City Council - Regular Meeting

successfully devalued a $120 million industrial asset until it could be acquired for pennies on the dollar. For eight and a half years, these men used the law as a siege. They leveraged the Pit River and Winmen Wintu tribes as a moral shield to make the land toxic to any outsider. Mayor Sterns played both sides, stringing Crystal Geyser along for tax revenue while allegedly meeting behind closed doors with ghost developers. When the trap was sprung in April 2022, one Shasta LLC bought that $120 million site for just 7.1 million. Now, the sacred tribal partnership has vanished from the planning documents. The tribes gained no land, no rights, no protection. They were simply the infantry used to win a war for developers who never intended to leave the water in the ground. Looking at the building at 211 North, it's a masterclass in passive tax evasion. The assessor knowingly has carved into four parcels. The the common area shields the true value of the building that houses the clandestino, a business operating with a city license, but no DBA filed with the county. It's a ghost business and a tax shielded shell. The final irony, on January 13, 2025, this city council passed resolution CCR2504. They declared the land surplus and invoked AB130 to fasttrack 200 housing units. By doing this, they bypass the very notice of preparation and tribal consultation they once demanded. Let's be clear about why they used AB130 6 months prior to it being passed. They aren't just skipping an environmental impact report. They're skipping AB52 by labeling this land a surplus infill. They legally erase the cultural resources from the map. They called the water sacred when it was a threat to their control. Now that it's a source of revenue for the One Shasta LLC subdivision, the sacred water is just another utility. That's just what I

wanted to bring up with you guys. Thank you.

Okay. Hope that warrants further discussion later, but uh uh any other public comments of items not on the agenda. Please step forward. Come on up.

Yeah. Hi, my name is Alan Roth and I just want to bring up that I think we need um rent control. I live in a mobile home park and email and uh you know in four years our rent's gone up over $160 a month and a little bit to be a little hard to make ends meet, you know, on a pitch stand kind of stuff. So, just want to bring that up and let you know people need help. Yeah. Thank you. Thank Thank you, Alan. Um, and yeah, we've been talking about that with some city staff. So, I think we'll continue to look at that and move forward.

Appreciate you coming tonight to bring that up, but I'd like to chat further about that tomorrow if you are coming tomorrow. Any other public comment? I see some folks out there. Okay, sounds good. Uh, in that case, we will move on to council and staff comments.

Sure. Um, I wanted to kind of give a rundown. I I um uh was appointed to state uh revenue and taxation committee uh one of 50 slots statewide. Um it was really interesting. Um the just like any other Brown Act committee, there was a lot of uh public comment before uh lobbyists and um representatives of communities that have fulfillment center got up to speak uh you know speaking passionately about why uh sales tax revenue need to stay with those communities. And then um when we got down to business uh we uh the invite. So um another interesting observation is that um communities that have fulfillment center were allowed more than one rep representative. And so uh I sat with uh a deputy city manager uh that uh is the location for the large fulfillment center in the state and they see a billion dollars in sales tax revenue a year. Um so why were we there? We are uh we're there to um make a decision and uh attempt to pass uh you know or send to legislative committee our recommendations on ways that we can come back to sharing uh sales tax that currently goes directly to the uh communities with fulfillment centers. and um

the lobbyists for these um large warehouses and fulfillment centers have done a great job of exploiting the Bradley Burns tax um act of 1955 that says that uh sales tax is shared at the point of negotiation. So uh we're trying to change that uh We took a vote. It was pretty close given that the folks on the committee that uh we would send to the legislature a 50/50 share of um sales tax revenue that would be phased in over five years. Uh any communities that currently have a sales tax sharing agreement uh with fulfillment center would stay in place uh but no more. Um and the um the kicker here is that for this to pass it requires a constitutional amendment and the constitutional amendment has right now we don't have a definition for e-commerce. So, we're letting things go that we should be taxing, like the sale of music or media transferred electronically or software that's that's transferred electronically and defining um you know what we can collect sales tax on and defining what uh you know where sales tax is to be collected. Um, what we did pass that doesn't require a constitutional amendment is that the 1% that's elected from these filling centers to communities that currently go to counties for them to distribute to

