[10)a. Conduct the Public Hearing and Adopt a Resolution Approving the 5-year water and sewer rate adjustment schedule for customers of record (property owners or tenants) and Find that this action is not a project as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c) (3), no environmental review is required.]

OF RECORD PROPERTY OWNERS OR TENANTS, AND FIND THAT THIS ACTION IS NOT A PROJECT AS DEFINED UNDER CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.

STATE GUIDELINES.

THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO STATE GUIDELINES.

15 06DC3 NO ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED.

MR. VILLA. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR.

MEMBERS. MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL.

TONIGHT'S SEWER AND WATERWAY HEARING IS CONTINUATION OF THE DECEMBER MEETING.

AND I WILL HAND THIS OVER TO ALLISON, OUR CONSULTANT.

SHE HAS A BRIEF PRESENTATION FOR YOU.

HERE WE GO. ALL RIGHT.

GOOD EVENING, MR. MAYOR, AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL, AS WELL AS THE PUBLIC.

SO TONIGHT I HAVE A BRIEF SUMMARY PRESENTATION EXPLAINING THE WORK WE'VE DONE TO GET TO THIS POINT ON THE WATER AND SEWER RATE STUDY.

EVERYTHING I'M EXPLAINING TONIGHT, WE'VE DISCUSSED AT LENGTH AT OTHER PRESENTATIONS AND IS DETAILED IN THE.

IN THE RATE STUDY REPORT AND ALL RATEPAYERS AND PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE CITY OF WASCO HAVE BEEN MAILED A PROPOSITION TO 18 NOTICE FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING THAT GIVES SOME BACKGROUND OF THE RATE STUDY AS WELL.

SO AGAIN, THIS IS A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY PRESENTATION TO GIVE SOME BACKGROUND.

SO SEWER RATES HAVE NOT BEEN ADJUSTED IN QUITE A LONG TIME SINCE 2007 AND WATER RATES SINCE 2015.

WE HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT NATURAL GAS PRICES.

WE THINK ABOUT ALL THE OTHER PRICE INCREASES OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS, BUT THE CITY HAS BEEN VERY GOOD ABOUT KEEPING RATES IN PLACE AT THE SAME LEVEL FOR QUITE A NUMBER OF YEARS.

THAT BEING SAID, ADJUSTMENTS ARE NEEDED.

THE WATER AND SEWER FUNDS ARE SOLELY SUPPORTED BY RATES, MEANING THAT THE RATEPAYERS ARE FUNDING THAT FULL COST OF SERVICE.

EVERYTHING I'M GOING TO DISCUSS TONIGHT REGARDING THE COSTS THAT THE RATES ARE SUPPORTING IS PUBLIC INFORMATION, THE BUDGETS THE CITY

[00:35:03]

PUBLISHES, THOSE IT'S FULLY, FULLY AUDITED.

THE AUDITS ARE PUBLIC INFORMATION AS WELL.

THIS IS A VERY TRANSPARENT AND OPEN PROCESS AND LIKE I SAID, THE CITY HAS KEPT RATES AT THE SAME LEVEL FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS.

THE CITY HAS ALSO BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL IN OBTAINING.

GRANT FUNDING FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, WHICH IS ANOTHER BIG, BIG COST SAVINGS FOR.

FOR THE RATEPAYERS.

AND AS I MENTIONED, I'VE MET WITH YOU ALL CITY COUNCIL A NUMBER OF TIMES AND SO THIS HAS BEEN AN OPEN AND TRANSPARENT PROCESS.

THE RATEPAYERS ARE INVITED TO BE INVOLVED IN THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS TONIGHT.

SO THE THE SCHEDULE OF PROPOSED RATE CHANGES IS LISTED HERE.

THE FIRST ONE WOULD BE THE FIRST BILLING CYCLE AFTER THIS MEETING.

SO STARTING FEBRUARY 1ST.

FOLLOWED BY A SERIES OF FOUR RATE CHANGES ON JULY 1ST, WHICH COINCIDES WITH YOUR FISCAL YEAR.

SO IT'S EASIER FOR ACCOUNTING PURPOSES.

RATE ADJUSTMENTS ARE GOVERNED BY PROPOSITION 218.

THAT'S THE SAME PROCESS THAT YOU WENT THROUGH WITH THE SOLID WASTE RATE ADJUSTMENT.

IT'S ALL UTILITY RATES IN CALIFORNIA ARE UNDER A PROPOSITION TO 18 PROCESS, AND BASICALLY THAT MEANS THAT RATES HAVE TO BE FAIR, REASONABLE AND BASED ON THE ACTUAL COST OF PROVIDING SERVICE TO CUSTOMERS.

PROPOSITION TO 18 ALSO REQUIRES THAT WE HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT AND GIVE RATEPAYERS THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT AND ALSO TO PROTEST THE RATES IF THEY DESIRE. SO I'LL EXPLAIN YOUR CURRENT RATE STRUCTURE AND WHY WE'RE PROPOSING SOME CHANGES.

SO THE CURRENT RATES ARE LISTED HERE.

YOU HAVE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT CUSTOMER CATEGORIES AND EACH CUSTOMER GROUP PAYS A MINIMUM SERVICE FEE THAT INCLUDES A BASE AMOUNT OF WATER AND USAGE OVER THAT BASE.

VOLUME IS CHARGED $4.03 PER UNIT OF WATER AND THOSE MINIMUM SERVICE FEES AND THAT BASE.

ALLOTMENT OF WATER IS QUITE A LOT.

VERY FEW CUSTOMERS GO OVER THAT BASE ALLOTMENT.

IT'S A PRETTY GENEROUS AMOUNT OF WATER, AND THAT CONCEPT OF PROVIDING A LARGE BASE ALLOTMENT IS CONTRARY TO STATE WATER CONSERVATION MANDATES.

SO FOLKS THAT MAYBE DON'T USE AS MUCH DON'T USE THEIR FULL BASE ALLOTMENT, THEY'RE KIND OF PAYING FOR WATER THAT THEY'RE NOT REALLY USING.

SO WE'RE LOOKING AT HOW TO REALIGN RATES WITH HOW CUSTOMERS ARE ACTUALLY USING WATER AND THE ULTIMATE CUSTOMER, THE COST OF SERVICE FOR EACH CUSTOMER IN THE CITY.

SO THE RATE PLAN IN THE IN THE PROP 18 NOTICE IN THE RATE STUDY INCLUDES SCHEDULE DROUGHT RATES.

YOU WOULD ONLY ADOPT THOSE IF THE GOVERNOR DECLARES A WATER SHORTAGE EMERGENCY.

SO THOSE ARE OPTIONAL AND THEY WOULD HELP THE CITY RECOVER POTENTIAL LOST REVENUE DUE TO THE DROUGHT.

WE ARE ALSO PROPOSING THAT THAT BASE ALLOTMENT OF WATER BE SLOWLY PHASED DOWN OVER TIME.

AND THE IDEA IS THAT THE NEW BASE ALLOTMENT AT THE END OF THE FIVE YEAR PERIOD WOULD CORRESPOND TO INDOOR EFFICIENT USE TARGETS THAT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA HAS MANDATED AND YOU WOULD EVENTUALLY GET TO THAT TARGET AFTER FIVE YEARS OR ROUGHLY CORRESPONDING WITH 2026. SO WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT DOING A HUGE ADJUSTMENT RIGHT AWAY.

WE'RE SLOWLY PHASING IN THE RATE ADJUSTMENT OVER TIME TO GIVE PEOPLE A CHANCE TO TO ALTER THEIR USAGE, TO LOOK AT THEIR BILLS AND TO ADJUST.

AND AGAIN, I WANTED TO MAKE THE POINT ONE MORE TIME THAT THIS REALLY BENEFITS LOWER WATER USERS AND LETS PEOPLE HAVE MORE CONTROL OVER THEIR BILLS.

