City Council

interpreter currently on the Spanish Channel to commence translation of the meeting for those just joining the meeting live translation in Spanish is available. And members of the public or staff wishing to listen in Spanish enjoying the Spanish channel by clicking on the interpretation icon in toolbar. It looks like a cool when she joined the Spanish Channel. We recommend you shut off the main audio. The Yulee here, the Spanish translation o will you please restate this Spanish? >> But I don't get a chance to win and don't think that's one in Beeville. And I know that I-20 of member of public will open not but when you say can I? I don't need think so. You can do. They that. But that's and about and that I mean, does this go But it's global scale. Well, now they said we're not going. And I know in come into camp, I get all up my But So they a line put that on and >> Hello and welcome to our APRIL 9 2024 Rosa City Council meeting. It is now to 32 and we will be starting our meeting saying a core. MADAM City clerk, MAY you please call the roll. Thank you. Mayor Councilmember Rogers, your council Keith, you're Councilmember MacDonald here, Councilmember Fleming, Councilmember all PRESIDENT Near stop here, Mayor Rogers PRESIDENT, let the record show that all council members are present. Thank you. We will now proceed to item 3.1, which

is our closed session for today. It conference with legal council about exist. Teen litigation, MADAM City Clerk, can you please facilitate public comment on this item? Thank you. We are now taking public comment on item 3.1. If you're in the chamber would like to comment but have not yet provided a speaker card or your name. >> Please make your way to the podium. You will have 3 minutes and a countdown timer will alert at the end of that period. As you approach the podium, please state your name for public record. If you choose to do so. The first public comment will be from areas followed by James than Steve. >> I mean, there's Weaver with the Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition. The last 7 years we have circulated petitions made public comment written letters. To you to this MARCH to the Sea Peuc about this issue with Jennings. And I don't think there's a single fact or feeling that I could express that haven't already been done as million times, but never in those years have I doubted the commitment of the city of Santa Rosa to the Jennings crossing? Until I got the agenda for today's meeting and saw kill the project option coming before you. I was flabbergasted is also kind of confusing to me on the agenda because it's under the reports rather than the public hearings section later today, which made me wonder is the real decision going to be happening in this closed session or is it going to be happening at the later agenda item? So I busted my b# # # right up here from Petaluma to get here in time to speak to

you before it option 3 is just not option. Whether you go for option one option, too. At the next smart board meeting. I will be there with my posse to suggest that. It's smart wants get our support for a future tax renewal measure might be in their best interest to stop obstructing this. Their objections are illogical. Their demands on the city are unreasonable. We don't just care about them. Building the smart path. We want to see an inter connected, active transportation and public Transit network, which this? Crossing is a big part of so again, I don't know what all happens in your close session with the attorneys and whether that decisions happening. There are happening later today. I'll be back for that. But please option 3 is not an option. Thank you. The next speaker will be James followed by Stephen Janet. >> I'm Smart's Real Property license agreement suggest smart staff believes that they can determine the safety of the Jennings crossing and whether the city constructed or My research indicates that it can't do Article 12 Section 8 of the California Constitution states that a public body like smart MAY not regulate matters over which legislature grants regulatory power to the Public Utilities Commission. Public Utilities, code sections, 1, 2, 0, 1, 1,

2, 0, 2, and 9, 9, 1, 5, to give peuc exclusive authority to approve a location. The terms of inflation, operation maintenance use and protection. That is, in other words, the safety of ruined crossings, Smart's real property license agreement would be unenforceable by smart because it is contrary to those provisions. The peuc previously directed smart to cooperate good faith to reach a construction agreement for the Jennings Crossing. But Smart real property license agreement states. It is not an agreement to construct across The administrative law judge at the Peuc as more recently specified that the agreement to be reached between the city and smart. It's a construction agreement. Not a real property agreement. The 3rd option suggested by city staff constitutes abandonment of the cross but the city would first have to fulfill all procedures. Some requirements mandated by state law before of ended the news crossing which would involve notice and the public And it would also have establish that the crossing was not in the public interest, which this point would to Impossible. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. The next comment will be from Steve, followed by Janet. >> Thank you. Steve though, with the school mission. I think it's important for us to understand the reason why smart is dragging its feet about this crossing. It's

clear that crossing is needed. It's clear that is a very safe crossing. Pedestrian crossings are. At the bottom of the list when the issues, its reports. Hazardous crossings. Crossings that have thousands of more of mobiles using them are much more prone to a problem. And crossing They have. 2 or 300 people crossing them on foot and bicycle. And so their records predict that there's a very, very small chance any sort action. And at this crossing. So why is the Public Utilities Commission staff so concerned about crossing? Reason is. Santa Rosa 108 Million Dollar Grant. You know where to build grade separation. And after examining all the reasons for one or the other, they decided that it was appropriate to have an integrated crossing. And the staff admitted that this was their reason for opposing. You look at Page one. 99, the transcript and they say. This is a bad precedent. We don't want it to happen. Well, it's a good precedent. It's something needs to happen. But I think you should keep that position of the cpu ceased and have. And your mind as we go. She was smart because summer doesn't need. Crossings between here and and winds are between here in Hillsborough. So they're always going back to the stand. And so they're inclined to want to back the cpu. See, Steph, they don't want to be a crossroads with them. We need to get him past that. We need to have them

creating reasonable. Agreement. The option number 2 is the best start. Thank you. >> Thank you. The next comment will be from Janet. Mayor Rogers and city Council members. My name is Jennifer Rocco. I'm a homeowner in Santa Rosa. Residents on Jennings Avenue for 24 years. >> And over 8 years, I have worked with my neighbors and others to support restoring this 120 year-old crossing that provides bike and pedestrian access East-West in our community. I wish to thank the city City Council for the work you have already done with smart. And I ask you to please continue to represent the interest of our community and to not give up on restoring this car free at great crossing in Jennings. I urge you to continue to negotiate with smart for fair and balanced agreement. Abandoning Jennings crossing after so many years of hard work by are neighbors and citizen organizations is unacceptable. Please don't give up on us. And once again, I extend an invitation to each of you to come view and walk the crossing site with me so that you can see how valuable it is to our community. Thank you. See no one else approach to putting for public comment on item. 3.1. >> And with that, we will now recessed into closed session. Thank you. All right. Welcome back, everyone. It is 4/9/2024, and we will be beginning our center of the City Council meeting. It is now 3.32, I'm city clerk me.

Please call the roll. Thank you, Mayor Councilmember Rogers, Crappie your Councilmember MacDonald here, Councilmember Fleming. >> councilmember over PRESIDENT Vice mayor stop their Mayor Rogers PRESIDENT. Let the record show that all council members are present. Thank you. We will now proceed to item. >> 4, which is our study session for the day. >> Thank you, MADAM Mayor. Good afternoon. I'm mayor members of council. So item 4.1 is the development impact fee waivers. So before staff get started, I want to offer a little bit of context on initially how city staff. Got to this point. So drafting the 2023 work plan. One of the items that we discuss was what was the impact waiving impact fees. So we started that discussion in between that time. There have been several proposals, some internally and the most recent one that we from Jan as to how there might be other to waive impact fees. So staff are prepared to offer a couple solutions at the end of a report and we're also ready to execute and move in the direction, the policy direction that this request us move. As talk about. Impact fees and where we are with our reena numbers. Here's some context. So for very low, the city has completed 403 units of the 1218 units that we are required to complete, which is 33%. And these numbers have not been officially certified

by 8 cd, which is whether or not in the presentation in the low category we have completed 467 units of the 701. That is 67% in the moderate level we've completed 75 of the 771. That's 10%. Above moderate. We've completed 2167 of the 1995, which is 109%. So of the total 4,685 units we're required to complete. We've completed 3,112, which is 66%. So again, staff our charge from the work plan with the talked about how to discuss the impacts of waving impact fees. So you'll see some of that discussion here. But we're ready to move in, execute the policy decision and the will of this body. And we will offer some additional recommendations at the end of the presentation. So >> Rogers, some members of the I'm Allen Dalton, the chief financial officer with me is gave us for an the director of planning in economic development that was a good lead up and probably cut through some of my slide. So you might be able to moved quickly through this. I I would say that even though this was a of a work plan item on my work plan. This was a a group effort. Yeah. As as we move through the analysis gave and in I'm Megan were instrumental helping with this. And we also have directors from dpw and Rec and

parks here to be able to provide some subject matter. Expertise questions that you MAY have. As mentioned, we we we were looking at this as a an initial proposal of waving development impact fees in order to spur affordable housing and, you know, specifically what would the the impact be to city operations or city infrastructure. Should they do that or should we do something along those lines so what we what we have come up with in this is what you're going to see is a lot along those lines. But we can kind of pivot toward the end. This just provide some some basics and engage going to take over in a to go through some slides. It goes into a little bit more detail into how we study these fees. But, you know, basically development impact fees are charged. New developments for a good cause, public facilities and improvements related to those developments. It's set by by city code and the fees that that while there a few of them, the ones that were really focused on are the capital facility fees and the park development impact fees. But there are water and wastewater demand fees, housing, impact fees and commercial entities. So with that, I'm, you know, let a gay kind of walk you through some of the next slides to go the studies that we do for those fees. Thank you, Allan. And good afternoon, Mayor vice mayor members of the council,

the next few slides will the fees, how their study done, really how they are implemented through the development process. >> For both cff in parks, those are based on a nexus fee study that was It started in 2015 and was adopted by council on MAY 22nd of 2018. That study focused on a few different things. The main piece of a nexus study is the nexus analysis and that's really the relationship between the fee and the projects. So when growth occurs, a new development comes in that new development does build infrastructure abutting the project or within the project. This really goes to bigger infrastructure projects in the regional area that support the growth. So they're often off-site and the few study looks at the cost of those projects and develops a proportionate fair share payment for all the usage types and it could be multi-family, single-family commercial. It looks at all the development categories. The study also creates a program guidance on the use of the That's really any constraints on the use. The funds. It is typically focusing on a project list of defined projects. And have a nexus fee One of the changes that we made in 2018 is oftentimes that project list is based on full build out of the city. So it focuses on general plan goals. It focuses on master planning or specific plan goals. What we shifted to is more of an immediate need project list that focused on a 20 year horizon. And that was mostly what was justifying the fee. And the developments

obviously play into that because that's the population that's increasing with those fees. So didn't really look beyond that. That reduced the project cost reduced the fees down. We also look at feasibility analysis when implementing the fees. So when you add the impact fees with service fees and you look at the total fee package for new development, how does that really compete with other jurisdictions and what percentage of that percentage of that total dollar amount is of the total construction costs. That feasibility analysis looks at that bar and determines where the feat needs to So for the cff. And so those go to capital projects. Only that's the restriction under the fee These are specific infrastructure or facility types and the important pieces that go to upgrade or expansion only because they're focusing on growth. It's typically not maintenance of existing facilities as we can see from the table to the There's a specific percentage breakdown for the allocation. 62.8 1% goes to roadway intersection improvements based on the study. 10.7% to transit bicycle and pedestrian 12.8 to public safety. 12.7 to storm drain and one percent to the administration of the few program. It's also important to note that there is a developer reimbursement component to most of these fees in the event that the developer goes above and beyond what their requirement is. Abutting the project in built off-site improvements. They are eligible for either a fee. Credit worry reimbursement out of the that's included in the code. And then of course, fee administration can be fee. Studies are managing that program. That's the one percent cost. So the park fund

is very similar. Goes to park and recreation facilities only once again, it's up greater expansion. We implemented developer reimbursement component in that. So, for example, for developer builds a public park within the boundaries that benefits the They're eligible for reimbursement under the code. Also, fyi the park's programs, a little different squadron based. So the fees differ based on the specific quadrant. So over the past few months has been quite a bit of conversation about Assembly Bill 602. And how that impacts fee studies 602, went into effect really in JANUARY one, 2022. And basically states that local agencies conducting an impact fee study must follow the standards listed on the slide. So the first is you must perform a fee study and that's the next a study to create the relationship. The study must identify and justify the level of service. So the project list and ensure that the the growth that you're assuming with the new units that the projects are needed to support that growth. It also states that studies adopted after JULY one of 2022. Must calculate housing development fees proportionately to square footage. It general requirements. Local jurisdictions can justify another If that works, what's happened with a lot of these impact fee program says over the years jurisdictions have gone with that unit based approach. Multi-family unit would pay the same as a single family. And it really is a recognition that is the people in that unit that justified the need for the projects. So square footage to attaching to bedrooms, reducing with size, often shows that you can go

from a studio with one individual to a four-bedroom home. And then in theory, based on that, the four-bedroom home should pay more. So this is really tackling that. It also states that study should be updated every 8 years from the period beginning JANUARY one 2022. So that would put us on the clock for 2030 based on that 8. Your calculation. But once we do that been few studies are on an 8 year update cycle. The time of payment is a critical piece to impact There's been a lot of discussion sort of regionally in the state of California about deferral of impact fees for the longest time jurisdictions would collect impact fees at the time of building permit issuance. That's fairly early on in the development stage. Oftentimes construction loans are still in the mix and there was a push to differ fees to final documents. See close of escrow and getting off of that construction loan in many situations. Those are referred to his defeat for Earls we've addressed that in previous years through much of our economic development initiatives that we put in place to to 9 recession, we actually collect most of our impact fees at So we're not really deferring. We have just changed the time of payment. So that holds true for cff and parks fees for eligible projects. We also have a further deferral program that allows an affordable housing builder to to for 2 years from the published take payment date. So in this particular case, it would be final. So it's 2 years beyond final. So much of the conversation today will will circulate around affordable housing. So just a reminder of how we handle that from a policy standpoint, there's really 2 different

types. There are short of housing. That's the restricted, which is really a guarantee that its is that it's It is an affordable unit for a period of time. And then there's a concept of affordable by design. So inclusionary, affordable those are units that are built into the development and their typically deed restricted for a 55 year. Affordability with a 55 year. Affordability agreement at a certain income level. And our inclusionary ordinance controls what that income level is and the percentage of inclusionary that needs to go into the certain project type market rate developers can elect to either include in 4 double units into the design of the project at those levels or they can pay their housing in Lutfi as another impact fee to offset We often hear 100% affordable projects and those have come around quite a bit over the last 5 years. Generally how we interpret that is all of the units in the development are deed restricted. It's not a project that's market rate. That's meeting. It's 10% affordability requirement there. All restricted. Affordability level except the manager's unit. So they have on site management with one or 2 units. Those are typically free and clear. Tackle this with our recent adoption of our service fees that went to council a month or so ago. And those adjusted the service fees and provided a reduction of those fees. 400% affordable at a 60% or less mind. That's really tackling are very low in our low categories. We also have a concept that that has been around for a few years affordable by design. So those are typically smaller to use often fall under that category

because they are smaller and due to the size. The construction costs reduce associated with that. They do not have an affordability agreement typically. So there's no restriction on the run for the sale. And oftentimes they reduce amenities or other features in the unit reduce construction costs. At this point, I will hand the presentation back to MISTER Process. Thank you the slide basically. >> It looks at budget process relative to these fees. Where we come from. >> Is on a fee collected basis. So what we'll do is during a fiscal year we will collect impact fees as they come in record. Those and then calculate what is available at our year in close. This ensures that that we have the actual revenue on hand, that there isn't deferral that would keep us from getting the cash in to be able to find these projects yet. It unfortunately does sometimes create a delay and in the fees coming in to our ability to program them in the cip budget but this is the the safest way to be able to ensure that we have those funds there funds are made available cip program managers for programming usually at the beginning of the calendar year as part of our preparation and then we the council will adopt the cip budget during the JUNE budget adoption. As we look at the type of projects that that are

funded through these cff to plea typically funds roads in the intersection, bikes, pedestrians, storm drain public safety and fire projects. We've listed a few out here as examples of the projects that we've done and what the amount of cff that's been collected that goes into that. So, for example, the bike and Overcrossing. The estimated cost of that project is 46 million dollars. We've collected so far about 16 0.6 million. However, we do have grants that should be able to bring in of a large amount of that gap coming in soon. We have collected 2 and a half million dollars of of cff over a three-year period. And that's part of that 16 million debt has been programmed into the project. We have the Avenue rehabilitation about 1.8 million dollars of of Cff was collected and this was really the only funding source that went into project. We have some fire, a related street recovery projects we use that 2.6 million over a two-year bases too. Fund the gap. The came between our grant funding that we had for that and what the the actual cost of the programs were. And then we had some fire station improvements where have collected over a five-year

period about 3.9 million. For park development fees. Again, these are are used a choir Parkland in and develop that in generally in these cases, the park development impact fees is the if not the only source. It's definitely a primary source of revenue that comes in. They can't be used for maintenance and they're to be used within the court grant where they've been collected. Of the examples that I have here, we've got the lower Colgan Creek, a project that's in the southwest. That's about 3.9 million dollars, a collective and we are supplementing funding with grant funding we anticipate a 3 year planning and construction process. So we're looking at between 2025 and 28 for construction and completion of a new Family Aquatic Center, which in the northwest. There 4 million dollars collected in park development fees and then 2 million dollars came in from measure. Am to complete the funding on that that one I believe is in construction. Fremont Party in the Northeast. A 3.8 million dollars from Park development and that we're looking at between construction 2025. And Kiwanis Springs Park in the southeast. There was about 5 million dollars in parks impact fees, the housing that was built there back in a to 2006. So it's taken a a

considerable amount of time to build up the amount of funding necessary. And then even at that we some grant funding to closed to close the gap. There. And then we also have separate park project. It's a community garden that that is going in there. All of this. We're targeting for 2026. Construction. The reserves there's there's discussion the increase in reserves. And could this be used to pay the at the time. It was the waiver of impact fees. So just note on these reserves as opposed to your general fund reserves or enterprise fund reserves these are special funds. So they really don't have the same reserve structure as our other funds. Basically, it's what we collect goes toward a project and the and they're to be spent on that project. So the way our accounting system works is that we will. We will budget and amounts. So you'll see a budget in an area. But until those those dollars are actually spent the dollars go out the door. You don't see the costs reflected so what you have are reserves that buildup, right? So as as we go over time collecting more fees that go to a specific project in our budget in that project, they actually we could see the reserves going up, even though the budget is going up until we are able to start spending

those dollars down and then you should see the go down later. There is reserve percentage need any of those things. Again, it's dollars and need to go out. So the again, this is kind of outdated. But we will talk go through a little bit. You know, we originally got the proposal as too look waiving impact fees on on certain types of affordable housing projects for 3 to 5 year period. So that was really where our focus was a couple of weeks ago. We saw the the Proposer, the policy proposal for the right size impact fees you know, with our timing on staff report says, sir, for We're not able to do that is a part of this presentation. And I I do think we we still need a little bit of further time to to go through it and understand the nuances of what the policy proposal is and to look at what the impacts would be to the city's budget. Again, what we're looking at, police from my standpoint, as he has finance person is what? What can the city actually afford? Clearly, it's it's the council's decision to to enact policy to go and whatever direction you'd like to go. I'm I'm here to provide the information on what we can actually afford to do. So as we went through our staff analysis on you know, we that

I guess there's one main takeaway is that when you're looking a revenue comes in and one-time revenues at that. If you if you take that revenue from those projects from from where they're intended. Get it. It cripples your ability to actually construct the project. So there does have a negative impact on our ability to a complete the infrastructure projects in other ways. So what we would the the only way to get around that is to find a a a a way to backfill those dollars to come into the fund to make those hole to allow the the infrastructure work to go forward so that was that was pretty much where we were coming from with. With the with the at least initial proposal. As part of when we looked what. Fees we recovered over collected over period. We look at a 10 year going back to 2012. What this chart shows is a the total fees collected over that period. And so in the shaded column, those are the total development impact fees or park and cff ease over that period in the columns to the right of that. We're showing what was actually collected for a funder of 100% affordable projects and gave to find that earlier. It's just a level of con of contacts. 2 of those types of projects and what they're

doing fund projects, especially you comparison to the total amounts received over the last 3 years. You can kind of see to add inflow of of the projects. But over the last 3 we saw that about 41% of the park development fees came from these types of affordable housing projects and a 35% of Cff came from the projects. Another issue that was brought up was and what we wanted to look was what the project cost would be for the development and how much we're looking at in terms of the c f park fees from there. So what this shows is the affordable housing projects. And these are the the 100% affordable housing projects within the last 24 months. It shows what the where we knew the cost with what the development costs was. What the Cff were paid and the park fees paid for those individual projects and what you have to the bottom is that you have about of those combined represents about 2.9. So about 3% of the total development costs which breaks out too. About 1.1% for Cff and 1.8% for the park development fees. So with that, I will turn it back over gavyn. He will help us some things up. Thank you, So just in summary of the few bullet points here on the side and then I have for solutions here, we potentially could

discuss go over. So >> the goal of the council housing advocates obviously is to increase housing development. That's been a council goal for some time we do incentivize affordable housing production, housing development in the general downtown and actually in a lot of other ways that we do prioritize the review of affordable housing development. We to try to address predictability in time. We have actually reduced service fees for affordable development. We have actually reduced impact fees for downtown development when they go up and we have reduced impact fees for atu. So there are certain things here that have already been put in place reducing or waiving the fee. Revenue can have a dramatic effect on the city's ability to build infrastructure especially when the waiver isn't in a narrow band of projects. So there is also no guarantee that the additional incentives would increase the amount of affordable housing production and in the affordable housing is a complicated form development. Every dollar does matter, but they rely on a variety of different funding sources. So usually what happens is one foreign funding source alone isn't necessarily the catalyst. But as I mentioned, all the dollars do matter. So with that said, we have a few different options here for moving forward. So one option is that the city can conduct a new impact fee study consistent with a b 602. That would really look at the Various reductions could be put in place for various development types that would analyze the project list and that would better understand the impact of those reductions and how that program can sustain itself. Long term so

that that is an option. It would also bring us in compliance with sb 602. Once that's done after Twenty-twenty 2 were on the cycle and then would move forward based on that. The other option is and this is similar to what other jurisdictions have done is you can basically produce a waiver on any feet that impact for any affordability category. So that's fairly open-ended. Obviously, the more that added to that, the bigger the reduction is on that fee and also determine total dollar amount to so, for example, if a specific dollar amount was dedicated to fee waivers, we would accept applications up to that dollar amount for eligibility. Once that runs its course, it essentially acts as a pilot program. We can come back to the council and talk about the effectiveness that program the benefit to that is it holds the fee study whole because the projects are still funded through another The easiest way to look at it is essentially that money is granted to the developer to pay a fee. So that is an option. And the total dollar amount is the council's determination. Another option is to basically waive the fee without backfilling and that presents a few different because the nexus fee study basically looks at build out projections. So it's looking at the unit counts. It's developing a hard cost. The project list, which doesn't really change with time. And we have people paying into that program. So when the fee is waived without putting that funding source back in the delivery of projects becomes inconsistent potentially there's the ability to remove

a project off the list. And that creates a challenge with the Nexus fee study. So there's certain smaller studies that we could do to analyze those impacts once we better understand to see what that would do, the projects. But our recommendation would be that if we're not backfilling or there isn't a clear backfilling to at least analyze what that impact would be during the link to that waiver process. The 4th which I think this is a piece where we already have some things moving in that direction. As our city manager mentioned, our reena goals, really that the challenging categories in the city have have been really very low and that we've seen a lot of resources move that way to see those units move forward. It's really moderate and moderate is workforce housing. Moderate is missing. Middle. That's really has people evolve and increase the amount of money that they make kind of a move up in housing in previous cycles. We struggle with getting 50% of that number. And we usually don't see 100% moderate developments. Co-moderate can to use moderate can be the exclusionary. So what we can do as a very targeted approach that looks at our compliance with our reena numbers and we're going missing middle ordinance now that is actually running as a companion to our general plan. So there's the ability through that process to look at fee waivers to look at service fee waivers to look at really aggressive programs from processing side to help us bolster up that moderate category and really anything that falls in that missing middle and what we'll see from the from the low peace is it really is contention. A lot of those funding sources come in and what you saw from the

charge is there years when it doesn't happen and there's years when it happens in the unit totals and that's usually based on how those funding sources are going into producing that so with that being the case, you know, the targeted focus would be a collaborative. We look at the overall program for really bolstering up our reena numbers and making sure we hit that moderate category and yes, impact fee programs could be part of that. But that would tag to our program of missing middle. And we would just incorporate that into the review. So those are really some of the for solutions that we've at this point. We can turn it back to the council. I know those are writing so I would be happy to explain this further as a conversation goes. But with that, we're happy to answer any questions. The council Thank you for that presentation. Yes, probably going to need to >> So are there any questions from Councilmember starting with a cookie? Thank you, MADAM >> so if we're to consider the 62 next, a and I know you haven't had time to research some of the proposals of come in some kind of asking you to think in the abstract abc 602, Texas study or policy. How do line or the redundancies that are? There are kind of overlap or they completely separate. >> That's a nice and question. If you do a full-blown, maybe to study that can look at a variety different things can change the methodology associated with the fee calculation. You can look on increases of fees, which I think that's an important point. So and then it can also incorporate the review of other impact fee totals are impact fee categories. Excuse

me. So that's really more or less the Cadillac program. If you want to look at fee and that's really what you have to do is refer set nexus argument year to year. If you look at a reduction of the fee, you're not really changing the methodology. What you're looking at is how can the city deliver the projects that are embedded in the list and what sort of other funding sources are available for that. So in a right size fee the whole concept of single-family dwellings being charged out at the current rate which would have to happen. We can to increase the fee above them. What the study shows the rest of the unit types become a reduction. And that really is just analyzing the reduction. So if there is a total dollar amount that can backfill the reduction behind that, then you're still holding the nexus argument together. So really the easiest way to describe it is if you're changing the few crow programming, increasing fees, changing methodology, reducing fees, then 602. And that avenue is the best. If you're looking to analyze the financial impacts of reducing certain fees and not increasing, then there's other models to do that. We're using the fee study as a base. >> Okay. And maybe 602. Somewhere in our work plan. I know exactly and in terms of like of where it ranks, our work plan as well as the length of work it would take to undertake this. The bandwidth it would take for staff as well as with the bandwidth for right a proposal would be are the similar are those what we have to do? What

we have shuffle things around would that try to try to find that there's a redundancy efforts. If we take on both for you one of the if we could kind of capture a middle ground. >> Yes, absolutely. So just to give you an idea when we did our Nexus fee study in 2018 once again attacked her, it parks fees. Plus eff that's typically a coating on driven exercise. So there was a hard cost around 350,000 just based on the consultant piece to that. It started in 2015 that were starts and stops. It really pulls in a significant amount of staff across the city. So one department MAY take lead on managing the that process. But as your determining project list and understanding next, arguments in the feasibility of developing this project that does bring in our transportation public Works. Department, our parks department, any been any division or department that benefits from the fee. So it's usually a huge staffing lift. And oftentimes those fees run over a two-year cycle because of that reason if we're going through a smaller analysis, typically what that would look like if the council determines the specific band of waivers that would be applied, then we would take average numbers of units that occur within those. Look at the financial impacts of that to the program and then do our best internally with other departments to determine where that falls. So really, that's that's typically an sort of when prioritize to that. You're talking about 6 months instead of 2 years. And then just 2 more quick questions if we did right size or a waiver and back for the way without back. Still have to comply with to some point. >> Yes. And you said there's already moving pieces with a missing middle policy. Is that maybe 602, of those mutually exclusive or can they be

married and work together? >> That it can work as a companion. So really the missing middle is looking at how we can incentivize that certain band of housing. So that's going to look at a variety different but it it can get into the fees and it can get into this analysis associated with that. And that will be it is a process already moving That's the most effective way to look at it because of that because it looks at all of that potential pieces that we can address as part of that so I would say it could include the study is part of that. We can look at what that look like if that's the direction from the council. Number for me. >> I'm wondering some, if you could read slowly the 4 options and also someone could simultaneously make a slide for those of us who are not the Tory learners. I need to see it in order digest it. Can you read those for me? >> So the first is to do a full study consistent with a b 602. That would be your next. This analysis. In that previous response, that's really the two-year process that has to consult driven exercise compliance with 602. The second option is to basically define a set of waivers for specific housing types under the affordability categories. And determine the total dollar amount for a backfill. And then those waivers would be applied until that back full amount is exhausted. That still holds the project list intact does not affect the study. >> Director has cannot make certain some ice no to that. So we can get a slight upon on the screen. >> And that's the pilot.