the LTC or to um uh you know certain other funds um would uh um you know where we voted to have that money come directly to cities. I think the was fascinating is they um laid out a uh a study of cities including an overlay by zip code of uh who would benefit and who wouldn't um with the 5050 return the uh sales tax coming uh to everybody and especially communities like ours that uh don't have a lot of storefronts a a lot of basic goods uh that are purchased over the internet. Uh we will this is with 50% of sales tax return. We would see approximately 30% increase in our sales tax. 30% for half the half of what we should be seeing. Um there was a gentleman in the uh audience who uh were listening to one of the cities complain about how going to ruin their budget uh uh from Pasadena. I'm been finance director for 40 years and I was one of the one of I was uh privy to one of the first fulfillment centers leaving and that was Avon and he said we made do um and that's what we're going to do and basically if um you know we're trying to be fair here with the phase and in the 5050 split if the state um in its current configuration has their way they want to return it 100% % community. So, it's better for you to to join on now. Um so, with with all that said, uh

it's important hopefully this does pass, but it also um this cut of the pie is going to continue to shift towards fulfillment centers. So, you know, we have our own financial constraint and we're trying to pass our sales tax measure where, as a reminder, the sales tax, this sales tax stays in the community uh for public safety. So, that's that piece and I just wanted to give you that update. Appreciate that. Uh what's the any idea? I I know you said it still has to pass. When is it first up for a vote among the state legislature? Is that this November?

Um I don't know because it sits in committee. It's been discussed uh for a year now. And just out of curiosity, is there anything that people can do? call specific representatives, write to them,

anything uh um you know, any time you can write your representative or you know, call the district, but call Washington as well uh um to hammer this point home. In fact, any uh anybody a representative within the state of California, it'd be worth making that phone call to. Um, you know, we we're also looking at, you know, an incumbent filling the the vacated seat from a um Lalfa and a new election. So, we'll see what that brings as well. Mr. Chair,

yeah, please. So, if I understood this correctly, we are already losing all of that sales tax to the fulfillment center. uh more than 30%. Say that again. Uh more than 30% um on just that is if we're actually losing 60% if we got 100% of it back. Does that make sense? So if this were to pass, we would get 30% correct on top of what we're already getting. Okay. So it can't get worse.

Can't get worse, but you know that rate of online increasing. Yeah. So like our overall percentage of online shopping is probably And what you're saying is that if we if this passes and we become a part of this then it will steadily increase to more of a 50/50 split.

It will based in over five years. the other um as I mentioned up front too they're uh you know we're able to start taxing uh the transfer of digital media and to attack uh you know uh uh software that's transmitted um you know over the wire. Um the other piece is B2B sales aren't taxed at all. Uh the only thing that is taxed is when it gets above $500,000. Now, um that's a push that's also happening in parallel uh to capture some of that revenue because obvious reasons. So, I know I've taken up a lot of time here. I can go into the landing. We we had a good meeting with John and Brian Power, uh the Power Group this morning. They were here in person. Um, you know, we had Kim join us, Ken and um, Casey was with us and we talked about a lot of things about uh, affordable um, talking again through affordable housing development corporation. We've got a meeting with Denko on Wednesday. Uh, and if we can't make that work, we're looking at potentially tiny home clusters. One of the things they're finding them, they being the powers group, is that uh for them to move forward, they need site control. So, we need to move forward with an agreement in some way that that indicates that they've got sight control at least while we do our due diligence. Uh we're we're uh you know getting infrastructure into the rest of the property. We've had a very cursory talk about forming a meal district or a public facilities or community facilities district. And um

the the you know what I mentioned is one of the things that we can't have uh there are ways to structure this but it can't be formed in a way that if it fails for some reason the city's on the hook. Um, so I don't know, Casey, you want to expand on that? Maybe I'm missing something. Um, no, I mean I think that pretty much covers what was we got a really

solid site plan for the east side and talked about the infrastructure that we need. We have the water we need. that uh might um you know, we're going to need to look at sewer lines, you know, not only to the east side property, but across the top of of um the west side of the landing as well to hit our upgraded sewers that run under I5 into the plant. Um I one thing I I do think that was important that was brought up uh and this was actually brought up unprompted by the developers themselves is that before they go forward with any development particularly large scale development they would like to see um a series of community meetings to get input from the community to ensure that it is um something that just goes along with what people actually want to see both both aesthetically and for practical purposes as well. So they're not trying to come in and ram in some giant thing that people don't want.

That's the big stuff unless people have questions for me. Um Melissa or I guess any questions for what was going on there council? Yeah, big thanks for going down and representing

eye opening. eye opening the uh to um just the lack of you know of not reading the room when uh every community uh that's there except with fulfillment centers is is really struggling and they're complaining about losing 50% of their revenue over a period of time. Now we had a woman uh a city manager from a community in um uh Napa Valley, smaller place, uh not a lot of storefronts, you know, chuckle. She said, "Uh we don't even have underwear." I mean, we all got her meaning, but it it's true. She's the community that's going to see um 30% of her sales tax revenue back, and that's the way it should be. Oh, I was Melinda or anybody else?