SO THE THE GOAL IS THAT SINGLE FAMILY CUSTOMERS, THEIR BASE ALLOTMENT WOULD BE REDUCED FROM 25 UNITS DOWN TO SEVEN BY 2026. AND WE FOUND LOOKING AT THE DATA THAT MANY, MANY CUSTOMERS DO NOT USE 25 UNITS OF WATER, SO THEY'RE PAYING FOR WATER AND THEIR BASE ALLOTMENT THAT THEY'RE NOT REALLY USING OR GETTING BENEFIT FROM.

AND SO ANYONE USING LESS THAN 25 UNITS UNDER THE PROPOSED RATE STRUCTURE WOULD THEN GET A BENEFIT BECAUSE THEIR BILL WOULD BE BETTER REFLECTIVE OF THE AMOUNT OF WATER THEY'RE ACTUALLY USING.

OKAY, SO HERE IS THE PROPOSED RATE SCHEDULE.

SO AS MENTIONED, THE FIRST RATE ADJUSTMENT WOULD GO INTO EFFECT FEBRUARY 1ST FOR THAT FEBRUARY 1ST ADJUSTMENT.

THE INCREASE IS $0.78 TO THE BASE FEE.

AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS THERE'S A SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT, I BELIEVE COST INCREASE OF THAT $0.75 OR $0.78.

[00:40:07]

EXCUSE ME. BUT WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE IS UNDERNEATH THAT MINIMUM FEE SHOWN HERE IS THE BASE ALLOTMENT.

SO IT'S DECREASING FROM 25 UNITS OF WATER TO 21.

AND THEN WHAT, DECREASE TO 17, 13, TEN, AND EVENTUALLY SEVEN OVER THE THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS.

AND I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF NUMBERS ON HERE.

IT'S JUST ILLUSTRATING THAT ALL CUSTOMER GROUPS ARE EXPERIENCING THE SAME TYPE OF RATE ADJUSTMENT.

ALL CUSTOMER GROUPS ARE PHASING DOWN THEIR BASE ALLOTMENT AND ALL CUSTOMERS WOULD PAY THE SAME VOLUME RATE.

THAT'S THE CURRENT RATE CONCEPT IS ALL CUSTOMERS ABOVE THE BASE ALLOTMENT PAY THE SAME VOLUME RATE AND THE RATE IS PROPOSED TO DECREASE FROM $4.03 TO $1.50.

AND THAT'S TO GIVE FOLKS THE OPPORTUNITY TO UNDERSTAND HOW THEIR VOLUME IS GOING TO IMPACT THEIR BILL AND TO PHASE IN SOME OF THOSE RATE CHANGES OVER TIME. GIVE THEM LOTS OF TIME TO UNDERSTAND HOW THEIR USAGE IS GOING TO IMPACT THEIR BILL.

SO THIS CHART, AGAIN, A LOT OF NUMBERS, THIS INFORMATION IS IN THE PROP 218 NOTICE WE MAILED TO EVERYONE.

BUT AGAIN, JUST ILLUSTRATING THAT ALL CUSTOMERS ARE GETTING THE SAME TYPE OF ADJUSTMENT WHERE THEIR MINIMUM WATER USAGE ALLOTMENT IS BEING PHASED DOWN OVER TIME.

SO THIS CHART SHOWS THE TYPICAL BILL, A TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL WATER BILL OF AN AVERAGE CUSTOMER IN WASCO UNDER THE CURRENT RATES AND UNDER THE PROPOSED RATES.

SO THIS TYPICAL CUSTOMER IS USING 15 UNITS AND THE CURRENT BASE ALLOTMENT IS 25.

SO THAT CUSTOMER IS NOT USING ANY EXCESS USE.

AND UNDER THE PROPOSED RATE, THE MINIMUM BILL WOULD INCLUDE 21 UNITS.

SO AGAIN, THAT CUSTOMER IS ONLY USING 15 WOULDN'T EVEN GO INTO THE VOLUME RATE COMPONENT.

AND SO THIS CUSTOMER WOULD BE ON THE LOWER END OF TYPICAL BILLS OF OTHER COMPARABLE AGENCIES.

SO WASCO HAS A VERY COMPETITIVE COST OF SERVICE FOR THE WATER FUND.

ALL RIGHT. SO FOR THE SEWER FUND, WE'RE NOT PROPOSING ANY MAJOR RATE STRUCTURE ADJUSTMENTS.

EVERYONE IS CHARGED A FIXED MONTHLY BILL.

WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE THAT TYPE OF RATE STRUCTURE, BUT WE ARE ADJUSTING THE AMOUNT OF THE RATES TO BETTER REFLECT HOW CUSTOMERS ARE USING THE SEWER SYSTEM.

AND SO THAT ANALYSIS IS REQUIRED BY PROPOSITION TO 18 TO MAKE SURE WE'RE FAIR, FAIR TO EVERY CUSTOMER.

SO WE'RE LOOKING AT FLOW.

SO THE AMOUNT OF DISCHARGE INTO THE SEWER AND THE POLLUTANTS THAT THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT HAS TO HAS TO REMOVE FROM THE TREATMENT STREAM.

RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS ARE PROPOSED TO RECEIVE A 2.7% INCREASE.

SO IT'S ROUGHLY AN INFLATIONARY KIND OF COST OF LIVING TYPE OF INCREASE.

AND IT'S ILLUSTRATED THERE.

AND WITH THAT, THAT MINOR INFLATIONARY INCREASE, THE CITY OF ROSCOE'S TYPICAL BILL, WHICH IS SHOWN HERE, WOULD STILL BE IN THE LOWER END OF THE CHART COMPARED TO OTHER LOCAL SEWER AGENCIES.

SO SAME STORY FOR WATER AND SEWER.

IT'S WASCO HAS A VERY COMPETITIVE, RELATIVELY LOWER COST OF UTILITY UTILITY SERVICE.

AND EVEN WITH THESE PROPOSED RATE CHANGES, YOUR TYPICAL BILLS WOULD BE FAIRLY LOW COMPARED TO OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES.

SO THIS CHART SHOWS NON RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS.

AGAIN, I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF NUMBERS ON THIS CHART.

IT'S JUST TO ILLUSTRATE, WE DID OUR DUE DILIGENCE.

WE LOOKED AT ALL TYPES OF CUSTOMERS IN THE CITY.

SOME COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS ARE GOING DOWN, SOME COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS ARE GOING UP AND THAT IS BASED ON THAT FLOW ANALYSIS THAT WE DID.

WE LOOKED AT THREE YEARS OF BILLING DATA AND REALLY DRILL DOWN INTO EACH TYPE OF BUSINESS YOU HAVE HERE IN TOWN.

AND SOME OF THEM, YOU KNOW, THE RATE NEEDED TO GO DOWN BECAUSE THEY ARE USING THE SEWER SYSTEM A LOT LESS.

BUT NO, NO INDIVIDUAL CUSTOMER WAS GETTING VERY EXTREME RATE INCREASES.

AND HERE IS A CONTINUATION OF THE COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS.

THERE WERE SOME CATEGORIES WHERE WE DIDN'T FIND ANY BUSINESSES WOULD ACTUALLY USE THOSE CATEGORIES.

SO THOSE ARE PROPOSED TO BE ELIMINATED JUST TO KIND OF STREAMLINE THE RATE STRUCTURE.

I DID WANT TO SPEND A FEW MINUTES ON THE SCHOOL RATES.

SCHOOL CUSTOMERS ARE BUILT A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY.

THEY'RE BILLED ONCE ANNUALLY BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE INSTEAD OF MONTHLY.

MOST OF OUR CUSTOMERS ARE BILLED MONTHLY.

SO WE WE DID A LOT OF WORK LOOKING AT THE THE SCHOOLS, HOW MUCH METERED WATER USE THEY'RE USING, HOW MUCH

[00:45:03]

ESTIMATED METERED WATER USE THEN FLOWS INTO THE SEWER.

WE TRIED TO EXCLUDE OUTDOOR IRRIGATION THAT WOULDN'T FLOW INTO THE SEWER LIKE BALL FIELDS.

