Um a bit on what everybody else said. I'm not going to repeat uh but I am going to mention a couple of things. Um 27 years ago the minimum wage was 425 and I don't know if anybody at minimum wage 27 years ago would still be working at 425 an hour. plus housing. The average cost of homes at that time in California was $135,000 as compared to now. So, I'm in I'm not going to repeat everything else everybody else said. And I'm not going to mention all the cities in the county that have had pay increases. I'm not even going to mention them. But I think this is very important that in the future, this is for the future city councils. I'm in very supportive of this because I think it's after 27 years, it's time.

That's all. Thank you, Council McDonald.

Mayor, um, yeah, so um, there was a couple of questions I have that I just want to ask here so that they're in the public. First of all, I had also noticed the slight increase in the cost from when it was brought forward last year to now, but that is because we're in a new year. So the now instead of 26 years, it was calculated on 27 years. Um so that's why it is slightly higher based on that. Um so there was um a a question about so the the charter has come up is are there any contraindications for us doing this process in relation to the charter?

There are not with respect to the mayor's count mayor's compensation and and that of the council members. The charter talks about, you know, the general law, the state law. State law uh contains a provision uh in the government code that allows the mayor to receive more than the council members do. Okay. And I I apologize. And that provision is the criteria for that pro provision is an elected mayor. Those provisions don't distinguish between uh general law cities and charter cities. Yeah, it seemed very vague. Um and so the idea is that therefore we are following the state guidance,

state law which includes the constitution, statutes, regulations and all that. But as specifically applicable here, provisions of the government code that are applicable both to uh general law cities as well as charter cities.

Okay, great. Thank you for that. Um because I want to make sure that we're addressing all the concerns that the public might have as we're discussing it because this is sort of our opportunity to do that. Um, one other thing is I had noticed that there was something in here about cost of benefits and just wanted to confirm there aren't actually any additional costs to benefits in the sense that there wouldn't be any um of the typical things we would consider benefits. But even the PERS and the PARS, those are paid for by the council members, not by the city staff. So the only things would be I think it was workers comp and there was one other category. Can can you confirm that please? Uh yes, that would be Medicare. So So Councilman McDonald, you bring up the point that we, you know, we were looking at this afternoon and perhaps the financial impact of this of the staff report was a little bit um needs a little bit of correction. Um so there's two things to that. And the first is that um the the cost of the council stipen increase difference that's proposed within the ballot measure here um would actually only be a total of 1,188 additional dollars annually. It would only comprise of the Medicare and the workers comp portion. Any of the PERS or PARS is 100% currently paid by council members. So,

and the city already pays for that workers comp. So, the two that it would just be a slight increase based on the increase in the salary amount. It's something that's already there. Correct. It's not a brand new thing. Yeah. Yeah. So, that I would So, since it's roughly double the stipen, it'd be roughly double that. So, it' be about $2,200 a year total. And that's for all seven council members. Yes.

Okay, great. Thank you. Um, and I I I we keep getting stuck in these challenging situations. So, the public indicated by the referendum that they wanted to bring this to the vote. Um, and and so this really is us doing that. And I know that I know I had supported it going to the voters in the first place as well. So, there's the challenge of it could cost slightly more. It's still um it's not a special election in the sense that we're not paying for the whole thing. There is still uh a primary election, but the cost would be slightly higher based on dividing it across voters across multiple counties. And I guess that goes across not just Pacific Grove. If other counties also have or other cities, excuse me, also have something on their ballots that helps defray costs as well. Do I understand that correctly? Councilman McDonald. So, the the county um elections department um as the city clerk has received puts out a a guide for districtricting and they give us some election cost estimates. However, there's many factors that go into it and I think the best thing we could rely on currently is probably 7 to$10 per voter, but again, that could slide around based on how many different things are on the ballot. Um how short the measure is, how long it is, lots of factors in that.

