3/3/26 Council Meeting & Posted Addendum
Council accepts police report, defers purchases
The most contested issue of the night was the Chico Police Department's annual report on military-grade equipment (things like drones, an armored rescue vehicle, and specialty firearms) — after extensive public comment and multiple competing motions, the council ultimately voted 4-3 to accept only the report itself, declining to approve the proposed equipment-use policy or 2026 purchases (including roughly $1.2 million in incident command vehicles), sending those decisions to the upcoming budget process instead. The council also voted 4-3 to send a letter supporting California Water Service's request to the state utilities commission for funding to remove "forever chemicals" (PFAS) from local wells. Other actions included exempting a planned CARD Aquatic Center from the city's tree-preservation rules (7-0) and agreeing to have the police chief give the council a periodic briefing on hiring, training, discipline, and crime trends (7-0). Public comment included a resident describing a recent antisemitic threat against local Jewish institutions, business owners raising downtown safety concerns, and speakers on both sides of the police equipment debate.
What happened, item by item
Mayor Reynolds opened the meeting at 6:02 p.m. with all members present, Councilmember O'Brien joining remotely. The council voted 6-1 to add a late-arriving item — a possible letter of support for California Water Service — to the agenda; Councilmember Goldstein cast the lone "no," saying, "I'm not comfortable adding an item like this last minute that impacts our citizens without enough time to review."
City Attorney Ryan Jones reported that before the open meeting, council received a briefing from a recruitment firm on the city manager search, discussed the Believe in Chico lawsuit and a lawsuit by Stephanie Lewis with legal counsel, and gave direction to labor negotiators. No formal votes were taken on any of these.
The council approved a batch of routine items in a single vote with no discussion and no speakers: final adoption of an ordinance updating how development fees are adjusted, a resolution approving a new labor contract with United Public Employees of California Local 792, a change in committee assignments moving Councilmember Van Overbeek's downtown improvement district seat to Councilmember O'Brien, and the minutes from the February 17 meeting.
Seven residents spoke on topics not otherwise on the agenda. A recurring theme was public safety and trust: one speaker described a recent antisemitic threat against local Jewish institutions, saying they were "disappointed" that only one councilmember had followed up with them; a downtown business owner asked for more police presence, saying "I love our police and you guys are always responding very quickly"; and another business owner, describing downtown conditions, said "If our downtown is trashy, nobody wants to come down here. And it's hurting businesses and our economy." A separate speaker described the difficulty homeless residents face getting into the city's Pallet shelter program, saying "Most people in this community have no idea how difficult it is for homeless people to get into the pallet shelter."
Police Captain Omar Pena — giving what the captain called "my first time presenting" — walked the council through the department's 2025 use of drones, an armored vehicle, less-lethal launchers and other equipment subject to state reporting law, and requested approval to seek funding for 2026 purchases, the biggest being three incident command vehicles. Thirteen members of the public spoke, mostly opposing the vehicle purchases; one speaker from the Chico Peace Alliance said, "I'm not a fan of a request for $1.2 million for three of the command incident vehicles that's being asked for." After lengthy debate, a motion to approve the report, the equipment policy, and 2026 purchases (minus seven patrol rifles) failed 2-5. The council then passed, 4-3, a narrower motion to accept the annual report itself without approving the policy or any purchases — meaning those decisions move to the budget process. Councilmember Winslow said, "We are the oversight of the police. We're the other side of the budget. And I think it's important that we do second guess where our priorities are," while Councilmember Van Overbeek disagreed, calling some of the pushback "an example of people second-guessing the police that don't know what they're talking about."
The council voted 7-0 to exempt the Chico Area Recreation and Park District's planned Aquatic Center from the city's tree-preservation rules and to introduce an ordinance formally adding CARD to the list of exempt public agencies, aligning it with similar public entities already on that list.
Councilmember Van Overbeek asked for a periodic report from the police chief covering hiring, training, discipline, staffing structure, and crime statistics, saying "the more people understand about what our police department does and how they do it, the better things are going to be." The council voted 7-0 to direct the chief to schedule such a briefing.
California Water Service asked the city to support its request to state regulators for funding to install treatment systems removing PFAS ("forever chemicals") from wells ahead of a new federal safety limit. A company representative said the goal was "to support us proactively installing treatment, not waiting to seek more grant funding that may not be there." Several councilmembers objected that the council lacked independent information on costs or the rate impact to customers; Councilmember Goldstein said, "It's an unfunded mandate, and I don't feel that I have enough information to justify our council supporting passing this cost on to our residents at this time." The council voted 4-3 to authorize the mayor to send the letter.
Mayor Reynolds asked to add discussion of a proposed downtown "entertainment zone" concept to a future meeting already scheduled to cover downtown revitalization topics, so city staff would have direction on whether to keep working on it. The council voted 7-0 to add it.
“We are the oversight of the police. We're the other side of the budget. And I think it's important that we do second guess where our priorities are.”
Votes & roll calls
Present: Goldstein, Hawley, O'Brien, van Overbeek, Winslow, Bennett, Reynolds
Motion: Add consideration of authorizing a letter of support for California Water Service's PFAS Compliance Program to the agenda (required 2/3 majority vote)
Motion: Approve the Consent Agenda as read
Taken by voice vote — the chair called for any objections or disqualifications, and no members were recorded individually.
After Hawley's motion failed 2-5, the council fell back to Winslow's motion to approve the AB 481 report as submitted.
How the council got here (1)
↳ First main motion (Hawley's) on the military equipment item; a substitute motion reducing vehicles to one had failed for lack of a second, so this original motion was voted.
Motion: Approve receipt of annual Military Equipment Use report, review Ordinance to adopt Military Equipment Use Policy, approve the Policy, and approve purchase of additional proposed acquisitions for 2026, excluding the 7 automatic military rifles
Motion: Introduce ordinance amending Section 16.66.040(A) of the Chico Municipal Code to add the Chico Area Recreation and Park District as an exempt entity from Tree Preservation Regulations, by reading of title only
Motion: Have the Police Chief do an annual presentation on hiring practices and training of police officers and crime statistics
Motion: Authorize the Mayor to submit a letter of support on behalf of the City supporting California Water Service's PFAS Compliance Program application to the California Public Utilities Commission
Motion: Suspend the 30-day rule and bring back a discussion item at the next meeting for an entertainment zone in the downtown area
Notable moments
- Several public speakers connected the police equipment debate to a recent officer misconduct case and to concerns about excessive force nationally, while others — including local business owners and a veterans' group — expressed support for the department and its outreach.
- A resident described being unable to get an elderly, disabled woman into the Pallet homeless shelter for months, raising questions about how difficult the shelter's intake process is.
- A speaker noted seeing downtown's plaza cleaned up just before the "Choose Chico" business event and asked why that level of cleanup isn't maintained year-round.
- The council's next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, March 17, 2026, with closed session in the early afternoon and the regular open meeting at 6:00 p.m.
- The military equipment use policy and proposed 2026 police equipment purchases (including the incident command vehicles) will be revisited during the upcoming city budget process rather than at this meeting.
- A police department presentation on hiring, training, discipline, staffing, and crime trends will be scheduled at a future meeting, timing to be worked out between the chief and city manager.
- Discussion of a downtown "entertainment zone" concept will be added to the council's upcoming downtown revitalization discussion.
Every item as published on the official agenda. Timestamps play the moment that item came up. The recap tab covers what actually happened.
- 1.1. Call to order - 6:00 p.m. - Mayor Reynolds called the March 3, 2026 Regular Council meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 421 Main Street, Chico, CA. All members were present with Councilmember O'Brien being present via Zoom. The Council voted 6-0 to allow Councilmember O'Brien to participate virtually. staff report ↗ staff report ↗
- 1.2. Invocation - Director Alan Harris, Come and See Chico
- 1.3. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
- 1.4. Roll Call
- 1.5. March 3, 2026, Closed Session Announcement - City Attorney Ryan Jones City Attorney Ryan Jones announced that Council met with staff on the Closed Session matters. 2.1 Public Employment - Council was briefed and direction was provided; no formal action was taken. 2.2 Existing Litigation - Believe in Chico v. Chico - Council was briefed; no formal action was taken. 2.3 Real Property Negotiations - Council was briefed and direction was provided; no formal action was taken. 2.4 Existing Litigation - Stephanie Lewis v. City of Chico - Council was briefed and direction was provided; no formal action was taken. staff report ↗ staff report ↗ staff report ↗
- 2. CONSENT AGENDA
- 2.1. ORDINANCE NO. 2620 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICO AMENDING SECTIONS 3.85.320, 3.85.420, 3.85.520, AND 3.85.620 OF THE CHICO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ANNUAL ADJUSTMENTS OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES TO ALLOW FOR FEE DECREASES WHEN APPLICABLE CONSTRUCTION COST INDICES DECLINE - Final reading and adoption, by reading of title only staff report ↗
- 2.2. RESOLUTION NO. 15-26 - RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICO APPROVING "MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHICO AND UNITED PUBLIC EMPLOYEES OF CALIFORNIA, LOCAL 792, REGARDING PAY, HOURS, AND OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 2026 - DECEMBER 31, 2027 (2026 MOU - UPEC)" The Administrative Services Director recommends the City Council approve the Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of Chico and the United Public Employees of California, Local 792 (UPEC) for January 1, 2026 - December 31, 2027, approving modifications to UPEC pay and benefit provisions following recent negotiations. (Barbara Martin, Administrative Services Director) staff report ↗
- 2.3. CONFIRMATION OF COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND AGENCY APPOINTMENTS The Mayor's Committee and Agency Representatives appointments have been amended to reflect a change in representative to the Property Based Improvement District from Councilmember van Overbeek to Councilmember O'Brien. (Deborah R. Presson, MMC, City Clerk & Elections Official) staff report ↗
- 2.4. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF 2/17/26 staff report ↗
- 2.5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA - None
- 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS - Members of the public addressed the Council at this time on matters not already listed on the agenda and within the jurisdiction's authority. The Council was prohibited from taking any action at this meeting on requests made under this section of the agenda. Addressing the Council were Barbara Steinberg, Sam Barber, Kelly Leser, George Boeck, Bo Powell, Robin K. and Sharon Fritsch.
- 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
- 4.1. ASSEMBLY BILL 481 (AB 481) - ANNUAL MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE REPORT A Chico Police Department Annual Military Equipment Use Report has been prepared for the 2025 calendar year. The report contains a summary and quantity of Chico PD's military equipment, its use, a summary of complaints or concerns and internal audits, fiscal impact, training summary and projected acquisitions for 2026. (Report - Billy Aldridge, Chief of Police) Recommendation : It is the recommendation of the Chief of Police that the Council receive the annual Military Equipment Use report, review the Ordinance to adopt the Military Equipment Use Policy, approve the Military Equipment Use Policy, and approve the purchase of the additional proposed acquisitions for 2026. staff report ↗
- 5. REGULAR AGENDA
- 5.1. EXEMPTION OF THE CHICO AREA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT (CARD) AQUATIC CENTER FROM CHAPTER 16.66 (TREE PRESERVATION REGULATIONS) AND MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT TO ADD CARD AS AN EXEMPT PUBLIC ENTITY The City Council will consider actions related to the applicability of the City's Tree Preservation Regulations (Chico Municipal Code Chapter 16.66) to facilities owned and operated by the Chico Area Recreation and Park District (CARD). Specifically, Council will consider exempting the CARD Aquatic Center from the requirements of Chapter 16.66 and initiating a Municipal Code amendment to add CARD to the list of exempt entities in Section 16.66.040(A). (Report - Skyler Lipski, Public Works Director - Operations & Maintenance) Recommendation : The Public Works Director - Operations and Maintenance recommends that the City Council consider taking the following actions: 1) Exempt the Chico Area Recreation and Park District (CARD) Aquatic Center from the requirements of Chico Municipal Code Chapter 16.66 (Tree Preservation Regulations); and 2) introduce the following ordinance amending Chico Municipal Code Section 16.66.040(A) by reading its title only, to add the Chico Area Recreation and Park District (CARD) to the list of entities exempt from Chapter 16.66: ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICO AMENDING SECTION 16.66.040(A) OF THE CHICO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD THE CHICO AREA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT AS AN EXEMPT ENTITY FROM TREE PRESERVATION REGULATIONS staff report ↗
- 5.2. COUNCILMEMBER VAN OVERBEEK REQUEST - Police Department Presentation At its meeting of 2/3/26, Council voted to agendize a request from Councilmember van Overbeek to hold a discussion to consider having the Police Chief do a presentation on hiring practices and training of police officers. staff report ↗
- 5.3. ITEMS ADDED AFTER THE POSTING OF THE AGENDA (6-1 vote to agendize) CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZING A LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE'S PFAS COMPLIANCE PROGRAM CURRENTLY BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION The City Council will consider authorizing submission of a letter of support addressed to the California Public Utilities Commission regarding California Water Service's application for an order approving their PFAS Compliance Program application and adopting other related rulings and relief necessary to implement the Commission's ratemaking policies. Recommendation authorize the Mayor to submit a letter of support on behalf of the City supporting California Water Service in the matter of the application for an order approving PFAS Compliance Program (proceeding A2506001), and submits a formal letter of support to the California Public Utilities Commission encouraging approval of the PFAS Compliance Program.
- 6. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS - The following reports and communication items were provided for the Council's information. No action could be taken on items under this section unless the Council agrees to include it on a subsequent agenda.