WE LOOKED AT EACH SCHOOL ACCOUNT.

WE LOOKED AT ALL THE METERS FOR EACH ACCOUNT, AND IT WAS VERY, VERY DIFFICULT TO PARSE OUT WHICH METERS AND WHICH DATA WOULD FLOW INTO THE SEWER VERSUS NOT.

THERE'S A VERY KIND OF MUDDLED AND COMPLICATED PROCESS.

AND SO ULTIMATELY WE LOOKED AT INDUSTRY STANDARD FLOW DATA, WHAT'S FAIR TO THE SCHOOLS AND DETERMINE EIGHT GALLONS PER DAY FOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENTS.

AVERAGE AVERAGE DAILY USE FOR THOSE THOSE STUDENTS AND THEN TEN GALLONS A DAY FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS.

AND I HAVE SEEN ESTIMATES AS HIGH AS 20 TO 25 GALLONS PER DAY FOR HIGH SCHOOL.

SO WE WE TRIED TO GIVE THEM THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT AND TO BE REASONABLE IN OUR FLOW ESTIMATES.

SO THEY ARE THERE ARE SOME FAIRLY MINOR RATE ADJUSTMENTS.

SO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL RATES ARE PROPOSED TO GO UP ABOUT 1% AND THEN HIGH SCHOOL RATES ABOUT 2%.

AND I WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT IN DOING THE STUDY, THERE WAS THE QUESTION OF MIDDLE SCHOOL CUSTOMERS AND HOW THEY SHOULD BE ADDRESSED.

THE CITY OF WASCO HAS ALWAYS CHARGED MIDDLE SCHOOLS AS HIGH SCHOOLS.

THEY'VE LUMPED THEM IN WITH THAT HIGH SCHOOL RATE.

AND SO THE INITIAL REPORT FOLLOWED THAT TREND AND LUMPED THEM IN WITH HIGH SCHOOLS.

BUT WE'VE SINCE LEARNED THAT THE JUNIOR HIGH AND THE MIDDLE SCHOOLS ARE MORE IN LINE WITH ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.

THEY DON'T HAVE SHOWERS, THEY HAVE LOWER FLOWS.

SO WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT THE MIDDLE SCHOOL BE CHARGED AS AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CUSTOMER.

SO TO WRAP UP, THOSE ARE THE PROPOSED RATE ADJUSTMENTS.

WE WILL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING AND ANY RATE PAYERS OR PROPERTY OWNERS CAN ADDRESS CITY COUNCIL AND IF THEY SO CHOOSE, THEY CAN SUBMIT A WRITTEN PROTEST. IF MORE THAN 50% OF AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS SUBMIT PROTESTS, CITY COUNCIL CANNOT ADOPT THE RATES.

BUT ABSENT THAT PROTEST PROCESS, THE FIRST RATE ADJUSTMENT WOULD GO INTO EFFECT FEBRUARY 1ST AND THEN EACH YEAR THEREAFTER THROUGH 2026.

AND YOU WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY EACH YEAR WITH YOUR PROBABLY WITH YOUR BUDGETING PROCESS TO DETERMINE IF YOU WANT TO DO THAT MAXIMUM RATE THAT WE INCLUDED IN THE PROP 18 HEARING NOTICE, OR IF YOU WANTED TO ADOPT A LOWER RATE AND YOU WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT WITHOUT THIS ADDITIONAL PROTEST VOTING PROCEDURE.

SO THAT WILL GET US THROUGH 2026.

AND THAT CONCLUDES THE PRESENTATION AND I'LL BE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SEEING NONE AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

MADAM CLERK, CAN YOU PLEASE CHECK THE MAILBOX IF ANY PROTEST LETTERS WERE RECEIVED DURING THE HEARING? YES.

DOES ANYBODY WANT TO SING OR TELL A JOKE? IT'S JUST A BINARY CHOICE.

THERE IS NO THIRD OPTION.

HOW DO YOU DO IT THEN? DO YOU HAVE A SUGGESTION? THERE YOU GO. WHAT DO YOU THINK? I STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT REALLY MEANS, THOUGH.

MARK, FEEL FREE.

BUT NOBODY DOES.

JUST REMEMBER SQUIDWARD TENTACLES.

SO WE DID THAT. AND SPONGEBOB.

INTERPRETIVE DANCE.

THAT'S HILARIOUS. WHY NOT? IT'S WHERE I GOT MY EDUCATION FROM.

YOU HAVE NONE. ANY COMMENTS FROM THE MEMBERS? MAYOR PRO TEM GARCIA AND THEN MEMBER MEDINA.

DID HAVE A I GUESS, MORE OF A QUESTION FOR ALISON.

SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS HAS BEEN IN THE WORKS FOR FOR A WHILE.

[00:50:01]

I'M JUST CURIOUS AS TO HOW THE DETERMINATION WENT FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME GOING FROM 25 CCF TO SEVEN.

IS THAT JUST REGULATORY OR IS THAT JUST BASED ON THE STUDY? LIKE HOW WAS THAT DECIDED? YEAH, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

SO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA HAS MANDATED THAT THE INDOOR WATER USAGE TARGET IS 50 GALLONS PER PERSON PER DAY.

AND SO WE TOOK THAT AND MULTIPLIED BY THE AVERAGE FAMILY SIZE IN WASCO, AND IT IS ROUGHLY 700 CUBIC FEET.

AND SO WE WE WANTED TO GIVE FOLKS AN OPPORTUNITY TO EVENTUALLY PHASE DOWN TO THAT.

WE DIDN'T WANT TO DO IT RIGHT AWAY TO SHOCK EVERYONE, YOU KNOW.

AND SO THAT WAS THE ULTIMATE TARGET BASED ON THE 50 GALLONS PER PERSON PER DAY MANDATED CONSERVATION TARGET FOR INDOOR EFFICIENT WATER USE.

THANK YOU. REMEMBER, RAYNA, I JUST WANT TO COMMENT ON THIS BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PUBLIC PRESENT UNDERSTAND THAT EVEN THOUGH THE WATER RATE MAY BE GOING DOWN, THE BEST WATER RATE, WATER USAGE NEEDS TO BE CUT BACK.

BECAUSE IF YOU CONTINUE TO USE THE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT YOU'RE USING NOW ON THE SIXTH YEAR, YOU'RE GOING TO FIND YOURSELF PAYING MUCH MORE THAN YOU'RE PAYING NOW.

AND I WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE ARE SAYING, YEAH, WE'RE LOWERING THE RATE, YOU KNOW, BUT THE REALITY IS THAT 25 CUBIC HUNDRED CUBIC GALLONS OF WATER IS COMPARED TO 700 CUBIC GALLONS OF WATER.

IT'S A BIG DIFFERENCE.

AND EVEN THOUGH PEOPLE ARE NOT USING THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE ARE NOT USING THE 2500 CUBIC GALLONS OF WATER THAT ARE OUT THERE ALLOTTED.

NOW, THERE'S GOING TO BE A BIG DIFFERENCE IF WE DON'T BECOME VERY AWARE OF THE FACT THAT WE NEED TO CONSERVE WATER AND THIS IS MANDATORY BY THE STATE.

AND SO WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT IT IS UPON US, THE CITY, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE EDUCATE OUR CUSTOMERS OF THIS UPCOMING COST THAT THEY MIGHT INCUR.

BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE LOOKING AT AT A LOWER RATE.

AND BY THE WAY, WE WE ARE SPENDING MONEY.

WHAT IS IT WE WANT TO SEE THE AMOUNT.

REMIND ME OF THE AMOUNT, MR. HERBERT, THAT WE'RE SPENDING.

IS IT 2.3, I BELIEVE? YEAH. THE SUBSIDY FOR THE CURVES.

YEAH. TO PHASE IN THESE RATE STRUCTURE CHANGES, WE'RE USING 2.3 MILLION OF RATE STABILIZATION RESERVES.

THESE ARE EXISTING RESERVES THAT THE CITY HAS ACCUMULATED OVER TIME TO PHASE IN THE RATE STRUCTURE CHANGE.

