City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everybody. Good to see you all, and welcome to the Red Bluff City Council meeting for August 4th. If you would stand with me, we'll do the Pledge of Allegiance together. Salute Pledge. 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 everyone. Again this is amended agenda and we have also provided for people that can't be here for you to be able to attend internet wise and I'll call that to summarize what is being posted on the page. If you have any questions and can't get on the internet just call our city clerk which does an excellent job of explaining this and you'll be able to attend the meetings through the internet. I will now call For citizens comment and I want to share with you that the time is set aside for citizens to address the City Council on any item of interest to the public that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council. To make a public comment on Zoom, you must raise your hand for the items on the agenda. Public comment will be heard when the item is discussed if your documents if we excuse me your comments concern an item That is noted as a public hearing Please address the City Council after the public hearing is open for public testimony The mayor reserves the right to limit each speaker to three minutes and we will have three minutes as normal The mayor may limit multiple presentations by the same individuals and we'll be doing that you have one presentation tonight So I will open Excuse me, sorry, the meeting for public comment this time.

Good evening, honorable counsel, Mayor Potem, and mayor, and city workers. I bring sad news that most of you probably know from the posts I've done. Joe Cagle has passed away. He passed away Saturday night. We are planning his funeral now. And as soon as I get the times and dates, I will make sure everybody gets it, whoever wants to attend. It's, he's been a long, you know, almost a full lifetime friend of mine and I'm saddened for his loss and I know some of you are. For those who don't know him or don't recognize his name, Joe Cagle, a lot of people used to call him wheelchair Joe or the greeter at Walmart. He was an advocate for the disabled and handicapped here in Tama County and in other counties here in California. That's about what I'm able to say tonight. When I get the times and dates, I hope you all can attend. Thank you.

CHRIS JERRAMSEN.

Thank you very much. He will be missed. Thank you for that. Appreciate that. Anybody else want to speak at public comment? Floor is open. Haven't seen nobody come to the podium for that. I will close public comment at 5.33. And any agenda corrections, Tom?

Yes, council members, just one. After publishing the agenda, we amended it to add the urban water management plan, which is going to be agenda number four in the regular agenda item section of your meeting.

Thank you, Tom. Staff items. Tom Westbrook again.

Thank you, Mayor, council members. Just a reminder that we are beginning the last month of the Wednesday's farmers markets. There's four more of those Wednesday nights from 5 to 8 on Washington Street. please attend if you can also just a reminder that the filing period is still open for the city council seats that are available that closes on august 7th if there is no incumbent that files then it would be extended five more days calendar days to august 12th currently we have four persons who have filed paperwork and they've all been qualified by the elections office And the last thing I wanted to mention, we're also taking applications for the Measure S Citizens Oversight Committee. Those applications are available online. They are due August 13th at 5 p.m. That's it. Thank you, Tom.

Scott Garrison, good to have you back, sir.

Why, thank you.

Did you have a good time? Yes, I had a good vacation. It was about a month ago, though, so I was here at the last meeting. Oh, were you? Okay.

I forgot to say welcome back. Well, thank you very much.

But I don't have anything tonight, but thank you very much.

All right. Beth Lindauer.

Good evening. I just want to provide a little bit of an update on the Palm Villas Community Housing project that's going in on South Jackson. They have completed about 99% of the underground work and they are now working on getting the slabs poured. So some of the neighbors may see some early mornings for the next couple days due to the volume of trucks and continuous need for pour of concrete. They are getting started relatively early. It is only anticipated tomorrow and about 11 more working hours after that. So we will see those slabs down and once those are down the vertical start and it'll go pretty quickly because those walls are prefab. um so that's an update there i have been receiving a lot of inquiries from community members interested in residing at those apartments and just for knowledge if you're asked i have put in a request with the property owners to find out a little bit more about where people need to go for that process once i have more information i'll certainly share it And many people have seen and it's been posted on social media about premier oil change going in on Antelope where there is currently a Denny's. At this time, we have not received formal building permit applications. We have only had some conceptual scent and interest in a demo permit. So there'll be more to come for that as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Ben. Scott Miller, Public Works.

Thank you, Mayor. A couple things to report, one of which is inside of our Public Works Activity Report that's in the consent item, but I did want to pull one of those out for a multitude of thanks. We did a very large repair project to our park restroom facility out there where we had several of our guys out there from not only our parks department, our streets department, and water department out there assisting with that. try to get that in, finished up, and get that grant closed out and get money back into our pockets. Along with that, we did have a water main break underneath the slab of the pool pump house last Thursday. And with that, I'd also like to thank, as far as our water department, streets department, and parks department, all working together to get that back and going. And we only lost the afternoon to swim. What that was was a supply line that was underneath the slab. got it rerouted above slab and got it back up in operation the next day. So thank you to the crews for working in that sweat box of that in some degree weather. Other exciting news is on the 14th and 15th, the International Women's Organization of Pilots is going to be coming through Red Bluff for their annual air race. They're departing out of Santa Monica on their way to Madras, Oregon with an overnight stay at Red Bluff. There are 17 race teams, which is the biggest that we've had in several decades up here. So 35 lady pilots, actually just pilots, are coming through. They'll be arriving anywhere between 12 o'clock and 5 o'clock, what we're anticipating. They'll have a barbecue at one of the hangars and then depart in the morning. So if you want to cheer on some of the teams coming through, that'd be great. Other exciting news that just about an hour ago, We were preliminary notified that the Red Bluff Airport is going to be getting a $128,000 grant for apron expansion design at the airport and that is to put in some more helicopter parking spots that's going to help with the firefighting efforts during some of these wildfire activities. Thank you.

Thank you, Scott. Tell everybody good job.

Good evening, Mayor, members of the Council. Last week we conducted and concluded some interview process for some reserved part-time firefighters. We did establish a list and have extended some conditional offers to, I believe, six people. So we're starting to work through that process. On the heels of that, we're also expecting a couple of vacancies in our full-time ranks. So yesterday at the end of business day, an application process closed and some current reserves have applied and we'll be going through the testing process over the next couple of weeks to establish an eligibility list. Thanks to the hard work of Emmy, we received notification on Monday that we were awarded a modest grant of, I believe it's $24,000, $25,000 through the Department of the Interior to purchase what they refer to as a slip tank. We call it a skid mount tank and pump. I believe the unit we specced out through a company in Chico is 300 gallons of storage with a pump that pumps somewhere around 200 gallons per minute. The plan is to mount that on the flatbed that the Sheriff's Department donated to us about a year ago that we use for our fuels reduction. So that way those guys, while they're out working, have a means of fighting fire if something were to occur. In addition to that, we have a few additions to our fire family that are coming over the next couple of months. Three of our personnel are expecting. And so that's going to be really interesting and neat and a little bit of trying as they have some time off to do some baby bonding while we work through summer. And speaking of which, everybody knows it's hot. So keep your water near and stay hydrated.

Thank you, sir. Appreciate that.

Thank you. Just an update about CalPERS. CalPERS handles our investments for retirement plans. They've announced a preliminary investment return of 14.8% for the fiscal year ending June 2026. Their planned rate of return is 6.8. So investments over or under the planned rate affect our government-wide financial statements and also our payment for unfunded liabilities. Investment returns are not the only thing that affects these items, but it is one of the most significant things. So we can expect positive effects in the future. But due to complexity, there is a lag involved. So this will not impact our financial statements until the fiscal year 2027-28 and payments for unfunded liabilities until 2028-29. That's all I got.

Okay. Thank you, Paul. Captain Ortega.

Thank you, Mayor and council members.

I keep saying captain, but I'm going to promote you tonight. We'll say chief again.

Tonight from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. at the Red Bluff Community Center, we have our National Night Out event. So that's an opportunity for the community to go out to the community center and interact with all public safety personnel out there. So if you're not here at the council meeting, hopefully you're out at the community center and shaking hands and talking with all public safety that's there.

Thank you, Chief. We'll try to get done early. Captain, excuse me, Robin. See, Captain is on my mind for some reason.

Just wanted to announce we received three bids for the Splash Park phase one project. We are doing our due diligence right now going through to make sure they're complete bids. Two of them are very competitive with each other. So we want to make sure that everything's included and that we're not putting the city at risk for an appeal. That will be coming back with all of my hope, next council meeting for approval to continue moving that forward.

Thank you, Robin. Appreciate that. Thank you, staff. Appreciate it very much. Okay.

Good evening, honorable council and valued staff.

Hold on. Any announcements? Okay, excuse me. Presentation. Go ahead.