- 6.1. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT - Verbal Report, City Manager Sorensen
- 6.2. MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT AND BUDGET MONITORING REPORTS - Information Only Financial Reports and Budget Monitoring Reports through December 31, 2025. staff report ↗
- 6.3. COUNCILMEMBER REQUESTS - Pursuant to AP&P 10-10, Councilmembers may verbally request an item to be agendized at a future meeting. After stating what the item would be, a majority vote of Council was needed in order for staff to agendize.
- 7. ADJOURNMENT - Adjourned at 8:26 p.m. to Closed Session Meeting on Tuesday, March 17, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. followed by the Adjourned Regular City Council meeting at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 421 Main Street, Chico. staff report ↗
- 1. CALL TO ORDER IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER AT 421 MAIN STREET, CHICO, CA. - Mayor Reynolds called the Closed Session meeting of March 3, 2026 to order at 3:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber located at 421 Main Street, Chico, CA. All members were present with Councilmember O'Brien being present via Zoom. The Council voted 6-0 to allow Councilmember O'Brien to participate virtually.
- 1.1. ROLL CALL
- 2. CLOSED SESSION AGENDA - There were no speakers.
- 2.1. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT: Pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code Sec. 54957(b). Title: City Manager Recruitment
- 2.2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION: Pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code Sec. 54956.9(a): BCSC: Case No. 25CV01135 – Believe in Chico v. City of Chico - Council was briefed; no formal action was taken.
- 2.3. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR: Pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code Sec. 54957.6 - Council was briefed and direction was provided; no formal action was taken. Negotiator: Laura Izon (Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud and Romo law firm (AALRR)) & Barbara Martin, Administrative Services Director Employee Organizations: Chico Fire Management Employees, Chico Management Employees, Chico Police Management, Chico Police Officers Association, Chico Public Safety Association, Confidentials, International Association of Fire Fighters, Service Employees International Union - Trades & Crafts, Stationary Engineers Local 39, United Public Employees of California - Local 792
- 2.4. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION: Pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code Sec. 54956.9(a): Stephanie Lewis v. City of Chico, et al. Case No.: 22CV02120 - Council was briefed and direction was provided; no formal action was taken.
- 2.5. CLOSED SESSION ITEMS THAT AROSE AFTER THE POSTING OF THE AGENDA - None
- 3. ADJOURNMENT - Adjourned at 5:54 p.m. to the Regular City Council Meeting on Tuesday, March 3, 2026, at 6:00 p.m. staff report ↗
Machine transcript (local Whisper transcription), lightly cleaned — expect imperfections. Timestamps play that moment right here; the official video is one click away too.
Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. We call to order our regular Chico City Council meeting. We will start off with an invocation by Director Alan Harris from Come and See Chico. Welcome. Thank you. Let's pray. Thank you, God, for a country where we can meet together and discuss our community issues and work on them together. And pray for your wisdom to roll in here tonight and give them discernment and common sense and lead this meeting. We pray in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Amen. Amen. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. Salute and pledge. Madam Clerk, can you call roll for us? Yes. Council Member Goldstein? Here. Council Member Hawley? Here. Council Member O'Brien? Is here. Here.
Kind of. Kind of. Yes. There he is. Council Member van Overbeek? Here. Council Member Winslow? Here. Vice Mayor Bennett? Here. Mayor Reynolds? Here. So I'm going to have our closed session announcement for our city attorney, but I also want to announce that Council Member O'Brien is here remotely, and the council voted to allow him to do that. So he's on via remote, and we will do our best to take care of that. So, closed session announcement. Yes. Madam Mayor, members of the council, there were four items in closed session. The first on public employment regarding city manager recruitment. A recruitment firm did make a presentation and direction was given from the city council to that executive director.
In the existing litigation, I believe, in Chico case, city council did discuss this matter with its legal council. As to conference with labor negotiators, direction was given to staff on that matter. In the final existing litigation on the Lewis v. City of Chico, direction was given to legal council from the city council in that regard. That's my report from closed session. Thank you. Speaker card announcement. Anyone wishing to address the council on any matters listed on the agenda should first complete a speaker card found at the back of the chambers. Once completed, turn your speaker cards into the city clerk, and speakers are taken in the order the cards are received. Once the first speaker begins, no additional cards will be accepted on that item.
For instance, demonstrating rude, boisterous, speaking on matters outside the jurisdiction of the city council, or engaging in otherwise disruptive behavior will be called to order. If such conduct continues, I may call a recess, requesting the removal of such persons from the council chambers, adjourn the meeting, or take other appropriate action as needed. We have one item that was posted after the agenda was posted. We received a letter from Cal Water after the posting on March 3rd, on the March 3rd agenda, asking council to consider endorsing a letter of support from the city of Chico related to Cal Water. PFAS compliance program. This matter requires a two-thirds vote to agendize the matter.
If agendize it, it will be heard as item 5.3. So, can I, do we have a motion? Make a motion to approve the addition of the extra item from California Water Service. Second. All right. And a motion and a second. Okay. Council Member Goldstein. I'm not comfortable adding an item like this last minute that impacts our citizens without enough time to review. So, no. Okay. Council Member Hawley. Yes. Council Member O'Brien. Yes. Council Member van Overbeek. Yes. Council Member Winslow. Yes. Vice Mayor Bennett. Yes. Mayor Reynolds. Aye. Carries with the two-thirds vote. Okay. So, that'll be on 5.3. Consent agenda. All matters listed under the consent agenda are considered routine in nature and can therefore be enacted in one motion.
Are there any no votes or council disqualifications? No. Do we have any speakers on consent? We do not. Okay. Consider a motion. Move to approve. Second. Second. Was there a second? Second was at Council Member Winslow. This microphone is not as sensitive as our last ones. Yes. You may need to pull your mics up a little closer. Clerk asked that we pull our mics just a little bit closer and speak into them so the public can hear. Okay. Okay. Okay. That was a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda as read, which included... There it is. I have the last... An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Chico amending sections 3.85.320, 3.85.420, 385.520, and 3.85.620 of the Chico Municipal Code related to annual adjustments of development impact fees to allow for fee decreases when applicable construction costs and indices decline.
Final reading and adoption. Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link
Steinberg, and I'm here tonight. I was not planning to come and speak on this issue that I've already spoken to Council Member Goldstein, Winslow, and Reynolds regarding a recent incident regarding an anti-Semitic threat against the synagogue, the Chabad, and Chico Havara. I'm here tonight because subsequently someone that I know posted a rant today on Facebook talking about how everything that's happening in the Middle East right now is all because of Israel, and I mean everything, and so as someone who is Jewish, as someone who has family who lives in Israel, as someone who has lived in this community for over six years, I have to tell you how disappointed I am that none of you except Bryce felt it appropriate to respond to my email as far as any other follow-up with the local police or the district attorney regarding this recent incident of anti-Semitism. Bryce asked me some additional questions, which I provided all of the details and information, and then I never heard anything more from her or any of you. This is simply not acceptable, and it's not just about anti-Semitism. It's about anything in this community that is against any people of religion, color, culture, whatever it might be, and as a Jewish person who has experienced now, as I said to you all, this is the third incident of anti-Semitism in this community since I've lived here, and I lived in Sacramento in 1999 when some crazy people blew up the synagogues in Sacramento, and I'm asking you why there was no response and what you intend to do to pull this community together so that additional incidents like this don't happen.
So, I would really appreciate somebody other than Bryce responding to me, since each one of you has one of these communities, Chabad, Beth Shalom, and Chico Havara in your districts. Thank you. Unfortunately, the council can't respond. I know you would like to, but under the Brown Act rules, you can't respond to that kind of a statement. So, Sam Barber, followed by Kelly Lesser. Hello. I'm just here because I want to, again, ask for some independent oversight of the police force in Chico. I don't know why I have to keep asking this, but when an officer is getting oral sex in a church parking lot numerous times, and he admits it, and then he gets two weeks off, and then he comes back to work, that is not okay. They have weapons. They have an immense amount of power over regular citizens. Numerous people on the council have employees. I have a hard time believing that if one of your employees had oral sex on the job numerous times, that you'd be like, you know what? That's okay. Two weeks off is enough. It's not enough. It's unacceptable. They need to be held to a higher standard than the average citizen in Chico. The police chief also needs to be held accountable because he seems to think that that's an acceptable punishment. Two weeks is not enough.
Four weeks is not enough. This is a police officer. He's having oral sex in his car numerous times in a church parking lot. Can we please have some actual accountability for these disgusting actions? I don't want my taxes going towards blowjobs. Thank you. The other piece I want to say is I'm really disturbed when I see the mayor having a little fluff piece interview on Action News about keeping us safe when we booted out 70-something homeless folks recently. I would really like to know how that's keeping us safe or how this is a win. We've been wasting millions of dollars doing these sweeps for years. It hasn't done anything. It's not working. It's inhumane. Can we please do something that is actually humane like providing them housing, providing them mental wellness or health care or something to that effect? It's just annoying to me watching us celebrate like we're doing some great public safety good when this is just a failed method that we've been doing year after year after year. Please actually do something humane about these people who are clearly suffering and in mental distress. And then the last piece I would like to talk about is my first council meeting here ever. I came here and there were Palestinian children in tears begging you for help, begging for safety. They were being called slurs amidst a genocide of their people funded by our tax dollars. Not only did you do nothing, but many of you on the council outright deny the ongoing genocide, which is the equivalent of being a modern day Holocaust denier. And I don't think we would find that acceptable to have anyone on the council who would do something as disgusting as that. Thank you. Thank you. Kelly Lesser followed by George. Hi, George. We don't cheer or applause or boo. We want everybody to feel welcome here to express their feelings and that discourages that. So please keep it.
Hi, good evening, city council. My name is Kelly Lesser and I am a local business owner downtown, urban couture. And first of all, I want to say I love our police and you guys are always responding very quickly and very supportive to us down here. My question is with, we've had a lot of recent, really scary incidences within our store and, you know, some of my neighbors with some pretty scary folks. And my question is, could we possibly get more visibility from the target team on the streets? I think it would really just to have that police presence a little bit more. I really, my understanding of the target team was more walking the beats downtown. I don't know if you're able to respond to that just to kind of shed some light on it for me personally. So I could even share that with my counterparts downtown. I don't know if they're allowed to respond to that. They're not allowed to respond, but we will have staff reach out to you. Okay. Help you. But that's my request to maybe see if we could have a little bit more of that. I think it really would kind of help make the public feel a little safer and the business owners too. And it might curtail some of some of this kind of activity that it's actually taking place. I had a, one of my younger staff members almost get raped down in my men's store basement and I'm not able to open that up because of that it's caused me to really not be able on certain times of the day, um, have only run with one person in there just based off of safety. So I've refrained from opening up the doors to that just based off of it's just not worth somebody getting hurt. And then, um, just found out from my across the street neighbor, Jill, she had, um, a phone call from one of her young ladies, uh, crying because somebody came in and tried to solicit her for, um, sex, uh, uh, like working type of stuff. So there's a lot of this kind of element down on the streets and I think I just would like to shed some more light on it. It's, it's kind of scary sometimes.
And so I just think that extra police presence would be really beneficial. So thank you so much for your time. Thank you, George. Um, I believe followed by Bo Powell. I, I thank the council for the opportunity to speak on February 9th. The Chico police department informed Chico's Jewish community that Kyle Anthony Mitchell had been arrested for threatening their local institutions. Mitchell was known to the CPD as charged with false imprisonment, domestic battery, and criminal threats previously. Upon arrest, his guns were taken from him. He made bail and I believe he is now free. While I do not wish to excite the anti-Semitic sliver of our community, I feel that the council should be aware that of this issue and might request our city attorney be alerted to your concern in this matter and that the Chico community has your protection and support.
Again, I thank you for the opportunity to speak. Thank you. Uh, Bo Powell followed by Robin Kay. Hello again. Um, just like in 2014, when I became before the council for the first time, um, I was talking about the illegal spraying in my neighborhood, which is kids go to Chico unified school district. The bus goes by my house. Well, now they spray at night and stuff mostly, so nobody can see it, but your inactions enable that. Um, they talk about the cop having sex. What about all the cops that got violated in their cars by farmers? AI should be able to help. If AI wanted to help, if a computer company wanted to help, if a college student wanted to help, they could figure out how many hours you County sheriffs drive around in the areas where they spray.
And they could come up with the estimate of how many times, how many thousands of times they were illegally sprayed during the nine years when the County Ag Commission and Health Department was looking the other way. You count. I was here when you were talking about the bicycle, the, um, road up. The old dump road and Bella was here, the bicycle enthusiastic group. And I walked out with them and I told them, you know, if we taught kids, agriculture awareness, uh, part of bicycle safety, maybe we could get them, the County to change its tune. If we taught kids not to ride their bikes in the farm area, their parents would kind of almost have to stand up for it. Law enforcement wouldn't be sprayed.
Chico firemen wouldn't be sprayed. Butte County is getting $2.4 million to the Butte health company, uh, health department to work on bicycle safety. Now I can talk to them. I'm green and in low, I mean, enterprise record action news. No, none of these news agencies are going to say anything. Do you say a word and they pay attention. I've been telling the people at Ampli health for 18 years now, while I was going there for having seizures and stuff that they're spraying me, they're spraying their employees. And one of you goes to the new pediatrics thing, and they think it's all okay. Now you're an embarrassment to this whole community. Put on some big boy panties. Thank you. Robin Kay, followed by Sharon Fritz.
