of the June 12, 2018 meeting of the City Council. I'd now like to ask the clerk to please call the roll. Thank you Mayor. Council Member it's Cron. Here. Matthews. Here. Chase is currently absent. Brown is absent. Naroyan. Here. Vice Mayor Watkins. Here. And Mayor Tarasov. Here. And now the clerk could please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. The United States of America and to the public for which it stands, one nation under visible Thank you. Now it's at this point in the agenda that we have the opportunity to meet some new employees to the City of Santa Cruz. So at this point I'd like to invite up the Interim Director of Parks and Recreation Carol Scourge. Good afternoon Mayor and Council Members. Interim Parks and Recreation Director Carol Scourge and it's with my pleasure to introduce Annalise Bryant. Annalise has been with us for almost six years as a temporary employee so we're so happy to have her on board now as a regular employee. She's taken on the position of Building Maintenance Worker 1 out of the Wharf and one of the projects that she's started working on just to give you an idea of the very things that she does is she's going to be working together with other staff to replace a portion of the deck in front of Ideal and that's a real different kind of an exotic wood and so she's working with staff to figure out how to work with that to make it nice and strong and workable for our salsa dancers that go out there. Annalise is born and raised. She's a third generation Santa Cruz in. She enjoys paddle boarding and softball. She started softball when she was in high school and probably even before that and continued to play softball all through college. She went to Cabrillo and then went to USMB where she got her degree in environmental studies and a minor in business. She enjoys family. They've been here for a long time interesting or not. Her grandfather worked for the parks department for the county and her grandmother also worked for the county of Santa Cruz so she's following in her family's footsteps and we're just so happy to keep her here and keep her on as a regular employee. Welcome Annalise. Welcome Annalise. And then now I'd like to invite up Director Public Works Mark Dettel. Good afternoon Mayor and City Council. It's my pleasure to introduce Aurelio Flores our new equipment mechanic one. He was a temporary employee since November and so we're really glad to bring him on full-time. He works with the fleet vehicles, large equipment in the garage and today he was working on refuse trucks. It's a never-ending story there. So Aurelio was born in Santa Cruz actually and when he was two he moved to Mexico for four years and then he came back at age six and he's been here ever since. He moved to Watsonville, lives in Watsonville about eight years ago and currently has three daughters and a dog and he's been working in the mechanic industry for the past 17 years. He attended local schools, Harbor High and some Cabrillo and when he's not working he enjoys camping and working on the honeydew list. A fun fact to share is his first name has all the vowels so please join me. Welcome. Now it's my pleasure to recognize the wastewater treatment plan. It seems like every year they receive some type of award and this year is no exception. Our City of Santa Cruz wastewater treatment facility has won five prestigious awards this year and before I describe them if the wastewater treatment plan staff here today could please gather at the podium around the wastewater system manager Ann Hogan, Operations Manager Mike Sanders, Laboratory Environmental Compliance Manager Akeen Babatola and Wastewater Collection Flood Control Manager Rome Norman and also Public Works Director Mark Dettel. That's what I was just going to ask, right? You got it on Operation Cruise Control. All right, thank you. Let's get a picture while you're all assembled there right now. You can share with the council. And while you're taking the picture I'm just going to continue reading. The California Wastewater Environment Association Monterey Bay Section has awarded the facility with not one but four 2017 awards. The first two awards go to individuals. Wastewater Treatment Operations Supervisor Dave Myers, if you'd please step forward if he can make it through the class. Dave was awarded the 2017 Operator of the Year for his dedication to excellence in process control, staff training, workflow management and service beyond the call of duty. Thank you Dave. And the second recipient I believe James Locatelli, he is, is he here? No. He is in Costa Rica, I understand. We'll kind of recognize him in absence. I hope you pass that along. But Wastewater Collection Field Crew Leader James Locatelli was named 2017 Collections Person of the Year for his efforts in managing sewer collection system work crews and staff development. So again, Jim is unable to be here today but let's give him a round for award is for the overall plant of the year, recognizing the wastewater treatment facility for its services as a regional wastewater treatment and disposal facility that includes lab support and testing for other facilities. The facility is the only plant in the Monterey Bay area permitted for this work. The plant also provides wastewater treatment and ocean outfalls disposal beyond the city to the Santa Cruz County Sanitation District, which includes LIVO, Capitola, Soquel and Aptos and provides solids processing and ocean outfall disposal for the city of Scotts Valley. So again, thank you to the entire crew for to work on that. And the fourth award is for Regional 2017 Plant of the Year Medium Size. It acknowledges the outstanding achievement in more than 20 categories, honoring exceptional treatment plants, water, environment professionals, and collection systems. It is based on a review of infrastructure, management practices, and in compliance records. So I think just hearing these awards makes me really proud to know all of the good work that's going on there. Again, that's not all. And last but far from least is a statewide award. The plant received second place for the California Wastewater Environment Association 2017 Best in State Plant of the Year. This award acknowledges outstanding achievement as an exceptional California treatment plant. It is based on a competitive review of infrastructure, management practices, and compliant records. Ann Hogan, Mike Sanders, Rome Norman, Dave Myers, and our man in Costa Rica, Jim Locatelli. Congratulations to you and every single wastewater treatment facility staff member. Please accept these awards that Vice Mayor Watkins and myself are going to give you with deep appreciation for the City of Santa Cruz and all of us here on the council. All right. Thank you. Okay. This is for the uh to you as well. All right. Congratulations. Thank you. Spread the will. Are you framed? Thank you. Stand somewhere and then we'll can Thank you. Nice. One last thing. Oh, yeah. Hold on. Please. Yeah. You have the floor. Thank you. Ann Hogan, Wastewater Systems Manager. Mayor and City Council, thank you for acknowledging the wastewater treatment facility awards and the individual awards we received from the California Water Environment Association. Most importantly, these awards weren't mandated or driven by managers. This was a grassroots staff decision to take on the application process. Staff volunteered from every department at the facility and in the collections department to edit and to draft and to write the applications. The plan of the year award applications is 140 pages of text and attachments that describe the facility accomplishments, regulatory compliances, innovative practices, management systems, cost effectiveness, and evidence of superior plant operations within the past three years. I'd like to name the members of the awards committee. Amanda Bird, Michelle Cortroll, Monica Tomlinson, Daniel Stains, Armando Dillera, Vince Lockyer, Gail Mackie, Dave Myers, Jamie Cortroll, Eric Baumgartner, and Tom Pretzer. These individuals were instrumental in the CWEA application process. We're proud of their efforts and we're proud to be an award-winning facility. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. That was amazing. I think that's the most awards to a single department in a meeting that we've had. So it was wonderful. Now it's my pleasure to move to the next item on our agenda, which are the Queer Youth Leadership Awards. The City of Santa Cruz is proud to honor and recognize nominees and awardees for the recent 21st annual Queer Youth Leadership Awards, held this year at Soquel High School on May 12th. I'd like to highlight a few things. The very first Queer Youth Leadership Awards took place here in downtown Santa Cruz at what was once Hobie's Restaurant, if you can remember that, which is now Cafe Mare. This council is proud of this legacy. In 1983, California Secretary John Laird was one of the first openly gay elected mayors in the United States and a member of this Santa Cruz City Council.  Other cities passed similar ordinances throughout Santa Cruz County following that action. The individuals and organizations we are about to announce continue to make our community a stronger, healthier, and safer place to live, work, and go to school. As mayor and on behalf of the City Council of Santa Cruz, we thank you for helping us continue our city's strong legacy and we thank you for your work. I'm particularly proud of the young people and adults who are here today, who are actively engaged in their communities. I say this because there is a difference between accepting or tolerating our community's queer and transgender youth and celebrating our community queer and transgender youth. We're here today to take just a moment to celebrate our community's empowered and celebrated queer youth leaders. As a father of young students, I am personally grateful for your work, helping make sure that any children who enter the halls and school or walk within the community, the spaces you all work to make safe for yourselves will be safe for my children and for all of our children. We will now call each person and ask for you to come up to the podium to present you with a certificate of appreciation. After each of you received your certificate, please stay near the podium so that we can take a group photo together. And I'm going to say your names one at a time and Mayor Trazos will hand you your certificates. Will Tara Liam, student from Branson Forty Middle School please come to the podium. Marlena Kroll, student from SoCal High School. Megan Tracy, student from Santa Cruz High School. Natalie Ramirez, student from SoCal High School. Sadie Reeve, volunteer the Diversity Center. Jamie Joy, youth program coordinator from the Diversity Centers Youth Program. The Diversity Centers Youth Program and big brothers and big sisters of Santa Cruz County if in attendance please do come as well. Congratulations. Okay everybody look this direction. Okay get a little closer to David. He's not too scary. One, ready? Okay one, two, three. Looks great. Thank you. Thank you. Now the next item on the agenda is the presentation regarding the realistic policies for housing affordability. As many of you know this evening we have a 7 p.m. session on our housing blueprint subcommittees recommendations. At this time we'd like to invite up presenters Kate Roberts from the Monterey Bay Economic Partnership, Matt Huerta from Monterey Bay Economic Partnership and any others who may be joining us in regards to the presentation. Thank you mayor. Good afternoon council folks. Kate Roberts, president of MBEP. I'm here with Matt Huerta who runs our housing program initiative and we may be joined momentarily by Sibley Simon who is the lead author on a policy paper that we published in January which was the culmination of a lot of work that we've done over the last two and a half years on our housing work but really tried to nail down nine low-hanging fruit items that local jurisdictions could implement both at the city and the county level to create more housing especially more affordable housing. So I just want to take a few minutes just to set that context and say how proud I am to be with MBEP and to be part of the coalition of folks that are really working hard on bringing more housing to the region. We have done the presentation you're going to see throughout the region. I think this will be our ninth presentation. We're trying to basically hit all 17 jurisdictions because we didn't write this paper in January so it's in a drawer somewhere. We really want to see policies being implemented and reformed and taking action and I am really happy to report that this morning at the Board of Supervisors meeting in Santa Cruz County we were there to support the consent agenda item for the board to recommend to staff to take action on some of these items and they did. So we're going to see a progress at the county level. So thrilled as a Santa Cruz City resident as a county resident to see us taking this leadership position and I know you all especially Councilperson Chase and Watkins vice mayor Watkins are very interested in co-authoring the paper that you did and I just thank you so much for your leadership on this topic and I think there's some exciting things and some good things to come from this work that will really positively impact our community. So thank you. With that I will introduce Matt Huerta who as I said is MBEPS Housing Program Manager and I'll give it to him. Matt. Mayor, council members, thank you for your time this afternoon. We want to take you through our presentation here so that we can guide this very quick but meaningful presentation that we've been presenting to our local partners here so from the beginning. Is it up there? I think so. Okay there it goes. Okay. So yeah so again keyword is realistic. We aren't in so much into pipe dreams. We really want to see what's the world the universe of possibility and exhaust those things across the region. So just again to set the table it's always kind of sobering to look at the big numbers here. Regionally again 12,600 is the overall regional number that we've targeted that as you know the state produces these goals for us and then we allocate them fight over them and viciously try to obtain them hopefully through our housing elements across the region. There's 17 different jurisdictions across the region that we're tracking. City of Santa Cruz is a leader among all of these jurisdictions so in terms of Santa Cruz County the your numbers are baked into this 3,000 number you see there so obviously it's a forward-thinking projection. Something to remember is that when and if we do achieve these goals it's getting a D in terms of achievement because these are projections. It doesn't necessarily take into account the pent up demand and so that's what you've been hearing when you talk to folks is the incredible overcrowding and other conditions that we see in the community that reflects a pent up demand and not so much of a projection. So in terms of looking at Santa Cruz and other cities in the region you know stack up right there in the middle there is some meaningful progress in terms of 200 300 and this is actually about a year old now so you have approved other projects that are in the pipeline currently being being built Water Street was one of them as an example I just drove by and it's under construction as you know and that was over 40 units of 100 affordable units there and on your way to achieving hopefully that 747 and so we're certainly behind the curve and everybody is behind the curve that's kind of what the takeaway is for this slide. Do you have a question ma'am? It's just a quick question so you said that for the Santa Cruz County that's inclusive of what the goal is for the city that's in that graph. That's correct. Okay so 283 of that 658 