You're mentioning. Yes, that that would be run as a pilot program. And then the 3rd. Is to basically provide a waiver without backfilling. And that would require an analysis to determine the impacts on the project list and then the impact fee. Excuse me, the next a study for the impact fee. So really what that would look like is that if the council determined just to apply a waiver without any kept for any pilot program nature to that, we would have to and really perpetuity for, however, long that waiver would last. What the impact fee, that what the impacts are to the overall fi program. >> Can you say just a few more sentences about that? What what types of impact he be looking for? >> Yeah. So the impacts would be and think very similar to what Sacramento whether behind the scenes there are different conversations, but they ran a pilot program for a period of time expanded from 2018 to 2022, they developed all of the fee categories that they wanted to provide the waiver for which we're most of the fees and then they analyze that over that year period. And then determine what to do on the back end. And that situation was looking at a backfill option. But essentially it went into it without a defined cap on the dollar amount with the program. That was more of a time kept. So that didn't provide a set dollar amount to backfill. And the really the difference is is when the dollar amount is there, you're allowing the waivers up to that cap were in the other option. You really allowing those waivers up to a defined time period or not having a

time period. And then it's very difficult to judge the impact to the overall capital project programs associated with that because of the revenue stream unpredictable and we would have to determine if projects need to be juggled are removed from the list. And that creates some challenges with the study. >> I see. But the idea is that let's say you build x, y z development and then after the period of time you go back and look at what the the clear impacts were and try assigned to a dollar number to those. >> Impacts like what's a sewer needed to be upgraded or something. And in city pays for what the cost of that wasn't sort of do retrospective. >> So really the the dollar amounts for both the fees and the projects are set with the study. So the reality is what? When we get into impact fees, the revenue is not predictable for it to for reasons because we don't know when developments going to occur year to year. And you see those gaps. So based on how quickly development moves forward and if you created a five-year pilot, you would be able to make estimates on what comes in. And the estimates on the revenue. But you really don't know at the end of that 5 year period, what the total amounts going to be. So as you let that 5 year period go, the waivers occur for all those developers that are very separate. So at the end of the 5 years, you determine the financial impact of those waivers at a set amount based

on the nexus fee study and then the challenge becomes Backfilling because it's unknown the revenue. It could be 2 million to 9 somewhere in that range. And then you're trying to identify how to backfill that or not. You have to backfill isn't there then and how the projects get delivered in justifying how those projects get delivered becomes challenging because that revenue is lost. >> What what were you said? It requires an analysis. What requires announces the city State Law Council policy. Where is the requirement coming from? So the mitigation Fee Act controls a lot of the studies that are and the reporting associated with that. So stay law. >> Okay. They are after 3 of those was the 4th one. And the 4th one is really the more targeted where we can look specifically at where we're missing. Our reena numbers right now are we think at the end of the cycle, it might be a challenge. So that's the missing middle concept. And we can incorporate a targeted fee reduction as part of that study. But as it focuses on reena, it will focus on very low and moderate, which are those are typically the areas, as our city manager mentioned, where we're seeing the percentages on the lower side. That was really helpful. Thank you very much. >> mean, Mayor I just received notice from the interpreters on the line. If staff can slow down, they are working very hard to keep up. Speakers can slow down on some of these very complex comments concepts, they would much appreciate it so they can make sure they're doing meaningful translation on Spanish channel. Thank you.

Councilmember Mayor, thank you for the presentation. I have some clarifying questions. And and just >> Information like to have so on this eff impact fees that we get are those designated by quadrants of where that money needs to be spent on projects. >> They are So there they allocated based on the percentages that are listed in the chart. But that can be allocated citywide. And the quadrants just so I'm clear on the park. Impact fees is not >> is that our rule or is that something in statute? So when I'm looking at all the projects that need to be done and all the parks and city of Santa Rosa. Do we have to by quadrant or can they be moved? Can the money be moved? >> It's defined in coding. We have set squadrons pardon me. It's defined in our code and at the local level, we have set those contracts. >> So we would bring back the policy to address that. So I'm just going to take, for instance. We have many in park fees place to play potentially could end up sports complex area. But I'm hearing there's no money for that. But we actually do have money so we could potentially take money. That's in that. Park development fees and move it to that because our rule that's not allowing it right now. Just so I'm clear on how these impact fees work. >> Yes, and I think there's a few the few ways you can change that that's getting into the methodology and the nexus. So when you study the impacts and the various areas from parks and where that fee should be generated in the various areas, a local jurisdiction really controls those. So we set policy around that. So it could require additional study to look at that and then also a code amendment to make that change. >> Thank you. And then as far

as the actual upgrading or expansion of the current and parks because it says new development or at acquisition of Parks. But if I'm reading this slide correctly, it also said the upgrade or expansion, but not maintenance. Is that our rule or is that state statute? >> I think it's Columbia Yes. So that's state cooked its state code. >> I'd like to see the state code specifically around these impact fees. And the reason being is it says there's sometimes is language that allows us to do more work. Then we're doing I think so. Is it the state statute, our own codes that are preventing us from moving forward on projects. But as far as expansion or upgrade, if that's a state code or our code. And then also to if it is an upgrade. I'll take, for the tennis courts. Can we use park impact fees for the tennis courts at Howard Park? Or does it have to come out of a different budget and why maybe maybe it's important for us to know what's in the reserves for each of these current budget. Could Could you give me that, Allan? What's in the park impact fees? Reserves and then what's in the other budget as well as cff budget. Just so you have an idea of how much is in reserves. Okay. So. >> I I don't have those specific reserve numbers. For you right now. What I would say and maybe. Deputy Director Santas can come and talk about the specific projects and how those things are funded. But I

would again. Say that that when you're looking at. Funds that are in reserves for particular part in each park development. Fyi Cordon has its own fund. They those dollars are encumbered, if you will, into certain projects. So they're not it's not a pool of dollars. It's just they're just sort of collected there. But they're all directly tied to a specific project that's being okay. We set the quadrants ourselves. It's not something in. >> a state statute that says you have to do it by quadrant and it's not something that says we couldn't move money to finish one other projects. So if you have not enough money to finish use of Hearne Avenue overpass. We didn't have quite enough money to do that projects. So we moved money from another project to that project so we can complete it. I'm just trying to understand better how these impact fees work. I >> you can probably get a more direct answer. Thank you. Yeah. >> Afternoon Mayor Vice Mayor. Councilmembers engine sentence to be director for Parks. And thank you for your The the answer is looking at two-state. Laws for that is to see codes. We use the Queen Bee Ag and the Mitigation Fee Act. And the could requires the city to put it the money into wherever we know whatever zones we want to put are we want to arrange it. The Mitigation Fee Act would allow

us to move money for something that is citywide like a big project, like a big sports complex. Complex, something like that. And so we can make those decisions as a city body. >> Okay. The crime, the act asks that we do it a certain way, but we actually could make the decision if it's a decision made by counsel that we want do something in one specific area. We could move money around it. Finish projects. >> Yes, we certainly could. We do try to keep them in. The questions are created serve those residents in that quadrant. But the city has in the past move funds around to assist with projects that are underfunded. >> And do you by chance have the amount of the reserves that are in just a park impacts and sets your budget. The funds we have allocated going for that we received so far. 25 Million. >> And I'm around. We'll get you. The exact number will fall, but the exact number. But it's approximately 25 Million. All of that is allocated already. 2 current projects. >> All right. I'm getting through my m. My notes here. So I think the biggest thing is we don't know really what the long-term effects are to any of the budgets based on the conversation today, if we were doing that any type of right-size impact fee. I I would be interested in knowing what that's going to do to the long-term effects of the budget because I feel like right now we're making decisions without all the data and information, whether that's a new nexus study with the I think it would be number

4 kind of a targeted a poor approach or something that's along the lines of a pilot. We know that that we need more affordable housing. We know we're missing middle housing. We know that we need to work on some of these things. I would be interested and having staff work with our partners to see how we can get to almost that neutral on on the fees so that we are going in the hole that much but that we can still see some support because truthfully, the local fees are the only thing we can control right now with the high interest rates and the cost of construction. We know that that's the only thing we can actually look at to being able to incentivize and partners, you know, with developers and with with folks that are for housing as far as looking the law. And that's why I'm concerned about the long-term impact, though, is we I feel like we don't have enough information to do that. So that's why a pilot might be a smarter way for us to go. When we're when we're looking at the out years and then I might have another question. But I think that's most of mine. But thank you for the presentation. Thank you for councilmember funding going back over those 4 different bullets. I appreciate that. And I think that's all my questions. Mayor. Thank you. I smashed up. >> Thank you, Mayor. All right. I want to try my hand at some back of the envelope which which is always risky. So thank you very much. From the chart on the impact fees collected from affordable housing. And so I was trying just on with rough estimates on the the current level of impact fees that we're collecting both in the last 3 years. And then over the 12

years that are listed end game in mind in the ball park. If I say that over average over the last 12 years for both the pf and cff fees is about 420,000 the year. Something like that. I put me on the spot here right now. Can you repeat the question? I'm sorry. So I I was trying to figure given that the fees you have you know, the total impact fees collected and then you've got the percentage that are coming from deed restricted housing projects. And so we're trying to come up with an average over the 12 years that are listed as well what we've been taking in over the last 3 years which have seen in a good amount of development. And with the calculations I was doing, it looks like an average over the last 12 years. Just to give us here in the day as a rough estimate of of the the sums that we're talking about is that it was about it was about 420,000 a year with large variations. Given that the on certain development. For an even development. And then over the last 3 years and look like we're we pulling in about 1.5 million, a tease. Okay. Sure. Again. And I know I'm putting on the spot, but I it was helpful for me to have those numbers 8 news helpful for me to have those numbers. As council member Donna was was indicating just to give a sense of what we have to feel even if we just eliminated the impact fees for restrictive housing from for very low-income housing. There is there's a reasonable budget jumped. We have to figure out. Right. And I think that's part of. Where this is kind of a starting off part, right? I mean, we there is a proposal that's out there that Warren

study and warrants. >> Action one way or the other. What what I would ask is that we take a look at it from a from a thorough, thoughtful sandpoint of what those budget impacts are. It's I I think it's. The fees are and how they're coming in is a little more nuanced and unfortunately. Having a slide that just, you know, kind of shows what we collected theirs. There's a lot of things ago behind those numbers that we need address in any policy going forward. But I I think we're ready to do that. And game, told you some options that we can do that kind of goes along that path. But there there's more study that's going need to be involved there. Unfortunately, it's I'm probably not the best on the the flight type of that's right. That's fair to say no. Thank you. >> And then Director Osborne, I I appreciate your your response to council member of properties in question regarding the difference between the 2 kinds of studies, whether it's a full full nexus review versus the right size survey I want reiterate counts, councilmember my colleagues have said and say, I'm certainly interested in seeing results of one of those kind of study. It's and I'm in intrigued by the fact that the right-sizing study can be done a little bit more That that's a look at big advantage to taking taking an avenue. Just as a final comment going back to city managers remarks at the beginning, I think with underlying again that our is is currently at 66% of allegations. That's a really

actually done pretty well with their housing. All of us want more. And all of us want to use every tool at our disposal to do more. Worth noting in Santa Rosa really is especially compared to other municipalities across the state doing pretty well so and that's that's in large part due to the to what our what our planning department has done over the last several years to to, to incentivize for the development community. >> jurors. >> I want to read from a little bit if I can first gave for some context for folks. We're talking about this proposal to start assessing fees per square foot as opposed to per unit. If I was to build a mansion, I don't need exact numbers built a mansion in Santa Rosa. Relative to a unit of downtown affordable housing. Apartment. What's the differential in the fees? So typically, if it depends a bit on the so when when you look at the impact associated with that scenario. >> And the assumption is, and it's it's just how engineering works with management of infrastructure based on the number of bedrooms, there's an anticipated occupancy load in the buildings. So your larger building that has 4 bedrooms in it would typically have an escalated fee over a smaller unit. The total dollar amounts I'm sorry. Don't have those today. Those exact numbers. But generally, if you think about the overall impact fees were talking about Cff and park. So those are individuals that are putting pressure on the infrastructure. But when you get into the other feet types like sewer and water, all of us and that larger lot has more of a demand from

water for irrigation. So you'll see certain fees will escalate differently based on the impact but truly what the nexus fee study should look at is when we're talking about bike and pedestrian facilities or road widening is it should be looking at the number of people that are being generated in the increase in population based on that so we have to change some of our fees to better really align with that concept were smaller. Units are charged less than larger units. And that really is across the board. We cff and sewer and water. So some strides have been made as we have all the studies to recognize that fact the but what this is a There's many agencies in the past would treat those 2 scenarios. The same way. And that's what I remember being the main part of the conversation in 2018, especially as we started to bring equity into our decision-making potential. >> That there was in the inequity that existed and though we fix some of that to switching to per square foot as opposed to per unit is really trying to push cities in a direction, be more equitable in terms of what type of housing is incentivize through its fee structures. Correct. That is And just for the record, I want to make sure that we are currently in compliance with it's just when we go through that study again, that's really what it's looking at. But 602, also has an option that if another methodology can be justified. >> That I think goes along that same concept. And you can use that in the next study as well. Perfect. And then we and remind because I don't remember. But in 2008, when we did the study, we also had a conversation about the

recovery rate of many of these fees because under to 18, we can charge up to a certain amount but also have the opportunity to charge less than a certain amount. We do 100% recovery rate. On. We do. We look at that. That's the feasibility analysis which it looks at the reasonable approach of that. We can look I know the various were set at different levels. I don't have the final answer for that, but I can look at that right now. Actually, okay. If you could just even when we come back after public comment, whatnot, I think the helpful for us to see. To what level are we >> incentivizing, I suppose a certain types of housing already throughout our community. And you talked a little bit about that. Right The biggest concern that I hear from many developers about projects is yes fees, but also the interest rates and access to capital. Could you give us sort of a snapshot on what that broadly speaking throughout? Sonoma County are throughout the state. What we're seeing in terms of interest rates or ability for construction loans. With interest rates as it made it more difficult for folks to be able to build. Yeah, I think what we've seen there's there's been a few factors and really some of this started in response to the Tubbs fire. I think as we saw really construction start going as part of that >> that actually inflated construction costs. Labor materials went up. We moved from Tubbs Fire really into covid which created the unpredictability of supply and a lot of the cost of construction is just much higher than it was 10 years ago. So then really, if you look at it, it is simple math, especially in a recent market. Obviously, there's the cost of construction and there's the

return on the back and and then there's carrying that project for the longevity have until that return comes in. So between interest rates coming up between some funding source is going in coming away. It makes it much more unpredictable for developments to occur. And when we see the situation, what we see oftentimes is really a sitting so projects go to entitled title meant which we're still seeing that we have a lot of entitled projects. But then the the time in which it goes from entitled a building permit, which in a very aggressive economic condition where they can build and they can make money goes quick. But now there's there's more factors at play. So when one thing doesn't work, then all of a sudden there's for the further delay. So we have seen that. And I you know, obviously the development community is better suited to discuss all the fine points associated with that. But what's been communicating to us between construction costs on the rise between in some situations with the development type, the unpredictability of the ramp on the back. And I'm holding costs for that interest rates, all that factors into And then we're talking sort of abstractly about where these funds might come from the floor to move forward on a. >> On a fee reduction. That only assumes that projects are actually built. So if nothing gets built, if interest rates are too high, if people can't get their financial stacking order, nothing gets built. There's no additional impacts. The city really hasn't lost out on anything in regards to fees. That is a correct statement. And I think that's just the unpredictable nature of expecially analyzing the revenue stream because

development as a whole is unpredictable. I mean, we've saw in the chart there are gaps in the production of affordable housing. >> So if nothing goes, then there's no impact to really analyze because you did not waive the So that would be a correct statement. All right. >> And then if we look at it as the council has multiple times talked about, look at housing development as economic development. If nothing goes forward within risk, anything we didn't lose anything. But we also didn't get the benefits from that economic development as well. That's the way that I look at it. At least so would be helpful for me in public comment is to hear from particularly folks who are in the industry. If you're saying that this is potentially one percent or I think was 1.0, 1, 1.8%, depending on the the fee. How close are we actually talking about to this type of a proposal making the difference between a project be able to move forward or not? I think that that's really the big question for many of us from the says, are we doing this? Because it sounds good and it continues to tell people that center open to housing and there's some merit to that or are we also talking about making up for an economic climate where at least making it easier in an economic climate so that we get something when we otherwise might not get anything. I think that's what I'd be interested in hearing from folks. >> Let's remember Yeah, I have a piggybacking on what Councilmember Rogers brought up, which isn't is really kind of philosophical question about how we incentivize what we all are here for today. I imagine which is to get housing built and I will be listening public comment. And if there are any. Public commenters who have the knowledge to speak to this,

what I want to talk about his other tool that the city has, which is there no enterprise district where we put in 10 million dollars. So we're looking at a pilot were put an x amount of dollars and we have all these units have been built from this. Park partnership with the county, this 20 Million Dollar Partnership is this is the impact. Take the removal of peace. Going to be the piece that to Councilmember Rogers Point gets the shovels the ground and gets the housing build or would they are a better use of our dollars if we were to do pilot be too for additional capital lies. This other vehicle that we already have up and running. That is last dollars in money. So it's and it is money that gets pulled back. If you go ahead and build the housing, they said they are going to build. So that might be another way to ease the pain and keep things as we go. As we go along on this pad, understand the run on a prize district as a certain kind of housing in a certain kind of location. I do want to understand if we're putting our money to the best use, making sure that because what I don't want to get as 100% and 0 as a real concern I have. And so if people can speak to where the greatest pain point is, is the greatest pain point these fees or is it the interest rates and the last dollars in new capital stacks? >> Councilmember a Everest >> Actually, a little bit often council Rogers, but actually with with the mention of the Red District, furthers my my question. And that is the metrics of with metrics

more houses are being built. I'm wondering when we do take into account the Red District, the renewal. How could we actually mitigate that? The parts that we're looking at are being built in a timely fashion. What are the consequences for the developers who are waiting for a moderate that's only becomes lower because moderate and there's a way for us to put something in writing or in in the project. Should we move forward? Of having these incentives be removed if it's not complete and timely fashion, as contemplating increased costs. Pretty much what metrics do you foresee we use? >> Yeah. And that's an excellent question. I think with the affordable housing in general that just that the challenge we really run into as affordable housing projects are presented through entitlement. They're not really required to incorporate that affordable housing through the building permit stage because they can pay bn Lutfi when its market rate. So some of the items that we've been discussing internally and we'll come back to the council with this is how can we ensure that number one, the development achieves those benefits. If there's a desire, the council to see the development move forward in a timely fashion to achieve those built those benefits. We really can build that and essentially the way it works with fee waivers is the fee waivers apply to the project up front but the fee is not collected on the back. And and that's when the unit's actually finalized. So is there a check at final occupancy to ensure the fees are paid? So that is something that could be incorporated in and discussion about a

reasonable time frame to construct is really based on project complexity. There's a lot that goes into it. But I think Councilmember Alvarez, what what you're alluding to really is to avoid project sitting on the shelf for 5 years when we put all these incentives in place to move forward and how do we protect against that? That is correct. And additional questions that have has pertains to the parks. We have 25 million dollars and and projects that have yet to be completed in summary, pj team, it's see that there's no going to the additional incentives we affordable housing production in the city. And I'm also wondering about these projects that we have on ice when it comes parks. What additional resources we have to complete parks should we lose this? Ability to general There. There are a lot grant funding. Would probably be one? There MAY be something that's >> measure m or or some other funding source there are available or but that that's about it. The city traditionally does not put a lot of general fund into capital programs. Most of our if not virtually all of our general fund dollars goes and operations. So that's that's the challenge that we ran into doing this analysis is that. >> There are there are just some projects where especially in parts where you're looking at that. Yeah, the impact fees being the primary source of revenue coming in to complete them. You you eliminate that even for a short period, day to be able to catch backup. You, you really can. You can take decades to be able to to

get where you need to be. And my final question. >> Have we seen anything similar? A hybrid to this being introduced anywhere other than in the state of California. Borrowing by this. I mean, the right, the right size for me. >> I have of a variety of different combinations of waivers and fee adjustments. So, you know, I think Sacramento, I think more of a regional partners Petaluma did something Those are more waivers and I've seen that either in the pilot for more more for the long term form where it's weaving specific fees for specific project types and that really differs through that and some situations people go all the way up to or jersey can go all the way up to My try to capture that were some are a little more strategic. So the combination of things that I've seen affect the fees are timing of payment and deferrals, which pushes it a little further along in the process. A combination of waivers or reductions for certain incentives. So reduction would be as you increase the number of units or the density your fee lower. Same as what we've done downtown. But most things fall within that narrow band of options. It's just the combinations differ a bit from what I've seen. >> And I just came up with one additional question our city managed to do so quite bit of numbers of where we're currently with our housing. And our percentages. And I'm wondering what what's in the pipeline? What what projects have been submitted but have not yet been. How do broken ground that might actually

increase the number of potential projects being completed before 2031. >> Yeah, it's an excellent question. And we should be able public comment to get more information on that. Typically the arena at tracks the building permit issued. So once the building permit is issued, the numbers populated on that chart. So a lot of those numbers are still going through construction to be finalized. So a lot of the active construction you're seeing will result in those numbers. What we're really seeing as far as the development cycle goes, it is typically a 10 year cycle we see of peaks and valleys. So right now we are seeing projects come through. We still have projects that are pending construction, which basically means that they're in the building permit staging waiting for that. And I can usually produce those numbers. But that really gives you an idea of what's ready to go. The big jump for projects is going through entitlement to building permit. That's when a significant investment in the construction takes place. So that's usually are indicator that they're moving forward. I'm entitled projects MAY very well not follow through. And a lot of times do not based on the factors in the economy, but more than happy during public comment to pull some stats. >> Looking to make sure come up with any more questions. So I think on going back to the basics for me what our reena numbers for our republic like, how are they made or feel like we're saying that a lot. And then what are they? Why are they important and what happens jurisdiction does not meet there. Reena numbers in has Rosa ever been in that predicament? >> That's a good question. So

the Rena numbers are regional housing needs assessment. So hcd looks at what the needs are in the greater area. From a housing standpoint. There's quite the analysis that really goes into that. And then a bag will take those numbers and form those into specific numbers for each jurisdictions. So they essentially divvy up the more regional numbers to more of a localized need and often the Rena numbers are very challenging to hit. So in our last 3 in a cycle, we're in the 6th and that would be the 5th. We ended up in some scenarios being fairly well. But then in our moderate were roughly 50% of our allocated total. And then in one of our low categories, we were slightly less. So generally what happens many jurisdictions fall into this bucket in the state of California has modified processes to ensure that units get pushed in jurisdictions where the Rena numbers or less. And that's be 35 is really a prime example of that that allowed projects to go through and or ministerial stay depending on where you are with your arena numbers sp. 35 either comes in and require certain affordability levels or it doesn't. And it pushes so typically you'll get that on the back and but there I know the oftentimes the ring the numbers are seen as the bear minimum. Really trying to meet the housing requirements. But some of those reena categories are very challenging to me require different tactics to meet them. Thank I think you learn

about one part of the >> If cities don't need the Rena Franco only for this cycle, they are not going to be able qualify for certain types of funding. Okay. So that's the consequence. >> So when we see we did talk a little bit about Sacramento. That an area that you said actually had a pilot if I recall correctly, you said that ended in 2020. >> So did they implement it? >> a policy that was no longer a pilot or where are they? >> Now? >> But what they did is they ran it from 18 to 2022 and then he revisited in 2022. So some of the discussion points there that the total dollar amount they were roughly had about 3,000 went through the program. That was a total dollar amount of all the impact fees of approximately 9 Million. They were. They did that at the time. And I think it speaks to other concerns that were raised. They did that at a time where a lot of affordable housing was being built. We had roughly 1300 units that went through the city center is at the same time in a much smaller jurisdiction. And it was the very difficult for them to make the finding that it was the one piece that was the catalyst to move that It was one piece of many, but they were unable to make that finding. So what they revisited in 2022, they went all the way up to 120 am I so that covered all the for the blue categories. There was discussion about potentially reducing that. And then there was a discussion about back feeling those dollars to be able to hold. The capital projects hoped. But the best of my knowledge, they did not multiple the program and is

still alive. >> And you MAY or MAY not know the answer to this question. But with Sacramento are already meeting its reena numbers. >> Unfortunately, and I don't have an answer that question. Okay. I have more holder. The current proposal that is before us. As far as to increase affordable housing production in the city that went on 14, 5.14, 120% 08:00am I and below. What does that really mean for a citizen? What is 120% anyway? Absolutely. That focuses on area median income. So it's really looking at the income level. So as you look at the different affordability categories, moderate is 80 to one 20. >> And then it starts working its way down into the lower categories. So when these units are deed restricted and they're allocated to affordable units, they're affordable to a specific category and then the individuals occupying that unit have to qualify for that category. >> the if this were the policy, I can build something that is those all the way up to moderate. >> Yes, so the builder actually can elect to put whatever affordability level they want in a are inclusionary housing ordinance requires that they either incorporate a specific percentage that that depending on the type of differs from rentals to for sale. So if we look at moderate, which is that the 120%, it's really incorporating 10% into the project for that level. But I think it's important to note that most market rate

developers actually pay the in Lou fee and then it goes into director passengers programs and then it gets worked through housing. So it doesn't necessarily mean that that housing gets built. There has to be an incentive on the back and really for the builder to do it. The waivers can be that incentive. But in some situations, the return on affordable unit in the market rate project is not as high, obviously as other market rate units and it doesn't offset. And I think that's often we see the housing impact fee paid instead of the inclusionary units. >> So I'm I'm just going throw few things out for me. If if we waive anything, I want to make sure that the housing is being built. And I want to make sure that it is affordable to re numbers that we are not currently meeting it's very important that we have all housing for all. And finding a way to get to that is very important. I did read somewhere the residential single family residential developments to budget neutral. I just took a sniff it out on 14. I worked 3 jobs to buy my single family home. And I have 4 children. So just because someone has a single family home does not mean they have a lot of money because I work very, very hard to buy my home so my children can have generational wealth. And that is the sacrifice of time. And kissing on them and putting them to bed and everything so that I can buy my home. So at. >> Budget get it but not off the backs of people that work really, really hard to get their housing. And lastly, we keep talking about a backfill. I keep hearing that word. A backfill. Allen. This is on you backfill. >> Where is this money coming

from a backfill? And I heard someone say. >> What? We can spend our money in other places. And I'm wondering what money are we talking about? >> You would need to. >> Have here. Most unrestricted funds to be able to go to backfill that and your most unrestricted funds is the general fund. In short. >> So we have we have money in our general fund. That is not allocated or that we spend somewhere else. Well, you would have to take that out of. >> There's there's 2 ways of looking at it either. You go a project or program where we. Take a part of our general fund reserves and and use that as the backfill mechanism the other way to go about it would be and >> I believe where. The right size impact proposal was going was to take it out of your budget in general really when you're looking at doing something like that, the way I read it and and to be perfectly honest, I haven't. Spoken to the Jenny representative side love have a conversation but the way I look at that is you're you're taking out of operational budgets at that point. And the >> that the percentage that was used looks like it. They're comparing it to our total city budget, which you wouldn't be able to do, you would have to focus probably on the general fund. He wouldn't be able to go and 2 use enterprise fund money to offset this that's use are running into prop to 18 issues. So you're you're

looking for the areas where you have the the most discretion at your disposal. And that unfortunately always falls to the general fund. >> Okay. And we're looking our budget for 24. 25. Where we at with that. >> Currently, we are showing a deficit in the general fund of about 5.2 million dollars. >> And how long do we have? >> Money for our in response safe parking. The arpa funding will run in in response. They could probably go through the end of the period of performance which is DECEMBER 2026. I believe safe parking. >> Will will go. >> 2025 yet. And housing right around the same time. So we would be looking at. >> Definitely having those part of. >> The 25 26 budget. The in particular because that was the general Fund peas before I believe we are going to have a discussion at the budget study session about in response is safe parking and essentially where where we go from there. So we can start planning what to do. With those programs. >> And I do not have any other questions. But I want to look to my council members to see if anyone else has something to say and I'm going >> do this year. I do have a Sacramento Zarina numbers for the full cycle. So they only met 20% of their very numbers. 56 1% of low-income. 66.3% of above moderate and moderate

income. They did meet 100 and maybe 2%. So they did not meet their reading numbers. Thank you. >> They did not meet their in the numbers and they still decided not to. Do the waiving of the impact fees. So that was when they were waving the impact Okay. Perfect. Councilmember MacDonald. >> Thank you. I've been hearing a lot about the long-term economic happens when we housing in building and I'm not sure I'm not an economist. So I can't give you that information. But is there a way that you could get the information to council? So if we understand if we build 1000 more houses with with different like middle missing middle as well as low income. What does that do to our local economy and what is that backfill in our coffers? As far as property tax codes and some of those other ways that we make up for it. When we create housing. So a lot of the conversations is we don't have workforce housing. We don't have housing for people to come. That's why businesses are coming to the downtown area. So when I'm looking at housing right now and it kind of a bigger picture, could it is their way away. We can get that information as you bring this information back to council. >> I believe we can. We can. We can absolutely do our best to to do a deep dive in there. I can just give you a very high level. I'm absolutely the increase in housing is getting increased property tax. You're going to have more people there that are that are buying goods. It is generally a good thing for the economy and and so that's that those are all positives. When we get into

the deed restricted in and that level of affordable housing there's no property tax on those. So they're exempt from that. So now we start losing a bit. And the other thing that I think we need to keep in mind for all the benefits to come from the housing, the revenue and all that goes in. There's also a service delivery aspect that goes along with it. So the challenge is having and and that increase in revenue that comes in for says the service delivery costs. So if you increase your population by a certain amount. And that requires you do at a fire station or to do anything like that. Then you're looking at those costs that going on top of that and you need to balance the to to get the full picture of of where you're going economically. >> And then I think in addition to that, when we look at buildings specifically affordable housing, how much could we reduce potentially the cost that we're putting out right now the unhoused and so homelessness issues that type of impact that we could potentially have on a budget as we grow housing and have more affordable housing. And then the last thing just as a follow up because I want to make sure sometimes I'm delayed because I'm reading the actual I apologized to staff when they have to come back with questions. With the 25 million dollars specifically that we allocated in park impact fees. How much is unallocated? So when I'm looking at reserves, I think it's important for council to

