Orange City Council - Regular Meeting

Just waiting for one council member. She'll be right here. In the meantime, if you have not silenced your cell phones, please do so at this time. Okay, I'd like to call the regular city council meeting of June 9th, 2026 to order. Tonight's invocation will be given by Pastor Eric Terbeski from Sovereign Grace Church of Orange, be followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilmember John Gillenhammer. Please stand.

Thank you, Mayor Slater. Would you pray with me? Father, we're grateful for our city, our leaders, our first responders, our city staff, teachers, schools, institutions, neighbors, churches, and we simply pray you would bless our city, bless our economy, those who work with the most vulnerable, keep us safe, ensure justice, and grant wisdom to our council tonight as they govern for our good, for your glory, in Jesus' name.

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, Pastor. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Mayor Pro Tem Bilodeau.

Present.

Council Member Barrios. I'm here. I'm here. Council Member Tavalieris? Here. Council Member Gutierrez? Here. Council Member Gillenhammer?

Here.

Mayor Slater?

Here.

A quorum is present with Council Member Demetriux-Hughes.

Thank you. The proclamation that Council Member Gutierrez will be presenting is that, there it is, okay. Anyway, Council Member Gutierrez asked to present a proclamation celebrating a long time resident of her neighborhood and she will go ahead and do that.

Thank you, Mayor. And not only was she a resident when she was a young lady in the El Medina area, she still resides in District 5, just no longer in El Medina. And she is a lifelong servant, a public servant here in the city. So I'm very pleased that her grandson reached out to me. So I have a proclamation here honoring Eva Perez. on her 75th birthday. So whereas, Eva Perez, a lifelong resident of Orange with deep family roots in the El Medina Barrio, celebrates her 75th and many years of service to her community this year. And whereas, born and raised in Orange, Eva spent her career supporting local families through her work in behavioral health and community services, including jobs at the El Medina Family Resource Center and as a program supervisor with the Orange County Health Care Agency. where she focused on family advocacy, mental health, substance use treatment, and related community programs. And whereas, Eva has served the City of Orange through prior leadership on the Community Development Block Grant Committee and her current position on the Park Planning and Community Events Commission. As a park commissioner, she has supported concerts in the park, movies in the park, and efforts to improve and expand access to local parks and green spaces in the city. And whereas, following her retirement from the County of Orange, Eva returned to school and earned an Associate of Science degree in Social and Behavioral Sciences from Santa Ana College in 2018, reflecting her passion for education and her commitment to serving as a role model for her family and community. And whereas, a proud mother, grandmother, and great aunt, Eva is the beloved matriarch of her family, offering guidance, strength, and support across generations. And whereas as a cancer survivor, now three years in remission, she continues to demonstrate resilience, optimism, and dedication to those around her. Through decades of service and community engagement, Eva stands as an inspiring example of civic pride, perseverance, and generosity. Now, therefore, Dan Slater, Mayor of the City of Orange, and the entire City Council do hereby thank Eva for her lasting contributions to the Orange community and congratulate her on a wonderful life filled with friendship, love, and a beautiful, happy family. Happy 75th birthday from the City of Orange, dated this 9th date of June, 2026. Yay! Yay!

Council, can we join Council Member Gutierrez?

Thank you.

for being here, my family, and my dear friends.

Thank you all for what you do for our city.

It means the world to me. Thank you.

Okay, before we get to public comments, is there anything that any council member would like to ask for a different order on the agenda? Okay. All right, public comments. At this time, members of the public may address the council on matters not listed on the agenda within the subject matter jurisdiction of the city council, provided that no action may be taken on off-agenda items unless authorized by law. Public comments are limited to three minutes per speaker. We have, it looks like, oh, how many speakers do we have?

Seven speakers.

Okay, that's fine. First speaker is Greg Aerosmith, followed by Bob Feenstra. Bob, if you could make your way toward the front, be ready to go.

California Brown Act of 1953, enforcing government agencies to be transparent with the taxpaying citizens. I emailed the USDOJ this presentation. Focus, I'm currently brainstorming to put a committee together for the best interest of the California taxpaying citizens. Here we go. Name, California Citizens Micromanage Public Governments, CCMPG. Committee team in the works. Core message, California taxpaying citizens have right under constitutional law Number one, citizens of powers ensures that California and local governments as well as any other government private entities will not become too powerful over we the people. Two, checks and balances ensures citizens full transparency and cooperation from our public government, civil servants, public servants at all times for the best interest of we the people. Number three, protection of rights safeguards individual citizen freedoms and rights against government infringement. Number four, California's unity with the United States. Public civil servants and public private entities cannot, will not separate our state from the United States at any time and or any reason. Scope of service. Public civil servants, state and local, all local governments will have the effective action plan that he or she will execute with 100% transparency to the citizens at all times. Here are the California's categories and ranking scorecards from the U.S. News and World report that needs improvement. Crime and correction, number 38 out of 50 states. Economy, 32 out of 50. Education, pre-K through 12, 38 out of 50. Fiscal stability, 42 out of 50. Health care, 7 out of 50. Infrastructure, 35 out of 50. Natural environment, 24 out of 50. Opportunity, 50 out of 50. Corruption, fraud, and abuse. Any public civil servants as well as public private entities that participate in any corruption, fraud, and abuse will face criminal civil charges under the United States federal courts.

Thank you, Greg. Following Bob Feenstra is Bennett Meltzer.

Mr. Mayor, I'm going to take the first couple minutes on your 10 seconds. I've lost 70% of my hearing. That's not bad. Mr. Bill will be happy that not everyone can hear me. I speak very loud. I am not yelling. So I'm giving you a warning. My voice is loud because of my hearing loss. You're perfect.

You're perfect.

Thank you. Eva Perez, oh, she left already. What a neat thing to happen for her. She deserves all the rewards she got. I'm here today because my life was threatened last week in the city of Orange by some thugs at the post office. Their faces were covered. Their eyes were covered. Their head was covered. But they did this. I was in the car. Don't get out of the car. They came up to my car with the sound system, put a crack in the window, in my window. Officer Perez found that. And many people were my age or older and shaken up by what's going on. And so I stayed in the car. I wasn't about to get out and do something that maybe I'd be sorry for. But Mayor and members of the council, can you imagine living in Orange for 32 years before Cannon and Imperial were even joined? So I've been here a while. In fact, Mr. Mayor, I had the pleasure of meeting you once or twice over the many decades. Okay, here we go. While I was in the car, I dialed 111. What would you do? You're in a bad situation. People are all disrupted outside. And an elderly woman was even crying, saying, I can't go in the post office and get my mail. She knocked on my window. She said, well, you helped me because I was holding the horn. How's that for a distraction? I held the horn and upset everyone. Oh, by the way, I'm cleaning up some of my words in my mouth. I upset a lot of people. Put the shades down. And he continued to threaten me. The other one was threatening the people by the other door. I think any of us could have handled him. To make it short, 911 came on the phone. Her number was 30, I believe 3058. She wasn't about to give my name, her name. Don't blame her, I wouldn't give my name, I would never give my name anyway. I said, can you please send the car out? Things are out of control at the post office. She said, did you say your name was Bob? And I said, yes. She said, Bob, we're not going to get involved. I said, what does that mean? You're not gonna get involved? My life is threatened? and you're not gonna get involved? Well, it was decided by the City of Orange Police Department, you'll stand down. Mr. Chief, I'll give you a chance to talk to me later if you want. But the word is called in the military, stand down. She said, I'm sorry, I can't respond. We are not going to respond. I said, I noticed there's no black and white out in front. Mr. Mayor, by this time, I wasn't scared. I had a lead pipe in the car. But anyway, she said, by the way, you said you wanted to talk to a supervisor.

Mr. Fincher, I hate to interrupt you, but I've given you a lot of extra time, so thank you for calling 911. I don't know what happened between you and the police department, but if you'd like to talk to the officers that are here, I encourage you to do so.

No, I'd like you to remove him from office. And you don't have to worry about the time. You can read about it in the newspaper. You can hear it in public and you can hear it in court. How dare you?

Thank you, sir. Cut me off. Okay. After Bennett is Cesar Grijalva.

Hello. I'm here to voice my concerns regarding the construction going on at 1465 North Batavia. This property is owned by the Rancho Santiago Community College District. Is that within the jurisdiction of the City Council?

It is. We're not supposed to respond to your comments. If you just make your comments, we'll definitely note them. Okay.

You said at the beginning only, and that's why I'm asking. Okay. Thank you. I'm the owner of a small business located in the business park on Batavia, just north of Cotella. Moved there in 2020, noticed that immediately north of our building was a vacant lot. I asked what that was about and they said there was a school there at one time but they had to demolish the building. In 2022, some construction work started at the site. There was no signage, there was no construction fence, there was nothing done except equipment coming in digging up dirt. I contacted the school district and found out that they were installing a what's called a vapor extraction and mitigation equipment. And I later learned that apparently this site, which the school district acquired like 25 years ago, and they built a facility there called the Orange Education Center, I believe. Anyway, the bottom line was it was built, I understand after from what I read in the media in that, it was... not quite up to proper earthquake standards and codes, and also it was apparently a hazmat site from a prior business that was there that contaminated the soil, causing toxic vapors apparently to come up from the ground. I was concerned then that all this digging was going on. What was being done, I contacted OC Health and they told me that they had reviewed the plans and the system would basically make the area safe. Great. Since then, the property was vacant. Two weeks ago, heavy equipment started moving in. Last week, they started digging and tearing up concrete and the soil. We've received no information about what's going on there. There's no construction fence up. I contacted the property manager for our building there. She contacted the school district. I do have a response from a facilities manager at the school district. I can read it to you if you'd like, or the salient parts about what's going on here. But my question for you, the city council, is basically this. What is the city's responsibilities with regards to the development going on on this property? You know, did the city have a responsibility with the first structure that was built there? Because, you know, that didn't go so good. In my opinion, given the fact that this is an established hazmat site with an active vapor mitigation system ongoing, What is being done to ensure that it's a safe work area for the businesses and the workers in the area, let alone residents who are not that far away?

Mr. Meltzer, I'm so sorry your time is up, but please make sure the city clerk has your contact information, and someone from our staff will follow up with you. Okay, I took several pictures of the site, which I did give to the clerk, and she can hand them over. Yes, thank you for coming. You're welcome. All right, following Cesar is Jonathan Zimmerman.

Mayor and council members, I'm here to offer a suggestion and to request for an exemption to a city code. Let me explain a little bit. I did receive a violation for a code relating to a boat that I have on my property, on my driveway. It's a recreational boat. The violation states that I need to remove the boat and trailer off the driveway and out of public view. which is also encroaching onto the sidewalk. The encroachment onto the sidewalk, it was a little bit, maybe a foot or two encroaching on the sidewalk. I did correct it. And I went ahead and went to your Public Works office here to try to make contact with Officer, Code Enforcement Officer E. Correa. My suggestion is relates to the way he went about delivering that message. Through their procedures, he did find my wife's cell phone number, which he contacted her and was, I could call it aggressive and intimidating in the way he went about it, telling her that she needed to come home and move that boat. pretty much right away. She had a business to do and errands to run. So he did rattle her and I think not identifying that he's not a peace officer but rather a code enforcement officer would have helped a lot. I did try to meet with him to maybe get his side of the story. There's always two sides to the story. Maybe I could meet with him and go over this. In the here and now, my request is to grant me an exemption to keep my boat on my property. There's about 13 other recreational vehicles in my immediate neighborhood. Some are huge motorhomes, others are fifth-wheel trailers. There's even a metal shipping container around the corner from my home. Those things don't bother me, but I just find it odd that I cannot keep a boat on my own property, on my own driveway. I know that last week you guys proposed a one-cent tax increase on the citizens of the Orange. And I don't mind paying my fair share to help my city, but I just find it, Kinda ironic that we could pay more taxes and pay more taxes and not be able to keep our own recreational vehicles on our driveway. I know that we also, you've also increased the parking fees or made a parking fee down here at the Circle, which now makes me think twice about dining and going out to the Circle. I don't mind that a whole lot, but I do mind not being able to keep my boat on my property. So if you can consider that exception, I would really appreciate it.