Yeah, you got please.

Thank you, mayor. Um, I just wanted to introduce our two new staff that have joined us in the finance department. Um, if you guys want to come up. This is Lindsay, our new administrative supervisor. She took um Jodie Folk's position. Um she comes to us uh most recently from the county. Um and she'll be the first few months I think our priority is going to be kind of working on a lot of the HR things and her and I getting in step with with those type of um items that we need to get brushed up on. And then um Lori is our new accounting assistant and um she's primarily focused on the STR uh stuff right now. We'll be phasing into accounts payable. So you'll see text checks information about checks coming from her and then um probably doing some time menry for timekeeping and stuff. So she's um taking over some of what Erin and um and uh Priscilla were doing. So just wanted to welcome them and if you guys have any questions or

Well, welcome. Thanks for coming. Any questions for them? Welcome. Yeah. Round of applause. Why not? Uh, anything over here? No. All right. Okay. Uh, we'll move on to committee updates. Anything from DAK? Uh, I don't. DAK meets uh Wednesday morning.

Okay. Um, well, in that case, it sounds like we don't have any. However, as far as an update, I would like to remind anybody watching that we do have some vacancies on the downtown enhancement advisory committee and the beautifification committee. So, if you want to make math to beautiful, this is a good chance. Okay. On to the consent agenda. The city manager recommends approval of the following consent agenda item. All resolutions and ordinances on this agenda or added here to shall be introduced or adopted as applicable by title only and the full reading thereof is hereby waved. A. Approval of minutes January 12th, 2025 regular meeting. B. Approval of dispersements accounts payable January 11th, 2026 and January 13, 2026. Total gross payroll and taxes for the period ending January 22nd, 2026. C. Monthly investment report. D. Dissolution of Library Expansion Committee. E taxi inspection ordinance. Second reading.

Second. Okay, we've got all that. All those in favor? I I Any opposed? Uh moving on. It is number eight. We've got school board recognition month. Uh the city council has the opportunity to recognize the efforts of the school board. Todd? Yes. Uh so um we want to approve a proclamation. Uh and our proclamation number is DCP 2601. And um Sure. Okay.

All right. Proclamation of the city council of the city of Mount Shasta to proclaim January 2026 as schoolboard recognition month in Mount Shasta. Whereas an excellent public education system is vital to the quality of life for all California citizens and communities. And whereas board of education members are committed to children believe that all children can be successful learners and that the best education is tailored to the individual needs of the child. And whereas board of education members continue to advocate to best serve the children in our community each and every day. And whereas our public education system has faced unprecedented circumstances these past five years as a result of the CO 19 pandemic and resulting learning loss. And whereas our local board of education continues to act to ensure children's academic, social, emotional, physical, and mental health needs are met so they can become their best selves. And whereas board of education members work closely with parents, school staff, educational professionals, and other community members to create the healthiest environments possible where all students can thrive. And whereas board of education members are responsible for building and maintaining the structure that provides a solid foundation for our school system. And whereas board of education members are strong advocates for public education and are responsible for communicating the needs of the school district to the public. and the public's expectations to the district. And whereas the mission of public schools to meet the diverse educational needs of all children and to empower them to become competent, productive contributors to a democratic society and an everchanging world is more poignant than ever before. Now, therefore, I, Casey Ldman, do hereby declare my appreciation to the members of the board of education and proclaim the month of January 2026 as schoolboard recognition month in Mount Jassa. I urge all community members to join me in recognizing the dedication and hard work

of local schoolboard members and in working with them to create an education system that meets the needs of our children. All those in favor? No. Nope. Sorry. Yep. Ah, my mistake. Uh, any public comment? Okay, bring it back for council discussion. Second. Okay. All those in favor? I

