City Council - Regular Meeting

We are live. I dig it, sorry.

All right, you got it. We are live, so roll call, please.

Council Member Vanna.

Present.

Council Member Brown.

Here.

Council Member Jimenez. Presente. Council Member Zepeda.

Here.

Council Member Wilson.

Here.

Vice Mayor Robinson is joining us remotely at the following location. She's at Hyatt Place, Seattle, downtown. Address is 1110 6th Avenue in North Seattle, Washington. Vice Mayor Robinson. Yeah. Here. THE COUNCIL WILL DISCUSS THE FOLLOWING ITEMS DURING CLOSED SESSION. LIABILITY CLAIMS, CLAIMANT CHRISTOPHER MCGREGOR, CLAIMANT AARON PEREZ. IF THERE'S ANYONE JOINING US ONLINE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON THESE TWO ITEMS, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AT THIS TIME. OKAY. WE DO NOT HAVE ANY SPEAKERS.

WELL, SINCE THERE ARE NO SPEAKERS, PUBLIC COMMENT IS CLOSED AND WE WILL NOW RETIRE TO CLOSED SESSION.

. . you Thank you. Thank you. you . . . so so Thank you. Thank you. Let's pray. Thank you. We'll be right back. Thank you. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. so Thank you. Thank you. you Thank you. Thank you. you Good evening, everyone. Good evening.

It is now time to start the regular meeting for the Richmond City Council. We will begin with the Pledge of Allegiance.

Stay here. COUNCIL MEMBER ABANA?

HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN?

HERE.

COUNCIL MEMBER JIMENEZ?

PRESENTE.

COUNCIL MEMBER ZAPATA?

AQUI.

COUNCIL MEMBER WILSON?

HERE.

Vice Mayor Robinson is joining us remotely at the following location. She's at the Hyatt Place, Seattle downtown. Address is 110 6th Avenue in North Seattle, Washington. Vice Mayor? Present. And Mayor Martinez?

Here.

Our next item, statement of conflict of interest. Are there any? Hearing none, our next item is agenda review.

I'm sorry, what's this item? I have an agenda review item. Mr. Mayor?

Through the chair.

Yeah, I'm asking you.

Yes, I said through the chair, yes.

Thank you. So I would like to ask item Q5 to go to consent calendar because it was approved before. but the direction was not clear. Now the direction is clear, so I'm suggesting to move it to consent calendar. And item N5A, I don't want to pull it, but I'd like to add to it that I'll be in the ad hoc committee. Can we take a vote of adding me to the ad hoc committee, please?

It has to be heard.

So N5A has to be heard?

Yeah, we can't just... We cannot just take a vote now?

5A? N5A.

N5A.

Because we have so many items on the agenda.

Right. No.

Okay.

So just to clarify, N5A is not being heard. It's already on consent. I think Councillor Urbana is trying to not pull it from consent and just make an amendment.

But the mayor is pulling it now.

I'm not pulling it. I'm saying that the amendment's not accepted.

But can we take a vote?

I THINK YOU'D NEED TO PULL IT FROM CONSENT AND HAVE A DISCUSSION ON IT AND MAKE THE AMENDMENT TO ADD YOU AS A PARTICIPANT.

OKAY. THANK YOU. MR. MAYOR, CAN WE HAVE Q5 ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR, PLEASE? IT HAS BEEN APPROVED IN THE PAST. AND I WORK WITH THE STAFF.

THE ITEM IS WRITTEN, WAS NOT APPROVED.

Okay, can we pull it up on the agenda so we make sure there will be time for it tonight?

Actually, there are three items that are of utmost importance. I want to tell you what they are and tell you the order that they should be heard in. Q1, which has already been heard, the annual military equipment use, would happen Right after Consent Calendar, after that, we have the budget session and the third item. I guess those are the two.

So could Q5 go after those two, please? So we'll have O1, Q1, and then Q1.

There's also a public hearing on tonight's agenda, P1.

Yeah, that was the third one. And then the public hearing would be the third one.

No, one of them has been withdrawn from the agenda.

So Q1, new business. Q1, budget. Then the P1, public hearing. Those are the three.

and Q5 would be after those three items, right? Please.

Mr. Mayor, I also would like to make a suggestion for review.

And that would be?

To move item Q6 forward as close to the top as possible, perhaps after Q2. I see there's a lot of people here for Q2. It's time sensitive. It's one of.

It will have to go to vote. I resolve to keep things as they are.

Okay.

Then I'll make a motion to move item Q6 after Q2. I second.

I'm confused on the status Q5, Mr. Mayor.

You did not make a motion, but there was a motion made for Q6. There is a motion on the floor now.

Okay, can I make a motion that Q5 goes before Q3?

What is the first motion?

I'm sorry?

What was the first motion?

Sorry. First motion is to move Q6 after Q2, right?

And then the second, who second? I second. Thank you. Can we vote on that now?

Yes.

Council Member Brown?

Yes.

Council Member Bonner?

No.

Councilmember Jimenez?

Yes.

Councilmember Wilson?

Yes.

Vice Mayor Robinson?

Yes.

Councilmember Cepeda?

Yes.

And Mayor Martinez?

No.

The motion passes with Councilmember Banna and Mayor Martinez voting no. So item Q6 will be after item Q2.

If I can just as a courtesy remind that when we last spoke We were trying to get q2 up as high as possible because we have how many people here in front of us to listen to q2 and Last time we were told that q2 would be one of the precision items to be heard now as it stands now It would not be on the top.

It will be the fourth We had it towards the top, but now it's been moved it was supposed to be the top of new business and And it was not the top of new business because of the military equipment use report. So I had it as close to the top as possible. But it's been voted. So it's still number two.

So can I make a motion that Q5 goes before Q3 and Q4?

There is no second, so it dies from a lack of second.

So I just wanted, I heard you say that the first three items after the consent calendar Are O1, P1, and Q1, but I wasn't sure, are you leaving them in the order they're on the agenda, O1, P1, Q1, or did you rearrange them?

No, it's Q1, O2, O1, P1.

Okay, thank you. That's all I wanted to know. I'm sorry, Mr. Mayor, moving Q5 prior to Q3 has a second.

I did not hear a second.

I'll second.

So, okay. So, so, so. Is that the word? Sorry. After, after a motion.

That'd be after Q6 before Q3.

After a motion dies, can it be revived?

It didn't die. You didn't hear the second.

That, I, there, I did not hear a second because there was none.

I didn't hear a motion. When she just made the motion, I said I was second.

Okay. All right. Let's bring it to a vote.

This is a motion to move item Q5 before Q3. Right? Yeah.

Yeah. I would like to ask all my colleagues to pass it, please, because the fire season is nearing and we do need a redebatement ordinance.

Are we ready? Council member Brown? Yes. Council member Bona?

Yes.

Council member Jimenez? No. Council member Wilson?

No.

Vice mayor Robinson? No. Council members Zepeda?

Yes.

Mayor Martinez?

No.

The motion fails with council members Brown, Bona and Zepeda voting yes.

So much for public safety.

Okay. So let me just verify everything. So after the approval of the consent calendar we'll hear item Q1, right?

Right.

Then item 01, budget. Correct. Then item P1.

Correct.

Public hearing.

And then after that, Q6. Q2?

Q2, then Q6. Okay, let's see.

Q1, okay. And then Q6 is? Q1, O1, P1, Q2, Q6. Right, got you.

All right. I'll make a motion to approve the agenda as is. Or as per everything that we just did.

I second. Need a motion for that?

Because we have to approve the consent calendar, right? Oh, we're not on the consent calendar yet.

Oh, we're not there.

Okay. No.

Let's go then.

Okay. Our next item is a report from the city attorney of final decisions made during closed session.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. NO FINAL DECISIONS WERE MADE DURING TONIGHT'S CLOSED SESSION, BUT BOTH WORKER'S COMP MATTERS WERE HEARD.

NEXT ITEM IS A REPORT FROM THE CITY MANAGER.

NIKKI MAST, A DEPUTY CITY MANAGER FOR SAUCETTE CURL CITY MANAGER. THERE'S NO REPORT THIS EVENING.

Okay, if there's anyone joining us online that would like to address the council under open forum, please raise your hand at this time. Open forum is an opportunity to address the council on items that remain on the consent calendar or items that are not on the agenda. Okay, I need to confirm if the mayor's item was removed for discussion. No, okay. All right. Tonight there were no items removed from the consent calendar. During open forum.

I believe that Mr. Mayor wanted to remove the item.

I did not want to remove it. N5A. I did not want to remove it.

But I wanted to add myself and you said it had to be removed.

For that discussion.

Let's pull it from the consent calendar and discuss it. Thank you.

I say we bring it to a vote. I'm not accepting that.

In 5A, is there a motion?

I move. I can pull it without a motion, right?

I'm confused. Okay. Anyone can pull an item. I can refuse to have that pulled and then it has to come to a vote.

Oh, I see. Okay. So I move.

As per the rules that we're trying to adopt.

Okay. I move that we pull N5A and discuss it. I second. Thank you.

Council Member Brown?

Yes.

Council Member Bono?

Yes.

Council Member Jimenez?

Yes.

Councilmember Wilson?

Yes.

Vice Mayor Robinson?

Yes.

Councilmember Zepeda? Yes. And Mayor Martinez?

No.

The motion passes with Mayor Martinez voting no. Okay, so tonight item N5A has been removed from the consent calendar. If you'd like to address the council on that item, please turn in a pink speaker's card to the clerk. During open forum, dialogue between the council and the speaker is prohibited. When your name is called and you are an online speaker, please be ready to unmute yourself to begin speaking. For speakers in the chamber, when your name is called, please come forward, line up behind the speaker's podium closest to the wall. For safety reasons, all the aisles, including the area behind the speaker's podium. Staff presentation area must remain clear all speakers should state their name and your city of residence is optional Please terminate your address to the council when your time expires tonight. We have ten speakers and That is a total of nine in person and one online each speaker shall have up to two minutes to address the council and THE CITY OF RICHMOND WELCOMES YOUR COMMENTS AND REQUESTS THAT YOU PRESENT YOUR REMARKS IN A RESPECTFUL AND APPROPRIATE MANNER WITHIN THE ESTABLISHED TWO-MINUTE TIME LIMIT. AS I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE COME FORWARD. SPEAKERS ARE, THE IN-PERSON SPEAKERS ARE CORDELL HENDLER, ANTOINE CLORD, CHARLIE BATTLE, TRAVIS KEATON, MARK WASPER, KIMILY GRAYS, MALAVICA, DIVKAR, AND CLAUDIA CITRON. CORDELL?

So good evening, Mayor Martinez, Council. For the record, I am Cordell Handel, and I have some gifts to share with you all. So if you recall at the last meeting when we had a vacancy presentation, I'm thinking to myself, we have a 15% vacancy rate. So let's think about it, though. Let's do the math. So if we have a 15% vacancy rate, so divided by a handful of numbers in the city of Richmond, we get a low number and I'm thinking to myself, maybe that's good, but, but that's not good enough. So, and I say that because I talked to other cities around us and they have, and they have filled positions over in different cities. So it got me thinking, it's like, how can Richmond do better? We need to fill these needed positions because I have been advocating to fill these positions for quite some time and I'm not done yet. So we need, to fill these positions as soon as possible because that's one thought. And then the other thought that I had was the questions that they asked in the interviews. been on an interview panel? I know a number of people have, but do they give us the questions ahead of time? I don't think so. We need to like, whenever we use a consultant, we need to do, they need to give us the questions, you know, ahead of time. So, cause I'm trying to fill these positions in Richmond. So, and I know I have a group behind me to verify that because we need to fill these positions. Why? Because we're trying to like, We want people to live and work in Richmond. Because other cities, they pay their employees more money. But if we want to beat the other cities, we need to step up our game. So that means we need to think about our community. We need people to fill these positions. So with that, if I have $550 million, I take that money and hire a consultant to redo our classification. So that's it.

Antoine Claude. Charlie Battle.

Hi, good evening, council. My name is Charlene. I'm here today to present to you Richmond Urban Unity Project. It's just an initiative trying to bring back the unity in community. More often than not, it gets kind of commonplace as if it's just supposed to be expected and we don't have it. That's neither here nor there. Today, I'm out here reaching out to get some support for funding for this upcoming school year to get donations such as backpacks, pencils, paper, you know, things that they'll need going back into school. If you guys are able to fund us, we're looking to get maybe $2,500 or that reciprocated in the donations, their sales, like backpacks and stuff. So I don't know how I would go about doing that, but here I am. Oh, y'all just stay quiet the whole time? Right. Wow, that's very interactive. OK. Nice. OK. Well, yeah, so then I guess since I got one more minute, I kind of let you know what Richmond Urban Unity is. It's a project geared towards empowering and uplifting the residents of Richmond, providing services, advocacy, resources, referrals, community engagement, as well as case management. I don't want us to fall under a scope of just another 501c3. I wanted to kind of bridge the gap between resident and resource. You know, too often, I'm not going to say it like that, but a lot of the employees in our communities become complacent and don't go the extra mile to make sure our residents are getting the services they need. And we want to step in and start to bridge that gap, as well as bring activities back to the community like Three-on-three basketball tournaments, block parties, speakeasies, and just kind of getting the community involved again, if you know what I mean. I grew up whenever everybody could play outside all day long and not have to worry, and the candy lady was up the street.

Your time has expired.

I want that back. Thank you.

Travis Keaton.

Hello. My name is Travis. I come from Potrero at this point. Two things. I don't know if I said it last time, but my little experiment with my little skateboard didn't work. Turns out there's just an easier way to do it. So we're going to see if that works. Basically, we're going to go with a plank of wood on four wheels and call it a day. And then my second thing is now that the World Cup is over, The Women's World Cup comes, I think, next year, or I think it's next year. So I know we had, like, FIFA Fridays, but, like, not all matches are Fridays. Some are, like, Wednesdays and, like, Tuesdays and Mondays and Thursdays sometimes. So I would just like to ask that if we do do it again, can we do, like, I don't know, soccer Sundays or something? Because, like, it's kind of hurt my heart a little bit. The final was on a Sunday, but, like, nobody cared. So that's all I want to say. Thank you.

Mark Westford.

The DSACM, the Democratic Social America Communist Muslim Party, is running for Congress. If they take control of Congress, it's the end of America, people. This is no joke. They have infiltrated our government. They are mayors and governors. lawmakers, council members, and it's the Muslim Brotherhood that's doing this. And I'm gonna tell all my friends, you better start locking and loading people, buy all the weapons and ammo you can, because if they get into Congress, it's gonna be all out civil war, and these people on the internet ain't messing around. They're out there buying guns, they're starting their own militias. And we got people on the city council right here that was supporting Hamas. The city council stood up for Aguado when he's out there preaching hate against Israel, praising the attack on Israel. These people that are running for Congress was praising 9-11. I mean, this is sick, people. Look what happened in New York City. And all these Muslims are saying, arc, bark, bark, arc, bark, bark, whatever they want to say. Death to America. New York City is gone. They're getting into Oregon. Now they're getting into LA. They're spreading like wildfire, people. You cannot vote for these people. I'm going to tell you right now, it's going to be bad news. I've been telling all my friends, man, you better start locking and loading, man, by all the... Weapons you can, because about in the early 90s, I had two M14s with a sniper scope, tripod, and a muzzle flash. Man, I used to kick myself in the ass for selling those things. I walked out of the Richmond PD here when they had the... The department here, when the trial was over, that cop walked, I see me walking, had two M14s right here. And that cop in there had a shit fit. So all you people who had to start walking alone. Time has expired. Kimberly Graves.

Kimberly Graves.

Good evening to the City Council. I am here again today to request that you guys have the police officers to have dash cams because it is an independent ability to know what actually occurred on a stop. I actually was I was stopped by the police. I had a hearing and the commissioner was not actually giving me my rights appropriately and he helped the police officer who fabricated the story. The officer did not tell the truth And I am appealing that at this moment because I know that it's important that we actually have independent evidence. So I'm asking you as the city council members to implement that in your police department because over 69% of the United States has dash cams. And it's amazing that you do not. I am also concerned that the city, at my hearing, asked for reimbursement for the city clerk. The city attorney asked for reimbursement for the city clerk to show up. I did not ask the clerk to show up. So that is another incident that this city needs to correct. You should not intentionally make decisions against your citizens who is only asking you to do things that are appropriate for the citizens. I'm also waiting on a response to a letter that I wrote to all the city council as well as to the mayor and also to the city attorney in regards to that incident. I also would like to receive the independent training information for that officer on doing pacing. He claimed that he paced me in four blocks. That is not enough time. He was never directly behind me, which is why an independent dash cam would have proven all of that. So again, I'm saying I'm a citizen of Richmond. I should be treated fairly and appropriately and all of the other citizens as well. Please get dash cams.

Thank you. Malavika Vidhka.

Good afternoon, council members. My name is Malavika Devakkar, and I'm a former resident of District 2. I'm here to speak to you about the increasingly despotic behavior of police departments across the state and across the nation. In an era where plain clothed officers and federal agents are kidnapping and harassing our neighbors, Richmond now more than ever needs a police department dedicated to building community safety and trust. We need a department unwilling to take any part in the unconstitutional detentions ICE facilitates. And most importantly, we need a department that prioritizes de-escalation rather than pointing militarized weapons at its own residents. In the last two years, there have been over 30,000 uses of force and police misconduct cases committed against inmates that are only a population of 90,000 in California. This is violence towards Californians that is only going to rise as we continue to arm local officers with military grade lethal weapons and train them to view residents as a threat requiring such force. I ask you to please demilitarize our departments. Thank you so much.