All right, thank you Caesar following Jonathan is Dan swish Would it be possible for our city manager to

and our police chief to work with the dean of students and the president at Chapman University to be more proactive in helping our college kids grow up in the neighborhood. My neighborhood especially has 85 college houses in it. That is the neighborhood between Walnut and Collins, Cambridge and Tustin. So if our city manager wouldn't be able, maybe he can work with our new police chief and the new president and whoever the new dean is to get some sort of understanding as to how they can help the kids grow up. Thank you.

Thank you, Jonathan. Following Dan is Mary Oberschlake. Good evening.

I'm Dan Swoish. I live in Mayberry Ranch. And, excuse me, I wanted to come here. Usually when I come here, I've been talking about the property at Sully Miller's old site. And pretty much every time I've come here, I've bitched and bitched and bitched. So tonight I'd like to change it up a little bit and thank you guys. I want to thank the city council members, city manager, public works, and specifically Mayor Slater. I was here last November, excuse me, and I was arguing against allowing Horton to use Yellowstone as an alternate route to drag thousands and thousands of truckloads of dirt down Yellowstone. I didn't trust them, I obviously don't believe anything they say, but I don't know if I have my facts completely correct, but it sounds to me like what happened is they didn't build the temporary bridge they were supposed to, they were gonna drive the trucks through the creek, they somehow dug into a part of the toxic site that's the south side of the property, and the county shut them down. So they immediately came to the city council and said, you know, act of God, act of God. And I can't tell you how happy I am and the residents of Mayberry appreciate you sticking your guns and saying that wasn't an act of God, that was your issue. So again, I really appreciate it. So now to my pitching. Let's see. Last Friday, they put up a billboard And I'm not happy with a lot of the stuff they're doing, but that's all right. The billboard they put up was 13 feet by eight feet, which is 104 square feet. They also bracketed that huge billboard by two flag poles with pennants on them. So I looked up, I actually have a friend of mine look it up, because I'm not really great at that. But Title 17 zoning, chapter 17, .36, sign regulations, and this was printed up on Sunday, June 7th, 2026, off the City of Orange. It's a special purpose sign regulations. Section 17.36.150, special purpose sign regulations. Section A, construction project signs. Paragraph one says, no more than two onsite signs may be erected in conjunction with construction projects. they have, including the flag poles, that gives them four, and all four of them are outside the regulation. I'm already done. It says the last part they got is, in a residential district, no such sign shall exceed six square feet. So their sign's 18 times larger, and no freestanding sign shall exceed five feet in height. They're six times the height. I was hoping that... you guys would enforce that. I'd love to have that sign gone by tomorrow, but by the end of the week would be wonderful. Thanks, everybody. I really appreciate it.

Thank you. All right, Dan. Thank you. After Mary is Bruce Finn.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Mayor Protent, council members. I'm reading a statement on behalf of Ryan Johnson from District 1. apologizes for his absence due to his health tonight. He wanted to point out that his request on behalf of Indivisible Orange for information on the ALPR vendor contract details is still pending. He also wants the council to explain to the public why this option of the many other community support options that have demonstrated their improvements to public safety was chosen over the others. We need to know the metrics that this, according to our research, has an unproven track record technology is going to be judged by. Is it going to help reduce mental illness that accounts for up to 25% of police responses? Is it going to reduce noise complaints? Is it going to lead to reduce police officers and patrol vehicles? Is it going to keep residents from losing their health care access? If you cannot specify now, here, what those benefits are, then when are you reevaluating, renewing, and spending another $400,000 on how we can judge it if it's a waste of valuable resources. As it stands, it looks like you've been hoodwinked into throwing away public dollars for no actual public benefit. Thank you.

All right, thank you, Mary. Next is Bruce Finn, if I didn't say that. Following Bruce is Simon Gounder.

Hello. I'm a resident of Orange for the last 11 years. I live on Maple. And one of the reasons my wife and I had decided to move to Orange when we retired was walkability. And unfortunately, as The antique stores have left the circle and more and more restaurants and event spaces have come into the circle. I've noticed the traffic exceeds the speed limit. People run stop signs. It's safer to walk across the middle of a street than the to walk where a stop sign is. And I've written letters to you, Mayor, also the Chief of Police. I've never gotten a response from it. But I know when I go to a lot of these events and stuff, They complain about Chapman students are homeless, but for me as a resident of Orange, those have not been a problem. What the problem is that it's dangerous to walk around my neighborhood now. People don't realize they come into the circle not realizing they're also in a residential area. The speed limits far exceeds the speed limits that are required. You can stand at any stop sign and watch people just roll right through them. And these are not new laws you have to put in place or anything. It's just enforce the laws. that are there. And I know there are cities like Palo Alto that if you drive over 35 miles an hour, you know you're going to get a ticket. If you run a stop sign, you know you're going to get a ticket. And I think with more and more restaurants coming in and more and more event planning type space, we need to protect the residents of Orange and start doing something about the traffic and enforcing the laws that are on the books. Thank you.

Thank you, Bruce. Last is Simon Gounder, if I said that correctly.

Good evening, Mayor. You said it right. Members of the City Council and Mayor, thank you for your service to our city, beautiful city. I've moved here 19 years ago and I love my city and I take pride in this city. And my concern today is here first that we see these Homelessness is growing, and we see nowadays a lot of homeless people hanging out in the night in orange circle in front of stores, and I know this issue is something that we all care about them, but at the same time, I feel like if we are not going to, I know that our police department have a program for them, but I don't see anybody in the nighttime when a few of us walk every night in our circle and we see that it's growing, new people are adding into our city, especially in our circle, Orange Circle. And second, I think Bruce made a comment and I want to, it was also on my agenda that the historic circle, nowadays it's very difficult to work because on Friday and Saturdays we see people come with sports cars and they basically with loud noise and they don't respect people working on the streets and it's very hard to even cross streets because your people come for looks like they're trying to race around the circle and so it would be really nice to have our police department increase patrols during the evenings in the circle and that will help residents before something happens, somebody runs on somebody, and just last Friday, somebody, I was crossing on the circle, on the crossing sign, and somebody almost hit me. And I had to run out of there and scream at the driver, which I don't want to do that. And thirdly, I serve also as the president of the Homeowners Association in Orange at the Vista Monterey and we are having major parking issues because the Palmyra and La Vita They don't have parking permits, but all the other small streets now have parking permits, and it becomes very difficult for our 141 homes to find parking on Palmyra or on Culver, but the residents on those streets can park on Palmyra and also on Culver. So I would hope that the city would look back into those parking permits or parking so that the residents of Palmyra, Vista Monterey, 141 homes also can park. Thank you so much.

Thank you, sir. Please consult the city's traffic department or public works, and I'm sure they'll be able to guide you. Thank you. Council Member? Yes, sir. That ends the public comments. Next, we'll be moving to consent calendar. City Attorney has first of all asked me to move item 315 for a separate vote following our approval of the consent calendar. Thank you. Additionally, we have a public comment on item 3.5. Any of my colleagues like to pull anything else for discussion or questions?

I just need to register a no vote on 3.10. Okay.

Anyone else? We have a motion to approve the balance by Councilmember Demetria, second by Councilmember Barrios. Any further discussion? Actually, before we do that, there was an item... that I think I did want to make a comment on. I believe the crossing guards were in consent calendar, am I correct? Yes. Which item was that? Thank you. I'm gonna pull item 3.4 for just a comment. All right, any other questions before we move on the balance? I will call for the vote. That is approved unanimously. On item 3.4, I strictly didn't want this to go by without commenting that It would be nice if the school district would step up and assist the city in paying for crossing guards. I think that's reasonable. I think that's fair. And that's the only comment that I had to make about that. And I will motion to approve the item. Second by Councilmember Gutierrez. Any other discussion or comments? Please vote. Proved unanimously. Item 3.5 is an agreement with Western AV for council chamber audio-visual presentation system upgrades. And Reggie Mundekas would like to speak to that.

Hi, I support the item because these upgrades are about better serving the public and letting them better participate and understand our meetings. Thank you.

Thank you. Motion to approve the item. Thank you, Council Member Barrios. Is there a second? Council Member Gutierrez. Any other discussion? Please vote. That is approved unanimously. Okay, item 315, would anyone like a staff report or any further information on that? Seeing none, I will entertain a motion. Councilmember Gillenhammer has moved this item. Councilmember Gutierrez seconding. Any other comments, questions, or discussion?

Mr. Mayor, I can explain why the item was pulled from consent calendar. Any bond approvals must be given an opportunity for discussion, an opportunity for questions, and that is why the item was pulled. So thank you for pulling it from the consent. Of course.

All right, we have a motion and a second. Please vote. Approved unanimously. Okay, next is Mayor's comments, if I'm not mistaken. Let me just pass this out first. Okay, so this is simply a review of council meeting decorum standards. And I'll begin by saying that a better time to have done this would have been three and a half years ago when I became the presiding officer of these meetings. So for that I apologize. I want to have a quick refresher on decorum. Even though I think our council Members and the public honestly have been pretty good overall. I just want to make sure we do the best job we can in serving the public at our meetings and that we never devolve into the behavior exhibited by other cities, which will remain nameless. This is also a reminder to our public on what behavior is acceptable during council meetings. So in short, I'm just simply going to read it. Because it is short, and by the way, in reading this, I learned a few things myself. So, decorum A, by council members. While the council is in session, the members must preserve order and decorum, and a member shall neither, by conversation or otherwise, delay or interrupt for proceedings or the peace of the council, nor disturb any member while speaking, or refuse to obey the orders of the council or its presiding officer except as otherwise provided in this chapter. To persons of the public, each person addressing the council shall not make personal, impertinent, slanderous, or profane remarks to any member of the council staff or general public. Any person who makes such remarks or who utters loud, threatening, personal, or abusive language, or engages in any other conduct which disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of any council meeting shall, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be barred from further audience before the council during that meeting, unless permission to continue is granted by a majority vote of the council. And then lastly, enforcement of decorum. The chief of police or such member or members of the police department, as the presiding officer may designate, shall be sergeant at arms of the council meetings and be responsible for enforcing the rules of decorum as set forth above. The sergeant of arms shall carry out all orders and instructions given by the presiding officer for the purpose of maintaining order, and decorum at the council meeting. Upon instructions of the presiding officer, it shall be the duty of the sergeant at arms to remove from the meeting any person who violates the order and decorum of the meeting and take any other action as necessary, including arrest. I'm happy that if you recall, I think in the last three and a half years, we've only had one person removed, which I think is impressive. And then lastly, two quick reminders regarding our city staff. Council, please remember that our staff are hardworking and are doing the best they can. Please respect staff at all times when on the dais. If you have any issues with a staff member or their response, please discuss it with the city manager either before or after the meeting. He is the proper person to address it and will be happy to do so. Secondly, If you have questions about anything on the agenda after reading the staff reports, please take the time to contact the city manager with questions. That way he can get your response in advance, thus making council meeting time more productive and efficient. Or he can alert our staff to your questions so they can be better prepared to answer them at the council meeting. It doesn't help anyone to catch staff off guard or have them have to do the research on the spot. I realize that questions certainly can arise from discussion or public input, which is great. I'm just asking that, where possible, this suggestion be followed. That's really all I had to say about that. And I'm certainly open to any council comments or discussion on any of the above. Looks like Mayor Pro Tem Bilodeau has a comment.

Thank you Mr. Mayor. This is of course the first time any of us have seen this. I think this is very well intended on your part and goes along with how you treat everyone with respect and why I think everyone here respects you and your leadership. But unfortunately I think much of this is largely unenforceable and probably violates the First Amendment. You know, sometimes I watch other council meetings as if being here isn't enough. And I think of one of our neighboring cities, who I won't name, but it's at the top of the alphabet. And... There are some wild things that are said during public comment. There are a lot of profane language, a lot of F-bombs. It's really out of control and disrespectful. But people have a right to say those things, and this council has to sit there and take it. And that's just the way it is. And I'm concerned that if we did this, we would invite litigation from the ACLU, which we would probably lose. And so I think that Although this is very, very well-intentioned, I'm not sure this would pass a smell test. And I would ask you to actually look to the city attorney for any guidance on that. Thank you.