THANK YOU. I DID HAVE THE AMOUNT CORRECT, $2.3 MILLION TO SUBSIDIZE THE RATES.

SO IF PEOPLE ARE THINKING THAT SOMEHOW THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE PAYING AS MUCH AT THE END OF THE OF THE FIFTH YEAR ONTO THE SIXTH YEAR, THEY NEED TO BE AWARE THAT THAT'S NOT THE CASE. SO WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN AT THIS POINT TO KIND OF MINIMIZE THE PAIN THAT THIS IS GOING TO COST TO THEIR FINANCES.

BUT PEOPLE NEED TO LEARN THAT EVENTUALLY THEY NEED TO GET THERE TO THAT 700 CUBIC GALLONS PER HOUSEHOLD.

AND THAT IS A VERY SMALL AMOUNT OF WATER.

SO THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS.

I DON'T WANT TO SUGARCOAT IT BECAUSE THERE'S NO BENEFIT IN THAT.

WE WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS US.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

MEMBER SALDANA NO, NO COMMENTS, NO QUESTIONS.

AND I HAVE NO COMMENTS.

MADAM CLERK, CAN YOU PLEASE START THE TABULATION PROCESS? OKAY, MAYOR, WE DO WANT TO DO A CLARIFICATION ON THE STAFF REPORT WITH REGARDS TO THE PARCELS.

YES, GO AHEAD. AND SO WHEN THE WHEN THE AGENDA WAS PUT TOGETHER, WE USED THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNIQUE APRNS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS.

AND THIS IS THE THIS IS A CORRECT NUMBER, 5567 5567 UNIQUE APRNS OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF FAIRNESS AND CAUTION, WE'RE REMOVING THE CITY OWNED PARCELS FROM THAT COUNT BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THE CITY IS NOT GOING TO VOTE THEIR PARCELS AGAINST THIS PARTICULAR RATE INCREASE.

AND SO THIS HAS THE EFFECT OF LOWERING THAT 50% PLUS ONE THRESHOLD.

AND WE THOUGHT THAT WAS THE FAIREST THING TO DO.

SO WHEN WE'RE READING THROUGH THE AGENDA AND WHEN WE WERE TELLING THE PROTESTS THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED, IT'S NOT AGAINST THE 55, 67 OR HALF OF THAT NUMBER, WE ACTUALLY SUBTRACT THE 88 CITY PARCEL OWNED CITY OWNED PARCELS.

FIRST, WE COME UP WITH 5479 TOTAL UNIQUE PARCELS.

WE DIVIDE THAT BY TWO AND ADD ONE.

THAT'S 5740.

SO IF WHEN WE WERE TALLYING THESE RECEIVED 2000, WHAT DID I SAY, 5000.

[00:55:06]

YEAH, I'M EXCUSE ME 2740 THAT IS THE THRESHOLD WOULD BE THE THRESHOLD.

SO IF WE RECEIVE THAT NUMBER OR HIGHER THAN THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A LEGITIMATE PROTEST VOTE IN THE COUNCIL WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ADOPT TONIGHT ANYTHING LOWER THAN THAT OR APPARENTLY INSUFFICIENT.

AND THIS IS THE WORDING FOR THIS IS IN YOUR YOUR STAFF REPORT AS WELL.

WE ESTIMATE THERE ARE A COUPLE TO THREE OR 400 TOTAL PROCESS.

PROTESTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED NOWHERE NEAR THE 2000.

BUT NONETHELESS, OUT OF TRANSPARENCY, WE WILL BE TALLYING THE RECEIVED ITEMS TONIGHT TO QUICKLY COME UP WITH THE NUMBER.

WE'RE GOING TO ASSUME THAT EVERY ONE OF THEM THAT WE COUNT TONIGHT IS VALID AND CAN BE VALIDATED.

AND IF WE ARE ANYWHERE NEAR THE 2700, WE WILL REASSESS THIS ACTION, DO A SEPARATE PROCESS TO VALIDATE EACH VOTE, MAKE SURE IT'S LEGITIMATE. IT'S NOT A DOUBLE COUNT, AND THEN WE'LL COME UP WITH THE NUMBER.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YES, SIR. OKAY.

SO I THINK NOW WE TURN IT BACK OVER TO THE CLERK WHO WILL PROCEED WITH THE TALLYING PROCESS.

OKAY. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS.

BEFORE WE START THE TABULATION TABULATION PROCESS, I WILL LIKE TO MENTION HOW THIS PROCESS WILL BE TAKING PLACE IN FRONT OF ME.

WE HAVE THE PROTEST LETTERS THAT WERE RECEIVED IN OUR CITY FACILITIES.

WE WILL OPEN AND WE WILL OPEN INDIVIDUAL ENVELOPES AND TABULATE THE PROTEST LETTERS.

I WILL READ EACH PROTEST LETTER TO IDENTIFY IF THERE'S MORE THAN ONE PROPERTY LISTED.

AND AGAIN, AS THE CITY MANAGER MENTIONED, THAT THERE WILL BE NO ATTEMPT TO VALIDATE THE PROTEST LETTERS AT THIS POINT, ONLY TO DETERMINE THE NUMBER OF RECEIPT.

I WILL SAY THE NUMBER OF THE PROTESTS IN EACH LETTER TO THE DEPUTY CITY CLERK AND SHALL PLACE THE.

THEN I WILL PLACE THE LETTER ON THE BOX AND THEN SHE WILL ADD THE NUMBER ON HER SPREADSHEET.

IN THE END, SHE WILL CALCULATE HOW MANY PROTEST LETTERS WERE RECEIVED.

I WILL ANNOUNCE THE THE AMOUNT TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

AND AGAIN, AS THE CITY MANAGER MENTIONED, AS OF TODAY, THE TOTAL PARCEL NET AMOUNT IS 5179 AND THAT IS EXCLUDING THE CITY OWNED PARCELS AND IN ORDER IN ORDER TO MEET THE MAJORITY OF THE PROTESTS, WE MUST RECEIVE 2740 PROTEST LETTERS.

IF THE AMOUNT IS NOT REACHED, WE WILL END THE PROTEST PROCESS.

IF WE REACH THAT AMOUNT, I WILL SEAL THE BOX AND REQUEST THE CITY COUNCIL TO SCHEDULE A SPECIAL MEETING TO VERIFY THE TABULATED TABULATION.

AND NOW WE WILL PROCEED WITH THE TABULATION PROCESS IF I CAN HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR VIA.

AND MAYBE ISRAEL TOO.

IF YOU CAN COME OVER, PLEASE YOU, TO TRY TO MAKE THE PROCESS A LITTLE FASTER.

PUT THE CAMERA ON THE ZOOM AND GIVE ME THE ENVELOPE AND I'LL START.

HOW CAN I. MADAM CLERK, MAKE SURE THAT THE PROCESS IS THIS AFTERNOON WHEN YOU FINALLY GET THEM.

IT SHOULD BE RIGHT. YES, THEY'RE BROADCASTING.

SO. YES. SO WE HAVE AT LEAST THREE CAMERAS ON.

THEY MAY NOT BE ALL FOCUSED ON.

NO, THAT'S RIGHT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS TRANSPARENT.

YOU SURE ABOUT MY SNACKS AND MY MICROPHONE? I ALSO RECEIVED FIVE PROTEST LETTERS.

ONE. WHAT? THAT. YOU CAN IMAGINE.

ONE PROTEST LETTER TO.

ONE PROTECTION I'LL PUT IN MY.

SO I NEED SOME. ONE FROM

[01:00:05]

ONE. YEAH.

THIS IS THIS IS PART OF THEIR OTHER DUTIES AS ASSIGNED TO WORK ONE PROCESS EVERY DAY. DOES THAT MEAN OPENING THE MAIL OF ANY OTHER LANGUAGES SO THAT WHAT YOU SAID IS JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT ONE PERSON.

ONE ONE. ONE.

ONE. THIS IS ANOTHER THING.