Claudia Citra.

So this council continues to disregard established council procedures by advancing personal and political priorities ahead of urgent matters regarding and affecting Richmond residents. It's egregious. This repeated pattern reflects misplaced priorities, weak governance especially, and troubling lack of accountability. Recently, the mayor admitted, oh, I must have not read the consent calendar carefully. This was regarding the rent board, that it gets 500K annually, even though it's supposed to be independent. Just recently, I properly exercised my right under council procedures to remove an item from the consent calendar for public discussion. And it was placed back again onto the consent calendar by the same person. There was no meaningful transparency and public deliberation on this. It was not even something related to the city of Richmond. The consent calendar exists for routine, non-controversial administrative matters, not for significant policy or funding decisions, whether they are $49.99. When an item is pulled in a timely manner for discussion, it deserves full consideration. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. The council delays pressing issues involving public safety, staffing shortages, infrastructure, fiscal oversight, and so forth. Residents expect essential government function to come first. Good governance requires Diligent review of agenda items, respect for established procedures, transparent deliberation, meaningful public transportation, and the responsible stewardship of taxpayer funds, Seclovia is not. I respectfully request that significant policy funding be placed on the new business. Thank you.

Our last in-person speakers, Gracella Lechon. Grisela.

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Graciela Lechon. I've been living in the city of Richmond for 37 years. I actually came here to speak out in favor of demilitarizing our police force. I found it quite interesting that we're a sanctuary city.

Now is not the time to speak to that. No, I understand.

May I please continue? I understand that we're a sanctuary city, so this seems contrary.

If you do not speak to that issue, you may continue.

I understand. May I please finish?

If you do not speak.

I'm going to digress.

Then please do so now.

Yes, that was just my initial comment. So I found it very interesting that a young woman came up and pointed out that we don't have dash cams and yet we're willing purchase militarization. So I find that very interesting. Anyways, I came here to speak out also about the fact that our highways are so dirty. What can we do to clean up our highways? You know, you drive down the street, you drive along the freeway in the areas that encompass Richmond, which is where I generally live, which is where I live and where I generally drive, and it's full of garbage. What can we do as a city to draw attention to that and fix that? It's a problem. I don't know if it's a city issue, a Caltrans issue, but it's a serious problem in our city. So thank you. That's all I had to say.

That was our last in-person speaker. Now we'll move to the online speaker.

And that online speaker is Julie Freestone. Please unmute yourself and you may begin.

I'm Julie Freestone. I've lived in Richmond for 37 years, and I thought that I would be finished talking about illegal fireworks after July 4th. But it hasn't turned out to be that way. I was delighted to hear that the Richmond Police Department confiscated some illegal fireworks, and I certainly noticed that it was quieter in the days leading up to July 4th and maybe a little better on July 4th. The din and the trauma that day seemed a little better. Our grassroots group is doing a survey now to see how others in the community felt about the noise and trauma. Please take the survey on our website, stopillegalfireworksrichmondca.com. I previously thanked the Richmond Police Department for working with the community to address this problem using the tools they have. I noticed on Nextdoor that people are still posting complaints about noise from fireworks. And I want to remind everyone that fireworks are illegal in Richmond all year round, not just on July 4th. I recently saw a post that wondered where the drone cop was when the fireworks were being shot off still in his neighborhood. I said this before and I'll say it again. This is an all hands on deck effort. Call the non-emergency police department number to report fireworks whenever you see or hear them, not just on July 4th. The drone is not up there all the time helping us like a beat cop. So just let me close with this. I thank all the residents who worked on putting up and taking down signs. If the drone were a real person, I would especially thank the drone for working with us. He or she is one of the great tools we have, along with the signs, the public service announcements, and Richmond residents, the Latino Center, merchants, and many others who participated in this coordinated effort to stop illegal fireworks. We need to keep focusing on this. So thank you, and please keep up the good work, or work, period. Thank you.

Thank you. And that was the online speaker. Okay.

Our next item is approval of the consent calendar. And as a reminder, item N5A, to add our committee formation for council rules and procedure and order, amendments has been removed from the consent calendar for discussion. We need a motion.

I move the item.

I'll second.

You ready? Councilmember Brown?

Yes.

Councilmember Banna? Yes. Councilmember Jimenez? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER WILSON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER ZAPATA.

YES.

VICE MAYOR ROBINSON. YES. AND MAYOR MARTINEZ.

YES.

THE VOTE IS UNANIMOUS. OUR NEXT ITEM IS ITEM Q1 UNDER NEW BUSINESS. And this item is to adopt a resolution approving the Richmond Police Department's 2025 Annual Military Equipment Use Report and authorizing the continued use of approved military equipment consistent with government code section 77 through 775, policy manual section 707, and the findings required by government code section 707-1D. This item was continued from the July 7th meeting and public input on the matter was received during the July 7th, 2026 meeting. The council will now discuss the item without additional public comment. Thank you.

All right, I would like to remind the council, the audience that we had deliberations and we were actually getting around to voting. Yes, there were a few people who still had time left. I was one of them, and actually I wish I had kept the numbers with me, but I know that

It was you and Doria, I think.

I have not spoken yet.

Yeah. Okay. So myself, Doria, and Sue had a few, a little bit left, so.

Just to be clear, I haven't spoken at all.

So I have all my time left. Okay.

Am I first?

You are first.

All right. Thank you. All right, so thank you. It feels a little weird to have the interruption, so I appreciate and I know it might take a couple of seconds if I ask questions about statistics that you didn't just give the presentation this time. So, you know, and same with me, like some of the numbers might be a little rough, but we'll figure it out. And a lot of what I'm asking about tonight is pretty general stuff, so hopefully it's okay that we're a little bit separated in time from the actual presentation. So one of the things I wanted to clarify, because this is something that came up a little bit in some of the comments, and then I definitely got a couple of communications from residents about people were unsure. There were some comments, I think, that gave people the impression last time that you had said that we're not actually approving weapons. And I think what I remember and have heard you said, and I just want to confirm this, is we're not changing any budget right now, but we are, this is the AB 481 process is for the particular equipment we're talking about, you do need us to approve it in addition to, is that, am I getting that correct?

You worded that perfectly, and that was probably said better than what I said.

Yeah, that's fine. You were on the hot seat, I wasn't. So we are approving. So we are making a big decision here. And I know you weren't trying to deny that. There was, I think, the confusion about whether we were budgeting or not. OK. So one of the things that's really hard for me, but I'm getting better at it, is when I get these big reports, it's to get what the takeaways are. I appreciate all the detail. I think that's important. And then I'm trying to be like, what's the overall message of this? One of the things I can't quite figure out is, In terms, especially with the ammunition stuff, are you, with what you're proposing to add in the next year, are you increasing the stock, I guess call it a stockpile of ammunition, or are you replacing spent ammunition and just sort of dealing with the fact that we do have more police officers operating? So how would you characterize the overall picture of ammunition, for instance?

Thank you. That's a great question. Thank you for allowing me to clarify that. With the ammunition purchase, it is to do a few things. One, to replace what we train with. We train on average about every single month we're out at the range. Just I think the last council session we approved the contract out at the shooting range actually, which is where we train at on a monthly basis. So a good portion of the ammunition is to stay proficient with the different tools, the different firearms that we have within our report. So that ammunition replaces training. As we hire new police officers, we're working to try to get up to our 147 number. We're required to send those police officers to the police academy With I believe it's 2,500 rounds, and so we have to budget and count for how many do we think we're going to hire this year, how many training rounds do we need to send out there. All of that has to be accounted for within the context of our purchase. So it's not that ammunition is going bad on a shelf and then we have to get rid of it. It's being utilized in training environments both with officers and then our SWAT team, for instance, they train in addition to what the regular training is. So it's replacing their ammunition. And then when we send new operators to specialized schools, we have to send them with ammunition. So anytime we do training, anytime we hire new officers, we're having to supply them with all of the resources necessary to execute the training class. or to go to the police academy or to replace whatever our training portion is just on a monthly basis.

And just would it be fair, like correct to say that you're not leveling up the amount of ammunition that the city holds, you're replacing you're replacing what's been consumed.

That is 100% correct. Okay.

And then kind of the same question for like, it looks like there's going to be, what you're proposing is an increase in patrol rifles and less lethal launchers. I know you spoke to this last time, but can you just remind us of why are we increasing those two pieces of equipment?

So I'll start with the patrol rifles. Again, as we hire more officers up to the 147, that's a tool that they have to go get qualified on. And then we have to supply them with that tool. So it's to plan for the increased staff that we have. When we first initially bought patrol rifles many years ago, there was not one purchased for each officer. In fact, at the initial part of the program, officers were required to purchase their own equipment. And we have evolved over the last probably 15 or so years where employees aren't purchasing their own equipment, the department is giving them the, we wanna have control over the equipment, we wanna have control over how it's maintained, all of those types of things. So it's to outfit officers as we add staff with the equipment that is necessary. With the launchers, it's some of the lessons learned and some of our incidents in the past is to have less lethal options available on every patrol team with all the supervisors more available rather than having them not available so that we can resort to less lethal situations when that's the appropriate time to do it. So it's to outfit more of those patrol teams with less lethal options.

And can you just, what do you use, when do you use the less lethal launcher? Just can you give a couple examples?

When there's time and there's space and there's opportunity where, there's a potential for great bodily injury to occur and we don't have to resort, we don't have to have a lethal situation. It could be lethal, but utilizing a less lethal when you have time and you have space and you can work on deescalating, you have a less lethal available to try to rectify the situation if need be while it's still in safe proximity and safe capacity to do so for all parties involved.

So we had a lot of comments last time from community members who are concerned about military weapons. And you made the clarification that none of the weapons that the city is using are purchased from the military. But nonetheless, they fall under this report because they are more lethal. They are more terrifying, I would say. These are sort of more serious weapons than ones that aren't covered by the report. And one of the things I was trying to figure out, and I actually did a little bit of research, is, you know, what's the normal amount, right? And so I actually, one of the city council interns, Carnell Booker, he's a senior at the University of Oregon, Richmond resident though, home for the summer. He I asked him and he he looked at some neighboring cities of the same size So we looked at Antioch Vallejo and Berkeley to compare their what range of weapons ab-481 weapons they have and how much of them and I can tell you and I don't know if this is going to be reassuring at all to anybody but what Richmond does is really on par with what these neighboring cities are doing and And one of the questions, you know, we have kind of the same kinds of equipment they have and kind of the same amounts. One of the things that's sort of, I think, really in play for me, though, still, so, you know, which makes me more comfortable with the idea of approving, except for the Bearcat. Like, a Bearcat is incredibly expensive. It's, you know, it's basically, if you don't know what a Bearcat is, it's like sending, in my opinion, a tank out on the city streets. That's right. And so I, is there some, I mean, I know there's vehicles that are bulletproof but not tanks and you're nodding. So is there, can you tell me more if there's options?

Yes, that's another great comment. So there definitely are other rescue vehicles that are available that we are going to be researching and looking for. And when the opportunity comes, we will, once we find funding, We will present to the city council what the different options are so that you have a menu of choices to consider with what their capabilities are. One of the things with the Bearcat that is really appealing, especially as we look to upgrade our fire department with the paramedic program, is there's actually space within the Bearcat for emergency medical services. Supplies and and to treat somebody that so I referenced a case from 2024 last last council session We actually used the bearcat I don't have the exact numbers off the top my head But it was somewhere in the neighborhood of over a hundred. I believe it was over a hundred How many rounds did that guy fire from his? It was about a hundred or more rounds He was shooting and we actually had to use the bearcat to get up there and rescue people that were in a hot zone and he was actually shooting the bearcat and we have a not bullet holes because it was armored, but we have all the bullet, like the, he was shooting into an armored vehicle while we were able to get people out of these hot zones rather than we, quite frankly, don't know what we would have done. So we're looking for different options that don't look like that.

Okay. So, right. So I, I'm supportive of the idea of there being a protective vehicle. I would like it to look more like a SUV and you'll have options.

We'll bring options and we'll show you different things and give you a chance.

Maybe we'll try to amend it tonight to say that. And okay, so I'm increasingly comfortable with the equipment you're asking for. I'm less comfortable, I'm less confident that it's being used, how to say this, maybe I'll start with a question. Angel Montano, officer involved shooting, those were patrol rifles involved in that case, correct?

A couple people had deployed their patrol rifle, yes.

Why?

So there's a variety of reasons that are considered. One of them is if the event turns where you have what's called a close quarter situation, you have precision with a patrol rifle. Whether it's a lethal situation with a sidearm, and I'm trying to be really delicate here. Please understand that. Whether it's a lethal situation with an officer's sidearm or a lethal situation with a patrol rifle, it's lethal. Um, so the consideration that officers are making you, if you notice in that entire situation, there were multiple tools being looked for asked for, because you don't know what you're going to encounter. These are rapidly evolving situations, rapidly evolving moments, and you don't have opportunities to go back. And if you need something in a moment to go back and get it, you, so you have everything available in those moments predicated upon what could potentially happen, you know, hindsight being 2020. If this were to be something that ended up in a house and there was a hostage situation or something like that, a rifle is extremely more precise than any other weapon that we have. So it's having everything available at the time when you need it.

And I'll follow up on saying this, is that I'm not an expert on what weapon should be used in what circumstance. But I think one of the things, I feel an ethical responsibility to make sure that the police have the equipment they need to do their job as safely as possible. I take that seriously. I know some people think I don't, but I do. Can I finish with that? The second part of the sentence is that, but I do, and I'm going to make an amendment to this later, to this motion, that I do want the department leadership to work with the CPRC to review the policies on the rifles and the drones, which are the two things that give me the most pause. And I really want to have assurances that when we equip our officers with this equipment It's to be used in extremely dangerous situations that are unavoidable and not sort of creep into more and more interactions where it shouldn't be used.

Thank you. Council Member Robinson, Vice Mayor Robinson, do you have questions?

Yeah, actually, Councilmember Wilson asked all the questions that I was going to ask. So I think I'm good. I'm not going to waste everyone's time asking more questions. But thank you so much for your work on this item. And I'm just going to pass to the next person.

Thank you. So it's my turn. I'll start my own time. So I have seen a bear cat. Oakland has one. And when I saw it, it was scary. It is massive. It is intimidating. And I don't believe it belongs on the city street. It's too much for any city. I believe. I see someone shaking their head and, you know, we all have our opinions. But, you know, I'm speaking as a normal citizen. Please stop interrupting. So, when I saw the Bearcat, I did not see it as a mayor. I saw it as a normal citizen. So I'm speaking from that experience, a normal citizen. So my question, does the use of the Bearcat actually equate to the cost?

If you could just clarify maybe slightly. OK.

In other words, how many times Is it used? How much training is done with it?

Yeah. So I'll tell you, our SWAT team trains regularly with the use of armored vehicles. We have to borrow them from neighboring agencies. So there's East Bay Regional Parks has one. Oakland has one. Brentwood PD has one. The Sheriff's Office have one or two. And then I think there's Pinole. Pinole PD has one. So we we will borrow one from the different jurisdiction and there's constant training with our SWAT team specific. It's not a patrol Regular patrol vehicle is the word I can put on my mouth And then in terms of the cost so on high-risk situations is when they're used when they know there's a potential for some type of reciprocal gunfire from someplace like in a residence or someplace like that. I think we've deployed it probably nine times. I think it was nine times in 2025 when we had to use one. And if you're going to talk about cost, I think the terms that we like to look at something like that is how much does it cost to lose an officer? Because that's really what we're doing, or a resident for that matter, where like the 2024 incident I mentioned, that was the only way we were getting people out of the area. If we had an active shooter in a school, that would be the only way that we would be able to get medical help into an area where we might have an injured person if their threat was still active. The only way that paramedic is getting there is in an armored type vehicle. And I think the question has to be, do we want to wait two hours to have one? or do we want that resource where we can deploy that when it's time?

Okay. Understood. So you mentioned a lot of cities that have Bearcats. Are there cities who have another type of armored vehicle?

Well, I think, yeah. Actually, I mentioned Pinole. Pinole is not a Bearcat. It's actually called an AMRAP. And I would actually say that is military equipment. That was, I believe, obtained through the 9-11 Foundation. And it is the type of vehicle you would see on the news even today. It's massive. It's probably one and a half times the size of a Bearcat. Not what we're talking about at all tonight. Totally different vehicle. And that is the only other agency that I'm aware of. But I know there are other agencies that have other armored vehicles. I have to do research to figure out who those are, what those vehicles are. We have subject matter experts that have already knowledge on different types of armored vehicles that we're gonna lean on. And again, my desire is to come bring options to the council to look at.

Okay, that would be very much appreciated. I think looking at the various options would be very beneficial not only for the council members to understand but for the public to see what's out there, what's being used, how effective they are. These are all very good questions and I'm glad you're thinking of bringing it to council. So the other thing, are you asking for any equipment that you do not already have? No. No. Okay. Well then that's all I have to ask. So then it's time for a motion.