know how much we're currently allocating in these specific impact fees and then how much we're just not. They're still just sitting in reserves. >> Okay. So I think both of those would be best come back with the kind of a thoughtful response in writing on that, especially the of course, we would want to see housing affect our homelessness house individuals in a positive way. I think that's part of the goal of but we can come back with with an answer specifically there >> let me I have the reserve numbers for you, but I think let me just because we're sending a lot of stuff to you in writing. >> I think just be easier to give that to you. There. And 2 combine out with allocated funds for for the projects. If if that's okay. >> Alright, she did a thank you. Councilmember Cookie. >> Just real Director Osborne, could you address what the pro housing designation is from the state, how we received it and where we rank within the state because of receiving it. Yes. So the pro housing designation is really a ranking based on all initiatives that we put in place to support >> and a lot of jurisdictions in the state did not receive that. So it is actually fairly difficult to get and you get it's based on a scoring system and through our last rankings, we rank 7th in the state of California. >> All right. So thing no additional questions from council members, Matt city clerk. Me please conduct

public comment. Thank you. We are now taking public comment on item 4.1. If you are in the council chamber and would like to comment but have not yet provided a speaker card or your name. Please make your way to the podium. You have 2 minutes in the countdown. Timer will alert at the end of that period. As you approach the podium, please state your name for the record. If you choose to do so. The first public comment will be from Michael followed by Peter than Adrian. >> I guess you met me, Michael Gilbert. First of all, I want to mention with respect to the Roseland Village Project that's been held up for, you know, over a the litigation. So it's mainly attributable to. County and competency embroiled litigation owner the remaining portion of parcel and all they have to do is really to buy the whole thing and they wouldn't. Avoided that whole mess. That has You know, I think a decade. Plus on to that timeline. Now with respect to you know, what they're asking for fee waivers without back film. Up to 100% of median income. So you're talking about waiving fees even when people are making above the median income. You know, that's on top all the others like. Affordable housing projects yesterday are typically exempt from private property tax. And that's huge. That's on top of the federal tax credits section 8 vouchers and the state subsidies. So this is just, you know, another freebie. They're looking forward to the problem. Top of all this. Now tell you, I think you know, the impact fees they need to be uniform. Anything else Joe just proved Like, for example, we pay a of the sewer fee that's for maintenance. And, you know, treatment, other

wastewater. But new development, you know, means the plan MAY need to increase in size is coming capacity and that needs to be paid for by uniform impact fee. Anything else is just not fair. And the same goes for schools. When you build a new housing in the schools have to expand, they got to. Get impact fee a home. >> Cover that. >> Thank you. The next speaker will be. People excuse me, Peter, followed by Adrian. Then Lauren. Peter. Peter, Rumble. Okay. Can please stay tuned in for the record? I am not a sweet and the vice PRESIDENT Of public policy and workforce development for this. And Reza Metro Chamber of Commerce. >> So good afternoon. Mayor Rogers Council members staff first, thank you so much for all the work and time that you put into this critical issue. I'm here to urge you to make meaningful adjustments to impact fees, to incentivize affordable and workforce housing. Our housing crisis is the greatest threat to our long-term success of the community and beyond the moral imperative support access to safe shelter, the economic impact of housing scarcity is profound and far-reaching posing significant challenges, individuals, our community and the economy alike. It's because of this far-reaching economic impact that this isn't as simple as it MAY seem, not as simple as looking at a budget adjustment. It's a choice that are making to invest today or to pay more for that lack of investment down the road. And we're talking about significant higher cost later, both economically and socially housing scarcity in on affordability, exasperate a

range of issues that impose heavy financial burdens on individuals, communities and governments in the long run without adequate investment in affordable housing households are at risk of substandard living conditions or homelessness without adequate investment in affordable housing. It is difficult for businesses to attract and retain talent across all skill levels. Addressing the affordable housing crisis is essential for businesses to maintain a competitive edge and to ensure robust workforce pipeline. Alternatively making strategic investments now to prioritize housing in a meaningful way can yield substantial savings and benefits for individuals, businesses and the city in the future from a direct city budget perspective, access to affordable housing reduces reliance on costly emergency services leads to increased property values and tax revenues over time as a vibrant and inclusive neighborhoods attract further investment by investing in affordable housing. The city of Santa Rosa can achieve significant cost savings foster economic resilience and create healthier, more equitable communities for residents and businesses alike. Ultimately incentivizing affordable and workforce housing not only addresses pressing social needs, but also serves as a catalyst for sustainable economic development. Fostering really in communities where individuals and Thank you. >> Thank you. I would like to remind members of the providing public comment this evening that we do have interpreters on the Spanish channel. As you make your public comments, please, pace yourselves, take a breath and be mindful that we are trying to have meaningful and interpretation on the Spanish channel for those participating via zoom in

Spanish. Thank you. The next public comment will be from Adrian followed by Lauren than Nick. >> Good afternoon Council members. My name is Adrian Covert, local lead for Saint Rose in b and West Side. Resident as PRESIDENT Biden is fond of saying don't tell me your values. Show me your budget. And I'll tell you your values. Now, this city, Santa Rosa has repeatedly told its residents that it values housing at the very top of its priority. Now, this is a great opportunity to show. That we value housing by reducing our development, impact fees. So The Gen Age proposal to right-size development impact fees would reduce fees on multifamily housing are actually scale that by affordability and square footage. These are exactly the type of units that Santa Rosa needs to. Not only meet the minimum requirement for arena. And those reena numbers are just minimum requirements. But this is an opportunity. This is essential for us to meet our to build a vibrant affordable and low-carbon city for the future for ourselves and for our kids to stay in Santa Rosa if they wish to, as they grow older. Now these costs, there's going to be some costs to this. And we've heard about some of that today. But these costs must be weighed against the cost of inaction. For example, the cost of having one of the highest rates of homelessness on a per capita basis than any other city in the United States. The cost of our working class having to commute ever farther distances. Study in Santa Clara County founded over half of their homelessness expenditures were just from dealing with the symptoms. Of unsheltered homelessness because they didn't have the infrastructure. So you're

either going to pay for the housing or you're going to pay to not have the housing. So where is that in the study? It's not. So when you're taking this into consideration, I please take into consideration the cost of inaction and the opportunities to build housing adequate for. >> and for a future. >> Thank you. The next speaker will be Lauren followed by Nick Chris. >> name is Lauren Thierry. I was here in Santa Rosa and I work for an affordable housing developer Mid Penn Housing who has an office here in Santa Rosa and 2 projects currently under construction in Santa Rosa and several throughout Sonoma County. I want to extend the invitation for any council members who are really interested in this economic question of what the current environment life is like for construction at a dialogue on that more. I have a lot of numbers and details that I can throw at you. But to briefly, summarize rates have really increase in are having a profound impact on the cost of construction. So envision I'm an imaginary community of 50 new homes, including studios ones, twos and 3 bedrooms. That would cost 40 million dollars to build. 2 years ago in that rate Construction interest rates were as low as 2%. And they're now closer to 7%. And then permanent debt is more like 6 or 7% compared to 4% a few years ago. So what does that mean? An actual numbers? You're talking about an additional million dollars spent on construction loan interest for two-year

construction project. And then you're reducing the amount of mortgage that that property can afford by another million dollars. So that project now just based on interest raced rates, cars, 2 million dollars more to build. So when your staff says every dollar counts, they are accurate and they're completely accurate in that statement. Every single dollar counts, impact fees or something that developers are borrowing either via the construction loan or the permanent loan to pay back and those impact fees can be between 300,000 and a million dollars on something like a 40 million Dollar project. So I really I'm encouraged the council to act, keep asking those questions again, to dreams, comments to think about the costs that are much harder to quantify, then these impact fees that our community pays when we don't have affordable Thank you. >> Thank you. The next speaker will be Nick followed by Chris been been. >> Thank you members. My name is Nicholas Portal speaking on behalf of Providence and representing our 44,000 caregivers over 17 ministries across the state of California, province is committed to supporting the poor, especially vulnerable that includes affordable housing. We contributed 2022 over 700 million dollars to these programs, specifically for this area between 2020 2023. We contributed 7 and a half million dollars to affordable and supportive housing projects. That includes the carrot U.S. Homes project at 2.2 million, the carrot to center 2 million and a runner park affordable housing development. And 1.3 million specifically for that development. We run into the same issues being at this meeting, although not in the city of sent Santa Rosa. But we have run into cost issues

that have made us doing that project alone unsustainable and are searching for a partner being without a stable home is detrimental your health. We cannot treat individuals if they don't have somewhere safe and stable to go to. They don't have access to meds and they can't come back for the regular care. They need to sustain a healthy lifestyle. According to the American Hospital Association, housing, instability increases health risks for children, specifically with asthma and long-term depression issues. I heard some questions about the cost providing care, especially those the homeless want to put perspective, according to the American Hospital Association, 33% of all emergency department visits are from Unhoused individuals. It's an incredible strain on our system. We don't just simply release them into the wild. We need to make sure ensure they have a safe place to go of those 33, 80% of divas. It's 80% of those visits are from preventable conditions. So again, incredible strain of the cost and adding to that burden. 51% of those individuals need to come back to the hospital for a continuing treatment. Additionally, just to the health care costs, it is incredibly difficult to recruit care providers, even with excellent benefits and pay in the area. As to the burden of trying to maintain access to care, it's for these reasons that we see proposal as an investment in the community overall benefits the community. And we believe she euro. >> thank you. The next public comment will be from Chris followed by Albert. >> I'm Chris Conte there and the part of Bikeable Santa Rosa and a resident of the

Montgomery Village area. I just want to take a very quick minute. We're sort of an ally ship Jenny Chimney in a number of other groups in the room and so want to endorse the call for, you know, all measures to accelerate housing development in the city and in particular. I want to emphasize the value of taking a systemic perspective. I really appreciate a lot of the questions from the council members that we're doing that and I think we should continue doing that. And I would just add that, you know, from a transportation perspective that nexus between denser housing and, you know, impacts on infrastructure costs and transportation. We can save money in the long run, getting this right in getting housing developed in the right places which lowers that impact and makes this more affordable, more beneficial over the long run. Thanks. >> Thank you. The next speaker will be been followed by Albert than Mike. Then we come. >> believe he's left a he was earlier, but I believe left. >> Okay. Thank you all. Circle back towards in the public comment Albert? Good under the COUNCILMAN I will get them into a different park over Roseland. >> I'm here today representing the Sonoma County Hospitality Association. Represent lodging, food and beverage retail wineries, outdoor recreation destinations and a whole lot more employee wise. We probably represent 3,000 plus employees in Sonoma County and has an economic development matter housing the availability and affordability of housing for our workforce for that sector is. Number one. Job one. We really we really need as we've been struggling, particularly

during the pandemic. And so we are here to support either the emergency ordinance or pilot project that would eliminate the fees for particularly for affordable housing from a public health standpoint. I think the pandemic revealed that there's huge disparities in housing Sonoma County. If you look over rose and the incidence of covid and Rosen were astronomical in large part because of the overcrowding of housing or lack of housing there and that community. So if you go to any restaurant, Sonoma County and seems working there is largely Latino is if you go to the lodging establishments and see who's turning down the beds in clean rooms, largely Latino is if you go to the wineries in Sonoma County, guess who's working there? And so it's really a disproportionate impact on that committee in particular. But it's impacting our entire workforce and Sonoma counties. So if you want to continue to support economic vitality and economic development in Sonoma County, we encourage you to act now suspend the impact fee waivers for the next several years to support the Generation h housing proposal. Thank you. >> Thank you. The next speaker will be Mike followed by Deborah Lauren. And Deborah. And Lauren, if you can make your way to the office, that podium, then as Mike. It'll keep the flow of the meeting going. Mike, is that you? All right. We'll move Deborah. All right, Lauren, thank you. >> PRESIDENT In honor of Phoenix development company. We built 3. Major housing projects now in the city of Santa Rosa. I'm going to speak

off my experience. We've typically seen a 20 to 25,000 per unit in impact fees each of these projects. On top of that, we've spent between 20 25,000 per unit and infrastructure repairs. Street repair curb replacement sidewalk replacement. Some instances, we had replaced the entire water main. Up and down the block because you know which I get this is infrastructure repair. But on top of that, we paid. Impact fees. We paid cff. When you take that 45 to $50,000 per unit. It comes out to about $300 per unit per month to offset that cost. You're looking about 25% of the average affordable rent that we get off our affordable projects. So when you put that in perspective, you can see where the problem My second point is, you know, all our projects affordable projects enter market rate projects all have green features all have park features all have played a lot. All have play structures. Yeah, have to pay for that. And then we pay for a park for somebody else. Cff again, we do the infrastructure repair. But on top of that, we pay for infrastructure repair somewhere else in the city. Regard to COUNCILMAN Rogers request currently mid Penn is behind better than I can. But it's 450 to 550 bets over sulphur. So rates are about 10 to 11% return on investment. 8% 2, 3, years ago. Now is about 18 to 2200. Thank you

for. >> Thank you. The next speaker will be >> That Deborah than Abby than Kathleen. Okay. We'll move on. Abbey. Thank you. >> Thank I'm going to put the stand for Cent. Thanks. >> Hi. My name is Abby Arnold and I am a resident of Montgomery Village area. I'm I'm here today to support the proposal to right-sizing impact fee. We need more affordable multifamily housing that will add to the housing available for everyone. We need housing at all income levels to allow the law of supply and demand to bring down or at least stabilize the cost of housing in the family budget. That means people who are working in our schools and in city hall and in our parks, they all have trouble finding a place to live that they can afford here. And many of them are commuting from very long distances. Yeah, there are some things that you don't have control over like the interest rates. 4 construction loans. But there are some things that you can do something about that relate to the high cost of new housing and this proposal, the right size fee proposal is something that you can do. We understand the cost of materials and of course, we want the workers who are doing the construction to be paid fairly but fees are part of the problem along with the length of time that it takes to get local approval and those are things that you

have control over reform of the development fee can make a big difference in how long it takes to get housing built. I encourage you to adopt the right size impact fee proposed by Gen Age and help make Santa Rosa a city where our workforce can find a place to live. Thank you. >> Thank you. The Knicks next speaker will be Kathleen followed by Abby t. >> And then Jenny Kane. >> The new Mayor Rogers, Vice Mayor Stapp Capital Council members and staff. My name is causing a tv dot the program manager at first 5 Sonoma County. I'm also resident Santa Rosa. I'm here to voice support for affordable housing and emphasize the urgency of the housing crisis in the through our community partnership with generation housing, we've been assessing the housing climate and the city and county and learning how children and families can be uplifted through the affordable housing policies, especially our family's most impacted by structural and systemic racism. As most of us know, accessibility to affordable and stable housing is a huge precursor to positive health and development for families with young children. Research has repeatedly showing that disruptions and housing frequent moves, housing, insecurity, and being an Hauser per a profound barriers to optimal early brain development and school readiness and learning not only do we have a housing crisis, but we continue to see. And for spies, annual assessment that nearly a quarter of our communities, 5 year-olds who due to disruptions in development

such as housing, instability, lack the necessary readiness to succeed when they start catered kindergarten, which we know is huge impact on their future. >> Now is the time to make policy changes, to disrupt the harmful patterns that are affecting future generations in the city and to ensure success and achievement for our youngest citizens. So I urge the council to support the adoption of generation Housing's Right-size impact the policy by doing so we will be on a path to enhance health and education outcomes and strengthen families with access to affordable housing. Thank you so much for your time and consideration. >> Thank you. The next speaker is Abby followed by Jenny. Then Josh and and Stephanie. >> Rogers, Vice mayor staff council members and city manager spent and staff. Good afternoon, Mayor Rogers, Vice Mayor Stapp council members, city managers, myth and staff. My name is Abby and the operations manager at Generation housing. And in essence, you graduate. >> Wants to stay in and work here in Sonoma County one day be able to achieve the American dream of buying a home. Last year. Generation housing released a report called making the rent and we asked families what they would do if they didn't pay so much for rent. And here are a few of the many responses we received. I would be able to afford dental care. I would be able to afford child care and healthy food. I would be able to afford. A healthier diet, open up a savings account and save for retirement. I would I would be able to invest in more health care. I would be able to provide my kids with

the things they need. I wouldn't be so stressed out and I could financially have money to spend on bills and on my kids. Mayor Rogers Council members city manager, Smith and staff. These are neighbors, our friends, our family members, our colleagues asking for the basic needs and you can make a difference. Thank you for your time and your leadership. Thank you. The next speaker is Jenny followed by Joshua and Stephanie and Sonya. >> Good afternoon. I'm MADAM Mayor and council members. Many them city manager Close executive Director Generation housing. I graduated from Montgomery. I spent my allowance money at the last record store and they grew up ice rings for chalets. I am a sinner as a kid and as my hometown. So I care a lot about it. 4 years ago I took this job because I knew that housing was the linchpin to our community's recovery, resilience and more equitable, sustainable and prosperous future. And this was a collective community opinion. So I believed everyone was ready and willing to put skin in the game to tackle is priority. And I believe that the same bold leadership in can do spirit. We saw on our fire response or recovery existed. Efforts still exist, id. But 4 years later, I will tell you that my belief is waning. I see paralysis through analysis a whole lot more time spent explaining why we can to do than time spent strategizing on how we can do less urgency around actually doing equity instead of just

talking about it resistance to trying new things and less focus on investing in the future. So I ask you today, please make me a believer again. Make me a believer again by walking your pro housing, talk through your budget. Walk by prioritizing the 92,000. Santa Rosa is paying too much for rent. The more than 5,000 Santas and sitting the more than 5,000 people sitting on affordable housing waiting lists nearly 3,000 living without shelter and one in 4 kids living overcrowded homes. Make me a believer again today by directing you're capable staff to go back to the drawing board and wrapped up a few options on how to dedicate 1.5% of the budget a year for the next at 8 years to catalyzing housing through impact fee reform by adopting our right-size program. Thank you in advance for your leadership. >> Thank you. The next speaker will be Joshua followed by Stephanie Sonia and Omar. >> Good afternoon. Mayor City Manager Smith Council and staff. My name is Josh are and the director of special initiatives at Generation Housing. The Council has raised a lot of questions on, especially Sacramento. We can try to answer a few of those. We've been working with Sacramento, a staffer about 4 months. And just clarify a few things they have built about 3,000 affordable units within the 4 years after waiving fees. This was compared to just a few 100 in the past 7. So we count about the 9 fold annual increase. We be very excited to see what what Santa Rosa can do. Some really the Weaver worked out to about

only $3,000 per unit, which is extremely efficient investment in gap funding for housing units were evenly split between low income and very low-income exactly what they were trying to do to meet their arena and last but not least this surge happened when market rate units were holding pretty steady and they expressed to us the attributed this to the fee program. 2 questions of whether Santa Rosa can do this they has 60 million dollars in impact fee reserves. Can answer including 25 million as you heard for parks and 15 in capital. Petaluma and implemented a similar program to Sacramento in Covering infrastructure from other revenue. The city of Sonoma has the square footage. The program already in place accomplishing much of what they be 602, and our rights program does. Allred says program accomplishes much, much of what Sacramento is already doing and it's costing less and will apply to more than just a deed restricted affordable units but also deed restricted moderate. A significant portion of the current surplus of these has been collected off of this reason burst of new housing that you've heard all about built during a time of one time rebuild funds. But these funds are part now spent. So our question for you is what happens when the housing pipeline slows down? We do not think this is a 0 sum choice between housing and infrastructure and we urge you to view this right-size program has a renewed one time injection of funding for housing to keep that 3.4. >> Thank >> you. The next speaker is Stephanie, followed by Sonya Omar and then mask. Good evening, Council members and staff. My name is Stephanie Pickard, Bowen deputy director at generation housing. >> I was born and raised in Santa Rosa. I'm raising my family here and I hope to buy

a home here in the next year. Don't know if that's going to happen. The regional housing needs allocation. Rina is the absolute minimum that the state requires. But it is nowhere near our actual need. Given that building housing now is more expensive than ever. Thanks to the economic climate. It's clear the city must take action if we want to avoid falling further into housing deficit. The good news is that you City Council Santa Rosa have tremendous power to enact act. Local policy change to address this. Are right. Size program is the first and most crucial step the Santa Rosa can take right now to actively fight against housing unaffordability. It reduces the cost to build housing in Santa Rosa by targeting fees. It benefits the most deeply affordable units. The most targeting the residents and workers who need the most support. The city of Santa Rosa. Additionally didn't pay for in-depth economic analysis on housing on the housing impact of the economy. And it was complete in SEPTEMBER. And we're confused why it has not been presented to the full Council. Housing is at the top of Santa Rosa's priorities and has been for the past several years. The top priority deserves a budget that prioritizes our top priority. We stand at the ready to partner with you in addressing our communities, housing and thank you in advance for your leadership on housing. Thank you. >> Thank you. The next speaker will be Sonia and Omar Mask. And Jamie. >> My name is Sonya Big borrowing I'm a lifelong resident of Sonoma County, co-owner of Paradise, Ridge Winery and currently serving as a civic engagement generation housing. I join the team at Jim Age because I see

the fabric of our community unraveling due to the high cost of housing in Sonoma County. I understand that adjusting the impact. These has a cost, but there's a much higher cost to waiting. I could talk to you about how as a mother, I don't think my children are going to be able to live here. I can also talk about my employees moving away. But what I asked you guys to do is you receive 20 plus letters from high schoolers in Santa Rosa. I asked you, read those letters and really here with those voices are saying those apart, those children are our future. It is important that we consider the cost to our community when there's no affordable housing available, our young families in our workforce will move away. Homelessness will continue to rise and schools will continue to close. Commuting times will get longer and businesses MAY be forced to close due to the high cost of living local companies like months on lot or Tia Factory being 2 recent examples. It is critical that we invest in housing solutions across every level of affordability and offer options for families at all stages of their lives. The renewables, including requirement for production of housing at all levels. But there are no subsidies for market rate options. It is this type of housing that employees say is needed the most for recruitment and retention, including teachers, nurses and government workers. Yet amidst these challenges lies an opportunity for bold leadership. I ask you to seize this moment to stand as champions of change and to advocate for the measures we need to bring affordable housing to Santa Rosa. The time for action is now please vote favor of progress in doing so. You lay the

foundation for more equitable and sustainable future for all residents in of Sonoma County. >> Thank you. The next speaker will be Omar followed as Jamie and then Ariel. >> Good evening. Mayor Rogers, Vice Mayor Stapp council members and staff. My name is Omar on the program. So Santa generation housing. I've been a resident of Santa Rosa for road specifically the Roseland area. I'm here to address the severe impact of our housing crisis on children and young adults. We know that housing instability, harms children's health development and school performance and then-sen unstable housing are more prone to health issues like asthma. Moreover, unstable housing, increases a child's a score affecting the nor the moment outcomes that's instability. This reps eldron security, education and well-being often forcing parents into multiple jobs, reducing family times and contributing to overcrowded living situations, especially evident during the covid-19 lockdowns for young adults like myself. The crisis far Sox's to independence, forcing many to delay or abandoned higher education and career aspirations. The challenge to secure affordable housing prices are young adults out severing community Tyson undermining our local economy. The struggle for stable, affordable living space restricts our ability to contribute meaningfully to the economy and community. Housing stands as the most pressing issue facing our families and youth today. Many of you have talked at length about concerns for our youth and their future. For housing policies continue to hurt and push them out. They must

question what is our future? Today he received 30 letters from students in Santa Rosa, which I greatly encourage everybody to read. They are begging you to pick actual action. How are you going to respond to them? We cannot afford to wait for change with thousands. The affordable homes now immediate action such as adopting generation Housing's rights ice-free program can significantly alleviate the pressures by incentivizing affordable housing development. Thank you in advance for your leadership in creating a city where everyone can afford the safe, stable home. >> Thank you. The next speaker has followed by Jamie Ariel and then Cassidy. >> Good afternoon. Council members and staff. My name is Max and saying I'm I'm the research manager at Generation housing over the past, feels like 2 hours or so. We spend a lot of time here wondering and speculating about things. We don't know where things were unsure about. And I would like to remind everyone here as per the comments from my colleagues my colleague, Josh, there are actually things we're quite sure about such as how much this policy will cost, how effective this policy will be. And while I as a researcher understand that we need good information before we can make good decisions. I cannot help but wonder how much time we are giving up to think and wonder and speculate and contemplates about what we don't know. I want the council to remember

the things that we do know. We know that housing here in Sonoma County is more an affordable than ever before. Know that starting in NOVEMBER, billions of dollars of money for affordable housing will rush into the Bay Area. And Sonoma County in Santa Rosa will have to compete with other jurisdictions and that those home builders who can build those houses for us will only be focusing on the jurisdictions where it is cheapest and easiest to build as they always have. And we know that you the elected representatives of Santa Rosa and the staff that tirelessly support them. You have the power to make this community and attractive place to build housing, to build the housing that is affordable and that is necessary. If Santa Rosa wants to spend time wondering about what it doesn't know, I propose you wonder about this if we don't build housing, how many more longtime Sonoma County residents will leave? How many downtown businesses will businesses will close? How many residents will become a victim or homeless. How many schools will close, how many families will be forced to double up in their homes? How many residents will skip meals and health care and time with their loved ones. If you want to wonder about something we don't know, let it be this. How much can a community suffer when its residents can no longer afford to live? There? I hope we never learn the answer. Thank you in advance for leadership. >> Thank you. The next speaker will be Jamie followed by Ariel Cassidy and Olivia's mom. >> Good afternoon. Mayor Rogers, Vice Mayor Stapp

Council members and staff. I'm Jamey a lifelong center as a resident. I'm here urge you to support a generation housing policy as things stand today. I can't afford to own a home or out my parents. House. I love the city. I'm proud to be from Santa But housing keeps being like this. Being out of reach for young people like me. I just might have to leave. We need housing policies that help us stay and build a life. Let's make sure the is a place that we were. Everyone can lift. Thank you. Thank you. The next speaker will be aerial followed by Cassidy Olivia's mom in Keith. >> Mayor Vice Mayor council members and city staff. My name real Busey. I'm the new outreach advocate generation housing. And here's talk to you about right now is the time for Affordable House scene. Housing is a basic human right. And it's a basic human need yet. So many people are living with unstable or no housing due to the rising costs as well as working with Jen Age. Also work at the Santa Rosa Junior college in the sheer number of students that I've had to help that do not have housing is astronomical. I just spoke to a young woman today who can no longer go to school anymore because she does not have housing. They are about to be. Unhoused. I spoke to another student as well. Who informed me that one parent is working 2 jobs 7 days a week. The other working 5 days a week. Their income is 84,000 a year. The median cost of a house in Santa Rosa, almost 600,000. I know when my parents bought a house out here, it was 194,000

that houses almost $800,000. Now I cannot afford to move out of my parents house as much as I would love to have my own place. We cannot afford to not support the efforts that generation age is aiming for. If you look at the high cost of not providing affordable housing one of costing the town and community members more. We'll see businesses closing as been mentioned. You'll see residents leaving. So I thank you for your time. And once again, I really hope you all can join and support of this proposed policy from generation Housing. Thank you. >> Thank you. The next speakers, Cassidy followed by Olivia been city clerk, part in the disruption. Can we make sure that you are very close to the microphone so we can make sure to hear you down here. Hi, my name is Cassidy. I attend school here in Santa Rosa. I'm someone that feels that renting and especially homeownership is out of reach. 34,000 households or 18% of households in Sonoma County are paying more than 50% of their income on rent. And I was told growing up their housing expenses should never be more than a 3rd of your income. Living with a parent is currently my only option. But I'm lucky to have a family that is both willing to support me as an adult and is a healthy home to live in, which is not a reality for everyone. The high cost of living makes moving out an impossible task and just definitely a financial decision. Most would advise against Petaluma found a way to support affordable housing by strategically reducing fees and serves as a successful model to consider. In conclusion I support generation Housing's proposed

policy to address housing affordability. Thank you. Thank you. The next speaker will be Olivia followed by Keith in Edina. >> Olivia. >> Rogers Council members. Keith don't many homes in Sonoma County bit somewhere over 5,000 them and I can't say much here that right now they can offer offer some relief here. But I will tell you that. Back in about 2014. We I think that the Chamber of Commerce was involved in important mission, this program together with with a city staff. The only person I see here right now who was involved in that is is a And we had we had meetings monthly with an agenda and we talked about housing issues and it was intended by everybody on the management side of that. The planning staff, the engineering, a building and there were builders. Were that were involved in those discussion? Mosul's builders are gone. Now. Nonetheless, we were on the threshold of really making some breakthroughs. I mean, important big dollar breakers when the fires hit in 2017 and when that happened, all that, of course, those of you who are the the attention shifted to shift to the fires. But even at that, we had that we had meetings monthly at the at the doors exchange with staff. And we work through issues to

get these houses out of out of the city, get them started and get them built. And we're the job was to knock down barriers. And I have so much to say, but I don't have the time to do it today. I would like to ask that you consider starting a group like we back >> several several years ago. Thank >> Thank you. The next speaker will be Olivia followed by Edina been And Susan. Olivia. At the >> And the former executive assistant to the Santa Rosa City Schools board. And I was forced out questioning, nonprofits tied to the school board. The board PRESIDENT At the time was MISTER Johnnie Close executive director of Generation housing. I've seen many conflicts of interest, for example, Ms Ali g# # # # # # Service serves on the board for Generation Housing and she was charge of housing for the entire North Bay for mid Penn, which on the proposal to remove the development. These bots, a conflict of interest, MISTER View. Do remember spoke on behalf of the Metro Chamber? Also Generation Housing board member MISTER Michel Aoun, the chair to Sonoma County Conservation Action. MISTER Chris Rogers r his nonprofit where he's executive director. So there's a lot of middle Manning by goes on and it doesn't benefit the taxpayers whatsoever. I asked why generation housing was approved the project of the Tide. Son being not missed

any close. Had $85,000 in outstanding tax liens. At the time. I was actually threatened by the federal government for asking MS. >> I wanted to see those financials, which should be public record. That high tenor is located in the Presidio, which is apparently federal land. So I was threatened by the national Parks. Police under the Department of the Interior who ironically funds the Tide Center. There's no record of where the funding for these projects are going want to bring in low-income housing. The press Democrat has me labeled as these domestic terrorists of the county because I'm an activist who can read as a brown person tonight going bring more people from below where I just came from. You can't even deal with me. So how are you going to deal with more people of color when racism was labeled as a public health crisis? >> And if you're not somebody who was a token willing to go along with the agendas of white liberals, you'll be exiled from this county like I was. So I could use the word that you used to push your agenda has doctor Nathan Communities of color. Thank you. >> Vo Michael. >> Thank you. The next speaker will be on a followed by Susan. >> Hi, my name's and ideas and I am from Roseland. What proof is that this will work? I am the loan signing age and I am seeing a nonstop pattern of us housing people from the Bay area who are moving the summit county at the market price rather than helping locals who rent rooms, garages and trailers. Our local residents are being forced out of the area due to be these raised

housing fees. It didn't work in. Sacramento has stated today. So please help me understand how work in Santa Rosa. I have concerns about about generation age to influence any decision making on behalf of the city of Santa Rosa residents. Their advocacy typically appears to be benefiting their friends and family serving on generation age board, rather than the community. For example, Allie g# # # # # # serves on the said that Rose Land was endorsed by generation age meant and housing will be completing the development met Sally g# # # # # # secretary to the Jenin Age board was the direct director of the housing development, North Bay at the time of this project was approved men, women and was included, has done Oliver with engine age letter requesting to waive development fees. Business deals are we're through generation age to financially benefit the developers and the inner circles, which is negatively impacting the community at large. I'm requesting for the city to decline Jen proposal to weigh impact fees and that these new housing developments are negatively impacting the people of Roseland. There needs to be more outreach in surveys provided to the committee members. So they are informed. Not just once I did. That will benefit today's vote. Thank you my my time. Thank you. The next speaker will be Susan. >> I'm Susan Lamont District. 2, I didn't come here to comment on this today, there's a huge elephant in the room and no one mentioned.