Go ahead. My name is Greg Lateral. I'm chairperson for the planning commission reporting out to our July 28th meeting. First off, we considered recommendation of this council for adoption of a vacant commercial property registration and maintenance ordinance that failed due to a lack of a motion. I don't think there's much of an appetite to burden businesses in town any more than they already have with additional bureaucracy. I kind of got the tone from the other commissioners that the overall idea is good, but it needs to be rethought. We have enough. vacant buildings to add on another layer of bureaucracy probably wouldn't be desirable. But there is an understanding among the commission that something has to be done so it doesn't look rundown when a building has been vacated for a certain amount of time. So I think we could probably revisit that. Second was converting an existing second floor commercial space in the historic district That passed 3-0. Commissioner Quigley had an excused absence. The last item was recommendation to the City Council of a tobacco retail licensing ordinance. Again, Mr. Quigley was excused absence, and that passed 4-0. And on upcoming agenda items to be talked about, there's interest in a food truck court get people to come and centralize and start. I think it would be a good social process, let alone I've eaten at several of these food trucks, and they are good. And I think it would be a grand idea if we could move that forward. So anyway, thank you very much. Have a good evening.

Thank you, Greg. Appreciate it. Good to see you. All right. So I'll ask council members now, any conflict of interest that is within the agenda that you want to say that you might have an issue with?

No.

No. No. Chris? No.

No, thank you. And no for me. All right, so we have one item on the consent agenda. It's Public Works Monthly Activity Report, and it's just an informational item. So we need a vote. Anybody want to comment, though, and say anything? With that, okay, we'll just go on to our regular agenda. Regular agenda is item number two, which is Proposition 218, final water and sewer rate study. Robin Kauffman. Kauffman, excuse me.

Honorable Mayor and Council Members, as directed by City Council at the last meeting, staff has worked with LTMC and has moved forward with finalizing the rate study using Scenario 3, a phased-in option for the water rate increase, and Scenario 3, a cash-funded low CIP option for the sewer rate increase. We will be doing another presentation tonight that digs into those and shows the five-year plan for both of those options only and not with the additional options. The rate study will propose a new five-year plan with new water and sewer rates going into effect starting January 1st, going from 27 to 31. The next steps in the Prop 218 process, once we receive the presentation, ask questions, is for Council to set the Proposition 218 hearing date. Then staff and the consultant will mail the Proposition 218 notices to all the property owners and users, conduct the public hearing outreach meeting, hold the Proposition 218 hearing meeting at least 45 days after those notices, and then we will continue moving forward with that. So I'm going to open the floor up to, which one, Sophia, is going to do the presentation again tonight, and then we can answer any questions. The presentation is pretty similar to the last one with all of the supporting data, so we may go through those quickly, but if you have questions or want the public to hear anything, please stop us.

Give us your name again.

My name is Sophia Mills.

Sophia, thank you.

Okay.

One moment here.

It's not letting me share so I might try to rejoin here so you can all see my presentation. Okay if you have it available that would be great. Yeah, when I. OK, thank you so much. Right. good evening honorable mayor and uh members of the city council um my name is sophia mills i'm with i'm here with my colleague we're lt municipal consultants we last spoke a couple weeks ago when i gave an overview of the preliminary rate study findings and based on your feedback at that meeting and choices of scenario for both the water and the sewer systems i'm here tonight to go over those results again in a little uh more detail and to answer any further questions you may have. So like Robin mentioned, a lot of this presentation is similar or the same as to what we went over last time. I'll plan to give a brief overview since I know we have more members of the public here tonight than were at the last meeting, and then at the end we can do any questions. So for some background on the rate study process, Our goal is to set rates for the next five years for both the water and the sewer systems. So the city provides service to about 4,600 customers for both systems. And if you'll go to the next slide, please. So both the water and the sewer funds are enterprise funds operated similar to a private business. So they're separate from other activities conducted by the city. And the goal is for both funds to be fully self-supported from monthly rates and charges that are paid by customers to represent each customer's proportional share of the cost to provide those services. For the city's funds, the rates have not been increased since 2012. So at this time, both funds are operating at a significant deficit, meaning that the rates coming in from customers do not cover the cost to operate the systems. If you'll go to the next slide, please. So both systems, the rate increases are governed by the California state legal requirements laid out in Proposition 218. So for both systems, the rate structures proposed are designed to meet all legal requirements. Compared to the current rate structure, because of Proposition 218 requirements, since the city last adopted rates, there are some slight modifications proposed because of this. So if you go to the next slide, please. so to give you a brief overview of our process there's three main phases of the rate study so when we last spoke the main thing that we talked about was the financial plan and we went over the multiple different scenarios that we along with city staff developed so the financial plan represents the phase of the study where we take the city's publicly available financial documents such as budgets, audits, and most significantly, capital improvement plans. And we use that to determine the total amount of money that must be collected from rates over each of the next five years. The second phase of the rate study is to take that total amount of money and then design rates that allocate that amount proportionally between all customers. So as you'll see, it's proposed that different types of customers pay different rates based on how they use the system. The third phase of the rate study which we will move forward with after tonight, based on your feedback, is the public outreach process. So as Robin mentioned, pursuant to the requirements of Proposition 218, once the council approves a rate plan, we will work together with staff to mail a notice of the upcoming rate changes to all customers and all property owners within the city. 45 days after that notice is mailed, the city will then be required to hold a public hearing at which the rates will be formally adopted and during which customers will have a formal opportunity to protest the rate increases if they so desire. Another important component of the public outreach process is that during that 45 day window, we anticipate doing additional outreach to customers. So one component of that will be holding an outreach meeting here in the city to answer any questions and concerns from the public. The next slide, please. So the key considerations that some of this, most of this we went over last time or some of what I already mentioned is that because rate increases have not been implemented for nearly 15 years, both the water and the sewer systems are not covering their costs. So the main priority of both rate increases, particularly the first rate increase that's proposed to go into effect January 1st of next year, is to allow both utility funds to cover their operating costs. This includes all day-to-day expenses such as staffing costs for all the employees of each system and then a second priority it particularly in future years of the rate plan is to finance capital improvements so in recent years the city has not had a dedicated capital improvement program but last year a master planning process was conducted which identified priority capital improvements for each system that should be completed And then if you'll go to the next slide, please, Robin. I think I already went over the rate design. So now I'll go in detail in the water system. So here's an overview of the city's current rates. Customers have two components of their rates. The first component of the rates is shown here, and that's a fixed charge per month based on the meter size that each customer has. The vast majority of the city's customers have a three-quarter inch meter, and so they pay about $15 per month. The second component of the water rate structure is on the following slide, and that is a consumption rate. And that is based on actual metered water usage. So like we discussed last time, the city's current consumption rates have many tiers based on the level of water used, which is no longer recommended based on recent legal rulings regarding Proposition 218. So it is recommended that a consumption rate stay in place. However, there will be no tiers. It will be the same price for each unit one unit of water is about 750 gallons so each 750 gallons you use you pay the usage rate shown here if you go to the next slide please So at current rates, the average customer in the city pays about $28 per month. That's based on the three-quarter inch meter size that I mentioned and average usage, which is 16 units of water. If you'll go to the next slide, please. So here is an overview of the past four years of actuals collected by the Water Fund compared to expenses, as well as this year's budget. So as you will see, the revenues collected, which is shown by the dashed green line, are significantly less than the expenses that the city has been incurring. The water fund, however, like we discussed last time, has some amount of available cash reserves. So it is proposed based on your feedback that the rate plan will be phased in and the city will spend down some of its available reserves in the first two years so that rate increases are mitigated to the extent possible for the city's customers. So if you'll go to the next slide, please. This I'll go over briefly and then if there are more specific questions about capital projects we can discuss them after but I know we went over this in detail last time. So the city's capital improvement plan goal for the next five years totaled nearly $19 million. Based on your direction to prioritize reducing rate impacts to the extent possible, it is proposed that Over the next five years, the rates are phased in and about half of those capital improvements will be funded through those rates. So if you'll go to the next slide, please. Here's an overview of the proposed rate plan. And again, this represents scenario three that was presented at the last meeting. So you'll see here the current were the rates that have been in place since 2012. And it's proposed that beginning January 1, 2027, the rates shown here are implemented. And again, just as a refresher for that, the volume rate, most customers are currently paying about 79 cents per unit. So the volume rate is proposed to increase to a greater degree than the meter fee. And if you'll go to the next slide, please. Here is a comparison of what the average customer's bill increase will be. relative to what that customer would pay for the same amount of water usage in other local agencies. So as you can see, the current bill of $28 a month is highlighted, and it's proposed that that will increase to about $42 based on the average usage of 16 units and the average meter size. If you go to the next slide, please. As we've discussed, the current rates have been in place since 2012, and it is proposed that they will increase from that average bill of $28 to an average bill of $42, which is about in line with what the current bill would be had it been increased by inflation over this time. Okay. If you'll go to the next slide, please. So I'll pause here. Would you prefer if we answer questions or address questions from the waterside first, or should I move to sewer before any questions?

Let's address the waterside first, like we did last time, in case just anybody, when the council wants to ask anything for the waterside. Pat, anything? Mark? No? Of course. Sorry.