is the county's overall goal. That's correct. Okay that's correct. Thanks. Good point. And so in terms of what we want to go with the affordability what the study took into account was okay well not everything's built or considered this on the same level of impact when we see these amazing affordable 100 subsidized projects come forward and get approved through a process that takes five to seven years on average those have a huge impact to the bottom line of the community in terms of seniors folks and disability other people that are looking for housing that would otherwise not have that housing so that's the highest impact and as you go across the spectrum to ad use other rental for sale condos attached detached product and then all the way over to high priced for sale you can kind of get a sense okay well this is kind of achieving less and less impact in terms of the amount of folks that you all are beholden to as as your constituents right and what we see as a result of approving certain projects across the region is this kind of dumbbell condition where you have some meaningful progress in the subsidized category a lot more progress actually when you look at the the other end of the spectrum and so very little of unit type product and opportunities and options in between so when we looked at what we need to do in order to achieve our arena goal we need to do something dramatically different what are those realistic changes that we need to make so that we can achieve much more balance across unit type delivery okay and so that's really what we're trying to do here in our policy paper that we've been promoting across the region and I see from many areas in the blueprint as an example that you've taken up some of these areas a lot of of the recommendations that are baked in we can talk a little bit further about that a key element I'm surprised over and over again how many local governments aren't necessarily on board with the process of analyzing the issue measuring the progress and integrating community engagement and then setting specific policy goals and and continuously measuring those those that progress against goals so that process takes a lot this loop we we kind of maybe annually every couple years not waiting for the you know the four or eight year cycle to come but this is a continuous process that we want to engage in so I'll take one more question but I also want Sibley to join me because he's here and I know we want to help you and dig into a couple other slides about the specifics some highlights from Sandy housing commission is that that's not the planning commission that is just focused on affordable housing or or what housing overall but specific charter for affordable housing so actually Sibley can probably make the members of it I'm wondering Sibley can you address that yeah I mean they it's like the planning commission and I think it has planning commissioners on it has some community members are experts in housing and stuff so they set it up specifically to go deeper on the issue of creating setting specific goals and you know doing this cycle so they've done a pretty impressive job of that but you know they're looking at housing affordability so some of it's definitely how much affordable housing they're producing is one of their biggest goals but also you know affordable housing it's affordable to everybody I use the right button here so we have a bunch of policies in here again a lot of these are in the some of these are in the recommendations and etc so I'm not going to go through every one we talked about the setting goal setting and I think that's extremely important so we know what we're trying to achieve and measure things against that you know we still have a lot of we have a lot of incentives that have the unintended effect of pushing towards larger more expensive unit development in various ways larger in square footage larger in number of bedrooms for sale as opposed to rental you know in that chart we had of how much a new unit affects affordability overall or reduces displacement we have unfortunately as well as structural incentives to build at the bottom into that which is the you know big new units and so systematically looking how do we what are the sensible you know ways to alter that is incredibly important and so one of the things the county just county board of supervisors passed unanimously this morning is one of their directives to staff is look on all the fees that the county has direct control over and try to get as many of them as possible if not all of them to be per square foot as opposed to per unit or even per bedroom so then if a project is not penalized in a way can for building smaller units are not pushed at least in this one fee way to build bigger units in order to pay for those fees density measures city already does some of this and a lot of its zones where it's you know the downtown amendment address this and stuff it's not about what density you have it's about how you calculate it but we still have a lot of multifamily zones including in the city where we could move forward with smarter calculations of density because if you just say look you can build eight units on this property then in order to afford it the developers basically got to build the biggest most expensive units possible so if you can measure in bedrooms and in size of building then you can look and say hey can I have a smaller a larger number of smaller units just really important with this is just blocking and tackling we need to do more of this not going to talk a whole lot about edu's because there's great recommendations locally for moving forward edu that was a big part of the subcommittee's recommendations other than to say some of these were in our way paper some of those were not in our way paper we like them all there's a good well thought out regulations that need to be grappled with and made specific and we've already seen in Santa Cruz this was Portland you know adu production but Santa Cruz is starting to climb up this over the last couple years so that's great to see and definitely more can be done and we definitely one of the things we're really promoting around the whole region is bonus density and and I think that's mentioned in the recommendations and we've written a whole separate paper now about details of of how this could be done effectively and with we've engaged a broad set of organizations not just us but affordable housing advocates nonprofit developers etc and coming up with this paper to get in more detail what what is it what could it mean to have a better bonus density ordinance that and this is the best way we've found all over california to get more affordable housing without paying for it with tax dollars and so and again that was in the unanimous recommendations by the board of supervisors this morning is to direct staff to create a new bonus density ordinance that goes a bit further in its amount of bonus density but requires developers to build more affordable housing for that and when you get that trade-off right like san diego's done but a number of other places in california also then you instead of having most marker rate developers build only the minimum amount you require an inclusionary ordinance now they're building the maximum amount to get that bonus density and by nature of sites and parking requirements are the things that causes them to build smaller units overall and then that just pencils out just as well and so you get the market working for more of what we need found this to be very powerful and as we got into more details we found out a more places in california have are starting to do in addition to just more bonus for more affordable housing get developers up to the top of building the most affordable housing in that trade-off also been implementing having that scale go further so if you build even more affordable housing you can do even more units if those units are small rental units so again it gets back to the density calculation if you have smaller units with fewer bedrooms smaller in number of bedrooms as well as in total square footage then you're not more people or bigger building so some aspects of density you're not actually giving a bonus for you're saying if all your units are on average two or fewer bedrooms and you know less than a certain square footage then you can get more bonus and what that does is tip the market from building only for sale units to building rental units which we just drastically need for affordability here so again that's just in multifamily apartment buildings but something so I look forward to sharing with all of you that longer paper we have especially we were kept editing it while the until the county was approving that we're really excited about that so and then you know this is rough but really taking other third-party research out there and you know studies by Kaiser Marston which you've used a lot and other parties saying you know you could really bring down for building small units and rental units you can really bring down costs by doing a lot of these things so mentioning that and the last one I'll mention which nobody's really taken up in this region but all the big cities in California have already finished is this VMT traffic analysis and that's going to be required by the state at least the date's not set yet it might be 2022 last I looked but if we could tackle this every year we tackle this sooner then projects will save money and it's about the fact that now it's recognized that sprawl has an advantage under our current traffic analysis system because the intersection right next to something built way away from downtown there's not a lot of traffic it's not the traffic is not too heavy there whereas really to reduce traffic what we need to do is build housing near jobs which is downtown which is where traffic is busiest so projects get penalized the most so it's it's not taken away out traffic out of the equation or out of what developers have to pay for and be concerned about it's just updating the analysis again it's going to be required under state law we could do it like big cities have done we could do it sooner rather than later i'm gonna end there with my highlights of the paper any questions on any of these things comment they're all highlights yeah thank you any questions have you seen the rents come down in portland as a result of building all those ad us that's a great question i gotta go back and look i i believe so and i can't remember but i can't remember the numbers but the but the there's no question for sure it hasn't had a rapidly rising rent like here like seattle even you know etc so it's had a very significant effect on rent and it's always hard to disentangle all of the factors right but i'll i'm very interested in that too so i'll get back to you on that i have a quick question i don't know if you had a chance to look at the recommendations for this evening yeah is there something that you could call out as like what is the number one priority that we should be focusing on as a city in terms of like pushing forward you know it's really hard to balance a lot of these things against each other because of course like having the right public process is the way to win people over you know and and get input you know to get the other things right so i don't want to downplay that one for example but as far as look my bias is way down in the weeds because i'm trying to get rental housing and affordable housing housing built so from that perspective alone what would allow the things we need for affordability to really get built um then it i think we've highlighted the biggest ones here that i found are i think the three you know are reducing barriers to ad use those it's not one thing it's 12 things so that's where the recommendations get into that it's the the impact fees which are realized are not going away because cities don't get enough revenue but restructuring them and some of that's the water district so you know but we got to pursue that and um and then it's bonus density and i think again i know density is a very challenging topic but instead of just going out there and saying oh we're going to raise densities everywhere if we could use a tool like this to say density only goes up if it's just for what we're really looking for what really benefit has a more of a consensus benefits the community um i think it's extremely powerful tool so those are my top three thank you thank you do you have any opinion also on um there's proposals under the state law where we've um school districts now can use their property for development for teacher housing and also development for um housing for school workers any any opinion on whether the city should get behind that to help support those types of projects yeah i don't know what get behind it means exactly but yeah absolutely i would i think uh you know it's my first opinion is that it's such a tragic subject because there's so many people who are really important to our community and uh to be here to have a thriving economy to have education to have child care you know i mean i want my daughter's preschool teachers who are so wonderful to afford to be here right and and so it's like such a niche solution that like our schools are not prepared to be developers or to go through this whole process to figure out the long-term pros and cons of that and i know they're working on it because they have to so it's like yes we have to do it but we got to put so much more effort into solving the overall challenge i think in addition so yeah i'm no concerns about it whatsoever i mean we we've got to have teachers in our community and housing custom is a number one barrier we got to solve that but it's um are we then going to solve it for our police force and our you know and go around to every job and solve it well we got to solve it in general all right thank you have any other questions or comments go ahead council member chase thank you mayor um i just wanted to thank embep for being here and um appreciate your uh collaboration with the city i know our housing blueprint subcommittee consulted with several of you throughout the process and really appreciated the recommendations that you have and and that you're bringing a regional approach to this so that we're looking at best practices in the region but also across our state and our country to find evidence-based solutions that are really going to allow for the best realistic solutions so i just wanted to thank you for your collaboration with us on that i can just make a closing comment based on that it is that that's what a lot of what we want to do and it's for example with the county making that stance this morning on starting to work on bonus density ordinance fee structures and we take that to everywhere in the region and say see it can happen here and here's a jurisdiction that wrestled with the pros and cons of the details here's where they came out so consider that as a starting point and whatever the city's doing on these recommendations the action you take so you're not alone i mean that's what we want to do is go to watsonville go to scott's valley go to monnery county you know and say here's some smart things that were done do it because our housing markets are all tied together and if one city tries to do something and the rest don't you know we're not going to solve the problem so thanks a lot thank you for being here thank you for the presentation but now we'll move on to the main portion of the agenda i have a few announcements and then we'll move on to the regular meeting today's meeting is being broadcast live on community televisions channel 25 and streaming on the city's website at cityofsandercruise.com jennifer cameron is our technician this evening she's in the back recording the meeting and presented on community television i'd