>> The giant of every part of economy by the wealthy. And the impoverishing of local governments. >> There is no such thing as a law of supply and demand. That is a fiction. It is the law greed. When the cost of something doesn't come up. For instance, that house that was under $200,000, it's now $800,000. Only only greed. If you just say hello, I can take advantage of the fact that there's not enough of this. I'll just raise the price. It's offensive. Once upon a time, there was almost no homelessness why was that? Government build housing and how did government pay for that? The rich were taxed at 90%. And you know what? They lived just fine. But then they found out they could buy off. Public officials. And then there tax rate dropped. And we're seeing the results of this. The rich are never asked to sacrifice we hear We can't defer defund the police. Defunding happens all the time. Everything else is allowed to be defunded. So City Council's I talked to the city Council, not you guys years ago and said this is happening. This is going to happen. You can't change the tax rate. But you can speak out about it. You can get your People to understand you talk to residents and say this is

the problem. >> do something about it. >> Thank you. That concludes those who would feeling those who registered for public comment or signed up to speak. If there's anyone else wishing to provide public comment on item. 4.1 that has not yet provided a comment. Please make your way to the podium. Mayor mc no one else make a move towards the podium. Thank you. Bring it back to council. I do have a question. Why is this happening now? What funding or stream the funding that we have before, where this was a an issue for like the City Council to deal with this. >> Oh, what a talent chime in. Redevelopment dissolved. A lot of cities were left with trying to figure out how funding was going to be you know, how funny was going to be put together for affordable housing. So once redevelopment went away, he started to see city struggle with healthy. >> The redevelopment came from where city manager. Redevelopment funds came from where? I actually know where they came from. But the point is, is that? When governments higher than the decide to make changes and how they allocate funds, it's up to local governments to try to figure out how we have to piecemeal it and patch it up and how we can do things that they have been doing. And I think that it's really sad to pay us again. It's people that I know for 100%, every single one of my colleagues that believe and affordable housing that have children that like have gone through the process. 7 eating

housing here in Sonoma County. So, yes, I listen to all of the public comment, but I think it's really sad to pit us against each other when we all have the same goal. And that is for us to have affordable housing for all here in Sonoma County. How we get there. It MAY be different, but we all have the same goal. Is there anyone else that has a comment? Look crafty good. Thank you. >> Question real quick. There's been a lot of back and forth between a son and then the presenters and I appreciate all the time you've taken. I'm trying to recall was there when you said looking at the propose and I know we have that we as a city and staff hasn't had time to analyze it or considered in full. But did you say that there's a possibility that exists that looking at that the methodology used could comply with the 86? 0, 2, >> There's there's a possibility just looking at the break points on the unit calculations, I would want to further and Afghan allies before stating that those categories comply with 602. Okay. So if you're looking for any more direction from us, know you've got all the direction you want but I love the idea of maybe 602, in doing that. But you said 2 years, correct. 2.58 to be able to fully take that on get a result. That's been the historic trend. Okay. I'm still want to pursue that. We have to. I'd like to get your guys analysis from the proposal. Lacking had a chance to take a look at it from for the right-sizing and and see what we can And also continue work on the missing work

already been doing and see what we can do to further that I know that is a huge point of interest and focus and focus for a lot of people in this area. So I would like that that would be preference to see a staff, too. >> members, plumbing. Thank you for bringing this item forward. Mayor in Bridgend. I sing it. I know it took some bold leadership and thank you. City staff are both cautious analysis of our finances and providing us with options. Everybody brought something forward to the table. And now here we are at this moment where capital is really expensive and the need for housing is not going away. And it is incumbent upon us to put our our budget. We're a values are. And so speak for myself and say, here's what I'm in support of. I'm in support of the right-sizing and doing the ab but not with the next a study right now because I don't want to delay it. I do want to see it happen. I appreciate the generation. Housing adjusted their proposal to the tiers and I'm in support of doing much of that. I'll tell you the pieces that. And particularly in support of is waiving fees for multifamily housing in for missing middle housing I'm not in support of waiving park fees. I am in support of our staffing during out the creative the most creative solutions to get parks deployed quickly and easily and in ways that that meat

goat the law, but also don't have a bunch of money in pots hanging around. And that's not the direction that MISTER Osborne needs today. But at any rate, I would propose a three-year. Waiver which will give us some time to get past the housing bond in NOVEMBER. Hopefully allow for our for rates to stabilize. And I would just say this, you many of us I have struggled with the cost housing. I know many of us works harder than we should have been missed out on more time with our families, then we should have. And it's my hope that collectively the 7 of us can do something that eases the burden for folks going forward. I know it's not always super how palatable to do so because there are pieces of this that are. We have to make difficult choices and their pieces of this that MAY seem like giveaways to developers. But here's the thing it in the way I look at it is that and the way I look at the Enterprise district for that matter is that. Government doesn't build housing. Developers build housing. It MAY be greed as one commenter it MAY just be the way that the banking system is set up under our capitalist system to prioritize profits. But it is what it is. And until we can change that system, which is far beyond the scope of this council. We have to look at what's before us and what is before us today is a dire need for housing. And that is what I'm here to do. I'm here to do the job in front of me. If I'm ever in the federal government that we can talk about that and state government in MISTER Rogers can talk about that next year. And believe me, he p MAY block my number. But the point is today we have a job but we have some opportunities. We have a

chance to do something differently. >> And this is what I hope we do. So thank you to everybody and I appreciate any compromise we can find and doesn't have to be forever. It can just be for 3 years and we can see how we do. Listen. If it doesn't work, we get no housing built. We won't have lost any money. >> Councilmember MacDonald. >> Thank you, mayor. And thank you so much for the presentation of back and forth and getting us some of that information that we talked about as far as the data, how much money is still left in reserves? I think that's helpful just for us to have the conversation. I agree with everything that Councilmember Fleming said. I'd like to see at three-year waiver as coming back year, the year so that we can have some information. So while we want to commit in theory to a three-year study or three-year waiver program. I want to make sure that we're coming back to see how many shovels we really are getting into the ground and so that we can actually see that this program would be and really incentivize the developers that are out there doing the work to to actually get started on some of these projects that we know we need desperately right now. As far as the park impact fees goes. I agree with you. Councilmember Fleming that we need to make sure that we're not cutting our nose off to spite our face when we're looking at and housing or specifically high density housing, my concern would be that we are creating open spaces for the families that were actually trying to house right now. So that's something I think we need to know. First, how much money still left in reserves and how we can use that money. And then

second, what the impact of that's going to be? I still i'm interested in finding out the long term impact as far as how housing impacts our local economy. As far as how many houses we built. And I that Allen said that he could probably give me some of that information. But thank you really. I appreciate the conversation. Appreciate all the advocacy today from everyone that's here giving us their opinion on this. And I look forward seeing it come back to us. >> If you're talking about the reserves for like the parks, I think one of the public commenters did say from their calculations it was 25 15, but that has not been vetted my understanding was it was 25 million that's been allocated. I'd like to know how much isn't unallocated. I want the total amount of the budget in both Cff and in Park. >> Park impact fees. And then I also I think I mentioned earlier the quadrants and how we can shift some of that money around. So we don't have a seven-year program. We actually get some things done right now. Councilmember Alvarez. >> All right. Well, a lot of things have already been said for myself. I do believe that come from rose it's it's evident that we need housing 7 that we do have multiple families of anyone structure and 7 of the his heart. It's evident that we are. We are subjected to. To be a risk when it went in. There is a pandemic when there is a fire on there is any type of disaster, so to speak. And yet we're still with making sure that some of the county is a

school board. But I do fear when it comes quality of life. What this means. Sidewalks, something so simple when when when Rosen was still part of the county? Well, you know, the developers, we're not it was part. It was practicing a policy when they were asked to to to implement sidewalks. And that leaves the Santa Rosa with Hunt Avenue. When look at Southwest Park where children trying to make it to the park and risk their lives every day, there are still no sidewalks when it when it comes Superbike Avenue and Hearne Avenue. So I do agree that we do need a program and the right size might be it. But I like see it be focused on the very low, too 2 to the moderate. I do not support anything that says for for for the market rate. There's absolutely nothing that justifies that in my mind. If you have enough money for that structure. I mean, even for those that still needed, and I believe that the council MacDonald said it correctly where we can actually move the funds for there. Is that that that are not up to par. And that is part my feeling why marker a should not be subjected include in this packet. I believe should be 3 years and I would appreciate updates. Council member Fleming made great point about the parties that they should not being sacrificed. I do support that and it would be interesting. No. As councilman, we don't see what has been allocated and was not. And that's the parking fees. And I leave with the question. If we as a city are. Giving more incentives to

developers. Is it now a practice? Policy when it comes to infrastructure, such as sidewalks. So I think the sidewalks are a bit of a animal. The way it works with development is typically sidewalk. Connectivity is a requirement of the development. >> So the construction of the sidewalk happens with the development. What happens in some situations as development is inconsistent and happens very, very area. We run into connectivity issues and oftentimes that gap is either closed by the city of the funding. Is there or through other development projects so I think really as we move this forward, what will do is an analysis on looking at what seems to be the direction we're getting is the three-year program. And really what does that mean from an infrastructure delivery standpoint during that time frame in the various eff categories? Because I think we have bikes, sidewalks, roadways and we can analyze what that looks like with what the development requirement is and what Cff would cover is really the gap there. >> hope that we can by the solution to that. There's a lot of other comments there today improving the quality of life and making sure that that the residents in Rosa. Are able to live where they work. But let's not put the children in danger when they're simply trying to make it to the park. So I'm hoping that the practice that was that The county doesn't become. If you listen policy of the city.

>> Councilmember Rogers. >> Thank you, So first I saw 2 colleagues asked how has it is unallocated? I'm not a lip reader, but when I see the assistant city manager go like this, I think he meant 20 Million. Just if I had It sounds like everything's been allocated the sign language. For me, it goes back to that fundamental question of do we see housing as an investment in the community or not? Do we see it as economic development or not, particularly when we're talking about are very low in our low income. We know that it just does not pencil out for folks to be able to advance those projects, particularly in our community, especially with some of the other competing factors that we have with folks in the Bay Area. We've talked for a decade really focused on the time, the certainty and the cost of these housing developments. And when I hear over and over again from folks is well intentioned policy is great. But if it doesn't actually make the pro forma work out that the access to capital the willingness for banks to loan money. It's just not there. And even if you own the land, you're still losing money. As you wait for that to make sense. So whether interest rates coming down, whether policy change from the council. You need that nexus between how much the bank expects to get rate of return on its capital to meet up with what your logistics look like. Otherwise you're not going to get on the housing and to the point that we talked about,

we're not losing any money by cutting fees if nothing gets built. I'm not really interested in doing a strict waiver at the moment. I do think that we need to come back in our budget adoption, talk about how we're going to actually pay for it. But I think that it is a priority for the city. I think that we should have identified if so many projects that are in the pipeline come online are able to get there their financing plan approved. This is how much we expected to cost. And I think we need to find that money in the budget because it is a priority and it has been a priority for our community. I also think that because developers are trying to make their pro formas work that a waiver doesn't work like a reduction. I think if we have the council policy is a reduction in those fees, it makes it easier to go back and get that financing approved. I also think that 3 years is probably too short for us to be able to make that case to the public and to the banks and and to the financial institutions, particularly given some of the broader economic forces where perhaps when we look a little bit out in the interest rates come down to it. That's the time where the council can say great that created some room in that financial stack for us to go back and talk about our talk about our infrastructure. To me, it's a balancing approach of how do we try to make these projects pencil and 3 years, probably given the economic outlook, not enough time for us to actually see this policy realized. What I heard was sort of conflicting on Sacramento. What I heard was that they reduce it and they saw a 9% or a 9 times

increase on how much they were getting and that they perhaps would not have gotten that had they not had similar policies. But I do think that it's everything I think its redevelopment going away and that's trying to figure out how to fix that. I do think that it's purpose in our city land and keeping that UFOs of. We're willing to work with folks to try to get what we want and what our community really needs and that's below and the very low in the moderate housing keep working on the missing middle. Keep working on advancing this project. For me, it's a no-brainer for us to do that per square foot as opposed to per unit work and incentivise apartments and not just more McMansions are single-family homes that tend to pencil out on their own anyway. And let's bring back in the budget, how we're going to pay for it. But I do think that this can this council needs to continue to lead. And this is an opportunity for us to say to other communities in Sonoma County, we're going to put our skin in the game because we know that it's going better. Our community long term. What are you doing as well to help? Vice mayor said? I just want to echo what my colleagues have have indicated. I'm certainly in support of taking a closer look at our impact, our impact fee with a particular focus on the right size impact fee policy that's been presented >> anything we need to incentivize while all but particular very low income, low income and missing middle. But then but actually both Mayor Rogers and Councilmember Rogers we've got real budget tradeoffs. We have to consider

things are tight right now. And when can't know with certainty what what any, any future incentives or any future impact fee adjustments might mean for the budget. We can always take a guess that it's going somewhere between 400,001.5 million a year. And that's that's a real hit to the budget. And so to COUNCILMAN Rogers Point, I'd like at least a little bit of strategizing about what worked, what we're giving up. If we want to incentivize housing in this way, which again, across the day as we do. >> Thank you. >> So I'll just wrap it up by saying I think my colleagues said it wonderfully. I do want to look at the missing middle low, very low low in multi-family. He's great. I'm not interested in waiving park fees. I do want to know how we're going to supplement this with our cut deficit that we have. And what are we going to have not And I would like a I wouldn't call it a rebound, but I would like a report annually. Just so we can see even if it's saying we we don't have anyone that is taking advantage the taking advantage of it right now. I'm just so we can kind of keep in eye on it to know what's going on to see if there's something we can do to improve it why are people taking advantage of it are where we at. So. I'm looking at the 2 of you to see if you have the direction that you need. >> and just really quickly, the outstanding questions that I didn't answer the 2 council just to make sure we're aware in the public has an answer to that. The number of affordable units that are really pending, ready to move to construction

is 301. So to MISTER Alvarez's And that's the number. And then the the maximum justified amount on the fees study that was set higher than the ultimate by actually quite a bit. So cff for single-family and multifamily single-family was 25,000. Multifamily was 18,000 and some change for parks for single-family with 16,000 multifamily 13,000 and those fees were ultimately set by the council. Almost half those numbers. So thank you for the opportunity to answer. Is as far as the feedback. Yes, I think that helps us from a policy. We have time frame to it. We have affordability level to it. I think we can work with that. understanding that there is more of a desire to look at Parker, less of a desire to look at Parks and Cff bubble. Look at the impacts of both of those we will also follow through on the missing middle piece. That's part of the process in general. And we'll be doing that anyway. So this will be a companion to that effort. So I know in our and there's on my and there's really just want to reiterate that the arena numbers are a challenge to me. And Santa Rosa has come out of the gate very strong this year. And the community should be proud of that. It's not just the council on the staff. It's it's also the members here in the audience that have played a significant role in that. So it's it's going to be really exciting to see where we end up this year, which I think is is going to be So appreciate the support and feedback and we have enough to move this forward and my aunt and I'll leave it to my colleague here to add anything on its Yeah, I

think I what to what to give appreciate the direction. Thank you very much. >> I will the reserve numbers just and then all of follow-up and still give them writing I won't go too fast, but it's still good to see him. So for park development fees in the North West Zone. It's about 10 million dollars in reserves. These are per our development Few reports as JUNE 30th 2023. So 10 million in the North West Zone. 6.5 million and southwest. 4.6 million in northeast. 0.4 million and southeast. And 4 cff. 17.7 million. And to be perfectly clear, those are all allocated dollars. They're in reserve, but they're allocated. There are no unallocated reserve dollars. Councilmember funding. >> Is there's just one tiny thing I wanted to and which is Councilmember Rogers brought up a concern about 3 year period not being long enough. I'm hopeful that when you bring it back, you can give us a couple of different likes of time to this to deliberate over as well as the corresponding costs. Yeah, I would. I would recommend looking at a 3 to 5 year period. We could look at both just down how development cycles work in 3, maybe 2 short based on the >> Excellent. Thank Yeah, I was also thinking about that and thinking maybe we can do 3 years with a deeper dive in the Val. >> At 3 So it's 3 to 5. >> And Unless we stop it. 3

continues. To to 5 still have a deeper dive. We some of that information on whether or not off of the bond is going to go on the ballot? >> As well. So we will incorporate that information as well. There'll probably be a lot of factors that are changing. And that's what I want to continue to have us. >> Look at what is doing, what we decided to do Yes. >> Yeah. I when we have that conversation, I'd be interested in understanding having a public discussion of what the impact of a shorter time line has on the certainty that many folks who are trying to get their financing in place would face and whether or not 5 years makes more sense in terms of providing the certainty that they need to be able to get the financing they need to break ground. >> All right. And with that, thank you all for sticking with us. But we are going to take a short dinner break. So we will. We will be 6.50, thank you. For a start. The boxing? Alright? Alright, Santa Coroner Madison, MADAM City Clerk MAY up take the Thank you. Councilmember Rodgers here council broke here. Councilmember MacDonald here, Councilmember Fleming. Council member of runs. Vice mayor stopped here. Mayor Rogers, the PRESIDENT, let the record show that all council members are present with the exception of council member of arrests and Councilmember Fleming. Thank you. So I apologize for anyone that likes to do in order, but I'm

going to do some sausage making of the agenda so we can get everything done. >> quickly as we can. So we're going to start with item 14 and that is public comment on non agenda matters. So with that, MADAM City clerk, me police facilitate. Thank you. We are now taking public comments on item 14 non agenda matters >> this is a time when any person MAY address the council on matters not listed on this agenda, but which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council. If you are in the council chamber like to comment but have not yet provided a speaker card or your name. Please make your way to the podium. You will have that 2 minutes. And a countdown timer will alert at the end of that period, we will take 12 public speakers on under item 14. If we have more than 12 public comments on item, 14 non agenda matters the remaining speakers will be afforded the opportunity to speak on item 18 non agenda matters. As you approach the podium, please state your name for the record. If you choose to do so. The first public comment will be Ruby followed by in And then Susan. Hi, go ahead. Reading it. Reid Benin Curtis, a district 3. I'm here to urge you to consider calling for a cease-fire. Presumably you have already individually considered this and have dismissed it as outside of your jurisdiction. >> I'm not going to claim that the critical aspects of Santa Rosa City planning are not important or worthy of time and consideration. The more city council meetings I attend, the more I realize how

vital they are. Santa Rosa does not exist in a vacuum. We exist in a broad world and to sit here and go about our business as we do not is to present a strange warped and fundamentally self-serving version of reality. If we are city adrift from the rest of the world, then we have no moral or legal imperative to attend to the atrocities that are committed outside of our line of sight. We have become joyously on involved. It is comfortable to be free of any moral obligation this way. However, you can look at anything that you ever bought or any investment you ever made and know that this is a world. The that this is a worthy you have internally constructed. Not one is reflective of material reality. This fabricated world allows you to Gilles Le your eyes from all you do not want to see. We're here to ask you to come back to an uncomfortable but grounded reality in consider the city for what it is. A small part of a highly interconnected world. What does this mean for us then as the city to be invested in weapons manufacturers? Another city can benefit from weapons that are being used to commit genocide across the world to be invested in a company whose bulldozers are used to deconstruct the instructor infrastructure, a Palestinian society. If you have any interest in these moral considerations, which Sonoma County did when it chose to divest from apartheid, South Africa, then I would be more than willing to e-mail you resources for how to approach divestment from the ongoing genocide. Thank you for your time and hopefully your

consideration. Thank you. The next speaker will be in. We followed by Susan, then Tess. >> And Queen. >> money full housing and education. Not. 4 bombs keep Haitian. Hence >> Good My name is immunity and living in district. The grandmother over too pretty Palestine and pretty islands. I'm here to tell city council meeting why he's seeing resolution. Keeping some Cairo's U.S. Commitment assist the in South Korea since 1996 sometime and the chance to see if the ins Seuss. The cities and there has been less coterie exchanges. And the point that there is a storm grandfathers Sonoma Avenue and then why did not? But in Palestine is okay There is a test for open island. All of us, $80 and the residence. A message to the bite, the weapons us provided by us immunity, Tony, to his South Korean unit. It pulleys separatists unity 30 could over 1000. The people are saw. This is another example how the money spend immunity to These are somewhat could he now says the city's so pleased see the concert between gays caught between gazing into nation or dialogue, production over 90's, promote been, you know, if you know, and the continued bid. And the continued to to a a better word. And so right caught on ct website. The about the ct

assist. The seedings has widened with putting aside. Islands. >> Thank you. The next speaker will be Susan followed by Tess then of >> Susan District 2. In the late 1930's, the vast majority of the world stood silent as Hitler began killing Jews, lgbtq people, Roma people, labor leaders and more most individuals, organizations and governmental bodies are silent. It was a shameful period in human history. The world did not go to war to save the lives of these people. They were relevant to the equation. If people are heading to Nevada, other countries, the slaughter would have continued on remarked. Now there's a slaughter going on in full view in Palestine that is being perpetrated by descendants of Hitler's Vixens makes it no less heinous and no one can claim ignorance. More people are speaking up and yet the vast majority, including yourselves, remain silent. Refusing to put a cease-fire resolution on their agenda and to vote for it as Palestinians are killed approximately 1000 since your last meeting is not acceptable. Imagine if every city in the council in the country support of the cease-fire or simply imagine that you could send your resolution to every city council in California and say joining us, imagine if every governmental body that supported such a resolution could send it on to the state legislature, to the governor, to the cop, to Congress and to

the PRESIDENT. It's basically when I was talking about about tax increases, you can increase tax. You can increase taxes, but you have a voice. So every week that you delay, this unity is thwarted and people are killed or cultural here. Heroes were praising, be brave. Please do not recreate another shameful and silent year in history. If humanity survives the twin threats of climate disaster, nuclear war don't be the ones people look back on and ask what on Earth were they doing? Why didn't they say something? Cease-fire now? >> Thank you. The next speaker will be tests followed by all >> City My name is Tess called While I was born in San or as I still live in Santa Rosa, I really love this city and I love the people that I've gotten to know here and over the past 6 months have gotten to know some of my community members much more deeply. I've gotten to know some community members who are losing family right now in Palestine. I've gotten to know community members who can no longer talk to their friends and their family because of Internet connectivity issues because Israel has been cutting off the Internet. I'm going to meet people who have history and the generations before them who survived genocide, whether from the time you're genocide, that problems and so many more that are beyond that in the single thread that holds all these people together is that they know that there's east as the pain that runs through us all and doesn't matter who you are. What your experience was that made you face of prejudice, the prejudices to the same their people with power who are impressing others. And right now in Palestine, people

who are being oppressed, they've been oppressed for over 75 years. And this is unfair. I'm grown up through the public school system school budget cuts because apparently it was more important to my federal government to bomb Iraq and Afghanistan, rather than to find my own education. As I listen to you all talk about the budget woes of this, this upcoming budget cycle. I fear that we MAY be entering into another cycle with the federal government would rather send our money that would do so much good work here in our community, across the seas to people mercilessly, we pay for that Israel is really missiles and bombs. We pay for all of that. Over 2 million dollars of Santa Rosa taxpayer money is used to go towards missiles and fifteens and other fighters. Well, you're trying to put the lines together, not going to read and stay in the black. >> They're sending millions and billions of dollars to Israel just to kill Palestinians. This is a local issue because this is the money that we could be spent on our community here. And we deserve this. Fire. >> Thank you. The next speaker will be out >> good evening. I'm my name is off my life. One Sonoma County resident and I currently reside in district 2. I'm here once again to advocate for a cease-fire resolution to be placed on the agenda. >> He's been begging you. >> To represent in our call for a cease-fire for months. The longer you go without doing so the more we lose faith in integrity, one of the values your council holds highest. Many of us already

have. Your vision as a council. As for Santa Rosa to lead the the North Bay embraces vision of leadership. Be that leader by listening to the plea people to take the step forward at a cease-fire resolution to the agenda. It only takes one of you to add item to the agenda. It only takes one of you to enact that bravery. That integrity leads. We are begging you. This is within your jurisdiction. The same way addressing climate change is another one of your core issues. It takes many to address a global crisis. The Santa Rosa School board is also in favor of a cease-fire resolution. You know, love my of the sr jc. It is very clear that schools education. Is a track for progress. 0 waste initiatives influenced Santa Rosa City Center is as a city can influence in California as a state, California as the state can influence the federal government. We're not baking into Mt. Ayr here you are voices to our representatives to our state and at what point are you you're in action. >> Im heating and impeding our voices from getting to our state representatives. We're only so loud with a single voice. We need you to act as a group voice for leaves. Please add a cease-fire resolution to the agenda. >> Thank you, Speaker. Go ahead. >> Jason District 5. Sing on Zoom kind of his quick as I could just want to again.