Can I make a motion?

Yes, you may.

Motion to accept the report with the following amendments that RPD's acquisition should be of an armored SUV instead of a Bearcat vehicle. and to require the RPD chief to work with the Community Police Review Commission on an updated drone policy and patrol rifle policy.

I second.

Can I offer a friendly amendment to this?

Mr. Mayor, I'm not clear on the meaning of armored SUV.

So can we back up for a moment? The action before the council is to adopt a resolution approving the military equipment use policy. So we're going to approve the resolution, but with amendments. Can you repeat those amendments?

Yes. That RPD's acquisition will be of an armored SUV instead of a Bearcat vehicle. and that we will require the RPD chief to work with the Community Police Review Commission on an updated drone policy and patrol rifle policy.

I'm not clear on the meaning of the amendments. I wonder if we have I'm sorry someone Doria spoke first so

I was hoping to offer up a friendly amendment around the Bearcat. And that is, I just don't know what the realm of vehicles are. And I wonder if it would be acceptable for RPD to return to council with options and that they consider something like an SUV, because I don't know what other options there might be. Would that be acceptable so we can get a range of options other than the tank thing?

Yeah, that's fine.

Thank you.

Now, Council Member Bono.

Thank you. So I wonder if armored SUV is acceptable to the police department. Does the same function?

I think the friendly amendment is actually perfect and it'll be able to present to the council and then SEE WHAT THE COUNCIL DESIRES AT THAT POINT. I LIKE WHAT VICE MAYOR ROBINSON JUST THANK YOU.

I'M NOT CLEAR ON THE SECOND PART OF THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. IF YOU COULD CLARIFY WHAT IT MEANS IN PRACTICE?

THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT OR THE REGULAR AMENDMENT?

THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT ABOUT WORKING WITH CPRC. THAT'S MY AMENDED MOTION. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE I won't try to characterize. When I say work with the RPD chief, so that would be Chief Simmons, work with the Community Police Review Commission, that would be the standing commission you know, that's staffed in city commission. And so there are policies. Maybe you might be the more expert on this. There are policies around all the equipment, the AB 481 equipment. And I would like to have a conversation between the CPRC and the chief to see if you can reach a consensus on a policy. I didn't have much time. If I had another 10 minutes, I could go into my reasons for focusing on drones and rifles specifically. But those are the two areas where I think we need.

If I may, Councilwoman and Mayor, the ordinance for CPRC already allows the CPRC to make recommendations to the police chief regarding any policy. And I have to engage in that. good faith effort to look at what their recommendations are and to have that dialogue. They could do that right now if they wanted to. I'm at the table, by the way.

It sounds like you're fine with just having it as an amendment, too.

Yeah, I'm at the table, absolutely.

I was hoping this would be not I'm trying to build a consensus here. I wasn't trying to force things.

Just a quick point of order. So on that second part there, it's not agendized to give additional guidance. It's only agendized to adopt the resolution and approving anything with that resolution. Is this guidance that was not

I think we can add it. I think we can add it as separate. You know, I think that it could be we could if you want it cleaner to modify Section 5 for policy updates, I could add a sentence in the last section of that paragraph to ask that the police chief and the CPRC coordinate and collaborate in consistent with RICHMOND MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 3.54080A TO REVIEW THE RIFLE AND DRONE POLICIES.

I WOULD ALSO MAKE THE POINT THAT THE APPROVAL OF THE EQUIPMENT WAS HINGING ON THE POLICY. SO I MEAN, THEY COULD JUST SAY NO BECAUSE IT WASN'T INCLUDED. BUT IT'S BETTER TO

CONFUSION. I THINK WE COULD MODIFY THE RESOLUTION TO ADD THE SENTENCE THAT WOULD REQUEST THAT THE POLICE CHIEF AND THE CPRC MEET TO EVALUATE AND FOLLOW THE PROCESS CONSISTENT AND OUTLINED IN OUR MUNICIPAL CODE TO EVALUATE THE RIFLE AND THE DRONE POLICIES.

We have a motion by Council Member Wilson, second by Council Member Jimenez to adopt a resolution approving the Richmond Police Department's 2025 Annual Military Equipment Use Report and authorizing the continued use of approved military equipment consistent with government code section 7070 through 775, policy manual section 707 and the findings required by governmental code section 707 and to DIRECT THE RPD CHIEF TO WORK WITH THE CPRC TO UPDATE THE DRONE AND RIFLE POLICY AND ALSO FOR THE RPD TO RETURN TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH OPTIONS FOR

I just want to know when they're coming back with the alternatives for the vehicle, would they also be coming back with the recommended updates that's decided amongst the CPRC and the chief?

I would admit, I mean, I'm guessing that it's faster to show us armored vehicles than it is to write a policy.

So I wouldn't, I wouldn't say that the, the motion said that they would go and update the drone and rifle policy.

Yeah. But they could, I would hope they report to us separately on those things. I think they'll take a different amount of time.

And I think, no, I was just saying it's going to come back once the updates are made.

We'll hear about the new policies or that if there's not a new policy.

The council would hear about them in the next report, but the CPR, like whatever's decided.

Yeah, it's public record.

But right now, it's an advisement situation. I want to make sure that's still the case because that's what's in the ordinance. That's correct. And I'm at the table.

Yeah, I am. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that thing. All right.

Councilmember Brown?

Yes.

Councilmember Banna?

Yes.

Councilmember Jimenez? Yes. Councilmember Wilson? Yes. Vice Mayor Robinson?

Yes.

Councilmember Zepeda? Yes. And Mayor Martinez?

Yes.

The vote is unanimous.

Thank you, council.

Our next item is item Q1 under budget session. And that item, hold on one second. is to adopt a resolution determining that the public interest and necessity demand the acquisition, construction, and improvement of certain municipal improvement projects and their financing through the issuance of general obligation bonds and introduce an ordinance, first reading, ordering the submission of a proposition authorizing the issuance of general obligation bonds to the qualified voters of the city of Richmond at the November 3rd, 2026 general municipal election. Anyone joining us online that would like to address the council on this item, please raise your hand at this time.

Wow, professional.

GOOD EVENING MAYOR MARTINEZ AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. TONIGHT WE'LL BE WALKING YOU THROUGH THE PROPOSED GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND MEASURE FOR THE FIRE STATION IMPROVEMENTS. JOINING US ARE WAN GALVAN WITH ANZAL GALVAN WHO SERVES AS THE CITY'S BOND COUNCIL AND WING C FOX WITH URBAN FUTURES, THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL ADVISOR. CHIEF IS ALSO HERE AND WILL SHARE INFORMATION ABOUT THE CURRENT CONDITION OF OUR FIRE STATIONS. WE HAVE LOTS OF PICTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE NEEDED. We'll provide a little background on those needs, explain how the general obligation or GO bond works, and then review the proposed bond amount and the estimated tax rate. And then we'll go over the actions before you tonight. So with that, I will hand it over to the chief to go over our fire facilities.

Good evening. Mayor Martinez, members of the council. Just for the record, Aaron Osorio, fire chief of the Richmond Fire Department. I gave you an updated version of the PowerPoint. We will make sure that the one on the file is updated. We had some last-minute additions, predominantly the pictures and the status of the fire stations. Excuse me. A part of what you're being asked to do tonight is to adopt a resolution that's going to determine necessity for the new fire stations. And in order to make that determination and for the community to see the necessity, I'll be summarizing the condition of the firehouses that are currently on the five-year CIP. I'd like to point out that we have seven fire stations and one training facility. Currently on the CIP unfunded list is only three of the fire stations and the training center. This does not mean that the other fire stations don't need some form of renovation, remodeling, and or seismic retrofitting or assessment, but these items that are on the CIP currently are the stations or the facilities that are in the most dire need of replacement or repairs. So I will spend a few minutes summarizing the conditions of these four facilities. They are listed in the order of importance that they're placed on the five-year CIP. So there is a method to how I'm going to present them to you. I'd also, before I start, would I really like to, I can't understate the importance that fire stations really need to be resilient when there's earthquake, a disaster of some kind, a flood, a wildfire. Those types of services have to be seamless. There has to be continuity of service. And that requires a facility that houses equipment and personnel that can withstand and be resilient in those circumstances. And unfortunately, the reality is right now that there is a number of our facilities, our fire stations, that would not perform well under some of those conditions. And so this is really why this is important. This is the necessity. This isn't about having the newest, shiniest toys in the city for our fire department. This is about maintaining critical services during the most dire times of the community. making sure that those services are reliable and they can be counted on and our firefighters can respond into the community. Next slide, please. So the objectives of my half of the presentation are gonna be to summarize these facilities. I'm gonna be pointing out some of the key deficiencies at each of these locations. And this will be obvious after you see, it will highlight the need for these facilities to be updated. So first on the list is Fire Station 63. I'm gonna give a brief overview of the station and the location because I know many folks don't understand our station numbers or where those are at. So just to make it more obvious for everybody, I'll be giving brief descriptions. So Fire Station 63 is located on Valley View Road, the corner of Valley View and Amend. This fire station was built in 1991 and is currently staffed with three firefighters, one fire engine and a wildland fire engine. And this station predominantly serves the May Valley, El Sobrante Hills, Carriage Hills, Greenbrier, and also responds to a large portion of unincorporated Contra Costa County through our automatic aid agreements with Confire. Every jurisdiction, every response area in the city obviously has the normal day-to-day calls, but there are target hazards that stand out in each different response area that we usually pay extra attention to. So I'll point those out just to point out the importance of this facility. This facility is the only station that lies in a high severity zone within the city. So it has a large area of wildland urban interface, where the wildland interfaces with residential structures through numerous neighborhoods in this jurisdiction. We respond into the San Pablo Dam corridor for major vehicle accidents regularly, and we do respond into the reservoir. So these are some target hazards that make this a key station in our response matrix. It is also the station that is the furthest away from any other Richmond fire station because it is on the outskirts of the city jurisdiction. The main key issues with this fire station are going to be that we've had significant foundation settling and this has caused structural damage throughout the years. We have things such as uneven floors, major cracks in walls and floors. Recently we had a fire sprinkler riser crack and had to be repaired. Roof leaks which have led to black mold. We have doors that can't fully open or close depending on where they're at in the structure. Even the firefighters in some rooms have to put blocks under one side of their bed because the floors are so uneven in that fire station. And as I said before, this resides in the very high severity zone. And so this structure should... be an example of how to have a structure in the wildland interface that is ember resistant, it should exemplify zone one and zone zero best practices, and ultimately needs to survive a wildfire incident that occurs in that response zone. So all those, that's another need, a reason for a need to have this fire station updated along with the repairs that are needed. And also just being since 91, a lot of wear and tear and hasn't had any significant renovation or remodel since then. The next slide really shows some of the examples of the pictures of some of the conditions. You know, we're not talking about just small cracks in the sheetrock. These are significant cracks in walls and floors, doors that won't fully close, blocks under beds. These are just items, issues that highlight some of the issues we're having there. The next station is Station 66. This is 4100 Clinton. This station is the oldest fire station in the city. It's built in 1942, was staffed by three firefighters. We have one fire engine and one wildland fire engine housed at this location. This fire station serves the north and east, Richmond Heights, and also has a very large area of unincorporated Contra Costa County where it responds to through our mutual aid and auto aid agreements. It also has a large wildland component to their response zone. It is the first due engine into Alvarado Park and Wildcat Canyon. One of the primary response areas is in Interstate 80. And it's the engine that protects the Civic Center. So this is also another critical fire station in our operational matrix. Being the oldest fire station, it's 83 years old. And I would say we definitely got our money's worth out of this firehouse, but it has outlived its useful life. It does not meet seismic standards. There's only one interior bathroom. And sometimes this fire station, it's staffed every day with three. Some days it's staffed with four. For 13 years we've had a portable bathroom, a portable bathroom trailer parked in the back parking lot just to try to increase our bathroom capacity. That was never meant to be a long-term fix, but it's become a kind of a long-term band-aid until we can get this fire station replaced. There's still portions of the station that have asbestos tile. We have an open dorm in there, which is zero privacy for the staff. I think this is a good time for me to highlight this or just remind everybody. These are stations that people live at. Employees are at these stations 24-7. It's not just a workplace, it's also a residence. So everything that you would want or expect in your home, where you can have privacy to change or shower or use the restroom, all those same accommodations you were trying to accomplish in a fire station. And it's impossible in an 83-year-old fire station to meet those requirements. just common requirements that we should have in the workplace. The kitchen capacity, the running joke is you could cook and wash dishes at the same time in that kitchen, it's so small. We're lucky if we can get two people in there at the same time to prepare food or to do anything in the kitchen. We have a medical, it's where we house our medical oxygen program for the entire organization. It's definitely not up to code. It is actually shared with our workout room, which is an old detached garage there. So that is not to code for the type of operation we're doing there. Also our apparatus room where we park our fire engines, It's too small. We can't fully open compartment doors when we're parked in the garage to check our equipment and we have to pull out the fire engines to be able to open the doors completely. The station being 83 years old, fire engines were much smaller in that time when the station was built. This is one of the firehouses we have to build our fire engines specifically to fit to this firehouse. So every fire engine in the city It's a certain size, height, and length because of this fire station and the cutting fire station. Because if you make them any bigger, they don't fit. So it limits our operational capabilities based on the building, and that's backwards. Our building should not limit our operations. Our needs should drive our operational organization. So that's a big, important point. We also have insufficient storage for equipment and for gear. The next slide shows some of the things I brought up. The bathroom, you'll see personal protective equipment. There's no place for it to properly dry after being laundered, so it has to hang outside. The dorms have makeshift curtains for privacy. If you go to the next slide. will show how tight the quarters are for the fire engines. Lockers are on each wall, so they can't even open the locker doors all the way when the fire engines are parked inside. So there's definitely a critical need for this fire station to be replaced. Next slide. Fire Station 67 is also on the CIP. It's located at 1131 Cutting. This is the second oldest firehouse in the city. It was built in 1943. It's staffed every day with a minimum of three firefighters, sometimes four. We have one fire engine here, and it also is one of our heavy rescues is run out of this house. The station 67 serves Iron Triangle, Coronado, Santa Fe, Marina Bay, and Cortez neighborhoods. It's in the heart of the city. It is one of our, both 66 and this station are one of our, two of our busiest fire stations in the city. Some of the main target hazards that we have to prepare for an encounter there is the same traffic on 580. A lot of accidents and transport. Barton Amtrak runs through this district. The stations lie in this district. The marina and the harbor all are in the response zone. Portions of the Port of Richmond along with all the industrial facilities along Cutting Boulevard until you get to a canal fall under the district response district of this station. So it's a very diverse response zone with a lot of different types of hazards. This station is 82 years old. This station is registered as part of the Rosie the Riveter park so it has a historical protection on it and this is going to significantly limit our construction options because there are some very strict requirements we have to meet if we want to renovate the station and we have to consider whether or not that's even the best choice the station does not meet seismic standards has outdated bathrooms and locker rooms that have no privacy for staff We have ongoing water intrusion issues in this station that have led to water damage. Even though we've replaced roofs and things like that, we still have water intrusion issues. Fitness area. There is no designated fitness area for the health and wellness program. So the equipment is in the garage next to the fire engines when they're pulling it out. So it's not the most healthy environment to be exercising when it's right next to your heavy equipment. This is also the station that we build our apparatus to fit into this fire station. Our heavy rescue that's housed here, we wanted it to be bigger than it was to fit more equipment, and we couldn't. We had to build it to fit this firehouse. And so that's another limitation that we want to try to eliminate. The other thing is that we used to house our ladder truck, staff ladder truck at this fire station. The ladder trucks back then were much smaller. Now our current ladder trucks will not fit here. So the ladder truck is in Crescent Park at Station 64. That is not the optimal location for your only staff ladder truck that responds to every structure fire on this side of town. It should be more centrally located. It should be back at this fire station. But we can't do that because it won't fit into the garage. We also have a lack of sufficient storage for equipment and gear at this fire station. The first set of pictures really depict the tight quarters for the apparatus. It's even actually front to back is even smaller than station 66. When you close the garage doors there's about six inches of clearance between the front bumper and the fire engines. So this is We have to be very careful coming in and out of these fire stations because of how tight the garage is. Second slide highlights the old outdated bathrooms, some of which, some of the components don't work. A very open dorm layout that doesn't provide for any privacy for the staff that are working there. It also just doesn't make for a very good night's sleep if you're trying to catch some sleep. Next item is going to be the training center. This is at 3506 Cutting, the corner of Cutting and Steege. This facility is kind of a patchwork of multiple buildings over the years. Portions of this facility were built in 1917, then additions in the 40s, and then the tower in 51. This facility is utilized by the entire department and the El Cerrito Fire Department. All fire department training happens at this location. It's a two acre site right there at Steege and Cutting. If you look at the next slide, this is gonna be the original fire station. That black and white photo I had in the beginning, that was when it was new. This is still there being utilized. That's the side of the building that the Youth Academy uses every Saturday to do training and to do the program we run with the youth. On the left side was the addition built in the 40s. It houses all of our medical supplies and logistics for our emergency medical program. Next slide shows the classroom building. This building was built in the 40s. It actually originally resided on South 47th Street. And at some point, the city had it moved to the training grounds somewhere in the 60s. So it's a very old building that's just been relocated and repurposed. This building houses a training director battalion chief's office. Also is utilized by the fire academy when we have an academy going and then all other classroom training for the entire fire department and the El Cerrito fire department occur in these classrooms in this building. On the same grounds, we have a burn room that we installed in 2006. We utilized this for live fire training for all members of the organization. This building was never meant to last this long. It was going to be a temporary burn room until we got a more permanent facility. It's definitely outlived its useful life and needs to be taken down. The key issues. This facility is anywhere from 75 to 100 years old, depending which building you're looking at. Portions of it are historically protected, but not so much that we can't work with the property and do some construction and replacement. It does not meet seismic standards. It doesn't meet any of the modern fire department training needs that we have. We have a serious water intrusion issues in the old fire station that's on grounds. We have a serious issue with mold. Insufficient security on the perimeter has led to frequent vandalism and theft of fire department equipment. We have holes in floors and roofs of our training tower. The apparatus room won't hold our fire engines. We have to transport them from other fire stations when we need to use them for training for the academy. And there is really no storage for all the gear and equipment we need for training. I just wanted to highlight Back when we were presenting about the paramedic program, we had also looked at initially some rough order magnitude cost for these stations. And that's what this slide depicts. These are the stations, the three fire stations I highlighted earlier. So you can see what the estimated cost would be. I will say that Station 66, we are in the process of, we just completed the RFQ on that. It looks like we may not need to do a full replacement. It may be repairable. So I would say... make the assumption that that $30 million to replace Fire Station 63, that was a worst case scenario. If it needed replacing, it won't most likely need replacing. So that amount will go down. But what isn't depicted on this slide is the other projects that aren't in the CIP that have the need. So we would utilize the funds we would have used for 63 to make the improvements on the other four fire stations that I haven't discussed. I ALSO, THE NEXT SLIDE I ALSO WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT IF IN THE FUTURE WE ARE ABLE TO MOVE TOWARDS A PARAMEDIC PROGRAM, without any renovations or anything being done to the fire stations replacements, these capital improvements needed to be done in order to even house a squad program. So regardless of the replacement, there's still a need. But if we were to tackle the replacements and the renovations repairs, all that can be incorporated into one project each time. AND I WILL CLOSE MY PORTION OF THIS PRESENTATION WITH JUST A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE. STATION 66 HAS KIND OF BEEN THE EXAMPLE OF HOW BAD WE NEED A FIREHOUSE TO BE REPLACED. sensitivity to getting these projects done, it can't be understated. And I think what highlights that is in 2009, we had complete plans done for Station 66. Design was done, had gone through the whole process. It was about as shovel ready as you can get. At the time, it was going to be costing the city about anywhere between $9 and $12 million. Because of things that happened at that time, the project had to be stopped. That same exact station is going to cost us 30 to 35 million to rebuild now. The longer we kick the can down the road, just the more expensive it's going to get. So I think it's important to highlight that the cost of construction materials and labor is just continuing to rise. And that shows the urgency of why we would like to take action as soon as possible. That concludes my portion of the presentation. I'll pass it back over to Emily.