like to thank her for her work today as all city council members can be emailed at city council at cityofsandercruise.com if you would like to communicate with us about an agenda item we'd like to receive your email by monday at 5 p.m. before our council meeting this provides us with an opportunity to review your email and include it with the rest of our agenda packet please bear in mind that all items of correspondence with the city and city council constitute public records and are generally subject to disclosure upon request by any member of the public accordingly if you have sensitive or private information that you do not wish to be made public you should not include that information in your correspondence our rules of decorum are on the window ledge to my left it's my job to keep the meeting running without disruption and we ask that you respect your fellow citizens when you're inside or outside of chambers at this point in the meeting i'd like to ask any of the council members if there are statements of disqualification i will have one in the evening session okay and i i think i should be specific uh it's for the uh giving direction regarding the farmers market um i have a conflict of interest due to location of property that i own proximity so in regards to the um evening session you'll hear the presentations and vote on anything else other than that item yeah okay any other statements of disqualification okay it's seen none um i'll ask the city clerk is there are there any um announcements regarding additions or deletions to the agenda there are not okay oral communications is an opportunity for members of the community to speak to us on items that are not on the agenda oral communications will generally occur at the conclusion of our afternoon business at or around 5 30 p.m but may occur sometime before then at this point i'd like to call on the city attorney to provide a report on the closed session thank you mayor trazos members of the city council uh this afternoon's closed session convened at 12 p.m in the courtyard conference room the items that were discussed by the council are as follows uh there were a uh there was a conference with legal council concerning liability claims uh the claims of melanie p gordon csa a insurance excuse me that's melanie p gendron csa a insurance company on behalf of the same claimant the claim of jesse book bo u ck and the claim of alisha lopez those items are also listed in uh agenda item seven on your consent calendar this afternoon there was one item of pending litigation the case of amily sinclair versus the city council of the city of santa cruz matter pending in the santa cruz county superior court council received a report from gave direction to the city attorney's office on that matter uh third item was a performance evaluation involving the city manager lastly real property negotiations the council received a report from its negotiator water director rosemary minard and gave direction concerning a potential real property acquisition and the property was 1210237 newill creek road no reportable action okay thank you and the next item up is the city manager reports on events it's our last count council meeting yes i do have a brief uh update on the emergency shelter i'll put up the slides here real quick here we go thank you mayor and council uh i wanted to do a brief report on the emergency shelter as you recall a council to that took action at your last meeting to request the county their commitment towards a partnership in funding for the phase year round emergency shelter that we've been working on with the county over the last year or so and an item was placed on the board's agenda this morning and they did take action to essentially direct that the chair send the letter to the city articulating the board's commitment and partnership to achieve re-around sheltering and increase county funding for the next fiscal year so they did approve that um we'll have to work with the county staff to work out the details but uh it does sound like they uh are interested in partnering with the city and in working towards uh achieving that year-round shelter in the coming fiscal year uh i wanted to just highlight uh because i think it's important to note some of the work that's been done with the current river street shelter um because it's actually pretty remarkable some of the things that have been accomplished in such a short time uh with that shelter and uh every time i hear about some of the achievements i think it's like you know pretty incredible and it's uh good good to share so there have been some really positive outcomes at the river street camp considering there's about 52 campers we've had already a number of people moving on including uh four exits for substance abuse disorder treatment for for housing traditional and permanent housing to to improve living situations of board and care and the one who's exited to to hope outbound uh as well and the average day has been 22 days so i think it's you know really interesting statistics about uh the work that they're doing that's approximately you know close to 20 percent have found uh you know uh more permanent housing or other situations to improve their lives which is good uh so assuming you know with the county's commitment uh now we need to look at the transition of the river street camp uh and again i think the transition a large part of the reason for the transition is that we do want increased capacity in our region uh and provide that year-round shelter services uh continue to do that in an effective way but have more capacity we also recognize that in order to be able to do that to move to a new site that we need to have a robust community process in order to decide a new facility so we'll have to engage with that we also know that uh we're not going to be able to do this by the end of this month and it's going to take some time so we may need to extend the river street camp we could certainly close it or we could extend it and so we will have to reach out to the community there to be able to assess how to go about doing that and so we'll do that we'll work in partnership with the county to develop plans and next steps and we'll report that back to you at your next meeting on june 26 now that we have you know commitment from the county we'll we'll get that letter from them and report back to you uh the other bit of good news that i think it's important to recognize is that i think finally it's just really great to see that the state is also acknowledging and taking action on this issue because homeless has just been such a major issue an impactful issue in the entire state and it's good to see that they are committed to helping to fund and so now as i understand it in the budget agreement with the governor they've included 500 million in one time funding for local governments to address homelessness and there's different pots for different cities but it's a good sign and that we'll be able to meet our goal hopefully here in the coming year so with that i'm happy to answer any questions are there any councilmember questions yeah thank you um martin uh so if how long has the shelter the campsite been open do you know approximately in a couple months uh it'll be four months four months and so 22 average stay how many folks have stayed there all together then over those four months do you know that question i'll i'll let susie answer this question she's probably better lastly 67 good afternoon susie ohara principal management analyst i don't have that exact number but our current population is about 52 people and it is cyclical and there is attrition so i would say probably on average 70 to 80 people have gone through the program how is that a 22 day average stay then i don't this doesn't seem like it works out yeah so there's a number of people who will come for a day or two and determine that that it's not a good fit for them and so that does bring down the average but we do have a handful maybe a dozen folks that have been there the whole time oh okay and um how many people are in the waiting list about 70 is there any progress toward the transitional shelter that you could report on or anything well martin went over what we what we do understand and where we should be getting a letter from the county chair board chair um hopefully very soon that will articulate what they um directed just this morning thank you if you could comment martin on the um the first bullet how long do you think that you may need to extend the river street camp um we we have to uh work that out with the county again assuming that we have a partnership but i think you know we do need to um work with the community the the surrounding area because we didn't make a commitment to uh have the shelter there through the end of the month now the the feedback that we've gotten from the neighborhood and the community has been that it has had no impact on the community so it's actually uh coexisted uh well there however we have to be respectful of the request and and get their input and then it also depends on the uh the next phase and how long that'll take um so that that is to be determined um but we'll have that flushed out for you a little further at our next meeting then just as a follow-up does the uh we'll we'll hear when we get the correspondence back but does the um contribution support also include um support for this extension as we're in this transition period so they're supporting the uh this time period now that we're moving forward yes i think that would have to be part of the uh the arrangement yes so that the overall budget works for the transition as well as the uh the next the next phase and how that's structured including this extension of i think from a general service perspective it would it would be best not to have to put you know people out in the streets if we don't have to but you know it is a possibility though and we'll have to come back to you with uh with those details no no my question is um about just funding this extension as we're in through the transition period yes i mean i think i think moving forward with respect to budgeting for whatever whatever transitional approach that we take the partnership and the funding should should be consistent throughout thank you any other questions uh vice maria walkins in terms of the potential to get some support for funding from the state knowing that we're going to be voting on our budget later how do you estimate the impact that could have on the general fund or potential savings um we we don't know the details completely yet but i think the estimates are anywhere between something like eight to nine million dollars might be available to the county of santa cruz so it could be pretty significant particularly to the phase three option which is you know to create demo permanent facilities and also we gave during the budget here in this looking at reimbursement for the setup costs for the river street correct correct so we'll be looking at all that as the they flesh out the uh how this is all going to work okay and uh council member chase i just want to clarify so it's it's not competitive correct the state the agreement that they're talking about because that's one of those things where like for instance with prop 47 yeah we don't have all the details there's there's there's portions that are uh set up by the size of there's a portion that goes by the size of city i think cities that are over like 330 000 and then there's other portions that are based on the your numbers your hap numbers um and and and so we have to it hasn't been fleshed out so we'll we'll hear that so there's there is some allocation though coming it's it's not that we've got it yes we'll get some allocation no no doubt about that and that's the estimate of the eight to nine million any other questions all right thanks for that presentation and update thank you until when the letter comes out um we've received the response that'll be um distributed to the full council yes okay okay first up is the consent agenda these items are numbers four through thirteen on our agenda all items will be acted upon in one motion unless an item is pulled by council member for further discussion council member crone has requested um items eight and eleven be um removed from the consent are there any other council members who wish to pull other items okay and also council member crone you had a comment on ten and we'll do that as we come back to the council after public comment okay so um items number eight and eleven are pulled from consent um i'll go to the public comment is there any uh member of the public that would like to speak to um any item on the consent agenda other than items eight and eleven these are items four through thirteen except for eight and eleven seeing none i'll bring it back to the council for action okay moved by vice mayor walkins i think council member matthews had her hand on the motion so council member uh vice mayor walkins with motion uh seconded by council member matthews any further discussion council member crone you had a comment on ten yeah um just uh just wondering i still don't know how much is the bottom line on this i was sent um i appreciate the follow-up uh to the public works department but there was a document i was sent from 2012 that we signed a contract with uh olyn chlor alkali and for 235 thousand i'm just wondering was there a bidding process now are we just going extending the contract how how does that work and what is the total that were that um the waste water enterprise fund is is uh paying out for this product sodium hypochlorite and hogan wastewater systems manager we competitively bid the chlorine contract in 2012 and received four bids and awarded the contract to the low bidder at 62.9 cents a gallon and we have re uh energized that contract annually ever since without any price changes this year olyn chlor came to us and other chemical companies came to us and carefully explained the costs going up of caustic soda and of transportation they offered to renew a contract for two months at a price increase of 12 cents a gallon they also offered to renew at one year with the first six months being at a cost increase of eight cents a gallon and the next six months being a cost increase at 12 cents a gallon we decided to accept that offer to give us time to go out and rebid again we budget in our uh chemical capital outlay budget our operating budget every year for chlorine um and so we will competitively bid it again for the contract to start up next year so it's going from 235 thousand to well it the quantities have gone up considerably since 2012 in 2012 we spent about 235 thousand but as the drought continued and the heat came up we used much more chlorine this year we will actually spend about 450 thousand dollars on chlorine i find this very interesting so i i really appreciate your uh the information um and i would just make a note that i would love to see the totals in any of the staff reports you know what we're spending it's just really helpful as a council member to see that the figures financial yeah thank you thank you thank you okay so now we have a motion on the floor by um vice mayor walk in second by council member mathews um for the consent with the exceptions of items eight and eleven all those in favor please say aye aye those opposed that motion passes unanimously with council member brown absent so we'll now move to item number eight on the um agenda which is the uh general obligation refunding bonds tax rate authorization yeah i just had a question for uh oh excuse me go ahead man yeah i was gonna um ask and this is from fiscal resources um i think marcus pimentel so go ahead chris yeah this is always a fascinating meal as well and wondering about how bonding is done and how much we end up paying when we borrow seven million dollars