So before, I just, so you know, I did run this by the city attorney and asked her those exact same questions. So I will let her respond. Sure.

Mayor Pro Tem Bilodeau, thank you for the questions and the concerns. This is actually the existing code. This is printed from the Orange Municipal Code. So to the point regarding restricting free speech, recent First Amendment cases such as the Acosta versus City of Costa Mesa, a little lower on the alphabet, make it clear that a city generally cannot restrict public comment simply because remarks are critical, personal, insulting, or offensive. However, and I think the intent of this conversation is just A quick refresher, the city may still regulate conduct that actually disrupts, impedes or the orderly, or disturbs or impedes the orderly conduct of the meeting. This conversation was primarily to simply allow Just a reminder regarding the parliamentary rules of conduct and council members and the public are absolutely free to disagree with and criticize one another. I think this was simply intended to just promote orderly proceedings. But that is an excellent point. And we do need to update our code to remove any language that would be unenforceable. So thank you.

I'm shocked that we need to update this too. But anyway, yes, please do so.

I will add it to my to-do list. Thank you.

That's a long one. All right. Thank you, Council, for indulging me in that. Do we have any other reports from Council members? Council Member Dimitri.

Thank you, Mayor. Just real quickly, first I apologize for being a bit tardy. But those that came to, first, thank you for honoring Ms. Perez. She's so wonderful. But I did monitor the public comments, so nothing was missed if you thought you were being shorthanded by a council member not being present. I missed out from Jonathan Zimmerman after. So, Mary, I think you had a comment. If you would like to share it with me later, you stick around. I'll be happy to hear it. Other than that, that was it. I just wanted to apologize for running a little late today.

I know it was job-related, and that happens. Thank you, Councilmember. Any other Councilmembers? All right. Any AB 1234 reports? Oh, I'm so sorry. By the way, didn't you highlight Taqueria Hoy? Yeah, there was a really great article in the Register today about that, so I wanted to make sure you noticed that. Anyway, I'm sorry, Council Member, please proceed.

Can you go back to the first slide? As now you gave away my business highlights. So literally three weeks ago, I was sitting with some colleagues at my school, and we were just talking about hot dogs and Tijuana dogs, and we were like, yeah, those Tijuana dogs are so good, and they're like, but you know, and both of these gentlemen, one lives in Tustin and one lives in Santa Ana, if you really got a hankering for a Tijuana dog, what a better place than going to, go to the next slide. PCH. And I realized, wow, I have not highlighted PCH that's in my district in these past six years. So I wanted, like if you're going to get the kudos from two other residents that come to our city to eat some hot dogs when they've got a hankering for a Tijuana dog or a chili dog, I definitely want to highlight this establishment that is so cute and tiny. And you can't miss it coming up East Chapman. It's been there since 1995. I had to go back and realize, like, when did it open? It was 1995. And family run, still family run. And I love that their menu is on a big surfboard. So if you go to the next slide. you'll see there's their menu and you know they just keep it simple but hot dogs made in a different variety of ways and we're asking you'll get some thrifty ice cream so just bringing it back to old old times so i wanted to highlight this uh gem on east chapman who's been here for 31 years and i i wish them the best and i want them to continue being in district five and And it just, it made my heart full to hear that other people from other cities come to our cities to eat a good hot dog. So if you go to the next slide, just remind everybody where it's located, 3438 East Chapman. And those are its hours, Monday through Thursday, 11 to 9, and Friday through Sunday, 1030 to 9. So PCH on Chapman.

All right, Council Member, thank you. I love your business highlights. And I love food, so it's all good. Okay. Any other council members? All right. Item 6, AB 1234 reports. Anyone have anything to report? I see nothing. Item 7, reports from city manager. Do you have anything? Nothing tonight, sir, except that I'm hungry for a hot dog. Kidding. All right. We have a public hearing or two. Item 8.1, a public hearing and reporting on City of Orange vacancies pursuant to Government Code 3502.3. Would anyone like a staff report on this? Mayor Pro Tem Bilodeau.

I know that, and this is a question for the City Manager, I know that one of the interested parties, I believe it's the Apartment Owners Association,

That's another item.

Well, that's a different item.

That's item 8.5, which we've been asked to continue, but. Okay, okay, yeah, all right, then I will yield my time. Okay, all right, then I will open the public hearing. Do we have any speakers?

No, Mayor, we do not.

Okay, then I'm closing the public hearing, and I will bring it back for further questions, discussion, or a motion. This, again, is just a government requirement that we're fulfilling.

This is personnel vacancies?

Yes.

Okay, not property vacancies.

Motion by Councilmember Gillenhammer, second by Councilmember Barrios. Any further discussion? Please vote. Approved unanimously. Approved unanimously. Item 8.2, a public hearing to consider approving resolution number 11693, adopting the City of Orange 2025 Urban Water Management Plan and 2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan, as well as the first reading of ordinance number 10-26, updating regulations to prohibit potable water from being used to irrigate non-functional turf areas. Would anyone like a staff report on this item? Seeing none, I will open the public hearing. Do we have any speakers?

No speakers, Mayor.

I will close the public hearing, and we have a motion to approve from Council Member Barrios with a second from Council Member Gutierrez. If there's no further discussion, I ask the maker of the motion to please read the ordinance title as listed in the recommended actions.

Mr. Mayor, I move to adopt resolution number 11692, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange, adopting the City of Orange 2025 Urban Water Management Plan and the 2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan. And is that it? Or do I need to do the introduce and conduct? Council Member Martin, if you can read the ordinance.

If you can read the ordinance, please. The third one.

The third one, okay. Introduce and conduct the first reading of ordinance number 10-26, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Orange prohibiting potable water from being used to irrigate areas of non-functional turf. Thank you very much.

Very well. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Please vote. That is approved unanimously. Next is another public hearing, 8.2, to consider approving resolution number 11693. I'm sorry, I just did that one, didn't I? Moving up. Turning the page, item 8.3. Public hearing to consider approval of the Landscape Maintenance Assessment Districts 86-2, San Diego Hills, and 15-1, San Diego Hills Overlay. Final engineers... Yeah?

Oh, I thought he needed to...

I do. Fine, we'll get to that. Final engineers reports for fiscal year 26-27, resolution number 11695. Let me just read this comment here. This is the time and place fix for the public hearing relating to the levy of the annual assessments for costs of maintenance and improvements for both landscape maintenance district number 86-2 and 15-1, San Diego Hills and San Diego Hills overlay. And I think Council Member Gillenhammer.

I need to recuse myself to the residency.

All right. We'll see you in a few. For staff report, City Clerk has an announcement.

Thank you, Mayor. Notice has been given and the manner and form is required by law and a certificate of compliance is on file in my office and available for public inspection.

Thank you. Would anyone like a staff report?

Mayor, one question. If there were any protests received?

No written protests were received.

Thank you for that. I will open the public hearing. Any comments?

No speakers, Mayor.

No speakers. Thank you. I'm closing the public hearing. There are no written protests received. I'll bring it back to the council for a motion, which we have from Council Member Barrios and a second from Council Member Gutierrez. Any further discussion, questions? Seeing none, please vote.

Mr. Mayor, was I supposed to read that one like I did the last one? Because it was a doctor resolution?

No, Council Member Barrios, that was just for ordinances.

Okay, that is approved 6-1 with one abstention. Council Member Gillenhammer. Okay, next is item 8.4, public hearing to consider approval of the landscape maintenance assessment district 94-1 Sycamore Crossing, final engineer's report for fiscal year 26-27, resolution number 11696. This is the time and place fixed for the public hearing relating to the levy of the annual assessments for costs of maintenance and improvements for landscape maintenance, district number 94-1, Sycamore crossing and City clerk would also like to make announcement Thank You mayor notice has been given in the manner and form is required by law and a certificate of compliance Is on file in my office and available for public inspection Thank you would anyone like a staff report any questions of staff See none I will open the public hearing and ask if there any comments any For speakers?

No speakers, and in addition, no protests were received.

Thank you. The public hearing is now closed. I'll bring it back to the council for a motion, which we have from Councilmember Gutierrez and a second from Councilmember Barrios. Any other discussion, questions, or comments? I will call for the vote. Motion is approved unanimously. Okay, item 8.5. This is a continued public hearing to conduct introduction and first reading of ordinance number 4-26, adding chapter 8.38 of Title VIII, Health and Safety to the Orange Municipal Code, relating to maintenance and security standards for unoccupied or abandoned properties and adoption of fees and fines for regulations monitoring and progressive administrative citations. I'll open by mentioning that the Department Association is working with our staff on a few additional clarifications, and a request has been made to continue this item to the June 23rd meeting. We'll be happy to still take public input if anyone would like to. But we will likely continue this to the June 23rd meeting. Ms. Mundekiss or Ms. Finn, would you like to comment? You would? Okay. Come on forward.

Mayor, that would require you opening the public hearing.

Okay. I'm sorry. Please come back to the agenda. June 23rd if this is continued. So I would entertain any questions or a possible motion from council to continue this to June 23rd. Motion from Council Member Barrios, second from Council Member Dimitriou. Any other questions, clarifications? Seeing none, please vote.

I'm sorry, Mr. Mayor.

Yes.

My motion was to continue. Do you need me to say that?

I don't know. That's fine. Okay. Thank you, though. Please vote. Approved unanimously.

Please come back on June 23rd.

Okay, administrative reports. 9.1, fiscal year 26-27, City of Orange operating budget and five-year capital improvement program. I think this deserves a staff report. So staff, please commence.

Very good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council. Tonight I'll be presenting a very brief overview of the fiscal year 2027 budget being considered for adoption this evening, focusing only on the revisions made following the preliminary budget presentation at the May 26 City Council meeting. Starting with all funds, fiscal year 27 expenditures total $315.7 million across all funds. This chart reflects the distribution of expenditure by fund, which remains fairly consistent with previous years. This chart reflects a decrease of approximately $1.6 million from the preliminary budget. Majority of this change at $1.2 million is in the general fund, reflecting a reduction in salaries and benefits, which will be discussed further in a subsequent slide. The remaining $500,000 difference is a reduction in transfer out from the capital fund to the general fund. Fiscal year 27 revenues total approximately $253.5 million across all funds. This chart displays the distribution of revenues by fund, which remains largely unchanged from the preliminary budget. As was mentioned in the previous slide, this change reflects a $500,000 reduction in transfers in from the capital fund to the general fund. Now moving on to specifically general fund. Total expenditure for the general fund is approximately $169.6 million, which is a decrease of $1.2 million from the preliminary budget. In response to council feedback at the May 26 preliminary budget presentation, staff reviewed four years of salary expenditure data and identified consistent vacancy savings in community development, library services, police, and public works departments. Based on this analysis, staff applied a 3% vacancy savings assumption to these departments, reducing salaries and benefits expenditure by approximately $1.2 million. This adjustment does not eliminate any authorized positions and simply reflects the expectation that some vacancies will occur throughout the year due to normal turnover and recruitment timelines. All other expenditure categories remain unchanged. On the revenue side for the general fund, revenues total approximately $170.7 million, which reflects a $500,000 reduction from the preliminary budget due to the decrease in transfers recommended from the capital improvement fund. As a result of the vacancy savings adjustment, salary and benefit expenditures decreased, which reduced the amount of one-time funding required to balance the fiscal year 27 budget. All other revenue categories remain unchanged. So as a result of these revisions, the projected operating deficit has decreased from 5.6 million in the preliminary budget to 4.4 million in the fiscal year 27 adopted budget that's proposed tonight. While the general fund continues to reflect an operating deficit, the reduced expenditure levels improve the city's overall financial position. After accounting for transfers in and transfers out, the projected net surplus has increased by approximately $740,000, resulting in a surplus of just over $1 million. The improvements allow for the restoration of the catastrophic reserve to the full 20% policy target established in the city's fiscal management policies, rather than the 18% level proposed in the preliminary budget. The fiscal year 27 adopted budget therefore includes a catastrophic reserve balance of approximately $28.4 million, fully meeting the City Council's reserve policy while maintaining a projected year-end surplus of just under $480,000. Turning to the capital projects fund, the reduction in general fund transfers from $9 million in the preliminary budget to $8.5 million in the adopted budget improves the fund's projected financial position, resulting in an estimated fiscal year 27 ending fund balance of just under $2 million and strengthens the fund's capacity to support future capital needs. Before concluding, the finance department would like to thank the city's department heads and staff for their collaboration throughout the budget process, as well as the city manager for his leadership and guidance during the development of the fiscal year 27 budget. We'd also like to thank the Marin City Council for your direction and engagement throughout this process. The budget before you this evening reflects the priorities established during the budget workshops and provides a fiscally responsible plan for the coming fiscal year. Staff respectfully recommends adoption of the fiscal year 2027 budget as presented. This concludes my presentation. I'm available as well as Tring Nguyen, our finance director, and staff to answer any questions that you might have.