Thank you. So as you can see from the condition of our fire stations, the need for investment is significant. But it's also important to understand that the fire department's needs are only one part of a much larger citywide capital funding challenge that we have. The city's tenure CIP identifies more than $1.1 billion in unfunded or underfunded capital needs. So that includes all city facilities, streets, parks, traffic signals, storm drainage, technology, and other critical infrastructure. So more than 350 million of that total is related to general and public safety facilities. So while the fire station needs are urgent, they represent only a portion of the city's overall capital backlog. So this slide focuses specifically on the fire department's identified capital needs. The total estimated cost of these projects is approximately 115 million. That includes all the major work that Chief Azorio described earlier. So while that $115 million is significant, it represents only about 10% of the city's more than $1.1 billion in unfunded and underfunded capital needs. So in other words, even if the proposed bond measure is approved, the city will still face a substantial funding gap for all those things that I've mentioned. So the proposed bond is therefore a targeted way for us to address one critical portion of this much larger citywide capital challenge. And with that, I'll turn it over to our bond council, Juan Galvan.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, CITY GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. COUNCIL MEMBERS. BEFORE WE DIVE INTO THE ITEMS BEFORE WE DIVE INTO THE ITEMS THAT WE'LL BE ASKING YOU TO THAT WE'LL BE ASKING YOU TO CONSIDER, I'M GOING TO TURN IT CONSIDER, I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO MY COLLEAGUE WITH URBAN OVER TO MY COLLEAGUE WITH URBAN FUTURES TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF FUTURES TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND FIRST.

BACKGROUND FIRST. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, VICE GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, VICE MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. CITY COUNCIL. WITH URBAN F So what is a general obligation bond? This is a financing tool used by public agencies to fund authorized capital improvements. They cannot be used to fund operations. And the issuance amount is capped at the voter authorized amount. The bonds are repaid through an annual property tax levy on the property tax roll. And it is based on each property's assessed value, similar to the property tax paid every year not the market value of residential and commercial properties. General obligation bonds do require a voter approval threshold of two-thirds of city voters voting in the election. And the voters, they approve the bond authorization amount, as I mentioned, as well as the use and purpose or the type of capital improvement projects, but not the tax rate or the actual annual payment amount. There are other types of bonds out there, but the general obligation bond tends to have the lowest borrowing cost because it is on the very high end of the credit spectrum because of the very secure repayment source.

Next slide. So this evening we are, staff is recommending that the council consider two actions. First, adopting a resolution determining the necessity OF THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT CHIEF ASSORIO HAS DESCRIBED TO THE VARIOUS FIRE STATIONS AND THE NECESSITY OF FINANCING THOSE IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH THE ISSUE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS. IF THE COUNCIL ADOPTS THAT RESOLUTION, THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE TO INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE PLACING THE BOND MEASURE ON THE NOVEMBER 3rd BALLOT. IT'S A TWO-STEP PROCESS. STAFF WOULD RETURN ON JULY 28th FOR A SECOND READING OF THE ORDINANCE AND ITS ADOPTION. NO DEBT WOULD BE AUTHORIZED THIS EVENING UNTIL THE VOTERS APPROVE IT ON NOVEMBER 3rd. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER SUBMITTING A BOND MEASURE THAT WOULD AUTHORIZE THE CITY TO ISSUE UP TO $120 MILLION OF BONDS. The debt service would be paid solely from the voter approved property tax. It would not be repaid from the city's general fund. In terms of the improvements that would be funded, those are described in the ordinance under section two. In section two of the full text of the measure and section five of the actual ordinance. Generally speaking, they consist of station repairs, improvements to living quarters including the mold and asbestos abatement construction or replacement of building systems such as electrical roofing and plumbing systems as well as seismic and other upgrades HVAC emergency generators and communication systems would also be eligible and lastly the city could also build or renovate its training facilities or admin facilities and

If this bond measure makes its way to the November ballot and is subsequently approved, at least with that two-thirds voter threshold by the voters, it would authorize up to $120 million of general obligation bond issuance. Based on current assumptions, the tax rate, the average annual tax rate would be a little over $22, which is a lower than what was previously surveyed at the $40 level and that's because as municipal advisor we're able to refine and optimize the bond structuring so that the same level of bond issuance and projects can be achieved with the lower tax burden to the taxpayers. I just want to mention that this rate is in addition to the tax rates that are already on the property tax bill and there are some assumptions that are also included in the tax rate statement.

AS MS. FOX INDICATED THE BONDS AS MS. FOX INDICATED THE BONDS WOULD ONLY BE ISSUED IF THE WOULD ONLY BE ISSUED IF THE VOTERS APPROVE THE MEASURE BY VOTERS APPROVE THE MEASURE BY TWO-THIRDS OR MORE. TWO-THIRDS OR MORE. THE BOND PROCEEDS WOULD BE THE BOND PROCEEDS WOULD BE DEPOSITED IN A SEPARATE ACCOUNT DEPOSITED IN A SEPARATE ACCOUNT AND USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES AND USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES STATED IN THE MEASURE. STATED IN THE MEASURE. AN INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY AN INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE OF CITY OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE OF CITY RESIDENTS WOULD BE APPOINTED RESIDENTS WOULD BE and all expenditures would be subject to annual independent financial audit and annual reporting to the city council. Looking ahead, staff, if the actions are approved this evening, staff would return on July 28th, next Tuesday, for a second reading, and at that point, the council would consider adopting the ordinance, and that would then trigger the submission of the measure to the county, AS A SECOND STEP, THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD ALSO ADOPT A RESOLUTION CALL IN THE ELECTION WHICH MORE FORMALLY ORDERS A CONSOLIDATION OF YOUR BOND MEASURE WITH THE STATEWIDE ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 3rd. IT WOULD ALSO INCLUDE THE ABBREVIATED BALLOT QUESTION AND THAT'S THE QUESTION THAT WOULD APPEAR ON THE BALLOT. the exact language, that would be the exact language that the voters would see. So on July 28th, that language will be presented to you as part of the resolution calling the election for your approval. In terms of the path to the election, THIS EVENING THE FIRST STEP WOULD BE TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION DETERMINING THE NECESSITY OF THESE IMPROVEMENTS AND THE NEED TO FINANCING THEM THROUGH THE ISSUE OF BONDS AS WELL AS THE INTRODUCTION OF THE ORDINANCE NEXT WEEK ON JULY 28TH AS WE TALKED ABOUT THE SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD OCCUR. ON OR ABOUT AUGUST 3rd, CITY CLERK'S OFFICE WOULD SUBMIT THE DOCUMENTS TO THE COUNTY ELECTIONS DIVISION. THERE WOULD BE A PERIOD OF IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS, ARGUMENTS AND REBUTTALS WOULD BE SUBMITTED FOR OR AGAINST THE MEASURE. AND THEN LASTLY, THE VOTERS WOULD CONSIDER THE BOND MEASURE ON NOVEMBER 3rd.

THANK YOU. THAT CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION FOR TONIGHT. WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

Thank you so much, it was a fantastic presentation. Do we have public speakers?

We do not have any public speakers.

So public speakers, then it comes back to the city council for questions and comments. I was curious, this is about the bond, but I was curious about how the money would be spent. Would we be able to discuss that? Basically, my question is around Fire Station 67, which is historically protected. and it's not seismically fit. So I know Richmond City Council Hall was closed because it was not seismically fit and they wouldn't allow it to be used. So likewise this fire station shouldn't be used which means that we need a new fire station and I'm thinking it might be more economical to just build a new fire station and preserve that as a historical visiting place so that people could visit Richmond and see how fire was taken care of back in the day.

study was done by NCE recently and it was three options you know there's the demolition the renovation a relocation really what the recommendation was they do studies on historical buildings and Optimally would be that there is a new location found within the close proximity to the current fire station and we would build a new fire station. There is, that's obviously limited by available properties in the area and there's a lot of things we have to consider such as impact response times, is it centrally located, things like that. So that we would have to see what's available. I believe when we were discussing this bond, the money could be used to acquire property that was for the use of infrastructure. So we do have the flexibility in that sense if if that was say there was no city owned property in close proximity, but something for sale, the money could be used to purchase a property that a fire station could be built on. There is also other issues with Station 67. A previous council had, when it became part of the Rosie the Riveter Park, if we no longer utilize it as a city building, the park service has first right of refusal to actually take possession of the building. AND SO THERE IS SOME LANGUAGE THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO GO AND LOOK AT. I THINK THE BEST-CASE SCENARIO IS WE KEEP THAT IN THE INVENTORY OF THE CITY OR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. WE PURPOSE IT FOR A NON-CRITICAL BUILDING SUCH AS A LOGISTICS STATION OR BUILDING LIKE THAT. BUT WE DEFINITELY WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT OUR OPTIONS WHEN IT CAME TIME FOR THAT PROJECT.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. QUICK QUESTION, I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THE NUMBER 120 MILLION. IS IT BASED ON THE POPULATION OR FIXED FOR ALL CITIES? YOU SAID IT'S THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT FOR THE BOND.

THAT NUMBER WAS DETERMINED BY STAFF BASED ON THE PROJECTS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED HERE BY THE BOND MEASURE.

OKAY. I THOUGHT IT WAS CALIFORNIA OR SOMETHING.

YOU COULD CERTAINLY GO HIGHER IF YOU CHOSE.

First, I want to give Vice Mayor a chance to speak because we've been ignoring her for the longest time. Vice Mayor, do you have any questions?

I actually don't have any questions. I did want to just say that I think this is a project that is long time coming. I toured these stations during my first year and just saw the state that our firefighters are working in, and it was kind of unbelievable. I think that we really do need to take steps to remedy this issue. So just leave it at that.

Thank you. Council Member Jimenez? Okay. No, go ahead.

Okay, I can pass to me. So on page 30, you say, of the presentation, it says $22.15 per $100,000 of assessed value is the average annual tax rate that a taxpayer would pay. And then in the bullet point, you say the highest annual tax rate of $24.6 per $100,000. I'm just curious, like, what... Why is there a range? And also, are these numbers guaranteed, I guess, for the whole life of the bond?

Right. So there are a lot of assumptions. It's really the estimates with the facts that we know today. So the assumptions behind this particular bond program was three bond issuances. Not all the projects can be implemented at the same time. So to be more efficient, we're just assuming here, based on staff feedback, three bond issuances, two or three years apart. We're also assuming a conservative 3% inflation with assessed value. So all of these, the assessed value may grow even more than that, which would mean the tax rate would be lower. But these are based on the best estimates we have today. The reason why the first year levy tends to be higher is just the way delinquency assumptions work. and also the tax on unsecured property. But on average, we are structuring with a level annual tax rate. And that is the tax rate per 100,000 of assessed values you mentioned. So if you have a home that's 400,000 assessed value, it would be four times that $22.15 for that particular tax year. So the guarantee really isn't the tax rate. It's that the bond issuance amount won't go above $120 million. the bonds are going to be issued at the then market rates, and they can be up to 30-year bonds. All of those parameters, by the way, would come back to Council and be described in more detail and would also have to go through its own approval process.

Another question I had is in terms of what we're voting on tonight, I think the word is that we have to say that it's the necessity of doing this. And I think I caught that it's two types of necessity. One is that there's a need to do this CIP work for the fire stations. And two, there's a necessity to have a bond in order to fund it. So it's both things that we have to say yes to in order to move forward.

YEAH, VERY GOOD. YEAH, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE FIRST STEP IS, IS TO DETERMINE THE NECESSITY OF THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT THE CHIEF HAS DESCRIBED AND THE NEED OR THE NECESSITY TO DO SO THROUGH THE ISSUANCE OF A

And just in my opinion, Chief Asario has done an excellent job or we've it's patently obvious that there is a necessity to do these repairs and replacements on the fire stations. I was hoping that Ms. Combs or someone else could speak to, you know, you've sort of implied that the necessity being that Although the city has a certain amount of money in our general fund, our CIP list is over a billion dollars, which suggests that if we're going to work our way down not just this project but all the projects, some of that, there is a necessity to reach out to voters and ask them to consider bonds. Am I right about that? Can you talk more about the necessity part of the bond?

Of course. I mean, the necessity is, you know, even with our general fund resources, as I, you know, presented earlier, our total capital needs is $1.1 billion based on present value from our facilities assessment. So this, what we're, you know, requesting tonight is just 10% of that overall need that will continue to grow. So that's the urgency and the necessity of this.

What about the idea, like, are there grants we could apply for? Is there any other place that we could kick up $120 million without the voters' help?

Well, speaking from the grants that fire departments typically tap, there isn't grants for this kind of project. All the grants out there now are related to Homeland Security, infrastructure, cybersecurity. When there was grants available that covered facilities, they very specifically carved out that it was to make improvements to expand services, not to offset deferred maintenance or replacement. That has always been a criteria for almost every grant that we've looked at. And we have looked for them, but that is not an option for us at this point.

Thank you.

COUNCIL MEMBER GIMENEZ.

THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. THANK YOU CHIEF FOR MEETING WITH US AND EXPLAINING TO US. I WANTED TO ASK YOU PARTICULARLY HOW DID YOU COME DOWN FROM 40 FOR A HUNDRED THOUSAND FIGURE TO THE 22.15?

The previous figure, my understanding was a very conservative estimate for use to survey voters. And then when we were brought on, because this is our area of expertise, we're able to look at what the total needs are. We're able to refine the analysis. We're also looking a little bit deeper. Are you really going to issue all 120 million at once? It's determined probably going to be over time. So all these things can contribute. TO A MORE OPTIMIZED STRUCTURING OF THE BOND PROGRAM THAT ALLOWS THE TAX RATE TO BE MORE REALISTICALLY BROUGHT DOWN AND STILL ACHIEVE THE PROJECTS.

SO IN TERMS OF THE URGENCY AND NECESSITY AS COUNCIL WILSON WAS TALKING ABOUT, WHY NOW AND WHY THE FIRE STATIONS INSTEAD OF OTHER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS?

I'm sorry, was that directed at me? At you. At me?

Yeah.