back in 1998 and this was a very good reason i mean the fire station and the more creek uplands and the depot park uh but how does that because we're we're looking at bonding at various ways all the time and i i think it's it's not so clear to me how how it all works and i was just wondering if you could explain like so on this bond for example we took it out 20 some years ago 1998 it set to expire in 2028 i believe or 2029 um and how much of the seven million have we have we paid back and including debt servicing that's that's a bigger question i can get back to you with those details dating back to 1998 ballpark uh five million plus in total probably mostly interest and some refinance costs that were refinanced in 2009 and the expectation when we borrow seven million 30 years later we pay how much is there a formula i mean this is a formula here that you're setting the tax rate and how much we're gonna pay this year it's all about the interest equation and um i think we can probably expect to pay i don't know let me get through those numbers thank you i'll move it when you're ready mayor is there any further discussion on item eight okay we're ready oh wait is there any mother uh member of the public that would like to speak to item number eight which is the general obligation refunding bonds seeing none we'll bring it back i think council member crone was making the motion seconded by council member and royan all those in favor please say aye aye any opposed that motion passes unanimously with council member brown absent okay next up is item number 11 item 11 is the installation of power to bike share stations and on item 11 i'd like to invite up claire place layer transportation planner and i'm available for any questions you have on this item actually what was your question yeah um i love this program but i'm hearing a lot from the public about it so i just want to clarify it in public what um the questions that are coming up because the city the council was told that it wasn't going to cost us anything and a jump bike was going to be financing this program and now this is a 15 000 uh uh from from the carbon fund albeit but for electricity stations there's also um staff time and and people have said there's a bunch of staff time i'm just wondering how much staff time has gone into the program working with them from the beginning and um the real estate that the jump bike stations occupy is also you know worse something so i'm just i just want to people are making it clear that it's not free isn't free yeah so i think with regards to the item in front of us and the 15 000 to electrify to the bike share stations um we will be uh with this item pulling power from existing power sources to the location of up to four bike share station locations it's in the responsibility of jump to install those charging stations at their cost and reimburse the city for all electricity that is used this was something that came up uh at the city sustainability team as an opportunity to utilize carbon fund money to accelerate the goals of our climate action program to increase bicycle mode split to 12 by 2020 um and was something that was voted on unanimously by that group to allocate funding towards this um it is something that we presented as a no cost to the city contract and this is a a subsequent action then to that uh if you have i'm trying to figure out how to how to best answer your question there i understand what is what is the act of pulling power what does that entail what does that mean so from behind where the existing city power sources are from either our existing electric vehicle charging stations or from behind existing city uh boxes where we already have power drops to get it from those locations to the location where uh council granted encroachment permits for bike share stations thanks and the only i know you're probably not prepared to answer this but maybe get back to me on how much of our staff time has gone into working with jump on this contract and subsequent you know and i and i know you're you're always doing stuff about it and i and i appreciate that and i like the program but i want to be responsive to the folks who are asking questions yeah i would have to look into that to give you a more refined answer but overall um a significant amount of my staff time and our uh transportation coordinator staff time and other people's staff time in order to do this that being said it's part of our overall work program in order to increase bike bike mode split and to reduce carbon emissions thanks any other questions i have a question i mean i see the jump bikes everywhere and i see a lot of people riding them can you give me a comment on what what's the feedback been in regards to the utilization compared to other cities yeah so far since our soft launch on may 10th with not even up to full fleet during that first couple weeks we've had over 5200 rides since then this average is out to about six trips per bike per day national average is between one and two trips per bike per day so we're doing extraordinary in our program and we expect to see that continue to play out we see new people sign up every day by the dozen uh actually by the dozens and uh so far the feedback from our vendor has been that it's been great they've been getting great feedback i've been getting great feedback um and as issues have arisen we've been able to handle them very quickly and just one other question in terms of the um the utilization when will we are all the bikes fully uh installed we will be up to full installation in the next hopefully three weeks yeah any other questions okay any members of the public that would like to speak to this item this is item number 11 the installation of power to bike share stations sir please go ahead you have two minutes i'm brett garrett i'll just say what i usually say which is i love the bike share and i appreciate your supporting the bike share program and i noticed if there's ever a chance to install solar panels to charge the bikes that would be really cool i know that's not what's on the agenda right now but that would be cool thank you very much all right thanks i know that there's solar panels that charge the circuitry of the bikes that are on each of the bikes now but not to power the bikes all right um one other question when we bring it back to the council for discussion is the um um uh goal of getting uh platinum bicycle community i'm wondering if you could comment as far as how does this uh get us forward towards reaching a platinum level uh bike community yeah so one of the elements when we received our gold level bicycle friendly community award the league of american bicyclists gave us essentially a report card that said steps to get to platinum that they recommended this was one of those steps so when we go to resubmit that application at the end of our uh certified period which i believe is another two years this is one of the actions that will include is something that we've rolled out and will include those statistics about number of users we have number of rides we've had average trip distance average trip duration um as well as other elements that we will have done by that time such as construction of the rail trail implementation of green lanes throughout town and other significant pieces of bike infrastructure that we will have installed so it'll go a long ways great thanks okay so we have it back here i'm looking for a motion on this item okay motion by council member mathews second by council member doroyan um all those in favor please say aye those opposed that motion passes unanimously with council member brown absent okay next up is our consent public hearings um the the consent public hearing are items number 14 through 16 on our agenda these items will be acted upon with just one motion unless pulled by council member for further discussion are there any council members who wish to only comment on either of these items is there any member of the public that would like to request an item to be pulled or to speak on now is the time to do so this is a consent public hearing item these are items 14 through 16 can request to pull it or we're just going to vote on it with one motion definitely item 16 for sure i want to pull okay pulling item number 16 isn't that the budget yes item number 16 so item number 14 and 15 okay any members of the public that would like to speak to item um the consent public hearing agenda consent public hearing these are items 14 or 15 okay seeing now we'll bring it back to the council for action move to approve item 14 and 15 and second okay motion by council member doroyan second by council member mathews these are items 14 and 15 um all those in favor please say aye those opposed that motion passes unanimously unanimously with council member brown absent okay next next up is item number 16 we had someone in the audience here in favor i know i saw that i saw you got an unanimous support up here too so item number 16 our budget and this is on consent based on the last council meeting that we had for discussion and so i'll turn it over to marcus pimentel i could just do brief recap please um what we have for you presented today is the adoption of the fiscal 2019 balanced budget we have four action items one is directing the city manager to make necessary general fund offsets to accommodate the items that came out of the budget hearings from last last wednesday restoring 56,755 for the three-year core funding and funding a one-time $45,000 set aside for the programs the second item is just accepting the water commission's report it's included in the staff report the third item is just noting that measure has passed and we were now able to fund the tier one capital investment projects and the fourth item is regarding a pension payment um allowing the city to borrow internally to make upwards of an $8 million annual payment to calpers to save us about $11 million annually over the remaining life of this particular debt issuance or liability for calpers i could pause there for questions i can go into slides two through 200 sorry uh two through 13 just slide 155 155 council member um chase yeah on item number four i think that that was one that was in the sentinel this week that we received a variety of questions on so i'm hoping that you can just address that because people had some concerns and questions about how that related to measure s and things like that and absolutely you could clarify that'd be great um as this council's known we've been talking about the things we can do internally and the things we need to help on externally and one of the biggest items we can do internally was resetting our general fund fund balance our operations um we've achieved a big bulk of that with the fiscal 19 balance budget and two is things we can do internally with the smart investment of our resources we have an investment portfolio that earns about two percent a year yet we're paying calpers uh upwards of seven and a half percent to seven three quarters percent interest on our liability of their investment losses it's it's part of our plan has been to leverage that investment portfolio and redirect some of that to paying down calpers saving about a five and a half percent annually on whatever we pay the calpers for us it'll save the city about ten point nine million dollars over a 25 year period logistically it feels like what we did in 2010 so the second bullet there in 2010 the city borrowed 24 million dollars externally to pay down calpers in that instance we we borrowed money from corporate banks had lawyers and issuance costs and all these other things go go on board to conduct that borrowing in this case we're going to look inwardly within our investment portfolio the general fund will borrow from itself from one of its other funds pay that fund about two percent annual interest rate instead of the four four and a half percent rate so it's a an effective ability for the general fund to borrow money at low cost better use of our investment portfolio to save money for the whole entire city annually we should see about four and sixty thousand dollars of reduced payments that might be too much information too complicated but I can happily delve very deep into this as you'd like did you follow up question I just think it's really important for the public to understand that the investment portfolio where we're taking this eight million dollars is restricted funding it's not something that was just laying around that we were able to tap into and then also ask the voters to vote for a quarter cent sales tax increase that this money couldn't be used for really anything except for the funds that it's designated to which I believe are a lot of our enterprise funds waterfront and as well as calpers and so you know just to make it really clear to the public that you know this wasn't just laying around and well absolutely something that we could do whatever we want with absolutely we've yes absolutely did I answer your question councilwoman chris councilmember crown could you go over quickly or briefly where the money's coming from is it eight million is that what we're talking about yeah so we would come from based on each we have a collection of funds enterprise funds internal service funds also have library employees who are not part of the city but they're part of the county library system they have pension costs so we would go to every one of those funds and allocate a certain portion of our liability payment to those funds for example when we looked at the library the county library system their contribution would be five hundred thousand dollars from their investment pool towards this pay down our general fund is the largest contributor of that we might be upwards of five million dollars that we would borrow from one of our other funds to make that payment so we don't we're not necessarily setting aside cash we're borrowing money at a lower interest rate to pay off higher interest rate for the general fund so it's enterprise funds library fund there are many hoops we have library fund we can't direct their money we have to get a board approval that a lot of people have done at the board meeting in august the enterprise funds we still have to work through with the cash flow and the managers i don't know if that's too much information or no how much would we because we've remarked in the past that the calpers didn't meet their you know yes yearly targets how do we know they're going to and and could you give an example of what we would get if we left that money in our own funds versus putting it over with calpers because i think i understand we're getting a better deal with calpers what how do we it's not that we're getting a better deal we're being we're being charged interest by calpers the state is charging us interest at seven and three quarters percent so if we if we left the money in our own investment pool we might earn two or three percent so it's that's a huge savings in we're giving up maybe two or three percent of earnings but we're not paying seven point three seven five seven and a half interest and why did we stop at eight million or how did that arrive at that more of what we can accommodate any more than that and we were taking on a bigger risk for one payment we might you know i think our model predicts a couple million every year rolling forward depending on cash flow needs and short-term duration needs i think if we do any more than that i wouldn't be comfortable that's right now it's a you know it's approaching 10 percent of our investment portfolio and i wouldn't want to lock up much more of our cash proceeds and with a bigger payment and do we know but i know you mentioned Santa Monica gave like 45 million uh it was the last year of the year before the last year but they they did a direct pay down that you know they