That's fine. On slide nine, you said that you guys proposed that the tier, it says, tiers are proposed to be replaced with a uniform rate. But then on page... 13, it says volume rate varies by tier. So are we varying by tier or are we keeping it a universal rate?

So the varies by tier is for the current rates only. That's just, you'll see that column is just, yeah.

Okay, so we're going to move to a, because we talked about the pollutants being in varying degrees, but that's essentially not going to make a difference. We're moving to a...

So the rates that vary by pollutants is for sewer, yes. So for water, for all customers, it's proposed to be the same rate per unit, yes. Currently, for customers, for the highest water users, the rates are currently lower per unit, which is no longer recommended based on recent state law.

Thank you.

Thank you. Chris, nothing? Excuse me. I'll open up to the public to ask questions on this particular part of the presentation. Any questions from the public for Sophia? Haven't seen them? OK. Let's go on to Sue.

OK. So for the sewer system, rates are varied by customer class. All residential customers pay a fixed rate per month, which is based on the average use of customers in that class. commercial customers pay rates like you mentioned with your question that are a little more similar to how the water rates are where there is a fixed component but there is also a component based on metered water usage so for all commercial customers the fixed rate includes a base amount of usage and any excessive flow above that amount is billed at the rates shown here If you'll go to the next slide, please. It is proposed that the rate structure continues to be similar. However, customers are proposed to be reclassified into slightly different classes. On the residential side, the only proposed change is that all multifamily customers, so that includes anyone living in a condo a townhouse an apartment or a mobile home pay the same rates this is based on a detailed analysis we did of the city's metered water usage data and we found that all of those living types use roughly the same amount of water and they use about 75% of most single-family homes in the city so that's the reason for splitting residential into two separate classes In terms of the city's commercial customers, it's proposed that all commercial customers be reclassified into low strength, medium strength, and high strength categories. Customers are assigned to categories based on industry standard measures of the amount and concentration of pollutants in the wastewater flow of each of those land use types. So customers in the medium strength category are based on any type of land use that is similar to a residential home. whereas low strength represents the types of land uses that don't have any food preparation and are purely discharging into the sewer system, water, or may have bathrooms. High strength customers are customers like bakeries and restaurants that are doing extensive food preparation or other activities that have high concentrations of pollutants that the city must treat at the treatment plant. If you'll go to the next slide, please. So here's an overview of the city's financial standing. So as we discussed in detail last time, the sewer fund is in a significantly more challenging financial position than the water fund because To date, the city's sewer fund has a cash balance of about negative $2.8 million, meaning that other city funds have been subsidizing the sewer fund since, as you can see in the chart here, it has not been able to cover its costs at current rates. And if you'll go to the next slide, please. There are significant costs anticipated as well in the city's capital improvement plan. The main goal of the proposed rate increases is to, again, the first priority is to cover operating costs so that the city can apply for grants for future capital improvements. and then the secondary goal is to begin financing capital improvements that will help improve the system and avoid costly emergency repairs in the future so if you go to the next slide please the proposed rates are the same as we discussed in scenario three at the last meeting these rates are proposed to have a significant rate increased in january of 2027 to allow the city to cover its operating costs followed by more minimal increases in years two through five of the rate plan that will allow the city to finance about $2 million per year in capital improvements, which is about half of the total recommended capital improvement plan. So if you go to the next slide, please. Here's a comparison of the current rate, which, same with water, is on the lowest end of the regional chart here compared with the proposed rate, which is about $86 per month for one home. If you'll go to the next slide, please. Here's a look at how that compares to inflation. So had rates been increased by inflation since 2012, the rate would be at about $50 per month. And on the next slide, here we'd like to show a comparison of how the city's total bill will compare to the surrounding region. So despite the significant sewer rate increase, because the increased proposed to the water rate is more minimal, the city's proposed bill would be in about the mid-range of the region. And on the next slide, how this compares to inflation, you can see that the average customer is proposed to pay about $127 per month under the new rates, which compares to about the $91 if it had purely been increased by inflation since 2012. So before we close for questions, I just want to quickly go over the proposed schedule. I know Robin mentioned this in her introduction. So tonight we are asking for authorization to begin the Proposition 218 process. process. So should you approve of these rate plans, what we'll do is begin mailing out notices to all customers, like I mentioned. And once the notices are mailed, they will contain information with these proposed rates for each customer as well as the date and time and location of both the public outreach meeting and then an upcoming public hearing. The hearing is proposed to be held in early October, and then from that date the city can begin preparing to implement the rates for January 1st, and the new rates would be billed in January.

Thank you, Sophia. Questions from Council for Sophia? Okay, Cassie, go ahead.

Industry standard is the mechanism you guys use for basing the pollutants. I'll go back to my other question since I confused the two categories. Is there any mechanism that you know of where users can prove the actual pollutant versus the industry standard. So you categorized churches because they sometimes prepare food, but there are lots of churches that just host Sunday service. So it seems extreme to put them in a category based on an industry standard if that really isn't what it looks like. And so my question is, and that's universal across all users, is there any mechanism in place that allows us to adjust the industry standard to the actual pollutant, a test, something that they can test. And they can say, I obviously am not preparing food, or I'm not dumping, or what does that look like? And we have restaurants in town that are problems. And we know it because they're dumping grease. And we know that based off of what's in their pipes and those kinds of things. So I know that it comes from a place. I'm not saying it's not justified. I'm just curious.

No, I understand your point. Yes, these are based on averages. So the city, to a certain extent, it would be up to city staff. But the city does have the option to, at its discretion, if there are certain individual businesses that are significantly different from the standard for that class, you know it's at the city's discretion if they want to say move that specific church into the low strength category however in terms of measuring the specific pollutants from one business to my knowledge that's not done

There's not a specific test we can run. But if they're using lower flows, we're going to know that by their water usage. Their rates are going to be lower anyway because they're not exceeding also.

So we can essentially adjust those tiers or make exceptions to those tiers on our discretion, city's discretion, after this rate fee is approved.

Yeah?

I think so. I think we would ask for an appeal or a letter request and we could take each case in individually.

Yeah, so I think that that's something that could be considered. For example, using your example, if it was a church and they didn't have any kitchen facilities, maybe that would be a case. But if it was a church that had kitchen facilities, it just says, well, we're not using them, there wouldn't be an adjustment. So I think that we want to be fair to all of our customers, residential and commercial, but it would have to be on a case-by-case basis.

Anything else? No, that's fine.

The question I would have is that some churches would use, in particular, have ball fields and they have lawns, big lawns that they water. So would that be initially something that we incorporated to the...

They should have a separate landscape water meter, and we don't charge based on that meter. They don't pay sewer fees based on landscape meters. They pay sewer fees based on domestic service only. So California law now requires a landscape meter for water and a domestic meter. So all new projects and even ones that are coming back for modifications are required to put that second meter in. So we're not charging them sewer fees based on the full water usage. That's fire water, landscape water. We've been working with all the schools to get them on separate meters in the last couple years also.

Okay. So you've been notified. Yes. Already have a – we have a working process for that. We do, yes. Okay, great. Good. Thank you, council. So I'll open it up to the public for any questions. You can ask her from right there.

My name is William Ellis, as most of you know. After the last meeting, I was concerned about the churches, too. So personally, I went out, started visiting different churches to see what their numbers are and how many people have been going to the churches and stuff like that. And from what some of the pastors have said, their numbers are dwindling. And so there's not as much use. But they've also not been using their kitchens. They've been having their parishioners and stuff prepare food and bring it over and then go back with their systems. I see that churches are rated at a medium strength level for their sewer, but the gyms are rated at a low level, but the gyms are putting more chemicals into the sewer than the churches are. You have, especially some of the gyms I went and visited, you have 200 to 300 people visiting a day, they're taking showers, the shampoos and stuff is going into the sewer. You have the gyms themselves are using their washers and dryers three, four times, maybe five times a day. And that's more chemicals that's going into the sewer. I'm just wondering why the churches would be at a higher level than the gyms. I mean, either move the gyms up or move the churches down is all I'm asking. Other than that, I don't see anything else about the study that, I mean, it looks good except for that part.

I know you're going to answer, Robin, but I know also maybe it was taken into consideration there's a difference between a church having an actual kitchen and a warming kitchen. I know like when our church, when we moved into our building, we were only permitted to have a warming kitchen. So we were not allowed to prepare any food there. We were only allowed to heat up what brought in, like William said, what's already been prepared and then heated up. But we're not allowed to actually prepare any food there.

I think that's a case-by-case basis that we would look into those. To answer your question, it's the food waste. It's the organics that cause the problems at the treatment plant. The soaps, they don't kill the bugs. To sum it all up. So the digestion of sewage down at our plant is with live bacteria and bugs. The soaps are made to be able to be digested. The inorganics and the greases are what cause the problems because the grease cannot be. So we have to filter all that out. We've put special systems in. So it is food prep that's really the biggest concern for that high, medium, low. Go ahead.