Because I'm the fire chief and I advocate for my fire department. That's what I'm supposed to do. Well, I'm not going to say I'm more important than everybody else. They're all important needs in the city. But we are relied upon in the worst days of people's lives and the disasters. And I think the concern is... Can we be resilient if something serious happens, if we have a big earthquake, if we have a wildfire? We have to be that constant there that's available. And under our current facilities, we can't make that promise right now. And so I think this is long overdue. From a fire chief perspective, wanting to advocate for my personnel, These are not, there's living conditions going on in these fire stations that we really shouldn't be subjecting our people to. And so in that sense, too, it's important. There's no reason, no good reason not to, is how I feel.

And my question was to give you a chance to say what you just said.

Oh, that was a soft toss.

And my last question is, we approved this today. Where are you coming back on July 28th? And because in the first one, we saw some polling data. Are we going to refine that? What are you bringing back for us to reassure that we are making the best decision win in November this bond.

I'm glad you asked that question. There's really one central reason for the two-step process. It's required by state law. So we have to go through this introduction and then the second time we have to come back at least five days later, give everybody a chance to consider the ordinance, give the public a chance to consider the ordinance, and then we come back at least five days later and then you have an opportunity to adopt the ordinance. Secondly, it just so happens that the elections consultant is also conducting a follow-up survey with the language that you will likely see on July 28th in terms of the abbreviated ballot language that you would approve. That's the language that appears on the ballot. So we would come back or staff would come back on July 28th with some additional feedback in terms of public support for that. So my expectation is that results would be available to be shared with the council by staff from that survey. They're currently not yet available.

MY LAST QUESTION IS ABOUT THE INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY OVERSIGHT COMMITTED. WHEN THAT WILL BE FORMED IF THIS IS APPROVED? WILL THESE BE FORMED AFTER OR BEFORE? WHEN WILL THAT BE APPROVED?

ALL THE RULES IN TERMS OF COMPOSITION, RESPONSIBILITIES, MEETING TIMES, ALL DETAILS WOULD BE CONSIDERED BY THE COUNCIL. AFTER, ONLY IF AND AFTER THE BOND MEASURE IS APPROVED BY THE VOTERS IN NOVEMBER. AND IT WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN PER THE ORDINANCE PRIOR TO ANY BONDS BEING ISSUED. THANK YOU.

Yes, thank you too for the presentation. I appreciate it. I just had one question regarding the repayment. So it's solely by voter approved property tax and never the city's general fund. And so for the unspent settlement funds that we have in the general funds, could any of this be used towards the total 120 million to help alleviate sort of the burden from residents? on residents. Could any of that money be used to reduce the overall cost that we're sending out to voters?

WELL, IN THEORY IT COULD. HOWEVER, WE'RE FOLLOWING THE COUNCIL'S DIRECTION FOR THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROCESS WHICH WE'LL BE BRINGING FORWARD A CONTRACT SOON AND THEN WE'LL BE KICKING THAT OFF SO THAT WOULD BE A POLICY DECISION OF THE CITY COUNCIL. AND AGAIN, THOSE ARE ONE-TIME FUNDS AND KEEP IN MIND WE GET THEM OVER A TEN-YEAR PERIOD SO WE DON'T GET THAT FULL 550 MILLION UP FRONT.

Right. We don't get the full 500, but we get 50 million for the first five years and 60 for the following. And I think that I just think that, you know, we haven't spent the funds in any capacity. And so it's there. And so I'm wondering, could that any of it be used to alleviate their total costs? So we could perhaps when in preparation for the bond measure and ballot material that voters would see a less because they're talking about being taxed yet again. So I'm just trying to see if there's any room there.

I MEAN, I THINK AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, YOU KNOW, IF YOU DECIDED TO APPROVE THE ITEMS THIS EVENING, YOU KNOW, THE 120 MILLION WOULD BE LOCKED IN. IT DOESN'T REQUIRE, IT DOESN'T BIND YOU AS A COUNCIL OR THE CITY TO ISSUE THE BONDS. ASSUMING THAT THE VOTERS APPROVE THE BOND MEASURE IN NOVEMBER, YOU WOULD HAVE AUTHORITY. STAFF WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO YOU WITH DOCUMENTATION IN CONNECTION WITH ANY BOND ISSUANCE AND AT THAT POINT YOU COULD DECIDE to defer the issuance. And that would have the impact of essentially delaying any need to tax the voters. So you do have flexibility in that sense.

Yeah, I was just trying to make sure before, like, it's coming back on the 28th, if, you know, we're never using any money of the general fund, but we do have money in the general fund that could help support different initiatives. I just wouldn't see why we would, if this is such a necessity and urgent, that we wouldn't put forth money to support, money that we have to support.

Just to add on, as Vaughn mentioned, there's no obligation to issue the bonds. So you could issue a lower amount if you didn't need as much. Right, I think that's what I'm speaking about. The repayment source would remain ad valorem property tax because of this type of bond. It's just that you're not obligated to issue. It's up to $120 million. You don't have to issue that much. But once they are issued, they will be repaid by the ad valorem property tax and not general funds.

Okay, so what you're saying is if we approve the $120, we don't have to...

Yes, and the tax is only taxed at the rate that's needed to pay debt service. Got it. And it ends once debt service matures.

Okay. Thank you.

Council Member Cepeda?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I also want to recognize that if we move forward with this, if we get the bonds and we start building, our brothers and sister in this room are going to be building those fire stations. So you're going to have some... You can have livable wages and benefits. So there's pluses and pluses. A lot of this information was brought up because, as you all might remember, I brought this up two years ago as well. The rates were lower than today, so we have to hurry because the rates will be higher than two years from now. So there is urgency. I joked but didn't joke because one of the fire stations that I also visited They mentioned the last thing we need our fire stations to do is to call 911 to help them get out. So this is urgent. So we want to pass it. Now, there's different types of bonds that we can do. And one of the ones that I was bringing forward two years ago was one that would not tax the individuals, right? Because my colleagues mentioned we don't want to tax our residents that are in a lot of need. So I think that the poll questions should ask, one, can we pass this bond measure charging the residents $20 per 100? But also, can we just issue our own lease revenue bonds? That question should be asked. And the lease revenue bond, from one that I understand, is it does not charge the individuals. It goes into our own lease revenue. Because if this bond doesn't pass, as we know that other bonds in this last election did not pass, if this doesn't pass, we still have this great need. So we have to solve for this need. But it would also be really disingenuous if the voters say, no, don't do this. And then we say, OK, well, we're still going to issue these other type of bonds. How are we going to tell the voters, you told us no. but we're gonna do something a little different, the same. So I think that that question should be asked to see if they just wanna, what is the different types of bonds, right? Obviously, probably they're gonna say, if I don't have to pay anything, that's the one that I want, right? So we have to be careful because we do need the money. We don't have over a billion dollars to fix everything that we have to fix. So I just wanna put that out there, making sure that we are transparent with the individuals. And also our congressman did meet with us about a year and a half ago and he was looking to see if there was potentially any funding for the training facility. So yes, the bond doesn't have to be 120 all the way. If the congressman, if hopefully we get a new government soon, the congressman could try to help us get some more money so we don't have to bond the full 120. He can hopefully give us some of that money back. So I just want to put that out there. But overall, thank you for the presentation and let's vote on it.

Thank you. I also wanted to piggyback on what Councilmember Cepeda said, which is that we do live in earthquake country and we heard that several of the fire buildings are not seismically

prepared.

So it is of utmost need that we repair these, rebuild these firehouses so that our public safety people will be capable of going out and helping others. So this is part of our earthquake safety plan which is, a lot of it is already in place. we have our fire department we have our police department all working on this and we will continue to work on it our maintenance and operation also is involved in making sure that our buildings are seismically CAPABLE OF WITHSTANDING EARTHQUAKES. SO THERE'S A LOT OF WORK TO BE DONE. THERE'S A LOT OF WORK THAT'S BEING DONE. AND WE NEED THESE BONDS TO CONTINUE THIS WORK. SO WITH THAT, I CALL FOR I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AND INTRODUCE THE ORDINANCE.

I SECOND IT.

AND ALSO BRINGING IN SOME MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE LEASE REVENUE SO WE CAN HAVE THAT AS AN OPTION FOR THE COUNCIL TO DETERMINE THERE.

So did you second the I second that too, okay?

Thank you all right Oh?

Councilmember Brown yes, I remember bana yes Councilmember Jimenez Yes Councilmember Wilson point of order if I want to pass it as is but not with the bringing back of some other lease option Some other bond option.

How do I think you can do a substitute motion?

I want to do a substitute motion that we point of order you can't right now because we're in the middle of a vote, okay?

What they come back next week?

Council members if I may we could talk about the lease revenue bonds now if you wanted to know we're in the middle of a motion.

Sorry And what's the motion now?

So just to bring that as an option for us to review. Everything else is the same except also adding to bring that as an option for us to review. We don't have to vote for it and say, yes, that's what we want. It's just as an option so that we can compare the two.

My understanding is that we have to do, the ordinance has to be read twice by the 28th.

That's correct.

So you can't bring something on the 28th and read it twice by the 28th.

least they'll be able to give us that option so they have that information okay if i may council members i can explain briefly the lease revenue bond steps lease revenue bonds are not subject to voter approval there are different restrictions the way that they're structured they would be paid solely from the general fund they do not require approval through the ordinance the ordinance the ordinance process that would have to be an entirely separate process with separate agenda item documents at a later meeting AFTER THE BOND COUNCIL TEAM OR THE BOND TEAM HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER THE VIABILITY OF THOSE BONDS.

AND AS A SEPARATE ITEM, THEY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY?

THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. THE APPROVAL OF LEASE REVENUE BONDS IS NOT ON THE AGENDA THIS EVENING.

SO WE NEED TO GO WITH A MOTION OF THE...

THERE'S A MOTION THAT WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF VOTING, SO WE ALREADY HAVE THREE VOTES.

I will like to recuse my vote because I didn't understand that. So if my vote with this amendment is going to delay us to make this, I will vote no on this motion and we will do a substitute motion.

City Attorney?

So I think if I can understand your motion, Council Members Zepeda, it's to approve the item as is, adopt a resolution, Determining that the public interest and necessity and demand the acquisition Let me just read it construction and improvement of certain municipal improvement projects and their Financing through the issuance of general obligation bonds and introduction of an ordinance first reading in addition you are asking you are directing staff to come back ON THE 28th TO PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION OUTSIDE OF THIS PROCESS.

THIS WILL MOVE FORWARD. ON THE 28th ONCE WE HAVE THAT INFORMATION WE CAN SAY THIS ONE IS BETTER THAN THIS ONE.

I THINK THE QUESTION NEEDS TO BE AS COUNSEL JUST INDICATED like these are separate process with separate analysis and to think that we're gonna come back in a week, I think is an unrealistic timeline. So I don't think people who voted on this understood what they were voting on.

Just revise your motion.

You're not revising a motion.

That's the I want to be able to see it I just don't see why we need to tax the people more if we have that opportunity there That's But that's not agendized on this So so that motion was not a legal motion according to rules

Okay, then you can put my motion, but that's still my thought there.

Okay, so the motion is to... Are you withdrawing that second part of it?

We'll go ahead and withdraw it because they don't understand it.

Yeah, and also like Council Member Cepeda, you have more, like the first presentation gives you a lot of information. You didn't ask for that in that moment. Oh, I did.

Actually, this is like the third time I've asked for it.

Okay, so let me understand. You're making a motion to approve the item, and you're withdrawing the second part of your motion. Yes. Thank you.

And I second it.

Okay, and so let me just go back over to Council Member Brown. Yes. Council Member Banna.

Yes.

Council Member Jimenez. Yes. Council Member Wilson. Yes. Vice Mayor Robinson.

Yes.

Council Member Zepeda.

Yes.

And Mayor Martinez. Yes. The vote is unanimous. OUR NEXT ITEM IS ITEM P1 UNDER PUBLIC HEARING. AND THAT ITEM IS TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND INTRODUCE FOR FIRST READING IN ORDINANCE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AMIDST SECTIONS 1501 15.04.104.020 15.04.201.030 15.04.201.050 15.04.610.020 OF THE RICHMOND MUNICIPAL CODE UPDATING REGULATIONS FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS TO CONFORM WITH STATE LAW. IF ANYONE JOINING US ONLINE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS A COUNSEL ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AT THIS TIME. WE DO NOT HAVE ANY SPEAKERS.

OKAY. STAFF NUMBERS? STAFF REPORT?

Yes. Good evening, mayor, council members. Lena Velasco, director of community development. I'm joined this evening by Avery Stark, planning manager, and Michelle Morris, senior planner. Michelle will be doing the presentation. But before she gets started, as the council knows, the state legislature continuously is updating LAWS, STATE LAWS AROUND HOUSING REGULATIONS AND ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS WHICH WE'LL SPEAK OF THIS EVENING ARE CONSISTENTLY BEING UPDATED AND SO THIS EVENING WE'RE BRINGING FORWARD AMENDMENTS THAT WILL CONFORM OUR REGULATIONS TO STATE LAW AND SO WE'LL BE REVIEWING THOSE CHANGES OF OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE WHICH WAS ADOPTED IN 2020. SO WITH THAT, I'LL HAND IT OVER TO MICHELLE.

Good evening, Mayor Martinez, council members, and community. My name is Michelle Morris. I'm the senior planner here at the City of Richmond. Sorry. Due to changes to the state accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling unit regulations, we're here today to update the city's ADU and JADU ordinance. AS AN OVERVIEW, TODAY WE'RE HOLDING A PUBLIC HEARING AND WE'RE ASKING THE CITY COUNCIL TO ACT BY HOLDING THE PUBLIC HEARING AND INTRODUCING AN ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING TO AMEND RICHMOND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 15.04.104.020, 15.04.201.030, 04.201.050, and 15.04610.020, which will update regulations for ADUs and JADUs that will conform with state law. As you see in the picture here, the definitions for what ADUs and JADUs are. The proposed amendments to the city's ordinance includes refined definitions, and I'll read them to you because sometimes there's a bit of confusion. As you can see and illustrated here, an accessory dwelling unit is an attached or detached residential dwelling that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on the same lot as a proposed or existing single-family dwelling or multi-family dwelling. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation on the same parcel that the single family or multi-family dwelling is or will be situated. An accessory dwelling unit may be within the same structure as the primary dwelling in an attached structure or in a separate detached structure on the same lot. A junior accessory dwelling unit means the unit's no more than 500 square feet of interior livable space in size and contained entirely within a single family residence. A JADU may include separate sanitation facilities or may share sanitation facilities within the existing structure. To provide background history to why this ordinance is necessary, back in November of 2020, the city adopted an updated Accessory Dwelling Unit and Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance. In October 2024, the State Department of Housing and Community Development, HCD, completed a review of our ordinance and requested that the city revise and update the ordinance. Meanwhile, additional, many additional changes to ADU and JADU state law were enacted on October 10th of last year and again on January 1st. On July 2nd, 2026, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending the provisions of Richmond's Municipal Code regarding ADUs and JADUs. So to bring our code into compliance with state law, many changes are required. And some examples are JADUs can be in attached garages, The rules for height have been updated. For example, an additional two feet in height is allowed to accommodate a roof pitch on the ADU that's aligned with the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit. And another example includes no replacement parking is required when covered parking is demolished or converted in conjunction with the construction of an ADU. Also, ADUs or JADUs may not be rented for fewer than 30 days, contrary to popular belief. And properties containing a JADU unit must be owner-occupied unless the owner is a governmental agency, a land trust, or housing organization. Also, an attached ADU to be constructed on a lot that's listed on the California Register of Historic Resources must comply with all applicable objective standards imposed by the US Secretary of Interior. And those standards shall not include requirements on minimum lot size. Many amendments to California ADU law became effective between 2023 and 2025, which was also during the time that HCD was reviewing our 2020 ADU-related municipal code changes. For example, Senate Bill 477 became effective in 2024, and it included moving all of the codes relating to ADU law to a separate new location within the government code. It also included changes such as the definition for livable space, which is a great clarification, which means a space in a dwelling intended for human habitation including living, sleeping, eating, cooking or sanitation. And they also clarified state law on uncovered parking for ADUs and made it so that uncovered off-street parking spaces that are demolished in conjunction with the construction of an ADU does not need to be replaced. Another example of the new legal framework for ADUs and JADUs is the Senate Bill 543, which is another way of saying buy-write combinations. and you'll see the four options here. Numbers one and two means that one internal or converted ADU can be proposed on a single family property. Also one newly constructed detached ADU and one junior ADU can be proposed. Number three means that converted non-livable space of an existing multifamily dwelling can be converted up to 25% of the primary units. And detached ADUs are allowed, but there's a maximum of eight detached ADUs. So there's a number of combinations where people can come in the door, get a building permit, and go through our process. Some other key elements of what you can see, there are quite a few here, and most of them are listed in the staff report, so I'll just point out one or two that's interesting. You wouldn't think it, but there's a definition for an efficiency kitchen, and that comes up all the time at the counter. Efficiency kitchen allows an ADU to be included, which includes a partial kitchen, and there's a definition that's directly linked to the California Health and Safety Code. We also are limited in how much time we take to process applications. There have been many changes to the processing of ADUs. And during the 60-day period, the city must return in writing a full set of comments to the applicant with a list of items that are defective or deficient and a description of how the application can be remedied. So we have 60 days to do that. For applications that use pre-approved plans, which you can find on the city's website, the city has 30 days to process an ADU application. And it has to be a complete application, deemed complete. So all of you probably have in front of you the one public comment that we've received from the California Housing Defense Fund, Cal HDF. Cal HDF is a nonprofit corporation that advocates for more housing. They have identified in that letter that we've received today that our draft ordinance does not explicitly say that state limited ADUs, also known as 66323 ADUs, are exempt from objective design and objective development standards. Staff agrees with their assertion, and so we have proposed a change to the ordinance, the draft ordinance. So staff does continue to review qualified state limited ADU applications according to state law. And to that end is the additional amendment to the proposed ordinance is in front of you, we've provided counsel with copies and it's also shown here on the slide. The ordinance is amended by adding state limited AD units as an exception to section 15.04.610.020 subsection C6. Letter F, if the accessory dwelling unit is an exempt accessory dwelling unit that satisfies the applicable requirements provided in that section above. which leads us to the required findings that must be made for zoning text amendments. Those required findings are here. Basically it says that the proposed zoning text amendments are consistent with the general plan housing element. They will also benefit the public by increasing housing production within Richmond and ensure local regulations comply with state law. The amendment has been reviewed in compliance with CEQA and is statutorily exempt from CEQA and would have no significant impacts. And since the zoning text amendments won't change the zoning map, therefore the last finding is not applicable. And this slide right here basically tells you basically the same thing, but it gives you the code citations for the CEQA determination. Which brings you to the recommended action. Hold a public hearing, introduce an ordinance for first reading, amending the Richmond Municipal Code, sections that I mentioned before, updating regulations for accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units to conform with state law. If you read that, though, you're going to have to read all the code section numbers. And I'm just letting you know. So thank you very much for hanging in there with me. We're available for any questions you might have.