didn't borrow anything they just paid out from their reserves um the we're closer to what the state of california did the state of california last year borrowed internally to pay down their debt so we're following that model where we're really leveraging internal borrowing to pay down our debt and are there any other cities in the area that are doing this uh that you're aware of well watsonville did um circa 2009 we did in in 2010 um i recently know i'm not recent not in this year's budgets that not that i've seen thanks i have a question in regards to um when we had our presentation it was just about the time um we had the election results and part of the budget was contingent upon new funding i wondered if you could talk a little bit about investments in new capital infrastructure that were part of this now revised budget yes um nope i should have cleaned up that slide a little bit um but we had several projects including a wildland fire engine that was put on hold um we have revertment repairs on west cliff drive that we want to get to and we'll get to and we have several storm grains around the downtown area that we will get to now it's part of next year's capital improvement program those are the big the big projects there's also some smaller components of some of our it investment projects um that need to get done do you have any estimate on when that work will start i would suspect the fire engine is a purchase the work on the other projects i don't we can probably report to you back on that and then just and this is some comments that i've received recently there's a lot of interest in kind of investment in maintenance um in our downtown as well as kind of improvement of some of our um facilities that are there i was wondering if uh in terms of um maybe city manager burnall could comment as far as what's in store for maybe further investment in the downtown uh yes and actually it might be some of that when we do the study session later later today too on the downtown but uh i know we are uh looking at we had a uh you know bob gibbs come to santa cruz a few months back and they did a walk through downtown and he had some suggestions and ideas and then we had staff go through the downtown and identify a variety of things that need fixing you know signs that are bent or benches that need to be repainted that sort of thing so uh economic development is taking the lead on working with parks and public works to develop a sort of a refresh program for the downtown so they'll be working on that over the next few months any idea of when that we'll see start to see that work um i don't think we have the specific uh uh implementation dates worked out yet i know they're meeting to sort of figure all that out um and bonning may have some more information later on when we talk about the downtown thanks any further discussion well council member matthews um just to say that in the partial revenue from measure s for this year is um going to be designated to the capital improvements that's right not to operations just to be clear no but i was i had two questions one was the uh the three projects that were included in capital improvement but other in general budget that we've already that's part of this approval process that we're finding through economic development and others unrelated to the increase okay any other question council member crown this includes the um the peer jurisdiction budget comparison this item or you're asking just no it does it includes those slides as well that are in the in the packet so um i had some you know we didn't get really a chance to digest this uh incredible amount of analysis that's taken place with one two three four five six seven eight eight cities um similar in some ways to ours um just wondering um just a few quick questions which of the of these cities um selected serve as a county seat do they all serve as county seats like we like we do kind of criteria why selection criteria and totally i'd have to look at the list and think about it i don't know i i'll drop my head i do not know that answer and page 13 um business license tax why so you know why the such a differential difference between us and other cities our rate hasn't changed since adoption and it is adopted incredibly low yeah that's largely historical i think uh you know many cities had different methods and then over time i think every city's history of tax measures and how the approach budget varies uh by different by communities and so if uh if a community had one approach and then took a different approach it kind of got set at that and it's not if it's called a fee but it's actually tax so it requires voter approval to to raise and then when we look at uh revenue measures it's one that uh you know a significant increase would really not generate a whole bunch of additional revenue so we've tended to focus on other revenue measures like the sales tax and tot h4 it's a um it has ucse on the side panel it says peer demographics no city of santa cruz service population is well beyond city limits and it includes ucse in that i'm just wondering how did that what why is that what does that mean well it's just referring to population uh the data was looking at our our resident population and just factoring that there's employees and others who are on campus that aren't including our population numbers and in addition we we serve the university's fire service we provide fire services to the university so in the 65 000 our city population campus is included or not included in that uh that's a bigger question i'd start with the state of california there'd be some who would be included in that but not all it's always a question that comes up all the time like the state department of state department of finance is the one who pulls those numbers together so looking at page six staffing levels why so high compared to most of the other cities how does that how do you interpret that data it's familiar with the city manager monologist mentioned we library is a great example there's a hundred employees in that data that aren't our employees at the county library system um also including that data are uh 10 firefighters on the ucse that you know word ucse firefighters are now part of our employee base we get reimbursed by ucse we have lifeguards that serve down the coast that we've expanded to include that we have five unfunded police officer positions allow for over hires and attrition we also have services we provide beyond our boundaries and utility funds that we have employees is effectively serving other communities um who would typically not be in our employee base if we weren't going beyond our boundaries so we have employees working beyond our boundaries that take our numbers up higher and certainly when you think of the library countywide we have all the countywide libraries all the employees in the county system except for watsonville are included in our employee count but those services are reimbursed for yes so it's not not a net loss right right the other thing i would point out is that those numbers aren't adjusted for the variations and the the service deliveries that that happen amongst the cities as well as the scope of the cities and uh uh marcus pointed out some of the scope differences but also uh we tend to for example we operate our own solid waste and recycling programs uh so we don't contract out for garbage collections uh many cities contract out do we know if these cities do that that was my question about uh county and that's my point that that has not been adjusted for any of that those are just a wrong number so it's uh it's deceptive i think to just do it that way and it's one of the feedbacks that we've given management partners to try to make some adjustments for that so that they're more uh apples to apples comparison as it is now it really isn't because you have to adjust for all these factors that we provide for example our water system serves you know 100 000 plus population the library system serves 200 000 population the fire department serves the city and the university so our wastewater treatment plan is a regional wastewater treatment plant and again we don't contract out for garbage collection we operate a landfill many cities don't we have a full surface water so we tend to be higher because we have a fuller scope the fuller scope plus and we don't contract out as much as some other communities so those are the factors but to to make that a good comparison we need to make those adjustments management partners continuing to work on this just are they gonna come back to us with some no narrative interpretation and analysis the the initial scope was to wrap up this comparative data collection i think there's strong consideration to bring them back for additional a new project for additional analysis delving deeper into certain certain data that we want to go deeper on i put martino spot well how do you interpret this how is this useful for us just in this raw data kind of thing because i would love to see some analysis you know to come back to us but i don't know how how is this being used i mean i think it provides a sort of a check to see how we compare to others and and certainly there are things that sort of stand out we can kind of delve into it and help explain that and because it can be confusing to the average person again i think there's so many factors that depend on in terms of what the numbers show again for example you know we have a robust set of parks and recreation program but that's because it's a community we've chosen to do that i mean a lot of cities don't have civic auditoriums a lot of the cities don't have municipal war so a lot of cities don't have over 2 000 acres of open space that's a community value so our parks and services are more robust for that for that reason also tax bases vary so i think it allows us to have those discussions for when those questions come up certainly those were some of the questions that came up in the context of measure s and i think this helped to provide some of those answers but by and large i mean i didn't find anything surprising there we tend to you know compare favorably with with most cities and you know certainly be uh in terms of being effective uh and uh in terms of uh the again the scope of services is tends to be larger than most cities and that doesn't surprise me at all okay chris just as a follow-up i know one of the action items regarding this project for management partners were some additional questions we asked for them and so i understand they'll bring that back and we'll probably as when the ad hoc budget subcommittee finishes up we'll probably provide a updated report some of the questions that we looked at were the direct purchases of services from the county comparing it with other cities how many cities do actually do that others um cities that take the lead or counties that take the lead in regards to homeless service programs and also the funding for um some uh nonprofit organization community programs looking at that in the scale and that was the the subcommittee wanted to get some metrics from other cities uh peer cities to look at what they're doing in those in those areas correct and that will come back in august but it's not a separate project yes and just to wrap up is that you know i i think that it does i don't think we with all due respect comparing favorable to other cities in a lot of ways you know the questions that come up and maybe your average council member is also confused as your average citizen might be looking at these numbers but davis and monterey are spending so much lower in administrative functions functions than we are and why is santa barbara and berkeley weigh off the charts on property tax collection compared to us um and i think that um the housing issue on page 32 we're spending is it is are we talking about affordable housing is that what the housing is on page 32 is that how much we we have we have to delve deeper into that to really quantify what they were looking at and what they're comparing to so that's the question with that was miniscule compared to some other cities that they're spending so i just and that seems to be an important community value if we're talking about affordable housing um then i'd also want to know what the nonprofit grants you know ours are there but most of the other cities are missing and be interesting to see how what they're doing in terms of that's an active project that mayor torosas mentioned that they're still collecting that on thanks thanks a lot yeah new problem and it's my understanding that with respect to administrative costs that actually we're we're sort of below most most of the city's not not about advice excuse us go ahead clarify that included in our administrative costs or are those programs you just mentioned the our core programs our homeless programs our police auditor programs are all under the just functionally they fall into city managers they get bundled into his administrative costs so we'd have to extract that out to be an after that comparison my point of the administrative functions is that davis is um several times lower than we are and so is monterey but it would be who the question like well what are you guys doing that we're not doing you know what can we learn from you that's what i that's all i would like to know maybe there is some like thing that sticks out again when i think you when i think you take out about two and a half million dollars of stuff that really aren't administrative costs then that that normalizes us but there's a lot of things like that in the study because they they just pull ground up levels of budget detail yeah um there's a lot more deep dive that should be done and i think we had that discussion maybe at the budget here and we looked at one of the items for code enforcement you know what was this specific pro program that actually pushed it over some of the peer averages so i mean we did have some of that deep dive look during our subcommittee discussions and i think when we come back we'll probably have some further discussion um is there any other discussion on this item in the council is there any member of the public that would like to speak to this item we're speaking to our budget please step forward this is item number 16 hi everybody i'm norah caruso from the santa cruz toddler care center um it's still hard for me to interpret what's going on but it looks like um the new proposal is to restore 50 percent or a hundred thousand dollars to the community programs budget um i want to thank you for that partial restoration um especially for the set aside funds because i know neighborhood child care center for example wouldn't have gotten anything last year had it not been for the set aside funds we're still curious in terms of what the process will be whether or not we can apply for those um and how that will work um in terms of the conversation last time about sort of this across the board five percent cuts i just want to reiterate the difference between cutting community programs five percent and cutting another department five percent um you know we are consistently being cut to the point where as i keep saying you know we've been cut 40 percent child care as a sector has been cut disproportionately in the past many many years if we were looking at something like a five percent cut on our budget um you know for example families we still are able to operate on a sliding fee scale we're not going to be able to do that much longer we just can't um families that are low income that are paying a thousand dollars a month for full-time child care which is still the toddler center somehow subsidizing them a thousand dollars a month if we had to pass on a five percent increase for them they'd be having to come up with an extra fifty dollars a month for child care these are not