Appear before you you to bring forward and pass a cease-fire resolution. 1, 2, take a minute to think. The Sonoma County Board of some County Education board of trustees for in one meeting. Bring forward the resolution in passing it. And the comments that they made that were so critical and so brave and so important if you haven't heard them and urge you to go online and take a listen to what they had to say. I'm here because the situation is dire and we as a community and not done the bare minimum. Which is to speak up and call for help and we see something wrong. I'm here because I'm ashamed. This is not the reality that I want for my daughter. And I know that we're better than this. The bottom line is that the city him, Rosa has gone on record as being unwilling to deal with this issue in the community division had it has revealed. It has revealed a among many things, a lack of principle, the genocide being done right now in the name of state of Israel and the so-called safety of some is grotesque and barbaric and could not have happened without the U.S. The support of the U.S.. You want pop a is a renowned Israeli historian. He recently reminded us that Israel's behaving like a rope staying. And road states soldiers change their behavior. They must be pressured from the outside. And that's why we keep coming to you week after week. That's why we're meeting in the plaza trying to get people to speak up for what is right. And we're you we're asking to join the chorus and called for an end to the violence. That's

all we're asking. We're speaking on behalf of housing people sorry, I lost train thought. What we witness recently the targeting not once, not twice but 3 times food aid. Can see what's happening. >> Thank you, Speaker. Please go ahead. Can you hear Okay. >> My name is pre. I'm an unincorporated Sonoma County member. But I often come to Santa Rosa to receive medical care to grocery a lot of my sales tax comes to your city. So I believe I am when your constituents and that regard. You know, have heard many of our community members voiced why this is a local issue to you all. >> I would like to reiterate that it is a local issue, but I think more importantly, it's important to hear voices from the Palestinian community regarding their experiences because I feel like that has a huge impact. Have up home home here by Lena. She's that Palestinian refugee. She wrote a poem untitled, but it says there is no recipe book that teaches how to make bread from animal feed, sand and sewage water. What makes it prove and rise and what you dip it in. The measurement of the ratio of despair to hunger. There is no parental guide book that teaches how to calm and sleeping family and children how to get them to sleep feeding on empty promises. How to soothe the grounds of their

tummies with feast with angels. They don't see or hear. There's no scientific way to Perth, para fry, sewage, water. Have to separate human excrement from human remains to fit for human consumption. How to distill rain carrying death, how to extract salt from tears. Think it goes without saying that this is a humanitarian crisis that we're experiencing right now as a community. I don't think that it's solely a global issue. I think it affects us directly. And I think that we see that in the faces of our community members. Everyone showing up here weekly to big up Paul. >> Powell mission, please. Thank you. >> Is there anyone else who would like pri public comment on item 14? Non agenda matters. They are seeing no one else approach the podium. Thank you. And with that, we will now go to 16.1. MADAM City manager. Item 16.1 is a public hearing propose recreation fee adjustments. >> Good evening. Mayor Rogers, vice mayor staff and members of the council, Jeff Tenet's deputy director with recreation not a skill in very good at the seeing how early in the night we are. I'll do my best to be brief so before today is a public hearing on proposed fee amendment for the recreation and parks fees. So just quick based off city it is required that city council established park user fees by resolution. And while that term sometimes misleading, just to clarify that the park user fees include facility rentals and admission fees within recreation as well. And

you can see that there's been a number of times that we brought different things forward to the council. One of the key ones being in 1995. Where resolution 2 to 307, that there are certain fees that the authority to approve would be delegated down. And that was to the director of recreation and parks. Those really critical otherwise would be here pretty much every single meeting as we're negotiating contracts with contract instructors are corn dog prices go up or those types of things? So what that left 2, is the fee schedule that we propose that are the fees that are actually set by counsel for for different services and programs that we offer. So looking what this just kind of overview of the presentation broke it down a few areas and really that the fee changes are broken into 3 categories or you can see is Simplification of the process and then fee increases. So kind of generically talk about updates and the simplification. If there's any questions on any of those, I can address those later. But as we go through each line, I won't go into too much detail. Updates are simple things, right? We have buildings that Bennett Valley senior Center that no longer exist rooms that we don't use the way that they were used previously simplifying of the process is really a focus on customer upfront, clarity with our customers, those types of things. And then there's a few areas where we address fee increases and that is in relation to the fact the has the historical it's their last time we fry any fee increases was 2017. So obviously that's a seven-year span. A lot has changed in that in our operations and the cost to staffing those types of inflation. Those those types

of items, there's a few areas that we've be very clear. This is not a comprehensive look at increasing fees with a new director coming on We have kind of had a conversation. There's some things that we want to look into his apartment around business plan and evaluation of what that looks like. What cost recovery looks a plan that could be approved by council. That will better guide us as a department in the future to look at these types of fees and give you guys more proposals that are based off of a philosophy that we all agreed on and a business plan so at this time it was really just identifying a few areas where we are aware that having not increased fees since at least 2017, in some areas even longer, it's not every fee got changed in 2017, there's just a few areas for fiscal shots ability with our general fund assets to make sure that we address those areas. And again, the program areas there that the different areas that we will go through for each one. So with our community center's again, updates were really about removing things that buildings or rooms. We no longer have change in how we do some operations with services of the person, senior Person Auditorium stage. If you're auditorium, we're not going to charge you separately for the stage. If you're at the stage or renting a pat on things like that and then some services that just with our staffing levels are that we don't provide any more like coffee services or linen rentals are those types of things. We're really a rental operation, not a that planning operation. As far as Talk a little bit about the first bullet point there, just because it's it's important to what could be construed as a fee increase. And that is that we have had a custodial fee that gets added on for each room and it does a couple of

things that that we're looking to remove that fee for simplification. One, it creates a an element for staff when when some user groups maybe feel like they don't need to clean up. One of the things they look, as I a custodial fee. Why? My also cleaning up after my party. And that's not really custodial feels about the overall custodial of of the facility. It was never intended to be. You know, we don't have somebody using that money to have someone come in and clean up after the event and I also kind of served as as a hidden fee in some ways you can really look at what's my hourly rate and figure out how much my events going to cause. You have to tack this tack that on and those different things. So we based the formula that of a four-hour rental and that came down to 15 per that. That flat fee essentially worked out to across the board is a 15% of what the hourly rate was. And so we built that in across the board while dropping off that fee. So if you look at the facilities, it looks like 15% across the board on that roster rooms. But again, that's based on that formula. The removal of of that fee. Did some cleanup on our our nonprofit and commercial resident rates. We eliminated the difference between weekday and weekends. Again, the things that make it much more complicated for staff and make it much more complicated for the public to understand what it's going to cost to hold events we eliminated some fees for equipment like white boards and podiums. Again, these things that could be construed as a little petty hidden fees and that type of stuff of here into the room and you get there and you really want a podium and we had just a paper says it's ok, we're going to charge you an extra $15 for use the podium. We really want to. He ran to the room, the hourly rate. If we have available for you, we're going provide and we don't need to have those added

a extra tack on fees. Same thing with our audio visual equipment, right? You paid for every microphone used to pay for every piece of equipment just a flat fee for for those things. Now cleaning up our storage and then also alcohol fee. We have a fee for every single room as you see on the old one. And that's makes more sense to have it based off of attendance and size of the event. And so just having those 2 small and large alcohol, 300 rooms. So again, the fee increases are can talk about that when it's not really true. Fee increase its a shifting of the fee from a flat fee into our hourly rates. With aquatics. Again, some we want to are we have added a membership for aquatics and that kind of took the place of our flexi public swim passes. So those passes were required the membership. And so they've really just instead of separate since they're tied to the membership there, just part of the membership fee, not a separate fee anymore. So we're not removing those discounted rates were just operationally changing the way that they're And it's part of the membership. Not a separate fee. Also, we have some outdated equipment that we removed from it and then very While it's not there yet where we're planning ahead. And building in a feat to be able to accommodate the splash pad. When that project is done at the Family Aquatic Center as we looked at private rentals of facilities for that facility and the fact that the splashpad will be very attractive to parents of younger kids. That MAY be the pool scares We realize that there's an opportunity for us to have a rental option there. That would be just the splash

pad and not include the pool and drastically reduces the staffing that's required to supervise it, which allows us to present an option. That's a more affordable option for families to use just the splash pad. That something that they're interested in? On the simplification? One of the things that the splash pad also does is it makes family in more parallel as far as a rental facility goes right. We have the awesome slide. And family did not so we were able to make those fees more streamlined with both facilities attractive to the public for different reasons. And again, similar to the add-on fees of podiums are those types of things different equipment like dive rings? Are using the sound system or those types of things are just included in the rental? So we removed a number of fees that are related to those items. We also eliminate the Ridgeway water slide fee. That is don't don't be We will still have the Ridgeway water side. But again, just a matter operationally how we book, if you rent the pool, we're assuming that you're renting the slide. We only separate fee structures for those. And again, that's just with with public private rentals. I've seen a public that is just with private rentals, not public so go in a little more into that. This is an area where we are proposing a fee increase and the reason for this fee increases. But really at that tipping point now where, again, these are not a public function of public season, this is when someone wants a private rental of the facility. This is never taking place during our public swimmer lap swim or those hours. These are when the pool would otherwise be closed and someone does a private rental to keep the pool open. With the staffing levels and the increased cost of staffing.

We're not reaching the point where we are barely cost recovery of putting our temps staff out there for the party. Let alone the administrative cost. It takes to issue the permit and those things. So I'm really at a point where we don't feel that that private use. It should be something that we're we're covering with with general fund and it should be cost recovery. So if you see currently 120 to $200 an hour proposing that up to 225 to $315 an hour again. The size of these parties are talking, you know, 50 plus people at these parties. When you compare to other birthday party options is still a very affordable option compared to other parties that are a couple hours and for $500 for 10 to 15 kids. Again, another piece of increases building in all those things into one fee. So at Ridgeway, you're not paying $120 and then also paying $60 for the slide. So building those things and together. Far as updates are And so I move on to the park permits updates in part permits. I want to be clear with something as we start talking about park permits is. The purpose of park permits is not to charge people just for normal. General use of the parks. Are some of these fees make it sound someone wants to? You know, I want to my family to the park and have lunch. There's a picnic fear again. These are for privatization of some areas, right, that we want to build a reserve. A picnic side are those types of things. So it's really not matter of revenue. It's a matter of service providing to the to say you want to have your child's birthday party. You want to make sure that there's a barbecue and picnic tables available for you. You want to

rent that in reserve. It ahead of time that we can provide that service and that those services are cost are covering as well. So looking at, you know, some of the things that we've removed her again, just really operationally looking to add a lot of our park special use permits are for nonprofits that are doing, you know, running events are different fundraisers and we have not to the original special use does not include the option for any discounts where we have in other places for nonprofits. So establishing a 10% on profit discount for the park from inside and then also the fees are based on size of events because obviously larger events have more impact on the park. More impact on the neighborhood. More impact on staffing. And so we've really found now that we've been implementing these for several years is that we need another level. There's another level of size of are creating at 2001. Plus, people where it requires a lot more pre-event meetings and impact on the neighborhood and notices and garbage plans and all different things that incorporate other departments, sometimes fire department, those types of things. So adding another event there will adequately collect fees for for those larger events. Simplification side of things, right, addressing some non resident rates for consistency with that our park special use permit our picnic The numbers did not lineup still a small picnic sites was 50 people small a special use permit was 25 people. So we need some changes just again, a line that make it much easier for

us to communicate and educate the public and what we have. We also looked at our clerk, rental And kind of create a system that would put those in line with our field rentals. And so that is having a private, normal private fee rental. But then having a discounted rate for league play and then having a higher rate for commercial and difference there of private would be. Your family is having a family reunion. One of a softball game that's just kind of private one as opposed to you're putting on profitable softball tournament and you want to use the field. That would be the difference of how you'd be charge those fees. We have to duplicate Picnic deposit fee of small and large. They were the same fee. So I don't know why we had 2 of them, but we don't need them. And also looking out on our tennis courts or sports courts fees being set up seasonally again, makes it very complicated of one per month as different fees for courts because this is the state and that date and then also tennis was set up as match play instead of an hourly rate. Well, I understand the sport of tennis is based off of the match and not o'clock. The reality is we have to reserve things by hour or so. If you think your match, Mike over 2 hours, book it for 3 hours, but the match play just really doesn't work for how we can reserve things. So again, this area there are some proposed fee increases so much just from the cleanup of aligning our picnic reservations and our park permits. That gets to some of the picnic reservation fees there. And again, really the the big impact there is the

park special use permit as you see the the toffee going up to $3,150 a day and again, stressed that that $3,150 a day is for those 2001. Plus size people size So this is not your everyday people going for doing things. The family, these these are very events that have a major impact on again, not just the community, a neighborhood the public use of the park, but also the staff time for helping organize and make sure that that everything is ready for the event. And then again, with the athletic courts and couple things that we want to address their and aligning So varying increase fairly gun private rates and the more significant increase for the commercial rental. So again, as we were readjusting those fees, we realize that there are some league play out there. That would be impacted by that more than than really was our intention. So creating that league fee would would make sure that we can continue to accommodate them. And then also increasing the field currently. That's a $20 an hour proposing that the $30 an hour and really just comes to the cost of of maintaining that that equipment, the light bulbs are very expensive. The the process of getting the lift truck and all those things. So it's expensive equipment to maintain. Out of House Updates again or just kind of cleaning. Something's want to stress there is as life jacket is that is not removing having life jackets available. That is the practice of charging for it. So in the a life jacket, it is always been free when somebody rents one of our votes. But the reason that that he was on there in the past have someone come out with a private boat that that they could rent a life jacket from us. We want everybody on the water wearing

life jackets were not charge fees. And so removing that from there. And then also with the pony rides, a unfortunately at that service is not back on the park yet. We hope to see that back in the future. But even if it comes back to the fee, it's really not appropriate for the fee to be on this approved fee schedule because anytime we do a pony rides that's going to be in a contract in that contract is going to come forward with what the fees are approved by council in that manner. And so what we've had in the past as we've had a contract come to you and get approved. And that contract is updated to the current fee. But the fee schedule didn't come to Houston. Now we've got 2 different things. Provide technically say different fees. So that just clean up process Simplification is gets into just kind to start the conversation around a the fee increase that we're proposing for Howard Park is really is critical for customer service and efficiency. On the part of that are killing attractions. That rain the carousel and the animal barn are the same price with that allows us to do is sell the same ticket. Something happens that rain breaks down. The kit decides they're scared that rain. They don't want to write You can take your kid on the carousel. Instead we start changing the prices and I have that consistent now we have different tickets for everything and becomes a logistical nightmare with refunds and those types of things in the park. So with that said, the fee increase that we're proposing for hours, park currently is $2 a ticket for those came in tickets. Again. That's the train cars on animal animal barns admission ticket. We're proposing that up to $3. Currently, there's a discount

ticket book of 25 That is $40. We're proposing that with the for individual to get to go up to $60 for the discount. Take a book. And then we also have the paddle that are out and that we rent out on the lake and that is currently at $12 an hour proposing that to be up to $15 an hour. The reason we identified House Park for potential fee increases it was not increased in 2017. I actually couldn't find exactly what it was. But I know the most recent it could have been because Iran Howard Park from 2013 to 2018 is JULY. 1st of 2012 is the most recent. We MAY have done fees in that teen time. We know staff costs have gone up quite a over $100,000 just on our temp staffing for the operations of ours Park from 2012, too. The budget that will be coming forward to next month for approval so that that's going help kind of just address that gap that we know that has been created without addressing those fees in the past. So impact again on the first one. Just kind of cleaning things up the fee schedule more accurately reflect what we're actually doing and practice again efficiency for our better customer service. More clarity on what the fees are, why they're being charged. A better ability for customers to kind of come in knowing what they're going to be charged by just looking at hourly rates and those types of things and being a figure out and get rain. But getting rid of the hidden fees and then on the economic proposing fee increases generate approximately $100,000 in additional revenue. Most of that, again being related to the House Park operations and the increase in the fees there. If you so choose, I mentioned seeing a future business plan that we're looking at. So this slide is while we're here this evening.

If you have that, give us a sense of some of the things that we're thinking about. And if you have any feedback proactively to get that before, one is as we look to create this business plan that MAY lead to future present in your future proposals of fee increases is looking at the non-resident fees. So roughly where around 75 80% of our I'm Reza registrations and reservations are from 20 to 25% non-residents. As we explore these things in the future. Look at business plan right now. Our difference in fees from residential non resident is pretty small in comparison to other cities. So is that something that you would want us to explore actually look in the with the things is to say, hey, let's let's look at expanding that and putting a bigger discount on on resident fees than what we currently do. I'm also looking at those things like the nonprofit or the league from just normal private rentals. And then the next extra fees for those commercial type things. Is that a model that you would want us to look at, too, to maintain discounts for nonprofits, leagues, maybe increase those discounts, a potentially increase those fees on commercial activities. I also, you know, be very clear. It. I didn't get the recreations that I can brag about how much revenue that we generate. I anytime I have to come up here and specifically talk about money, I'm going to find some way to make sure that I'm also talking about, you know, access to our equal opportunities for our youth our seniors. And then everybody in our community. That's obviously what score to

us. I'm really excited to say that we're exploring some really awesome opportunities with our scholarship program. How to build that out, how to develop it further than what it's been. The reality is it's really lived off of the work of our amazing recreation and parks team putting on events that end up being fundraiser for the scholarship program for us to really elevate take it to next level. One of the ideas that we're exploring to possibly bring forward to in the future is a one dollar to dollar. Something like that addition to every registration that we do that that one to $2 that's added on would go to the scholarship fund instead of going directly to the general fund eventually going end up in the general fund because they can use that scholarship to sign up for a program. But again, that give us the capacity to build the resources that we have available for the scholarship fund and make sure that as fees that we're continuing to do. What we find is critical to what we're doing and making it accessible to everybody. So if there's any thoughts on that, I'd be interested. Roughly. It's it's very hard. I mean, well, to dig into those numbers a lot more. There's roughly around 60,000 registrations per year through recreation and parks but that number would be dwindle down quite a bit as far as how many would actually apply it to for example. About 25,000 of those registrations are for our senior programs. And that might be a every day. $3 drop into play billiards wouldn't really be as equitable to apply a one dollar add-on fee to them coming every single day versus just one dollar added on to a week of camp or a six-week session of exercise classes. So we would have to take dig into that more. And then last piece there making sure that we're not just focused on revenue but focused

on the services we provide to the community. Our parks are facilities are often used for critical social We saw that very much during the pandemic where we were a place to get testing and those types of resources out to the community food, distributions, all those types of things. So we're very interested in potentially down the road, bringing proposal to you for a delegation of authority that would allow it's very hard to bring. Every single thing that comes to us as a contract to council to approve from for waiving of the approved fees. So could there be a delegation of certain request for use of a park for food, distribution of those types of things were to come through that delegation be delegated down to a department head or city manager's level. So again, none of those are part of the proposal. Just if I'm proposing, hey, we've got to raise fees. I got to stay true our roots what we really care about. Recreation and parks. So if you have any thoughts on that, we're interested to hear as we take that next step of the business plan. So that the recommendation before the night is a recommended by the recreation and Parks department that the council by resolution approved the fees for for various facilities and services effective JANUARY. First 2025, which was attached to the presentation this evening. With that, take any questions or comments. Going to council for questions or comments that mean kick it off. I think the one a $2 would be great. More like an add-on fee. Graham, Macy's gets me every time and they say he went around Yeah.

Something like that. And then the resident discount. I think that that would be great to give our residents a discount nonprofits. Yes, and then league discount. So when I look at Lee discounts, there are different types of leaks. There are leagues where parents can pay like $500 for their child to be in the league that they still need a fielder, a court to play in. And then there are leads children that don't have $500 to sign up for a leak participated and it makes it even harder the coaches have to either come out of their pocket to and they're already buying them cleats in balls and all this other stuff. But then they have to then pay for the field. I would like to find a way to help with that because I think this is why we're here right is to make, you know, our make things available for people that can't just go out and pay the $500 in the $600. And lastly, I want to talk neighborhood parks. You can rent from neighborhood parks, correct? Okay. So then my my question would be I live in a neighborhood park and I want to have a birthday party for my child. But then someone comes in rates because this is what I can afford because this is where I live. That's my neighborhood park. And someone rates. Something I don't the field. So my child and having that birthday party can't play on the field. Correct? >> So >> neighborhoods as far as like neighborhood Parks is a category right? We have community parks in neighborhood Parks,

Neighborhood Park says that category requires doesn't have like the picnic reservations. That requires a special event permit that is issued us. So our staff are looking at those things and most neighborhood parks were not going to have multiple things going on at the same time. And in most neighborhood parks as far as that categories concern right now to the public, that doesn't always mean something right. If I live right next to a community park in my eyes, that's the neighborhood park. But community parks are going to have assets like sports fields and and bigger amenities that are issued in different ways or even, you know, zebo reservations and those types of things so. I know that guy more confusing, but, >> you know, I'm asking though, because the feedback that we receive people cannot use their own. And I want to say their neighborhood parks, but correct me if I'm wrong, they can use their own neighborhood parks because people are renting those facilities. So they can't use them. >> Yes, so, yeah. More specifically to that. I mean, that generally is around our sports courts and fields and yes, so there have been some situations like around our sports again, since echoes through our permitting. We do have the ability so there were a basketball courts that we were renting out during because for a while our focus was how do we support these businesses? Knew that the community quickly let us realize, hey, you forgot another element. And now the kids who live in this community can use these amenities. So fortunately, we have the flexibility in there. I mean, that was a matter of a few weeks getting that permit squared away before we distributed that. But, yeah, when it comes to our sports courts our sports fields, the

reality is we don't have enough. And so they are so whether you live next to a sports field or there's a sports field that you like to drive to. They are pretty much if they're not closed due to all the rain that we've had lately, they're they're pretty much booked by all the different activity that's taking place. Unfortunately. For my constituents, I hear your answer, but don't like it but will move on with that. >> anyone else have a. Councilmember MacDonald. >> Thank you, mayor. A couple of things I read about the splash pad, the splash pad my concern is how many splash pads. That's hard for me to say splash pads. Do we have in the city? >> So we just have when this opens will have the second one one of the things that's happened with Splashpads is law recently changed. I don't remember exactly when they're considered aquatic facilities. And so they have to recycle the water, do those types of things. They have to have showers available to the public. So the model of moving like this one is to already a part of our aquatic facility where we've already made all those accommodations at the Finley Aquatic Center, I think makes a lot more sense now it's less desirable because it's not available to the public all the and they have to go and pay admission to the family community center. But for example, when the House parties to the White House park when that when need be renovated was around the same time that those laws, a gun in place of the price tag, too, obviously for for conserving

water, not having the largest go down the drain. We would to build in the recycling to put in the showers in the middle of Powers Park to do all those types of things really made it something that we couldn't accommodate at that point. So you have just this one. So my concern into is is it's sort of like the pools where you're renting it after hours or is it? >> Correct? Not just during the daytime because of there's only one in the city of Santa Rosa and were renting it out during the daytime and other children can't come to play on it. That would be concerning to me. No, correct. So when we looked at the toughest, the private facility rentals that only take place after public hours >> we just want to add that is that yes, you could rent the pool into a parental. But if you have younger kids, you don't want to use the pool were creating a few where you can also rent the splash pad. So would be that the pool is only open for those 50 people who are coming for that birthday party and they're using a splash brother not using the pool. It would never restrict during Rex Wimmer. Any of those types of things from other kids, you utilizing it. Thank you. >> And I don't mind adding a dollar, a $2 fee to all the registrations of the system that we have so we can create a more stable funding revenue for scholarship programs. I think that is an opportunity for you to actually see what the budget would be based on You know how registrations we have throughout the year. If we're looking at that and really creating opportunity for kids to be able to

participate in our in our program. So I I'm not opposed to I'm glad to hear that you're actually thinking about bringing that back to council to say that that would be and then actually having it go back into that same program I think would be something I would be interested in seeing. So other than that, I appreciate presentation. Those are my 2 concerns was around the splash pad and and and for the additional fee. Thanks. >> And also been for a second other council members. Questions counsel Robert s. Think us so just a regulation are just some of that. Some of mine. When it comes to never Park parks where we do have the issue where we have leaders with that said tight-knit community or looking help children from that tight knit community. And there's a way to offer them incentives, whether it's weaver fees, whether it's it's preference on how to offer them the park where they live. And I don't know maybe we're we're we're three-quarters of the majority of children. They're being served. I this group live in that exact community might be a way to validate the waiving the fee. And I don't know the legalities or how that can even be done. But you know, when when I see people within the community, the 7 forward to help our future leaders. I think there should be some type of reward to their efforts and really pick up the pieces where others MAY not be able to and we'll be able to be those with him said community that do have the trust of other neighbors. And it's really just a thought and maybe you can make it into reality. >> Just say that You know, I'm I mentioned looking at a

delegation of authority for some of the fees. I think it would be something for us to look at. What would that look Because the other avenue again, would be every time that that pops up. The staff time and everything to try to put together a very specific contract for that and to bring forward because, again, without that delegation of authority as a department, we cannot waive those fees are set new fees. >> And with that being definitely would support a delegation of authority and I would actually buy for that. A post early discounts or even discuss for commercial fees just serving of those that that that really are sometimes under represent an even more so underserved. >> Councilmember Remy. Thank for bringing this forward. And for all that you do. One of the things that always impresses me about your your presentations is that feel you like your job. That's really cool. You know, to see somebody is doing exactly what they're meant to meant to do. >> really comes across in your attention to details I was under the impression that this was necessarily a study session. The were looking for a lot of feedback. But everything you've proposed sounds really good on the feast structure. I would recommend, you know, figuring out a percentage of the fee so that everybody uses our services can participate in your great scholarship fund to capitalize it to the point. You need it rather than, you know, having a blunt instrument of a dollar to, you know, just a percentage that becomes essentially part of the fee that goes are our future. Amazing scholarship program. I did have a question

for you about Splashpads. I didn't know that they were considered aquatic facilities. Is that a regulation of the state or federal government? I'm going to go. That's the state governments that sounds like something. California. My favorite home state would do it's very excessive in my mind does that mean our Prince Memorial facility falls under that? Yes, and we do have the restrooms with the showers there because of that reason. Okay. So we have to in the city then. That family one will be the second family will be the second one in the hard one was shuttered due to this regulation or because it was just so yeah, hours park was at that point. It was going need to be replaced. >> I and then once we realized all the new regulations to replace it was cost prohibitive and just functionality private of Well, have this now so that I don't have to after we go public comment and so forth. But what I really like about this is that it sort of places the user at the center of the experience without Mychal dining them so that somebody can. >> Coming news, our services or facilities and feel like they're getting good value for the price. Even if the price is a little more that they got everything that they needed out of it and attention to detail, as is noted and appreciated. Those are my comments. Thank you. Vice Mayor stop. >> Thank you. Deputy You didn't want want to highlight the revenue generation, but I will. Thank you. Thank you very much for for sharpen your pencil. We want to we want to make sure these amenities are available as my colleagues have indicated for the same

time, we want to make sure that we're we're. We're covering the cost running a services, especially given some of the other activities. Of that word that we discussed even this evening and in terms of other initiatives, the city want to support. So thank you for for taking a look at the structure with respect to finding funds for I'm certainly completely supportive as well with with the quiet conversations around resurrecting the the Parks Foundation. That might be an interesting interesting avenue for the park's donation as Some philanthropic work in addition, any any fee increases with the city? I certainly support delegation of Anything we can do to make your job easier in staff's job easier in terms of coming up and with the fish in ways to run these by all means bring those ideas forward. And lastly, very selfish note, although selfish also for council Rogers as well. So I got my quad membership And I noticed I'm I'm I'm certainly happy to participate in the 5 to $10,000 of revenue generation for aquatics. How's my membership work? >> The fee changes there are really around those private rentals. So membership is not involved with the private rentals piece, right? So the membership is essentially write that discounted rate that you get as a member. Every time you do have some I'm losing my dollar discount. Know so that yes, that was trying rewrite You had we had Flexi pass. Will flexi pass is only available to members so we don't really need an approved flexi pass fee. That's the membership fee that's now there. When you pay membership, you get the dollar

discount. So it was duplicate it. Basically, as far as the fee structure was considered support thank >> Can't make this up. Can you? All right. So with that, we will now open the public hearing and city clerk. Thank you, mayor. We're now taking public comment on item 16.1, the public hearing for recreation and park fees. >> If you'd like write a public comment and you're in the chamber and have not yet provided a speaker card or your name. Please make your way to the podium. You will have 2 minutes. In the countdown timer will or at the end of that period. An approach. The podium for public hope. There we go high. But see here, speaker on the lectern. Please go ahead. Santa Rosa. >> I'm a mother and a grandmother. I'm just hoping that you take into consideration the low-income families with the increase like all of Everything, especially for those families who like on a bet and medical. Like museum, the Childrens Museum of our West dealing offers discounts, too low-income families. I'm hoping guys can do the same. That's it. Thank you. >> Thank you, Nic Speaker on the West second, please go ahead. Hi, my name is tess. I was born in center as I still live here. I enjoyed how Park so many other places in Santa Rosa Sound my I would like to echo the comments of the previous There's a period of time where I was accepting ebt for about a year and a half and thanks to programs the Children's Museum. I got to enjoy multiple days there at a

price that was affordable for with my second youngest In addition like museums in San Francisco do it. And I I got to take my 6 year-old brother to the Exploratorium, which would have cost to me like 3, 5, bucks. I got to go to the Academy of Sciences. I got to go to the de Young with him. I got to experience all these amazing things because I didn't have to sacrifice evening for my rent or paying for my groceries. >> I went with my nephew and our family to the rides at Howard's Park, maybe about a year ago. He and because he was so young, he didn't want to go on alone. So instead of paying for I take 4, 1, 2, year-old we paid for 7 write tickets for the entire family. So we ended writing the train I was a family with multiple children there with a child like I would then have to pay like $21 to do that activity. >> Versus 14 before when frankly, like $21 is a lot of money for a lot of people. And there is so many people in our community who deserve access to these amazing amenities. Even though many of us MAY not been share really notice 3 actually dollars one extra dollar. There's so many people in our community who >> to notice a difference and we should think about them implementing programs so that low-income the people who accept food stamps, people different programs can access these things without having to sacrifice. Thank >> Thank you. Is there anyone else in the chamber wishing to provide public comment on this item? Speaker, please go ahead at the East lectern. You can raise the podium on the right

hand side. And get the microphone up closer to your not so we can hear you down here. >> My name is Carolyn Spencer. I just wanted to deny can see person. I just wanted to say. Have you thought about partnering with part partnering with the schools and offering some type of services to further enhance the education, have the underserved relation that we have in Sonoma County. That would be kind of a cool program for you guys to do. >> you see no one else approaching the podium public comment on this item. Thank you. We will now close the public hearing. And bring it back to council for final comments or questions. What would you like? Motion burst. No, I wasn't. I was going to just ask for it. If there are any final questions or comments. For I guess my question would be of one of the obstacles. >> With with partnering with our local schools are or if we've had any conversation. >> You we do have quite a bit recreation and parks. Actually have a contract on next for a very exciting new partnership with Santa Rosa City schools and some summer programming. It's going to solidify recreations insulation program that we've run through neighborhood services for many years. And it's also going to stab Lish a new program for both the city and the school district to provide a space science camp in the instructed by the school district and Neighborhood Services, Recreation and Park staff coming in make that a full-day program. Perfect. >> I guess my comments common is as a frequent user of the railroad system and Howard Park. When I was a little kid,