Hello, council, friends, and peers. My name is Robin Klitsky. It's my first time to attend a downtown meeting. I'm grateful for all of you being here. I'm grateful for this platform. And thank you all for showing up and caring about your community. I'm 40, almost 42, and recently had the decision to come and make a stand for what I believe. I haven't done it for a long time because I haven't wanted to ruin my business. I'm a small business owner, much like Casey. I've got Sweet Chico. We're kind of frenemies in that little area, I suppose, competitors, but also both doing our jobs and businesses the best we can. And I do know Sweet Chico is a great place to be. I came in with a lot of enthusiasm when I bought it a few years ago.
And my enthusiasm has dwindled, partly because of personal reasons, partly because I've seen downtown just go into this thing that it wasn't beautiful when I bought it. It was this beautiful thing when I bought it. And now it's become like, oh, so negative because we have a downtown that was allowed to become kind of trashy, filthy, dirty, dangerous, unsanitary. So this is not a right or a left-wing thing that I'm talking about. This is not a Republican-Democrat thing. This is basic public safety for everyone. The taxpayers that pay for parks and plazas and bike paths, while I love all the community improvement, and I love this beautiful bike path that we have. I love Caper Acres. I love our downtown plaza.
But we can't all use it. Why do we spend all the money on it? So my question is, I know there's some hands tied, and I'm not like the most intelligent person in the room about the Warren situation and all that. But I'm curious why we were able to clean out the plaza yesterday, which I'm extremely grateful for. It's beautiful. I've enjoyed a beautiful couple days downtown. I'm sure you guys all have, too. And it can be a great place. But why was it able to be cleaned out yesterday, conveniently before Choose Chico weekend, but not all the time? So I want to know if the 17 notices were given. I want to know, was this cleaned out because we have Choose Chico? Why can't it be cleaned out all the time?
And I don't have all the answers to homelessness. Clearly, I'm a candy person. I know about candy. But what I do know is that people don't want to go to a place that's trashy. If you walked into a restaurant and they didn't bust their tables, you wouldn't go there, and word would get out very, very quickly. If our downtown is trashy, nobody wants to come down here. And it's hurting businesses and our economy. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Our last speaker is Sharon Fritz. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. First, I want to commend Katie Hawley for being present at the presentation at Lackson Auditorium last week about the importance of groundwater depletion in the Central Valley. It's a very important issue.
And I probably won't be alive when this gets really serious, but it's a very important issue. Next is homelessness. Most people in this community have no idea how difficult it is for homeless people to get into the pallet shelter. I did not know until a couple of weeks ago, two months ago, that you have to be evaluated. You have to be swept. A woman who was 62 years old. Well, she was finally swept last week. And so now she's in, but she had been trying to get into the pallet shelter since early December. I know another lady. She introduced me to her friend who had been trying to get into the pallet shelter. This lady is 70 years old and walks with a walker. And living in her car with a dog, trying to get into the pallet shelter.
Again, I don't think she's been swept because she's living in the car. I was told, I wrote a letter about, tried writing a letter about this to the ER. And the editor didn't want to print it. He refused to print it because he said, I needed to talk to legal services of Northern California. So I went there and they said they couldn't do anything unless the person was actually standing there in the room. So today, today, while we were collecting trash, because I go out usually twice a week, unless it's raining, with some friends to pick up trash. We were out on the bike path behind Lowe's. And there was a man camping there. A couple of people camping there. But I asked this one particular man who was being very helpful, you know, bagging up his trash and helping us out, if he wanted to get into the pallet shelter.
And he said he did. And so I said, OK, I'll, I took him to the office of legal services of Northern California. And they said, call Charles, call Charles Wethoon, who is right over here. I know Charles has no authority with the city. Most people don't know how difficult it is to get into the pallet shelter if you're camping. And I just wonder why the rules have to be the way they are. You know, why they have to be the way. Why does a 62 year old woman need to be evaluated if she goes to the pallet shelter? Why can't you just walk in, walk over to the guard and say, I need a place to stay. And they say, OK, here's a place. That's what I have to say. Thank you. Thank you. And she was our last speaker.
All right. Thank you. Public hearings. Assembly Bill 481, Annual Military Equipment Report. Lieutenant Omar Pena. Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, members of Council, and to the community who's come here tonight to listen to this presentation. I've tapped Captain Omar Pena for the presentation tonight. But I just want to put in a few words. And then afterwards, I can answer some questions along with Captain Pena. Yeah. So tonight's action from Council is a legislative mandate where we have to bring our request before the governing body for our jurisdiction, City Council. And the request tonight will simply be approval or denial to move forward to the budget session, not an approval for us to immediately spend money on anything requested tonight.
And I just wanted the community to understand that. Anything that you see tonight on this presentation has been well vetted out. We have discussed it. We've gone over it multiple times. And so the items you see before you are items that we feel we absolutely need for the police department and for providing service to this community. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Captain Pena. Thank you. Good evening. Mayor, vice mayor, council members, staff, and community members. My first time presenting, so I'm a little nervous. I'm here today to request approval of Ordinance 2576, adopting the Chico Police Department military equipment use policy, so that the police department may proceed with seeking funds, acquiring military equipment, or using existing equipment.
And so as a component of that, or of this presentation, I'm going to go over our military equipment annual report. Just for background, the legal context, Assembly Bill 481, which became or codified Government Code Section 7070 through 7075, requires the law enforcement agencies to adopt a military equipment use policy, to publish that policy, to provide an annual report, publish that report, and obtain city council approval by way of an ordinance. And we submit an annual council review for compliance, which is what we're here today. Meeting those requirements, we've met those requirements, began by posting the policy on the 3rd of February. We're required to do it 30 days or a month before this hearing here today.
The annual report is also required to be published, which we published on the 17th of February. And we're required to have a community engagement meeting within 30 days of that annual report being published. We accomplished that last week on the 23rd and provided community engagement meeting and a review of this annual report to them. And we're here today meeting that council review for compliance. We're required to seek your approval. And when we are going to engage in one of these seven processes, as you can see out of the seven, I highlighted the two that we're engaged in. We're asking here to acquire military equipment. And the other and the larger part is seeking funds. I wanted to highlight that whether we are asking for this equipment through the budgeting process that we're doing every year and that we're currently engaged in, whether we're going to seek grants or we're just going to go out into the community.
Prior to doing that, we have to come to council. So you will see the acquisitions or the proposed equipment that we want to acquire. Regardless of that or the funding source, we have to get your approval first. And that's why we're here today. So I'll go over the if you have the actual annual report. I'm just going to kind of highlight some of the sections of the report to value everybody's time. In the executive summary section, just going over what happened in 2025, as we've done in 2024, we've kind of limited this to calendar year so that we could have better reporting as most of our either. Most of the way we're capturing the incidents that occurred are done at an end of a monthly basis.
So in 2025, we had 154 incidents that involved the use of military equipment. The bulk of that was the use of our drones. Actually, 144 were drone deployments. Only 10 incidents involved the use of something other than drones. Now, I'll caveat that. You'll see a slide later that talks about deployments. And one incident doesn't necessarily mean one use. So, for example, when we use drones, they have a 20-minute battery life. So one incident might require the same drone to be brought down and brought back up. And so I'll go over our definition for deployment. But in one incident, we might have to fly that drone or multiple drones multiple times. And you'll see that as a larger number when we take a look at deployments.
But to conceptualize how many times or how many incidents or calls for service we went out in and actually used this equipment, 154 is that number. You'll also see that we addressed training in the 2024 annual report. We highlighted some of the issues we found in the inspection process where we had inventories that were incorrect, usually off by one number. But we also had we didn't have a good process for capturing the deployments out in the field. So one of the things that we did is provided training to those individual units or staff and personnel who uses or engages with this equipment all the time, specifically our SWAT and crew team members, and developed processes, including a QR code for reporting.
So every vehicle has a QR code, not the one you see on the exterior trying to promote, internally, where once we use that equipment, the direction is immediately during that call. They can come and report that use. So that's helped us capture and the uses more accurately. And we've also resolved a lot of the inspection issues. This year I did my inspections in person and for the most part actually had physical counts of the equipment that was reported by actually visually seeing it and inspecting it in person. A change that we are transitioning into is federal government regulations changed and required American made drones for government use. There's a timeline. We have time to make that transition.
But one of the emphasis that we're going to do is to replace our current drones, which are mainly a brand named DGI, which is a Chinese made product. And as we have equipment failures or as you will see here, we actually had a drone that crashed during training and we had to replace it with some insurance money. And in that instance, we switched over, replaced basically that drone with its closest equal that was an American made product. So as we move forward, we will continue to push in that effort. As previous years, we do not have any LISO acquisitions and that's the law enforcement support office. It's the old 1033 program or basically the way that law enforcement agencies were able to get surplus military equipment from the military.
We haven't acquired any of that in the last three years, at least since I've been involved in this process. And we continue to not seek any of that equipment. I'll go over in the inspection process, but there were approvals that we asked for last year that you approved, but mainly because of a lack of funding. We didn't go through with them. In your packet, you also see this section, the summary and quantity of military equipment. I took the liberty of creating a couple of slides. There are 15 different classifications of military equipment defined in the law. Of those 15, we have equipment in eight of them. So I highlighted the sections that are in red because we have zero of that. So as you'll see, some of these categories that are in red that we don't have any equipment of are what you would probably traditionally think of as military equipment.
To include the Humvees, tracked armored vehicles, ballistic protection, weaponized aircraft, and vessels of a sort. We don't have any firearms over 50 caliber or any of that ammunition. The rest of the items are there. You can see in there. I can go over if you want, but the actual quantities of what we have are listed there. You will see in some of these sections, particularly in munitions and ammunition, that I've listed it as a consumable item. In the past, I've provided inventory, what I'll call spot checks. I conduct an inspection. I find out how much they have in inventory, and we were reporting that. But I don't think that that actually captures what we are trying to do because we could.
And in some of those instances, we had three items of the quantity of a particular munition when we were actually seeking maybe 30, 40, or 50. And so in order to accurately report, and I think being more transparent of what the quantities that we want to have, in this report, if you look in the inventory section of the policy, we're reporting the quantities that we want to have on hand. So that will give you a more accurate picture of the types of munitions and how much we want, instead of giving you a spot check of three when we actually want 20 and the associated cost. This graphic or this slide seeks to kind of provide a detail of how many times we used the specific military equipment. As you'll see, the bubbles there correlate to volume or amount of use, with drones being 439.
So we had 439 flights. And so depending on the type of equipment, there's a specific definition for deployment. For example, whether it's the less lethal shotguns or the 40-millimeter less lethal weapons, when we take those out of the car for a call, which the officers do frequently, we want to have lethal and less lethal options on calls, we would do that all the time. And so it would not really capture, I think, what we're trying to get to, which is how many times did we actually use them. It would inflate our numbers. And I don't want it to present like we are using this equipment all the time when the actual use that I would think the public is interested in is how many times did we actually take ammunition, put it in the system, and shoot it.
And so that is what we're capturing. For most of the less lethal launchers and pepper ball launchers, the numbers you see there are how many times we put what I'd call a round down range. So how many times did somebody pull the trigger? How many times did ammunition, how many times ammunition was shot? So I won't go down the list. Certainly I know you can read it, but I'll hit the highlights on these larger sections. So like I said, 439 flights of the drones. The armored rescue vehicle, the Bearcat, was used six times. 41 for the pepper ball, 12 for flash bangs, and 27 for the specialized firearms. Down below you'll also see some of the smaller numbers for the equipment that was used in 2025.
We're also required to report any of the complaints regarding the use of military equipment. We have the option for people to use an email, call in, provide a written complaint form, or just come down to the police department and ask to speak with the professional standards office. As last year, we had zero complaints specific to the use of this equipment. Like I mentioned previously, this year I went and did physical inspections of all the units that have military equipment, and I also did a comparison to what we asked for and did last year. Last year, we did request a new drone, the DJI Matrice. We were able to purchase it, and unfortunately during a training exercise, our officers crashed one of those M30 Matrices, and so we had to replace it.
This is when they knew that we were going to have to make this transition to American-made drones, so we have ordered, we haven't received a Skydio X10, which is an American-made product, to replace that Matrice drone, which is the closest American-made item that we could buy. The Matrice was covered with insurance that we have because they're a high-price item, and so we were able to use insurance money to buy this Skydio product. Last year, we asked for a 140-millimeter launcher. It was purchased. It's documented. There were no other issues found with the inventory. Our numbers reflected the numbers that we have on hand, and same thing for the rifles. Last year, we did ask for permission to explore the possibility of getting a Boston Dynamics spot robot, but once we were looking at the numbers and the maintenance costs, we decided not to move forward. It was too expensive.
And I've already kind of covered this consumables reporting where we're going to report the quantities that we're seeking to have on hand and not a spot check of inspections. And here we have the fiscal impact. In 2025, the cost for purchasing and maintenance of our equipment is listed there. So purchasing and maintenance was $23,476. Again, I believe the number was close to $20,000, which was the insurance money that we were able to use to buy the Skydio drone. The specialized firearms, the rifles that we bought, $17,000, and that 40-millimeter launcher was around $4,000. And you see the total there is just over $45,000 for maintenance and costs, which is significantly different than the previous years.