families that can just say we're not going to go out to dinner this month these are families that don't have an extra fifty dollars and that are pretty much going into credit card debt by being able to afford a thousand dollars a month for their child care if i tell my staff they're looking at a five percent cut my teacher that's a single mom that's making fifteen dollars an hour who has three kids who's never been able to afford summer camp for her kids those kids are staying at home with her disabled mother this summer because she can't afford child care for her kids i'd have to tell her she's now going to make fourteen twenty five an hour just some perspective thank you just a quick question how much uh excuse me how much less is neighborhood child care center not getting this year step up this year's budget from last year's budget so lily from neighborhood is here you know um we'll uh we'll take that question um but let's uh do you have another question or no i just was wondering what the difference was okay if you if you'd like to answer that question so how much had you been getting from core funding previous year and then how much did you get from set the difference from last year um we were cut a hundred percent from the core funding um and we were getting we had gotten forty three five thank you okay all right thank you okay we'll bring it back is there any other member of the public that would like to speak to item number sixteen this is our fiscal year 2019 proposed budget adoption okay seeing none i'll bring it back to the council for further discussion and action i'll go ahead and move the recommendation in its entirety okay that's moved by council member matthew second by council member chase i'd like to just say that i feel this budget represents really a strong kind of movement for to demonstrate fiscal stability and not only in the programs and investments in the future um i really feel very thankful for the work vice mayor walk-ins and council member brown um on the ad hoc budget community doing a proactive approach by looking at our budget kind of in a different way than in past years one we engaged with management partners to have a peer level review of our budgets for different cities to see how they were operating to see where our comparisons were to see if we were under funding programs or overstaffed in some areas and then we also um engaged with a focus group with community members to get some direct feedback regarding our budget and some of the needs that we have moving forward to make sure that we are representing the needs of the community and investing in projects that are aligned with the city's priorities and then we also thirdly had a public meeting in collaboration with santa cruz neighbors where we had a group a well attended group on the first night of the nba finals and it it's really made me feel thankful that people were interested in our budget not only in the process that we had going forward but also in providing their input and um the ad hoc budget committee will come back in um august we kind of gave a glimpse of maybe some recommended action so that we continue this process moving forward even though we had fewer days in terms of the budget hearings we did a lot of proactive work up front to help maybe steer the process in a way where it led to really good outcomes and i felt from the feedback we received from not only the focus group but also the members that attended the community meeting they felt that it was a good process and i know if you wanted to comment at all no i just i appreciated the opportunity to be involved in the process and um knowing that it is uh in a sort of exploratory stage and kind of getting to your questions earlier uh councilmember crone that it's all kind of just starting to to kind of become more clear how we can improve as we move forward into the next sort of strategy for policy moving forward so i look forward to reconvening and discussing um other recommendations for next year as well councilmember matthews yeah i think the budget subcommittees work made an enormous contribution to the understanding both within the council itself and the community about the complexity of the city budget and the opportunities for public involvement and outreach and education and that has to go on because it is so complicated so kudos to you for all of that and what strikes me is that with this action here today we are really presenting a perfect case study of what we pledge the voters we would do in terms of a long term plan for fiscal stability in one action we're reflecting five percent cuts in our internal budget our city budgets we are investing the proceeds from measure s in capital improvements for the first time general fund we told the the public we would do that so we've passed a new revenue measure and we're putting it to use right away and we are taking a very responsible action to reduce our pension obligations so in one motion we are demonstrating the multi-pronged approach that we have to take to fiscal stability over a long period of time and which we will continue to implement into the future but this to me shows the public there's not one answer there are a number of things we have to do and we are doing them and it's it will it will benefit the city in the long run right council member crumb i don't know if there's any support up here i'd make a motion to restore the 101 000 for a set aside an emergency funding for meals on wheels and the day worker center the neighborhood child care foster grandparents and the Santa Cruz child care center i don't know if there's support up here but i think that's very worthy and i think we can find the money to do that i think that we found the money to hire someone recently for you know to evaluate our city manager i think we can find the money to um support um these incredible programs in our city okay there's that's a motion or is that a motion motion well i mean all my okay i don't know if i'll second my i would second the motion with the friendly amendment to double the set aside amount which was my original request last time knowing that we had the one time funding and that it would go through the same process um so i'd still be behind that but i didn't get the support of that last time so i don't know if you'd be willing to make that it's a friendly amendment it's sort of a bit of a compromise from your full restoration but recognizes that half the dollars um you know could be available for more what would could you say that one time because i'm not tracking it so um for the original proposal when we had that conversation it was around the core funding and then it was around the one time set aside but then also there was a one time um funding for programs that um were awarded it without any kind of application process in light of the core transition um so at the time when we had the conversation about the budget we would recognize that that one time funding would sunset but in light of um the need and um kind of a more formal process we could potentially increase the set aside recommendation to help potentially make it so that more programs could get support that way um so your amendment would be that was the previous meeting i mean when you made the amendment my amendment would be just through my original proposal which was to double this the one time set aside to be 90 000 to help offset the gap there so is that a friendly i mean i'll withdraw my motion if you know and support that if you're if that's a motion sure that could be a motion okay you're gonna have to break that out and make sure that everybody's clear on it okay there's a mode go ahead go ahead my motion would just be to double the set aside amount to 90 000 from 45 000 okay and second okay the motion and the second um is there further discussion on this i'll i'll just say that um i think that one of the comments i mentioned when we first um we're discussing the budget is the fact that this year we did not have our community programs review our funding programs they there was it was something that was done on the floor with all seven council members i think what we have right now is a set aside that really kind of provides that bridge and an opportunity for the community programs to delve back into any sort of future investments that are going to be made in these programs so i do not see the need at this time to do that set aside it's an opportunity really for the community programs committee to look at this um you know outside of this a budget approval process to see if there's a time at the um mid-year where we could look at further changes to address the needs that you're speaking to here i yeah i wonder i mean in terms of a compromise which i know i don't want to you know go back into this conversation i know we had at last at the last meeting but perhaps we could commit to this amount this year and then know that on the table for the mid-year is a conversation about doubling it based on need or something like that council member ma'am council member matthews i want to remind the council that we went through a great deal of time and effort to develop the core process there was a great deal of energy over a period of a number of years to look at our collective investments and making sure that with different amounts from different jurisdictions they were focusing on our priority issues and yielding the collective impacts and benefits that we intended and i think we have to have faith in that core process uh we did last year do one time set aside one time transitional um but i'm going to oppose this uh last minute amendment because i think we need to um um proceed with the core um process that we've developed particularly at a time of that we're looking at here of extreme budget pressures over time council member chase yeah and i um i will also not be supporting it i think we had a really good discussion that our budget session and had several different ideas on the floor and i think we came to what was a reasonable uh position and so i will not support the motion that's on the floor council member norion and i won't be supporting it either and i just really want to make it clear that we have not cut community programs um and in fact we've increased social spending um with our own programs within the city over the past few years um we reprioritized funding and that is true so there are individual agencies that have felt like that that they've received cuts from us but we did do this core process to determine what our biggest needs were and i think a lot of really good work went into that i was involved um with that when i was still in the community programs um committee and you know these are gut wrenching choices i i would love to have uh to not have an issue with providing funding for these groups but i also want to remind everybody we've gone two years without any um projects on our capital improvement plan being um completed and that's a core service as a city too so um you know it's not that i don't um feel the spirit of the proposal but i just don't think um considering everything that it's so a wise move to do right now okay so if there's any further discussion just just a comment um you know i really feel like my kids are grown but i know that quality childcare was a real issue when they were in childcare and i think that for us to to support because i know that a lot of the parents are paying above and they have a sliding scale and what the city is helping out with i'd love to have a national health or national child care policy where we had national child care um but that doesn't exist until it exists it's up to um folks like these this board council to you know help backfill some of this money and i think that it's a real need in our thing and i i do think it's a core uh uh mission or it's a part of a core value of this community and it's a part of our mission to um you know work with local child care agency so that's that's why i put that forward i appreciate your amendment thank you council member chrome council vice mayor walkins um i i appreciate your your interest in child care as i share the same and i and i know later this evening also in the seven p.m session is um a recommendation to look at our child care developer fees and see how we can also find other ways to support child care so i believe that the conversation is just beginning and how we can find ways we also visited the conversation in terms of the children's fund um my sort of the spirit because behind the the additional money was that i think the core which i am fully behind in terms of moving in a collective impact strategy is a three-year process and it was um shifting from an annual to a three-year and sort of just recognizing that it's not necessarily clean and that's and that's okay but trying to find a buffer for that i do believe that the community programs will be meeting to discuss the nuances of the various types of um community services provided and that at that time we can look more deeply as we hopefully you know ideally would have had a chance to do prior to our budget uh hearing and i think if if we do find and i'll withdraw my motion at the time if we do find doubling the 45 000 necessary for midterm i think that makes more sense if it does come through that process so i'd be happy to do that and revisit that knowing that sort of we'll have another chance to look at it okay so then the motions withdrawn so then we have the main go ahead councillor vice mayor excuse me city manager bernard i'll take vice mayor that's fine uh thank you i just wanted to uh just to point out that the the motion is to direct direct me to to to make the necessary offsets but we'll have to report back those to you as well so so you have that context as well so just to point that out and just so you can be clear that there's a motion on the floor from council member mafios and a second to for these three or four areas um with a second by council member chase when will the the recommended offsets be presented to the council for final adoption so we'll we'll do that probably in august in august first meeting in august yeah yeah i think that's doable okay okay so there's a motion on the floor and a second um any further discussion on this all those in favor please say aye aye any opposed okay are we i'm sorry the main well she would she went through the the uh vice mayor Watkins withdrew vice mayor Watkins withdrew the amendment to the motion we're back to the main motion from council member mafios seconded by council member chase that are those four items that are up on the screen now for the budget adoption um there is any further discussion seeing none all those in favor please say aye those opposed no okay that motion passes with council member crone uh in opposition um uh council member neroyan vice mayor Watkins council member mafios council member chase and myself uh voting in favor council member brown absent okay i just want to say thank you council members and i also want to acknowledge all the department heads we have budget leads throughout all the departments did a lot of work this year we had a lot of people in finance that did a lot of work this year and i want to acknowledge that there's been a lot of people helping i really appreciate that all committee they did a really fine job thank you we still have one more meeting i think in august or July so we'll see you again okay thank you so the next item up is the system sewer ordinance and before we begin that does it any council member do you feel the need we need to take a break or to continue on i would appreciate a couple minutes okay so we'll take we'll take um uh while you're setting up we'll take a five minute break we're back so we're back to item number 17 is um the public hearing for the sewer system ordinance number 16.08 this is a long-awaited amendment to the ordinance