I. Any opposed? Excellent. Okay. Moving on to item number nine, city clock repairs. The pedest John

the pedestal clock and thermometer located in the downtown area have been inoperative for some time. Staff has compiled quotes for repair and replacement. Ken, you've got the floor. All right, mayor and members of the council. Uh, as you know, the clock and thermometer have been inoperable for quite a while. Historically, we've been able to get the parts that were malfunctioning and send them off and get them rebuilt. Uh, we actually did that a couple of years ago. Ma them off, get them rebuilt. took a year to get them back and they still didn't work. Uh basically the and it's partly because the uh the company we used basically one individual uh retired companies got out of business. They won't rebuild our parts anymore. Uh getting new parts uh was quite the hunt. We finally found a uh distributor that will get us uh new parts for the clock. And that's what I have the code for $3,660.38. The thermometer, there's nobody that sells parts for that thermometer. Uh it's uh we also went in search of a new clock and thermometer. And while we can still buy new pedestal clock similar to what we have and I have a ballpark estimate of 40 to 50,000, I canot find a distributor anywhere for a pedestal thermometer like the one we have. So I am looking for direction from the

council on do we want to at least keep the block operational and if so some direction with Melissa's help on where to find the $3600. Uh and then maybe as far as the thermometer do we want to leave it up as a uh uh display or just remove it and put it in storage. Go ahead.

So on this one, can we just go kick this to DAK and they can do a Back to the Future style save the clock tower fundraiser. So we don't have to do the 3600 or any money that way. We can let local citizens, if they truly want that clock to stay there, pay for it. I would think that's an option. I'll bring it to DX on Wednesday. They're they're a creative bunch. And you know, if we can't figure out a way there, we'll do it on July 4th weekend. Put a booth right there. See who wants to save a clock. That's right. For the get a bucket of manure going back. John, any other questions?

I love that idea. Um, is there any money left over in that Prop 68 money that we have that went to parks and does that count as a park? Um, by the time we get this reprogrammed, the way they're making us go through it, one item by one item, um, we'll probably be picking out a funeral plot. Go ahead. And I understand you've had some experience with installing the parts in the past.

Yes, we have done that with public works crew. And you have this statement in our our summary that says they don't tend to last too long. Does that mean 20 minutes or two years or I don't have a crystal ball. I I I'd like to think we'd get a year or two out of them. I I I wouldn't bet money on getting more than that. Well, well, the reason I'm trying to get a sense of perspective like in the past did the parts last a year.

I will have to do more research on that. I know just over the years that clock has it's gotten a lot of work from the public works crew yet it still has spent more time not working than working it and the reason thank you for the reason I'm asking and I I think we're all kind of headed semi sort of down the same path which is for a stop gap fix for 3600 and change granted it's all unbudgeted but versus 40 or 50,000, which if we have a 1% sales tax of an additional $1.6 million a year, we could probably fix the clock then. Um, versus now,

yeah, get it right. Get a new one, right? Um, I would like to add that we've been rebuilding the park quite a bit. We because we can rebuild it for a few hundred. We haven't done a lot of the plug-and-play where we actually replace the parts. So maybe I'm being a little too customistic. So the 3600 would be like new parts instead of refurbishing is what you're is what you're saying. Yes. Okay.

Um any other questions over here? How about members of the public? Comments, questions, clock related. All right. Uh, we'll bring it back for discussion now. Sure. Yeah, please. Council member Collins, what's the temperature? Just go ahead and eat for 36 or less apparently 100 or less to try and get us through to the we would have more to replace it and actually fix it with warranties and a whole new clock.

Well, how about we just table it and see what DX says on on Wednesday about, you know, taking up the charge to get it fixed with donations instead of money we don't have. Pretty reasonable. I'm asking more in favor of removing them doing that. I believe we could do that with our public works crew at no cost. Okay.

So, I move to table this item uh till a future date to be determined while D discusses possibilities for improvements of the clock and possibly the thermometer. All right. All those in favor? Any opposed? Okay. For anyone from DAK watching, I would like to say an option would be replacing it with an actual crystal ball as mentioned by Ken. Plenty of crystals.

All right. On to number 10. Uh, rescending resolution CCR-18-44. It has been brought to the attention of staff that the city's current policy for the compensation of volunteer firefighters and station coverage pay does not satisfy the requirements set forth by Kalpers. And this one we're going to toss over to Melissa.