The training costs for 2025 amounted to $7,400 and change. And that is specifically to the instructor courses that we send our officers. For most of these types of equipment, we require certified courses. So we go through either post-certified courses. If there's not a post-certified course, we find an instructor course of repute and send our officers, usually train-to-trainer type courses, so then our officers can come back in-house and train our officers in how to properly use and deploy this type of equipment. For reference, this year we spent $45,000 on that purchasing and maintenance. Last year we spent $111,000. For training, this year was $7,400. Last year we had $25,750. And some of that is just cyclical.
Like I said, a lot of these are post-certified courses. Some of this equipment, either by policy or by law, we have to, we can only use it if we've gone to a certification course. Those courses are either two or three years or one year, depending on the certification. So you're going to see that fluctuation in alternate years of us having to send folks to that type of training. Again, for 2026, the items that we're asking for permission to seek funding for or to purchase, depending on where the money's coming from, is what I call consumables. Again, the ammunition, the flashbangs, the less lethal munitions. And I put variable there because it depends on whether we're using these munitions for training or whether we had an incident.
Year to year, these are going to vary in the types of incidents that we have to respond to and the types of munitions we're going to use. So it's hard to capture how much we're going to spend for each one. The non-consumable request is the other items that we're seeking. Specifically, there's a request for three of the Skydio X10. Again, those American-made drones. Each one of those is $20,000. And the hope here is to sort of create the initial steps of possibly creating a drone as a first responder program. I won't get into too many specifics of that other than it's a way and a mechanism to be able to respond to calls for service without actually sending a police officer in person to that. So depending on the type of calls, whether it's a call of violence, before you have a person, an actual human police officer there, you can get somebody to fly their drone and evaluate the situation.
Do we want to respond? Do we need to respond? Is a person armed? That sort of thing. Again, intended to decrease the likelihood of having a lethal confrontation. And also for a lot of departments who are short-staffed, you're able to maximize the use of one officer by having that person respond from the drone instead of multiple officers responding in police cars. There's also requests to expand our patrol rifles by 7. That's 9,800. The Pepper Ball FTC Pro Launchers. It's a paintball marker that allows us to use paintballs that are filled with a powder that has CS that we would use for less lethal situations and crowd control. And then the big ticket item that you see there is the incident command vehicles, which are varying from 355 to 522.
And those are kind of hard to describe, so I decided to put some pictures. The way we operate for critical incidents, barricaded subjects, trying to arrest somebody who was just involved in a shooting, is that we respond. We evaluate those with a risk assessment. And if the risk assessment tells us that there's a high likelihood of a lethal force encounter or confrontation, then we deploy what we call our crew team, our crisis response unit. So we don't deploy just the SWAT team. We deploy crisis negotiators and the drone team and sometimes the explosive response or explosive ordinance team or the bomb squad, because they have robots that they can use. And it allows our officers to go and respond to those with the resources to try to minimize a lethal force encounter.
The problem is that's a lot of personnel. And a few of these incidents that we've responded to, the weather's been not cooperative. We've had inclement weather. And so you're trying to fly drones or you're trying to look at video feeds in the back of a police car, huddled in a citizen's patio who lets you use it. So we're looking to have the equipment that we would need to be able to respond to these incidents, be there for the time it takes to de-escalate and negotiate somebody's surrender. And for that, we're going to need some of this equipment to be able to have generators, carry the robots, be able to replace the drones. And then for our command folks, be able to make decisions with all the information that they're gathering.
With that, I will open it up to questions.
All right. Council Member Goldstein. All right. Thank you, Mayor. And thank you for the presentation. So my first question on this, we received a lot of public comment and emails. So some of this is, I may already have an idea, but I want to ask the question so that it can be heard here. So in the staff report, it says it's budgeted for, can you explain, was all of the funding for these items already approved under our last year's budget cycle? Is some of this coming from grants? Certainly. Some of the previous year's funding has come from either donations for some of the items like remote control vehicles. We've received donations for drones. But it's either a request for during our budgeting process out of the general fund.
We're requesting it. Last year, we did not get all the funding. I would anticipate that we're not going to get all the funding and all the requests this year. But we need to ask your permission just to seek those funds. So. And so to be clear, if we approve this, then some of these items that we're approving you requesting funds for, that could come out of our upcoming year's budget. Is that the case? If I could add, AB 481 requires this process prior to the department attempting to gain funding for any of these items. So this has to be approved before we get to the budget process where it may turn out that there isn't sufficient funds to cover all these items. So that's really a separate step.
Okay. That makes sense. I just wanted to clarify that first. Yeah. I'm done for now. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member van Overbeek. Thank you for your presentation, Captain. And so I think a lot of people are confused about what military equipment is. I mean, when the budgets, we discuss the budget about you guys got by and block glocks or radios. Nobody shows up. And as soon as the word military is here, we got a lot of people to show up. So under 481, isn't it true that military equipment isn't necessarily equipment that's been used by the military? It's just things that are on a list specified in AB 481. Yes, sir. So the military equipment is specifically defined in the law. So just because, for example, these command vehicles that you're seeing, they're identified as military equipment, but that's equipment that's designed and made for law enforcement use.
The same vehicles are being used by PG&E. Some of these vehicles are being used by health care, FEMA for emergency response. So if it is defined as military equipment in the law, we have to report it as part of this process. But some of those items that are there are not necessarily designed or made for military use. Well, I think a lot of people are under the impression this is military surplus or equipment that you're being given by the military, and that's not the case in any single item you're requesting this year. Is that right? Nothing we're requesting was obtained from the military. I think that's where a lot of this came from, because a lot of this equipment or surplus equipment was, that's how departments, I'd say, in the 90s and before were getting some of their armored vehicles.
So you would see armored personnel carriers painted black and police painted on them. So if I wanted to, as a private citizen, go buy one of these command vehicles, I spec'd it out, I went down to the place that builds it, and I wrote the check for $350,000, they'd sell it to me, wouldn't they, as a private citizen? Yes, these command vehicles, you could get them. Thank you. Council Member O'Brien, I haven't forgot about you, so just hang in there. I've got Council Member Hawley, and then I'll see if you want to speak. Council Member Hawley. Thank you, Mayor Reynolds. This is more of a comment than a question. I was present at the community engagement meeting that happened just last week, and I wanted the whole council to recognize that Captain Pena did really an amazing job in what I interpret as going above and beyond, you know, state-level policy for these engagement meetings.
We had questions across the board from the community, whether or not it related back to the subject matter. And you and Chief Aldridge just handled that with such professionalism and really answered a lot of questions for me before coming here today. Thank you, ma'am. Council Member O'Brien, did you have anything you wanted before I go to Council Member Winslow? I'll just add that I truly appreciate the presentation by Captain Pena and Chief Aldridge. I think they explained a lot of misinformation that's out there, and I think they clarified that, and I think that's very helpful for us and for the community to understand. So I just appreciate the length they went to explain that to us. Thank you.
Thank you. Council Member Winslow. Captain Pena, it's a good PowerPoint. Thanks, sir. I do have a question. There's one thing I'm not quite clear on. Maybe you said I missed it, but we had one drone crash, and it was about a $20,000 round, so we had insurance that's going to cover that. And there's these new federal regulations that say that we can't acquire Chinese-made equipment. But then we're asking for three of them, and so are the other two new acquisitions, or those are to also replace old drones? No, sir. So there's actually a request for three in addition to the one that we're replacing. Okay. And in part, it would be that transition, but it's also to try to kind of start the process of potentially going through or establishing what I call DFR drone as first responder program.
There's a lot more cost that goes into that besides the three drones. We're looking for the permission to seek the funding for that. Some of the other drones that we have are much smaller. This is drones that would fly out in the open and can fly in inclement weather. We use a lot of drones internally or inside buildings or those, forgive me, I'm not a drone guy, but a first-person FPVs. A lot of those are DGI, and so we're waiting for American-made products to come online that are just as good. And when those come and the lifespan of those drones fail, we're going to go with an American-made drone. Okay. That's why I wanted to be clear on, because I try to look up those federal regulations, and there's a lot of different ones.
It's not like one specific policy, but it'll look to me like everything that's already owned is grandfathered in, and I imagine that's the federal government being sensitive to cost. They wouldn't want us to throw away a perfectly good drone and then spend $40,000, $60,000 on new ones. So it sounds like we're not pursuing replacing functional drones. We would wait until their life is out before we would purchase these ones, which you're seeking authorization to purchase in the future when those ones are no longer operable. That's right. Yes, sir. My understanding, speaking to our drone folks, is some of these drones that we have that is not the Skydio X10 are just not quite up to par to what DGI currently offers.
So we're hoping to extend that lifespan and give the technology time to catch up so we're not paying for an inferior drone. Yeah, great. I wanted to be sure. I mean, I'm looking that we're not kind of going to in advance of an unfunded federal mandate. No, sir. Thank you. All right. I don't see any more questions. So we're going to open the public hearing. And then how many speakers do we have? We have, I believe, 13. Okay. Two minutes each. Okay. And I'll call the first two names. And if you can line up in the middle aisle, that would be great. And remember to get close to the microphone, Margaret Schwitt, followed by Laurel Yorks. Good evening, council. If all goes as I hope, I'm going to turn 80 this summer.
Astounding as aging always is. And equally astounding is how sweet life is at this age. But as I reflect on my years, one constant, one constant drumbeat throughout my life has been the growth of the war machine. We live in a world where across the United States, cities and counties have enhanced their already robust arsenals with military equipment. Now, I know that many of you argue that it is not, in fact, military equipment, since you can purchase it directly from various weapons manufacturers or sources. But judging by press photographs of local police, it does look like military combat on the streets of the United States. Who is the enemy that requires combat troops? The citizens of Chico and of Butte County are seeing the continued acquisition of all kinds of military equipment, of all types of surveillance tools, all types of tech equipment designed to manage the out-of-control public, apparently.
Of course, the tools, drones, robots, tricked-out vehicles are great fun for those that use them. But they deprive the community of good roads, well-functioning downtowns, and a higher quality of life. Certainly, we have seen that in Chico. It's easy to see that many of our cities and counties have embraced the philosophy of fear and turned to acquiring weapons rather than improving our quality of life, just as our national government has done. The public is not an enemy. That's time. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Laurel Yorks, followed by Madeline Manning. Hi, I'm Laurel Yorks from Chico Peace Alliance. I'm also an active resistance actor, I guess, in the city of Chico, and I've been working on that for the last year.
And during that work, we've had to deal with the Chico Police Department to let them know what we're doing. And I've always felt that they felt that our safety was important to them, and I feel that their safety is important to us and to me. And they've always encouraged us. They've always told us that they support our First Amendment right to assemble and to speak. But I really am a fan of community policing and not military-style policing. And I'm not a fan of a request for $1.2 million for three of the command incident vehicles that's being asked for. I don't think that's community policing at all. I think our community needs a lot of things that $1.2 million could buy, including potholes and wonderful things, human needs.
We believe at the Chico Peace Alliance that you achieve peace by meeting human needs and irrespective of profit, irrespective of prestige. We just need to make sure that our community needs are met before we ask, before the police department asks for $1.2 million for three vehicles. And already the police department takes up almost half of our general fund budget. So I think we need to consider that when you make your decision tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Madeline Manning, followed by Diane Suzuki. Hello, Councilor. Thank you for your time tonight. My name is Madeline Manning. I read the staff report on Agenda Item 4.1 and the over $1 million in military equipment that the Chico Police Department wants to purchase, and I'm very concerned.
I do not think Chico has enough crime to warrant these purchases. Why do we need to arm our officers with military-grade guns and equipment? This additional spending does not make me feel safer in my community. It makes me fear law enforcement. They are supposed to make us feel safe, but having military-grade guns and weapons feels more like being against us. I would not feel safe going to them for help with such dangerous weapons. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Diane Suzuki, followed by Anne Polivka. Council? Council? This past year, many communities across our country have been exercising their First Amendment rights to peacefully assemble and protest more than usual, both nationally and locally.
When preparing to organize demonstrations, local groups have contacted the Chico PD, as Laurel has mentioned, to notify them of protest plans ahead of time. And Chico PD has abided by AB 48, and there has been mutual respect between them. Thank you. In light of what's happening currently with federal ICE agents acting recklessly and unlawfully in our U.S. communities, Minneapolis comes to mind, many in our community insist that not only will Chico PD not cooperate with ICE, that they are breaking laws in our town, but also that no military equipment will be used on peaceful demonstrators. At the community engagement meeting, Chief Aldridge gave us reassurance that this will be true. And this year's draft military equipment use policy under less lethal, preferable launchers and munitions or projectiles, Chico PD lumps together civil unrest and crowd control riot under authorized uses of these types of military equipment without any reference to AB 48's restrictions.
In addition, there's no reference to AB 48's restrictions on preventing hitting the head or neck with these less lethal munitions. Deployment of these weapons impact not only protesters, but also nearby communities, which can include children, the elderly, and the vulnerable. Tear gas, also considered less lethal, can cause temporary blindness and respiratory issues. Thanks. Thanks. Our community. That's time. Thanks, Jane. Thanks, Jane. Thanks, Jane. Thanks, Jane. Ann Polivka, followed by Dave Garcia.
California Law AB 481 states, the governing body shall only approve a military equipment use policy if the military equipment is necessary and cost-effective when compared to available alternatives. We with CC4J have seen no justification of need for the $1.25 million worth of incident command vehicles. We ask that Council disapprove this request, no matter how the vehicles are funded. Besides the acquisition costs, there's also the hidden costs of personnel, maintenance, etc. How many incidents have occurred last year in which the existing police department vehicles were deemed inadequate for response? The department already uses half the city budget and Council rubber stamps its requests. We ask that Council prioritize the really basic needs of our population.