THREE. IS ONE.

ONE PROTEST LETTER.

ONE. ONE PUBLIC LETTER.

FOR. I DIDN'T FIND.

ON THIS TWO PROTEST LETTERS THAT WERE RECEIVED.

THERE'S NO APNE AND NO ADDRESS, SO I CANNOT RECEIVE THESE TWO PROTEST LETTERS.

I WAS LOOKING AT THIS ONE FROM.

YOU TAKE 99 OR FIVE.

HOW MANY WERE IN THAT LAST ONE? HOW MANY WERE IN THAT LAST BATCH? THE ONE THAT THAT YOU JUST PUT DOWN.

ONE OK KEEPING US BACK UP.

TALLY FROM THIS LETTER.

ONE PROTESTER.

FOR PURPOSE LETTERS FOR THIS.

YOU CAN ASK. MARIA. MARIA? MARIA. LAURA, CAN YOU HELP US OUT, PLEASE?

[01:05:06]

ONE PROTEST. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WENT TO.

THEY TURNED THEM IN LIKE ONE PROTEST LETTER.

ONE PROTEST LETTER.

ONE PROTEST CENTER.

ONE PROTESTER.

ONE PROTEST. ONE PROTEST LETTER.

THREE PROTEST CENTERS.

ZERO. ONE PROTEST.

BUT ONE PROCESS.

THIS ONE TOOK CENTER.

ONE PROTEST LETTER.

EIGHT PROTEST LETTERS.

EIGHT? YES.

HEY, THIS IS ANOTHER PROTEST LETTER THAT I RECEIVED WITHOUT AN ADDRESS OR APN.

SO THIS IS NOT A VALID PROTEST LETTER.

ONE. ONE.

ONE. ONE OF.

[01:10:10]

ONE PROTEST LETTER.

THREE. BUT TO PROTEST BETTER? YES.

ONE PROTEST LETTER.

ONE PROTEST LETTER. ONE PROTEST LETTER.

ONE PROTEST LETTER.

THAT IS GOOD.

ONE PROTEST LETTER.

ONE PROTEST LETTER FROM.

[01:15:04]

YOU'RE THERE TO PROTEST LETTERS.

ONE PROTEST LETTER.

TWO PROTEST LETTERS.

ONE PROTEST LETTER.

FOR MORE. THIS IS ANOTHER PROTEST LETTER THAT I RECEIVED WITHOUT A NAME, WITHOUT AN ADDRESS, AND WITHOUT A PM.

ACTUALLY, THE NAME IS THERE, BUT NO APN AND NO ADDRESS.

SO THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

ONE PROTEST LETTER.

WHAT A PROTEST LETTER YOU GUYS HAVE PUT IN YOUR ONE PROTEST LETTER.

ONE PROTEST LETTER.

THIS IS A COUNTY ADDRESS.

SO IT'S NOT WITHIN CITY LIMITS.

DOES IT HAVE AN APN AND IT ONLY HAS AN ADDRESS AND IT'S A COUNTY ADDRESS.

IT'S NOT. WELL, WE AREN'T TRYING TO VALIDATE, SO LET'S COUNT IT.

ONE PROTEST LETTER.

AND THAT, TOO. OH, NO.

THOSE ARE MY REJECTIONS.

THAT'S IT. ONE PROTEST LETTER.

THANK YOU. THANKS. THREE PROTEST LETTERS. ONE PROTEST LETTER.

[01:20:05]

ONE PROTEST LETTER.

TWO PROTEST LETTERS.

ONE PROTEST LETTER.

WE HAVE ANOTHER ONE THAT DOES NOT HAVE AN ADDRESS OR A NUMBER ON THE LETTER OF PROTEST.

I CANNOT ACCEPT THIS ONE.

ONE PROTEST LETTER.

THIS IS ANOTHER ONE THAT DOES NOT HAVE AN APN OR AN ADDRESS.

SO THIS LETTER IS NOT ACCEPTED.

ONE PROTEST LETTER.

LUMP. ONE PROTEST LETTER.

[01:25:05]

THIS IS ANOTHER ONE THAT WAS NOT THEY DIDN'T ADD THE ADDRESS OR THE AP NUMBER.

SO THIS PROTEST LETTER IS NOT ACCEPTED.

WHICH YOU CAN TOTAL UP THE SUM OF WHAT WAS RECEIVED.

BUT THIS. DO WE NEED TO ASK? ISRAEL. BUT IS THAT DO YOU GET IT ON THAT SIDE? 238 PROTEST LETTERS, WHICH IN THIS CASE IT DOESN'T MEET THE AMOUNT, THE MAJORITY OF THE PROTEST LETTERS. SO IF THE MAYOR CAN PROCEED WITH THE ITEM SO THIS CANCELS THE PROTEST RIGHT.

AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION REGARDING THE NEW SEWER RATE ADJUSTMENT SCHEDULE.

[01:30:08]

I'LL MAKE THE MOTION.

I'LL IT AWAY. IT'S BEEN MOVED IN.

SECONDED. MADAM CLERK, CAN YOU CALL THE VOTE BY? ROLL CALL, PLEASE? YES.

MAYOR MARTINEZ.

MAYOR PRO TEM GARCIA.

COUNCILMEMBER MEDINA.

COUNCILMAN MAYOR REYNA I COUNCIL MEMBER SALDANA, I MOTION BY MAYOR MARTINEZ, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN MAYOR REYNA TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FIVE YEAR WATER RATE. I'M SORRY, A WATER AND SEWER RATE ADJUSTMENT SCHEDULE FOR CUSTOMERS OF RECORD.

MOTION IS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

ITEM NUMBER 11 DEFERRED BUSINESS WE HAVE DONE MOVING ON TO ITEM 12 NEW BUSINESS REORGANIZATION OF CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS.

[12)a. Reorganization of City Council Committee Assignments.]

MR. HERBERT. YES, HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL.

WE HAVE A NUMBER OF CITY STANDING COMMITTEES WITH VARIOUS MEMBERSHIP.

TONIGHT'S DISCUSSION IS FOR THE COUNCIL TO MOVE THROUGH THOSE COMMITTEES.

FIRST OF ALL, DECIDE IF THE COMMITTEE IS STILL RELEVANT OR WHETHER WE WANT TO CONTINUE HAVING THAT COMMITTEE OR WHETHER IT SHOULD BE REMOVED TONIGHT.

AND THEN SECONDLY, TO ASSIGN THE MEMBERS OF THAT COMMITTEE AND THEY FALL INTO TWO GENERAL CATEGORIES.

IF WE CAN PULL UP THE WELL, WE HAVE INTERNAL COMMITTEES AND THEN WE HAVE COMMITTEES THAT ARE FOR EXTERNAL ORGANIZATIONS BY VIRTUE OF SOME BY VIRTUE OF OF POSITIONS SUCH AS MAYOR OR MAYOR PRO TEM.

IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, WE'LL WALK YOU THROUGH THAT PROCESS.

OTHERWISE, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO YOU.

MR. MAYOR, ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THIS TIME? SEE, NONE.

FOR EACH TO START GOING THROUGH THE LIST.

WHERE IS THE LIST? RIGHT THERE. OH, SORRY.

SO IF WE CAN START WITH THE LIST, WE CAN START WITH THE INTERVIEWS FOR THE INTERVIEWERS, FOR THE RECRUITMENT OF THE BOARDS AND COMMISSION.

CURRENTLY, WE HAVE COUNCIL MEMBER GARCIA AND FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER FLORES.

IF YOU GUYS WANT TO GO AHEAD AND APPOINT MR. MAYOR, I WOULD WOULDN'T MIND CONTINUING TO SERVE AND WOULD NOMINATE MEMBERS OR YOURSELF FOR ALTERNATE MEMBER.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM ANY OF THE MEMBERS? NO COMMENTS FROM ME. I AM OKAY WITH THAT.

DO WE NEED A MOTION FOR EACH OF THESE? NO, WE DO NOT NEED A MOTION.