And thank you for your thorough preparation of our budget. Any questions of staff? We've discussed this quite a bit already. None? Oh, good. Oh, I'm shocked. Council Member Gillenhammer.

That's okay. You can say you're shocked, Mayor. First of all, I want to say thank you for making the headcount reductions as a result of the vacancy saving discussion we had last time. It's good to see action associated with that conversation. And I appreciate that reduction in deficit of 4.4 from where we were at before. Secondly, there's a couple of attachments in here, six and seven. I do want to give credit to the city attorney's office. She did not fill an additional position when taking her role, showing that she's able to make her department 12.5% more efficient. So I recognize that. I see that. And I think it's represented in attachment seven, but not six. So thank you for doing that. And then my question really is, my only question is, is when we pass the policy around needing to balance our budget, what exactly does that policy state? Again, this is a question I have here on the dais now, and I wasn't able to bring to the city ahead of this meeting, but does that not state we require ourselves to pass a balanced budget net of transfers?

I'm going to defer this question to the finance director. I'm guessing the policy was passed before. It was passed before you.

Good evening, sir. Thank you for the question. I don't remember the exact language as far as what it said in the policy, but the policy said that we will pass with a balanced budget. It doesn't say anything in regards to transfer. So I can review that with the audit and investment committee as well as the city manager to see if we need to update that to reflect council direction and desire for future budget.

Gotcha. Again, this is something I thought of now, so I didn't have the opportunity to bring it to you. I don't want this to be an I got you moment to recognize the earlier conversation. But I believe it was passed as a balanced operating budget for the city. And this budget still reflects a deficit of $4 million. So I think it would be good to understand what policy we passed, and I believe I passed that with the assumption that this is a balanced operating budget that we would pass every year. So I'll leave it there, and I think that's my thoughts on this one. You know, similarly to last time, we have a marked reduction in overall headcount, but we still represent over a 4% increase in salaries and benefits. So I think that's something that we need to continue to focus on as we move towards balancing the operating budget. That's it for now.

All right. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Barrios.

Yes, Mr. Mayor, thank you. One of the things that I think is important to note about this particular budget, and it's something that I had a long conversation with the city manager about, is At the special meeting we held earlier, we are going to go before our voters and ask them whether or not they will approve of a sales tax measure. But what we don't have as of yet, and we talked about this early on in the budget process, is that we don't have any type of catastrophic budget that shows what it looks like if that doesn't pass, if we have to meet that. Building on your question, one of the things that I'm concerned about is that even with this budget that we're passing, this is... The question was put very forcefully to the city manager at our last kind of big discussion, are we going to go bankrupt? And I think the answer was not today, and maybe not six months or a year from now, but definitely maybe a year and a half from now, we are looking at some serious trouble. And this budget is, based on my conversations with him, is one of the last ones in which we can transfer in funds in the way that we have been doing to cover this deficit so all that being said that's a long-winded way of saying what i would like to ask my colleagues to be willing to do is to put in some language into our final budget resolution making this a very serious display of what we are prepared to do if the measure doesn't pass. Hope is not a strategy. So while I'm hopeful, I think that we need to be prepared to let people know in a very clear sense If this doesn't pass, we are prepared to go back and hit that structural operating budget hard in the way that we tried two years ago to look at. But with that, I have prepared some language for us to consider to add in that would, one, hold us accountable to that, that we have to do that or the future council will have to do that. And two, make it very clear to voters what we're facing. If not this, then that. It's a choice. And it's OK to make the choice one way or the other, but they should know that. And we have nowhere that it's explicitly spelled out black and white. So I think this would do that, and I would like consideration for that.

No, I'd less be interested in hearing your proposed language.

So the additional language would be, whereas the city council recognizes that the city's long-term financial projections identify a structural imbalance between ongoing revenues and expenditures, and whereas the city council has placed a local transactions and use tax measure before the voters to provide funding for essential city services, infrastructure maintenance, public safety, parks, homelessness response, and other community priorities. And absent approval of such a measure, the city will be required to consider expenditure reductions, service level adjustments, and other fiscal measures necessary to maintain long-term fiscal stability sustainability, whereas it is the intent of the City Council that, in the event that the measure is not approved by voters, the City Council shall conduct a public budget session no later than January 2027 and direct staff to develop and present a comprehensive fiscal stabilization plan identifying expenditure reductions, service level adjustments, position eliminations, and other corrective measures necessary to eliminate the city's ongoing structural budget imbalance and restore long-term fiscal sustainability.

I love it. But I'm curious to know the city manager's response to that.

I think it's great. Right? We can reopen the budget anytime you want. Budget adoption is tonight. If you want to start talking about it in August, so be it. We're not going off the fiscal cliff tonight, tomorrow, six months from now. But it's certainly on the horizon, right? We'll pay attention to what happens in November. And if we want to reopen up the conversation in January... I think this goes back to a couple meetings ago when Council said we should have been talking about this, you know, December after the November 24 election. This commits to doing that no later than January of 2027. Okay, thank you. Council Member Gillenhammer.

I appreciate that comment. I think it's the right one. I just want to just talk about the, you know, the bankruptcy discussion point here. So, I think in order just to put clarity around what that is, that's the city no longer having cash to pay its bills. And the way to determine if you're close to bankruptcy is to look to see what is in your actual fund balances, both in terms of what you hold in your cash reserves, your investment accounts, and the actual amount of money across all fund balances, the general fund and any additional funds that you have. We have a $13,000 capital expense this upcoming budget cycle, but 13 million, yeah, 13 million. Removing that, we have over $100 million in this fund, and if we spend 105 by the end of fiscal year, total fund balance, 105 million by the end of fiscal year 2027, right, In order to move that up and down, that's our decisions to make and how we spend relative to our revenue. And right now, if we balance our budget, inclusive of debt servicing costs, we are not near bankruptcy. It's major, it's our decision-making process, right, to move forward with how we spend, right, that will move us closer or further away from, like, having those cash reserves across our fund balances and how we transfer within, right? There's risks associated with liability components. There's risk associated with pension obligations. But right now, we are not a year away. We are not two years away. We are not three years away. We're not four years away unless we make some unless there is a major catastrophic hit to the city right and even in those cases you're able to Amortize those in some of the risk areas to the city just want to be clear as to like what bankruptcy is for us I also want to be clear that our decisions are determining the outcomes of our financial health and And in this instance, we still continue to have opportunities to go back and tangibly measure what does service level to the resident of Orange measure out as. So if I'm going to spend in the police department, maybe there's crime statistics or level of service or call timing, we still have the ability to take a look at these measurables. And we have room in our salaries and benefits to continue to move towards that balanced approach to governance. So I just want to say that we are not around the corner of bankruptcy. We are not making those decisions. But we are not in great shape in terms of how we're spending. So I just want to call that out in case anyone thinks we're a year or two years away from bankruptcy. That's not the case.

Thank you. Council Member Tavalares.

Thank you. So Council Member Barras, are you saying that if this doesn't pass in November, you're saying in January the new council would bring forth discussion to discuss what next?

Is that what you're trying to prioritize? I would actually codify that the staff would be directed to bring forward new ideas and basically a new budget stabilization plan. Currently, to your point, whether or not bankruptcy is right on the edge, there are funds that are currently unfunded that are very serious liabilities to the city. And we will have to make adjustments for long-term spending. So this would codify that.

Thank you. I'm not opposed to it. It's just that I think I just got really frustrated this year when we just kept talking about things and everybody's like, no, no, no, we can't do that. We can't do that. We can't sell the library. We can't do this. We can't do that. And I just don't think... I'm happy to vote for it, I just wish that this council would have more of an open mind if we get to that position that we are gonna have to sell things.

And I think you and I have been together on that particular frustration. And so this would solve for that. I neither, at this point, neither Council Member Gildenhammer or I will be here. So this is a way to kind of meet that future date of we will do this. And we are making our, you know, holding the council accountable for that to happen and for the public to know that as well, that we take this all very seriously. I'd be happy to second your motion.

All right, and so we do have a motion from Council Member Barrios, a second from Council Member Taveleros to approve the budget with the verbiage added that Council Member Barrios is suggesting. Continuing discussion, Council Member Dimitriou.

Yeah, thank you. Council Member Barrios, do you have it actually written out so we can see the language? Take a second with it. I don't disagree with it. I think it's, I actually think it's a great idea that it spells out very clearly the path we need to head on, as you know. I think everybody in the city knows how frustrated I've been getting. But I think having a, not just a statement, but actionables, and I actually think regardless of how the vote goes in November, starting in January, that we need to have a benchmark that we will start immediately into a recovery. And if it isn't codified, it won't happen. It'll be delayed regardless. So we just know that'll happen just through the normal changes of life. But if we codify it, that it will begin on this day. This is the day we will start really investigating each and every fund down to whether we're buying a new seat or we're buying a new fire engine. Everything needs to be really looked at. I think that's more important, regardless of how the vote comes out. If it's positive, then That's that's terrific. We're going to be able to retain some services improve Some things if it doesn't then there needs to be cuts, but I think the code of you know codifying it's a great idea and You know that's that's where your you know comms professional comes in as you know this stuff really well, so this is a good thing That's where would you like councilman burrows to reread it?

If I can just see it just if you have it if you don't that I'm looking at the city manager Can you help me because I can't print from here? I?

Pam, I just printed it to my copier. Sarah, can you run to the copier in the break room? Never mind.

Council Member Gutierrez, if you don't mind if I jump in to answer. I completely hear what you're saying. I don't disagree with that in any way. The reason I didn't add those, specifically what you mentioned right now, which I'd be right there with you, was only that that seemed like a kind of a separate action specific to things that we've called for in the past where it was management overview or doing a department by department level assessment and kind of reconnaissance of how we're spending money. So I didn't want that to necessarily cloud. this particular action here and my initial resolution idea was to put a very specific number on there of like what we're in deficit now and say that this number, but the city manager talked me off that ledge to leave that flexibility of what you may or may not need at that time, but it was more about like not waiting two years and starting right away in January, so.

All right, while we're trying to print that, Council Member Gutierrez?

Yes, and so thank you, Council Member Barrios. I actually believe what you have brought forth is a really good addition. I definitely, as Council Member Tovalarza said in the past, keeps our feet to the fire. You know, whatever the outcome may be in November, we need to be ready. But I am... A little perplexed, our finance director, if you could answer my question. I'm hearing Councilmember Gillinghamer say we're not anywhere near bankruptcy, we're not, we're not. And yet in your report, that was a fantastic report, it was like what, 19 pages? Towards the end, you had two different models, model fiscal year 27 model one and fiscal year model two. And in both, basically, you're saying the general fund balance, if we continue operating the way we're operating with fiscal year model one, that general fund balance will be depleted by fiscal year 30. And then in model two, it will deplete by year 29. So I need to understand where Council Member Gillingham are saying we're not bankrupt yet in your report. it will eventually happen. So I need to balance the two. And I think a lot of what I've heard my colleagues say many times is we need to be more efficient, look at it structurally. And so he's looking at it that way as to why we wouldn't be. But I'll let you speak to that. Because I don't want to give two contradictory reports to the residents, right? Because your report is fantastic, very well done. You do go, every single account, like you talked about, what's in equipment, workers' comp, general, a career liability, this we have never seen before. So this was very well done, very transparent. You talk about what's in the capital projects funds, the police, the library. It was just very well done. So I'm perplexed as to what I hear my colleagues say and what I'm reading, and I don't want to confuse the residents. But I do agree with what you've brought forth because I think we should have it, whether it's November successful or not, we still have to have next steps. And that's why we have to have that oversight committee. But we still need to be very cognizant of what our budget is. But sorry, going long round, I want you to explain that to me.