Thank you, mayor. Um uh se several months ago had an initial uh review with the auditor uh on our expenses. Um he pulls a variety of expenses and looks up where where they came from and where we're charging them. And one of the expenses that he pulled was the reimbursement to the uh on call firefighters. And per the resolution previously um CPR 1844, what had been occurring was if an individual volunteer took 10 calls a month, they got $100. If they took between 11 and 20, they got 200. And between 20 21 or more, they got 300 a month. Um, we haven't done this a lot, but the fire department has used this and that is against the rules, the accounting rules for stipens. Um, you're not allowed any longer per the accounting rules to pay a stipen to volunteers, but you can reimburse them for expenses specifically. So instead of saying if you take this many calls you get a $100, you could um if they turn in mileage logs reimburse them for mileage or if they needed a pair of you know boots to do the volunteering we can reimburse. So it's a reimbursement based payment rather than paying for certain amount of calls that might not actually cost that much. Um so that was a recommendation of the auditor that we um no longer do that. And then as you you're aware I went to a PERS training back in February and at that point it came to my attention around the um coverage the 24hour coverage because we're paying that through our uh payroll system and onboarding those people as actual employees. We have to follow follow the PERS requirements because

we're a CalPERS member, contracted member. So, in order to move forward with continuing to pay the 24-hour shift coverage, we would need to have a job description, put that on a publicly available job um uh posting, and we are haven't been doing that. So, that was another one that we need to resend and, you know, figure out if that's something we want to continue. we would need to put the proper requirements in place.

I will add that um there's nothing real until we have something in but um the district has agreed uh to move this over to their payroll which helps alleviate some of this but again um it's not resolved until we have something in writing. Okay, excellent. Uh, any questions from this end over here? How about over here? I have a question then. Uh, so it sounds like this is just something that we have to do to be in compliance with PERS anyway. So, um, no big deal there. And then, um, in order to start compensating via actual expenses, so that would be mileage, things like that. I have two questions on that. One is does that require and maybe this is does that require a separate resolution that we have to pass then or is that by rescending this are we automatically doing that?

Uh we don't I don't believe we would need a resolution to do that. That would be um you know us authorizing uh any other expense just like we would uh but from what I understand they're going to move that um over to the um district and so they'll be compensating the volunteers at this this time.

Excellent. Um, and just real quick then, uh, we just one last question. Sorry. Uh, as as our city manager noted, it's not not not in effect until it's in until the ink is dry or whatever. Um, in the interim when we do this and we are paying for it, any idea, and not to put you on the spot too much, but any idea um the difference if we if it's likely to be more or less on a monthly basis just judging by the number of calls? I I wouldn't be able to answer that question. I'm sorry. No problem. No, that's fine. Um, okay. In that case, uh, any members of the public Oh, there we go.

I got a random question for that one. So, if I'm hearing this right, um, it almost sounds like volunteers, if there was 10 or 20 or 30 calls, would almost get they get paid a commission something and it would be like spending money and now it sounds like it's changing towards because you have to I get that uh into it's no longer fun spending pizza money. It's no longer pipeline. Let's go on a date money. It sounds like it's turning into now I got to go buy these Walmart boots for $79 because I just did and then turn it in and now I don't get that. So I'm just say if I'm hearing that right, does that sound right for for the most part?

I think so. Yes.

Okay. So I like to just point out number one, love our fire chief. Ridiculous amount of awesomeness in that guy. Number two, all of our full-time staff and fire. next level uh services. Number three, every firefighter that volunteered, my heart is so big for every last one of you guys. And this is now a morale thing. There's like a morale uh you know, a love for joining a fire department as a volunteer for the city. And now this little perk that Yeah, depending you know, that's nice. It helps. I can fill up my tank and go to work. I can go take my lady out on a little pipeline thing. And now it's kind of turning into something that it's it's going to be trickier to get more volunteers when the incentive is now moved over to something else that's more business related and they already carry a lot of on their shoulders. It's just something worth considering if I'm hearing it correctly. I understand your position. I just want to mention it if I'm hearing it right.

Yeah. Well, I mean, the one thing is that, as you mentioned earlier, it is required that we do this anyway. Um, the other thing, too, I think if we're talking about boots that are worn on a fire, they're actually they might come out ahead in this one if they're anything like like wildfire boots that are well over the $100 that you would receive for running up to 10 calls a month. So benefit they are um so it actually it may come out I'm not going to say they're going to come out ahead necessarily but I don't think they're going to be losing out a significant sum of money and I could be wrong about this but I don't think many of the volunteers are running more than like 30 calls a month I wouldn't think I mean

but I think we're missing um something larger here but you probably know this that um you know we share services with the fire district. You know, there is the city firefighters and then district firefighters and um what they've agreed to do, we don't have it signed yet, is that um instead of the city picking up um this additional cost, they would pick it up. It um it alleviate uh the need for the city uh to be paying the PERS. it. But um you know it it everything you said is right. Okay.

Um we you know it's an incentive for people to keep coming back and it's the right thing but uh we're we don't have a choice. It's just now we need to get something in with the district.