WE'RE JUST GOING TO WRITE IT DOWN AND PROCEED.

WE'LL HAVE ONE ACTION FOR ALL THE LIST.

OKAY. LEGISLATIVE BILL INTRODUCTIONS FROM LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES.

DO WE HAVE ANY NOMINATIONS OR COMMENTS? MAYOR, I BELIEVE I SERVE ON THAT COMMITTEE.

IF YOU DO, I WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE THAT, IF THAT'S YOUR PLEASURE.

ABSOLUTELY. ABSOLUTELY.

JUST TO SPREAD IT OUT, DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY INTEREST IN BEING ON THAT? I DON'T WANT TO HOG ALL THE COMMITTEES.

THERE'S OTHERS THAT I'M INTERESTED IN.

I MEAN, I'M OKAY WITH STAYING ON, SO WE'LL KEEP ME AND MEMBER GARCIA THEN.

MAYOR REYNA. I'M SORRY. WASCO COMMUNITY TASK FORCE.

THIS WAS ORIGINALLY A PUBLIC SAFETY THING TO EXPLORE DEVELOPMENT OF PD.

WE KIND OF TRIED TO MOVE IT INTO A DIFFERENT KIND OF COMMITTEE AND IT DIDN'T QUITE PAN OUT.

OUR LAST MEETING, OTHER THAN THE ONES THAT WE HAD WITH MEMBER URENA SPECIFICALLY REGARDING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, WHEN WE TRIED TO DO A TASK FORCE THE LAST MEETING, WE HAD TWO PEOPLE, MYSELF AND SHARON NICOLE, THAT SHOWED UP.

SO UNLESS ANYBODY HAS AN INTEREST TO TRY TO SPARK THIS INTO A COMMUNITY TASK FORCE, I THINK IT'S KIND OF RAN ITS COURSE.

UNLESS THERE IS A MEMBER THAT WOULD LIKE TO TAKE IT OVER AND TRY SOMETHING NEW.

MAYOR, IF I MAY SAY, I THINK THERE IS A NEED NOW MORE THAN EVER BECAUSE WE HAVE A NEW POLICE CHIEF TO TO HAVE THAT ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC.

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS ANY INTEREST FROM THOSE THAT ATTENDED PREVIOUSLY.

I DIDN'T KNOW THAT YOU HAVE CALLED TASK FORCE MEETING RECENTLY.

NO, THIS WAS THIS WAS BEFORE WE STARTED DOING THE MEETING SPECIFIC TO THE POLICE PART.

AND A LOT OF THESE THINGS AS TIMING PEOPLE MAY BE GOING ON VACATION, PEOPLE MAYBE BUSY DOING THEIR DAILY LIVES.

SO MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE THAT YOU DO NOT DISBAND THAT, BUT ACTUALLY KEEP IT AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN GENERATE SOME INTEREST IN THE PEOPLE TO CONTINUE TO SERVE. YOU'VE DONE A GREAT JOB IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE DOING THAT.

I WOULD PROPOSE THAT YOU DID.

FOR ME. THERE'S A TIME ISSUE JUST WITH SOME THINGS GOING ON.

I DON'T HAVE THE TIME TO DEDICATE TO REALLY DOING IT AS A TASK FORCE LOOKING FOR PROJECTS.

[01:35:03]

BUT IF ANYBODY, IF WE WANT TO KEEP IT AS MORE OF AN INPUT FOR THE FORMATION OF OUR DEPARTMENT AND MAYBE MEET OCCASIONALLY AS THINGS ARE NEEDED, THAT COMMITTEE, THAT COMMITTEE HAS NOT DISBANDED, BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE TASK FORCE IN GENERAL.

AND SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT IT DOESN'T GET DISBANDED OR YEAH, WE CAN CONTINUE IT.

I THINK MAYBE MAYBE ONE OF THE NEW MEMBERS WOULD LIKE TO BE PART OF IT.

YEAH, I MEAN, THAT WAS ONE THAT WAS KIND OF INTERESTING, IF ANYTHING.

I MEAN, IF ANYTHING, IT'S TO OPEN IT UP TO THE COMMUNITY.

RIGHT? WE ARE INITIATING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, SO.

WELL, YEAH, BUT THE TASK FORCE ADDRESSES OTHER THINGS.

WE HAVE A COMMITTEE THAT MAYOR AND I ARE MEMBERS OF, AND THAT IS SPECIFICALLY TO ADVISE REGARDING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

BUT THERE IS A HOST OF OTHER THINGS THAT THE TASK FORCE DOES AND IS VERY HAS BEEN INSTRUMENTAL IN DOING, LIKE THE THE ROSE GARDEN, THE RENOVATION OF THE ROSE GARDEN, THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT CAME THROUGH THE TASK FORCE.

AND SO THERE'S THERE ARE ALSO INVOLVED IN THE BEAUTIFICATION OF DOWNTOWN.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I HAVE HAD INTEREST IN AS WELL.

SO THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT COME THROUGH THROUGH THAT TASK FORCE THAT WOULD BE GOOD.

AND, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THAT, I WOULD BE GLADLY SERVED WITH YOU IN IT.

BUT I CAN'T TAKE IT OVER BECAUSE I HAVE ALREADY A LOT ON MY PLATE.

YEAH. I MEAN, I'D ASK FOR GUIDANCE AND HELP.

YEAH, BUT YEAH, YOU CAN SOME.

YEAH. SO REMEMBER MEDINA AND MEMBER RAINA WILL BE ON THE WASCO COMMUNITY TASK FORCE ILLEGAL FIREWORKS COMMITTEE. DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS FOR.

WE'D LIKE TO WELCOME YOU THAT.

I DON'T LIKE THAT. I DON'T.

I DON'T RECALL HAVING AN ACTUAL COMMITTEE FOR IT.

WE HAD AN AD HOC. YEAH, WE DID THAT BECAUSE WE NEEDED TO FIND SOLUTIONS.

AND AS YOU KNOW, WE KNOW THAT THE SOLUTIONS ARE REALLY BEYOND WHAT WE CAN DO.

IT'S A BIG PROBLEM.

IT'S NOT JUST ENDEMIC TO OUR CITY, BUT IT'S ENDEMIC TO THE ENTIRE STATE.

AND SO I THINK DISBANDING THIS COMMITTEE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.

I DON'T KNOW. MR. HERBERT, WHAT DO YOU THINK? I AGREE. THIS THIS WILL FALL.

IT CURRENTLY RESIDES WITH OUR PUBLIC SAFETY CONTRACTS AND WITH NOW WITH A CHIEF OF POLICE.

I THINK IF THERE'S A NEED FOR SPECIFIC PROJECTS OR CONSIDERING OF OF CONTRACT OR CONSULTANT WORK IN THIS AREA, THE AD HOC COMMITTEE COULD BE REFORMED EASILY.

SO AND I DO WANT TO SAY THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME OUT OF THIS IS THE CHIEF OF FIRE CHIEF SAID, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T DO THIS.

YOU KNOW, PEOPLE ARE ARE BEING AGGRESSIVE TOWARDS US.

THEY THEY THREATEN US.

SO IT GOES BEYOND WHAT THIS COMMITTEE CAN DO TO SOLVE THAT ISSUE.

CORRECT. AND I AGREE WITH YOU.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT MAYBE ONCE WE HAVE OUR OWN POLICE DEPARTMENT, WE CAN TAKE ON.

TRUE. SO MY PROPOSAL IS THAT IT GETS DISBANDED.

OKAY. SO WE WILL DISBAND THAT CURRENT COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS.

QUICK QUESTION. WHAT DATE ARE THEY TYPICALLY MEET? IT IS ON THURSDAYS.

AND, YOU KNOW, I'VE SERVED THERE AND I WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO SERVE.

BUT THAT IS, OF COURSE, UNLESS YOU WANT TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

AND RIGHT NOW, I AM THE PRINCIPAL AND ALEX IS THE SECOND ONE, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD.

BUT YOU DECIDE.