Directing funds towards people in crisis living on the streets. Directing funds towards affordable housing. It should mean fewer officers needed to deal with issues arising from these situations. My second concern, the for-profit, the for-profit Lexapol company policies that the police department uses are woefully inadequate. They're confusing, they're vague, lots of loopholes. The military-grade tear gas policy, for instance, lacks transparency by saying there's no allergic reactions to tear gas, failing to mention the kinds of things that Diane mentioned in terms of risks of serious eye and lung injury and even fatalities from use, especially if it's deployed indoors. The police department owns a hot gas deploying robot that this Council recently approved for purchase.
Does the city of Chico really want a robot deploying chemical agents indoors? The robot policy includes no legal or procedural rules for use. That's time, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Dave Garcia, followed by Cheryl Sanchez. Good evening, Council. Chico has an excellent police department, according to Councillor Tom van Overbeek. Of course, you would believe that if you were old, wealthy, white, and privileged. However, according to Police Scoreboard, the first national independent organization that evaluated over 365 California police departments, Chico has an extremely high incidence of killing minorities. Based on population, a black person was 11.9 times as likely, and a Latinx person was 1.4 times as likely to be killed by police as a white person in Chico from 2013 to 2023.
Police scoreboard also indicated Chico police department had more police shootings per arrest than 31% of other California police departments. Chico police department also had 54% more killings by police per arrest and more racial disparities and deadly force than 92% of other departments. Tonight, the Chico police department is asking to purchase more suppressive militaristic equipment, counter to the department's community policing tenant. If Chico police department is truly committed to the safety and well-being of all of the community, this money should be invested in training, like crisis intervention and de-escalation. The police scoreboard data reveals the true deficiencies of our police department, and it is not militaristic equipment.
You would all agree that Chico ones deserve the best police department. However, police scoreboard gave Chico police department a score of 47%. That's time. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Cheryl Sanchez, followed by Julian Zenner. Hello, good evening. My name is Cheryl Sanchez, and I'm a supporter of the Concerned Community for Justice. I personally believe that a priority of the Chico City Council and the Chico PD should be spending city funds on de-escalation training of officers instead of on the incident command vehicles. I would believe that results-oriented analysis of the training would be more beneficial for our community, such as if there were no more officer-involved killings in the next five to ten years.
We believe our son, my son was killed in Chico on November 10th, 2015, over ten years ago now. And if there had been some de-escalation training in effect at that time in the city, maybe he would be alive today. He is dearly missed by his entire family, and there have been other Chico PD killings that could have also possibly not occurred if there had been more de-escalation training in this city. Thank you. Thank you. Julian Zenner, followed by Lynn Gonzalez. Good evening, City Councilors and staff. All of us here want to feel and be safe in Chico. And when we need help, we hope the police department responds quickly, appropriately, and rarely has to use force. Most of the department's litany of military equipment does allow for a safer response.
The robot that climbs stairs and opens doors, followed by small drones introduced to assess the interior rooms, eliminates the need to kick down doors and rush inside with drawn weapons, often with tragic consequences. Now, the City Council provides really the only oversight for the Chico PD, which I understand in practice consists mainly of approving the department's budget and the appointment of a new police chief. The $1.25 million request for the incident command vehicles is truly amazing. Chico is a quiet college town, not Watts, or likely to experience major unrest. Chief Aldridge explained at the community engagement meeting that the three vehicles were needed in part to protect expensive drones from harm if there was a raining during an incident.
Chief Aldridge, I'm sure there are cheaper alternatives. Chief Aldridge, I'm sure there are cheaper alternatives. The money could be better spent to restart community policing that has been shown throughout our nation to lead to better trust and communication between police and the public and leads to safer communities. Chief Aldridge, I'm sure there are a very cost effective approach to safety that does not involve equipment. Chief Aldridge, I thank you. Thank you. Lynn Gonzalez, followed by Mike Schultz. In community-based policing, law enforcement seeks to build partnerships with the community it serves. It seeks to build relationships and trust within the community through greater transparency and citizen oversight.
And yet, recent Chico PD recruitment videos seem to show a very different focus in our local law enforcement. In one, an all-male police force uses shields, guns drawn, smashing car windows, full military gear, a handcuffed shirtless prisoner, are all matched with the narrative of a young officer who says that he would describe the culture as, quote, a fun work environment, high energy, that looks like to show cops sometimes. In a second video, the warfare imagery is even more pronounced. The window smashing is there, along with a military tank, nighttime surveillance, robotics and drones, a bomb squad. It seems to me that if we want to build good relations with our police force in the community, we ought not to portray police work as a sort of paramilitary TV show when recruiting new members to the force.
What we need is a cultural shift in our police department, away from a militarized reactive force and towards a proactive approach that seeks to build relationships with and is accountable to the community it serves. Tonight, the council is being asked to approve the purchase of military-grade equipment for our police force. The bulk of the request is to purchase three command vehicles totaling over $1.2 million. A member of our group, CC4J, asked if there had been a single time in 2025 when the vehicles Chico PD already owns had been deemed inadequate to meet the needs. Not a single instance was given. Our community has many needs. High amongst them are expanded services for our unhoused population and expanded social services for our struggling families.
A more lethal police force is not what Chico needs. That's time. Thank you. Thank you. So, Mike Schultz followed by Charles Wathoon. Hello. I found it interesting that the very slick presentation that the law enforcement provided, I compliment you on the quality of it. But at the same time, there's this compare and contrast issue because I noticed that other community needs doesn't have such nice, slick presentations available. Road conditions don't have a nice thing to present to persuade you all to how to spend their money. So, I just want to point that out when you're making your decisions. It's kind of keep the even playing field here. I also understand the justifications for the, again, I'm concerned most about the vehicles coming to $1.2 million.
I understand the justification for the needs of them. I really do. I was at the community meeting the other day and I understand that very clearly. At the same time, all things are not equal. All things being equal, it would be great to have all the vehicles. But things are not equal. We have other needs, other needs that have more of a frequent need. According to their own materials, they used their one vehicle that they have six times in the past year. And I realize that some of the vehicles they're requesting are different types of vehicles and they would be used more frequently than that. But we have to really compare the frequency of need for law enforcement for these very expensive vehicles for the frequency of need for road repairs, social services.
And Council Member van Overbeek recently appeared on television talking about the drastic increase rates for sewers and doubling the rates. Couldn't we spend some of that money to lessen the impact of all those sewer rate payers for that huge impact? I think so. Because that's a daily need for rate payers. Infrequent need for law enforcement, daily need for community members. Please consider these things when you're making your decision, because how you spend money reflects your values. Thank you. Thank you. Charles Withoon, followed by William Finan. Good evening. Thank you, Council and staff. Appreciate your hard work. Thank you. May I suggest we are here today with a question about spending money for equipment.
Why? I would suggest for safety. We want to be safe. This is a basic motivation. Everybody has. We want a good police force, a strong police force, one that's tied in with the community so we can feel safe. North State Shelter Team has provided the city with two detailed plans that have worked for years in other cities that have lowered calls for emergency services for a fraction of the price we're talking about. I would ask you why invest so much in one direction without having explored the real better bang for the buck, the more valued possibilities of a well-managed campground we could be proud of or several tiny home villages that would clean up downtown. Dare I mention it. And reduce calls for emergency services.
I went and visited Opportunity Village in Eugene. Talked to the people. Went next door to the police department, knocked on the door. I said, hey. Policeman came out. What do you think about the tiny home village here? Has it been cause for more calls for emergency services or less? And the policeman looked at me and he scratched his chin. He said, you know, I think it's been less since they moved in. And that's been proven over and over in Livermore, Walnut Creek, Eugene, Springfield, El Cajon. Thank you. That's time. Thank you. William Bynum followed by Rachel Wallace. William Bynum Wallace. William Bynum Wallace. William Bynum Wallace. William Bynum Wallace. William Bynum Wallace. William Bynum Wallace.
William Bynum Wallace. Okay. Thank you so much for giving us this forum to address you on this important subject. I was at a meeting last week and there were about 30 or 40 people there. Tarleton member Hawley was there. I thought Chief Aldrich did a great job. I'm very impressed with the presentation and his ability to relate to citizens. I was there as a part of Veterans Action Group. There were eight of us there. I'm kind of representing them tonight. We appreciated the explanation of what the needs are. We discussed it later. I just want to say that we appreciated the fact that the First Amendment was going to be respected. We were there basically to defend the Constitution. That's one of our guiding goals, one of our mission statements.
Defend the VA, protect the Constitution. And we were reassured. I thought the presentation was extremely well done. But I was also a school board member for eight years. And I understand that a budget is really a list of priorities. And I've heard a lot of amazing speakers here tonight who talked about what their priorities would be. And as much as I would like to see somebody like Chief Aldridge get everything he needs, I think I hear compelling needs for other things. And if money is coming out of the general fund, I really think you need to look at the citizens of Chico and, of course, prioritize what's more important to them. Thanks. Time. Thank you. Thank you. Our last speaker is Rachel Wallace.
Hello. I just want to say I'm 50-something years old. And this is the first time I've been in this building. I graduated Chico High in 92. And, yeah, Chico's changed a lot. It's changed a lot. And everyone's perspective is very interesting to hear. My grandmother graduated from Chico High in 41. So, from her eyes, she passed away 10 years ago. Chico was this small little town that, you know, she could just walk down to the nut factory and put in her a few hours. And then my parents graduated in 68, and their perspective was a little different. And, yeah, I've seen it grow and change, and sometimes for the best and sometimes not so much. And my personal perspective, I moved back four years ago because my mother passed away.
And I don't feel safe going out in our community alone. I'm always watching around me. I have to be a defensive driver. Anyway, I've recently gone back to school. And one of the things that interested me was when I saw the post on our local police department for the Citizens Academy. Like, I think I'm going to sign up for that. And so I have been participating in that. I and whatever, 30 other people. And one thing has led to another. And I. That's time. Thank you. That is it. All right. We will close the public hearing. And. I have no speakers. Does anybody want to speak? Council Member van Overbeek. Yeah. So. A lot of people are up here trying to second guess what the police department needs to do its job.
And I'm not one of those people. What I know is. That the priority of the leadership, the police department is to keep their people safe. And and to keep the bad guys safe. So. Days of drone, for instance, to go into a building where there's a bad guy that's armed instead of a. An officer. That is much safer. And so. I question whether we need through all three of these command vehicles. But we'll sort that out in the budget process. I support this request enthusiastically. And thank you very much for what you do. Council Member Winslow. I have a different perspective on second guessing. I think that that is our job to second guess the request to come before us. And we have to sort out our priorities.
I also know how difficult it is to change things in the budget when it comes up. And I know that whenever we get requests and I. We always get new requests and things that I hadn't even heard of the year before. And last year when we had some some requests that were pushed, we took that money straight out of the road budget. And when I got on the council and you got on the council in 2023, we're a city flush with money like we hadn't been in a long time because the city just passed a sales tax. And we approved a budget with 70 percent of that money going to streets and roads. And we put out a pie chart showing that. And people seem to be generally pretty happy about that. And I agreed. And every year we keep getting more of these sort of asks that we just kind of throw off to the budget.
And then we end up approving it and taking it out of the road budget. And we don't put out pie charts anymore because people be very disappointed to see how much money is left for roads and how much of a prospect we have of even improving that after after passing a sales tax without being the top item. And everybody endorsing is saying that's the number one reason why we need this. So we are the oversight of the police. We're the other side of the budget. And I think it's important that we do second guess where our priorities are. And when we look at something that you can say yourself, you see, that looks like a bit much, you know, the hundreds of thousands of dollars for instant command vehicles.
And I think this is the moment where we say, hey, we need to focus on some other things right now. We have to live within our means. We have a lot of basic needs in our city, in our society that can be better taken care of. And the police department, they have a really good squat team. They have a really good hostage negotiator team. I did the Citizens Police Academy and I heard them all present on it. And I heard how they use the equipment that we have to good effect and understand that we are the ones to call in when we think that it's a bit much what's being asked for. And this is the time to do it. Council Member Bennett. I just want to thank the Chico Police Department, Chief Aldridge, Captain Pina, for everything you do for our community.
You don't get a lot of thanks, I suspect. At least it doesn't appear so. So this is a request and it's required by the state for you to provide this information. And you did. Thank you. And you also have a request for some equipment, which we will be looking at during the budget process. So our decision tonight to support this is not necessarily funding that source. We'll take a look at it again. It's going to be a very tight budget. I know it's going to be tight. We all realize that. But most of all, I just want to say thank you. Appreciate it. Goldstein. Thank you, Mayor. I'm okay with the concept of the incident command vehicles, but we're talking over a million dollars. Last year, we diverted over a million dollars from the Rhodes Fund, as Council Member Winslow mentioned, at the end of our budget hearings.
And we need to be very conscious of what we're approving, knowing that this will likely end up taking money out of our Measure H and our general funds. There's a fine balance to be had. I understand that our police force needs the equipment it needs to do the job safely. But it's a good idea for us to question all these things. That is our role. So I am not supportive of the idea of the three incident command vehicles solely due to the cost. I just want to put that out there. Council Member O'Brien, did you have anything? Yeah, I hear what everyone's saying. I think we're going to have a robust conversation about the budget, and that will include these vehicles, and I think that's the appropriate time to do that.