I have to thank you for all your efforts. Although right now know how to go for the chain, if on. But nonetheless, I do appreciate it. >> I've been telling people that will be my last shift is I'm driving the train around and I'm getting off the train and going home. So I make sure you know, so that you could be on with me. >> Alright, doesn't look like they're anywhere comments. I just want to say you guys are doing a great job. I think there's always room for improvement and we see that with what you're bringing forward >> to us hope that within 2 hardships, my job to let you know what we are in the community is to pass that on to make sure >> that we can try to implement those changes that the community members would like to see. And with that Councilmember Fleming. Thank you, mayor. It gives me such joy to know that Councilmember Alvarez was a tree a transit user from such a young age. >> You know, transit is do near and dear to me, I can see him making his transfer of there by the ponies. With that. Over your resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Rosa, establishing new revised these within the city's fee schedule for the recreation and Parks Department and my great mercy. I will waive further reading of that ice second. Okay. We have a first by councilmember funding in a second by Councilmember Alvarez. And with that MADAM City please call the thank you. Councilmember Rogers. >> Council Kpi Councilmember MacDonald. I Councilmember Fleming, I councilmember all fronts. I vice mayor stop. All right. They are let the record

show that passed the 7 affirmative votes. Thank you very much for your presentation and in for sticking it out with Moving on to item 8, which are staff briefings. For the night. MADAM City manager. All right. Tonight, we have 2 staff briefings. The first 1, 8.1 is the 2020 for Earth Day event in Courthouse Square. >> Thank you. Good evening. Mayor Rogers and members of council I'm here today. My name is Alicia Clergy. And I'm the research and program coordinator for Santa Rosa Waters. Energy and Sustainability Division. And I'm here to invite you all to our 15th annual Earth Day celebration. And it's happening on Saturday. APRIL, 20th from noon to 04:00pm Old Courthouse Square. This is a free family-friendly festival that brings our community together through fun activities, performing arts, great food inspired exhibits that that raise environmental awareness. So for the live performances this year will have the pomo dancers, the taiko drummers Erica and brand and came dream band. There will be eco friendly activities for all including kids activities that will be brought to by recreation and parks. We'll have some major discovery tables see planting really races and a lot there will also be free bike parking and that will be courtesy of Sonoma County by coalition. We will also have the hydration station, which will provide ice cold tap water to the

event goers in our storm. Water. Creeks team will be there to provide pollution prevention tips as well as our water use efficiency team that will hand out that will be on hand with water. Smart tips, rebates and programs. We'll also have an irrigation controller workshop and that will be from 01:00pm to 03:00pm. The registration is required for that. And you can find more info and register on as our city dot org. Slash birthday. Classrooms of Classroom safari will return again this year to provide education about wild animals and conservation. And they're also be free public transit on APRIL 20th on Santa Rosa City bus Summit County Transit and Petaluma Transit. This year. We are going to implement sparkle Rias Bulls and this is a reusable food where company and what they'll do is provide plates, utensils and cups to the food trucks as well as the beer and wine. 10. This will eliminate the need for single use plastics and it complies with the 0 waste Foodware ordinance. How it works is when an event Gore goes up to the food truck, the order, their plate of food and for each plate of food, the order will be a $2, refundable deposit. We'll go to the tables their delicious food. And then they'll return whatever food where they received from the food truck to the sparkle reasonable time. And though that's where they'll their deposit. And this will eliminate the need for any. Anyway stat. Also, going to try that out this year. And we're still looking for Brown tears. So which is

08:00am to 12:00pm volunteers as well as 04:00pm to 06:00pm. If anyone wants to volunteer, you can find more info and volunteer us. Our city Dot Org slash Earth day and I hope you all can join us on APRIL. 20th from noon to 04:00pm. Thanks. I can take any questions. Thank you. Are there any questions from council members? Seeing none? Thank you very much. Public comment. Thank you. We are now taking public comment on item 8.1 for the 2024 Earth Day event. >> If you'd like to provide public comment but have not provided a speaker card or your name, please make your way to the podium. You will have 2 minutes and a countdown timer will alert at the end of that period. Mc no one approached the podiums for this item. All right. And thank you very much for that very thing. >> I do a point to community Empowerment Plan. Update. >> Good evening, Mayor Vice mayor and city Council on a court that community engagement manager with communications and intergovernmental relations offense. I would be providing you with the community Empowerment Plan. Update. The Violence. Prevention partnership will be participating in several community events over the next month APRIL 10, they 10 and bring the man to do to the reach. We high school career day Richmond High School from 10:00am to 12:30pm, to 5 We haven't you on APRIL 19, they will attend the Santa Rosa Community health health care for all for him from 10:00am to 01:00pm. At 1300 North Dutton. On APRIL 23rd. They will bring the minute to the Dalai multicultural. They are real saying University prep

from 9 to 11:00am one 91. But I want to drive. In addition, the bp will bring them to the real son, Singleton national event on Sunday. MAY 5th from 02:00pm to 07:00pm. They then will take Sebastopol Road between that and and needs. Next. The Senate will Fire department hosting women in Public Safety Day on Saturday. APRIL 27 from 10:00am to 02:00pm. The event will take place at the center Fire Department training tower onto one to 6 West College Avenue the syndication Korea Expo will live demonstrations and networking opportunities to encourage more women and girls to enter the field. The public safety for more information the community can call 707, 5 for city. The 5, 0, 0, or email. If the outreach that our city Dot org. Lastly, the Santa Rosa Police Department is hosting the next group participating in the community. Police experience the Expains will consist of a session at various locations around the city. Plus, they will be away. Shuns ceremony on Thursday. MAY 30th from 06:00pm to 09:00pm at the city of Santa Rosa. Utility feel operations building. 35 Stony Point You can learn more about this program ocd o# # # Slash its and cpa. And that concludes update. Thank you. And if you haven't questions and you know, >> thank you for the presentation looking to council see if there are any questions seeing none. MADAM City clerk me police

facilitate public comment. Thank you, Mayor. We are now taking public comment on item 8.2. >> If you are in the chamber would like to provide public comment but not have but have not yet provided a speaker card or your name. Please make your way to the podium. You have 2 minutes and a countdown. Timer will alert at the end of that period. Mayor mc no one approached the podium for public comment on this item. Thank Thank you very much for the presentation. All right. So just really quickly and will go by hand raising just so I can take a pulse really quick. >> Who hear from the public is here for item. Is the approval of a 5 year economic development, strategic plan. All right. Thank Anyone here for item 15 point to the South Santa Rosa specific plan, community engagement. Anyone here for 15.3. And is anyone here for 15.4, which is the budget amendment one time. But Tiffany. So let's go ahead and start with 15.3. Jason, as you're getting ready, we're going to go ahead and you can MADAM City clerk. Item Resolution approval of a grant. Of easement to pg any over a portion of Rincon Ridge Park. Item. 13.2 resolution approval of professional services agreement with Applied Survey Research, Inc for Choice Grant Program Evaluation Services. Item 13.3. Resolution rescinding resolution number r e s dash 2, 0, 2, 1, dash, 1, 9, 9, in adopting a revised resolution authorizing the submittal of an application requesting. >> And amount not to exceed 11.3, 6 million to the state of California Department of

Housing and Community Development. Developments, Home Key Grant program and authorizing the mayor or designee to execute the application of the home. Key documents. Item 13.4. Resolution approval and issuance of a purchase order for the purchase of one 2028. Pierce enforcer. 107 foot aerial fire truck utilizing the pricing from the Houston Galveston area hvac Inter local cooperative agreement. Number 10, dash 2, 4, 2, 8, Here's hvac contract number s 1, 2, dash, 2, 3, with Golden State Fire Apparatus Inc. Item, 13.5 resolution approving First Amendment to professional services agreement with for additional design services associated with the highway 101, bicycle and pedestrian overcrossing project. Item 13.6. Ordinance introduction. Ordinance entitled. Read Ordinance of the Council, the city of Santa Rosa amending ordinance. 1, 5, 4, 4, to convert Riley Street between 5th Street and 7th Street from a one-way street to a two-way street. Item. 13.7 Resolution, Transportation Development Act Tda article 3 grant application for fiscal year 2024. Through 2025. Item 13.8. Ordinance adoptions. Second reading ordinance of the Council of the City of Santa Rosa adopting zoning code text amendment title 20 of the Santa Rosa City Code. Section 20 dash. 38 signs to provide clear standards for both business identification,

wayfinding and civic public amenity Wayfinding and section 20 dash 70 0, 2, 0, glossary to add definitions related to wayfinding signs. Final number are easy to 3 Dash, 0, 0, 9, Item, 13.9. Ordinance adoptions. Second reading ordinance that the council and the city of Santa Rosa amending Santa Rosa City code title 9 health and safety Code. Chapter 9 dash. 22 bicycles, skateboards, roller skates. Inline skates in similar devices to allow scooters to operate on public streets. Public alleys, public gutters. Thank you very much. Looking to council to see if there any questions. The can sit. Item seeing none. MADAM City clerk, the pleas facilitate public comment. Now taking public comment on item 13, the consent calendar. If you would like to provide public comment but have not provided your name or your speaker card, please make up to the podium. We will have 2 minutes and a countdown timer will alert at the end of that period. Mariam, see no one approaching of Putin's for consent. Thank you that I'll pass it over to Vice Mayor. Thank you. Make a motion that we approve items. 13.1 through 13.9 and we've for the reading the tech. >> Second. >> have a motion made by vice mayor's top and a second by Councilmember Rogers City clerk. Please call the thank you Council member Roger Side Councilmember Cookie. I councilmember MacDonald. I councilmember Fleming, I Councilmember vice mayor. Stop by. Jurors. I that pass the 7 affirmative votes. Thank you. And with that, our next item will be and thank you all the staff that a stick around. Thank you very much. Our next

item will be 15.3, MADAM City manager and a 15.3 is reporting item. She needs avenue at great bicycle and pedestrian railroad crossing real property license agreement with the Sonoma Marin area trail. >> Rail Transit District, smart. >> Good evening, MADAM Mayor, members of the council on Time, assistant city manager. I'm joined today by Adam able our assistance city attorney. And we're going to walk you through the. Presentation relating to negotiations that we've been having with smart real property license agreement that might allow us to proceed with and great crossing at Jennings Avenue. Just to provide a fairly quick background. I know that it's late. So I won't belabor. We did start this back in 2008 with the passage of Measure q it. I was ultimately identified that there would be a north station located in Santa Rosa in 2012 council adopted the North Station area plan which proposed the Jennings station to be located at Guerneville Road rather than at Jennings Avenue and ultimately we moved I request from council that city staff work with smart on the development of an of a crossing at Jennings Avenue so that we could fulfill the bike and ped master plan component of including a comprehensive east-west facility that would ultimately connect the Junior College with the west side of town along Jennings Avenue. In 2016. I we were granted approval by the California

Public Utilities Commission 2 add and at great crossing at this particular location. Since that date, we've been working with the smarts to try to accommodate a potential agreement that would allow us the people the opportunity to build a crossing at that location. But it has required 2 extensions of our approval by the California Public Utilities Commission. And in AUGUST of this last year, we submitted a 3rd request to move that further Judge Administrative Law, Judge Kelly at the California Public Utilities Commission did here our request and agreed to delay proceedings while the city and smart proceeded with a level of negotiation hoping to come to resolution. Just a quick a little bit of background. And I did notice as I look through the slides earlier, the red lines and the and the yellow dot actually got shifted as we were putting this on the slide. This is attempt to demonstrate and show the half a mile detour that resulted from smart having closed the unofficial crossing at Jennings Avenue in advance of starting active rail service that was important from the perspective of public safety to ensure that we have a safe space where we weren't putting individuals risk while we were starting that it was intended between the agreement of the city and smart. They would be temporary as a measure simply to provide for immediate public safety while a

permanent crossing is approved and ultimately constructive. Want to provide just a quick overview of the project that's been proposed. This is the at great crossing in plan on. It shows many of the features that are included try to protect community members who who wish to utilize this particular crossing. It also provides you with a quick demonstration when we talk about or when you read in the proposed draft, the term license area, we would anticipate that what you see on the screen with in the un shaded areas would constitute more last the license area that will ultimately show up as exhibit a in the proposed agreement. From photo simulation perspective, this would be Jennings Avenue looking East So that type of improvements that we're looking at from a bike and ped perspective. Just so you have some Some idea of the improvements that are being proposed now following the cpc approval, we went through many different iterations of conversations with smart. How are we going accomplish this? Could we accomplish it? Ultimately we were informed by smart that they were no longer support of oven at great crossing. And spent many days hours and weeks trying to contemplate how we might find a common ground keep this moving forward. With the arrival of the new general manager. We spent time recognizing and talking with one another that this was likely the one issue in the relationship between Smart and

the city. That was a that was difficult and we both made a commitment that we would strive to it to complete this particular project the way we were going to do that as we came to a common agreement, the common agreement said this is how we were going to embark on negotiating. A path forward. And with that we determined that. We would all we would both mutually agreed that an agreement can be reached, that there was a place that both the city and smart could arrive at that would allow this to move forward. We also ended up agreeing that smart doesn't particularly want this, but they are. But they are going to be willing to get to that place. We also acknowledge that the city really wants and we MAY have to accept a higher level of responsibility for the occurrences that. That MAY happen at that particular crossing. To embark on this. We knew that we needed to do something we haven't done sent. We have done since 2016, which is to have a public meeting. Actually giving us the opportunity to stand in front of the constituency in front of those individuals who have been proponents for this project for a long time and and provide them one. An update on the program that the city has been working on and to give smart a public time to be able to describe why they've expressed opposition to the at great crossing and to be able to propose an alternative to that at great crossing actually thought the meeting was well attended. I

it went fairly But I think that the feedback that we heard from the constituency that night was we told you we want to that great crossing. Want to continue to have an at great crossing and that the final stance moving forward. As we started seeing that we needed to apply for a new coming up in the general manager and I sat down and began to discuss how we might create a license agreement that could get us closer to this. The key for me was the easiest place for us to start was was to ask smart to prepare. There are the first draft if they were going to entity that doesn't want us there but committed to helping us find a place they prepared the language that we were going to start from. And in JANUARY. I'm sorry. In they did provide us their first initial draft. And since that time we've met with them almost monthly to talk about various generations. The talk about specific language to discuss why we have a specific position one way or another and ultimately. We are looking at the final draft from smart dated JANUARY. 26th 2024. And that's where we're going to be starting the discussion tonight. With that. The key piece for us to remember as we move forward is the JANUARY 26 draft is at this point. The one draft that has the most, the highest potential of achieving success at getting the board of directors to sign off on the city's proposal for and at great crossing. And so we're going to walk through

some of the areas of concern. We're going to highlight some of the sections that our city attorney's office provided that. Our city attorney's office has asked us to really identify and and highlight so that we know the level of concern that we know some of the new wants language that results in it. Challenges from a legal perspective and what it might mean for us moving forward. In particular. We're going to start with Section 14 section 14 deals with assumption of risk and liability. What this particular section does in the draft to provide as it does. So it is signs and assumes all risk and liability based on the location placement design and establishment of the crossing would would be borne by the city. And it further identify a level of. Difficulty for smart in the fact that they use the term gross negligence for the first time and willful misconduct. And where that significant and I'm going to hand it over Assistant City Attorney Abel here shortly to discuss the why those those words are important. But it does ultimately transfer risk to the city. Even. Even where smart soul, ordinary negligence has occurred. When we look at item 5 Section 15 be which is the indemnification provision relating to licensed property. So again, we're talking about that license area. It identifies that the city is responsible for all losses from claims suits, actions arising from any cause whatsoever. Except to the extent that such claims shown

by non appealable judgment. Again, the appealable judgment is a term that Adam will provide a little bit more detail about and explain the significance of of not appealable judgment impacts the city when it comes to the cost of providing legal services for smart in defense of their particular case. Should they be Should they be identified as being negligent or grossly negligent or with willful misconduct? And with that, I'm going turn it over to Adam to go through this next piece. So just a little bit of additional information. And good evening. Mayor Rogers, vice mayor and council members. >> So I'm I'm really going to be discussing Smart's JANUARY 26th agreement. >> And pivot to. Alternative agreement that Jason and I put together and the reason why we created a secondary agreement. So just piggyback off of what Jason said. Under the agreement, that smart has written. We do essentially assume. All risk and we have no control over. >> Minimizing the city's risk because of the very specific terminology that the smart lawyers have crafted into this agreement. To be specific. They have what's called. But for location, language. In other words. Their position is if any incident claim fatality rises because of the city's

desire to put this crossing at Jennings Avenue. The city holds the bag. In other words, even in situational give the most simplistic example. Train operator falls asleep at the wheel and strikes a pedestrian crossing at Jennings Avenue. Under the agreement has authored by Smart staff. We're on the hook for that and we can't control that because. Work for smart. It's worse, however, because of the but for location. So based upon the language that they have crafted taking that same simplistic example, the train operator falls asleep at the wheel but strikes a pedestrian as an example, a half mile on the tracks in either direction. Pedestrian who was killed, entered the smart tracks at Jennings Avenue, the way the agreement is crafted. Where on the hook for that fatality. As Jason indicated, the only exceptions in the smart agreement where the city would not be legally responsible to pay any judgment for any property damage claim personal injury claim fatality is after a final 9 appealable judgment, which I will discuss in a minute. If there is a not final 9 appealable judgment by the requisite court, that smart was grossly negligent or willful musk or their willful misconduct is responsible for that claim. That is the only

carve out where the city would not be responsible to pay any judgment. That said the agreement is written in such a way that the city has an absolute duty to defend and what that means is under any claim. The city has to defend and indemnify them. We will be required to retain outside counsel because they won't let my office do it because they will claim a conflict of interest and and last until. There is that final judgment? We are on the hook and even when the court determines that smart, your reckless conduct or your willful misconduct is responsible for that claim. We still are on the hook for all of their attorneys fees and litigation costs. So we have no way to recoup our litigation costs even in the most egregious contact conduct on the part of smart. The terminology, as Jason mentioned, gross negligence is something that we. Debated with a smart over the words that were gross negligence in the word soul negligence and the reason this slide is relevant under California law. There's 2 forms of negligence. There is gross negligence which is akin to reckless misconduct. And then there's ordinary negligence is which is really a reasonable person. Standard. The way the agreement. Has been drafted by

Smart. Again. The only carve out where the city would not be required to pay any adverse judgment is if their conduct was gross negligence or recklessness. So in other words, taking my hypothetical simplistic example where the train operator falls asleep at the wheel and kill somebody at Jennings crossing or anyone who enter Jennings crossing and got struck down down tracks. That would be considered ordinary negligence. A train operator fell asleep. That's not reckless conduct. And so even in a situation like that, where the city has no control over a smart operator falling asleep at the wheel. We're on the hook for that. So essentially smarts position is. We will accept we smart will accept responsibility, although you're going to give us free legal representation and but we won't pay the judgment so long as our conduct was reckless or willful. But if we were simply negligent and we are solely responsible for any property damage claim personal injury or fatality. You said you're on the hook. Not only for the attorneys fees and litigation costs but payment of any judgment. >> So turn this turn to the >> so what Jason I did was come up with and alternative license agreement that the goal being to try to present something that we felt was more balanced. We recognize that smart. He's indicated they don't want this crossing and the city has indicated

that it does have interest in the crossing. So we recognize that we weren't looking for a fair and balanced alternative, but certainly a balanced alternative so that the city's exposure is limited. In other words, what we did with alternative languages. We took out the but for location language. So that the city's exposure is limited to the 4 corners of the proposed crossing. We're talking about crossing in Jennings. We don't own or control the tracks that go for miles in either direction. And so we believe a balanced approach would be the city will assume responsibility for anything that occurs within the 4 corners of that crossing. We without that, it would be a more balanced and reasonable approach that if there is a determination that what that whatever hypothetical claim we can imagine was caused by smarts. So negligence. Smart should be responsible for that. We have no control over smarts, negligence. But in order to make sure that the alternative agreement was balanced in still in favor of smart from a liability perspective, we crafted in such a way that the city would agree to defend indemnify smart, even for their kind current, ordinary negligence. In other words, so long as smart. Contributed to any hypothetical claim to ordinary negligence. The city would

still. Defend and indemnify them. And we felt that was a much more balanced approach and would allow the city to control its risk to the only thing we can control, which is that the crossing itself? Net. Now I want I want remind council where we started, which was an agreement, was smart. >> That we would come up with something. >> That wasn't a And the negotiations that we had with smart did start utilizing some of the language that's proposed in this revised. >> Agreement. And we were unable negotiate are unable to land on some of those points. And they agreement that they presented to us in JANUARY was best terminology that we were able to negotiate over the course of the last 6 months. As you've heard from this is the assistant city attorney. That agreement is certainly not what we would hope would be the end product and what you what they've presented in the revised alternative is much more in alignment with what we hoped we would get. But that's not exactly what's on the table from smart. That would be counter proposal from the city. And and we just need to do to take that into consideration as we deliberate this I do believe that the general manager did what he could to try come up with a reasonable solution. And when I say reasonable, it's reasonable cause. It's not the

know that we started with 2 years ago. There was an agreement that we would take on a higher level of responsibility and that's why they ended up with the language. They did I think revise language that we've crafted for a second alternative is something that's more in alignment with what makes sense on how we wish we would be proceeding and it's something that we would if council requested would be presenting the smart and the Public Utility Commission with some potential to continue negotiations. What that lands us with is a series of alternatives. It allows us to. Have council takes the consideration of the draft that was presented to us by smart as I said, that is that was presented by smart staff prepared by smart staff and has that he's the greatest potential to find success, even though it comes with the highest risk to the city. The second alternative would would be utilizing the draft and revise that Adam describe for you, which is based upon smarts Templet but take specific sections and alters that language that we feel is more balanced along the way. I don't have confidence. That's smart is going to accept those terms by it does establish an set the stage for us to have potential additional dialogue as we get called back into a public hearing with the California Public Utilities Commission. And the 3rd item

here is more of more of a position of where where at hop for And I know that it's unpopular. But the bottom line is if we're unable to achieve a a mutually agreed upon license between smart and the city, the judge will retract. The crossing application and we will be back at him square one where we were in 2015 and I don't feel that if we can't come to an agreement, I don't feel like we wait for that. We need to wait for the judge to take that action. And so I've incorporated that here for your consideration. Not because staff has determined it's the best course of action, but it is a rational course of action given where we're at in this program. And so that's why that has been included. Some of the parting pieces I just want to throw out there before I let you all debate and ask One is there will come with this a construction agreement that we have yet to discuss with smart that construction agreements going to be likely similar to the one we signed in 2017 that went unsigned executed by smart. It will establish the terms and conditions by which the city pays for the construction of the facility. Smart will ultimately and managing the contractor that would do that. We anticipate that that's about a 4 and a half million dollars. Total construction project and we

have roughly about 1.1 million dollars available in the account remaining from our earlier version of trying to get in the ground. Once constructed this license agreement. Also establishes that they'll be an ongoing maintenance, a component of our relationship. With the cities agreement of either of these 2 a license proposals we would take on 100% of the operation and maintenance now smarts not going to have us hire contractors. They're going to hire the contractors and we're going to pay them for the services that they're contractors are providing at this particular location. It means if something breaks will be paying the bill for whatever breaks and from a perspective, that's that's only fair. It's it's our crossing. We asked for it. We want to see that happen. And therefore, that's built into this as well as that the city will take on that level of responsibility. Exhibit b, which is not in here today, but Exhibit b will outline with detail the love of the areas that the city is responsible for and the areas that the at that smart will be responsible for. I've provided in the staff report and example of what could be included our city and and smart responsibilities. But you need to know that comes with an annual cost to the city as well. When we think about liability for any of these incidents, the city has double and this is covered under our insurance policy. Through our Joint Powers

Authority. We do have a and be able to describe more detail. I we do have 1 million dollars deductible in essence, and that will be helpful as we move forward. That insurance premium will adjust based on the number and severity of claims that occur over the course of time in that particular location. So while we feel that we're in that we're adequately covered from insurance perspective at this point, time will tell with this particular location as to whether or not there's adjustments that MAY have an increased our additional burden to the organization. If we move forward with this. And if we're successful, one of the components we want to consider is requesting not just the standard extension from the administrative law judge, which the peuc typically issues a two-year extension. And that's what the last 2 extensions have been. But recognizing we have a budgetary shortfall. Also recognizing that should we be successful coming to mutual agreement, this particular project would be very grant worthy, but there's times any time we deal with competitive grants. We we would likely need more time from the administrative law judge to complete this the way an extension is written. All work has to be completed in the crossing has to be activated by the end of the extension in order to comply with the that they've laid out. So I want to just I just wanted to provide you that additional information so that I've been clear on. Where the project currently sits and some of the additional components should we be successful moving forward? And with that, MADAM Errol, hand it back to you Adam and I are here to answer

any questions. Thank you. So thank you for the presentation, but also on top of that. Thank you. For all the working hours that >> you both have put into to bringing this to today. And I know that there's a lot of their staff that have also helped him been supported a view to so I would like to thank them. Also. >> Looking to council to see if there any questions council Cookie. >> Thank you very much, MADAM So that two-year extension and and what are the consequences? So let's say. 2 years. And and we're 85% complete on the job. What was the consequence of that? >> My belief is if we're in that position where submitting a request for the administrative law judge to extend showing progress, I don't see that they're going to deny us and extension of that. If in 2 years we have not broken ground. That's where my concern is. Is it for continuing to negotiate in one form or another or if we're waiting on fulfilling a funding? That's where my area of concern is. And I and I and I don't have a good feel from the work that I've had with the admin or that the experiences I've had with the administrative law judges as to whether or not they will continue to perpetuate additional extensions. And in just one additional comment, I mean, if if the 2 entities came to a meeting of the minds, >> they are typically two-year extensions. But when we go in front of Judge Kelly in the not too distant future, if it appears that we are close to, we have a meeting of the minds. We will ask for and extension well beyond 2 years. So we don't fall into that

position. >> In terms of the legal fees, can you confirm for me that while we would be responsible legal fees, we have no control over the legal team. >> That is absolutely true. And as I indicated, councilmember what they control the litigation, that's how their agreement is written and they're there is and inherent conflict of interest for my office. My litigation team to defend smart. They would never allow it. So they will. We will have to agree on who they appoint as there litigators to defend any hypothetical claim. But they will control that litigation team and we will be paying the freight for. And as we discussed absent any final determination of willful misconduct or reckless misconduct under their agreement has drafted we're going to pay any judgment as well. And another concern that I have from a risk perspective is. Their lawyers who the city is paying for are controlling that piece litigation. And as a fellow litigator, if I know that my client smart, if the handwriting is on the law that requisite court, that it appears that the conclusion is going to be that they claim was caused by smarts, gross negligence or willful misconduct they'll settle the case before we get the willful misconduct or reckless

determination and we can't control that in which case. It in almost every situation we would be paying not only attorneys fees and litigation costs, but any settlement, poor judgment. >> Okay. In your experience as a what restrictions you put on yourself when you know that. Further fighting for maybe a just settlement. That's what you think you might get is too expensive to pursue. And by that, I mean, if that restriction doesn't exist for smart because they're not paying the bill are they will in your experience as a litigator. What does that kind of free in theory of the litigation litigators for smart up to go as far as they want, even even it's for a dollar more. >> I mean, frankly, idea with indemnity classes all the time because I-30 year plus litigator and you know what, Jason? I are well aware, although he's dealing with the general manager, we know that the smart attorneys are crafting the agreement and I know down the I've been doing this for decades. And so I think it's crystal clear why they included the language that they did, which is so extremely troublesome to me as a litigator in somebody who defends the interests of the city and whoever the city pays to defend smart centers is going to take the same with regard to their client, smart against the interest of the city. Yeah, I guess what I'm trying to get at is is is. >> As you say, if somebody else is paying the freight, which I appreciate the double entendre there, the pun there with paying the >> if someone else is paying it, we >> Then who cares? If you take longer work more or whatever, because your clients not paying somebody else's right?