I just want to clarify one more point about that as well. So the rates proposed are for the different strengths also reflect the rate per unit. So the pollutant, the concentration of pollutants is used to determine the rate per unit. But each customer will be billed based on the number of units that they use. So it's highly likely that a gym, like you're discussing, will be paying much more than a church. They'll be paying slightly less per unit, but because they're using so much more water, their bill will be higher.

Anyone else from the public for questions?

Hi, Rob Schmidt. Man, it's hard to bite my tongue. I sat on council in 2012 when all this happened last time. And we were hit with the same thing. There was decades since the last price change. And I always thought, I always believed that What we came up with was it has to be increased, but let's not just let it go. Let's have an increase like the cost of living that was on the board for our water and sewer so we didn't come up against this again. Apparently not. So we need to do that. And I think that's what she presented. It was really hard for me to see and or hear. The other thing in that was in her graph that showed if we went with the cost of living, this is where we would be today. If we do this, this increase can be this, plus twice more to get us to what we need to do our improvements. OK, I get it. We're in debt. We need money for improvements. That's where we were back then also. The problem with that is we want to fix the problem in two years or three years, and then we have all of this money coming in that we fix the problem, we can maintain the system, but we're still charging the user a grandiose fee. Some of them are like three times what it is now, or four times what it is now, which is going to be hard. You're going to get a big hit back. I'm sure you know that. I'm sure that it you don't have to take this as presented, you can modify it, you can talk, you know, ask for different, you know, whatever, without taking it the way it sits. You might want to think about that. And, again, make sure they put something in place to where there's is a cost of living increase every year. So we don't have to do this anymore. Anyway, thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else?

haven't seen no one any further questions any comments i just want to comment on rob uh thank you for getting up there and speaking because you know we look back at that point and wonder why as well um but to go off of your question if maybe robin can help me but this was the minimum we could go to where we could get grants if we go any lower then we're not going to be able to apply for grants So that was built into the system so we could better our sewage plant if there was an option to get a grant, we could do that. If we go any lower, we won't have that option.

Correct. We actually got pre-approved to submit the final grant application through the state revolving fund for the secondary clarifier for the $5 million. I'm sitting on it right now because our finances don't meet the debt covenant. So that's the first step. So as soon as we get these approved, we'll submit that grant application and pull that out of capital improvements that the city has to fund. So that's the fine line we're playing with right now is we want to get that done not paid for by the citizens if we can get a grant. But we did get our pre-application approved and we're ready to submit. So they've given us the green flag to move forward on that.

We had pretty lengthy conversations last time because I was concerned about that. I can't afford any more taxes. We're getting taxed to death. But for our future of our town, it's a five-year plan. The initial rate's high, but after that it gets much lower as far as water as well. So it is what it is. We have to do it. We have to prepare our town for the future and the next generation.

It will level off after that that's our plan Also, we plan on looking at it at year four of this so it's consistent every five years Just just putting it in our queue for that Tom and I have reviewed that we also I want to make the statement I think Sophia may have said it last time. This is the maximum we can raise so if if for some reason energy costs go down or something changes we get additional grants CIP changes I mean there's so many things the council can approve a lower this will be the max that we we can go yes

And I just wanted to say one thing to Rob's point. We did this kind of methodically doing the general plan update, creating a five-year CIP program, doing water and sewer master plans. And so we've kind of been down this road to get to this point. But you have to keep kind of on that as Robin just mentioned. The point is that is in year four, we'll start looking at our capital improvement program and seeing where the pressure points are in our water and sewer delivery systems and see where we need to maybe secure more funds to make improvements. But then again, we'll be looking at a 218 process again to kind of conclude when this runs its five-year course to look at the next five years ahead, which I think is maybe something that's a little bit of a change. And so the intent is to keep kind of on this so we can make necessary improvements to the system and so that we can do incremental increases to secure the funding necessary to make those improvements to our system but not do significant increases like was done in 2012 it appears and that will be something that has to be considered here in 2026 and so We hear loud and clear we want to do exactly what was suggested by our public member just kind of as we move forward. This is a very common practice for cities within the state of California to do these five-year capital improvement programs in addition to Prop 218 increases that kind of match that. So we're trying to reset the dial so that we're looking ahead and we can make the necessary improvements to our system when we need to make them. That's kind of the big goal.

Thank you, Tom. Good. Any other comments, questions? I think it falls on us to make this decision. It's a tough one, but it's got to be made for improvements and for, like Robin said, the grant that is before us that we need to have. And like Mark said, we're looking at not only just today, but tomorrow, for the citizens of tomorrow. I don't want citizens to later on down the road say, why didn't they do this? We're here now, and we're going to do what has to be done to do this.

You want to present to the public when you do that why it is what it is. Correct.

why absolutely i think that's going to be done in the public outreach i think they don't they don't know they just think yeah absolutely city wants money yeah pat did you have something mark anything more

Chris, anything else? No.

No. Cassie, nothing else? All right. So I've closed public comment. I'll stay at 625. And so before us, council, we have set a date of October, I mean, excuse me, August 20th, 2026 for mailing public notice for Proposition 218 and number two, authorize LT municipal consultants to conduct a public notification process. Do we have a motion? Motion by Mark Clement. Do I have a second?

I'll second.

Second by Pat Hurton. Anita, please take the roll.

Councilmember Pope?

Yes.

Councilmember Hurton? Yes. Councilmember Deiders? Yes. Mayor Pro Tem Clement? Yes. Mayor Gonzales?

Yes. Motion passes unanimously. Again, thank you, council. Thank you, staff. We'll go to item number three, agenda item number three, award professional airport services contract 2026. Scott Miller, Public Works, please.

Thank you, Mayor. What we have before you, FAA requires airport sponsors such as Red Bluff to every five years revisit as far as their airport consultant, which is a special group that assists the airports in designing and operating the airport within the realms of FAA and Caltrans Department of Aeronautics guidelines. As such, our cycle came up again. We advertised out, as you're aware, earlier from Council Action, and we did get two statements of qualifications from two firms. One is our existing firm that we're currently out of contract with at the moment, Lochner, and LJA Engineering Incorporated. We do have one of the representatives, Ken Moen, here for LJA. We did assign a scoring staff, review staff for that, which included myself, a member of the airport commission. as well as an outside source. Based on the published grading criteria of the things that was listed in our RFQ, went through the list of things, came up with a scoring criteria, not criteria, but ranking of that. At the end of that, LJA was recommended with the highest scoring of that. What we're proposing is a three-year contract with two options of one-year extensions on that to meet the five-year. If something happens midway, that does provide the city and or the consultants to revisit that, you know, different options. With that, I can answer any questions or you can ask anything from Mr. Mowen.

Okay. Council, questions first for Scott. Anything?

You have the floor. Well, I just want to introduce myself. My name is Ken Mullen. I am the Vice President for Aviation Division for LJA Engineering. I'm based in Reno, Nevada. We've done work with Red Bluff in the past and also with Robin as under the firm Armstrong Consultants, which went through a merger a couple years ago through Lochner at that point. And then we began the aviation division for LJA in March of 25. And so based on our relationship, we're very interested in working for the city of Red Bluff and helping Red Bluff achieve its goals with its municipal airport. and my entire career as an adult has been in aviation first with the faa for 27 years then in airport management at reno tower airport and also at the carson city airport and i've been in consulting since 2021. so i i bring the experience of an airport operator and also an understanding of the system and the relationships that come with my faa experience and background to assist the city of red bluff with its airports

Thank you. Council questions for, give me your first name, please. Ken. Ken. Okay, Ken. Any questions for Ken?

I don't. No.

No. I'll open it up to the public for questions for Ken. 629. Haven't seen none. Any hands? Anita? Nothing? This might sound like an... When you get this contract, do you have somebody already here that's living here that's going to be in the airport kind of monitoring this or just do it from a remote basis?

I'll probably be the primary point of contact, but we have a team that supports us. So our team is supported by engineers and planners and also operators of aeronautical businesses so we can assist with other factors that come up, whether it's airport rules and regulations or rates and charges, redoing those and making sure that they're competitive. Much like we heard about the water and the sewer study, we can do things like that in the nature to make sure the airport is maximizing its ability to sustain itself. And so that's one of the challenges that airports experience. Primarily land leases provide the primary source of revenue, but there's also other forms through whether it's rents or fuel flow fees or other fees of that nature that are paid by the users. So we bring a whole team to support the community.

Yeah. How do you see future growth for our airport? Tell me.

You know, industry-wise, aviation is not going to disappear. There's many forms of aviation that are going to continue to grow, and you've probably heard some conversation around advanced air mobility. And so there's some challenges with that new technology coming online, electric aviation, and how those will integrate with the system overall. But aviation is going to continue to be an important part of transportation in the 21st century. and not less of a factor. But it also serves really emergency needs for the community, whether it's medical or fire support for wildland firefighting and whatnot. But it's a real important part of a community is to have an airport. A lot of people look at it as, hey, I don't have a plane, therefore the airport doesn't mean anything to me. But that's really a narrow-minded view. The airport plays an incredible role in the transportation network and will continue to help connect Red Bluff with the broader system.