And that's what's really frustrating. is not an attempt by council or city staff to be non-transparent. It's the fact that our guidance from the county is very vague because it it is based on factors that we don't have control over and basically we find out at the end what all the costs are. It gets divvied up across all of the different cities. Okay. Um, so yeah. So, so the challenge that we're in is kind of as council member Walking Stick alluded to is we're we're kind of at a turning point where we're moving into the district elections. Um, we do have some areas where it's been more challenging to find candidates. Um, I would agree there is definitely a real cost to participation in in reducing work hours to have the time to commit to this. Um because it is true we don't just come to the meetings. There's the weekends we spend reading the agendas for the meetings, doing our notes, communicating to get our questions answered, um attending our regional meetings, our liaison appointments to the board's commissions and committees and then actually working on other things within the community we find important. Whether that be time we spend with community members working on things like housing. So, so there's because we're dedicated and and want to make a difference for our community that that's why we're investing the time to do this. But I do think it's important to make it um again, you're never going to get rich doing this job. But I think it's important that it's it's not a hindrance from it being possible for more people. Um so I do appreciate that, you know, I agree I that it's a great idea to bring it to the community. the community wants a voice and that gives them this gives them the opportunity. Um, so I can see an argument and a slight amount of cost potentially by waiting to do it in November, but then we risk not potentially getting as good of candidates for or or the number of candidates maybe for that November election. So, in my mind, it seems like

it's in the interest of the community to have things in place so that they can get candidates who who who would then have more likely maybe some bandwidth to participate. And um so, so yeah. So, I think that I I appreciate that a lot of the public even um I've had a lot of people say even if they signed the referendum, it wasn't necessarily a no on on the increase necessarily. It was more about the public wanting to have a say. And I actually agree with that statement. So it's it's kind of democracy at work doing that. So now it just becomes a matter of when it happens. So we're moving in the direction that was requested. And I think that because in particular of the district elections coming up and wanting to make sure that we are creating the opportunity for good candidates that the June one makes more sense for the long-term outlook for the community. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, council member.

Thank you, mayor. Um, and uh um I'm for this item. I think the it's it's um high time we uh we have this on the ballot, move forward with it. Uh I think one of the things that I'm as I'm hearing through uh each council member's opinion here uh one of the the agenda item actually has a a little area which says um focused priority area and for whatever reason the agenda item marked that as not applicable. I would argue that uh this is applicable. We are trying to get wellqualified candidates in a focused priority area. I could I could say it could be community redevelopment or development. Uh so so I I'm all for it. I I would say that uh a couple of questions that I have is probably for the city manager. Um do we have any other I don't think we do, but you tell me. Do we have any other ballot measures lined up for June or is this the only one?

Council member Dori, this would be the only one.

Okay. And uh I I think the other the other item that I have here is the is the fact that u the reason why we're here is because we haven't taken care of the uh cost of living allowance for council. So it's spanned over 27 years and so on. But but really with the ordinance as is written right now, we're again setting this up to be another substantial increase in the future. So, uh, uh, what I was going to ask was to see if, uh, we want to put, uh, what, a year-over-year increase for cola within the ordinance itself. So, we we as a council did not end up in the same situation every so often. And I know this is uh has a timeline kind of crunch. Uh, but that's where I am with this is uh, if if we had something like that, we wouldn't be uh, in the spot today. Uh and then uh there there was an impartial analysis uh kind of quoted over there. I know it says impartial but but I will I will just state that uh uh there is a I mean a council member or the mayor has the right to to refuse the pay. So that's always there and I want that analysis to to reflect that. But I'm in support of this. Uh, and thank you,

Sandra. Is Mr. Council Member Al still online? Does she have her hand up still? Um, I'm just going to make before I recognize Council Member, I'm going to make a quick quick point. Um, the escalator, I believe, is illegal. We We discussed that the previous session, and Mr. Park's online, but I'm pretty sure the escalator is illegal. State law. By state law. So, we'll go ahead and recognize uh Council Member Ral at this time.

Thank you, your honor. Um I won't believe here the the the points that everyone has made. I think they've done a great job of, you know, reminding everybody that this June election is not a special election. It is a primary election. We're going to have it whether or not this is on the ballot or not. Um I think it's the right time to do it. the people that are uh running in July should know what that pay is. That was some objections from some of the folks before. Um I agree with Council Member Garfield that no one should have to lose money to serve on the city council, whether it's child care or elder care or travel or whatever uh comes up. Um, so I think that this is the right time to do it and uh I'm fully supportive of this moving forward.