regarding our system steve wolfman's here to make the presentation when he's ready all right waiting for it to show up there we go good afternoon council members and public i work for the public works department i'm the senior civil engineer and i have uh been there for a while and my expertise is in my uh responsibilities is the wastewater system so we're going to get started here to go over an amendment to the existing sewer ordinance and why we are doing it and really it's to protect the environment essentially by better defining the property owners responsibility to maintain that part of the system that is private the ordinance only applies to those uh properties in the city and it's really we really tailored the ordinance to be reasonable for the public and to be easy to implement for city staff so we really haven't added any positions to uh run this program we figure it'll probably take about half of an assistant uh engineers time as we once we get the system really up and running this shows how the system is laid out in the city uh the sewer line is usually in the middle of the street not always and the city is responsible for that portion of the system but each house or property has what is called a sewer lateral or a building sewer which goes from the private property into the public right away and connects to the public sewer so the individual property owners are responsible for that red portion of the line including that part which actually connects to the city pipeline now this is a picture of what we consider a private sanitary sewer collection system typically you'd find this in a condominium complex where it's a large enough complex where each building has a lateral that goes out to a main that's in a private road and then that private uh pipeline goes out to the city pipeline so in this case everything in red is the responsibility of the condominium complex and it doesn't always have to be a condominium complex but that's most typical and you know you could have a hundred homes or townhouses uh that have to be maintained by that HOA and the ordinance addresses that also and we'll get into some details this is probably our most important slide and it is actually part of the new ordinance it reiterates what's the responsibility of the homeowner or the property owner and how what portion of that line that they will be required to inspect as part of the sale of the property one of the one of the issues that has come up as well can the city help financially with meeting the requirements of the ordinance and we have come up with an incentive program that will rebate money to those that improve their sewer lateral regardless whether the city is forcing them to or it's part of a sale of a home could just you know it could be anyone that is going to improve their system they would be eligible for up to $1400 and we would waive a $339 fee so they would be saving some money there some good money probably typically maybe 10% or so of the total cost of the project that they would um be doing so there's three components sewer spills uh is probably uh is we'll go into effect first the private collection systems as you showed is is the second part and the third part will be sale of real property so the sewer spills you know we have in the ordinance now it doesn't allow sewer spills it talks about fine for sewer spills but in the new ordinance it's a clear timetable on how much time a property owner has to deal with something as severe as a sewer spill and they are severe as you can see in the photograph and it requires that the property owner uh inspects their sewer with a television video which is has there been great improvements in that technology and then they fix the problem and then they give that video to the city it won't be on a video i guess it'll be a c either a cd or a disc the second part of the ordinance is to require that private sanitary sewers get inspected and cleaned periodically we clean our pipelines pretty much every year many of our pipelines that are we call problem pipelines we clean monthly or every three months but most of our pipelines we clean once a year so these requirements will be the responsibility of the hoa and when they do that inspection they will inspect everything they will be required to inspect the laterals also that connect to that so if someone is selling a condominium they would not be required to inspect their lateral because it would be done every 10 years as part of the collection system inspection um uh sale of real property uh really we're trying a lot of the ordinances really to educate uh the property owners and we feel that um when we educate the property owners of their responsibility and we also educate them on the condition of their pipeline that um we'll see some great strides in improving the private side of the sewer collection system there's exemptions um our our records really our good records go back to 2010 so if someone has installed a sewer lateral 2010 they would not have to inspect it on the sale of their property until 2030 and then also if they have passed inspection uh within five years so if somebody if a house keeps getting sold every couple of years you know that they might not have to do inspection either uh we have certified plumbers local plumbers in the city that will have to do the inspection uh they're actually not all well eventually they won't all be local plumbers but right now they are and uh those plumbers will have a standardized sheet to fill out so it's easy for the homeowner and the city to know uh that it has passed inspection and we have a grading system and one of the things that is probably unique with our ordinance compared to most of the cities and and jurisdictions is that we're allowing a pipe that I would call it gets a D we're allowing that to pass inspection we're not going to force somebody to replace a pipe that's in D condition and we'll you'll kind of see later what that would look like um the one thing that we are uh requiring is that if there's a p-trap in the sidewalk area they will be required to replace it and uh typically it needs to be replaced anyway because you can't TV a sewer lateral that has a p-trap but this requires it no questions um we do allow once the pipe has been inspected and this was something that the Santa Cruz County real estate association uh kind of requested was that we we allow the ability to transfer the responsibility to the buyer but only in the case after the inspection has been performed so that the buyer knows what they're getting into so I'm going to go over a few scenarios there is a typical p-trap just kind of like the ones you have under the sink it's typically where things get clogged and there's probably none in the city that are less than 60 years old so typically they're just a problem and the plumbers just can't stand them they can't get their cleaning rods through them they can't get their tv cameras through them uh the one time we had a contractor try to tv it it got stuck in the bottom and he had to dig it up to replace it so that'll be an immediate improvement so this is a pipe that has some cracks in it these are probably mainline pipes so that's probably a six inch pipe but this pipe would pass inspection no problem it's got some cracks doesn't have any roots you know and now of course this is just one section of the pipe and you'd have to continue with the inspection to see what the rest of the pipe looks like now this is a more severe uh these are called pipe fractures and if that was the only thing that was wrong with this pipe uh it would pass inspection we would not require them to replace this pipe we would hope that based on the education and the fact that you are now responsible for this that the buyer would negotiate some sort of um you know replacement of this pipe but if they want to take the chance and continue one with this pipe and you know hey if they are careful with what they send down the sewer uh you know maybe it'll last um for a long time uh and we have a price range there of probably what it would what it typically would cause to replace a sewer lateral from including the clean out if you did the clean out and all the way out to the street now that's not on mission street um but that's on a you know a nice street and and and getting several bids not just um doing it under an emergency condition that's one of the issues that this will hopefully help is that you know it's not an emergency you got some time get it done you can ask three four five plumbers for a price this pipe we would require that it get replaced no matter what so um the plumber and we might not never see this in in what the plumber gives to us because if they see this and they grade it as a grade five structural defect they're going to tell the homeowner you got to replace this you can't go on and you know we don't want to see the failed um systems we only want to see the ones that have passed inspection uh we are um we're at June 12th now this is our first reading at the council meeting we're hoping to begin implementation of the rebate program and remember the rebate program is not contingent on the ordinance um it is um available for anyone who wants to improve their their part of the sanitary sewer uh uh system um and then on august 1st is when we would begin the sewer overflow response requirements requiring you know how fast they have to get the work done and how they have to show us proof in january we would begin um sending out letters and beginning to get the larger complexes to start to look at cleaning and uh tving their system and we would actually wait until july one of 2019 before we would uh implement the sale of property requirements and part of that is to be sure everybody's ready staff is ready the plumbers are ready the real estate agents are ready and the um and the public is ready you know we've done a fair amount of publicity but that gives us a year to really to distribute some of these forms and to get everybody uh prepared for that requirement and i'm available for questions of course are there any questions at this time council member royan yeah so um you know i i understand it protects the environment and its state compliance is involved but i just have to say selling a home or buying a home is one of the most stressful times in most people's lives and my concern is adding a whole another step to that process um especially when that people are spending a lot of money at that point too and so i'm wondering if there was another way or another time that you folks thought of to do this um instead of just being at the point of sale well i mean truthfully visit i mean this is really what has been propagated throughout the state um you know is the idea of at the time of the sale there's large sums of money being exchanged um and it is the it's probably the easiest way for us to track something we don't necessarily know when sewer laterals were constructed whether they were constructed in the 20s or the 30s but they were replaced in the 60s um you know if we knew when every sewer lateral had been constructed then yes we we could maybe target it in a different way but we really have no way of knowing other than you know what we know from like 2010 so the last eight years we have a very good tracking system well that leads to my oh sorry hi mark hi mark deadl director public works i would say think of this as a termite inspection for your sewer line i'm you wouldn't buy a home without doing a termite inspection this really protects the buyers to understand what they're buying and then there can be some negotiation if they want to with the seller and the buyer but it's a hidden issue that could be a $15,000 problem that happens two months after you move in you didn't know anything about it it just as a provides that information that education which is a key point well and that brings up the next question um that i had you know will this actually catch spills because it seems like a point of sale is so random you know it's not based on anything more than point of sale i mean what really leads to failure of these laterals i you know is it age is it some other criteria that is the reason for these leaks happening well we we do feel that the cleanouts are a major problem the the unstandard cleanouts the p-traps so that's one thing that we're targeting i don't think we're looking at this solving the problem in one year or even two years but over a period of time i mean it's kind of like what we do with the mains we're not going in and we're not replacing all 160 miles of mains in one year we're doing it slowly and methodically and um you know we feel like this is the best way to address this over a period of time without um you know without without being really forceful with the people who haven't had a sewer spill the people who have a sewer spill it'll be much more stringent on what they have to do but on the sale of the home i mean i think you're gonna see um you're gonna you're gonna see that you're gonna see that have to be replaced two to four thousand dollars that's gonna happen and you know we're not sure what percentage have a p-trap it might be as high as 20 percent you know it might be 10 percent it might be you know we don't know how many have been replaced typically where you'll see these is you'll see those little square um little square metal cleanouts in the sidewalks that's typically where these occur i wouldn't think it's more than 20 percent of the city it's probably last but we don't know but that's probably the easiest thing for us to um get corrected so um follow up question cities are most cities following this model going into having to meet this new state mandate or are there okay so you haven't seen a different model for this inspection most of the models are uh more string way more stringent way more stringent one of the you know and i i don't off the top i think in the staff report i mentioned which cities have similar uh ordinances but um some of the cities in the bay area are basically saying you know just if you have a clay sewer you got to replace it we're not saying that they're making them do pressure tests on it we're not doing that so we're we're trying to let the marketplace play a little bit more and and we're trying to have education be a bigger thing i mean maybe the person gets a sewer line like that and they say well i'm gonna wait a few years and then i do it uh but at least they know it's there and it's something you know when their sewer starts to drain a little slower they'll start thinking about it of course a lot of times you'll see roots the guy will go through and he'll clean those roots but you'll see remnants of the roots and then at least the homeowner knows i got a root issue i better stay on this i better get this uh cleaned more often than i would typically because usually you never have to clean your sewer line you know till there's a problem and then it's sometimes it's too late and then what my biggest concern is that the plumbers available to actually do this inspection so obviously when you're selling your house you're under time constraints there's escrow and i know that you listen to feedback and the seller can transfer to the buyer the responsibility but you still have a 90 day limit and i have to tell you i recently moved and i've tried to schedule contractors from plumbers to whatever and i can barely get a call back these folks are so busy and have so much work right now i can't even imagine what it might end up being with not only plumbers but plumbers that have to have the special certification so i'm i'm really concerned about the administrative this just causing chaos in people's lives and if they can't meet the 90 days are we prepared to recognize that um so the person does have more time well two things um the the it's only the inspection that has to be a certified plumber the