Do you see Red Bluff as possibly a hub for, you mentioned electric airplane flying, to be a hub for people to commute to the Bay Area from here?

I think that one thing that air travel does is it cuts time and distance, you know, and so those type of technologies as they integrate, you know, one of the challenges with electric aircraft is they have reduced payload and short range. Other than that, it's not a bad idea. What is their range now? Well, it depends on the life of the battery, how much of a charge it can maintain. I think what's unique about it is it's a new form. It's a unique form, and people are trying to figure out how that's going to work. And early in the internet stage, remember when AOL was first a thing and how all that was going to integrate into our communities and our offices and our places of business? It has to go through a maturation process. And I think we'll see that, too, with advanced air mobility. I think the big thing is, what are the new fuel sources? And they may be things like fuel cells, which power electric engines. It has a better ratio as far as the amount of fuel it needs to support a certain amount of thrust of power.

Yeah, just looking for ways to make our airport, you know, more, grow the community with the airport and so forth.

Yeah, and that's a big piece of workforce development. You know, get the youth interested in aviation, bring them out. You know, there's a big need for airframe and power plant mechanics. Of course, the pilot component is one that most people think of. But, you know, the technical piece, you know, being able to maintain an aircraft or build aircraft. There's groups like the Experimental Aircraft Association that plays a big role in the community and the airport. So I think it's important to have events around the airport and bring people out to it. I know a restaurant is incredibly important. You have a great restaurant at the airport. People will fly in from different parts of the state or neighboring states just to go out and have a $300 hamburger or omelet. So those are important.

Yeah.

Well, you know the restaurant's not charging $300, but it's going to cost them that to get there.

Yeah. I see what you're saying. That's great. That's better than Las Vegas. Yeah, for sure. Thank you very much, Ken. Appreciate it.

I look forward to working with you. Unless anybody has any more questions.

Okay. All right. So now we have before us... Recommended to award the professional award April Airport consultant services agreement to LJ a engineering Inc and authorized public works director and airport manager to sign agreement for a Duration of three years with a CD option of two additional One-year extensions council do we have a motion motion motion by Mark Clement? Do we have a second? Second by Cassie Pope I need a please take the role

Councilmember Pope? Yes. Councilmember Hurton? Yes. Councilmember Deiters? Yes. Mayor Pro Tem Clement? Yes.

Mayor Gonzales? Yes. Motion passed. I mean, item passed. Did we do public comment on that? I believe I did. I didn't? I'm sorry. I thought we did. I'm going to have to retract everything. I apologize. My apologies. I opened it for public comment. Hold your votes. We're not going to take hold. We'll have to vote again.

Sorry. I do have a question about, especially you came to speak about the electric planes. Are they going to have electric plug-ins for the planes at the airport now? And about what J.R. was talking about, about the distance for the planes, have they thought about putting solar cells on the planes to also help regenerate the battery as it's flying? That's it.

Mr. Mayor, I'm going to say that that's probably off-topic. This is about the actual agreement, not about specifics of influence.

Okay. But thank you for the question. All right.

Council? Rob Schmidt on the Airport Commission. I was one of those. Hi, Ken. Hi, Rob. I just wanted to say that it was a tough call. They're both very qualified. I had a long conversation with your airport manager, was very helpful with filling in the blanks, the way these things are brought about with an SOQ. You have no idea who you're talking about, who you're talking. The questions are like kindergarten teacher says, here's your questions and here are your answers. So pick out the answer and put it in the right box. And it means nothing. So I have to commend your airport manager for being very helpful. We had an interview process with both of them, including the Corning airport manager who was involved in this also. And I think we picked the right one. And what else was I going to say about this? I don't have my notes.

Anyway,

Glad to be here. Glad you saw it all. Stay in tune with your airport. We got lots going on. Oh, I was going to say the grant fund for the helipads. Good to hear. Long and coming. Really needed. You've seen it out there when it's fire season and there's 30 helicopters out there in the dust and the dirt and everything else. Well needed. Good job.

All right. Thanks, guys. Thank you, Rob. Appreciate it. Anybody else from the public want to make questions or comments?

Okay.

Close it, and then I apologize for not doing that. But now let's go back to – do I have to redo that, Sophie? Okay. Do I have a motion? I have a motion. Motion by Mark Clement again. Do I have a second? Second by Cassie Pope. Anita, please take the roll.

Councilmember Pope. Councilmember Hurton.

Still yes.

Councilmember Deiters? Yes. Mayor Pro Tem Clement?

Yes.

Mayor Gonzales?

Yes. The motion passes unanimously. Congratulations, Ken. We'll go on to agenda item number four. Scott Miller, Public Works, please.

Thank you, Mayor. A little bit of... Excuse me, a little bit of a shift here. What we have before you is, once again, kind of like the airport consultants, the urban water management plan, the state water requires us to update our plan for water contingency and looking at potential for shortfalls every five years. Well, we did that in 2020 when it gets started. So giving you a point as far as the dates-wise that we're doing the 25 currently. It gets initiated in 25, but we don't actually submit it until 26 after everything is separated. So that's some of the clarification on that. What we have is required that we have to do that is because the VAR decided that we're an urban water supplier that we do service more than 3,000 connections. And the purpose is to maintain an efficient supply of water. We did this, like I said, A FEW YEARS AGO, WE HAVE A FIRM, CORELLO ENGINEERING, WHICH DID OUR LAST UPDATE, IS DOING THIS UPDATE, TOO. THEY ALSO WORK ON SOME OF OUR OTHER REGULATORY FIRMS SUCH AS OUR WATER LOSS UPDATE. THEY'RE VERY FAMILIAR WITH OUR SYSTEM. WE ARE ALSO LUCKY THAT BREANNA BARTON, PE, IS ONLINE AS WELL. SHE'LL BE CONDUCTING THE DEMONSTRATION AND THE MEETING AFTER THIS FOR MORE INFORMATION IN DEPTH ON THAT. And with that, I would turn it over to Brianna.

Thank you, Scott. I'll go ahead and share my screen if I'm able to. Let's see here.

All right.