Thank you. Um, at this time I'm going to move with the help of the city attorney. I'm going to move recommendations one, two, three and call for a second. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second on items one, two, and three. Recommendations. Um, is that sufficient legally? Okay, just need a roll call vote. Okay. and um don't want to address council member Dur's comment. Uh I I don't favor adding an escalator because I don't want to make any hurdles or issues with our the ballot measure or make it challengeable. And I I don't see Mr. Perrick didn't chime in, but I I think we already discussed that and it was deemed to be Mr. Per is here. He's on Oh, there he is.

Yeah. So, so the answer is you could not have an automatic you could not have an automatic increase. Um and I think they already mentioned that. So um that's where you are on that. Okay, great. So any further discussion by anyone including council member Council Garfield in discussion? Yeah, there is one point in here that this cannot be revisited for five years and we haven't brought that up and I wanted to clarify. It's something that that is um uh the city attorney can help me find that. It's the last last section of the ordinance.

Section nine. Section nine. Okay. It proposes that we um that this will sit for uh five a period of five years and cannot be revisited by future councils. So it gives us a a time where again the council salary will be behind inflation but it will not be an immediate turnaround. And I don't know that we brought that up um in in our discussions. I just wanted to point that out that that's part of this um uh conservative fiscally responsible um proposal. All right. Thank you very much. If there's no further discussion, we roll call vote, please.

Thank you. And can I just get who second that? Was that Mayor Pan? I'm sorry. What? Who was the second? Thank you. Mayor Smith. Yes. Mayor Patilio. Council member Scarfield. Yes. McDonald. Yes. Hi. Brown. I. Rocking. I. Motion carries 70.

All right. Thank you very much everyone who was involved in that process. It was a lot of work from a lot of different people. Thank you Mr. Perrick. Thank you Burke Williams Sorenson. Thank you to our city attorney for taking it over and running with it. Thank you to staff. We appreciate it. And now we'll go on to uh item 11B, budget amendment request for Cal home reuse. And I will recognize Mr. Bigs or Anderson. Uh Mayor Smith, uh Mr. Anderson will be doing the presentation of presentation this evening. Okay. Mr. Anderson.

Good evening, Mayor Smith and Council members. Oh, sorry. Um, we have a resident who has been approved for a housing rehabilitation loan and we're in the process of re um applying for CDBG um funding to do this program. In the interim, we've got money that's in our cow home reserves that we want to move over to use that money for this um approved loan. Um, and we're asking to have that done. It's 199,000 and the balance in our reserve is 2738 86. So, I'll answer any questions you have. Thanks.

Um, just Mr. Bigs, can we just clarify that this is going to be a this is a supposed to rehabilitate an existing single family dwelling just so the public knows what actually this is a a homeowned by a qualifying homeowner for our program and the funds will be used to rehabilitate as you mentioned a existing single family dwelling make it uh more livable again. Okay, thank you very much. We'll go back to the public comment. I see no one in uh in the chamber and no one online. Mayor.

Okay. All right. Yeah, the the record will reflect that we have a lot of employees in the chambers tonight. Okay. And not a lot of public members. So, bring it back to the council for action. Um Council Member Garfield.

Thank you. I just want to make sure I understand it. So, you have an opportunity to do what's supposed to be done with these funds, which is salvage someone's home so it's livable, safe, all that. They qualify. Great. We have money that we can pull to put into the pool to then use. And there's a grant coming that's going to fill up the pot again so we can do this with other homes in the future. Yes, we've applied for a grant and we hopefully are going to be successful at receiving that grant, but we also have loan payoffs, two to three per year that are additional funds that come into the program that we would be able to loan out again in the future. So, it's considered program income. It's sort of a self-perpetuating,

okay, program. It just that 199 suddenly started to sound like a lot. Um and it's then then you think about it you go well that means that the need is very extensive for this particular project. Um is there any chance that we won't get that grant and we won't have funds coming in? It's it's always possible. It is a grant and it is competitive. Um so but we're putting our best foot forward to get a positive outcome on it. So it's something we don't hear about very much. So again, thank you. You're welcome. Yeah, thank you. Uh, Council Member Perry.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, I'll just piggy back on Council Member Garfield's questions there. Um, just uh just so I understand it. Is this the only application that we have or or are there more applications in the queue, so to speak?