fix can be by any uh either plumber or um type eight contractor so any contractor that's allowed to work in the city street can actually replace the pipeline you know for example i mean you know any of the large contractors down to the plumbers they can all do the work so it's a much broader uh you know mix and of course staff is always listens to issues i mean if somebody has to do the work we had one over here that had to go under the railroad track or one that has to be on mission street where they have to get permits from caltrans you know i mean we always have that ability to change and to give people a little bit more time if they have a good reason and they're making the effort and they've contracted with someone and he that that ability is there that's a really bit it's just my own personal experience the past year trying to hire contractors has really really been difficult you know to them not showing up to them just not even calling back because they have or my project's too small it's there's i mean people are really finding jobs and works out work out there so the contractors that we have listed we have eight of them right now they are this is their specialty this is what they do they don't do big projects they do sewer laterals they do inspection and they actually do the replacement and like i said that list will grow some because there's out of town contractors and also your larger contractors like granite and monorail and you know all of the chape and that they all can do the work they just may not have the tv cam or to do the tv work thank you council member crown council member neroy and asked all my questions except the 10 to 15 000 what was that for that's to replace that's to replace a clean out and a sewer lateral out to the middle of the street how many you said 20 percent the p traps how many would you suspect in this category tough to know oh for the replacement yeah i would expect it's going to be very very little because if you have a pipe that looks like that you're probably experiencing some some real problems you know and so you know more than likely we're not going to see pipes like that we may see some pipes like that you may see some pipes that have roots but we're not going to require people uh at that level you should know that you're having a problem and so even this level is marginally may pass inspection but you don't want to you don't want to go forward with that and and really it's it would be unusual because if the plumber sees that he can go in and cut those roots out if it's only at one location but if it's at every location down the pipe he's going to give up after a while because it's just too much work to try to clean those roots out so i don't expect that we'll get um you know many pipes that have to be absolutely worked on prior to the new property owner last question septic clean out somebody emailed me and said is the city ordinance proposal improving the San Lorenzo river bacterial loading when county has such a high septic concentration along the San Lorenzo river well we like to blame everything on the county of Santa Cruz will continue to do so but uh when we when we got when we got um what's called the total maximum daily load limit from the state um the bacterial load limit uh they pointed to the city of Santa Cruz and they said you know you have to uh you have to do some things to improve it and one of the things was to adopt a sewer a sewer lateral program and that's what this you know fulfills kind of that promise that we made that okay we'll do that um and more than likely you know the bacteria level in the in the river i mean it's very hard to measure um a lot of it is masked by all of the wildlife population so you're not going to see a small amount of human uh input but we know it's there and we actually we can find it at times you know so but we we want to do as much as we can so you don't know if it's going to improve it correct council member chase thank you for the presentation and um i i think i have a question i haven't fully formulated it but it's basically as it relates to condo complexes and sort of and how that would work and so maybe we can talk to through an example like i i lived in a condo complex and we did indeed we had a lot of routes going through the pipes and so then we had our HOA fees that were our normal HOA fees but the cost to actually repair and replace was probably going to be a special assessment of a pretty sizable amount so i'm trying to kind of understand how this would work in that scenario because some were owners some were renters like what how does i guess i'm i'm concerned about the impact to people who are not expecting uh what was going to be an on the case of the complex i lived in of tens of thousands of dollars given the size of the project so how would this work in that scenario well i mean with what we're going to be requiring is that the complex have their system number one inspected that they inspect the whole complex so it's going to be up to the HOA to figure out how to do that it's it won't be that much money to inspect it i mean it's just it's not it may be for even a large complex okay it might be a couple of thousand dollars for 100 you know complex or something like that and then we're requiring so if they do that inspection and there are pipes that are looking like this then yeah they're gonna have to come up with money to fix it i mean and those are some of the worst things that come upon is is a complex that was no one no one knew it and all of a sudden they got sewage coming out of uh yeah maybe you live there yes i'm pretty sure we're talking about the same project and and you know of course we have to respond to it but it it is you know a big issue i mean i think what it would help is that you know it might give them a warning that hey you gotta do something and then they can i mean i'll tell you with our projects just like for a private person's project it really helps to give the contractor lots of you know time and get lots of bids so that you can get the best price and on something like that you know it's it's possible that you can save a lot of money by by knowing early on that you need something and i appreciate that this is intended to be preventative so that you're you know getting ahead of things and addressing them before they get to be that tens of thousands of dollars i want to thank you also for bringing this forward i know that it's something that public works use to even the staff has been working on and came up originally when we had that one broken lateral down on lower pacific and i think it's good to finally see this and kind of discuss it can you talk a little bit about the implementation so this is this a first reading so we'll have it yeah come back again yeah so it'll come back in two weeks uh on what june 26 would be the uh the anticipated approval and then it's you know 30 days after we just kind of rounded it off but portions of the ordinance will go into play right you know after 30 days but on august 1 we'll begin to implement the overflow requirements so hopefully no one has to deal with that and then and then six months later we'll begin to implement the i'll just call it to be the condominium requirements and we'll probably what we'll do is we'll probably do that in stages we'll probably target the bigger condominium complexes first so that we kind of spread it out over time and you know down to the smaller complexes so that may take some time to get those um happening and then the sale of the property requirement won't go into effect until july 1 of 2019 so basically a year from now before uh that requirement will be thanks and then also what kind of outreach will you do to provide the the real estate community and you know brokers and then in contact with the real estate community um through the santa cruz county um realtor's association so we'll do that more probably maybe we'll go and we've gone to at least one real estate agent probably go to more of those meetings uh we have um a blog on the coastal watershed council's website and of course the city's website so that's probably and and we've done mailers through the um through the schmoo review so we'll do some more of those and that and that's part of the reason to give us that year so that people really know it and we can also publicize the rebate program because i think that the people are gonna like that yeah i don't know if you take submissions how the but the city manager has that newsletter now that started that goes out to a mail list it might be something you can include in that as well okay any other discussion at this time so i'd like to ask the public is there any member of the public that would like to speak to this item it's item number 17 regarding the sewer system ordinance 16.08 please step up and you'll have two minutes you can go ahead Nathaniel go ahead natalex.candidategmail.com uh what i have to say about the sewer inspection i think every five to ten years or somewhere in that range everybody should be mandated to get an inspection as well as when properties are being bought and sold and uh one of the big things is this would let people know when there was when problems start to arise and obviously fixing the problem itself is something different but the inspection at least the cost of the inspection should be covered by the city not the homeowners not the buyers or the sellers but the city uh any actual repair should be the uh owner of the property and uh like i said i think not only do we need to do this when houses are sold we should have it uh every every at least five to ten years mandatory inspections for everybody thank you thank you next speaker please Dr. Numair council members my name is Robert Singleton and i used to work as the government affairs director for the santa cruz county association of realtors um just like to build off Nathaniel's uh comment that actually i think the county of santa cruz should pay for the inspection if you had my way um but uh so i just want to actually say uh thank you to steve and his staff who actually while i was working for the realtors association steve did come by um multiple times and multiple settings both to the local government relations committee to the board of directors and held a larger open meeting for the real estate association as well as we published it in our newsletter at the time so steve has done the rounds has done a lot about reach the real estate community and out of that process there were some concessions as a result of this this program uh being able to transfer the uh the burden of replacement onto the buyer um talking about the incentive program um you know which one is a passing grade versus not um and so i i think the the ordinance you have before you while won't make everybody happy and obviously um real estate agents in the real estate community is not like point of sale ordinance is a matter of principle anything that makes it harder to sell a home and adds to more stress to both the buyer and seller is not ideal but give them the lack of data and give them the fact that the city is not prepared to unilaterally replace every single lateral in the whole city there's not too many other options available for doing a comprehensive replacement program um and most of the the uh affected properties here will simply have to pay the cost of the initial inspection and will pass and that is in the hundreds of dollars not in the thousands and we don't expect a lot of the larger replacements and and honestly if you're suffering from a grade five and you're leaking stuff into the water table and and also probably experiencing some of your problems yourself you probably really want to get that replaced no matter what um and you certainly don't want from a sake of consumer protection to pass that on to an unknowing buyer that would not be something that i as a new home buyer first time home buyer would want to experience to have that um and to deal with that replacement on my own um so uh i think overall just wrap it up you just keep well i think overall he's done the outreach we've talked and i think this is you know in ordinance that we can all live with thank you robert okay is any member of the public that would like to speak to this item seeing none i'll bring it back to the council for discussion and action council member matthews yeah i was impressed with the outreach that was done and was glad to hear that had been modified based on the input from various sectors and um i've had personal experience with a major uh replacement of a line with an old clay pipe it happens i'm curious uh how many and robert maybe you know this um how many property sales on average in in the city of santa cruz in a year you can probably answer well well okay if you want uh robert um that's the question you want to ask yeah just call him up and ask them okay unless steve knows it but uh and we've looked at it a couple of times but i can't do you know the answer to that question yeah city get step up to the mic please it totally varies depending on the time um i mean we had like 23 sales in december of last year i'm thinking annually it's 23 times 12 is probably a rough ballpark but honestly it varies so much depending on the time and the median home sale so there's not really i don't want to give you wrong information so that's a really really rough ballpark anyway hey thank you thank you um and i'm gonna support it i i think i'll move the motion go ahead and move the motion i'll second that okay but i do i'll give you i do have just one other comment um that i maybe mark can answer this um we've had the toilet replacement on point of sale for a long time how long's that been 10 years something like that ballpark at least at least yeah 10 years with the water department maybe this oh this is rosemary's question yeah and um um and so over time as properties sell again that the need to do that decreases but uh it it seems to me over time we start to see a genuine net improvement right uh rosemary minard the water director so i believe that uh the ordinance on point of uh retrofit on resell it's called the ordinance and uh it went in in the early 2000s and it has it's contributed that has contributed greatly to the decline in per capita consumption that we've seen because the you know you're replacing out older toilets for ones that use 1.6 or even some places just slightly under one gallon per flush and obviously that accumulates a lot so it does produce results over time point being i think um it's a a relatively modest expense at point of sale that over time really does improve um the situation that the community as a whole faces because uh as you all know you walk down the street you see is you know failing sewer that's pretty gross and also does not contribute to public health water quality all of that stuff so um to me it seems like a well thought out ordinance that responds to state requirements but also um you know it's been improved through the discussion yeah so we have a motion by council member matthew second by council member neroyan is there any further discussion i just want to emphasize i'm really glad to hear that you'll work with people who may not make that 90 day deadline due you know even though they're in earnest trying to get a contractor to come to their home yeah thanks and i'd like to also extend my thanks to the public work staff for the work they did to bring this forward and um looking forward to getting updates in the future so there's a motion on the floor all those in favor please say aye aye be opposed that motion passes unanimously with council member brown absent thank you okay next up is our general business items um as a reminder the order will be a presentation followed by questions of staff from the council will then take public comment and then return to the council for deliberations in a