Okay, thank you. I would like to open up public hearing. Do we have speakers?

We do not have any speakers.

Online or present? No. Okay, in that case, public hearing is closed, and it is open to council members. Council Member Bonner?

Thank you for the presentations. I have some questions I'm going to ask by email. There are other agenda items. But one quick question for public information. Does the city have pre-approved plans for attached, for detached, and how can public access them?

So the city does have pre-approved plans for detached ADUs. It's on the city's website. The easiest way to look at those plans is to go to the planning division's web page. On the left side, there's a link for ADUs, all things ADUs, including those plans.

Thank you. I'm done.

Thank you. Council Member Jimenez.

Yeah, thank you for the presentation. Just wanted to give your comments about, do these changes make it easier for residents to build ADUs? Yeah, I just wanted to know more details about that.

YES, I THINK THE PATTERN WE'VE BEEN SEEING THE STATE LEGISLATURE TAKE IS IDENTIFYING EASIER PATHWAYS AND EVEN DECREASING PROCESSING TIMES FOR CITIES AND APPROVING APPLICATIONS. over the years we do believe it's made it easier for Folks including junior accessory dwelling units I think the most recent change that Michelle presented this evening is that garage conversions can now Be part of establishing a junior accessory dwelling unit Thank you Anyone else I'll make a motion to approve the item I second I

Roll call.

Council Member Brown?

Yes.

Council Member Bonner? Yes. Council Member Jimenez? Yes. Council Member Wilson?

Yes.

Vice Mayor Robinson?

Yes.

Council Member Zepeda?

Yes.

Emil Martinez?

Yes.

The vote is unanimous.

Thank you. Our next item is item Q2.

And that is to adopt a resolution that establishes a public lands policy, direct the city manager and city attorney to deliver and implement the policy effective immediately. And we do have speakers for this item. We have three in-person speakers. Anyone joining us online that would like to address the council on this item, please raise your hand at this time. Ooh, we have 18 speakers. No, in person. Online is growing.

Let me start.

Thank you, everybody. Good evening. E.J. Sire, I'm with Sheet Metal Workers Local 104, and I'm joined by Tim Sabrani of the Contra Costa County Building Trades, as well as Rex Solis with the North Coast States Carpenters Union, representing 4,382 Richmond residents, or I'm sorry, 4,382 Richmond households that all belong to the union construction industry by a census track of 2.8 per household. We're looking at about 11% of your city is represented in this room tonight. What we're going to go over is the public lands policy.

Sorry, one second. KCRT. Thank you. Here we go. Here's the presentation. Thank you.

As you may remember back in, I believe it was October of last year, a unanimous decision was made to direct staff to negotiate with the building trades and the carpenters to come up with the public lands policy regarding the development of any land that's publicly owned that is sold or leased for the purposes of construction of any type. We've been doing that for the last nine months. We've been conversing with staff and negotiating back and forth and think that we have a pretty presentable item which is attached to the agenda tonight. So we're going to go over the council's direction, the policy specifics. What projects are covered, the labor standards within that, the Richmond career pathways, implementation and accountability, as well as the action that we're requesting of this body tonight. So the council directed process, as I said, October 21st, 2025, unanimous vote to develop the policy and return it to council. We've been negotiating since then, and then here we are tonight, July 21st, hopefully a historic night for this city. So why this policy? It helps ensure local workers have family-sustaining wages, worker protections, and benefits while building the community where they live. Richmond's local hire standards will apply, so everything this city has already done to make sure that local hiring happens, we've implemented within this policy. Prevailing wage so folks can actually afford to live where they want and don't have to move out to Stanislaus County and then work all the way in Richmond. Expanded career pathways for Richmond residents, local graduates, veterans, and justice impacted, and apply transparent and predictable standards while supporting housing and economic development. And I want to point out that within this policy, all contractors are welcome to apply for these RFPs, RFQs, put in their bids, and whenever they're local contractors, they're actually even more encouraged to do so. But I want to highlight all contractors, regardless of signatory status, can apply to these projects. And it's written as such in the policy. Projects that are covered. So this policy would apply when the city has a meaningful stake and the applicable value exceeds $5 million. So for instance, construction on city-owned land that's leased to a tenant, city land that's sold below market value, or city land that's sold with a development agreement or similar agreement. The way we see it is you're going to hand the developers profit whenever you approve a project. The city should be getting something in return for that as well, other than just a building. A project receiving $5 million or more in qualifying city subsidy. City valuation includes accepted hard and soft construction costs adjusted before building permits, and that is city staff's language that was inserted into the policy at their request. Routine services, permits, generally available utilities, pass-through incentives, and public-serving infrastructure are excluded from this. Major investors have increased confidence in the investments when labor standards are in place and increased efficiency saves time and resources. Investors know that, hence why AFL-CIO HIP program is interested in developing in this city and investing millions of dollars into this city because they see the labor standards and know where the workforce is going to apply on this. On the residential standards and the applicability here, we broke this down into thresholds to make it more palatable for folks and to make sure that we are more successful on these projects. So any projects that come up that are 10 or fewer units within the residential space is gonna be excluded from the public lands policy. Anything that's between 11 and 49 units will at least have a prevailing wage requirement. So we don't have folks coming in from Arizona and Nevada making substandard wages and then taking that money back home with them. We want that money to stay here. For anything that's 50 to 69 units, these are going to be your larger scale projects. We're going to see a lot more of the involvement of our large contractors, medium to large size contractors. That's prevailing wage, state approved apprenticeship programs, and health care for workers and their families. This is very similar to Senate Bill 423 language, which a lot of projects are coming up now are applicable to SB 423. These are kind of the bare minimum for a lot of what we would really like to see. Prevailing wage, like I said, afford where you live. The state approved apprenticeship training programs because nobody wants a YouTube.com contractor building their building that they're going to live in for the next 50 plus years. And then the health care for workers and their families is a non-starter. That absolutely has to be in place. Until we have a form of single payer health care in this country, fighting for health care for the workers and their families is something we're going to do time and time again. On 70-plus units, it would be a full project stabilization agreement with the Contra Costa County Building Trades Council and the North Coast States Carpenters Union. And non-residential projects would follow the PSA requirement as well. It doesn't matter on size for those. It's commercial developers. They can afford pretty much anything, regardless of what they say. Richmond career pathways. This is huge for us. Workforce outreach plan before construction. Again, that was an ask by city staff. That's the developer responsibility to make sure that they're proving to you how they are going to do outreach to your workforce, to your residents. How are they gonna make sure that they're implementing the same stuff that we do on a daily basis? Recruitment of Richmond residents, including Richmond BUILD and Youth BUILD graduates, veterans, apprenticeship candidates, and disadvantaged workers. And I was pretty excited tonight when a Richmond BUILD instructor came up and was giving kudos to one of our first year apprentices, who's actually a Richmond BUILD graduate that's here today. um... coordination with city recognized workforce and apprenticeship readiness programs priority requested for qualified richmond residents through the union hiring halls outreach to richmond based and certified small businesses helmets to hard hats which connects veterans to employment and training And I want to highlight that MOUs are in place with all Building Trades Council crafts via CTWI, which is the nonprofit organization that helps to manage all the MC3 programs. That's the Building Trades program. We created it. We fund it. And they're the ones that have those MOUs in place. So we do have contracts directly with all the MC3 programs. And the North Coast States Carpenters also have an MOU in place with Richmond Build. So those programs are absolutely going to be used. And I want to highlight. We wouldn't have a first year apprentice in this room tonight that's a Richmondville graduate if we didn't have an MOU in place. Project certainty, no strikes or lockouts during construction, expedited dispute resolution, common wages, benefits, and working conditions, state approved joint labor management apprenticeship programs, good faith negotiations between all parties, which includes timely meetings, written proposals, reasonable counter proposals, and authorized representatives. And I want to highlight that within this process, there are timelines in place for that process. But if a PSA is not reached between the parties, then we come back to city council, and city council remains involved in that process to really help decide what moves forward. There's the backup plans in place if the city council desires to. We could just apply what the citywide project stabilization agreement already has, or we could encourage the developers to come back to the table and actually make reasonable offers. City council has that power within this policy. We're not trying to take anything like that away. A lot of state policies have taken away City Council powers. That's not what we're asking to do. On the implementation, this is something that came up multiple times from staff, so we want to make sure that everybody understands this. On the implementation side of things, this applies to projects not already awarded bids or with contracts submitted to the city. So we're not trying to change anything that's already been approved. It's grandfathered in, if you will. City includes the public lands policy language with the bid proposals, RFPs, RFQs, et cetera, so that the developers understand the standards before they submit. Once they submit their completed application, they should be reaching out so that we can begin negotiations. We don't want any kind of a delay in timeline. We want to make sure that if Richmond's getting the asset of housing, it's on a timely process and we're not the ones that are holding it up. They also, at that point, the developers are required to do the workforce outreach plan. Pre-construction meetings would be called by the city, and that would include the city developer contractors council and labor. Federal funding and HUD Section 3 requirements remain controlling, and there is narrow exceptions in place for manufacturer warranties and specialized work. Reporting tracks Richmond jobs, workforce programs, apprenticeships, and project delivery. Previously vested projects, again, are not affected or not trying to change what this body has already done. Key facts that I want to hit on. Joint labor management programs have ever-evolving training to meet the industry needs, changes, and growth. Those are mixtures of our contractors that are in place and labor saying what's in the industry, how do we train on it, how do we make sure that we're ready to go so that we're not getting beat out by AI and other programs. Circumventing the hiring halls for workforce placement is going to take away the ability to place workers in these programs and limits workers protections. So using the hiring halls and having folks come through the hiring halls to sign up gives them those protections in place and representation within their workplace. Some funding sources limit abilities to encourage or enforce certain standards. I'm not going to say which government administration doesn't like local hire, but there's one that we all know that doesn't like local hire. If those things happen and this city is going to get federal funding, for example, and there's pieces of the public lands policy or a PSA that the funding source does not allow, we are more than happy to exclude those from the project. Obviously, just know ahead of time that the majority of the time that will be local hire is what the funding sources will want to get rid of as much as we don't want that. Upon completed application, the developer outreach to the Building Trades Council and North Coast States Carpenters begins. If standards are not met within 45 days, this is the timeline I spoke to you about. City Council may be asked to intervene or just apply the citywide PSA to ensure the workforce development worker protections are in place and we can get the buildings built. Where applicable with responsible crafts master labor agreements, non-signatory contractors can sign agreements per project. Again, we're not trying to say that certain contractors can't bid. Any contractor can bid. And depending on the scope of work and depending on what responsible craft they would be doing, there's processes in place. Everybody's process is a little different. But there's processes in place to make sure that everybody can work on these projects, regardless of size, regardless of whatever else. So what a yes vote means, quality projects, public accountability, Richmond careers, worker protections, and health care for workers and families on large-scale projects. I appreciate you letting us present to you tonight. Again, my name is EJ Sire with Sheet Metal Workers Local 104, and we're going to be here until you say otherwise to answer any questions that you might have.

So, Mayor, may I step in? Thank you for the presentation. I just want to make sure the council and the mayor and the public understand the process here. The original direction was for staff to bring this policy, staff in the city attorney's office to work together with the trades and bring back a policy. That did not happen. This policy that is before you tonight is a policy that the current draft is was crafted by the trades without sign off from our office and without sign off from staff. And staff here, including the community development director, the port director, community services director are here if you all would be willing to provide brief comments and they've prepared a few slides to outline some of their concerns. I want everyone to understand that we're not, our office staff is not trying to block this policy. What we're trying to do is to make sure all key stakeholders including staff have an opportunity to weigh in AND THERE NEEDS TO BE A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT TO HAPPEN AS WELL AS LEGAL ANALYSIS. I RECEIVED A MEMO TODAY ON BEHALF OF THE NONPROFIT HOUSING ASSOCIATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA EAST BAY HOUSING ORGANIZATIONS AND NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MINORITY CONTRACTORS AND THAT LEGAL MEMO I NEED TO THOROUGHLY REVIEW AND ANALYZE. and that was received in our office today. So with that, if you would all, if we can switch seats and let staff come in and present a few slides.

Sure. I'm wondering if it might be better to just table this and bring it back at a time when we can have a better understanding and so that staff and the unions can have more time to discuss the differences. I KNOW THAT. BUT I'M ASKING.

I THINK YOU WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE BUT THE STAFF IS PREPARED TO PRESENT THEIR CONCERNS TONIGHT.

OKAY.

AND I JUST, IF I MAY, MR. MAYOR, I ACTUALLY WELCOME THAT. I THINK THAT'S ACTUALLY GOOD BECAUSE I WAS ACTUALLY PREPARED AS WELL. BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE NOT AS FAR kind of maybe some people think. And there's some things, even in kind of the confusion over some of the drafts, like as it relates to, you know, signing off on the HUD, if there's a conflict, that was actually just a mistake in the draft. We always intended to say, look, if there's an issue with federal funding, this isn't going to stand in the way. So there's a couple different things. I think that it would be good if they were able to present. And then if we had the opportunity at least to address those, whether it's in public comment or at least after, as policymakers, that way then you can kind of evaluate and help give some direction that

We think you need to be adopted tonight or at the very least help provide direction to the negotiation process so we can get this done in quick order All right So let's let's continue the presentation with city staff Thank you You actually did a fantastic presentation