Is that rational That is a rational assumption and I would hope in my world that spend the least amount to get the right result. But I am I have some real concerns the way this agreement is drafted. If attorney is representing the interest of smart, they have to do what's in the best interest of smart. Now. They MAY also want to rack up attorney's fees as well. And as Jason indicated, under our joint pool, the Good news is it will cover any and all claims related to this crossing. But because of the fact we have a one-million-dollar self-insured retention. But like, for example, when I'm litigating on behalf of the city. I'm not. Charging the city attorney's fees, but when outside counsel does that eats away at the 1 million dollars s I r so for example, in a hypothetical claim where we have to hire outside counsel to defend smart and outside counsel spends half a million dollars in attorneys fees. There's only half a million dollars left of the city's as ir. The concern is that the pool, as Jason said, our pool like any joint powers pool. They look How many claims is an entity in their pool getting and what's the value of those claims? So. It is going to be more claims. There's going to be high payouts because the attorneys fees is going to cut into a good chunk of the city's underline 1 Million. That could increase our rates significantly with our pool. So if you're describing is a loss ratio look at the laws are a show. >> How much money we're getting rich is how much you're paying out. Very common insurance carrier thing to do. Absolutely. I'm at I think our

community is very well aware of how common that is for insurance carry to do that. So you said I want to be clear. You said our losses will be covered. Well, the legal fees be covered. Have you confirmed that? Because those are 2 different things. Legal fees are not losses. >> Beat because of the fact that we have confirmed that our pool cover any claims related to this crossing if it is built? Yes, the attorneys fees are covered. It exposes the pool to higher payouts because of the fact that again, I won't be able to defend smart. So our our million Siar would only be for like expert costs, but because of the fact that we will have to pay outside counsel, that's going to take up much of what the city has to pay for the initial million more pay out by the pool, higher rates that we're going to suffer as a consequence. >> All right. And seeing no additional questions from council members city attorney. Did you have something to say? >> I was just going to to what has since city attorney Adam Able said about the rates we would have in that situation where we have retained outside counsel to represent smart. We would not have control that we would normally have over outside that the city hires from time to time where we can review the bells and really make sure the bill is being managed. The services are being managed. We would not have that ability. Our only recourse would really be a fee dispute where we would have to prove to the court the fees

were not reasonable. And so they would need to show that their fees within the range of being reasonable, which looks a lot different than being able to go through and actually manage to So it isn't without boundaries. A council member. They can't just charge anything they want and hand is the bill. There would be reasonableness requirement on those bells. But again, it's a pretty difficult standard because we wouldn't be in the position to be really able to review them. Review the entries. And in fact, we probably would also be in the litigation. And so we they would be litigating probably against us. And so we would also have the of defending the city, which would either be internal the team and the city attorney's office outside counsel as well. So we essentially would be footing bill for for both defenses. >> Right. I'm not going to be unreasonable. Billings. What I'm saying is in insurance claims Houston area where we're not gonna spend $20,000 to get $50,000. But if you're not foot the bill for that $20,000, the it's a free $50,000. >> That's a real they know Councilmember MacDonald, thank you, Mayor. I just have a question and so I lost my train of thought it's getting too It was around the attorney fees, but that's Have to skip it's. >> We will come back comments and to wrap it up after public

comment. So with that, MADAM City Clerk, me please facilitate public comment. Thank you. We are now taking public comment on item 15.3. If you're in the council chamber would like to make comment but have not yet provided your name or a speaker card. Please make your way to the podium. You'll have 2 minutes in a countdown. Timer will alert at the end of that period. For speaker will be Victor, followed by James than Alexa. Victor, you in the room. All right. James move to you. Please. Go ahead. James. >> Thank you. I'm sorry. I thought someone else was before me. I'm James I've been a party on behalf of the city in the underlying cpu see proceeding since 2015. I have written almost 14 briefs to maintain the city's standing to build the crossing against the opposition of Smart and the cpsc staff who wanted a crossing in the west and a railroad area closed exchange for Jennings. That was their only reason. I urge you to have confidence in the cpc's judge. He's not only the current judge the city's proceeding. He's also the judge in a proceeding that on my how again, smart, which is outside of the scope of the discussion this evening. So I would cause of to follow up with your Proposition b, send it to smart. Smart. Doesn't like You can explain to the cpc's judge to his satisfaction. What's going on here and he implement action to correct the situation.

Also, you should be clear that the judge cannot hack unilaterally. The commission itself, the 5 members appointed by the governor are the ones who make the final decision. It's unlikely given the trends over time that they're going to knuckle under to smart system. It's very possible that in the short term it will work out better for the city worse for sparred and in the long term, the voters of Santa Rosa MAY decide they don't need tough and smart be more. If the way Spartz board is going to treat citizens here. Thank >> Thank you. The next speaker will be Alexa followed by Chris. Heiress. I am elected. I need to use the document camera which I've never done before. >> Okay. I mean, I just over and then it should pop up here on the screen and you just need to focus it. There's a little focus toggle. Okay. About that delay. I know we've all been here for any could flip on the light right at the top near >> There you go. That was really on illegible. How do I focus I'll. Somebody know how to use that. Thank you so much. There's a focus button on their I don't know if it's on >> Winds are on the the base of the unit that will bring it into case that the but this is focused. Got it. I want thanks. It was obviously you thank you. Hi, I'm Alexa for Bikeable Santa Rose. Good evening, Vice mayor and council. >> I want to just share a couple maps that we're in the presentation and also thank the staff of the incredible job that they've done

advocating for the city at this. This is a stretch of the smart tracks. These are the 2 crossings that currently exist. This is where there's currently no crossing in Jennings. Both of these are on our high injury network, which means that if we ask people to walk or ride their bikes there, they're likely to get injured. And so there's really not safe crossing even a mile out of the way. I wanted to compare that to this same length of track just south of college down to 3rd Street. There are 4 at grade crossings. It's really hard for us to accept arguments that this crossing would be unsafe when these 4 crossings are safe. This is mobility injustice manifest the area of the city is free to move about their neighborhood. This area of the city is not. And if you doubt that people need to use this crossing, of course, there's cutting town on one side and there's times of services, restaurants target with household goods. But I just want to focus on one destination. This is the safe routes to school creates these maps where the students that attend various schools live. This Ellen Lehman Elementary School. This is over 50 elementary school children that live to the east of the tracks and currently have no safe way to walk or ride to school. When we say we want this crossing, it's like saying we want to eat. Yeah, we wanted. We also need it. People need to be able to to

move and smart has imposed a one mile long barrier on our community and they need to take responsibility for that. But U.S. Leaders cannot crossing and it's not a wall. Need. Thank you. >> So Idaho, comment prepared about how important the crossing is. You guys know that our whole campaign exist to create a viable network for alternative transportation in the city. This is a really vital connection. I won't belabor that. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm a person. I'm an adult. This agreement is a giant middle finger from smart. And I don't think that they have stuck to the spirit of the agreement assistant city manager, not general Cummins. So I think it's reasonable to continue to negotiate. I know the council's in a really difficult position, but I think it's really bad politics for the city and for smart to ignore what the community is asking for here. It is not unreasonable. We've worked for it for 10 years. We need to keep working for it. We certainly should not give up and allow them to bully us into submission. So I don't know how we get there, but I think we have to keep fighting. I also want to encourage the council. There's a lot of talk about safety with this. I find a lot of the claims that smart makes about safety, specious for the reasons Alexa just highlighted, people could enter the track at any of those other crossings and get killed 2 miles down the track. So that's crazy. But there's a lot of talk about the cost as

well. And when I made comments earlier on the impact fees, I said we should think systemically. I think that is true in this case. So yes, we can avoid the headache and the cost of this crossing. But if we give up and we don't have this crossing, we're going to have many, many more headaches, many, many more costs in particular. This is not just about the people who move across that track. People all across town will benefit from this crossing because of the reduced traffic burden on our streets, which cost us millions and millions of dollars a year that we do not have so building this crossing, creating a viable network is a way to make our city work better for all residents, not just people in that Thank you. >> Thank you. The next speakers heiress. Harris Weaver as executive director of Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition. I get it concerns about liability. We were threatened with a lawsuit in the past year and it was a it was a pretty pretty distressing thing and I've been following this and being involved with since 2017. I think you're entirely reasonable in submitting the revised agreement that's more favorable to the city. That's more fair. And see what happens with But for the life of me, I still cannot understand why. After all of the cpu c >> decisions I sat in some moves. Hearings met with one of the previous administrative law. Judges. I don't get how smart even is allowed to say no to this. Given some of those previous rulings. But I urge you to not stop not go with option 3 to submit the

revised version and all certainly be doing part to influence smart to do the right thing here and stop obstructing this as has been previously mentioned. This crossing is desperately needed. Their arguments are illogical. Their demands of the u r reasonable. And please just still let them get away with it. >> Don't let them get away with this. Thanks. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the chamber wishing to provide public comment on item? 15.3. Please. Go Hi, my name is Tess. I wasn't expecting to hear about this tonight and I was anticipating to make a comment. >> But during my senior year at Sonoma State, I lived in the end of department's just off of range. I lived there for 14 months with me, my partner and my dog. And this was covid. We had a dog so we would take a minimum one to 2 walks every single day. And so we would head to the corner of our street, go down, Jennings, go up towards a move up towards college, go down across the tracks and go up around college and we would talk about how find me. The end of Jennings was especially when we got to the other side of the road. >> The tracks and we realize that Jennings just went all the way through and it was blocks off entire communities from like there's a community health center. There's restaurants, the bank that I think was on the other side. Meanwhile, on my of the tracks, things like Whole Foods in target and you're completely separated by. If you want to go around a whole extra mile by foot. And I think that the community would really benefit from this

hearing that this started in 2015 is wild because I would have benefited from this when I lived there and a part of me feels like smarts giving you the ring around and I wish that they would stop. But at the same time, the city has an obligation to its residents and like that's a very dense area where people deserve to be able to bike and walk and have access to things they want in. >> So I hope that the city council and the city as a whole can do what they can because I would have enjoyed this when I lived there. And I know the people who still live there would love it whenever it comes to pass. >> Thank you, Mary. See no one else approaching the podiums for public comment on this item. All right. Thank you. Bring it back to council for a final comments and we'll start with Vice mayor stopped. >> I just want to say thank you also for all the work that you've what would a long campaign you've laid very clearly why the first option, the original option is a tough one for the city to small, probably responsible. You come up with a really good second option MAY be an ideal. It's not our our Green language, but it's in Bible language and it keeps it puts the ball back and smarts court and keeps the option for project alive. In addition, you've you underlined there that should smart agree to this as we hoped. But there will be a need for this council for the city to find additional funding. I believe the amount is somewhere in the range of 3.4 million. But again, given how important this project is in that neighborhood, and I'm certainly supportive of finding that funding if and when the Happy Day arrives, that that smart says, yes,

this this alternative language is viable. Thank >> Councilmember elders. >> Thank you, As as from smart. >> We don't offer to come speak with City Council maybe hear from our constituents >> who are very passion about Scranton. >> So I did have a conversation with general manager last week we discussed whether or someone from smart would be in attendance did notify me that they would not be in attendance. He did mention to me earlier this week that they've received correspondents from community members over this specific And I with their upcoming board meeting that there will be even if it's closed session, that there will be an opportunity for community members to express. Their interests moving forward. At some the smart board of directors will likely a public discussion. But I don't know the specific date and time line for Thank you. >> Councilmember MacDonald. Thank you, mayor. And I did remember what I was going to talk about. So I appreciate you coming back One of the things that you mentioned was around a gap in funding that we don't have to actually do the crossing. So >> if that judge was to come back in our favor and allow us to start moving forward. What are the chances U.S. Being able to get potential grant money to be able to do a project like this? So the concern is around the budget, how much it would cost to

actually do this. This plan. >> So those of you who worked with me long enough know that I'm I'm pretty optimistic when it comes to our getting grants. That doesn't mean I'm always successful. I actually think this is a very good a potential for this crossing. I think what you've heard from the speakers is true and real. And I think, The granting agencies will see that as being a value of benefit with that we've had a number of projects we've submitted for multiple times that have equal value and benefit to our community. And we've either been unsuccessful because of the level of competition or it's taken 2 or 3 times for us to see success. So while I believe this is a very good project, we would be banking a one and done that would be successful on our first if we're looking at grant funds, I do. I do have fears and I understand what the assistant city attorney said that that if we have an agreement, the likelihood that the judge is going to cut us off MAY be slim. I do think that there is still going to be a timeline to and it will likely come in the form of the city will need to look at other funding sources other than waiting for some grant money to show up. But I think out of the gate, if the decision is to proceed and if we can get agreement was smart. That should be our first initiatives to find grant source that could that we can apply for to try to fill that gap. Before we look too reprioritize, our current capital improvement program or too, just or delay some projects that MAY be coming up

in the queue. >> COUNCILMAN Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. For years dedicated to this. And to both of you for your attention to the city's liability in the situation. It one of the things that I think that the public who is for far too long waited for this crossing to be available. Does you know, MAY not see is how much smart is a benefit in terms bringing money into the city for housing projects. We've got a number of housing projects along the corridor, finance and funded particular affordable projects and other other grant monies because we have this asset. And yet we will bring so much good for these transit development. Projects. It is this stranglehold not just the northeast but connecting the Northeast or the northwest connection to the northwest of the northeast. And when I look at this project, you know that we've all been working on the over cross for years, I think will look at over cross. If you can't get across the tracks and who does over cross benefit, if you can't get across the tracks. And so when I read the language in the proposal. I'm not thrilled with that. Not thrilled with the fact the city has to come with this funding when in the past we've had grant funding that more than doubles will need in this situation. I think that the public has been really clear about what it is that our community wants. And I think that we have a responsibility were here as representatives of the public deliver in is responsible

manner as we can. And so you're my full support to go forward with this, to negotiate to the best of your ability was smart and to bring us is reasonable. A deal as we can that ends this unnecessary divide. In one of our most valuable communities in the city of Santa Rosa. So thank you. And I'm good work. Thank you, MADAM. >> it that you said something earlier I want to follow up on that. It just kind of spark something that I MAY have heard a little while ago. You said that at some point, smart sealed up the makeshift crossing. Can you do what you mean by makeshift crossing? >> So there was a point in time it actually could probably turned to MISTER Duncan and he can give the exact date. There was a point in time when the county was looking to construct and expand Guerneville road at that point in time, the county and the city jointly agreed to release the current and existing Jennings Avenue crossing of the tracks to gain the Guerneville road. And at that point in time that actually from a legal perspective closed the Jennings Avenue crossing, that's why we had to apply for permission from the Public Utility Commission to create a new crossing in the interim, the roadway. The crossing itself was gone. There were barricades guardrails at both ends of the road in

approaching the tracks. But individuals on the order of about 100 that we're walking over were carrying their bikes, were carrying strollers. So the term unofficial crossing is they used that they use the specific state that specific location, but it had no standing when it came to the Federal Railroad Administration or the California Public Utilities Commission until received the approval recently. And with the closure or the fencing that was placed there, it prohibits those folks from using it as an unofficial crossing today. Okay. So I guess my comments would be that informs me a lot more than then. >> Legally, that this is a dire dire need for this community. This area, this neighborhood because if they're willing to carry bikes across train tracks and you know, and let's be honest, unsafe conditions. It's not because they're lazy. It's because it's needed, right? That as is want take a shortcut. It because it makes sense. It connects communities and they want something they want something they can use. I know h# # # o# the liability in the legal fees and that's because I agree with some of our community members and some my colleagues at number one, it's just not an option for me. And because of what you just said. I think number 3 is not an option for me. Number 2. I know there's a lot of defense and I know we have to

ideally hope grant funding and that if that isn't up there, we have to have some real honest discussions about where those those funds come from a more projects. Get priortize are not. However, because I've been called pessimistic persnickety by my colleagues in the past all air on the side of hopefulness for this that we can get that grant, that we can get that also hedging my bets that there we MAY have had some are discussions. But for now, I that's the pathway. But I feel most comfortable with. All right. We're all getting tired. Okay. >> I in addition to thanking to members of the public that have consistently came to Councilmember I council meetings in told what they need it, why they needed it and why it was important. It is very important for us to hear from you and your persistence is golden. So thank you very much for continuing to to come and tell us what it is that you need. And with that, I will hand it over to Councilmember Rodgers. But I do want to know how old he was when we started >> certainly had fewer grey hairs. And Jeff forgot to mention wet blanket, which is my favorite way to describe them. Be really I think folks know where I've been on this issue. I 2 lived in the nfl apartments in 2018 2019 work for the state Senate when we were first advocating for with Smart's help for the crossing.

And I have seen this all the way through. And I just want to thank folks who have stuck with this to continue to fight for it. >> We are going to keep moving it forward. Jason was very diplomatic in how he approached a many of his descriptions of the discussions. >> Saw less. Cpsc has said this is a safe crossing. Cwc has told Smart you have to build it. They tell them again, you have to build it. They told him a 3rd time. Really mean it. You have to build it. The public's interest has not from lack of action from smart. And think that part of the problem has been history up until this new general manager. And I've got to ready. A lot of credit. He's been willing to have a harder conversations with the board. But previously this was classified as operations issue, which meant that it was completely shielded from policy discussions, shielded from board members having to take a difficult vote. And I think when you have been told for a decade at this point that the crossing is unsafe and that elected officials who vote for it are going to be in the paper if something happens to a kid crossing, that's pretty powerful to get people to not do anything. But the reality is you heard is that families have been impacted by not being able to have this crossing folks are taking a risk here, less safe path to be able to get around in our community. And it's time for

some courage. The city is moving forward with an indemnity agreement that. Makes our city attorney. I know a little uncomfortable and we're putting our skin in the game and smart needs to meet here. Not in the middle because in the middle would not be this. It would be what we originally proposed, but at least certainly recognizing that the city is taking on a lot of liability to try to deliver for our constituents. What they have had virtually been asking for. And I heiress and her Marine counterparts are going to flood the next part board meeting. To tell what we think of this in Sonoma County. With that, I will move to direct the city manager to one negotiate and execute subject to approval has to form by the city attorney, a real property license agreement in a form substantially the same as attachment to to the staff report for this item, but also including complete versions of exhibit a and exhibit b that or substantively similar to the description of those exhibits in the staff report and to notify Smart and the cpsc regarding this council action and wait for the reading of the text and not legally is that means option 2, the revised language being proposed by Adam and by Jason. And thank you both so much for your work on this. A second. >> We have a motion made by Councilmember Rogers in a second by Councilmember Alvarez. And I would like and not from the city attorney before we I have no changes, but thank you for asking. Thank you very much. And with that out this, gosh, it's to

late City clerk. Please call the Thank you. Councilmember Rogers, I councilmember Crappie. Rick I councilmember Fleming. I Councilmember Alvarez. I I smear stop. Mayor Rogers. The record show that passes 7 affirmative votes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Public here for any more items. Yes, no, okay. See, we used to go a lot later and we've got spoiled I know they used to a lot later. Will go up to 15 0.1 and hand it over to councilmember or vice mayor Item. 15.1 is report approval of the 5 year 2024. >> To 2029 economic development, strategic plan. >> Good evening. A rather good night. MADAM Mayor, MISTER Vice mayor members of council. I am not and she's we hope she has a speedy recovery. When Danson assistant city manager and my colleague here, Director Osborne, will be giving a presentation. But before reopens, I do just want to acknowledge the strategic plan before you is a long time coming. We have deliberated on and him. And we believe that this incorporates all of us feedback today. As well as our partner agencies, not only in the region, but with the state. And I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the work of the incredible team. Not only that is currently with for those who have gone on to other agencies. I want to call them out by name De La

Rosa. Clair harm. Rafael Rivera, who is still with us. But also Terry Thompson and just occur use without their contributions we would not be able to deliver this report to the extent that it is. And we're so excited to finally be presenting this final. She because we're eager to hit the ground running and get to work. So without further ado, I will pass it to my colleague director has burned. >> Good evening, MADAM Mayor, vice mayor members of the council, I will be respectful of lateness of the hour and moved to the content as quickly as possible. This is actually a really exciting event for us. So the 5 year strategic plan really is going to set our focus from an economic development strategy for the next 5 years. And really it was a lot of work put into this over the course of the last as MISTER Johnson mentioned over the last year, the Economic Development subcommittee has really helped form this. There are 4 or 5 occasions where this was discussed and from that conducted on subcommittee. I was also brought to the council as a study session DECEMBER of last year. And really we're focusing on 3 main pillars that you'll see is the theme of this trap plan. So since the study really what we've been working on is really aligning with our regional Sonoma County Economic Development Board. We have Sonoma County Tourism Center is a Metro Chamber and visit Santa Rosa have all informed this document and really what we're trying to do is align language, understand regionally, how we're moving things in tandem. So we have a more holistic strategy for not only Santa Rosa, but the

county as a whole. And that was really an important part of this. And of course, when when we're dealing with really general information and basic buckets, you know, the important pieces, the aesthetics of the document, this nature. So I'm the director Peterson from our communications and intergovernmental team really put a lot of work into the design of document. And as we move this forward, that design will change. We will fresh images will change colors there. I did notice there was one slight typo right after that will be fixing that as well after the uploading excuse me. But I think the important point is the content, the objectives in the strategies. We want the council to inform moving forward. So those a hold over the 5 year plan. I'm very important for us to really aligned with mission vision and values throughout the city. So the council statement, economic can community vibrancy sustain and develop a diverse and thriving economy that benefits Santa Rosa residents and businesses contribute to the community economic health about preserving historical and cultural integrity, really trying to align the objectives with this are also general state senator is a mission statement provide high-quality public service and cultivate a vibrant, resilient livable city. Very important to the document. I'm also an interesting timing of events. We're moving forward with our general plan adoption. And as we align our themes in the general plan with our economic development strapped plan, really what we see is live working. Recreation becomes the core functions of this

document. So as we went down this road, we presented this to council during the study session. We did surveys to understand what the community wanted to see in this We received over 600 respondents in that survey was performed both in English and Spanish in the themes generally from business owners and residents wouldn't really we're prioritizing housing affordability. And I don't think that's a surprise with what we've seen come up in other areas as the next priority. Business selected business development. Where is not business owner, selected equity and inclusion as their secondary. So one of the main pieces, this document is demographics. These are fluid and they do We will be updating this with time. So we have a total currently around 8500 businesses that really falls into a few different major categories. Retail is our biggest health care is our next to the tune of 15 and a 16 to 15 excuse me public, administration and accommodations and food professional scientific in tech are the other factors we see as unemployment rate of based on more recent information. We soon that will be dropping here in the very near future. We have a labor force participation rate of almost 66% and our labor force of those 65 and older is a little over 18%. So it's a pretty democratic spaced on the fabric of the We almost 36% of our are of Hispanic origin. We have a median age of the most. 39 our per capita income is around 48,000 and we have a little over. 23% of

residents have a bachelor's degree and our median home prices hovering around 760,000. So with the and we want to show some of the we're really trying to make impactful statements with some of this make a very attractive document. But this really focuses 3 main pillars and the first his business growth, economic vibrancy in resiliency, a second and community investment 3rd business growth. Double talk about this in future sides really focuses on small small business and big business support a trench retention and attraction, economic vibrancy is really just the investments we're making in the community and the overall infrastructure and then community investment really is our upstream approach a lot about child care and labor force and that will play out in that cooler. So business attraction, retention really falls into 2 and we've separated out recognizing that there are different tools in the tool box that maybe have MAY have to be utilized for the different categories. We're really trying to create a big business and middle business, retraction, retention and expansion and that is really coupled with small business support and being proactive going after big businesses understanding big business needs understanding how you would develop incentive programs around that he's very different than supporting our small businesses and understanding that it MAY be sign ordinances that are maybe smaller things that they're dealing with to expand their business. So this is all about separating our staff to be able to cover those 2 buckets and creates fiscal stability for the It supports a thriving work force we support and grow our small businesses. We also

create opportunities for entrepreneurship. We understand remove barriers for immigrant bipoc and women-owned businesses. And I think it's important to note this is will be a study that's going on in the very near future to set our base for those those individuals participating in those businesses. So economic vibrancy and resiliency is the next And this is really about creating a vibrant and livable city. It's about infrastructure and economic accelerators. So big component to this is bolstering our downtown and a lot of the initiatives that went into that will continue those moving forward. It's increasing the revenue of existing business. I'd also gets into really an infrastructure piece of that to how do we create walkable neighborhoods? How do we create business? Enters that focus on multi-modal and how we do really promote enhanced climate action goals and sustainability principles. And are fine killers about community investment. And this is really how we invest in the people on train So it focuses very heavily on some of the diverse needs of the community. Child care is a big component of We've we've played that out already with some of the initiatives that we've done with our our programs and how created service fee reductions for child care facilities. But that's a really critical piece to that shrinking early education. Understanding how to build that workforce and providing the resources for individuals that need that kind childcare to work within the city is incredibly important. Think it's to Really what we're looking at is obviously the fight implementation will be over 5 year period. Most of what we see develops goals and strategies and metrics. We want implementation will be a staff driven approach and we need to be very nimble. So will be over the course of the

next year aligning our staff to meet the goals of This strategic plan, but to be able to report out what we're looking at is developing tracking mechanisms reporting structures but then also having regular updates with the council on where we are in year one and just the envision with year one or the vision of your run. It's obviously the organization is staffing. A lot of focus on big business, important retention. And I think that's really understanding the businesses that exists that aren't necessarily in Santa Rosa. And how do you go after them and bring them in understanding those incentive programs and starting to shift our resources to that. But then also being nimble to be able to instill handle the small business support, as well as well as the upstream approach us. So we'll be laying out the There will be a 5 year implementation plan and will be looking at ways to do dashboards and metrics but also reports out to the council. So that that brings me to the conclusion. So our recommendation today is that the council adopt our 5 year strategic plan. And I would be happy to answer any questions. The council MAY have. Thank you both and what my colleagues are questions. That's a rundown. Just a comment I just want to say. Thank you so much for this to the strategic plan south, the goals, but then also out, the actions steps within the plan. >> So I appreciated the time that it took to do that and then really helps us understand what you're doing actually achieve all the

goals. So just want to compliment you more than anything. Thank you for the work on this and I'm excited to see it. And >> Any other questions? Medicine going public comment. >> now taking public comment on item 15.1. If you're in the chamber would like to provide public comment but have not provided your name or speaker card. Please make your way to the podium. You have 2 minutes and a countdown. Timer will alert at the end of that period. Vice Mayor mc no one approached the podium for public comment on this item. >> All right. Back to council. Any comments. That's council Rogers. >> Yeah, just quick thank you to all the staff worked on We've done a couple of study sessions. We also did I think 5 different meetings for the economic development. Excuse me, some could be the meeting I think my colleagues who served on that as well and I know that they're not in the Many of the folks who partnered with us and spent a lot of time walking through at how best to support economic development. Also want to just really acknowledge that center one of the few cities that when we talk about economic development poll in things like childcare and poll in things like housing and other types of issues that many different spectrums in our community. Appreciate the council's willingness to take a holistic approach to that. I'm really excited to see this across the finish line. Thank

you. Mayor Rogers. >> I just want to say great job for those of you that are still here. Thank you for the presentation. And for those of you that are not, it is definitely a village effort. Thank you. >> And I'll just as my final comments that this it's hard to think about more important for the city right now for all the discussion that we're having about about budget issues. This is the long-term effects. We've got to grow the pie. And so I'm I'm very glad this is a focus. And on the subject metrics when we have those I I am pleased to be interested in more rough, more frequent report outs to keep top of mind for the for the council in terms of what what strides we're making in the areas of economic development locally. All right. With that kind emotion. Just real >> to Echo Council, a thank you, everybody participate this. Amazing doesn't thank you for mentioning my name. I think it's very important. There's a >> lot of heavy lifting by a lot of people for a long time on this. And while the 3 of on the economic balance of mid, call it thanks to the numerous times you seen it I think the short presentation does a little bit of a disservice to how cool project this was undertake. This is one of the first meetings I had as a council member and to be able to spitball about, you know, protecting cultural a child care sports tourism. The idea things attracting businesses and letting building their housing for the on on their own campus, like having those kind of conversation is kind

of like what local government really get you motivated as well as some of local government because that's like the cool stuff you really get to do. I really appreciate put in there. I want to hope no blood, but I'm sure there's Mason, Sweat and tears into So I really do appreciate it. And with that, I'll move to adopt a by resolution of 5 year 2024 to 2029 economic develops to plan and way for the reading of the text. Second. >> All right. We've got we've got a motion by Councilmember Craft King who wants credit for the second. >> I think Rodgers got it. Which one? I really give the second to council Rogers, MADAM City Clerk, call the vote. Thank you. Councilmember Rogers Councilmember up. Haha. Thank you. Council Cookie I Councilmember MacDonald. I councilmember Fleming. COUNCILMAN Robert I vice mayor step. I Rogers, I let the record show this past the 6 affirmative votes. >> Thank you item, 15.2. Thank you. Team item 15 point to the report. The cell Santa Rosa specific plan, community engagement strategy. >> And engagement Advisory Committee Let me start over. >> Port, South Santa Rosa specific playing community engagement, strategy and engagement Advisory Committee formation. >> Thank you. And good evening. Mayor Rogers members of the council, I'm Jessica Jones, deputy director with me is Connor McKay, senior planner. And we also have here in the chambers. I'm Jane Riley with 4 leaf who is our consultant for this project and Conner's going to the

presentation. >> Good Mayor Rogers and members of the council. >> So yeah, the south the planned community engagement strategy go into some background on was a plan itself. >> So the south there is specific is funded by a grant from Metropolitan Transportation Commission Association Governments. And We are preparing a specific plan and environmental impact report and south of the South Center's area. This document will address pointing concepts such as land use in circulation and assess infrastructure needs such as roads, water and sewer. And also like I said, I'm prepared associated Environmental Impact report pursuant to the California Environmental Quality So throughout this we want to ensure the community's vision for the plan area is incorporated into the goals and actions and policies and the community engagement strategy is our road map to achieving that. Here. We have a graphic that shows the plant area for the South Santa Rosa specific plan. It encompasses approximately 1900 acres, 500 of which are city limits and the remaining are unincorporated. As I mentioned, the community engagement strategy for commute. Community engagement critical component of the success of the Spitzer plan. And the strategy exo itself, which is included as attachment 3 identify several examples of various approaches to community engagement and has been designed to solicit participation from a wide variety of folks in our community. The overall goals of the community engagement strategy. We're trying to emphasize that the city's

approach to engagement reflects a partnership and a commitment to plan with the community and not for the community. Our engagement aims to recognize and remove the barriers to participation in the planning process, specifically for people of color, seniors, the youth and people with limited English proficiency. Another huge goal that will inform how we conduct engagement is that we're trying to meet people where they gather already not invite people to come out to meet me. That's where we're at and you'll see example, in some of the events that are included in the strategy itself. Here are some of the methods that we are planning to conduct our community engagement. I just want to highlight a few that are on this that are on. I'm kind of just referenced on Ash Wednesday, which agree, 14th. We conducted some outreach at the Saint Rose Church for the Ash Wednesday service. We engage with over 200 attendees of the ash Wednesday service and provided flyers and had some pretty discussions as folks for entering and exiting the service about the kickoff of this specific plan process. This Saturday. I'm very excited to join us in county regional parks and volunteers, the Andy Lopez Unity Volunteer Day. I plan to show up nice and early and volunteers as they arrive and kind of introduce myself as a city staff member. I'm not trying to hijack the point of the of volunteer day, but just letting people know that the South Santa Rosa specific plan in the process and park itself is in the port area. So I also my b# # # off alongside the volunteers and then offer to stay after to discuss the

specific plan and questions have about what specific plan, how would this affect me? What's the timeline? And then finally, as was mentioned earlier birthday appointing will have a presence at Earth Will be showcasing the variety of planning efforts that are happening throughout the city, including the South's center's of Suffolk Plant. As part of the engagement for this process, we're going to conform and engagement advisory committee and this will be a community of interested parties that the renters people doing business in the South Sooners, a plan area This will ultimately represent their communities and hopefully bring others into the process that we wouldn't necessarily have direct access to. Like to emphasize that staff knows that the plan area is a mosaic of communities. It's not just one South Santa Rosa community, and we're hoping to take that knowledge and really conduct the recruitment plan that is included in community engagement strategy to get representative folks from those important communities in that area. And a bit of a technical kind of slide here. So as part of the recruitment for the Engagement Advisory Committee staff asking council to waive policy. 0, 0, 0 Dash, 0, 0, 6, So the couple requirements for the associated with this policy is that committee members must be Santa Rosa residents. And for this situation, as I mentioned, 1400 acres is not incorporated into the city. So

we need some folks that are not in current city's city of Santa Rosa residents to be part of this committee and then the formal application process is really kind potentially unnecessary barrier when we know some community leaders in that area that we can just directly engage with to see if either or their designees would be interested in serving of oftentimes formal application process can be just what other steps that our business necessarily important for the start of work. And then also sometimes life happens and folks who are on the engagement Advisory committee MAY not be able to fulfill their commitment to membership anymore. And we have these requirements that are outlined in this policy, it would be a bit of a hassle to reappoint members. And we're really trying to keep this project on the timeline and under budget. Which is move on to timeframe of next steps. So right now we're in face to the consultation phase. We've kicked off our engagement that is discussed in the community engagement strategy that I wear are asking you to accept. We will then move on to developing the alternatives that will be informed by community input that we have gathered throughout this engagement process and ultimately the adoption of the South Santa Rosa specific plan would occur near the end of 2025. In their early 2026. So with that, but it is recommended by the planning and economic development department that the council by motion except for the community engagement strategy for the South Santa Rosa specific plan and council policies or 0, 0, 0, 6 regulating appointments to

boards, commissions and committees to allow staff to appoint the members of the uc for the South Center's a specific point. And with pass it back to the mayor. Thank you both. All right. We're going back to council. >> Questions Councilmember property. Yeah, just one quick from phase 4 to 5 on that last Can explain why there's so much time between those 2 from JULY about 28 months from JULY 2025. To NOVEMBER of. I'm assuming that's 2025 was that 2026. >> So it is a JULY. 25. And then with adoption expected in early 2026. And so a lot of that it is collecting all the feedback. The Reas Reese that we have received on the draft specific plan solidifying that address specific plan and then developing the environmental impact report that has to go along with that. So it it all takes time. And this timeline here of about 2 years is generally speaking what it is traditionally taken us for these types of a similar projects. >> Thank counsel Robert Thank you. I swear first, I want to applaud you for efforts on engagement, the ash Wednesday. That's exactly what it takes to reach a community who normally doesn't engage civically and in the outreach continue outreach. I know that we as policymakers have Burton staff with having to decide between policy and procedure when it comes to what method really what language we're pushing the community with.