Good evening, honorable mayor and council members. My name is Brianna Barton and I'm with Corallo Engineers and this is an overview presentation of the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan or UWMP update prepared for the City of Red Bluff. The agenda for this presentation includes the UWMP purpose and objectives, new requirements for the 2025 UWMP since the 2020 version was prepared and then a summary of Outreach process and activities and we'll go over briefly some sections of the urban water management plan including population and demand projections supply reliability assessment water shortage contingency planned and we'll end with next steps and questions and So first the purpose and objectives, uh, Scott, um, said the urban water management plans are required for urban water suppliers servicing 3000 or more connections or supplying more than 3000 acre feet of water annually. And they must be filed with the state every five years. Um, so the city of red bluff is required to do these plans as the city services, more than 4,900 connections and supplies more than 3,500 acre feet of water. The purpose of these plans is to maintain efficient use of urban water supplies, promote conservation programs and policies, and confirm that water supplies are available for future beneficial use. And lastly, to provide a mechanism for response during water drought conditions. For the urban water management plan process, it includes reviewing historic and projected demands and supplies with an assessment of supply reliability under various hydrologic conditions, including normal single dry year and multi dry year scenarios. And it includes a supply reliability assessment for the upcoming five year period or a drought risk assessment. In addition, the water shortage contingency plan is summarized within the UWMP. Overall, the state law dictates the content and format of the report. And once the report is compiled, it goes through a public review and adoption process, and then it will be submitted to the Department of Water Resources. New requirements for the 2025 UWMP since the previous plan update. There are a few here that I'll briefly go over. The first is Making Conservation a California Way of Life regulations, which was effective in January 2025 but will go into compliance in January 2027. This regulation sets annual urban water use objectives for urban retail water suppliers. The urban water management plan just makes reference to this new regulation and indicates that the city will implement implementation measures as needed to comply with that regulation. Another is water loss control regulations for urban retail water suppliers to develop performance standards for minimizing water system leaks. that became effective in 2023. There's a new table with water loss standards in the UWMP that wasn't in the 2020 plan. The state hasn't calculated a real water loss standard for the city, but there is an apparent water loss standard. And the city is in compliance with that based on the most recent water loss audit. And just a real quick definition, real water loss is leaks where apparent water loss is unauthorized consumption, metering inaccuracies, or data errors. The next new requirement is monthly water conservation reports. And those have been required to be submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board since fall 2020. And lastly, there's a prohibition on non-functional turf irrigation, which will be phased between 2027 and 2029 for commercial, industrial, and institutional areas. Next, I'll go over the outreach activities. As part of the UWMP reporting requirements, the City provided notification to the entities that are shown here on the screen that the UWMP update process was ongoing. A notification was also posted for the current public hearing and adoption in the Red Bluff Daily News. It's called a 60-day notice. It was provided in January of this year. 60 days is just the minimum notice prior to the public hearing. And then for population and demand projections, first I just wanted to show that this is a figure that's included in their urban water management plan that shows the city's water service area and the city's water supply is 100% groundwater. For population, the 2025 population that is shown here is per the California Department of Finance estimate, and then the Urban Water Management Plan assumes a 0.4% annual population growth, which is the same assumption from the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. All right, let's see. And then here is the table that summarizes the existing and projected water demands. This table is all for potable water, and you can see the different use types, single family, multifamily, commercial, institutional, governmental, and then some other categories, and lastly, losses. The demand projections are based on the projected population that we saw before, the 2025 actual water use that's shown there, and then a water use target. that is set by the state. So there's some conservation built in to these projected demands. The water use target is called the 2020 target. So there was no change from the 2020 urban water management plan on that conservation goal that the city is meeting. And the projected water demands for 2030 through 2050 assume the same relative distribution of water use for each use type that you can see here as reported for 2025. the 2025 actual water use was 3581 acre feet and it's projected to increase to 4900 acre feet by 2050. this next table shows oops sorry about that let me go back This table shows the existing and projected recycled water use. The city provides recycled water to Caltrans for irrigation along I-5. So the 2025 actual recycled water use was 33 acre feet, and it's projected to increase to 35 through 2050. A supply reliability assessment was done. Sorry about that. And for all water scenarios, average water year, single dry year, multi dry year, and the drought risk assessment, which is in the next five years, the supply is greater than the demand. The city anticipates it can supply all of its water demands with groundwater from the Red Bluff sub basin through the planning horizon, which is 2050 for all those scenarios. Next, I was going to go over demand management measures. The urban water management plan requires a description of these demand management measure categories, which is really another way to just say water conservation measures. The first is the water waste prevention ordinance. The city has one and it's in the municipal code and it's in place at all time. Next is metering. So all city customers are metered with the exception of eight commercial and institutional connections. Conservation pricing, you saw in an earlier presentation about the city's current base meter rates. The Urban Water Management Plan does indicate that the city is in process of conducting a rate study in accordance with Prop 218 so that that rate structure would be updated in the next UWMP update. The next demand management measure is assess and manage distribution losses. The city conducts annual water audits in accordance with American Water Works Associations and that is reported to Department of Water Resources. The city has a public education and outreach program in place and also a water conservation program for managing water conservation efforts preparing reports, and then as mentioned before, the city will implement additional conservation measures as needed to comply with the separate Making Conservation a California Way of Life regulations, which becomes compliance effective next year. I also wanted to touch on the Water Shortage Contingency Plan. There are no new requirements since the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, and there are also no updates to the Water Shortage Contingency Plan since the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. However, the Water Shortage Contingency Plan must be readopted every five years. So the city code conservation and rationing stages section 24.18, which is included as an appendix to the urban water management plan, serves as the city's water shortage contingency plan. And that code includes six standard shortage levels that the city has the authority to invoke when circumstances warrant water conservation. And the shortage level one is the normal operating stage for the water system and is always in effect. So that city code, which serves as the water shortage contingency plans, indicates water shortage response actions like demand reduction, supply augmentation, operational changes, and mandatory provisions to address the shortage levels. Lastly, we're gonna wrap up with next steps. So on the city side, continue track warnings and violations, work with the public to maintain efficient use of supplies and maintain conservation goals. And then specific to this 2025 urban water management plan and water shortage contingency plan adoption would be to address any public comments that may have been received. And then the city will adopt the 2025 urban water management plan and water shortage contingency plan. We will submit the report to Department of Water Resources and the city will continue to perform annual water shortage assessment reports and then also continue to monitor legislation and then update the urban water management plan and water shortage contingency plan again in 2030. And lastly, I just wanted to mention that the water shortage contingency plan can be Um, updated separately from that urban water management plan cycle, if changes were needed sooner.

Thank you Brianna. Questions from council for Brianna?

It's probably more for Scott actually. I had a question for you just because I haven't done this before. Um, I was looking at the 2020 just for comparison. And I noticed that there, she mentioned it tonight in tonight's presentation, there were eight commercial and industrial non-metered. Can you elaborate on that? And they carried over from 2020, so is there a plan to get them metered? What does that look like?

If I recall from them, we did bring a bunch of them up a while back on them. Some of the ones are like the city pool on the Big Fill, the city hall. You recall, I think most of them were all like city structures that were.

City or parks. And we've slowly been putting meters and backflows into those as we've been going along.

because it was eight in 2020 and it's still currently eight? Correct. Okay. And just in terms of help for the presentation in the future, if there are goals, is there a possibility to come back when we present this in five years and just say, hey, we met this goal, we met this goal?

It would be really great, especially with the water rate study since we've been working in deficit and working on some of the more higher critical things with the monies available. But yes, that's our goal to start checking off some of these things that are on here.

And then include it in the presentation. That would be awesome. Thank you.

And it's also my understanding, we have the new reporting that we have to do for what we're pulling out of our wells. We're putting new flow meters on the wells. So we're slowly getting the data and information we need to be able to check those goals off. Awesome.

Thank you. Yeah. Some of the reporting, like I mentioned earlier, both mine as well as Brianna's, Some of the state reporting requirements, the water loss audits that we have to do, it's actually when we looked at it, we looked like it would be more of a punitive thing for the city. Actually, it was actually quite an eye-opener to where some of our water was going elsewhere where we weren't accounting for it and where she mentioned apparent losses versus real losses. Our losses that we were seeing were significant. quite large, but they were apparent, but they were actually just not really accounted for. Some of the stuff that wasn't accounted because for filling the pool and discharging, right there's a half a million gallons of water each time that we fill it and drain it. Others is flushing requirements. So we flush the hydrants for water quality, coolness, also testing measures, or even when the fire department does a fire. We weren't accounting for any of that stuff. So really right now, Our numbers where we looked like we were having huge water losses actually narrowed down that we've been accounting for just about everything, including their training operations, cycling, fire hydrants, filling the pool, flushing. Really, we're just down to that now that those aid structures that we don't have the solid numbers of what that is. Thank you. One other thing that she did mention regarding the water conservation thing, even though that it is in our city ordinance as well as mentioned in our urban water plan, I failed to get it into actual, into the measure. So there is an amendment, amended resolution. I'll be bringing copies up for you. So for tonight that would have to be amended one additional whereas, whereas the city council or the city of Red Bluff affirms section 24.18 of city ordinance that serves as the city's required water shortage contingency plan for conservation and rationing stages which is also included as an appendix in the city's urban water management plan, UWMP. That would be added for what you'll be adopting as far as the resolution.

So that is an addition that is not on. Okay. Sophie, how would that be presented? How would we add that in? Thank you. All right. I have a question. Yeah, I will. So I'll open it up for questions from council. And Mark has a question.

The splash pad, what kind of water usage do you predict? And on hot days, the evaporation, I mean, it's going to be pretty huge right there.

Yes, that will be a meter section, but a lot of that is recycled and filtered water and chlorinated. That's what I was wondering. Yeah, and it is be metered. Okay.

Any other questions from council?

This just seems to me like, again, the state doesn't trust us to run our own water system, right? And so they got to get involved, right? I guess my one question is, okay, the city will implement conservation measures as needed to comply with the Making Conservation a California Way of Life Regulation Compliance Effective January 1, 2027. What does that mean?

Brianna might be able to, she does more of the regulatory.

Did you hear that, Brianna?

I did. Yes. The Making Conservation a California Way of Life is a new regulation with separate reporting requirements, and there's There's references in the Urban Water Management Plan, only a few places to that regulation, in one place where it talks about the different conservation measures that the city takes. So it's more just a note that if additional conservation is needed, set by state requirements, that the city will have to implement additional demand management measures or conservation measures than what the city is doing right now. And then that would be updated in the next urban water management plan.

Yeah, we've got a lot of different regulations as far as reporting and documenting. And we do monthly reports, weekly things. That's where Brenda's really been really busy with stuff, tightening up a lot of things. But every time we turn around, it seems like that we're doing the same report. But there is multiple water agencies that we deal with, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Department of Water Resources, I'm trying to think of some of the other ones that are involved. But a lot of them all have a lot of similar reports that sometimes it does get confusing as far as even on our side of which report of what agency that we're required to do next. And it seems like every time we turn around, there's a new report or revision that we have to do for accounting purposes.

So they can say we're not doing enough? They can say that?

State wouldn't do that, would they?

Yeah, I understand. Wow. Now we're talking about the, Cassie brought the same question I was going to do. If we have to put meters in these particular outlet, I mean, outlets for flows for the water to these. Some pipes are, what, dimensions four or five? In other words, a meter costs a lot of money is what I'm getting at.