Of course. Thank you for the question and thank you for the opportunity. The financial forecast model is not intended to say when or how the city is going to go bankrupt. That is not the intent of the model. The model is simply giving the city council and the resident an opportunity to see If nothing change, this is where we're gonna be in a year or five years from now. That's the intent of the model. It gives you a chance to kind of prepare yourself on what type of adjustment you need to make, whether it's revenue or expenditure, regardless. It's only to give you a visual of if nothing change, this is what's gonna happen. So this is not something that we have had in the past, which I wish we did, because this would give the council an ability to see, like, hey, we need to take a look at our expenditure or our revenue before year three. So maybe not right away, but between the next couple of years, we need to do something. And that's what the model is intended to do. It is not intended to say you're going to go bankrupt in 2029 because that's not how Citi operates. Citi looked at the model and said, oh, I better either raise $2 million in revenue or cut $2 million in expenditure so that I don't have that line hit in year two. or year three, or vice versa, right? If all of a sudden your model has the gap, and that gap continues to grow, where revenue is exceeding expenditure, and I wish I'm here to see that, then the question is gonna be, are we taxing too much? What are we not doing right? Because the goal for government should always be that line is right next to each other, right? That is your goal for your operating. You're not overcharging your resident, your community, and you're not undercharging where you're flipping upside down trying to figure out how to make ends meet, right? So that's what the model is intended to do, is to not just build in your operating, Expenditure, but also your obligation to your lender, your retired employee. It's everything built in so that you can kind of see that out. Like once your claim comes due, how are you going to pay for it? Once your fire station needs to be rebuilt, how are you going to manage that? That's what the model is intent to do. It's not just your annual operation, but it's also your infrastructure investment, your investment in your community, your investment in your employee, it's your overall health of the organization. That's what the model is intended to do. So I hope I answered your question and I'm happy to walk you through the model in more detail if need be.

Of course.

All right.

Thank you. Council Member Gillenhammer. Trang, thank you for that. I think that's the exact right answer. So, and I just want to clarify what I said in light of that. Trang is operating under a series of assumptions. And right now, there's an assumption around a pension obligation bond payment that's built into there. I think last time I took all your time and talked through that, I tried to get ahead of that and give an opinion on where that's gonna be. I think it's probably gonna be where I think it's gonna be. So there's going to be a component of assumptions that come out of that space, essentially meaning that generally I think our pension obligation repayment will go down if what's materializing here at the beginning of June ends up becoming the way it is. That comes out of our assumptions. End of 2026, and Trang, you can correct me if I'm wrong, we have about 125 million in all of our fund balances. End of 2027, it's like 105 million, about. So essentially, that's our cash position. Once our cash position is zero, we no longer can pay our bills. But the point I was trying to make earlier is that going bankrupt is a decision. It's a decision that we make every single day, every time we pass a budget, around how we're investing our money, how we're spending our money. And we've had chronic opportunities to really look at salaries and benefits as the biggest portion of our budget and tie that headcount to measurable service levels so that we can understand if and where we can make some of those adjustments within our current budget. We're going to run an operating budget. And that's going to be decisions that we make. And that also includes capital improvement and some sort of set aside monies for estimated infrastructure costs year by year. Our biggest thing that harnesses our budget is this pension obligation bond $15 million repayment. It just sits there. And it's the tumor that once you get unhealthy again, or once your pension obligation shows up again, right now you're saddled with that additional repayment. So I believe that that unfunded liability will go very close to zero, if not eliminate itself, in this current CalPERS cycle, which we will see in a couple years. I think the other piece too, though, is when I say that going bankrupt is a decision, that is the way that it's decided for us, right? So unless we do what we need to do now to pull back, and I still think there's opportunity to pull back in salaries and benefits, IT WILL BE A SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY OVER TIME, AND WE WILL HAVE ULTIMATELY MADE A DECISION TO MOVE IN THIS DIRECTION. AND THEN THE LAST THING I'LL SAY IS THAT WE HAVE CUT OUR HEAD COUNT OFFICIALLY IN THIS BUDGET BY PROXIMATELY 40, TRING, IS THAT CORRECT? ABOUT 40. OUR BUDGET HAS A 40 HEAD COUNT REDUCTION, BUT IT'S ALSO DEMONSTRATING A 4% INCREASE IN SALARIES AND BENEFITS. RIGHT, SO THERE IS A COMPONENT THERE that is strictly due to what I believe is a high vacancy rate in the past year, in the year before that. So it's entirely reasonable to say that a vacancy rate will still exist for our existing headcount, and we will probably land a little bit below the salaries and benefits, because that's happened every single year. That's why I say, like, the fact that we have our cash right now, the decisions that we're making, the fact that that unfunded liability, I believe we are much further out if we, again, if we have no action, right? If we do nothing to build the additional efficiencies and required. So I only say that so that people don't think we're going to be bankrupt in a year or two. That's not going to happen.

Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Barrios.

I just wanted to, one, just kind of counter one of the things you just said, because I think when you're talking about the 100-something million, you're assuming that we could touch all of that. And that is not the case. Some of those are restricted funds. They come from certain grants. They come from allocations from other agencies. We can't just say, we need the money. Guess what? I'm pulling it all over to my checking account. Can't do that. We just can't. And it's a great, Trang, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's a great deal of that money is like when we look at the five-year capital plan and all of us look at that and just go, oh my God, look at all the money we're spending. However, a great deal of that is authorized from other places. I just want to be clear that it's not a matter of we're sitting on a huge pile of cash that we could just go, well, you know, we're feeling kind of frisky today and we're going to go for all that. So I just want to be really clear about that because that can be, that can get people even more confused. The other part of it is that in terms of the pension obligation bond, that is separate from the PERS. That is a completely separate obligation and the pension obligation bond is a set fee. Like that we're just looking at year after year after year. And I think in your second or third round of revised budget, you actually did it the way you and I talked about, which is to show that first. Because that's got to be paid no matter what. Like any other person pays a mortgage, pays their credit, whatever it is that's going to ruin their life, they pay that first. And everything else is above that. And everything else above that is discretionary. And that discretionary is not meeting the revenue line. So we have to figure that out over time. But I think based on the presentation and a lot of the ideas you've brought forth and what you've talked about, efficiencies and vacancy rate and what Council Member Dimitri just talked about are all true in that going into the next year, whether we have this money or not, whether the sales tax passes or not, all of those things need to be done. They need to be looked at in a different way. And I want to call it specifically what you said because it kind of got buried in there is that if nothing else changes And I think that that is probably the most important part of this whole conversation, which goes to what my two colleagues have said. If we keep doing things the same way and not, A, having the good data that you've brought us and giving us this bigger picture, but if we keep doing it the same way, yeah, we'll be right back here. We'll be right back here in two years, five years, whatever it may be. You know, will it be bankruptcy? Maybe, maybe not. Hard to tell. But it will certainly be another fiscal crisis. And that, I think, is what this language and where we want to go and having this discussion is what we want to avoid and what we want to show our residents our businesses and our voters that we are deadly serious about we see the problem and we are going to do something different we are not going to do things exactly the same way we have a better understanding so thank you sorry trying like you

provide some clarification on the accessibility of the designated funds. And just because we have them, maybe that's a city attorney question of whether or not that would prevent us from needing to declare bankruptcy. Those, you know, you both have brought up some interesting points. Anyway, Trent, go ahead. Sure.

Thank you very much for that clarification. And you are correct. Any fund that is listed under special revenue funds, those are restricted funding by state and federal. We can't touch that without. I mean, you can spend it based on what is eligible, but you can't just take it into general fund. to solve your deficit or your financial crisis. That's one. Internal service, that's general fund. You can do whatever you want with that. That's your money. Fund 500, capital project fund, that's also general fund. So you can do whatever you want to do with that fund. But all of the other one are restricted fund. So you pretty much have about maybe half of that cash balance that is available to the general fund or what we would call them unrestricted fund, those are what you have available. And that's what we have been doing the last couple of years is use whatever is available to help us balance the general fund. And the reason for that is the general fund is what contributed to those funds. So it's really just taking your money from moving your money from your saving to your checking. if you want to make it easy to understand. That's all we're doing is just moving our money around to make ends meet. And sometimes we have to do that, which is perfectly fine, but we've got to disclose that. We've got to be transparent about it. We need to say why we're doing it, why we're setting money aside, and why are we taking it back. And I think that's the level of transparency and the open communication that has been lacking to help the public understand that. So I think we're doing the best that we can to kind of put the message out there, just like we put open finance out there so that everyone can see where money is coming in, how money is being spent. You know, we introduced that a couple of months back. I haven't had any questions, knock on wood. Not wishing for a question tomorrow. But those are the things that we're pushing for, or at least my office is pushing for, is that open communication and providing information that is readily available to the public, to the council, that you can review the information and ask us questions. at any time. So I hope that provides some clarity to the comments, and I'm happy to answer any of the questions.

Thank you very much, Trang. I'm sorry, did you want to say something?

Sure, I concur with Finance Director Nguyen's assessment. With municipal bankruptcy, it's an extraordinary remedy that requires a city to be insolvent and unable to meet its financial obligations. So there are multiple state and federal requirements that must be met before a city can do so. utilize protections under Chapter 9. And regarding restricted funding, as Finance Director Nguyen stated, one of the challenges is that some of the funds are not allowed legally to be used for specific operations. So they're legally restricted. They cannot be transferred to get out of that and to demonstrate that now we are solvent. So... That's why when cities have restricted funds, they unfortunately, they can't relieve pressure on the general fund by simply transferring into the general fund. So I agree with her assessment.

Thank you for that clarification. Council Member Demetriou?

Real quickly, I just want to, Trang and Michelle, thank you very much for your presentation. And I could tell you years ago when Dennis and I Councilmember Bill, Mayor Pro Tem Bilodeau and I started it. The budget was like a page. We would get a page and it was, here you are and vote on it. And back in 2006, we blew the system up by wanting to see the entire budget, all the line items, every expenditure, every fund. And over the years, you know, it's come and go. And I'm glad to see that your team has been very transparent. Like it or not, it is. It's doing very well. And I want to also, besides expressing thanks to you, express thanks to all our department heads. I think this is the third year in a row we've mandated reductions in budget. Third or fourth, maybe. It isn't something new. I know that every single department head that we have has been challenged consistently And I know that reflects back down to everybody down to the guy painting a curb red all the way up to the police chief and the city manager or the fire chief. It is difficult for everybody, and it's not lost on us. I know the thanks isn't just enough, but it has to be for now. You guys are doing a tremendous job. You're doing it with less. I wish the public understood truly the challenges that are facing each department. Some are obviously funded a little better than others, but all are important. And moving forward as we progress with the next series of budgets, I imagine that we'll be challenging you again. And I hope you're all patient and understand where we're coming from as well, but We do truly honor you guys and all the work you're doing. And it isn't lost, like I said, it isn't lost on us that you guys have done tremendous over the last few years on reducing that budget time and time again, as well as the personnel. So thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember. Mayor Pro Tem Bilodeau.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Briefly, I wanted to take a moment to thank the employees. It's not lost on me. the headcount charts that we've seen for the police department show that over the years actually the headcount in the police department has declined, but meanwhile crime has declined in Orange. It's quite astounding and it's just a testament to the hard work that the men and women of the police department have been doing. The one thing I'll say is the models that the finance director has presented to us HAS SOME VERY TIMID ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE GROWTH RATE OF SALES TAX. THAT MIGHT REFLECT REALITY. AND I THINK IT JUST GOES TO SHOW THAT AS A COUNCIL AND AS A CITY, WE NEED TO DOUBLE DOWN AND FOCUS ON SALES TAX GROWTH. WE HAVEN'T HAD A MAJOR RETAILER MOVE INTO THE CITY. WE'VE HAD A FEW MOVE OUT, OF COURSE, WITH THE MALL AND COUNCILMENT OF LARCES DISTRICT, but the outlets of Orange continues to go strong. And that's the one thing that we do have control over. We do not have control over the property tax growth rate, and that still remains very healthy due to turnover of homes in the city. I will say that the Throwing around the B word, I think, is a bit much. The city is nowhere close to insolvency. And I asked the finance director, what is our current unrestricted fund balance?