Good evening, Mayor Martinez, Vice Mayor Robinson on video, and City Council members, LaShonda White, Deputy City Manager for Community Services. With me, I have Nanette Beecham, who's the Director of Economic Development, the Port Director, Charles Garrard, and then Lena Velasco, who is the Director of Community Development. KCRT, can you pull up our slides? Thank you so much. Tonight I'm presenting a coordinated staff perspective that reflects considerations as stated from economic development including the port employment and training and community development I've had the opportunity as a staff person to sit in not all of the meetings with the trades but a few of the meetings and I do appreciate the dialogue that we've had thus far and AS THE CITY ATTORNEY MENTIONED, THE POLICY THAT IS IN FRONT OF YOU, WE HAVE NOT COME TO AGREEMENT ON, BUT I AGREE, I THINK WE ARE STILL, WE WANT MORE TIME AS CITY STAFF TO JUST FINE-TUNE SOME OF THE POINTS. WE ARE NOT AGAINST THE GOALS, AND WE SUPPORT THE BROADER GOALS OF CREATING QUALITY JOBS, EXPANDING CAREER PATHWAYS. and ensuring city-owned land and public investments create meaningful benefits for Richmond residents. Again, we're just asking for additional time as city staff to make sure there's clarity on the questions that we still have. We want to get to a place where we do feel like we have agreed upon policy language that we can bring forth to city council. As staff, we believe it is our responsibility to ensure that any policy brought forward is legally sound, operationally feasible, and capable of being implemented consistently across city departments and projects. Next slide. And we sat and listened to the presentation that has been provided by the trades. And I think even some of our questions may have been answered, but we have mentioned to the trades, we don't wanna have a negotiation and open session around this topic and would like to be able to go back and fine tune some of these points. So these are, once again, this is a coordinated, some coordinated questions that have been developed by city staff. And some of these are around HOW IN POLICY WILL BE IMPLEMENTED, WHEN, DEFINITIONS, PROJECT THRESHOLDS, COMPLIANCE. SO WE FEEL LIKE WE NEED CLARITY ON A NUMBER OF THINGS. I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH ALL THE QUESTIONS. WE WANT TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS POLICY WOULD AFFECT AMENDMENTS TO EXISTING AGREEMENTS AND HOW IT WOULD ALIGN WITH THE CITY'S EXISTING COMMUNITY BENEFITS POLICY. ALSO AROUND TIMING OF THE AGREEMENT AND SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS MAY HAVE BEEN ANSWERED A LITTLE BIT TONIGHT BUT WE STILL WANT TO GO DEEPER. AND THEN DEEPER EXPLANATION AROUND THE CITY'S VALUATION OF A PROJECT. SO BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION, CITY STAFF NEED A CLEAR AND CONSISTENT METHOD FOR DETERMINING THAT VALUATION, INCLUDING WHO MAKES THE DETERMINATION AND WHETHER THERE IS A PROCESS FOR APPLICANT TO QUESTION OR APPEAL IT. NEXT SLIDE. ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE CLEAR DEFINITIONS AROUND BELOW MARKET, CITY SUBSIDY, SOFT COST, AND SHARED DEFINITIONS ARE IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE THERE'S CLEAR POLICY IMPLEMENTATION. THIS POLICY REQUIRES A WORKFORCE OUTREACH PLAN. But we want to make sure that the minimum standards require content review criteria and party responsibility Regarding approving and monitoring the plan are clearly articulated I mean we want to identify who will verify ongoing compliance and what documentation developers contractors and workforce partners will be required to provide Again, we don't feel like these are technical questions simply we again want to have time with the trades to sit down with all city staff We've had iterations of this policy that have went there are a few of us who have sat in the meetings and negotiated and had conversations in the meetings and then we take it back and send it to Share with more staff and then more questions come up. So we still need to do that negotiations take time I understand that we've this has been going on for some months, but we want to make sure the policy is done correctly and that we have agreement where we can. Next slide, please. The port director is here and can answer questions around this, but the port has some considerations and I feel like there are some risks for port projects and they are outlined here. And the port does support strong labor standards and opportunities for Richmond residents, but they also have several unique implementation considerations that they want to be able to engage in conversation with the trades on and make sure the city council understands those. For the port, they believe they have specialized contracts. Their work requires specialized contractors, equipment, or technical expertise. Additional requirements could make it more difficult for smaller firms to compete or could reduce the pool of qualified bidders. Port capital and tenant projects are often specialized, multi-year, and dependent on outside grants, tenant investment, and complex regulatory requirements. And applying the policy broadly to all qualifying port and tenant projects could increase costs, reduce competition, and affect project schedules. They're also concerned about potential grant risk. State and federal funding sources may impose procurement, contracting, or workforce requirements that do not fully align with proposed policy. So we just believe that additional administrative and legal review is required, and we would like for that time to be taken with the trades to have those conversations. And these concerns don't diminish the value of labor standards, but they highlight the need for a policy that recognizes the port's unique operating environment. Next slide. Here are additional considerations. Sorry. Additional considerations for the port. A focused review would help the city preserve the policy's labor and workforce goals while also addressing port-specific delivery concerns. City staff recommend that there is more port representation, labor organization, local and small contractor, tenants, grant managers and legal counsel involved in future conversations. Areas of concerns around the port include specific thresholds, inclusion or alternative compliance approaches are appropriate. The objective would be to establish a workable approach that continues to support quality jobs and local opportunities without unintentionally delaying critical infrastructure or discouraging investment at the port. Next slide. This is our last one. Just in conclusion, these are some seven points that we feel like we need to continue to evaluate before having the city council adopt this policy. We do believe we have made great strides from when we started with regards to this policy in our conversations with the trades, and we're asking for additional time to be able to continue those conversations to get to where we need to get to. FIRST STAFF NEED TO BETTER UNDERSTAND POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON PROJECT COSTS AND OVERALL FEASIBILITY, PARTICULARLY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, MIXED INCOME DEVELOPMENT AND PROJECTS WITH LIMITED FINANCIAL FLEXIBILITY. WE ALSO WANT TO CONSIDER HOW THE POLICY MAY IMPACT SMALL, LOCAL AND MINORITY OWNED CONTRACTORS. WE WANT TO ASSESS WHETHER THE REQUIREMENTS COULD INFLUENCE DEVELOPER INTEREST IN CITY OWNED LAND OR CITY SUPPORTED PROJECTS. We want to have a clear understanding of implementation roles, reporting requirements, compliance procedures, enforcement tools, and staffing expectations. And then we want to understand how to apply state and federal funded projects and whether exceptions, waivers, or alternative compliance pathways will be needed. I think one of the members mentioned that there may have been some language that was included in the past versions that wasn't supposed to be there. But these are the things we just want to make sure we have clarity on. Ultimately, the goal is to ensure the final policy creates meaningful jobs for Richmond residents. while also supporting housing production, economic development, small business participation, and timely project delivery. And next slide is just a thank you. We are open again for questions. We are recommending additional time to make sure we have heard from all sides and the legal analysis can be done the city attorney mentioned and we acknowledge the progress that has been made thus far but believe that we need additional time and work to ensure the policy is balanced measurable and capable of producing the outcomes the city council and community expect thank you

Okay, thank you. And I am sorry to see that this was brought forth before negotiations were done. I think a lot needs to be discussed and City Council is not the place to do negotiations. I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE TABLE THIS TO ALLOW CITY COUNCIL AND LABOR TO FINISH THESE NEGOTIATIONS AND SO YOU CAN PRESENT SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DISCUSSED IN ITS FINAL FORM AS OPPOSED TO SOMETHING THAT'S NACENT AND NEEDING TO GO THROUGH A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS. PEOPLE WHO KNOW ME. have seen me on the picket line, standing up for workers. I do stand for workers, and I want to make sure that the workers get the best possible deal available. I want to make sure that Richmond citizens are the first to be considered for any jobs here in Richmond. And I want to make sure that they get all of the same benefits that any other worker from other places would be getting would they come here. So I'm making a motion to table this until the union and the city staff have a chance to finish negotiations. Do I have a second?

Can I make a friendly amendment? Yes. That we include a timeline because there seems to be some level of disconnect. And so I heard mentioned that there's like this has been since nine months ago. So if we have like something that's in place, it would cause less of a confusion.

There was already a timeline of 90 days, and staff failed to meet that month after month after month. This was supposed to be agendized months ago. We negotiated. We're going to look at it in May and bring it up in May. It went through the queue. It came back out of the queue. It went back into the queue. It came back out of the queue. May, June, July, here we are. Timelines, deadlines did not matter because staff did not work on it. And then you ended up talking to someone who is anti-PLA. The original agreement was two pages. Staff added about five additional pages, and the trades worked with them in partnership to make sure that this was better overall, because it could always be room for improvement. However, I don't see staff moving forward. This was to be brought up weeks ago, and then we met, but it's very limited because staff did not want to meet. Last time we met, there was four points that we were off, or five points that we were off. Now there's pages of stuff that staff is coming up with saying that we're offering a lot of more stuff. The red line version that staff brought forward that they wanted to bring forward with them was removing health benefits. Is that something we're going to approve? That was staff recommendation to remove health benefits from the policy. To remove going through union halls. If we are for the unions, then we're supporting them here, there, and at the union halls. That should not be removed. The union halls, that's their home. Why are we bringing in a policy that has that?

Can I jump in here? I think a motion to table does not allow debate, so I'm not sure.

There was no second.

There was no second on the motion to table? Motion does.

I will second the table. I think that council member Zepeda jumped in and started talking all these other things. So I just want to say that I want to come to a good policy that makes sure that city resources does more than just build buildings, that it creates good jobs. And we have to do that. This is such a huge change that we need to do that with a proper process where we're considering everything. We're not rushing and making mistakes. Like so often I feel like in this council, we rush and we make mistakes and we have to go back and clean it up. Can we please work together to do this right? So I second the motion.

What about my friendly amendment? Was it accepted?

There can't be a time limit for a table.

If we're tabling it, they have to speak at some point, and so if we don't indicate...

They are speaking, so will you continue to speak?

Can we include when this should come back so that could give a timeline on when they should speak?

You're asking me? I mean, the motion to table can be a time specific or it doesn't have to be. That's up to the motion maker.

But I'm asking staff, how much time do you feel is necessary in order to get a good agreement for all workers?

Mr. Mayor, during negotiations it is very difficult to give a timeline because you are negotiating an agreement. So it is difficult to actually put a specific timeline on a negotiation. If you would like to maybe have people come back with an update on where they are at in the timeline, then maybe you can do that.

So we make sure they're working together.

I mean, that's the same. I think that's the same thing. It's just a different way to find out.

I'LL COME BACK WITH AN UPDATE. HOW FAR DO YOU THINK YOU CAN GET IN A WEEK? I MEAN, HOW MANY MEETINGS ARE YOU HAVING?

LET'S SAY THREE MONTHS. CAN I SAY SOMETHING?

CAN WE COME BACK FROM OUR RECESS?

SO I THINK THAT WE'RE NOT DEBATING.

WE'RE EITHER VOTING ON MOTIONS TO TABLE OR WE'RE NOT.

I think like for me is that I agree that we need more time, right? I just want to make sure that if people are here, we can hear at least the public comments. I am not ready to vote in the policy as it is. I have so many questions and I think that it needs to be back to the negotiation. to do that, to be effective, you don't push and bring these hot cooked. So I want something that we can approve, I agree with Council Member Doria, but I think also there is, Council Member Doria, there is a lot of people in the place right now, and I would love to hear their comments, because that will also inform us.

I believe if we listen to the comments, then they won't be able to comment when it comes back. What I want is for us to table it so that we can start this process fresh with a new language. allow people the opportunity to speak to it after we hear something that is doable. So we have a motion to table in a second. Let's take a vote.

Council Member Brown? Yes. Council Member Bada?

Yes.

Councilmember Jimenez? Yes. Councilmember Wilson? Yes. Councilmember Zepeda?

No.

Vice Mayor Robinson?

Yes.

And Mayor Martinez?

Yes.

The motion passes with Councilmember Zepeda voting no. Next item. Our next item is item Q6.

There we go.

Item Q 6 is to receive a presentation on the Richmond government accountability, transparency, and ethics act. Direct the city attorney to prepare an ordinance and related ballot measure documents for the city council consideration and direct staff to calendar this item to adopt the ballot initiative resolutions. It says on July 21st, but okay. And in no event later than July 28th to meet the November 2026 ballot deadline, this item must be heard before final adjournment. If there's anyone joining us online that would like to address the council on this item, please raise your hand at this time.

So this is your item?

She's trying to get public comments.

Q6.

All right. KCRT, can you please bring up the presentation? All right, good evening, Mayor and colleagues, and any members of the public still here joining us. Tonight, we want to introduce the Richmond GATE Act, which is the Government Accountability Transparency and Ethics Act. This item asks for one thing. It directs the city attorney to prepare the ballot documents so that Richmond voters can decide in November whether to establish an independent ethics commission. So in the next few minutes, I'll walk you through the whys and hows. And I kind of already feel like my colleagues will strongly support this item because during the police military equipment item, everyone talked about accountability and transparency and even said ethical responsibility. So it looks like we all agree that we need this. So I'm sure that we'll vote on this together. Next slide, please. There are seven California cities with independent ethics commissions. LA has been proven over 35 years and nearly every one of these cities has gone back and strengthened its original ordinance since. These include Oakland and San Francisco. These cities we cite constantly when we write into Richmond policy. And here is Richmond's entire city code of ethics today, which is seven aspirational bullets. And there's more on the next couple of pages. But pretty much our current ethics policy is we shall serve with honesty and integrity. And that's basically all we say about ethics. We shall serve with honesty and integrity, which is a very fine sentiment. But without a commission or an investigator, there is no enforcement mechanism behind it. The model to fix this is proven, refined, and sitting right next door with various of these cities. So these cities, again, they tried. They made it better. And the goal is to take everything that they've done to create something better and do it for Richmond. Next slide, please. And this isn't about an individual. It's about creating a structure. Complaints today route through this either to the city attorney or through HR, depending on the type of report. The HR reports to the city manager. The city manager and city attorney report to this council. So complaints are reviewed by offices that they may themselves have a conflict with. So there's no guarantee of investigation and transparency about the outcomes. That's an inherent conflict no one inside the system can fix. Richmond already knows the solution twice over. The rent board operates independently of City Hall, and consider this, we already hold one group of public servants, our public police officers, to independent civilian oversight through the CPRC. The GATE Act simply asks the city leadership, including those of us on this dais, to meet the same standards we ask of them. If we asked about general city staff, represented employees are not covered by this measure at this time. Extending oversight to them will require a meet and confer process, which is conversation for another day. So this measure covers elected officials, city leadership, commissioners, candidates, lobbyists, contractors, and those doing business within the city. Here's the next slide, please. So here is a pattern that you see across California. Cities who've created commissions that kept going back to strengthen them. Oakland rebalanced their appointments and added outside council authority across three ballot measures. San Francisco has tightened its rules repeatedly and protected its ethics laws from quiet rollback. LA guarantees its commission's budget by formula after documented political defunding. San Diego refined its ordinance three times and then moved the whole framework into the charter and removed the council's veto over its director. San Jose elevated its board to the charter in 2022. Long Beach and Sacramento haven't done any amendments yet. And their commissions remain the weakest of the seven. Every amendment closes a gap officials had exploited. Richmond gets to skip that pain if we build protections from day one. Next slide, please. I think I might have put it in twice. Next slide, please. This is Berkeley. Berkeley is a cautionary tale. Community members spent 10 years drafting a strong sunshine ordinance with real enforcements. The council majority responded by passing a weak advisory only alternative right before the election. Then city staff produced a $2 million cost estimate that proponents, including then council members, and now our state senator, Jesse Adegin, publicly called biased. The strong measure failed. More than a decade later, Berkeley's commission remains advisory. It has no subpoena power and cannot impose fines and cannot independently enforce. It reports to the very council that oversees. Richmond should learn from that experience and not repeat it. Next item please, or next agenda please, our slide. There's four pillars, a seven-member commission up and running by June 2027 with automatic removal triggers so no one can squat on a seat with a conflict of interest, a full-time investigator, a licensed attorney reporting only to the commission, exempt from civil service exactly like our city attorney and city manager, Real enforcement, court enforceable subpoenas, and the power to open investigations without waiting for a complaint. And a protected budget, $1 million guaranteed in year one, and an index after that. If asked what final say administrative penalties means for civil administrative matters, fines, cease and desist, orders requiring filings, the commission's determination is final. Neither the city attorney, city manager, nor the council can override or bypass it. Criminal matters are different. Those are deferred to the district attorney exactly as they are today. This mirrors the LA model. Next slide, please. The appointment structure, it's how commissions get captured. Our model distributes power. The major gets one seat with council confirmation and a public hearing. The personnel board, one. General employee unions, one. Public safety unions, one. Those four then unanimously choose the remaining three. No official, no faction controls this body. All commissioners must be Richmond residents and registered voters with practical experience relevant to the commission's work. Thinking in backgrounds and open meetings and public records, ethics law or campaign finance, the way that San Francisco requires. No more than three from any one affiliation recognized by the California Secretary of State, no city employees and then we'll have staggered terms. Next slide please. Jurisdiction is broad on purpose. It covers everyone who exercises or influences city power. So that includes us as elected officials, the city manager and city attorney, commissioners, candidates, lobbyists, contractors, nonprofits, NGOs, and groups operating through fiscal sponsors that do business with the city. And that enforces the full toolkit, campaign finance, lobbyist registration, conflict gifts, behest payments, Brown Act and Sunshine compliance, whistleblower protection with a public helpline, and a ban on conducting city business over personal email, text, private messages, or disappearing message apps. Next item. Next line, please. The budget is a whole ballgame. It's how commissions elsewhere are quietly killed. Oakland's chief investigator resigned over chronic underfunding. LA had to go back to voters for a floor. So we build it in $1 million in year one, absolute untouchable year to have a percent of general fund revenues year three onward. The investigator proposes within half to 1% directly to council. What kind of below that request takes five or seven votes, a public hearing and written findings. Total cost is less than a third of 1% of our general fund. Next slide, please. Four benefits worth naming. First, this protects the public and taxpayers. And when someone who serves the public is wrongly accused, an independent clearance carries more weight than any council vote and puts the findings beyond political dispute. Second, it guards the general fund. We worked hard to get off the state's utter high-risk list. With new MOUs and pension obligations ahead, our margin for error is narrow. And identifying contracting problems early helps us keep off of that list. Third, credible oversight makes Richmond more competitive for grants and investments on par with other cities in the Bay Area and across the state. And then fourth, residents finally get a real front door, a helpline, a public complaint log, decisions in open session. This is the gate for transparency. Next slide, please. Let's put the cost in perspective. Our adopted general fiscal for 26-27 is $324.7 million. Year 1 of this commission is $1 million, less than a third of 1%. That little gold-silver line there is the entire cost to scale in full transparency. Year 2 rises to roughly $1.6 million at half percent. And from year three onward, the investigator proposes within half to 1%. That's only if they need the additional funding. Even at the maximum, that's 1%. One recover misappropriation, one clawed back contract, one properly enforced fee schedule could return potentially more funds than the commission cost. And it could also help with some of the mismanagement. Next slide, please. So let's really look at what we're asking today. This vote directs city attorney to prepare the ordinance and ballot documents, authorizes outside counsel if needed, and calendars adoption for next week, our last meeting before recess. What it does not do, it is not a vote on the merits and it does not commit no one to a position in November. Four votes in July puts the question on the ballot, then it belongs to the Richmond voters exactly where it should be. They will tell us if they want more transparency or less transparency out of their government. Next slide, please. We have always been a leader. Richmond has been known for the three Cs, unfortunately, Chevron, crime, and corruption. And we have the opportunity to take a bite out of the corruption one. This is our opportunity to change that last C to credibility. So I ask for your vote to direct preparation for that document and in July to let Richmond voters decide. And Richmond deserves nothing less. And I want to just remind individuals I have lived in Richmond just about my whole life and for those that might not have lived in Richmond for very long might not know this but for those of us who have we might remember some of these really big issues that we had. The Richmond Housing Authority had a lot of money disappear. It included stoves and refrigerators. Tenants there complained for a very, very long time. Nobody listened because nobody wanted to take these on. So there was no voice for those people. If we have this commission, they could have come to that commission and said, please look into it. We were supposed to get a refrigerator and it's missing. You put funding towards this and it's gone. Everyone might also remember Ms. Knight, our assistant city manager, and she at the time also led the HR department. She was using city staff and resources for her own personal business running out of city hall. The whistleblower was harassed by her, targeted by her for filing that complaint. Who do you go to when the HR director is the one that you're trying to whistleblow on? City investigated. The then city manager did a press release and that was it. Ms. Knight later left the city of Richmond. But that was it. We don't know what happened after. And this council, four years ago, we started doing the right thing by creating a policy on nepotism because we saw an issue and we looked to resolve it. This is the opportunity to know that issues have happened in the past, to know that while we can't always prevent everything, we can have a mechanism for people to being able to report and get in front of it much quicker and get rid of a lot of that corruption that's out there. SO WITH THAT, I'LL PAUSE. I'LL LET MY CO-SPONSORS SEE IF THEY HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD.