Right. I think it's just to get a firefighter's perspective up on this podium on live that you know there's other firefighters thinking this thought as soon as this gets live and you know I'm sure if they were here they would be asking the same clarity questions but thank you appreciate you let's see bring it back any other any other public comment out All right, we'll bring it back for discussion this time. You go over here. Just wanted to clarify, you have to we have to put this through, right?

So, and just to be clear, there's two issues here, right? There there's one that's an accounting issue that the call reimbursement and if we don't if we don't fix that, then we'll have an audit finding. And then the other is the PERS issue and that is if we continue to pay individuals and not report their PERS then we're out of compliance. So good reason to do this. All right. So we go. All right. So I'm move to approve resolution CCR-26-4. Yeah. A resolution of the city council of the city of Mount Shasta resending resolution CCR-18-44.

All right. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay. Okay. Uh moving on to number 11. The combination of the wastewater and drainage funds. A little background. While California law does permit the merging of wastewater and drainage funds, there are several restrictions on how these funds can be operated. Staff has compiled a list of legal requirements and the pros and cons for the council's consideration. Throw it over to Todd.

Okay. Um the proposal uh stem from our finance uh committee and from our auditor uh who is um a guru uh combining uh our wastewater uh fund and our drainage fund because they're basically one and the same. I mean um and uh Charles, our auditor, uh stated that he believed this is something that we can combine the two. And after doing research, what we learned is yes, you can combine the two, but you need if you did, you would need to uh strictly account for how um spending went for you know each um you know each pod of funds. If it's if it's combined, you could be under one process or you can run two you know, a separate 218 process uh for uh uh drainage and one for sewer. The issue lies um in a couple things. Uh if you recall our attempt to pass the drainage fee, there is an anomaly in the law that requires that if you want to pass it, people that want to vote yes on an increase to fees have to actually physically write a letter or show up in person at city council saying, "Yes, I I want to pay the additional fees." Um that's part of the reason why I believe the drainage fee um didn't pass. So if we combine the two

then uh de facto uh sewer and drainage would require that measure. If we keep them separate, we still have the issue with drainage. Now with that said, there is um there was a law passed in 2018 SB231 which the point of this was just um to say this doesn't work. one system and um it passed and uh the Howard Jarvis Center taxpayer group uh advocacy group said if any community out there undertakes this we will do immediately because the legislature doesn't have the power to change the definition of sewer. Only a state constitutional change will allow that. And so there have been communities that have, you know, said, "Okay, we're doing this." Um, and there have been challenges. It It's my understanding that um one lower court ruling uh ruled in favor of it. Another uh ruled against it and they're waiting to be heard in Supreme Court uh running it past our city attorney. He said, uh, it it makes all sense to keep them separate until the law is settled. Um, hopefully we can get, you know, a definitive ruling soon enough um because it would make things a heck of a lot easier.

The chair, please. I sent Todd a list of questions earlier today which you answer answered very well. Thank you. Um, one of which was what was Kenny's side of this and his was don't do it. Um, one follow-up question. So, under normal 218 the water sewer, if we do a Prop 218 study and it comes back saying that the current rate doesn't support the current infrastructure, then we get to raise rates in order to meet that. Why doesn't that work under this drainage function if there was a two if it's governed by the same 218?

I have not um had a response from John that I understand. Um I can join in please do

for the public and for to reacquaint everyone. So uh three team process for sewer separate as a separate uh enterprise fund and for water as a separate enterprise fund. There's a rate study and the rate study says for not just infrastructure improvements, capital improvements but for operations of those two particular fund um enterprise entities uh rate rates have to go up. Then it goes to the rate holders for a protest vote so to speak. In other words, half plus one of the rate payers of that particular category have to protest. And to remind everyone, the the greatest rate uh uh negative vote was for sewer. Um or no, I think it actually was for garbage, but u so that also qualifies for negative.

Um so three that required negative vote. I think it was garbage came in 149 negative votes. Either way, sewer was in the in the low 100s. Garbage was in mid 100 negative votes, nowhere near half. water was like 19 or something for the last one we did. So those are negative votes. For some reason, drainage is has to be a positive vote. You have to have people send in their ballots, so to speak, saying they want this rate increase and uh it has to pass by 50% plus one. The last one failed u pretty decisively uh for drainage. Um I think it was way too big ass and there was a lot of negative uh feelings about that one.