Thank you for the question. Um, this is the only one we have currently. Um, we did two over the summer um that were in the same ballpark in the 190s and um this will be the third one that we've got and I've got another one in the works um also that's going to be a smaller project and we'll be doing hers in the next few months whatever. Thank you.

It Yeah. And so, sorry, just for to clarify a few things here. I I haven't seen maybe I'm off, but I haven't seen this coming before. So, I just want to clarify a few items. See, if this uh if that 74K is not enough for whoever applies, we're just going to place everybody in a queue. Is that is that how it goes? How this goes? Uh yes, we would um take a look at anticipated funds coming into the program and then base our uh future budget uh requests on those funds that we expect to come in and then that would sort of help guide us into determining the number of projects that we could fund in the upcoming years. So, and and then as as circumstances change, we could come forward in the future again once we receive that these funds to request that additional budget amendments be made.

Okay. Um, and is is this uh 199K that we're dispensing right now that satisfies everything that the owner wants? So, the owner has his own his or her own set of funds that they're also using. In other words, they're not going to come back with an additional request. Correct. That's correct.

Okay. Uh yeah, and I I I would say that u this seems like the straightforward thing to do. So I'm I'm like yes for this. Uh I just uh I was just trying to understand a few and does the does the city like kind of do we do a deed or something? How do we like have the 199k? How is that like protected?

Uh it is uh we do require a deed uh put on the property. It's a a notice of payment back to the city in case we um there's default, but we also have requirements that if the title on the property changed hands, then these funds that we loan out come back to the city. So, we have a couple protections in place. Okay. All right. Very good. Thank you. I appreciate it. Welcome. Thank you, Council Member McDonald.

Yeah, thank you. Mine were along those same lines because it it isn't explained in the agenda, just also for the public record. Um, so the way the program works is it it's it's there's a program where we get funding from outside sources that the community can borrow, which is great because a lot of people may have um, you know, a home that has a great value, but not a a lot of income necessarily to to do maintenance and things like that that need repair. So, it actually is a great program to help our local community members. So, I love that about it. But it is indeed a loan, correct? And so, I appreciate you clarifying that that it's it's a perpetually renewing, but then also we have the request the ability to request additional funds to do more projects. Is that correct?

That is correct. This is a loan. It's not a a grant. So, this money at some point in the future will come back to the city. We do charge a very simple interest rate. It varies between 3 and 5%. It's not a compounded interest, but um we do get a little bit of money or the money money that we're loaning out there is working a little bit. So, it helps helps fund the future rehabilitation projects. Thanks. And I've this is one program I've always really liked because it's a way that we can help the community in a way that is much more coste effective for them. So, um I will hardly support it. Thank you,

Council Member Ralph online. Thank you, your honor. Uh, Council Member McDonald just said exactly what I was going to say. I think this is one of the best city uh one of the best city uh programs that we have. Um, and I'm really happy to hear that more people are taking advantage of it and um I I would uh vote to support this.

Thank you, Mayor Protoilia. Yes. Um, I think this is going to be best for the the city. Um, I'm going to Let's see. Uh, Mr. Lorca, do I have to go one through uh two through three? Mr. Millio, I think you could just uh do a motion to introduce and hold a first reading of the ordinance.

Okay. I'm going to make a motion to full of the ordinance. Number three, introduce and hold the first meeting on amendments that amends the uh 25.6 from 36 budget for the physical year physical year 2526. And do you want to include number four in that as well? Yes, I'll second it. All right, we got a motion on the floor. I recommendations numbers two and four. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion on the item? Yes, some discussion. We need to thank the staff. They're making a big difference. Thank you.

Yeah, that's a good point. There's a reason we haven't seen this in a long time and we've been in the back of that's a great thing. Yeah. Thank you very much. We'll take a roll call this. I have Mayor Prom um motion and second by Mayor. Yes. Thank you, Mayor Promilio. I mayor Smith. I council members walking stick I McDonald I and Garfield car says 70.

Thank you councel staff appreciate all the work. Let's get to keep those houses going re remodeling. Um I think that we are hit at the end of the agenda here. My god check my stuff here. Yes I don't see anything else. So, uh, thanks everyone for coming in in person and participating online. Uh, have a great night and meetings adjourned. Good night.