For the general fund or for all funds?

For overall, because I know that when I look at the city treasurer's report, we he has on account like, what, about $115 million? I know much of that is restricted, but how much is unrestricted?

Up off the top of my head, I can't give you that number, but I think when I looked last time, it's about $60 million is unrestricted.

6-0 or 1-6? 6-0. 60 million?

Yeah.

Okay, and we're looking at a deficit of 4.4 million. So, obviously, we're a long ways off from throwing around the bankruptcy word. But that being said, the Council needs to be diligent and try to continue to close this deficit by whatever means necessary. And I'm confident that the Council will do that. You know, I was fortunate or unfortunate enough to be here during the Great Recession in 2009. During those years, the city did dip into reserves because that's what they're for. They're rainy day funds. And then when the economy recovered, the city rebuilt those reserves. And I think that that is what's going to occur here. And so I just want to caution everyone that throwing around the bankruptcy term is, it just is not accurate. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. Before we get to Council Member Gillenhammer, just for clarification, Council Member Barrios' proposed verbiage, should that be separate from the budget or that could all be wrapped in together?

I have a copy of the verbiage, and it can be adopted as part of the resolution when the budget is adopted, and it'll be in the whereas section, so we can definitely add that in.

Okay, and just so everyone knows, all resolutions can be approved in one motion and vote. Councilman Gillenhammer.

Thanks, Mayor. This is my last comment. I wanted to reiterate what my peers have said up here around just thankfulness to the city staff. I truly feel the same way, engaging with the department heads, Chief of Police, Chief of Fire, Raphael, all of them. I can see the ownership and the initiative that they take, and there's a genuine care for the city. So I absolutely echo those sentiments. I just want to throw it out one more time to my peer group here is that We don't have a number, we don't have a lot of years to not, to start to pull back on some of these things. Again, I do believe this is ultimately going to be a decision, but we don't have the margin and it will be decided for us, right, with variability, with pension obligation, if we do not pull back tighter on our current anticipated expenditures. Sales tax at 0.5% could be what we end up at. I think we're going to end this year at 4%. It is a tight assumption, but let's say that holds. We're still looking at a $4.5 million deficit, and we cannot spend like that. we will spend ourselves into a need for more revenue. So I just want to throw it out to you all, I cannot pass the budget with the current operating deficit. We need a tops down directive approach to ensuring that we go a little bit deeper on the expenditure side, because we will decide our way down this path if we don't really come back at least passing an operationally balanced budget. And we can do that. We have the decisions to do that. We can direct that to come back and make those expenditures. I don't think we have a ton of years to allow the expenditure or to allow the budget to go into it at a deficit. And I do think at this point, we need to be thinking about some level of small surplus as a general rule for future budgets. So that's my last plea, I guess, to this council. I can't vote on a budget deficit tonight.

Thank you, Councilmember. I always appreciate your opinions and input. We have had a lot of great discussion about our budgets, as we should. And I think the council has all made really great input. But the state requires us to adopt a budget. And I think the city staff has done the best they can, given the resources that we have. So we have on the table a motion from Council Member Barrios, second from Council Member Tavaleras to approve our operating budget and five-year capital improvement program for years 26-27. Also adding the verbiage provided by Council Member Barrios. Does that summarize your motion? All right. I will call for the vote. A motion is approved six to one with one no vote. Council Member Gillenhammer. All right, item 9.2. Resolutions declaring certain real properties of the City of Orange and formerly the successor agency to the Orange Redevelopment Agency as surplus land and exempt surplus land pursuant to the California Surplus Land Act. Government Code Sections 54220, What does that stand for? City Attorney at ETSCQ? At all. At all, thank you. Still learning.

And the provisions following that particular number, yes.

All right, thank you. I would like a staff report on this. I think, oh, and we have our new Economic Development Director. Your microphone is on.

Oh, sorry. Senior Analyst Economic Development with the Community Development Department tonight presenting this item to you, Mayor and members of City Council.

Thank you.

The item before you tonight, as mentioned, is a surplus property declaration for a variety of various assets that are owned by the city. THIS ALIGNS WITH THE CITY'S STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 2.4 TO DIVERSIFY OUR REVENUE AND TRACK COMPLEMENTARY DEVELOPMENT. THE PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU DECLARES 11 ASSETS AS SURPLUS. IT SEEKS TO CONFORM WITH THE CALIFORNIA STATE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SURPLUS LAND ACT. There's a variety of constraints with these properties that the city owns. Some of them are exempt. Some of the properties are subject to the Full Surplus Land Act. Others are historic assets that are also subject to a noticing requirement with the Department of Natural Resources. What's before you here is a map of the various assets under consideration tonight. The first one covers the Grand Street block, which you'll see. That's actually the second tier of the assets that we'll go over tonight. That's the full block of Grand Street, and the separate properties are the almond lot, the two Cypress homes, and the Royer Mansion. The properties that you see here highlighted in yellow are considered small lot properties under the Surplus Land Act. They qualify for an exemption. However, the properties on Grand Street are not subject to that exemption because they are contiguous. The next slide just goes over what those first assets one through five are. They are the Royer Mansion and the two Cypress Homes, as well as the Almond Lot, which is just behind City Hall at 318 and 326 East Almond. The three properties there that you see are historic properties. They're contributors to the city's preservation district, and because of that, there's a 60-day noticing requirement to the Department of Natural Resources prior to the exemption being applied to those three. That exemption does apply to the almond lots. We don't need to disclose those because there's no historic assets there. The next one is Grant Street and this would be assets 6 through 11 and really this covers the entirety of the Grant Street block includes a small office that's currently a few employees with the city's community services department as well as a 12 unit apartment complex six of which those units are occupied a city owned parking lot as well as a former fire station on the end of the block and One of the things I'd like to highlight as we kind of go through this is ultimately the goal of the item before you tonight is to provide us a framework to ultimately pursue a public-private partnership to identify potential opportunities to utilize these sites to get highest and best use. And what does that look like for the city? Ultimately, it means we would Pursue the California Surplus Land Act process first, requires a 60-day noticing period to the state of California. Once we've gone through that, we have a 90-day good faith negotiating process that we have to undergo with proposals from a list of state-designated partners. Post that process, the city has the opportunity to pursue potential long-term development goals with these sites. And with that, I'd like to provide the recommendation to adopt the two resolutions before you and authorize the city manager to proceed with the Surplus Land Act and disposition of those properties. I'll open it to questions.

Great, thank you. Great presentation, Taylor. We have some questions. Council Member Barrios.

Specific, can you go back to the slide showing, particularly the one showing the Grand Street full development lot? So in doing this and moving this forward, I just want to make sure that this doesn't then instantly designate all of this property. in terms of developers rushing in and saying, all right, you've declared something, so here's our plan, here we go, without giving the council the full opportunity to put out an RFP, make a whole plan, say what we want. We're not giving away any of our power and authority at this moment.

So the Surplus Land Act, because these parcels are contiguous, requires us to go through this noticing of availability to affordable housing developers. However, that noticing doesn't mandate that we have to enter into those agreements with those. It's just for us to comply with that regulatory process. Post the 60 days, we see what notices of interest we receive from those developers. The city is by law obligated to go through a 90 day good faith negotiating process with whomever those are. Once that process is exhausted, we provide a report to HCD indicating we've gone through the required statutory process. And once that's been determined, there may be a deed restriction that is applied to those properties per the state law. and post that process, the city as council can ultimately determine whether we pursue a disposition through an RFP or what that looks like. But to get these in a position to pursue that avenue, we first have to go through this regulatory process.

And does that open us up? Obviously, we own this land. This is ours. So does that preclude any developer, whether they're affordable or not, coming in and trying to use, like, say, the builder's remedy upon us? Is that only if they already own the land and have that type of?

Yeah, we are the landlords. So we do have to provide that first right of refusal through this process. But that is what the Surplus Land Act facilitates. So we go through that process. We do have to execute good faith negotiating with whomever provides us those notices. And then post that, we decide what we do.

I guess I'm a little confused. So I guess you're opening us up to, like, we have to be open to those discussions. But if that is in no way, and I'm not saying it is, I'm not trying to say that I'm predisposed, but if that is in no way what our vision is for some of these properties, does that, and this may be for the city attorney, does that automatically put us in bad faith? It's like, okay, we're going to go through this process, but that's really not what we want, so... Does that put us in a catch-22?

So by declaring these properties, especially the ones on Grand Street surplus line, the city just sends notices of availability. All the resolution does is simply to state that the city must simply engage in good faith negotiations for 90 days. However, it doesn't mean that We must sell to an affordable housing developer. We must sell to a non-affordable housing developer. It doesn't say that the city must accept any proposal. And we as a city, we don't lose control of our properties with this particular determination tonight if the council adopted these resolutions. And it also does not state that the city must build affordable housing on those sites. All it's doing is simply complying with the regulatory requirements of a procedural step to make it notice of availability. And then we as a city will present potential bids, and then the city council can at their discretion. And you mentioned builder's remedy. As of today, the city has a certified housing element, so therefore that would not be legally feasible. But that is a great question, and I appreciate your concerns about that.

I'm just trying to channel my inner council member, Tavolaris. Yes, exactly. Let's think about all around every corner and make sure that there's not something we haven't thought of that's going to bite us later. So I just wanted to be really crystal clear. Thank you both.

Yeah, I'd like to also add that the properties on Grand Street are zoned commercial and the apartments are office professional. So there's constraints for any proposal based on the land use, so.

Council Member Dimitriou. Let me ask this question about the same properties. We did absolutely nothing. Don't declare it surplus because we want to keep that property for potentially development of, oh, I don't know, let's say a parking structure. Are we at any odds with anybody on that? If we just say we'll look at the other properties, but we're not interested in putting that as surplus today. Okay. Does that keep us with a greater feasibility of doing what we want to do?

So by not going through the Surplus Land Act for those contiguous parcels, you limit yourself on that property to essentially not be able to demolish any existing structures typically. And you're also tied to leases of no more than 15 years for any of those assets. So the Surplus Land Act says if you own a city asset currently and you would like to enter into a lease agreement, you cannot enter into a lease agreement more than 15 years for any of those properties. So there are constraints that exist today. By declaring them surplus, going through this regulatory process, the city opens itself to be able to pursue new opportunities in the future. If you don't, Ultimately, we own the property. If we were to build a structure there, that would be council's prerogative. Good.

Any other council questions before we turn to the public? All right, we have two speakers. First is Reggie Mundicus, followed by Doug Redding.

So I just want to start by saying I support this item. I know more about the Surplus Land Act than I should, and if you don't want to know why, I'll explain it to you. So with, okay, the fire station, we built it, we loved it dearly, and it has time for it to go to its next use, whatever that may be. Many of the other properties, I'm sorry guys, but I have absolutely no idea why we own them. And hopefully they will find people who will love and cherish them. I look at this as a form of Swedish death cleaning for our city. You know, I'm just going to caution you, don't get your expectations too high on revenue from these properties because these can be transferred a number of ways, some of which don't generate a lot of revenue, but they take the burden off the city for the maintenance and any other issues. So I'm hoping the best outcome for this and that we get some good projects out of this and that the historic properties find new owners, including the Royal Mansion. So I support this item.

Thank you, Reggie. Doug?