That is correct, yeah. The larger it is, yeah, the meter and especially with the brass is quite costly. Also, where we'd be accessing it and available real estate as far as getting in and placing it underground. And then if we're already in that, if it's an old line, we may be chasing that line to the main and then down the main, down the road.

Is this funding supposed to come from a grant or is the city just going to have to get that?

I'm willing to every money, and I'd rather spend grant money if possible. Are there other stuff that ME has been looking at of some other different water things that if there was ones for infrastructure improvements, definitely would be jumping on it?

Yeah. I hate to say this, but it doesn't make sense where city has to monitor their own water since we have to use it regardless. But that's me. Anyway, so thank you, council. Brianna, just hold on because I'm going to open the public hearing for public comments and questions for you at 7 o'clock. Actually, 6.59. It just changed to 7 o'clock. So having no questions from the public, I will close the public hearing at 7 o'clock. So we have a motion before us. Council Anita, any hands, anybody? OK, thank you very much. Appreciate that. So we've had our public hearing. And we go to adopt resolution number 23-2026, adopting 2025 urban water management plan and authorizing the city manager to file the plan for the California Department of Water Resources and amending the proposal where, and it says, the resolution to, it says, whereas the City Council of the City of Red Bluff affirms section 24.18 of the city ordinances serves as the city's required water, Shortest contingency plan for conservation and rationing stages, which is also included in the appendix of the city's urban water management plan and it's in this it's abbreviated and it goes on to the rest of the Resolution so do we have a motion on number two as amended?

Second

I'll second it.

Second, Cassie Pope. Excuse me. Edita, please take the roll.

Councilmember Pope? Yes. Councilmember Hurton?

I'll vote yes. I mean, it doesn't do any good to vote no. The state's got us, but I'll vote yes.

Councilmember Diters? Yes. Mayor Pro Tem Clement? Yes. Mayor Gonzales?

Yes. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you, council. We go to agenda item number five. This is direction to staff regarding proposed vacant commercial property registration and maintenance ordinance. Beth Lindauer, please.

Mayor and council members, tonight before you, you have a policy direction request from staff regarding the commercial property registration and maintenance ordinance as proposed to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission reviewed the ordinance on two separate occasions. Following the hearing, staff made several revisions in response to the feedback received. However, the Planning Commission ultimately did not move forward with making a motion for the ordinance to be recommended to Council. The intent of the ordinance is to establish a registration and maintenance program which would allow any commercial vacancy of greater than 180 consecutive days to be registered with my department. for myself code enforcement and building to monitor and regulate those buildings until they become populated again. It extends the code enforcement and nuisance property language to allow anything that is dilapidated, deteriorating, not properly secured, frequent Frequent trespassing occurring that we're holding the owners a little bit more responsible for securing those properties and maintaining them. Actively recruiting to try to put people in those spaces, making rents affordable, making lease terms acceptable to try to re-stimulate the economy of Red Bluff. So unfortunately, again, Planning Commission did not make a recommendation. So I bring it to you tonight for discussion in hopes that I can receive direction on either bringing the ordinance forward for consideration and adoption or a possible new direction for still achieving our goals of putting people, pardon me, people into our commercial spaces. So I'm available for additional questions.

Thank you, Beth. Council, any questions for Beth?

Beth, could you just give a couple examples of the properties that you had in mind or that code enforcement chronically has problems with so that we can know what we're talking about? Absolutely.

So let's take the Del Taco restaurant. Several of the windows are broken out. There's a great deal of trespassing that is occurring. There is vandalism that's occurring. And while that property is currently changing hands, while it was in escrow or while it was up for sale, nothing was being maintained with the existing ownership. So putting a program or a standard like this in place would allow us to more closely monitor those particular properties to have the owner secure it, provide security for it, put up any necessary fencing. Downtown is obviously another spot that gets a lot of focus. It's where people come for our major events. So when we have open and vacant storefronts that we have transients taking occupancy in themselves, or we have landlords who are using the spaces as write-offs with no intentions of filling them. So it's really trying to get in front of those as well as emergency responses in the middle of the night when these guys are there and unable to reach anybody because we don't have current ownership information or accurate contact information. So the way the language is currently proposed, it requires a posted owner contact detail to be put on the building. So any person who has an issue or something to report to that owner, they would have a direct contact. the language also offers if the owner is further than 40 miles away then they have to employ a local property manager whether it's through an agency or otherwise it would allow us to have a local contact there again if there's an emergency or something to resolve with that property So the intent behind this ordinance is to try to cut down on the blight and deterioration of these vacant buildings, as opposed to properties that are being maintained, they're up for lease, and they're actively recruiting to fill that space. Those wouldn't fall into this program. It would just be those properties that are allowed to just sit for years unmanaged, essentially.

Are there fines to that or just notifications?

So there is a platform intended for monthly inspections by the property owner, a self-inspection. So they would be responsible for turning in those inspection sheets in the event they're not compliant. Then there is language that then applies fees as appropriate depending on how delinquent they are or if the city has to resolve one of the matters for them we would kind of default to our chapter 15 nuisance code and apply fees through that process

I ask that because if they did acquire fees eventually and then they ended up selling it and the new owners right away got onto making it a nicer building or into something, if those fees could be waived particularly to keep the new owner from maybe not buying it because there are fees attached to it.

Definitely so there is language added in for exemptions and termination of program involvement So if the property is changing hands actively in escrow there is a plan being made either with my department or One of the other departments for development then it wouldn't be a part of that program any longer and As well as exemption language that allows for once the property does become compliant and it is being actively recruited for tenancy, then there could even be potential to refund any money that they've put into the program if it goes unused. So I have tentatively drafted the fees to be in a way that allows about 30 minutes per month for code enforcement to inspect and work on the administrative paperwork of the program. However, if a property is only vacant for let's say 60 days past that initial 180 days but they've paid for a full year potentially of the program due to the condition of that property we would refund them that money because they're no longer participating in that maintenance program so we certainly want to make it as attractive to folks who are trying as possible but also hold accountable for the properties and owners who aren't interested in maintaining the property right

You mentioned that the property that was Del Taco, windows broken. What has to be, the windows have to be replaced by glass and not by plywood, I'm sure, correct? Because that would look like blight. That would look terrible on Antelope Boulevard.

It would be in the best interest of the property owner for attractiveness for them to replace the windows. But for immediate security and safety, we would ask that they plywood any entrance.

Yeah, is that on a certain time limit that we allow the plywood to stay on? You know what I'm saying? Because if it stays on a long time, it just looks like blight.

And I would agree. Typically, if a property is unsecured, our code enforcement department will ask for a 24 to 48-hour secure measure to be put in place. But beyond that, we haven't put much into this element of commercial maintenance.

If they informed us as to when the begin date to construction to that on Del Taco, the new owners?

No, not at this time.

At this time?

Okay.

All right. So I'll open it up to any questions from the council.

I don't have any questions. No, I absolutely support this. And quite frankly, when it was before the Planning Commission, the Daily News had put something in the paper about they were going to be discussing this very issue. And that was a Daily News article that actually was shared around social media quite a bit. That doesn't usually happen. And so I was looking at the responses of people and it was overwhelmingly positive. It's about time. It's about time some things have been done, do some things to clean up some of these buildings. Additionally, there are cities around us that have already done this, one to our south and a couple to our south, and it's made a huge difference in the appearance of their cities and so forth. And for people who might not want to say, well, we don't want to add more burden on business owners, the problem is that if they did take care of their properties to begin with, then no one would have to do this. And I kind of get tired of that irresponsibility. They must not care all that much about their investment in the city if they're going to allow the city to look in some ways that they do because of their neglect. So I would absolutely support moving this in the right direction.

Thank you, Chris. Yeah, I totally agree. We need our city to look like everybody enjoys doing business and they've got their places humming for business and ready. If it's vacant, we shouldn't be a dumping ground for somebody's money. that needs a write-off. It doesn't make sense. And I know it makes sense for them economically, but it doesn't make sense to a city who's trying to operate businesses and looking to bring people in to do business here with us. Somebody said, you know, our city says it's a great place to live, but it also, again, it's a great place to do business. And we were trying to incorporate that with the chamber. So with that, I'll open it for any questions from the public.

I don't really have a question. I'd like to say thank you, Ms. Lindauer, and to the group that came up with this, because as dispatch and Chief Ortega might remember, I'm one of the ones who keeps calling on these complexes or buildings that are empty, and vagrants are usually there spray painting, defecating, tearing down the fences. So thank you very much, and...

All right. Thank you. Anyone else? With that, I will close public comment at questions at 7.14. So with that, any other questions, council? No. No? No? Okay. So on agenda item number five, do we have a motion? And are we just providing direction to staff?