This really is a report, not an ask for money at this point. And we need to have that discussion at the appropriate time, which is during budget season. But I will remind everyone that Measure H was not just a roads measure. It's not just for roads. Roads certainly was an important part of that. It also was about public safety, and that's what our professionals are telling us tonight, what they need to keep our community safe. It's not just giving money to the police department. It's giving money to the community to keep them safe. That's the whole purpose of this, not just to fund a police department, is to keep our community safe. I want to remind everyone that's the purpose of a police department, is to keep everyone safe, to keep our community safe.
Thank you. Council Member Hawley. Thank you, Mayor Reynolds. I actually concur with Council Member O'Brien and Council Member Bennett on the idea that really the allocation of the budget is going to come budget season. The allocated amount of funds that the police department will be using is going to be decided then. And if those funds are not spent on equipment that is labeled as military grade, then it will be used on something else. So anyone who came today to advocate for where they think in the budget the priority should be, I really encourage you to come back and continue that advocacy now. With that being said, the spirit of the state-level policy really is to give more community oversight and insight to the national pattern of increasing militarization of the police departments all over the country and all over the state.
And I've certainly heard enough via email from that community engagement meeting and our previous year's use reports that I cannot, in good faith, support the increased acquisition of more semi-automatic patrol rifles that are military grade. With that being said, I actually find adequate justification for the incident command vehicles after speaking with Chief Aldridge. First of all, that doesn't necessarily mean that even one of those incident command vehicles will be funded come the 2026 to 27 budget cycle. But this is a piece of equipment that PG&E uses on a day-to-day basis, that hospitals use on a day-to-day basis. And if that's what PD leadership elects to use their already allocated funding on, then I don't see that there's any need to really fight that.
So I would make a motion to approve the military use report, approve the adoption of the military equipment use policy, and approve the purchase of the proposed 2026 acquisitions with the exception of the seven semi-automatic military patrol rifles. All right. I'll second the motion. Council Member Van Over. Yeah, this is an example of people second-guessing the police that don't know what they're talking about. So I can go to any gun store and buy a semi-automatic rifle. And so we're going to deny the police the same weapons that civilians have. That is completely and utterly nonsensical. Council Member Goldstein. I wanted to make a counterpoint to Council Member Hawley's comment that basically these funds are already allocated.
They're not, from my understanding. We're approving the concept of during budget season allocating funds for this, if I'm understanding this correctly. So it's not that this total amount is already in the police budget and is going to go to some kind of police equipment. We're saying conceptually we can use this amount. And so I think we still need to be very cautious of how much we're allocating towards this equipment. I don't see it as, like, it's a sunk cost. It's already in the budget. It's not. That said, I do agree with the concept of removing the rifle component of this. Council Member Hawley. Thank you, Mayor Reynolds. I apologize if I wasn't clear on that. I should have specified if it were to be already allocated in the 2026 budget.
These are just authorized purchases within that fund. I did want to just quickly respond to Council Member van Overbeek's comment. I don't think it's a very strong rebuttal to justify that just because the public could possibly acquire weaponry that necessarily needs to be matched by any law enforcement force. Because we could say hypothetically, the public could acquire a tank and do any sort of thing in their garage. It's a slippery slope fallacy, and I just won't mess with it. All right. So we have a motion in a second. Are you ready? Can I make a substitute motion that is basically Council Member Hawley's motion, but also reducing the incident command vehicles to just one? I'll second it.
Did you say? Sometimes I really think I got to get up in this microphone. I know. I did second it. I'm going to need to lean in. Okay. So it was a motion by Council Member Goldstein, seconded by Council Member Winslow to accept basically all of Council Member Hawley's motion, but also reducing the number of units to one. And that unit is the, those are the military. The incident command vehicles. The command vehicles. Okay. Thank you. Mayor, I have a point to clear up here. Yeah. So I understand the motion. Doesn't matter if I agree or disagree. But one thing you need to understand is that if we go down this path, you're also blocking our ability to seek grants that could fund these items. So just be clear that when we request these things tonight, it's just an authority for us to look for funding.
And you're not approving money tonight. So it's a slippery slope. Just understand that. I do appreciate that clarification. Thank you. Chief, are there any grants you're aware of that would fund more than one of these vehicles? There's hundreds of grants out there. We can't seek a grant until we talk to you. Am I able to, at this point in the process, if I wanted to amend my own motion or something, that might also be its own process issue. But to state that we only basically approve of these vehicles if they can be grant funded. I think we would probably, I mean, I'll let the city attorney speak. But would you recommend we close this out and start over? Yeah, if you're looking to, you can amend your own motion.
You can pull it back and make the motion and see if you get another second. Well, okay. I'll pull back my motion and I'll restate my motion on basically approving minus the rifles per Katie Dolly's motion. And then adding that we will fund the incident command vehicles through grants. The only way that would make sense for me for this as a motion is if we're just adding on direction to staff to not include in a budget proposal. Because we can always overrule our own decision later and just say, let's buy five instead, you know. And may I ask a clarifying question? When we were talking about the command vehicles, you had limited to just one in your first motion. And now you're saying as long as they're grant funded.
So does that mean all grant funded? As long as it's grant funded. Don't mind. Doesn't need a limit. Okay. All right. And this was the substitute motions. Yes. All right. So we have a motion. Okay. A substitute motion in a second. No, we don't have a second. Oh, there wasn't a second. Oh. Oh. Okay. So we're back to Council Member Hawley's motion. So you would. So Council Member Winslow withdrew his second. Okay. Okay. And so on the first motion, which was to approve the receipt of the annual military equipment use report, review the ordinance to adopt the military equipment use policy, approve the military equipment use policy, and approve the purchase of the additional proposed acquisitions for 2026.
With the exception of the seven automatic military rifles. And that was a motion. And that was a motion in a second. So on that one. Council Member Goldstein. Yes. Council Member Hawley. Yes. Council Member O'Brien. We've conflated this issue terribly. No. Thank you. Council Member van Overbeek. No. Council Member Winslow. No. Vice Mayor Bennett. No. Mayor Reynolds. Mayor Reynolds. It fails 2-4. Excuse me, 2-5. I apologize if you can count. Council Member Winslow. Do I make a motion to approve the report for Assembly Bill 481, Annual Military Equipment Use Report, as submitted by the Chief of Police? Second. There's a motion and a second. Council Member Goldstein. No. Council Member Hawley. No.
Council Member O'Brien. Yes. Council Member van Overbeek. Yes. Council Member Winslow. No. Vice Mayor Bennett. Yes. Mayor Reynolds. Carries 4-3. See you all back at budget season. We are going to take a 10 minute break and we will be right back. I don't think they're going to get it in budget. I know. Thanks, Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link All right.
Item 5.1, Exemption for the Chico- for Card Aquatic Center from Chapter 16.66 of the Preservation Tree. We have a report from Skyler Lipski, Public Works Director of Operations and Maintenance. Thank you, Madam Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members. I will be right back to the time before you in regards to the applicability of the Chapter 16.66 to the Chico Area Recreation and Parks District developments. As you are aware, the purpose and intent of Chapter 16.66 is to establish regulations controlling the removal and preservation of trees on private property for the use and enjoyment of said private property. It applies to all undeveloped private property within the city that is 10,000 square feet or greater in size and all property that requires discretionary approval of land use entitlement.
Codified exemptions are cemetery, public schools, university, city property, and tree work performed by public utilities in public utility easements and rights-of-way. You'll notice a common thread with the exemptions. They're all public entities that have a public board to serve for the public benefit. They have an elected board. Card is a public entity as well with an elected board providing park and recreation services for public benefit in the Chico area. As you know, Card is currently developing a site at Esplanade and Garner for the future Aquatic Center, which will be a public site as well. Through staff's deliberations on the applicability of Chapter 16.66 to Card in this matter, it was considered reasonable that they would fit into the list of exempted entities.
And so that is why the item is before you today. In short, this is a bit of a code cleanup item, if you will, and it will align Card with the other publicly governed entities that are already recognized as exempt under these regulations. I'm available to answer any questions, and Executive Director Annabelle Grimm with the card is here as well. All right, any questions for Mr. Lipski before we go to? All right, how many speakers do we have? We don't have any. All righty. I'll consider, anybody want to speak now? Okay, Council Member Goldstein. I just wanted to say that I had a good conversation with Director Lipsky about this item. My concern was, you know, the potential for if we exempt an organization.
What impact that might have on our urban forest? And I was reassured that Card intends to plant the trees that make up for the ones that they're removing for this aquatic center project. And that this is essentially a code cleanup item that Card basically should be included in the list with the other public entities with boards. So as long as Card will be planting those trees to make up for the ones removed for this project and that we hold Card and all other Organizations like it to a similar standard, acting in good faith to preserve urban forests in the future, then I will support this. Council Member Winslow? Council Member Winslow Yeah, I had similar thoughts looking at this in the first place.
And I went and looked at the code and it seems weird to me that Card ever was exempted from it. I don't know that there's a specific reason why. And it was so long ago that nobody remembers, although it wasn't that long. It was like 23 years ago or something like that. I just can't think of a reason why they wouldn't be exempted in the first place. So it's, well, for one, it's a park agency. So you kind of expect they're going to plant more trees, right? And just in the spirit of partnership, it makes sense to me for this exemption to be extended to them. Thanks, Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Vice Mayor Bennett.
So I make a motion to approve the exemption to Chico Area Recreation and Park District, speaking closely, Aquatic Center Chapter 16.66 Tree Preservation Regulations and Municipal Code Amendment to add card to the list of exempt entities. I'll second. Oh. Council Member Hawley. Council Member Hawley. Okay, and that includes the reading of an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Chico amending section 16.66.040A of this Chico Municipal Code to add the Chico Area Recreation and Park District as an exempt entity from tree preservation regulations. First reading and induction. Council Member Goldstein. Yes. Council Member Hawley. Yes. Council Member O'Brien. Yes. Council Member van Overbeek.
Yes. Council Member Winslow. Yes. Vice Mayor Bennett. Yes. Mayor Reynolds. Aye. Carry 7-0. All right. Item 5.2. Council Member van Overbeek's request for a presentation from the Chico Police Department. Yes. I was having a beer with some friends and they said, you know, we don't really understand what's happening inside the police department. And I have the belief that the more people understand about what our police department does and how they do it, the better things are going to be. So I discussed this with the chief and said, would you be willing to make a presentation to cover five areas? One is the hiring criteria and the process you go through for recruitment. Second is training. Third is the disciplinary process.
There are a lot of questions around some recent incidents. Fourth is the org chart. So who does what? Thank you, Molly. And the fifth is crime statistics and trends. So, for instance, in 2022. Well, I won't go off on that. So those five areas. But chief, if you want to expand on that, you can feel free to do that. I understand what the goal is here. And I don't have an issue. I think that's something that will be very informative to both council and to the community. Council Member Winslow, go ahead. The button. Here it is. Okay. Council Member van Overbeek, you're meaning separate meetings you want on a recurrent basis to have a police department report section of our city council meeting? Thanks, Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Yeah, so once a year.
It was sort of like an annual crime report update. Yeah, crime stats. Okay, yeah, we've done that in the past. I remember even Council Member O'Brien was police chief and seeing a crime report in like 2019, and it seems like it was a good thing. There were some pie charts in there too, as I recall. Yeah. I guess as long as it's a fancy report, then we can do it. And include the pie charts for Winslow. So I would just say that I think we should move forward with it but just be time sensitive to maybe putting it on an agenda week when, you know, as long as you're not asking it to come in like two weeks when we have a bunch of other stuff coming or four weeks. I don't think there's any time urgency, and you put it on a day when it's light, but I think it would benefit, as the chief said, us and the public.
Yeah, we had a community board that did this a while back, and I learned a ton on it because they talked a lot about the hiring processes and what went through and disciplinary processes, and it was actually very educational, and I learned a lot, so I think the public would benefit from that. Would you like me to make a motion? Do we have any speakers on this? All right. We have one speaker, and it's Bo Powell. Bo Powell. Yeah, I came here 2014 and talked to y'all about the police not enforcing the law, okay? Now, it's in the county, but they get trained at the same police academies. Butte College has a history of its students being exploited by the farmers. I know Mr. O'Brien's not here, but he was a keynote speaker in 2019 at the California Retired Public Employees Association meeting, and it was almost a year or just over a year.
It was November, so it was just over a year after the campfire, and he said to us two things that stuck out, that the police is the forward-facing front of our government, and they do what you allow them to do. So if we think they're failing us or if we think we don't know what they're doing, maybe it's because they haven't gotten a clear idea from you or from their training. If you look at who's running the county now, we have Mike Ramsey, the longest-setting DA in the state, Sharaponi, who got an award from Butte College for being an outstanding, okay? And we have Mr. O'Brien, an elected official. We have Officer Durfee, an elected official. And farmers are spraying law enforcement. They're spraying their kids.
We need for the government, the local government, to act. We need you to ask the media to respect you and your family. I have called Action News too many times to remember. You know? Since they legalized spraying the public right-of-way, PG&E went up 250%. Mr. Powell, this is about having the police do a presentation to us, so just make sure you're staying on that topic. I can't hear you. Make sure you're staying on the topic of this is about them doing a presentation to us. Well, it is all combined together. Thank you. He was our only speaker. Okay. Councilmember van Overbeek, would you like to make a motion? Other than? Want to make a motion? Council Member O'Brien, I'm sorry. Did you have anything that you wanted to say before?