Good evening, Mayor and Council. I'm Doug Redding, an Orange resident. I'm also a big fan of PCH hot dogs, as you can tell by the the dad bod here. I just want to say, Gillenhammer, I really appreciate the way that you're willing to be the salmon swimming upstream, and you don't just capitulate and agree. I love hearing the discourse between our council, because the worst meeting is usually the one where everybody agrees with you. So you've got to have those conversations, Arianna, the same way. I just enjoyed hearing the back and forth. But tonight I'm speaking on 9-2, and I have some concerns about three properties. The first one is right here. It's the Royer Mansion at 307 East Chapman. Now this is a personal, I'm speaking personally, and these are my opinions. I did read the staff opinion, staff report. I'm not saying I fully understood it, but I read it. So if I make some mistakes, forgive me. I just think that is such a beautiful property. And I understand what we're doing tonight. We're not voting to sell it, but we're going to make that land into the Surplus Land Act, which opens it up, puts it on the conveyor belt for further action. But that property is part of our historic Old Town National Registration, right? So it's part of one of the properties that is part of our historic register. And so is the two properties that are on North Cypress Street. Those two properties are also in the historic Barrios District, right? I know you can't answer, but I believe it is in that historic district where we just opened that park. So the Cypress Street Barrio area is something that is coveted. We want to protect it. And those two properties are there. I know that they'll be under CEQA review and there's some residential use protection and things like that. But my concern, and I'm going to say this again as my personal opinion, I just don't want to see those two properties on North Cypress Street get gobbled up by a certain higher learning institution. I'll leave it at that. I would love for them to be part of the community and used as part of the community in some way, maybe a nonprofit that serves the community. That'd be great. So I just wanted to voice my personal opinions on those. I know you guys will do the right thing, but if we can have some... some insight to your vision on what you guys plan to do with those properties in the historic district, Cypress District, and the mansion. I'd really appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you, Doug. I'll bring it back to the council. Council Member Barrios.

I plugged in because I wanted you to be able to answer those questions while we can. There's not any grand plan at the moment. This is the beginning of being able to have those discussions per Mr. Redding's questions.

Yes, and as far as the historical nature of those properties, they remain historical assets. They're contributors to the district. This process doesn't... LIMIT OR RESTRICT OR REMOVE ANY OF THOSE PROTECTIONS IN PLACE FOR THOSE PROPERTIES OR ASSETS, NOR DOES IT OPEN A PATH FOR THEM TO BE, YOU KNOW, DEMOLISHED IN ANY WAY AS OF TODAY.

AND MY UNDERSTANDING WHEN WE HAD OUR BRIEFINGS ON THIS IS THAT BECAUSE THEY ARE HISTORIC AND PART OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AND THE REGISTRY DISTRICT, THEY MAY NOT BE INDIVIDUALLY NAMED AS HISTORIC THEMSELVES, BUT THAT DOES AFFORD ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS AND PATHWAYS that the state requires us to go through, which we did not do before.

Correct. So the three, so the two Cypress Helms and the Royer, because they're contributors to the district, we are doing the due diligence to make sure we provide a 60-day notice to the California Department of Natural Resources to provide them an opportunity as well as the County Parks Authority to provide us a notice of interest if they had a purpose or reason for those properties before we would declare them exempt. But they do qualify for the small lot exemption, but they do have that additional requirement because they're historic and they contribute to the historic district.

And thank you for that clarification because I think it helps people understand that there's protections and then there's another bar of protection because they're contributing to the historic district. But secondly, I just wanted to clarify something you said earlier in response to Councilmember Dimitriou that the way the Surplus Land Act works is that we would not have been able, we should not be demolishing anything on these properties, which That was before us for a couple of years, specific to the old firehouse. And I was the one kind of blocking that over and over again, only because I wanted to have a community meeting that we all talked about it within the neighborhood of what might or might not go there or kind of do some long-term visioning. And then it just kind of fell off because the budget crisis kicked in. But to clarify, are you saying, had we torn that down, we would have been in like, we would have been outside of the kind of the basic rules?

No. And I'll, I'll turn to city attorney to maybe assist with that, but it, it, it's specifically the historic assets, but, um,

just to clarify and you tell me if I didn't state it. So with the historic properties themselves, a demolition, any proposed demolition Any proposal involving demolition would be subject to the city's historic preservation requirements and applicable environmental review. And I'm doing a quick cursory search to see. Although the former fire headquarters, which is the 176 South Grand Street property, it's a former governmental use property. So although it's not deemed to be a historic or contributing structure, it would be... I'm just trying... Just give me one second. It would still... The demolition constraints under the historic would not apply to that particular fire headquarters.

And what I was trying to discern is that his original comment was much more general than that. That just generally under surplus land, you couldn't just go under. But you're saying that demolition clause is specific to the historic. That is correct. Okay, I just wanted to clarify that.

In conjunction with the potential development is kind of what that's tied to. So any demolition that leads to a new development that is not a governmental facility, that's what that clause is for, so.

Outside of the historic.

Right. So if you were to take a property that was not surplus and it had an existing facility and you were to demolish it and attempt to build a new private development or something along those lines for a 15-year lease, there's restrictions in the Surplus Land Act, as I understand, that prohibit that. And so in reference to demolition, that's what I meant.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

Council Member Dimitriou. So now I'm confused. Getting back to my initial question. So if, just as a hypothetical, if we were to demo the old fire station and build up a parking structure, we could do that without going through the Surplus Land Act, as long as that asset is the city's asset, correct?

Correct. For governmental use, yes.

Right. So, okay, so it couldn't be a, It couldn't be our parking structure that we allow the public to use?

Or what do you... No, that would qualify as governmental use.

Okay. So then are we kind of... If we put these pieces of property out as surplus, we're not kind of tying our hands behind our back and letting... and getting slapped around on these properties. I don't see how this makes any sense to say they're surplus when I think as a whole we've identified what we want there minus tweaks that we want to see on maybe some outer portions of it or what have you. I mean, do you track where I'm going on that?

Yeah, I understand where you're going. Ultimately, it's city council's prerogative on which sites it would like to declare surplus or not. If you think that some of the sites would be better served with a city serving public parking structure that you would like to develop there, That could be modified to do that. The way this is presented tonight would be for a larger scale declaration for the entire Grand Street block. And again, that would allow the city to pursue a public-private partnership if it were to do so in the future, which could facilitate the development of a parking structure in the long run. But it's ultimately council's prerogative. I got it now. Thank you.

Council member.

Basically, it expands our options. Yes, sir. Thank you. Yes, City Attorney.

I was just going to offer a point of clarification and distinguishing. So the Surplus Land Act governs the disposition of the properties themselves, not the actual demolition of the property. And then if the city intends to dispose of a site, then compliance of the Surplus Land Act is required anyways. So the demolition question would be a separate issue, and then if the City Council wished to demolish to create a parking lot, then that would be a separate, distinct from what is before you tonight.

It all goes to say that the City Council cares deeply about what goes on in Old Town and the properties that we have and we'll probably dispose of, and it's very important to us and the public. Council Member Gutierrez?

Just to be completely crystal clear, so if we were to surplus all of the 11 properties, and we do the NOA, we do the 60-day period, and then we put it out for non- probably not any more non-profits, right? And there still is not anything that, you know, we like that would like, that we'd like to, are we able to, let me fix my words. Are we able to say, yeah, I don't like what you're proposing for that site? And, or would that be deemed not good faith? And, or are we able to say, yeah, we saw all these different proposals. None of them are what fits with what we believe needs to go here. and we decide we're just gonna hold off. Is there another new cycle of surplusing, another notification, or can we remove it from the surplus?

I'll turn this over to City Attorney.

Council Member Gutierrez.

If we don't like what's coming in.

To answer your question, The obligations from the state are simply to engage in good faith negotiations. It does not require the council to accept any of the proposals. So if the council found a proposal to be a better fit for the intended use, then that is absolutely the council's prerogative and that is a policy decision that the city would present to you.

Would it remain though surplus or could we take it off being surplus?

If you want to take it off being surplus, you certainly can. So maybe just to answer, right? Completion of this process does not obligate the city in any way, shape, or form to sell or accept any of the proposals received. The law simply requires notice, and then in some circumstances, the good faith negotiations, but it doesn't require the city to actually enter into that transaction. So if after the end of this 60-90 day process, proposals are not in the best interest of the city, the city council certainly may decline to move forward, right? The city also retains the ability to reevaluate its needs over time. So if after the completion of this process, council determines that the property is better served the community as a parking structure, a civic facility, a cultural amenity, or some other municipal use, the city council may choose to retain that property and pursue that direction instead. So there are many off-ramps built in for the city, but in order to explore future development, future opportunities, we first must start this process tonight.

So we have a motion to approve the two resolutions and the recommendation or direction from Council Member Barrios and a second from Council Member Gilenhammer. Any further discussion or questions? I'll call for the vote. Approved unanimously. One last item, Brown Act updates SB-707 presentation. Mr. Mayor?

Yes. I'm so sorry. Before we get into that, if I could just have a second. I just wanted to say that I made this motion because I'm forever hopeful. And these are properties in my district. And some of them are very prominent properties in my district. I have a lot of anxiety about this and moving it forward, but I did it with hoping and trusting that city staff gets it right this time, and you will be hearing from me if you do not.

All right. Fair enough. So I believe that this is a staff report presented by our city clerk's office, and since they rarely get a chance to do one, I think we should probably hear it.