It wasn't a lot of money. It was the fee is a dollar. Well, no. For for for residential, I think for commercial, I think the real energy was from commercial people who did not want to pay. They thought it was exorbitant um rates for drainage and they got a lot of letters out came in negative. So, so if drainage is put under is combined with the sewer uh enterprise zone, it both would then have to be positive votes. Is that what you said before?

Um if they were combined under one 218 process, we can we can say it's a drainage and sewer fund, but we'd have to run two parallel 218 processes. We have to do two separate ones. And would the drain still have to be a positive vote? Yeah. Oh part I don't understand. Yeah. Then I don't know why we advantage to doing it. I think we need to challenge that a little bit because it's basically saying that it is a 218 functionality but it has to be treated differently. So maybe it was um I'll I'll I'll seek a better explanation. Um

well it wasn't there was no doubt that for drainage it has to be a positive vote and she explained it to me years ago when she moved up to Oh no I don't think so. No I think that's the part that needs the constitutional amendment. Yeah. No, I I don't I know it would be helpful, but

the part that keeps hindering me is no other city in Fiscu County has a drainage fund. So somehow they are able to collect their fees in the sewer fund and use it for drainage. But from my understanding, we just set it up terribly. I think there was something in there about how if it was set up originally together and unfortunately

if it was if it was set up and it was originally considered um a combined system and and combined in quotes um then that stood San Francisco and that can go under the normal team. I don't know whose infinite wisdom this was. I mean the and council Jackson is right that um it has to be a vote in the affirmative. It still has, you know, you know, two hearings worth of people that can pro, it still can register protest votes, but for it to pass, you have to have more people coming out and saying for the affirmative, we want this, and it's it's just a much higher bar from an accounting standpoint. Um, is there other than the fact that we can't raise the money needed in this u drainage fund, is there any huge headache to keeping them as two separate funds? I mean, no, it doesn't really affect things all that much. No, I think that um the difference maybe and and that's where I think Tessa's point is that you can't you know I'm not sure what questions need to be asked maybe a little differently in that the way we have it set up right now if an enterprise fund is losing money the general fund has to pay the amount that it's that the loss is and I think the question becomes comes if if combined do we not have to use general fund to cover that loss? We can use you know wastewater uh funds until the drainage fund is no longer in the negative. I

think that's the part that when we were having the conversation at our finance committee became the reason why we wanted to investigate the opportunity to combine the the fund 45 wastewater with fund 30 the drainage I think when we talk about systems I don't you know I I'm I don't understand the infrastructure I would have to kind of understand that a little bit more as to do they really function separately or do they function as one meaning that the drainage drains into the wastewater. I I I just don't you know but um I can keep them separate no problem. It um you know I mean obviously that's been happening for years and years. Um and you just you know we have to cover the losses with general fund. Um, I could keep the cost and the revenue separate in one fund. Um, you know, that's easy enough as well. We do that with wastewater right now as far as the system versus the plant. Um,

but correct me if Sorry, correct me if I'm wrong. That doesn't alleviate our issue. I mean, they still have to be kept separate in that fund. It's just so it doesn't it doesn't raise any more money. It doesn't raise us up to the level of actually getting what it costs in terms of being able to

Well, it doesn't impact the 218 process obviously, but um and our 218 the process need to be redone anyway. And so I don't know if there's an opportunity to, you know, that's kind of I think the conversation's been having. But as far as if if it's one fund and there's a loss, then does general funding to be transferred? I think becomes somewhat the question if they're combined. That would be a good follow-up question for Kenny is if we combine them, can we do a transfer from sewer or you know it just becomes comingled at that point? I'm assuming it's a no. That's a hard no. Yeah.

Um you know ultimately it it comes down to this. Um I'll get a clarification. Um I'll bring it back next time. the you know uh the timing since we're running a sales tax measure um you know is is you know ultimately we need a fix on drain it right away but I don't know if we running the two in parallel um makes sense but we we need to rightsize this and um it's I think maybe part of the drainage fee you know I know councel has said maybe take a lower amount as a run, but I think it it might um be that we need to reframe the issue in a different way. I mean, you know, ultimately we haven't raised this rate since the early 80s and it's been benign neglect and yes, it's a large increase, but I don't know, maybe uh we need to we need to get creative and um you know, he's he's not under contract for anything related to a a drainage fee, but I'll have a conversation with um William Barry from WBC campaigns on how he would approach it.