No, I think it will be very informative. And however the Chief wants to put that together, I think those topics are fine. I would defer a lot to the police department and Chief Aldridge, and I'm sure they'll do a fantastic job. So however they want to construct it, I think having an annual report with some of those topics would be very valuable. So I support that. Thank you, Mike. Chief Aldridge, do you have something you wanted to say? I just want to make sure that I understand you clearly. So are we saying multiple presentations of 15 minutes or so? Are we saying now one presentation that includes everything that could go a little longer than 15 minutes? Well, when we first started talking about it, excuse me.
Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, when we first started talking about it, I said maybe do multiple short presentations, and you said, no, I can do it all at once. But you tell us how you'd like to do it. And you don't need to tell us now. Okay. I'll just ask for your approval to discuss this with the city manager, and then we determine how best to move forward with it and put it on the agenda. Yeah, sure. Okay. Are you ready for a motion? I'm ready. Okay. I'd like to make a motion to have the Chico Police Department make a periodic report to the city council and the public on their processes, the critical processes for their critical functions. Did you get that, Debbie? I'm sorry. I did. Okay. Second. Second.
And that was Vice Mayor Bennett, who made the second? Yes. Thank you.
Okay. Council Member Goldstein? Looking forward to it. Yes. Council Member Hawley? Yes. Council Member O'Brien? Yes. Council Member van Overbeek? Yes. Council Member Winslow? Yes. Vice Mayor Bennett? Yes. Mayor Reynolds? Aye. Carry 7-0. All right. Item 5.3 posted after the agenda, a consideration of authorizing a letter of support for the California Water Service PFAS compliance program that's currently before the Public Utilities Commission. Do you want to take this, Mark, or do you want me to? We can do either. Friday, as I noted in an email to Council on Saturday morning, we were approached by Cal Water to sign on to a letter that was a draft that was sent to you all in support of their current proceeding before the California Public Utilities Commission for funding to help them with their PFAS.
I know we have some folks in the audience. I know we have some folks from Cal Water in the audience who could explain that item and the fact that there is now a maximum contaminant level set by the federal EPA. So they are endeavoring to obtain enough funding to support their continuance of installing filtering equipment at various pumps around the city. So they are looking for Council's approval to sign on to that letter that was sent to you in support of their efforts before the CPUC. Yeah, and I would just add that we had a great conversation with Cal Water. They explained that, you know, this is a federal mandate that it has come down. They have some time to get it in place. However, the rest of the nation is going to have to be getting it in place at the same time, and they are trying to be proactive and get it done now.
While our levels here in Chico are below the need level or the mandated level, we're below that, but they don't want to get caught up in supply chains and things like that later down the road. So they're just being proactive. I believe Orville has signed on, Bakersfield. Almost every other community is sending letters of support. Also, most of them did not go to their council. I just wanted to bring it to council because I didn't want to sign my name to anything without, you know, bringing it to you guys and let you know. So, Council Member Winslow. Oh, I'm curious if anybody here, Mark, or somebody has experience. Do we ever send letters in support of rate increases at the CPUC, like for any utility?
I have not seen that before. Yeah. That's kind of all. It seemed a bit inordinate to me, but we'll hear from Calwater folks that are here. Council Member van Overbeek. Yeah, these PFAS compounds are pretty scary. They're bonding compounds, and it's the kind of stuff you see in non-stick cookware and many other applications. And because the bond is so strong, it's very hard to clean up. You can't just wash it off or even with solvents. So, I think it's really – I was less than enthusiastic about supporting a rate increase with Calwater, but once I understood what they were trying to do, they need to fund the equipment to remove this from our water supply. So, I support it. Yeah, and I think we should probably have Calwater speak to it because the rate increases for the CUPC has not been approved, and they never get what they ask for, and this isn't even about the rate increase because there's more included in it.
But I'm going to let Evan speak to that. I think it would be the best. And he did put a card in. Okay, good. So, Evan Markey. Council Member Goldstein, are you good waiting until after we hear from Evan, or would you like to go now? Yeah, quick. Sure. Yeah, sorry. I did the request to speak kind of late. I just would love to hear kind of a breakdown of the cost that will go into that rate increase. Hopefully, that can be covered by the Calwater staff. Council Member O'Brien, did you have any questions or comments before we go to Evan from Calwater? No, I'll save my – after the presentation. Okay, sounds good. All right, so is Evan our only speaker? Okay. That is correct. Okay. Welcome. All right.
Well, thank you, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Council for adding this to the agenda today. You guys covered some of the background that I was going to speak on. To address a few of the questions, I want to be really clear that we're not asking you to support the rate increase portion of this. I know that's part of it. What was in the filing that was part of your packet is a worst-case scenario of the rate impact. That's assuming we get no grant funding and we get nothing back from the litigation that we're currently a part of. We are – our general counsel at Calwater is actually leading a national class action lawsuit against the manufacturer of these compounds. We're in settlement right now. We know we're going to get a significant amount of funding.
Those entities, the major ones being 3M, DuPont, Kitta. Those – the funds that we get from that settlement will go directly to offset the rate impact to our customers here. We also have applied for a $10 million grant with the state of California to help offset those costs. So that worst-case scenario number you're seeing there, $4.23 for the average customer per month, it will be less than that, hopefully significantly less. The reason we can't speak on that with an exact number right now is because we don't know how much funding we're going to get from the litigation. And we're also still looking for other grant opportunities. What we're asking for you to support is our position that we need to install this treatment now.
The Public Advocates Office, which is a division of the California Public Utilities Commission, is – their stance is that we should delay installing treatment on these sites, which we have 14 here in Chico that we want to install treatment on, 14 wells. And we feel that that is not in the best interest of our community, public health, and the reliability of our water system. In order to, you know, make sure that we have water for peak demand in the middle of the summer when everybody's irrigation is running, and God forbid there's a fire, we need all these systems online. So that's our request, is that you support us proactively installing treatment, not waiting to seek more grant funding that may not be there.
As was mentioned, it is a federal MCL. Approximately 10% of the water systems in the nation are going to be impacted by this. That's anywhere from 4,000 to 7,000 different water systems across the nation. And there's a very limited number of vendors that actually make these treatment systems. And so supply chain issues are going to be a serious concern, and they're going to get more expensive. We've been testing for these compounds since back in 2013. We've been waiting, and we've been anticipating that this MCL would finally be set. And once it was, we hit the ground running so we could be ahead of the game and get them installed as quickly as possible. And that's what we're seeking your support in, is that approach.
So if there's any questions, I'm happy to take them. Okay. I think you're good. Thank you so much, Evan. Further discussion from Council? Council Member Winslow? Yeah. Well, I understand a bit, like the situation with PFAS, and I respect the desire to have the filtration happen sooner rather than later. I'm only hearing from CalWater what the position of the Consumer Advocates Office is, and understanding that we're elected by people, and I feel like we ought to be more on the consumer side than we are on the corporation side. And that's the reason we have this whole system with the California Public Utilities Commission. It's really not a system that I would have selected myself. But if we had the consumer advocates come here and present to us, too, and what's the need and the relative cost to all of us who pay the bills, then we would be acting more like the CPUC, and I think that's a little out of our purview.
So I don't know what the situation is with other local governments having these letters signed administratively for that. I don't feel like it's very appropriate for us to be weighing in and in support of petitions for the CPUC when we don't, frankly, have all the information on it. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Reynolds. Really the only verbiage that concerns me in this support letter is, and I quote, additionally, while we fully support the pursuance of grant funds to offset possible project costs, the pursuit of grant funds should not delay the execution of these projects. And to me, that does kind of hint at support of potential rate increases, regardless of whether or not grants are secured.
So that's why I generally concur with Council Member Winslow, because I feel it's out of our jurisdiction at this time. Council Member Goldstein. Thank you. This does sound like an important program, but it's an unfunded mandate, and I don't feel that I have enough information to justify our council supporting passing this cost on to our residents at this time. Council Member van Overbeek. Yeah, this is a nationally recognized threat to public health. It's a carcinogen. It has impacts on kidneys. I mean, there's a bunch of things that have been well documented. And so what Cal Water is trying to do, and I commend them for this, is to get ahead of the curve because there's supply chain issues and trying to get enough of the equipment that can remove this to make sure that we get it done here in a reasonable amount of time.
So I think this is imminently reasonable, and I support it. Council Member O'Brien, do you have anything? I do. So I concur that no one likes rate increases, particularly me. But we need to remember Cal Water didn't create this problem, and this really is a safe water issue. You know, something we take for granted is the safety of our water. And I want to applaud Cal Water for being proactive and trying to do something about this before it becomes a real issue. And they have to take either wells offline, which diminishes our ability to provide clean and safe water to our community. This is a little bit of a different request. I get that. It's a little outside of our scope usually. But something like this where it really is a safety issue for our water supply, I don't think we can wait.
And what I'm hearing and what I understand that, whether it's grant funding or lawsuits or in combination, that's going to be returned to the ratepayer. I'm confident they will do that. I think they just want to get ahead of this. Like Council Member van Overbeek said, I applaud them for that. We do not want to wait until this is a crisis. This is a burgeoning emergency, and it's not just a Chico issue. It's a national issue. We want to get ahead of it for our community. That's our responsibility. Council Member Bennett. In speaking to General Manager Markey about some details about this program, I certainly would like to drink clean water. I'd like to drink water that doesn't have any chemicals in it.
I don't know if we're going to get to that point in the United States. But thank you for moving this forward. I think we need to move forward quickly. Once it gets closer to the deadline, all the equipment and the filters and the type of systems that you need to purchase, they're going to be expensive, very, very expensive. Even if you might not be able to get them because they're not being made quickly enough. So it's going to be a major problem as we get closer to the deadline. What concerned me also was the possibility of taking stations offline and perhaps not having the water for our fire sprinkler systems. That concerns me being responsible for a large building that is sprinklered. I sure don't want to, you know, lay at night and wonder if that pump is going to work or if it's going to be down for a while.
The insurance companies would go just nuts over something like that. So for two reasons, our health and then maintaining our pressure in our fire sprinkler systems. I just want to fill in a couple more points about why I think that this is inappropriate and how all these points sound really reasonable. But these are also the points that we're hearing from the company who wants to pass the rate increase on us. We don't really have our own independent look at, like, the validity of these things. What kind of supply chain issues will there be? To what extent will these costs be returned to the customers? These are all valid questions. And, again, the reason why we have this CPUC system is because these are private corporations with shareholders whose responsibility is to maximize shareholder value.
And, again, with just the fact that we're asked to weigh in with the limited information and the kind of interesting conflicts that come about with this. Like, Calwater is one of the largest donors in our local elections. Just in the last election cycle, they donated over $10,000 to support some of the people that are up here. And so when they're coming to us to ask for our support and then going after rate increase, I feel like we really should step back and ask whether that looks okay to the public and whether that should be taken seriously. Whether even the CPUC should take seriously the kind of letters of support that are coming in when this is the environment they're working with. So if we had an unbiased report that really confirmed the things that we're hearing and confirmed the expenses they're going to be and the costs that there would be in waiting, then I would feel perhaps different in making a calculation based on all these.
But all I'm hearing from the council members is the same things I'm hearing from Calwater. And I feel like it's reasonable for us to question that. And that's why we have a CPUC in an advocate's office over there. All right. Anybody else? Consider a motion? I have a motion. I think we'll just take it off the recommendation. Recommendation of Chico City Council, or the... The council supports California Water Service in the matter of the application of an order approving PFAS compliance program. Submits a formal letter of support to the California PUC, encouraging approval of the PFAS compliance program. Debbie, that language is just right in the recommendation. Second. I got a motion and a second to authorize the mayor to submit the letter.
Council Member Goldstein? No. Council Member Hawley? No. Council Member O'Brien? Yes. Council Member van Overbeek? Yes. Council Member Winslow? No. Vice Mayor Bennett? Yes. Mayor Reynolds? Aye. Carries 4-3. Thank you, Calwater, for bringing this forward. And thank you, Council, for listening to it at the last minute. I appreciate that. Reports and communications. The following reports and communications are... Items are provided for the Council's information. No action can be taken on items under this section unless the Council agrees to include it on a subsequent agenda. City Manager's report? Nothing further tonight. All right. The financial report is for file only. Council Member requests pursuant to AP&P 1010.
Council Members may verbally request an item to be agendized at a future agenda after stating what the item would be. A majority of the vote of Council is needed in order for staff to agendize. Do we have any Council Member requests? No? I have a quick one. Or I have one. At our next meeting, we are going to be talking about downtown. And one of the things that's been... Was brought to the... Eric, I keep wanting... I have to get your new Assistant City Manager. The Assistant City Manager... Wow. It's been a long day. We've been doing interviews. I'm sorry. We've been here since, what, 2 o'clock? Chamber of Commerce brought forward the idea of doing an entertainment zone in downtown. And there have been conversations happening on that.
What I am asking to agendize to go with Council Member O'Brien's request at next week's meeting is also to talk about the entertainment zone. Just because it's going to take more than an hour's worth of staff time. And so I feel like we need to give direction if that's something that we want to allow staff to continue to work on. So instead of agendizing it at another conversation at another time for another downtown item, I was just hoping to add it on to next week's downtown. I'll second the motion. Sorry, two weeks. Not next week. Yeah. Or when... I assume downtown's coming on the next agenda, but whenever that comes on the agenda. Yes. And so Council Member O'Brien's item was about the revitalization of downtown and yours were...