NEW SPEAKER NO, THANK YOU. BEAUTIFULLY SAID. I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT THIS ITEM THIS EVENING. THANK YOU.

NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU.

COUNCIL MEMBER ZAPEDA, I THINK IT WOULD BE NICE TO GIVE THE VOTERS A CHANCE TO DECIDE ON THIS ITEM. ETHICS ARE IMPORTANT, ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY.

Thank you. Mr. Mayor back to you. Yes. Uh, do we have public speakers?

Yes, we do. We have four in-person public speakers and we have eight online speakers.

Okay.

Public speakers are Ahmad Anderson, Pam saucer, Kim graves, and Jamie Purcells. Please come forward. You have two minutes to address the council. Ahmad Anderson.

Good evening. Ahmad Anderson here. I'm here tonight to support and express a strong support of the Richmond Government Accountability Transparency and Ethics Act before voters. Ethics is the practice of doing what is right and not simply what is legal. An independent ethics commission is not about pointing fingers or assuming misconduct. It's about building confidence in our institution. The proposal seeks to establish an independent ethics commission with investigative authority and oversight, responsibilities similar to those found in many other California cities. Transparency is essential to good government. Residents deserve to know how decisions are made, how public resources are used, and that everyone is held to the same standard. When transparency and accountability work together, trust grows, and trust is the foundation of effective governance. This discussion is bigger than today. It's bigger than any elected official, one council, or administration. It's about Richmond. We lead to the future generations. The policies we established will shape the culture of City Hall for years to come. As someone who's an HR executive for over 30 years, it's important that we not only keep the city in safe harbor, the staff in safe harbor, but the city residents as well. I respectfully encourage this council to move the measure forward. The people of Richmond have the opportunity to decide this important question for themselves. I appreciate your time and your efforts.

Pam Saucer.

Good evening, council. Pam Saucer, native. I'm in support of this initiative because it established a higher standard of government accountability, transparent, and ethical leadership for the city of Richmond. I believe our city should remain committed of following all African laws, policies, and procedures to ensure that public resources are managed responsibly and that every action is carried out with fairness, transparency, integrity, and in the best interest of the Richmond residents. Maintaining the highest ethical standards and adhering to established process strengthens public trust, promotes accountability, and fosters meaningful collaboration between community organizations such as Men and Women of Valor and the City of Richmond. I respectfully ask the City Council to approve this agenda item and continue leading with honesty, professionalism, integrity and full compliance with all city requirements, reporting obligations, and ethical guidelines. By embracing these principles, we can strengthen public confidence, enhance partnership with the community, and build a stronger foundation for the future of the city of Richmond. Thank you for your consideration and for your continued service to our community. And thank you.

Kim Graves. Jamin Purcell.

I strongly support placing the Richmond Gate Act before the voters because ethics is not tested when everything is going well. Ethics are tested when serious questions arise, and the public has no way of knowing whether the truth will ever come out. When allegations involving harassment, retaliation, abuse of authority, conflict of interest, misuse of public office, or other serious wrongdoing, they cannot be left to political relationships or departments that ultimately report to the very officials that may be involved. That is an inherent conflict of interest. A person reporting misconduct deserves to know that their complaint will be investigated fairly, independently, and without political influence. At the same time, a person accused of misconduct deserves a fair process based on evidence, not rumors or politics. Justice requires both accountability and due process. Right now, Richmond effectively tells residents that if they believe an elected official has acted unethically, their primary political remedies are to wait for the next election or pursue a costly and time consuming recall. This is not an adequate system for accountability. Without independent process, we continue to have what we have now, where rumors replace facts, politics replace evidence, and public trust suffers. People now are wondering whether complaints are ignored, buried, politicized, or never investigated at all. Even when the truth is never established, confidence in government is damaged. An independent ethics commission protects everyone. It protects those who report misconduct, those who are accused, and the public's faith that decisions are based on evidence instead of political influence. Richmond deserves the same independent ethics oversight that many other major California cities already have. So we should let the voters decide. Accountability, transparency, and public trust are not built by asking people to have faith. It is built by creating institutions worthy of that faith. Thank you.

That was our last in-person speaker. Now we'll move to the eight online speakers.

And those speakers are Carol, C, followed by Eunice, Leslie Ross, Jose Luis, Isabella, Raj S, and Arto Untila will be the last speaker. Carol, please unmute yourself, state your last name for the record, and you may begin.

Hi, my name, can you hear me?

Yes.

My name is Carol Hagstrom. I'm a resident of Richmond, have been for some time. I think it's important to let the voters decide. We're not deciding this issue tonight. We're just simply putting it on the ballot to let the voters make the choice. I personally am in favor of it, even though it costs money. Corruption also can cost money and it can hurt residents. I want to elaborate a little bit on the example that council members at Pato said about the Richmond Housing Authority. It was run like a den of thieves. The buildings got to be, the workers were not doing what they were paid to do. And as a result, the buildings got into deplorable conditions. And we're talking about living spaces for low income seniors and disabled people. It took a lot of money to fix this problem. The hacienda, everybody had to get moved out of the hacienda. I mean, it was a really huge mess that cost the city a lot of money. So corruption costs money. It hurts people. And ethics is important. And I think you should let the voters decide. Thank you very much.

Thank you. The next speaker has a device with the initial C. Please state your first and last name for the record. Please unmute yourself and you may begin. Thank you. Claudia Citroen, can you hear me? Yes.

Okay. So I'm just going to read the list of things because I tried to file grievances with the HR and they said there's not even a form to write it and there is not even a tracking system. You have open meeting law violation, conflict of interest violation, failure to disclose financial interest, misuse of public funds, improper use of consent calendar. public record act violation, procurement and contracting violation, due process violation, ethics and gift law violation, first amendment violation, labor employment violation, failure to exercise fiscal oversight, charter and municipal code violation, whistleblower retaliation, failure to maintain public safety obligations, record preservation and inspiration, failure to follow voter-approved measures, unlawful delegation of authority, Inadequate oversight of public funds and grants, waste of public resources, failure to address unknown operational risks like the fire department, improper use of public resources for political purposes like the reimagined Richmond is a lobbyist. Delective enforcement of laws and ordinances. Failure to provide adequate public notice and participation. Predetermination of bias. Quasi-judicial proceedings. Failure to maintain accurate public recording. I already said that. Improper reliance on consultant. Neglect of fiduciary duties. I said it all. The campaign-related issues. Yes, we hear you, Mrs. Jimenez. Sunshine transparency deficiencies beyond legal minimum failure to implement corrective actions, improper board and commission appointments, and so forth. It's a pattern. It lacks transparency. It's failure to respond to public concerns. It's inadequate staffing and operational planning. And you repeatedly rely on emergency issues and your failure to document factual basis. You even talk

Thank you. Your time has expired. The next speaker is Eunice. Eunice, please unmute yourself, state your last name for the record, and you may begin.

Hi. Good evening, Mayor and City Council. My name is Eunice Trumbull. I'm a longtime resident, and I would like to thank Council Members Zepeda, Brown, and Bonner for sponsoring the Government Accountability, Transparency, and Ethics Act. I understand it's also supported by Senator Ereguen. An independent ethics board would provide impartial fact-finding, enhance public trust through greater transparency and accountability, insulate the council from partisan attacks and frivolous accusations, and is a gold standard for good governance. Richmond would be following the same best practices as Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, San Diego, San Jose, and Long Beach. It is your choice whether to place this measure on the ballot. In doing so, you are simply giving your constituents the opportunity to decide for themselves how they wish to be governed. I respectfully urge you to place gate before Richmond voters. Please let the... Please support democracy and let the people decide. And thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Thank you.

The next speaker is Leslie Ross, followed by Jose Luis, Isabella, Raj S., and Artu Runtila. Leslie, please unmute yourself. You may begin.

Hello. Thank you. I support the establishment of an independent ethics commission currently being called Richmond Gate Act. I believe that the integrity and transparency of such a commission are a way to build trust in our city, our city leaders, and the way our city funds are being spent. As a longtime Richmond voter, I encourage you to move this along and give the voters the right and have this placed on the November 2026 ballot. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Next speaker is Jose Luis. Please unmute yourself and you may begin.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Jose Luis, and I greatly represent the great city workers of Richmond with SEIU 1021. We just wanted to give our opinion on this piece. We find it very interesting that it has never been brought forward, especially when Chevron used to hold the majority on council and other entities. We do welcome, you know, along with ethics, especially essentially expanding the independent civilian oversight of police, which is the CPRC. And given that oversight committee, not only subpoena powers, but more powers as they say, as the council members are supporting today for this ethics. So we look forward to you supporting that as well as we move forward with this endeavor. Thank you.

Thank you. The next speaker is Isabella. Please unmute yourself. State your last name for the record and you may begin.

Good evening, council. My name's Isabella, and I've lived in Richmond now for over 20 years. I was ecstatic to see this item on the agenda. Thank you so much, council members Zepeda, Brown, and Bona. It's long overdue. California cities have had independent ethics commissions for decades, including Oakland, San Francisco, both of whom this council frequently borrows policy from. They've given us the blueprint for doing this right, and they've kept strengthening it over the years to best serve the people. Berkeley, on the other hand, shows us what happens when a council majority chooses itself and the status quo over the people in good governance. I was shocked to see Richmond's current code of ethics. It's a poultry bullet list of nothingness. And an ethics body only works if it's truly independent and cannot report to the officials it may need to review. That's not oversight. That's status quo with a new name. And it needs a protected budget that elected officials can't quietly cut to defund the oversight they don't want. Please draft this ordinance and put it on the November ballot and let the voters decide. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker is Rajesh. Please unmute yourself and you may begin. Rajesh.

My name is Devin. I'm a Richmond resident. Thank you, council members of Ada, Brown, and Bonner, for bringing forward this critically needed item. I want to speak to five words tonight. Independent oversight, transparency, ethics, and accountability. Richmond already has established precedent for independent oversight. The rent board operates independently of City Hall under Measure L. Our police department answers to independent civilian reviews. Complaints about elected officials and city leadership are still handled by offices that report directly to the very people those complaints make them serve. On transparency, there is no public record tracking complaints, whether they were even investigated, let alone their outcomes. That structure protects nobody, not residents, not taxpayers, not whistleblowers, and frankly, not honest officials, the city manager, or the city attorney. People deserve to be both cleared and held accountable by a credible, independent, and apolitical body. The public record here matters. In May of 2025, four members of this council voted against an independent investigation after the CPRC investigator resigned and blew the whistle. Two weeks ago, the same four voted against moving this item up on the agenda to ensure it would be heard, as it was the only time-sensitive item on the entire agenda. Voters see these votes. They are part of the record now, and they will be part of the record in November. Nothing about them tonight will be lost on them either. This vote simply asks the city attorney to prepare the documents so Richmond's voters, anyone on this dais, makes the final decision. Please vote yes.

Thank you.

Thank you. And our next speaker will be Artel Rintila. Please unmute yourself and you may begin.

Good evening, Mayor, City Council. My name is Arno Rintila. I'm calling from the Fairmead Hilltop Neighborhood Council, or neighborhood, I should say. I encourage you to move the item and second it because this is long overdue. And I was just thinking back in the heyday, I've been in Richmond since the 60s. And back in the heyday, I remember my friend and pretty much family member, Andrea Soto, running for city council when our city manager absconded with millions of dollars and family members were selling appliances out of the back of trucks and he basically got away. So it's very important and this item is way overdue. So I encourage you to move the item and second it and vote yes. Thank you.

Thank you. And that was our last speaker.

Okay, thank you. So we'll bring it to questions and comments. Sue Wilson asked earlier, so go ahead.

All right, thanks. Thank you. Who wrote the agenda report? I did. Okay. So one of my ethics, and I think yours too, is honesty. And so I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and not say that this agenda report is dishonest, but I'm gonna say that it's got more factual errors in it in order to build, you're building a case, you say, that this is a normal thing that cities do. And so the first, I'm just gonna read the first statement of the agenda report that you wrote. Richmond is one of the few cities in the Bay Area, dot, dot, dot, without an independent ethics commission. So you've listed San Jose, Oakland, and like Berkeley is kind of teetering, right? And San Francisco.

Any others in the Bay area? That's right. I mean, it's a general, one of the few larger ones in there.

So I'm going to list for you Bay area cities with out every time. Yeah. Okay. Time away. I don't have that much to say. Um, Albany, no Alameda. No Dublin. No Emeryville, Fremont. No Hayward. No Livermore. No. New York, no. Piedmont, no. Pleasanton, no. San Leandro, no. Union City, no. Antioch, no. Brentwood, no. Clayton, no. Concord, no. There's no cities in Contra Costa County with an independent ethics commission. I looked at a list of mid-sized cities. That's what Richmond is. It's considered a mid-sized city. And among mid-sized cities, we kind of call them peer cities. Again, shout out to intern Cornell Booker, University of Oregon, who did this research. So mid-sized cities. We sort of looked at the state of California. Because, yeah, LA has one of these. LA has an independent ethics commission, but LA has 3 million people. It's 30 times the size of Richmond. So it can afford to have these sort of separate departments that Richmond, just as a medium-sized city, really doesn't have. But let's look at other medium-sized cities. Vallejo, no. Concord, no. Fairfield, no. Berkeley, yeah, kind of hanging in there. Antioch, no. Richmond, us, no. Carlsbad, no. Marietta, no. Temecula, no. And Downey, no. There is one way that you can look at California and say, oh, this is where it's normal to have an ethics committee, and that's for the 10 largest cities. And that's kind of who, if you look at your cities, I think all of them are on the list of 10 largest cities. One of your arguments about this that I just want to just take immediately off the table and see if you agree with me is you're claiming that this would be a normal thing for Richmond to do and that Richmond is somehow an outlier or insufficient or weird that we don't have one of these independent ethics committees. Are you willing to sort of walk back and say maybe there were some mistakes in the analysis where you were making that case?

Maybe there's a different way that I could have worded it. But overall, it doesn't matter who hasn't done it. Are we, Richmond, wanting to hold ourselves accountable? It doesn't matter what our neighbors, it doesn't matter what that, when I wrote that, and maybe I miswrote stuff, because when you have two full-time jobs, and you're doing agenda items in the middle of the night, right, I could definitely, and I put two of the same pages at the same time, forgot to delete one. Yes, could there be an enhancement of the wording? Yes. So but the question is still should we have should we hold ourselves in our city to a higher standard regardless of what our neighbors are doing?

I'm going to push back a little bit about that. I think there is a problem with putting out an agenda report in which you've misinformed the public. They're not. They're not watching now. It's 930. They're never going to hear me say this, but it's dishonest. It's incorrect. I don't mean to say dishonest, because that's a value judgment. It is incorrect, the information that you presented, which is a huge part of your argument, that this is a normal thing to do. I want to make very clear it's not a normal thing to do. I also want to make very clear, of course, we need to investigate corruption. We need to root it out. We need to have consequences. I know you know this, Cesar. Do you want me to make the list of state, federal, and county organizations that are already charged with doing independent investigations of city officials or city staff who are accused of wrongdoing?

I don't need the list. What I need is to know whether any of those have come into Richmond and helped our residents move something forward when there is something that is alluded to or perceived to be or people are complaining. All these agencies never came to help Richmond. So when they were stealing the refrigerators from Hacienda, from our lower income communities, no one came to help. Richmond had to go in there and try to do something after years of the residents saying there's something wrong, there's something wrong. But when the crime is coming from within, no one's going out and saying, hey, FBI, you should come and look at us. So there is where the residents were not able to get that help.