And with that said, I'm hoping that that the Spanish language is is one that we are engaging in. Those fires are bilingual. And also I make what's available. Should there be an ad-hoc Orleans on either for for this committee? I would like to volunteer. Should that be needed and just like Thank you, councilmember. Any other questions. >> In a move to public comment city clerk. >> Thank you. We are now taking public comment on item 15.2, if you have not provided a speaker card or your name, please make your way to the podium. You will have 2 minutes and a countdown timer will alert at the end of that period. No one approached the podiums for 15.2. >> All right. Back to council for any final comments. Rogers. >> Again, a job well Definitely great that community engagement is the new guys in places that I wouldn't normally see. You're like, are they here? So it was really Thank you very much for all the hard work put into this. >> COUNCILMAN Roberts, question. I know that we're given the liberty of to our staff to put together his team. Is there a way for U.S. Council to ratify the group once what's been formalized, at least a last check >> If that is the wish of the council, we certainly can do in the The council appointed to these advisory committees. We've run into issues with quorum problems because we, you know, the people drop the committee for one reason or another. It takes some time to a new members appointed giving

staff that ability to do Creates a lot of flexibility and a way for us to move this more quickly through the process. But certainly if council wants us to come to solidify the group, we can certainly do that. >> retract their request for to c a Com buy com buyer legal counsel. >> It's my understanding the intent of this is that this is the advisory. This is community advisory group and not a new brown act body. And so we want keep it that way, then it would not be something that you all created or then ratified we would then have a lot of legal requirements and staff implications for staffing this. It would become a much more expensive proposition in terms of resources. So I just want to make sure that we don't inadvertently create something that is more than than we have the bandwidth to manage. Excellent. Alright council are already story of emotion. Let nobody asked. >> Yes, I'd like put forward action to approve a waiver of council policy. 0, 0, 0 Dash, 0, 6, regarding appointments to boards, commissions and committees to allow staff to appoint county residents within a specific plan area and to allow city staff to appoint members based on the e a c composition included in the strategy. And secondly moved to accept the community engagement strategy for the next South. Santa Rosa specific plan and way for the reading of the text. >> So I think it. All right. And we've got a motion from

counsel Robert And the second from Councilmember MacDonald. And City Clerk. Thank you. Councilmember Rogers Cookie, I Councilmember MacDonald. I councilmember Fleming. That council been Vice Mayor step. I MAY Rogers, I let the record show this past of the 6 affirmative votes. >> Thank you. Thank you very much for the presentation. And again, thank you for just being in the community. I think it is definitely great. 15.4, MADAM City manager. I don't 15.4 budget amendment, one-time project funding. Thank you, Mayor. >> Members of the City Council. My name is Alan Dalton and chief financial officer I'm Dana Scoot through the sayings is quickly as I can. I think he has probably. See more of me than you care. As we move along as you know, as we go through the budget process, we there are some items that we cannot fit into our annual budget and we try to come back at a later point funds left over from the previous year. Appropriate those out of the General Fund reserves and use those dollars to pay for one time needs generally of a critical or lease important nature so this is the way what this item is about. We have gone through that process. Used to be known

as r r Mid-year. Budget were little pass made years. So going go through that there is sufficient funding available the reserves to pay for one-time projects these we could not fit in when trying to keep our balance our budget balance as go go through the the normal process. We we went through a rather extensive process of the department's bringing projects together over a period of time. They were There are additional questions some fall off the list. Some kept going and what you I have before you is propose list of projects totaling a 3 million $60,000 with we would appropriate funding out of the general fund and aside reserves to fund these projects. For the most part and what you'll see as we go through here, we We wanted to make sure that we had project start dates and targeted completion dates. So you know that these were shovel ready project, projects, if you will. And so you can see how we what the states are. So as a shoot through and find my notes. So the first off is with the human resources Department and its New of Assessment. This project would utilize a consultant provide a a review and assessment of all current models. Modules skews me to optimize the use in hr and

provide much training. This is important to ensure that the city is using the system to its full capacity and get the most out of the considerable investment that we put into it. So this is efficiency. Would be $100,000 do that. We expect to start that project in JULY of 2024. And were targeting in OCTOBER. 25 completion date. Most of these are going to be in about one year. Little year year and a half time frame. Next one he in internal control audit update. We did our internal control full audit or come in and do specifically internal control policies back in 2016, they developed a management plan. We at that point, we actually had in-house internal auditor that allowed us to go through that plan create policies, audit existing ones. And and so we've unfortunately have position over over time. So this would be to come in and do a refresher of that debt management plan. See if there are other things that need to be tested but in full disclosure, this will create the plan for us and we would need to find within our budget away, too. Have and outside auditor coming in the future work of auditing in testing those policies. But all of that starts with the plan and we need help to be able to do

that. And it has been a number of years since we've done it Transportation public works. We have a 2 projects. One in ground vehicle lifts. This is out of the fleet maintenance so it will remove for in ground lives, and replace them with new lifts. The original ones were installed in 1986. There are parts or obsolete day provide a significant resource for us to be able to 190 medium and heavy-duty vehicles, including transit buses and fire apparatus so there is also the potential for soil contamination. Should we leave the existing lifts in and they start to league. So we take the funding that we are asking for here. The 932,000 we would add to existing funding that has put forward by Santa Rosa water and transit for a total of a 2 million dollar project we would start dead in JULY and it would take us about a year to complete the program. We also have the fleet electrification master plan Santa Rosa, Water and Transportation Public Works who jointly submitted an application in Formula funding from energy efficiency and conservation Block Grant program. So we are going to receive but we need 160,002, a complete the the cost of of that master plan. So the water part has there's coming through on the grant. The the general fund part would come through from reserves. For information technology. We have 3 of them. One is video security and the downtown

campus we would start right away in targeted completion date is 2025. This will provide funding for the equipment and labor to complete the installation. We've already started it. This would complete the Insulation of the external security cameras in downtown City Hall. The chamber building and a bank building areas and parking This is come forward as employees safety issue and and again, we've been trying to address us over a number of years. My telephone replacement again, ready to start right away on this targeted completion OCTOBER 2025. $167,000 for the the cities, current phone system is being discontinued by the offender and will no longer be supported for updates in Ann Spencer security patches after DECEMBER 2025. So it in our best interests to replace that system. And then $80,000 for the on-premises accela system. So same with the phone system. Is a permitting and inspection system will no longer be supported by the vendor after DECEMBER 2025. So we need to look to replace at the $80,000 is a one-time funding requests to assist with the implementation and migration and and interface. Cars. There will be a larger full project

cost, but that will be directed through our it cost allocation plan to the department's this specifically used that namely a planning economic development and fire and any other system that uses or department the uses the system. But it's mostly those 2. We have a radio upgrade project. This is This project will address ongoing coverage, issues throughout the in the hospitals Sonoma County, jail and areas Oakmont upgrading the radios to provide connection to cell towers. And Wi-Fi, as well as the current radio network should solve the coverage issues that we're having in provide reliable coverage during the Chile responses. This upgrade will also provide gps tracking for a live staff during incidents. It should purchaser will purchase 170 portable radios and 63 in car radios and the required software subscription for 2 years. We would start this in 2024. And my understanding we are ready with a bid right away. So we should be able to have this in place. Hopefully by the fire season this year. So we're targeting early or late summer, early fall. And a police arrest a upgrade this solution will provide a a more secure backup system for critical police data including

k state in video surveillance and provide to pass a for incoming technology needs to current data storage solution for the police department is outdated and has no space for growth. It requires replacement. And for rec and parks. We have the oil part ball field upgrades note that there's typo under the department total. It should be $500,000. That is the ask this project will fund upgrades to the Doyle Park Ball field. Really starting with new concessions. And then a number of water sewer, electrical upgrades >> is this will be combining with other funding that they have in order to make this this project go forward this would were targeting a JULY 2024. Start with the completion in DECEMBER of 2025. And finally, we have a future project to talk just briefly, because I don't have a time of. Information on this, but is exciting and we wanted to bring it to the council's attention. We had intended we we've been talking about doing hvac upgrades for very, very long time. And we were actually prepared to make a 5 million dollar investment into those upgrades. We there is a program that would allow us to use those funds or an amount of funds as to leverage federal as seed money

basically to levels leverage federal money to come in to do a more extensive energy efficiency upgrades. So we would not only get our hvac system down, but other energy efficient upgrades throughout the city. We would be able to be phased in over a number of years and we're still doing our due diligence with this. So we're not prepared to come with the full program. Now we will come back in a later date and discuss those opportunities. So by way of fiscal these one projects so there's on the surface. There's no ongoing costs. I did note in some areas where we are dealing with with the initial impacts are there MAY be some are absorbing future costs and future budgets. But for the impact this, this is these are all one time important projects that are shovel-ready to go can be started within either this month or the next couple of months and be completed. There we would be pulling from the General fund aside reserves for this. Yeah. As JUNE JUNE 30th 2023, our Reserves. A total of about 60.8 million dollars or 31.7% of expenditures, which is well above our policy requirement. If we were able to do this action it would reduce our

reserves down to about 28 0.6% of expenditures, expenditures or about 22 million dollars over the council policy. So with the Finance Department recommends the city Council by resolution and then the fiscal year a 23 24 adopted budget by increasing appropriations in the amount 3 million, 60,000 dollars to fund one-time projects as set forth in exhibit a the resolution. And I'm available those that are still awake are available, too. Answer any questions. You MAY have. >> Thank you for the presentation and for those of you that are still like, thank you for still being here. Looking to counsel a copy >> Yeah. Just one quick question for those. Do park upgrades to the concessions with those be consistent with MAY be council member, Roger, to better educated what minor league team. >> Per se would be looking at >> concessions area. >> So the school would scuba divers. >> Any hypothetical minor league pro am League. Yes. And that's the goal. Yeah. I think definitely. Put us down that path. But man, it took 3 months for me to get the had. I just seem to be able to wear. >> All right. Any other question questions? Councilmember MacDonald. >> I have a question every single side. I'm just getting out. It a couple little things when thank you for doing the

audit control. I appreciate that. We're going back and getting some of those back in place from a long-term finance just making sure that that's back targeted completion on the radios for police. I didn't see a completion day. I just want to make sure that we're moving forward to support that. >> we are. I apologize. I was a typo on the slide. >> I'm glad I found it. Yes. Thank you for that. Pointing it very I I went to that pretty quickly and I apologize for that. And to the interpreter the hope for that. We we are ready to for the purchase. A pretty much right away. In fact, I believe there will be and item on future council agenda. And that will deal with that. And the idea would be to have these in place by a late summer, early fall, some of this year right away. So yeah, we want to get him in place by the fire season. >> Okay. Just 2 more things on the oil park. Is not something we could use a park paying impact fees for. Yet. Yes, we could. Could. So my question is, is there another way that we could spend $500,000 on other capital improvements and be able to use some of those park impact fees. >> Whoa, whoa. Police. >> Not all of them with if I went back and added the mask from what we were told earlier, there was still a few million dollars spent. Are you struggle with my hearing? So Okay. >> So

>> again, the park implant the par development fees that are they are all allocated >> so there aren't. >> If if we were to. Switch this out and maybe I'm looking over here and I'm I'm seeing nods and I don't know if we're if that's exactly what what we're going to do. So maybe what I should do is is confirming approval asking your other question and I can get a more coherent answer from the fine gentleman. There are to my right. >> I'm fine with proving it as it is. But I think that if you have an opportunity to pull from another reserve and backfill this money to do something else, that's what I prefer specifically on this. If there is actual money that's not allocated since we do have money in another account. Yeah. So the park fees are actually allocated what you we can bring and spreadsheet. >> Some of programs are fully funded. Some of them are not if you would like for us to go back in, take a look at what's been funded and what's fully funded. We can make adjustments if he would like for us to do that. >> I think if you can do both, that would be And then the last thing is when you replace hvac equipment, I'm not sure if we take into account the reduction in what we're going to be spending in pg need because that should also be considered for general fund that will be able to see some of those revenues and Reese. And that's part of the study and is part of the due diligence that we're doing right now. But obviously, that is why.

>> It's an attractive program to use. I look forward to coming back to that at later date. Thank you. Vice Mayor. >> Like they're doing a deep dive, deep dive here for it. No, in reality, I'm glad you underlined the fact these projects were shovel ready and we can we can make some good things happen right away. And secondly, just want you to check my math again. So we've we have 3 million that we feel comfortable allocating one-time projects. Does this mean that we think there are budgeting is going to come in or their actuals are going to come in around 2% to half of the of the of the original >> And if that's a hard question, you don't need to answer it. I was thinking you can take lab now. I I wish I think we're. >> Where we are. >> At last. >> Were. >> Where we've last reported on it and they'll be spoiler alert. A new 3rd quarter budget performance at the end of this month with the Finance subcommittee. So we'll have an update of that. We are still trending the very close to budget. But again, remember, we began the year with a deficit. So we're trending to match our deficit we are looking very where we check in monthly to see turn back is is is rising or anything that is going to help us cover that. And so far we haven't seen it that anything that significantly changed from where we are from mid-year. So what this is telling us is

that we have sufficient reserves to do this. Now we think these these projects are important to move forward. Now. But please keep your eye on. You know, in a couple months and then the next year, the next year, you're you're going to start seeing the reserves probably get smaller. I really do. What we're seeing in terms of trends is that. >> Our actuals are hitting online with budget. And which isreat except for we're coming to you with deficits set. Makes of that. So we're it's getting understood. Thank you. >> Any additional questions? Seeing Adams, clerk, police facilitate public comment. So we're now taking public comment on items. 15.4, if you'd like to provide public comment but have not provided your name. Please make your way to the podium. You will have 2 minutes and a countdown timer will alert at the end of that period. Mc no one approach the podium public comment. Alright, are there any comments from COUNCILMAN Comment? I'll just I want to thank you, cfo. >> For your hard work in just being patient with us. Both you and the city manager handling the budget in a way. >> I think a lot of U.S. Council members have not seen in those of us that have been here for a while. So thank you for your patience and thank you for the city's funds appropriately in in a good manner. I'm very appreciative. >> With that, I will hand it over to Vice Mayor. >> Thank you, Mayor. I move that we approve this resolution. Amending the

fiscal year 2023, 2024 budget by increasing increasing appropriations by 3 million, 60,000 dollars. Tough and one-time projects. And we for the reading of the text >> I have a motion made by Vice Mayor stop-motion a and a second from Councilmember Okrepkie city clerk. Can you please facilitate that? So my fingers moving slow now. But see Councilmember Rogers, I councilmember Okrepkie time Councilmember MacDonald. I Councilmember Fleming is absent councilmember Alvarez right? Vice Mayor step. I Mayor Rogers, I let the record show this passes. The 6 affirmative votes. All right. In a trip to guys we're not So we're going to head back up to item 6 and that is the report out on a study in closed sessions all handed over to city attorney. >> Thank you, MADAM There was no reportable action taken >> The closed session. And as you MAY recall from a very long time ago earlier today, we did have a study session that was a very robust conversation impact of development. I'm sorry. The impact development impact fee waivers and that is the end of my report. >> Thank you. Any questions from council members seeing none. MADAM City clerk, a new police facility. Public comment on this item. You're now taking public comment on item 6. If you'd like to make a comment, please make your way to the podium. Mayor mc no one approached the podium. Perfect. We are already completed our staff briefings, city attorney in City manager. Do you have any reports for

us? I like those shaking heads. Alright, we're going to continue to 10. No, we really can't do that anymore because we've already done all that business. Sorry. Okay. So we're going go to our mayor and council members reports and I'm very sternly looking at all the council members in. >> Are you guys joking? >> Thank you so much, Mayor. I have 3 things for the council So first of all, beginning of the month, we have most of our regional just want to put on the council's radar that at the Sonoma County Transportation Authority meeting yesterday. It's been a blur almost 2 days ago at this point, we had our first look at the greenhouse gas emission update for all of the region in the staff report for yesterday's meeting. There's a temporary link that goes to a dashboard that looks at how each jurisdiction is doing in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. The top level for Santa Rosa's that we've seen a 28% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions between our peak and this was the twenty-twenty inventory update. The 2022 is underway right now. So look forward to that. Want to make sure folks have that on their radars because it is really interesting information. Some clean power. We've got an update on our Geo Zone initiative for those who don't

remember, we are investing in 3 different geothermal plant technologies to try to advance renewable energy projects in our region. I will skip the in-depth explanation of how this is different but feel free to ask questions at another time. And then finally, the 3rd item I would like to add to the council agenda, a discussion about a senior overlay for our mobile home parks. Second. And we can bring that back in another council meeting. >> All right. So city clerk. We request but motion by council member Rogers second by Mayor Rogers. And come back with that So make sure you get added to the next available agenda that is in accordance with our preliminary requirements. Perfect. Thank you so much. And with that will go to council member Avarice. >> Thank Expecting the website have no idea was to be launched but keep checking the Internet. I've seen a preview of it. You can like it with that being said, I would like to put on the future agenda item to discuss the burn that we're placing on our staff in regards to language other than English when it comes to notices and >> spending communities. And I would hope that we can have a discussion. Second, >> We have a motion made by Councilmember Alvarez in a second made by Councilmember MacDonald. City clerk. Opening weekend. Get that one on >> I'd also like to put a future agenda items, a little more work. And this one is in regards to the buffer zones when it comes to cell phone towers.

>> We have a motion made by Councilmember Alberta's and a second by Councilmember MacDonald. Thank you again. MADAME Yes, ma'am, can I just through the mayor like clarity on the requests for future agenda item by Councilmember Alvarez. Just for clarity, discussion, a future discussion of the burden we're putting on staff regarding notice seen in other languages. >> Correct. Because of the reason being that I've seen the confusion that we place on shoulders of staff with the trends. I did whether its policy or practice and I'm hoping that we can create policy. >> Can can we change it around to and what is the policy in if we want to revisit the policy, to have it apply to wear. Still have that discussion. Is that okay? That is correct. You made a second. Is that okay? All right. So they are okay. That clarified your request. Think was just that is the summary. A discussion of the development of translation policy requirements. Yes, thank you. Thank you. So now we're going down to Okrepkie. >> Yeah, lawns here. So if you want to talk about when the Web site's going launch, he So we thought government task force, it's it's great. So they want to ask one he could. He could probably give you an idea of when that's going to get launched. Other than skip over the fun stuff that I did over the past week. That would do want to say on APRIL 23rd at 09:00am here. We'll have a public safety subcommittee meeting and we'll be discussing illicit massage businesses as well as the

public its first look at the fire department to tj Plant. >> Thank you. Councilmember MacDonald. You have to hold it for 2 weeks. Right now. You've. And going to. >> I just wanted quickly announced I was the speaker for the advocacy group for Santa Rosa Metro Chamber. Natives want to thank them for the invitation to come and be their speaker at lunchtime as well as attending the service awards. So I'm skipping over the fence staff because I really want to thank our employees for their dedication to the city for all their years of service. And I'm happy that we're getting caught up on many people that have deserves so many awards. And it's so great. Those are like those the sugar for me that when we get to go and see all of our great employees and recognize them and all their dedication of the city's, I just want to say thanks to staff for putting that on and for the opportunity to attend. Were you there by yourself? We'll help all of us. If you just say who is mayor was their vice mayor? Was there Okrepkie was there? Your counsel? >> We just love saying your who health says there you can't remember. >> Okay, everyone who is there? Okay. Perfect. All right. Thank I know it is it. We're almost Here with All right. For mine. Really quickly MARCH 27th, the Sonoma County Homeless coalition formally see oc. >> Met the coalition approved recommendations for 7.9

million in funding to 14 agencies under the fiscal year. 24 25 local homelessness services notice funding availability, also known as No. But the coalition received 40 applications totaling over 12 Million. The funding recommendations will go to the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors in No, I don't have to talk about the employees Service Awards. Thank you. 4, 7, I was able to attain that operating engineer District 10 in that was special because I was also able to meet with some of the Santa Rosa, own staff. >> In their family. So that was really great to see them. They're not at work. APRIL 8th, the Water Advisory Committee meant Sonoma Water staff presented the final fiscal year 2020 for 2025. Budget and rates to the whack in the whack unanimously recommended approval. The rates result. >> Is 9.8% increase per Santa Rosa. Sonoma water staff provided a water supply update noting that Lake Sonoma and Lake Mendocino are at their maximum allowable storage. >> For this time of year in Sonoma Water stop also provided an update on the il Russian River Project Authority. And noted that the authority selected the pump back design has the option to move forward to allow for the continued a version of the Mill River water to the Russian River. There for designs 3 designs that were

put forth 3 or 4. I don't remember. And they the pump back design. And with that, MADAM City clerk me, please facilitate public. Thank you. You're now taking public comment on item 11. >> If you're in chamber would like to provide a comment, please make your way to the podium. You will have 2 minutes and a countdown timer will alert at the end period. Marin. See no one approached the podium public comment on item 11. So now we'll move on to item 11.2 matters from council regarding future agenda. Items 11.2 was matters from council no, not that one. 2011.1 request for agenda item regarding temporarily vacating portions of 4 street which was brought by Mayor Rogers and a second from council member. >> Rogers? Councilmember Rogers. So now we take a vote. Is there any discussion that needs to be had a month? The council? Yes. >> Yes. For a team stunt. How many full-time employees to be currently have an economic development. Permanent employees. How many people are actually working full-time and economic development right now. >> So currently, we only have a temporary. Interim person. Which would be jail, who is actually our real estate. She's actually work in real estate. So she's interim deputy director economic development and then Rafael, who working is and it's a program specialist not. Exactly sure what the title

is. He is now being used as of on the permitting side. But it's still doing some work in the economic development department. My question is who would be doing this work? Through the mayor? >> I would be myself. Director Osborne, acting deputy Director And a contingent of other staff from planning and economic development. That doesn't exist. So what you're saying? >> So I guess my discussion point on this is I think is a worthy discussion to have. That is where the that we have this discussion at some point, we literally do not have anybody. To do the work right now in order to do take this on. That's my biggest concern that once budget comes and we have people that are staffed or in where we go through because we are in their grieving process. I assume once all that is done, I think that get appropriate time. But we literally do not have people to do this. Unless we take people off of other jobs overseeing departments and and things of that nature. >> Any other comments? Okay. Seeing Anyone here for public comment on this item. Seeing no public comment. City clerk, me, please. Motion and a Okay. Make the motion. So I don't like to make a motion to close portions of of 4 street temporarily. >> And offer a clarifying amendment point. >> Specifically from the

street. To I can't remember if it's hitting or exchange whichever that the first street by beer Barron is and then jumping over to the other one, which is by the Rosa to be street. So that way we close 4th street for bicycle and pedestrian use but also maintained the traffic flow specifically around the square. >> city attorney, Jaime, that the item in front of you is to determine whether to put something on the agenda. The motion you be making would to have staff come back with item. To determine whether to vacate those portions of 4 street. You're not actually doing it this evening. >> Yeah, I just felt a little more clarity in the motion might alleviate some panicked phone calls. >> Yeah, yes. You do need to vote on. But the motion is edge and whether or not to agendas. This item. >> MADAM City clerk me please call the vote. I didn't hear the second Mayor. I'm sorry. And again, the motion languages to place a discussion of impacts of temporarily vacating portions of 4 street to a future. But in the day as amended by Councilmember Rogers. If I MAY through the mayor the term vacated. My understanding is a legal term. And so we would prefer that. The term be close, not vacate. Get if you're good. Thank you. Councilmember Rogers, I Councilmember Okrepkie know Councilmember MacDonald. I Councilmember Fleming's absent Council member All right,

Councilmember Vice Mayor step. Mayor Rogers, let the record show this past the 5 affirmative votes with Councilmember Fleming. Absent. Okrepkie cut voting no. All right. Moving on to item >> requests for agenda item regarding development process >> Activate they can parse tunes the motion was made by Councilmember Rogers and it was seconded by Councilmember Okrepkie. So no will have any discussion. >> All right. So seeing none. We'll now take public comment on this item. Seeing no one moving to the podium. All right. So no public comment right now. I need a motion. >> Second. >> All right. I have a motion made by Councilmember Rogers in a second from Vice Mayor step city clerk. Me please call that. Councilmember Rogers. I Councilmember Okrepkie I Councilmember MacDonald. I Councilmember Fleming is absent. Councilmember offer All right. Vice Mayor stop. All right. Rogers, let the record show this passes. 6 affirmative votes. >> Thank Moving to item in total of which is our approval minutes. We have one set of minutes MARCH. 26 2024, which was a special meeting councilor there. Any corrections to the minutes. Seeing none. MADAM City actually, I can do it if you would like to public comment, please go to the podium. We see no and moving towards the podium. So we will >> Adopt the minutes as

presented. >> We already in So we will now have our sec Written communications are attached on to the agenda item 17, if you would like to make public comment on item 17 written communications, please make your way to the podium. There's no and making their way to the podium. Moving on to item 18, which is our public comment on non agenda matters. This is our second time that the a comment on items that are not on the agenda that are within our jurisdiction as counsel. If you'd like to make a comment, please make your way to the podium. Seeing no one making their way to the podium. We will now close public comment. And we have nothing else on the agenda, but I would be for a adjourn like to can grow. Congratulate our colleague Councilmember Rogers. And making 40 under. And thank you to our colleague Councilmember Okrepkie. For making the nomination. So congratulations and thank you for keeping your colleagues in mind Councilmember Okrepkie. And with that, we will adjourn the meeting. Thank you very much.