Yes, simply if you like the ordinance as it is, then we would bring this back at a future public meeting. So if there's no recommended changes, we would just bring this back to an upcoming meeting.

consideration as just for more discussion I guess or I mean well this this is interesting to me I mean it's okay well one I respect the Planning Commission I was at some of the Planning Commission meetings when they first brought this up and as it moved along I missed the one where it died for lack of motion unfortunately so Mr. Lauterell gave us a little bit of explanation, but I respect the Planning Commission and I would be interested to know why nobody made a motion to pass this as is, even though some changes that they obviously requested were made. But it's interesting to me that written right into it is registration exemption, notwithstanding the foregoing, the director may exempt, da, da, da, da, da, da, is secure, well maintained, compliance does not. So it sounds like, OK, if it's not a problem, we can exempt it. We're just going to deal with the problems. Why don't we just deal with the problems then instead of having the ones that aren't problems register and then potentially exempt them? I mean, that's like, OK, it's against the law to be a criminal, but we can exempt the people that aren't criminals and we'll only deal with the criminals. Well, that's kind of what we do, right? rather than have everybody register as criminals, but we can exempt them if they're not. Why are we having everybody register and then exempt ones that aren't problems, deal with the ones that are problems? And don't we already have measures to deal with blight and things like that? We already have in our nuisance sections and blight and everything.

I get what you're saying. I don't know. I was at the Planning Commission. I don't know why they didn't make a recommendation either way. As Beth mentioned in her presentation, this has to be vacant for 180 days. So it's not going to be everyone. And if they're marketing it for sale or lease and maintaining it, they wouldn't be subject to a registration. this just gives us another opportunity and i think that what beth was suggesting is there's a lot of time that our fire department our police department are on scene they can't get a hold of an owner because nobody's around this would allow some clear defined location on that building so they could reach out to the owner right away and kind of put that to bed so that they don't have to deal with it further or pass that along to anyone else so I think that there's adequate opportunities to address the problem buildings. It's not going to affect everyone occupied commercial locations that that keep their grounds and buildings maintained would not even be subject to this ordinance.

Pat, I was at those planning commission meetings too in the last one where they didn't do anything. I was very surprised because they were the ones that had given a laundry list of changes to the planning director from her initial draft. And I think you incorporated almost all of them that they asked for, and then they did nothing. And no one said why.

Interesting. Anything else? With that, I think you have direction, Beth?

I do. Thank you. All right.

Tom, anything else?

No, sir.

All right. We'll go on to item number six. Sophia Meyer, a city attorney.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council. This is an argument in favor of Measure Blank, which will be named at a certain point in time, to be published for the November 4th, 2026 Voter Guide. This is the measure that is going to potentially create the appointed position for the city clerk and city treasurer. So you can either review and approve it, or you can decline to submit an argument at all and then let somebody else do so, and then eventually it's up to your city elections clerk to make a decision as to which argument in favor and which argument opposed would be published. So we've provided you some language. You can play with it. You can do what you want with it. can improve it or you guys don't have to do anything at all.

Thank you, Sophia. Questions from council for Sophia? Questions?

No. I think it looks great.

No questions from council. Do we have any more from the public? Any public comment on this or questions for Sophia?

Sophie.

Sophie. Sophie. Oh.

I know. It's spelled Sophia, but it's pronounced Sophie.

I forgot to put Captain on there.

That's all right. I like Admiral better.

Admiral. All right. No questions. And did I open it for public on this? You did. OK. Very good. Thank you. With that, do we have a motion, recommended actions to review and approve measure for measure, authorize the Mayor Pro Tem to sign the argument, I mean agreement, argument.

It's an argument, yeah.

Or decline to submit an argument in favor of the measure. So do we have to choose which one, Sophie?

Yes. I mean, if you don't want to do one, you do nothing, and it just fails. But if you want to approve the argument as presented, you would do a motion to approve the argument for measure blank, which is the measure for the city clerk treasurer, and authorize the mayor and mayor pro tem to sign that argument.

All right. Okay. Do we have a motion as read by our city attorney?

A motion to approve the argument. Does anyone have a vote?

Yes. OK. Good. Motion made by Cassie Pope. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Mark Clement. Anita, please take the roll.

Councilmember Pope? Yes. Councilmember Hurton? Yes. Councilmember Deiters?

I have to be consistent with my votes on this, no.

Mayor Pro Tem Clement? Yes. Mayor Gonzales?

Yes. Motion passes 4-1. Thank you, Council. And the last item on the agenda, Chief Ortega, are we going to make it to the community center if we hurry on this? No. No?

It depends on you, sir.

Okay, here we go. Okay, hurry, council. Here we go. Scott Garrison, please.

Honorable Mayor, members of the City Council. No pressure, Scott. Tonight we recommend that the City Council adopts resolution number 2022-2026, amending the hourly pay schedule for all extra help, part-time and seasonal employees not covered by a bargaining unit. CalPERS requires that retired annuitants that work for the City of Red Bluff make an equivalent hourly wage compared to the full-time regular position that most resembles the work they do for the agency. Wage increases to the full-time regular positions of police communications dispatcher and fire engineer that went into effect on July 4th, 2026 have exceeded the current hourly pay range for the reserve dispatcher and reserve fire inspector positions that are currently being filled by retired annuitants. Therefore, the city is proposing the attached new hourly pay schedule that would increase the pay range for the two reserve positions as follows. The reserve fire inspector would go from 25 to 28 an hour to 26 to 32 an hour. And the reserve dispatcher would go from 26.75 to 33.75 to 27.75 to 34.75 an hour. And if you have any questions, I'd be available for any answers.

And this is covered by our budget, correct?

Yes, and we don't have a lot, and these are the part-time people that work, so it doesn't have a cumulative effect on the budget.

Very good. Thank you. Council, questions for Scott? No. Any questions from the public? No questions from public. No hands raised. All right. I would ask a motion for agenda item number seven, as read by Scott, please. Do we have a motion? So moved. So moved by Chris Deiders. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Mark Clement. Anita, please take the roll.

Councilmember Pope? Yes. Councilmember Hurton? Yes. Councilmember Deiders? Yes. Mayor Pro Tem Clement? Yes. Mayor Gonzales?

Yes, motion passes unanimously. Thank you, council. Let's go on to committee reports, Antelope Water District.

No meeting.

Chamber of Congress, as Tom said, we've got four more weeks of the market. And so get out there. It's a great market. And there's other items that are there that people are looking for that I've heard that people can't wait for the first splash park to open up. So Chris, anything from our ad hoc committee? Nothing, do we?

No, they've been a bit busy with their own water issues, so I haven't bothered them at all.

All right, thank you so much, Chris. Community action, Chris?

Yes, next meeting is August 20th.

Thank you. Solid Waste Management Agency, Pat or Chris?

It was supposed to be on the 6th, but it's canceled.

No meeting, okay. LAFCO, no meeting. Rebluff Community Center Commission? No. We didn't have a meeting. August 20th. August 20th. Red Bluffs Air Pollution District, we don't have a meeting. Tama County Continuum of Care Executive Council.

8-12 is the next meeting.

Thank you, Chris. Solid Waste Management Agency. Anyone want to comment on that?

I think the next meeting is in October.

October Tama Transportation Commission We met on the 27th and just other than the monthly things that we approve each month we received information some informational presentation Thank You Pat appreciate that additional comments and other meetings attended council anything Nothing? Okay. Future agenda items by consensus of council. Anybody have anything?

I have a proposal, but I don't know that it has to come back to consensus of council. Tom, I'm kind of more looking for direction from you as to where it goes. But I would like to propose in response to the rate increase a temporary suspension on the reconnection fee for first-time offenders for the first year that we have our new fees in place. It's minimal. I met with our financial department and they walked me through kind of our shut off policies. And so I would just like to review it and propose that we kind of place a possible one year moratorium on that.

Yeah, if the council concurs, that's a policy consideration that we could bring back. There may be some impact to the municipal code, but if the council concurs, we could bring that back for discussion at a future meeting.

Council?

What do you think?

I'm fine with discussing it, looking at it.

Mark?

I'm up for a discussion. Chris?

Sure. Okay, let's go with that. Anything else? Chris?

I'd like to have a discussion if staff can prepare something about options to the sewer and water rate increase, any options we may have that we're not aware of on the chance. Because this is a protest, it's a 50% plus one. If we happen to have run into that and that's a 50% plus one, we can't raise the rates. So I think it would be good if we had a discussion prior to that potentially happen.

Discussion on the rates? I don't know. Options. Yeah, options.

Rate options. If that were to happen.

Anything, Pat? It's just a discussion. Is that what you're saying, Chris? Discussion.

They'd have to bring it back.

Discussion of other options if the rates were not successful. So do you want to talk about that, other options in a future meeting?

Sure.

Mark? I'm good for a discussion.

OK. Yes. OK. Fine. OK. Anything else, council?

Not for me.

Okay. Any citizen comment before close? Well, we don't have closed session, so we're done with our meeting tonight, so the time is 7.27.