I KNOW TYPICALLY THE MAYOR IS A MEMBER OF THAT, BUT THURSDAYS DO CONFLICT WITH ME.

SO WE WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THE MAYOR ON THAT COMMITTEE, DO WE? NO, IT'S JUST A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL.

SO I WANT TO SAY THAT THERE IS A BENEFIT TO HAVING CONTINUITY, TO SERVING IN THAT THERE IS A MEMBER THERE THAT HAS SERVED FOR OVER 25 YEARS.

AND I THINK THAT THERE IS KNOW HE'S BEEN ABLE TO ACHIEVE THINGS THROUGH THE CURRENT COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENT.

THAT WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED AND HAD IT HAD IT NOT BEEN THROUGH HIS PERSISTENCE ABOUT SOMETHING SPECIFIC, WHICH WE, THE CITY OF THE AJP, WANTED TO ACCOMPLISH, WHICH WAS THE PASSING LANES, THE TRUCKING PASSING LANES.

AND NOW THOSE ARE GOING TO BECOME A REALITY.

SO BUT HE'S BEEN THERE FOR 25 YEARS.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT IT WILL BE THERE FOR 25 YEARS, BUT I THINK THERE'S A BENEFIT TO BEING CONSISTENT THERE.

AND IF ALEX WANTS TO.

YEAH. AND IF ALEX WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO SERVE AS.

YEAH. NO, ABSOLUTELY. I DON'T MIND SERVING.

I MEAN THAT SOUNDS GOOD TO ME.

CONTINUING EVERYBODY ELSE OKAY WITH THAT.

THAT'S WHY. YORK CITY SELECTION COMMITTEE IS PART OF THE COG AS WELL.

[01:40:02]

THAT'S PART OF THE CITY SELECTION COMMITTEE.

SO THEN THE VACANT ALTERNATE WOULD BE MEMBER GARCIA THEN? YEAH. OK SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT'S SPECIAL CITY SELECTION COMMITTEE.

THAT ONE IS A MOUTHFUL.

CURRENTLY, MEMBER GARCIA AND I SERVE AS THE ALTERNATE.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO CONTINUE WITH THAT? THAT WOULD BE FINE. IT MEETS INFREQUENTLY.

I WOULD LIKE TO NOMINATE MEMBER SALDANA JUST TO GIVE HIM AN OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE ON A COMMITTEE.

IF YOU'RE OKAY.

THAT. AND THEN CURRENT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ALEX YOU'RE CURRENTLY ON THAT.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO CONTINUE? YES, I WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE, SIR.

OKAY. AND WE DON'T NEED AN ALTERNATE FOR THAT ONE.

IT'S JUST ONE MORE.

SO IT'S JUST ONE VOTER AND NOT AN ALTERNATE ON THAT.

MAYBE. OBVIOUSLY, THE MANAGER HAS A DIFFERENT.

NO, I THINK ALL OF YOUR CHOICES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ARE FINE.

THEY'RE GREAT HERE.

SO IT'S MY PLACE.

MAYOR PRO TEM GARCIA, THE EDC FOR EDC.

ALL RIGHT. SO I WOULD LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE NEW COMMITTEE MEMBERS.

SO MOVED TO SECOND.

IT'S BEEN MOVED IN. SECONDED.

CAN WE HAVE THE VOTE BY ROLL CALL, PLEASE? YES. MAYOR MARTINEZ.

MAYOR PRO TEM GARCIA.

COUNCILMEMBER MEDINA.

COUNCILMAN MAYOR REYNA I COUNCIL MEMBER SALDANA, I MOTION BY COUNCILMAN MAYOR REYNA, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM GARCIA TO APPROVE THE REORGANIZATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS LIST MOTION AS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED ITEM B ADOPT A RESOLUTION CHANGING THE SEWER RATES FOR THE WASCO ELEMENTARY UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT MIDDLE

[12)b. Adopt a Resolution changing the Sewer Rates for the Wasco Elementary Union School District Middle Schools from High School rates to Elementary rates and find that this action is not a project as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c) (3), no environmental review is required]

SCHOOLS FROM HIGH SCHOOL RATES TO ELEMENTARY RATES, AND FIND THAT THIS ACTION IS NOT A PROJECT AS DEFINED UNDER CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.

SEAQUEST STATE GUIDELINES.

THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO STATE GUIDELINES, SECTION 15 O 60 C THREE NO ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED TO SEVERE.

ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

DURING THE SEWER AND WATER RATE STUDY AND MEETING WITH THE WASCO ELEMENTARY DISTRICT, IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION.

THE MIDDLE SCHOOLS NO LONGER USE SHOWERS.

THIS CHANGES THE WAY SEWER RATES CALCULATE AND SHOULD BE MORE IN LINE WITH ELEMENTARY RATES VERSUS THE HIGH SCHOOL RATES DUE TO THE DIFFERENCE IN WATER USAGE.

WITH THIS, STAFF RECOMMENDS AMENDING THE SEWER RATES FOR THE WASCO UNION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT.

MIDDLE SCHOOLS FOR HIGH SCHOOL RATES TO ELEMENTARY RATES.

AND WITH THAT, I'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.

ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THIS TIME? YES, SIR. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL.

AS YOU GUYS KNOW, ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT WITH THE SCHOOL UNIT IMAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT.

FIRST OFF, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE CITY MR. V'S TEAM FOR CONSIDERING AND MEETING WITH US AND BEING DILIGENT IN THIS MATTER.

I THINK WHAT MR. VILA JUST ECHOED IS SOMETHING THAT WE DO WANT TO THANK YOU GUYS AND ALSO CONSIDER OUR ADA.

AS AS REPORTED BY YOUR CONSULTANT, WHICH IS A VERY GOOD REPORT AND COMMENDABLE FOR THE WORK THAT THEY CREATED.

OUR ADA IS NOT SOMETHING THAT'S VERY CONTINGENT OR SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WE HAVE IN TRADITIONAL MIDDLE SCHOOLS.

OTHER MIDDLE SCHOOLS DO OPERATE ON A BIG ADA, FOR EXAMPLE, PER CAPITA OF STUDENT OVER 1000 STUDENTS, FOR EXAMPLE, OUR MIDDLE SCHOOLS ARE RELATIVELY AT SIZE WITH THE ELEMENTARIES, WHICH IS AN AVERAGE ABOUT 580 TO 600 STUDENTS.

SO THE CONSIDERATION TO THAT THAT WAS I WAS BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE CITY.

MR. MILLER'S TEAM WERE DILIGENT WITH US.

AND, YOU KNOW, WE DID HAVE A MEETING.

UNFORTUNATELY, I COULDN'T JOIN THAT MEETING.

BUT OUR OUR CBO LED THAT MEETING IN REGARDS TO OUR OUR JUSTIFICATIONS ON WHY WE NEEDED TO HAPPEN.

AS YOU GUYS KNOW, AS A CITY OF WASCO AND THE ELEMENTARY DISTRICT THAT SERVES THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE, WE ARE DECLINING ENROLLMENT AND WE ARE FACING BUDGET BUDGET CONSTRAINTS. EVEN THOUGH THE GOVERNOR DOES SAY THAT THERE WILL BE AN INCREASE IN BUDGET OF EDUCATION, THAT'S REALLY NOT THE CASE BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT DROPPING ANY MONEY IN THE GENERAL FUND ARE BUILT TOWARDS YOU GUYS.

AS A CITY IS COMING FROM OUR GENERAL FUND.

IT DOESN'T COME FROM A BLOCK GRANT OR ANY TYPE OF SPECIALIZED FUNDING THAT THE STATE GIVES US.

IT NEEDS TO COME FROM OUR GENERAL FUND.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE CITY COUNCIL.

I THINK MAYOR MR. VILLA SEEMED A CONSULTANT FOR SUCH A GREAT WORK FOR CONSIDERING THIS, AS IT WOULD ALSO SAVE MONIES AND FUNDS TO CONTINUE TO SERVE OUR STUDENTS, WHICH ULTIMATELY THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE TO DO. OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU. MR. LEWIS. ANY COMMENTS FROM THE MEMBERS? MAYOR PRO TEM GARCIA NONE.