I got a question for you and maybe this is just absolutely crazy, but given that you're saying Dunmir, Weed, and plenty of others have them combined into one. They were clearly set up that way. How difficult is it to abolish both of ours and start a new one from scratch? Well, um I haven't talked to Hay Rico or Weed. Uh I talked to Blake, the finance director in Dunir. They have uh one fund, but they're cracking the 218 processes differently. I don't know if they're getting a different um if if they didn't get the same advice on the affirmative vote. I I don't know. I I need to find out more. I'll bring back these two points and I'll talk to weed in Rico. Any other questions before I

All right. Any public comment on uh water systems?

Um so I'm still learning this language. This language is definitely Yeah. I don't even know what a 50 plus one vote really means. What does that really mean in layman's terms? Okay, so that doesn't mean the population of the town is of of those that vote that actually vote. Okay. So, I don't know what the average voter is. Say it's 400 people voting. So, we need 200 one. Okay. Will allow a measure to pass.

Got it. So, going off of uh I don't know. I know it's a fix a quick fix that we're looking for in a ball instrument and thing whatever, but creatively I don't know how long it would take me. But I'm slightly confident that somehow in some way we could probably advertise and get enough people to bring in Rick and Vote to bring them in here or write them up or whatever. So I'm just saying that there's a small chance that all I need to know is what number do you need so that I can make that number happen?

The number is determined by the amount of people that only vote. this one. In an election like this one, it's probably going to be a pretty high amount of people voting.

Okay. No, you send out a notice saying um we're introducing a new rate, which we did for the waste for the storm drains. And then people sent in their provote and convos, and the convos won. Got it. Um, but it was it was more like a letter. Um, actually I think we sent it we actually sent out a ballot, didn't we? We sent a no and yes and it got mailed in or dropped off dropped off here or dropped off at city hall. It wasn't it wasn't like general election. The question I have though is um if we run a since it is a 218 process

and we had Rapelli's um you know a national expert on you know really really detailed analysis on what we need to right size us if we uh go through a 218 process and ask for less money is that even valid because we're we're uh we're telling the community what we need and then that that that study included substantial capital improvements to to the system.

And I'm think I'm reduced to just hoping that we can raise enough funds to cover the operational expenses uh and and you know simple repairs as needed. So $1 is not doing it. Is it going to take $5 or 10 per per month per repair? Todd, what you're saying is if the number comes out to be 80, we can't hedge it and say we'll only take 20. That's what I'm wondering. I don't know. But that what comes to mind for me. Like you can't say you can't ask for more than it cost, but you're saying you can't ask for less. You can't ask either once you know the number.

If we know what the number study that has to go for vote some risk there. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

Great. Any other public comment out there for this? Yeah, she sounds like she's got something to say. Um, okay. Bring it back to council then for discussion here. What are we thinking? We're waiting for some more opinions from table. So I'll move to uh continue to a date to be determined hopefully by mid year say June 30th

or much sooner. Yeah. Second. All those in favor? I I Any oppose or abstain? Okay. All right. Uh at this point, uh any council reports on attendance at appointed or outside meetings? You going tomorrow? Um we went to the Lola dinner. Mount Chasta was well attended. Um, we had a great table with the city of Dunmir and yeah, it was a good time

indeed. And I believe this may have happened uh after your departure, but um I may have inadvertently offered Mounta to host the next one on April 8th. So that'll be happening on April 8th and it's going to be great. Hilarious.

Yep. So I I would just add that um we had a well attended Rotary Club meeting where um you know I I went over uh the various initiatives that were working on the need for the sales tax measure uh and answered a whole host of questions. And um I'm I'm sure for a lot of people I went into way too much detail. for others probably not enough. Um and also uh you know uh did the had the thing conversation at the monthly um chamber of commerce watch. Awesome. Anybody else? Cool. All right, let's move on to um number 13 here. We got some future agenda items starting down here. We got one, please. Council member Collins. I'm trying to get a half year financial update.

Yeah. My plan I'm meeting with uh staff to go over budget in their department this this week and early next week. And so my plan was to bring back a general fund uh budget review at the February meeting and then might be the second meeting in February. I have a little bit of out time early in February and then after that I would plan to bring the enterprise fund information back hopefully in March.

Excellent. And we'll get that on there. Uh anything else about over here? Uh, one thing I would like to get added on there, I guess in the next 60 to 90 days, is the u I'd like to bring back the um rent control, rent stabilization, rent control for specifically for the mobile home park. Um, I guess Shadow Horizons is really the only one affected within city limits, but to get that looked at again. Anything else? Okay. All right. Meeting adjourned.