We saved the best for last. Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council. Tonight I'll be presenting an overview of Senate Bill 707, the 2025 Brown Act Modernization Legislation. This bill introduces significant changes to public meeting requirements, including new rules for remote participation, language access, teleconferencing, and public outreach. I will walk through the major provisions and the actions required by the City Council. SB 707 brings several important updates to the Brown Act. Key changes include requirements for two-way remote public participation, new language access provisions, enhanced public outreach requirements, expanded teleconferencing options for city council members, and optional teleconferencing provisions for certain advisory bodies. These updates are intended to increase transparency, accessibility, and community engagement in public meetings. One of the most impactful changes is the requirement to provide real-time two-way participation for members of the public. Applicable meetings must offer either two-way telephonic access or two-way audiovisual participation. Members of the public must be able to attend remotely, listen in real time, and provide live comment with the same speaking time afforded to the in-person attendees. This requirement represents a major shift toward modernizing how residents interact with local government. Implementation of these provisions will require operational adjustments to meeting procedures and technology. So the city clerk's office is currently coordinating with the city's audiovisual and information technology teams to establish a compliant call-in option and ensure that the city is prepared to meet the July 1st deadline. SB 707 also expands language access requirements to better include residents with limited English proficiency. For the City of Orange, Spanish is the language that meets the population-based threshold. As a result, we must provide Spanish translations of City Council meeting agendas, include information on available interpretation services, and offer reasonable assistance when community members bring their own interpreters. Agenda translations apply only to city council meeting agendas and do not extend to any of our advisory or other public meetings. In addition, the city must allow the public to post additional translations of the agenda at a physical location that is freely accessible to the public near the location where agendas and translations are posted. A posting board will be installed near a digital posting board that is planned for installation to support SB 707 language access requirements and timely agenda visibility. These efforts aim to remove language barriers and ensure equitable access to public meetings. As we move toward implementation, staff will be assessing translation workflows, interpreter resources, and technology capable of supporting multilingual participation. The bill also emphasizes improving public outreach. As such, residents should be able to clearly understand how to attend meetings, how to participate, how to provide comments, and access language services. The city must maintain an electronic system for agenda notifications with a prominent link on the homepage, and we must maintain a dedicated meeting webpage with a meeting calendar, agendas, and a clear explanation of the public participation process. The city has met both of these requirements through its existing agenda management platform, including a centralized public meetings webpage. This page includes all required information and became operational last month. Beyond the posting and notification requirements, SB 707 directs cities to make reasonable efforts to proactively reach groups that historically have not participated in public meetings. This may include multilingual social media outreach, working with community-based organizations, partnering with local media, or collaborating with schools, nonprofits, and neighborhood groups. One of the key requirements of SB 707 is that city council adopt a resolution establishing what constitutes reasonable efforts to encourage public participation in city council meetings. The proposed resolution included with the staff report outlines a framework for implementing these outreach efforts and is intended to satisfy the legislative requirements. The City Council may adopt the resolution as presented this evening or provide direction to staff regarding any desired modifications. If revisions are requested, staff will return with an updated resolution on June 23rd for Council consideration. SB 707 also expands teleconferencing options for council members. In addition to preserving the traditional Brown Act teleconferencing procedures, the legislation expressly authorizes remote participation as a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The bill also introduces remote participation under declared emergencies and specified just cause circumstances. These can only be used when specific qualifying criteria are met, which I'll explain in the next slide. The goal is to support the participation while preserving public trust and meeting access. Before a council member can participate remotely using the emergency or just cause options, several requirements must be met. The agenda must include remote access instructions and ADA accommodation procedures. Remote participation must include both audio and video. Public access must be maintained throughout the meeting. Additionally, if city-controlled communications fail, the council may not take action until service is restored. This is consistent with the city's technology disruption policy, which was adopted on May 26th. Finally, remote participants must disclose any adults present in the room along with a general description of that individual's relationship to the council member, and the meeting minutes must document the legal basis for participating remotely. To ensure compliance with these requirements, council members should continue to coordinate with the city clerk's office and the city attorney's office in advance of any planned remote participation, This will help ensure that all applicable statutory thresholds and procedural requirements are satisfied and that meetings remain fully compliant with the Brown Act. These new options do not replace the traditional Brown Act teleconferencing rules. Those rules remain in place and are available and require listing the teleconference location on the agenda, posting the agenda at that location, providing public access, ensuring a quorum within city limits, and conducting roll call votes. These long-standing procedures remain available and may be appropriate in situations where a council member is traveling or otherwise unable to attend a meeting in person. Traditional teleconferencing can provide a practical option when the remote location can be identified in advance, is properly noticed on the agenda, and made accessible to the public in accordance with Brown Act requirements. Council members with a qualifying disability may participate remotely without the traditional teleconference location requirements. Their participation is considered in person for quorum purposes. The primary requirements are audio and video access and disclosure of adults present at the remote location. This requirement is intended to maintain transparency and ensure that all deliberations remain fully open to the public. Requests for ADA teleconferencing accommodations will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis through the City's established ADA process in coordination with Human Resources and the City Attorney's Office. During a declared state or local emergency, the council may conduct meetings via teleconference if in-person meetings pose an imminent risk to health or safety. Every 45 days, the council must reaffirm that emergency conditions persist and that in-person meetings remain unsafe. The Just Cause option allows a council member to participate remotely for certain defined reasons. A quorum must still attend in person, the member must participate by audio and video, and the council member using Just Cause must notify the city clerk and city attorney as early as possible with their reason. A council member may use this option no more than five meetings per calendar year. These requirements are designed to ensure that just cause teleconferencing remains limited in scope while allowing individual members to participate remotely when qualifying conditions exist and preserving the city's commitment to conducting public meetings with in-person access. Qualifying just cause reasons include unexpected caregiving responsibilities, contagious illness, physical or mental health needs, official city business travel, family health emergencies, having an immunocompromised family member, or military obligations occurring at least 50 miles from the city. This provision is intended to provide a limited and structured accommodation for occasional legitimate personal or family needs, rather than serving as a routine method of remote attendance. At this time, the Council Chamber is not yet equipped to support Just Cause teleconferencing. The necessary technology upgrades are budgeted, scheduled, and expected to be completed later this year. Staff will notify the Council once the required audio-video infrastructure is ready for use. SB 707 also allows but does not require certain advisory bodies to use teleconferencing, but only if they serve in a purely advisory capacity and have no final decision-making authority. To do so, the City Council must first approve it. In addition, all statutory threshold requirements must be met, along with additional procedural safeguards. Specifically, they must maintain one physical meeting location with at least one member and staff member present. Remote participation must include both audio and video, and the City Council must adopt the required findings authorizing this type of teleconferencing every six months. These provisions are intended to provide limited flexibility while ensuring that advisory body meetings continue to maintain public accessibility, accountability, and transparency. These advisory bodies must meet similar threshold requirements as the City Council when using teleconferencing, including agenda information on remote participation, ADA procedures, technology standards, public access, disclosure of adults in the room, and documentation of the legal basis for remote participation. Before an eligible advisory body can begin remote meetings, the city council must make specific findings by majority vote, and then repeat these findings every six months. These include that the council has considered the circumstances of the body, that teleconferencing enhances public access, and the public has had an opportunity to comment during the council meeting at which the authorization for remote meetings is considered, and that teleconferencing promotes attraction, retention, and diversity of members. These requirements are intended to ensure that any decision to allow remote advisory body meetings is made transparently with clear public input and a documented policy basis. If the City Council approves teleconferencing, the advisory body must also approve it by a majority vote. So that means that they must take it back to one of their meetings and approve that. The Council may modify or discontinue the teleconferencing at any time. It's important to note that bodies with final decision-making authority, such as the Planning Commission, Design Review Committee, and the Traffic Commission, are not advisory bodies under SB 707, and therefore do not qualify for these teleconferencing options. If the City Council authorizes eligible subsidiary bodies to utilize teleconferencing, it may be appropriate to adopt a policy establishing clear standards for when and how these advisory bodies may do so. This framework could include any applicable limitations, procedural requirements, and operational expectations. All of these changes come with operational, technical, and fiscal impacts. Staff training, updated protocols, and technology upgrades will be needed to reliably support hybrid participation. We may also see ongoing costs for interpretation services and expanded language and outreach resources. Implementation of SB 707 will require coordination across multiple departments to ensure consistent compliance, operational readiness, and equitable public access across all legislative bodies. These efforts will be necessary to ensure the city can effectively meet the requirements of the legislation while maintaining a reliable and accessible public meeting process. Tonight, staff recommends that the City Council receive and file this presentation, determine what constitutes reasonable efforts for community outreach, and consider adoption of resolution number 11703 to implement the required procedural updates. Following tonight's discussion in any direction provided by the City Council, staff will proceed with the following next steps. update teleconferencing procedures to align with SB 707 requirements, continue coordination with the information technology and audiovisual teams to support implementation planning, and return to the City Council with any remaining items for formal adoption at a future meeting. This concludes the presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions or provide additional clarification.

If you could provide additional clarification on what reasonable efforts you suggest or parameters.

The legislation is pretty silent on that. The staff has met and discussed what some of these might look like. We've come up with incorporating Spanish language into all city social media posts pertaining to public meeting dates and notices. Increase meeting notice locations to include all of our public libraries. Right now we currently only post at the main library. Twice a year adding meeting dates and notices with a Spanish translation as an insert with the utility billing. Utilize the Our Orange digital publication to provide upcoming meeting dates and notices in Spanish on a quarterly basis. Create a QR code to use on all marketing materials and publications that will direct the public to the city website which shows the most up-to-date meeting dates and notices.

Okay, thank you. All right. We have questions. Council Member Barrios.

You noted that the planning DRC, and I didn't catch what the third one was, were not traffic, were not under SB, or just they were not considered for SB 707?

Correct. They have final decision-making authority, so they would not be considered an advisory body that would be eligible.

Traffic is the third.

For the teleconferencing.

Okay, but is that also, so that's not as, what I'm thinking of specifically is the, if the sales tax measure was to pass and we have the citizens' oversight, if we, is that at our discretion that the citizens' oversight should be, you know, with these enhanced public, you know, meeting requirements,

If they are truly advisory and they don't have decision-making authority, then they would be eligible under this provision for teleconferencing. Okay, right. And the council, again, the council would have to authorize them to do so, and then they would, every six months, have to come back and then make those same findings.

And it's not that those other ones, even though, like you said, they stand alone, but they are still already eligible. publicly broadcast?

Those are publicly broadcast, yes.

Okay. The other thing I just wanted to bring to your attention, and we can talk about it more offline, I know when things like this come across, the first thing we think of is kind of how we do things right now and then what that might add on in terms of burden and technology. We have the same question. My firm does work for LA Metro. We picked up a subscription to something called Wordly, and I will send you the information about that. That was authorized by Metro in order for us to do AI translations. They're real-time translations, multiple languages under just a single subscription. So someone sitting in the audience with their cell phone, you direct them, download the app. with your headphones and you can get real time translations. They're not perfect, but in terms of the expense we see at other public hearings where you're bringing in an interpreter and you're doing headphone sets for everybody and you're doing simultaneous, which is a huge expense on the city for multiple meetings, it's a really great option. Same with when you watch, like, Huntington Beach or Santa Ana. I think the city of Tustin does it in Irvine too, where they're broadcasting through YouTube. It's not, the expense is not as expensive to do that. And it does do some simultaneous translation. So I think this will be a real boon for people to participate. I also would just say for my council colleagues, this will probably also mean that meetings go very long because all of a sudden people can sit at home and wait online to give a comment. So-

All right, good questions. Council Member Tavares, your suggestions, I should say.

Thank you. Pam, this is obviously, it was signed by the governor, so it's law. Is there any costs associated with all this change?

There is. There's going to be fiscal impacts with the licenses, technology license. We have to subscribe to Zoom. We're looking at a software called Public Input to also help with the calls and the translations. Yeah, there's multiple. We just don't know what that is yet. Multiple fiscal impacts.

And I take it the state is not offering any money, as usual. Correct. So it's an unfunded mandate, again, by the state. And then they wonder why cities are going bankrupt. That's it.

All right, Councilmember Dimitriou.

A couple quick questions. If we have participants that are remote, do we have to provide any teleconferencing members of the public instant translation services as they're on the phone?

So currently we do not. However, the public input software that I was speaking about does offer simultaneous translation in multiple languages. So as they're on the call, they're receiving the simultaneous translation over the phone. It also does caption.

Okay. And then kind of dovetailing on that same theory is if we have a member of the council that is participating via teleconference, and they have a person that speaks a foreign language, are they mandated or is the city mandated regardless of state or location to provide a translator or are we putting them on an app as well?

No, that council member would not be required to provide translation services.

Is the city required?

No, the city is not required. At this time, the city is not required.

All right, then the next question is towards allowing teleconferencing in for members of the public, right now, our public can sit here and they listen and sometimes they speak up from the audience and say what they want to do from the seats. Is that mic on the telephones when they're teleconferencing in to listen or participate, is it live the entire time so when they disagree they can just

No, the city staff will control the mics. So as they're let in to speak on a certain item, and it's two ways, so they have to be able to listen to the meeting through the phone. As their item comes up, one of the staff members will unmute them, allow them to have their three minutes, and then they're unmuted. They do not have control over their mics at all.

Okay, so the three minute thing is an interesting one. Is it Is the staff member timing or is it an automatic timer? Because every now and again we have changed that because it's up to three minutes.

So they will receive the same. There's a recording that they will receive when it lets them know that their item is up. It lets them know, hey, your item is up. And we can add something that says whether the time has been changed. So if the time limit has been changed to two minutes, they're made aware of it, that they have the two minutes, and then they're given their two minutes, and then we turn their mic off.

Okay, thank you. All right, thank you. We have one public speaker, Mary Oberslea.

Mayor Pro Temp, City Council. Organizing with Indivisible Orange, we are very much committed to grassroots democracy. And I want to say behind this completely that all available technologies that can increase civic participation should be taken. We have money, maybe we don't have money. Not really clear sitting on this side listening to you all, but I would say when it does come to spending our city's money that this is a tremendous investment that should be made. Perhaps think about contracts with surveillance companies is maybe not the best investment, but this certainly is. So thank you.

Thank you, Mary. All right, so bringing it back, a motion would include to receive and file a presentation, suggest reasonable efforts for outreach to encourage participation. The city clerk suggested several staff come up with. and consider adoption of resolution number 11703. A motion from Councilmember Barrios, a second from Councilmember Dimitriou. Reasonable efforts that you'd like to include in your motion, Councilmember Barrios?

All the ones staff recommended.

Did you want to include your... suggestion on the technology, or does that need to be?

You're going through a process, and you're going to be evaluating all these, so I will just send those along.

All right. Any further discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for the vote. Proved unanimously. The next regular city council meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 23rd, 2026 at 6 p.m. in the council chamber. Closed session beginning at 5 p.m. if necessary. This meeting is adjourned.