MEMBER MEDINA NO COMMENT.

MARINA I JUST CAN'T RESIST SAYING THIS.

I INSISTED FROM THE BEGINNING THAT THE SCHOOL BE INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS AND THEY WEREN'T IN THE BEGINNING, BUT I'M GLAD THAT WE WERE ABLE TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES THAT AROSE

[01:45:02]

AFTERWARDS. SO THANK YOU.

THANK YOU ALL. REMEMBER SALDANA, NO COMMENTS.

AND I THINK THIS IS A GREAT IDEA FROM ALISON'S PRESENTATION.

I THINK IT MAKES SENSE. SO I WILL MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THIS.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

I'D LIKE TO. MADAM CLERK, CAN YOU DO THE VOTE BY ROLL CALL? YES. MAYOR MARTINEZ.

MAYOR PRO TEM GARCIA.

COUNCILMEMBER MEDINA, COUNCILMEMBER ARENA I COUNCILMEMBER SALDANA I MOTION BY MAYOR MARTINEZ, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MEDINA TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION MOTION IS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

ALL RIGHT. ITEM C, ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO FINALIZE AND EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH BLUE LIGHT SOLUTIONS TO

[12)c. Adopt A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager or Designee to Finalize and Execute a Professional Services Agreement with Blue Light Solutions to Provide Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Background Investigations for Peace Officers and Public Safety Dispatchers and find that this action is not a project as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c) (3), no environmental review is required.]

PROVIDE PEACE OFFICER STANDARDS AND TRAINING, POST BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS FOR PEACE OFFICERS AND PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCHERS, AND FIND THAT THIS ACTION IS NOT A PROJECT AS DEFINED UNDER CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT STATE GUIDELINES.

THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO STATE GUIDELINES 15 06C3 NO ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED.

MR. HOPPER YES.

HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL.

IF YOU'LL RECALL FROM OUR LAST MEETING, WE APPROVED THE CONSULTING AGREEMENT FOR BACKGROUND CHECKS WITH THE FIRST COMPANY.

IT IT SEEMS PRETTY CLEAR WE'RE GOING TO END UP WITH A LOGJAM OF RECRUITMENT AND BACKGROUND CHECKS AND THOUGHT IT PRUDENT TO HAVE A SECOND CONSULTANT CAPABLE OF TAKING SOME OF THAT WORKLOAD AS WE PROCEED WITH THE RECRUITMENT PROCESS.

BLUE LIGHT SOLUTIONS HAS SIMILAR IN SOME AREAS, PERHAPS SUPERIOR WITH THEIR SIZE OF THEIR OF THEIR STAFF AND EXPERIENCE TO BE ABLE TO PERFORM THESE POST INVESTING BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS FOR OUR RECRUITS AND HAVE OFFERED THOSE SERVICES AT A COMPETITIVE PRICE.

AND WE BELIEVE THEY ARE CAPABLE OF PERFORMING THOSE SERVICES.

SO THIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO INDIVIDUAL TASK ORDERS THAT WE PROVIDE ON AN ONGOING BASIS AS WE NEED BACKGROUNDS PERFORMED.

IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, I CAN ATTEMPT TO ANSWER THOSE AND AND THE CHIEF MAY BE ABLE TO BACK ME UP IF IF WE IF I GET STUMPED.

ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THIS TIME, MR. MAYOR, WHAT WAS THE.

OH, I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD.

PERFECT. THERE YOU GO. PLEASE COME FORWARD.

YOU WERE ABOUT TO ASK ME.

LET'S BEGIN. LET'S ALLOW GENESIS INTO A MICROPHONE.

OKAY. MY NAME IS LUCILA LARA.

ONCE AGAIN, I'M HERE TO REMIND YOU.

PLEASE, HOPEFULLY.

AND THINGS WILL GOOD WILL GO WELL WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

AND NOT BAD, BECAUSE WHAT THE SHERIFF'S IN THE EIGHTIES, WHEN WE HAD A BIG PROBLEM WITH THE CITY POLICE, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU DON'T REMEMBER, YOU DIDN'T LIVE HERE.

THAT'S WHY THE SHERIFFS CAME IN.

NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE BETTER THAN WITH THE SHERIFFS.

BUT IF YOU GUYS MADE THAT DECISION, HOPEFULLY I DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK AND TALK TO YOU ABOUT WHATEVER HAPPENS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

ANY COMMENTS FROM THE MEMBERS, MAYOR PRO TEM GARCIA? JUST WHO WAS THE FIRST VENDOR WE CONTRACTED WITH AGAIN? M P M P.

AM I IS THE FIRST ORGANIZATION AND IT'S THE PARTNER'S INITIALS.

I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN DO THOSE WITHOUT THE REFERENCE INFORMATION.

THAT'S WHAT I CAN DO. IT'S A SEPARATE COMPANY.

NO, I CAN DIG IT UP FROM THE MINUTES.

I JUST. IF YOU HAD IT OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD.

THANK YOU. REMEMBER MEDINA? NO COMMENT. REMEMBER, RAINA? WELL, THIS LEADS ME TO BELIEVE WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING A LOT OF HIRING, AND WE DON'T WANT BOTTLENECKS, SO I'M HAPPY FOR THAT.

REMEMBER SALDANA, NO COMMENTS, AND I HAVE NO COMMENTS.

I'D LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

SO MOVE THE SECOND.

IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

MADAM CLERK, CAN YOU CALL THE VOTE BY? ROLL CALL, PLEASE. MAYOR MARTINEZ MAYOR PRO TEM GARCIA.

ALL RIGHT. COUNCILMEMBER MEDINA.

COUNCILMEMBER RINA.

HI, COUNCILMEMBER SALDANA.

HI. MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM GARCIA, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MEDINA TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION.

MOTION IS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

[12)d. Discuss, Direction, and Possible Adoption of A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager or his Designee to use The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) Funds for the Promotion of COVID-19 Vaccination Event(s) to Incentivize Community Participation and Find that this action is not a project as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c) (3), no environmental review is required.]

ITEM D DISCUSSED DIRECTION AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO USE THE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT OF 2021 ARPA FUNDS FOR THE PROMOTION OF COVID 19 VACCINATION EVENTS TO INCENTIVIZE COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND FIND THAT THIS ACTION IS NOT A PROJECT AS DEFINED UNDER CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT STATE GUIDELINES.

THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO STATE GUIDELINES, 15 O 60 C THREE NO ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED.

[01:50:01]

MR. HERBERT YES.

HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL.

AS YOU RECALL, LAST YEAR, THE COUNCIL APPROVED A $25,000 AMOUNT FOR THE PURCHASE AND DISTRIBUTION OF THESE INCENTIVE CARDS.

THEY ENDED UP BEING VISA OR MASTERCARD CASH CARDS, AND THOSE WERE SUCCESSFULLY DISTRIBUTED TO THE PUBLIC DURING THE VACCINATION EVENTS. AND BY ALL ACCOUNTS, THAT WAS A SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM.

THOSE CARDS HAVE BEEN USED.

THERE MAY BE A SMALL NUMBER REMAINING.

THEY'RE ALL GONE. SO THE LAST EVENT USED, THE LAST OF THOSE UP FOR DISCUSSION AMONGST THE COUNCIL TONIGHT WOULD BE WHETHER THAT THAT PROGRAM IS TO BE CONTINUED.

AND IF SO, WHAT WOULD BE THE DOLLAR AMOUNT LIMIT THAT WOULD BE PLACED UPON THAT AND OR THE NUMBER OF CARDS THAT WOULD BE DISTRIBUTED? THE STAFF CAN CALCULATE A PRETTY GOOD ESTIMATE OF THE OVERHEAD OF ACQUIRING THOSE CARDS, INCLUDING SHIPPING.

AND THERE'S A SURCHARGE ON EACH CARD.