Your item was opportunity zones. Did you want it added to the opportunity zone one or to revitalization? It really belongs with downtown revitalization. The PBID is the revitalization. I think Council Member O'Brien's was just downtown... Revitalization. I think you really want it to be a separate item so that we get specific... Okay. So a third item, but to be heard with the downtown conversations, because it'll be the three things. So we'll leave it a standalone item, but to be... So to clarify, is this... You had a request last time. Is this the same zones concept that we're talking about? It is, but it wouldn't be PBID running it. That's the chamber, and it's our assistant city manager is kind of taking the lead on it.
And so that's going to take more than an hour's worth of staff time. So if we want him to continue to talk about an opportunity zone, then we need to have a council vote to allow staff time to be dedicated to that. Probably just wordsmithing the entertainment slash opportunity zone. Yeah. Same concept here. Okay, great. I got it. Yes, suspend the rules. Normally we bring it back 30 days later, but it seems silly to me to not talk about it when we're not already talking about all the downtown stuff. Just add it in. Makes sense. Okay. Was there a second for that? I had seconded it. Sorry, it took me a minute to get that out. That wasn't that confusing. All good. Okay. Council Member Goldstein?
Yes. Council Member Hawley? Yes. Council Member O'Brien? Yes. Council Member van Overbeek? Yes. Council Member Winslow? Yes. Vice Mayor Bennett? Yes. Mayor Reynolds? Aye. Carry 7-0. So we are going to adjourn to our Tuesday, March 17th meeting, which will be beginning either at 2 or 3 p.m. I'm not sure which, but we are going to be starting early for closed session and interviews and all that kind of good stuff. And then we will be in here at 6 o'clock for our regular meeting. Thank you. Thank you.
Thanks, Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Thank you.
Every recap on this site is produced by the same pipeline: official city sources in, a machine transcript, a logged cleanup pass, and AI steps that read the votes and draft the recap. This page shows exactly what each step did for this meeting — including the full instructions we give the AI — so you can judge the process, not just trust the output. (For the pipeline in general, see How it's made.)
The weakest link is turning the meeting's audio into text. Council chambers have distant microphones, cross-talk, and names the transcription model has never heard — so names, dollar figures, and mumbled stretches are where errors creep in. Everything downstream inherits those errors, which is why the later steps exist mostly to catch them: a name-correction pass with a public log (step 3), instructions that tell the AI to omit or flag anything shaky (step 4), and a cross-check of every vote against the clerk's record (step 5). If you spot something wrong, tell us.
- 1
Start from the official record
We pull the agenda and the full meeting video straight from the city's own publishing system (Granicus) — fetched July 10, 2026. Along with the city's published member roster (step 3) and the clerk's official minutes once posted (step 5), these are the recap's only sources — all of them city records, and you can check the two main ones yourself:
- 2
Turn the audio into text
Biggest source of errorsWe transcribe the meeting audio locally with an open-source speech-recognition model (
whisper-large-v3-turbo), producing 1,737 timestamped segments. Machine transcription mishears things — especially proper names and numbers — and it doesn't know who is speaking.The one hint we give the transcriber
Before transcribing, the model is shown this sentence (built from the official member roster) so it's more likely to spell names right. It biases spelling only — it can't add words that weren't spoken — and because that bias is silent, step 3 double-checks every name anyway.
3/3/26 Council Meeting & Posted Addendum, City of Chico, California. Present: Mayor Kasey Reynolds, Vice Mayor Dale Bennett, Councilmember Bryce Goldstein, Councilmember Katie Hawley, Councilmember Mike O'Brien, Councilmember Tom van Overbeek, Councilmember Addison Winslow, Incoming City Manager Gillian Haen, Director Alan Harris, City Attorney Ryan Jones City Attorney Ryan Jones, Administrative Services Director Barbara Martin, Chief Billy Aldridge, Public Works Director Skyler Lipski, City Manager Verbal Report, Chico Police Officer Chico Police Management, Administrative Services Director Employee Organizations.
- 3
Clean up the transcript — with receipts
A rule-based pass (no AI) merges the raw segments into readable paragraphs and checks name-like words against the official member roster. It only corrects a name when the context makes the match near-certain — after a title like “Councilmember” or an exact first name — and every correction is logged below. Anything it can't confirm is flagged for a human instead of silently guessed.
All 16 name corrections made in this meeting
Transcript said Corrected to Times Van Overbeck van Overbeek 9 Lipsky Lipski 2 Howley Hawley 1 Van Overby van Overbeek 1 Holley Hawley 1 Van Obrecht van Overbeek 1 Van O'Briek van Overbeek 1 7 name spellings we could not confirm
These looked like member names but didn't clear our confidence bar, so they were left as heard and passed to the next step as “treat with suspicion.”
- “organization” (closest roster match: Organizations, heard 2× — listen at 1:07:17)
- “ones” (closest roster match: Jones, heard 10× — listen at 6:25)
- “lipsky” (closest roster match: Lipski, heard 1× — listen at 1:42:28)
- “chico police department” (closest roster match: Police Management, heard 12× — listen at 16:58)
- “van” (closest roster match: Haen, heard 1× — listen at 1:31:41)
- “vice mayor” (closest roster match: Katie Hawley, heard 4× — listen at 27:34)
- “requests” (closest roster match: Bennett, heard 2× — listen at 2:10:43)
- 4
Draft the recap with AI
The cleaned transcript, the official agenda, and the list of unconfirmed names go to a language model (
claude-sonnet-5) , run July 10, 2026. The instructions below are the complete, verbatim prompt — nothing is hidden. Note what it demands: accuracy over completeness, no editorializing, omit shaky details rather than guess, and mark anything it can't verify — those become the dotted-underline flags you see in the recap.Read the full recap prompt
The {{PLACEHOLDER}} markers are where this meeting's title, date, agenda, transcript, and unconfirmed-name list are inserted.
You are writing a plain-language recap of a Chico, California city council meeting for residents who don't usually follow local government. Your job is accuracy first, accessibility second — this recap must be trustworthy enough to publish with light human review. You are given three sources: 1. The official meeting agenda (structured, reliable). 2. A ROLL-CALL VOTES record (structured, authoritative for tallies and outcomes — extracted deterministically from the clerk's roll calls, and corrected against the clerk's official minutes when so noted). 3. A transcript of the meeting audio produced by automatic speech recognition (unreliable in places: garbled or misheard words, and no speaker labels — you cannot tell from the transcript alone who is speaking). Rules: - Only report things supported by the sources. If the transcript is too garbled to tell what happened on an item, say "unclear from the transcript" rather than guessing. - Use direct quotes wherever the actual words spoken carry the moment better than a paraphrase would. This is especially true for ceremonial items — honors, farewells, proclamations, tributes — where what was said IS the story, and for pointed disagreements or a member explaining their vote. Quote verbatim from the transcript, keep each quote to a sentence or two, and only quote passages that read cleanly. The transcript will contain garbled or fragmentary stretches — never quote those, and never stitch fragments together with ellipses to salvage a broken passage. Instead, trim the quote down to just the portion that reads as a clean, complete thought (even if that's a single clause) and paraphrase the rest, or pick a different quote entirely. Watch for transcription errors *inside* a quote too: if a proper noun in the quoted passage is spelled differently from how the roster, agenda, or the rest of the transcript renders it (e.g. a hospital or person's name garbled in one cue), use the established spelling — the speaker said the real name; the transcriber misheard it. A quote should read as smoothly as if it appeared in a newspaper. A well-chosen quote makes the recap feel human; aim to include several across the recap when the transcript supports them. - Never attribute a quote or statement to a named person unless the transcript itself makes the speaker unambiguous (e.g. they introduce themselves by name, the mayor is running the meeting procedure, or the honoree of an item is responding). Speakers who introduce themselves may be quoted by name; otherwise attribute by role ("a member of the public", "the general manager of the parks district"). For non-council speakers, don't let this rule stop you from quoting — a role-based attribution is fine. - Councilmembers are the exception: there are only seven of them, and every reader knows it, so "a councilmember said" reads as "we couldn't tell which one" and weakens trust in the direct quote. Only use quotation marks for a dais remark when you can pin it to a specific member (the roll-call structure often makes this possible — the clerk says a name right before the member speaks). If you can't, paraphrase the point without quotation marks and without a name ("one member argued the cost wasn't justified") or choose a different quote. - Vote outcomes matter most. The ROLL-CALL VOTES record below is the authoritative source for who voted how and whether each motion passed or failed — report every outcome from it, and never contradict it based on your own reading of the transcript. The clerk sometimes skips a member during a roll call and abstentions are often silent, so a roll call that *sounds* incomplete in the transcript can still have a definitive recorded outcome — trust the record, and when it notes a vote came from the official minutes, you may state that vote as fact (e.g. an abstention the audio never captured). Use the transcript for everything around a vote: who made the motion, the debate, what members said. Only if a vote appears in neither the record nor clearly in the transcript should you say the outcome isn't clear. - Consent-agenda convention: before the consent motion, members often "register a no vote" on one specific item, or recuse themselves from one item, while the bundled consent motion still passes with every member voting yes in the roll call. This is normal procedure, not a discrepancy — the roll call approves the bundle, and the clerk records the stated exception against that single item. Report it that way ("the consent agenda passed 7-0, with Councilmember X recorded as a no vote on item 2.4 and Councilmember Y recused from item 2.3"). Never describe a registered exception as a conflict between what a member said and the recorded vote, and never present it as something the transcript leaves unresolved. - Plain language: define jargon inline the first time it appears (e.g. "consent agenda — routine items approved in one vote"). Write for a smart neighbor, not a policy wonk. - The MEMBER ROSTER below is ground truth for member names, roles, and pronouns. Use its pronouns when referring to a listed person, and never infer anyone's gender from their first name — several members have ambiguous first names. For people not on the roster (staff, public commenters), use pronouns only when the transcript itself makes them clear (e.g. someone is introduced as "Mr./Ms. X"); otherwise repeat the name or role instead of guessing a pronoun. - Keep neutral tone. No editorializing about whether decisions were good or bad. Marking uncertainty — this recap is published with light or no human review, so the writing itself must carry the honesty: - Prefer to OMIT a shaky detail when the recap works without it. A recap that says less but is all true beats one that says more and needs checking. - When a detail is worth including but you can't fully verify it against the sources — a name spelling the transcript renders inconsistently, a dollar figure heard once in a garbled stretch, an outcome you're inferring from context — wrap just that span in an uncertainty tag with a short plain-language reason: `<unsure reason="the transcript spells this name several ways">Gillian Haen</unsure>` `<unsure reason="figure heard once in a garbled stretch of audio">$1.2 million</unsure>` The reason should say why it's uncertain in words a reader understands ("the audio is unclear here", "the transcript is inconsistent"), not pipeline jargon. Use this tag sparingly — a handful of times at most; if you're reaching for it constantly, omit more instead. - Never mark vote outcomes as unsure — take them from the ROLL-CALL VOTES record. Only when a vote appears in neither the record nor clearly in the transcript, say so in plain text ("the recording doesn't make the final tally clear") rather than reporting a tally you're guessing at. - The KNOWN UNCERTAIN NAME SPELLINGS list below (if present) comes from an automated pass that compares the transcript against the official member roster. Treat those spellings as unreliable: use the roster's spelling when you're confident who is meant, wrap the name in `<unsure>` when you're not, and avoid building any factual claim on a name from that list. Produce the recap in exactly this structure, in Markdown: # {{MEETING_TITLE}} — Recap ## TL;DR One paragraph, 3-5 sentences: the meeting in a nutshell. Lead with the most consequential decision. ## What happened, item by item For each substantive agenda item (skip pure procedure like pledge of allegiance and roll call unless something notable happened): a short heading with the item number, then 1-3 sentences on what it was and what happened, including the outcome if determinable. Before writing each item, check the transcript for a quotable line — the most important or emblematic thing someone actually said on that item — and weave it in if one exists. Ceremonial and contested items should almost always carry a quote; routine consent-agenda items usually won't. ## Notable moments 2-4 bullets: public comments, exchanges, announcements, or anything a resident might want to know happened. Skip this section if there's nothing notable. ## Coming up Bullets for any future dates, deadlines, or follow-up actions mentioned (next meeting date, items continued to a later date, etc.). --- MEETING METADATA: Title: {{MEETING_TITLE}} Date: {{MEETING_DATE}} MEMBER ROSTER (ground truth for names, roles, and pronouns): {{ROSTER}} KNOWN UNCERTAIN NAME SPELLINGS (from automated roster comparison; may be empty): {{UNCERTAIN_NAMES}} ROLL-CALL VOTES (authoritative record of every motion's tally and outcome; notes mark votes corrected from the clerk's official minutes): {{VOTES}} AGENDA: {{AGENDA}} TRANSCRIPT (automatic speech recognition of the meeting audio — imperfect, no speaker labels): {{TRANSCRIPT}}Read the social-media post prompt
Our Instagram cards are written by a second AI pass whose only source is the already-reviewed recap — it is forbidden from adding any new facts.
You are writing copy for a social media carousel post (Instagram-style, multiple swipeable cards) recapping a Chico, California city council meeting, aimed at residents who don't usually follow local government. You are given an already fact-checked recap of the meeting. It is your ONLY source. Rules: - Every fact must come from the recap. Do not add, infer, or embellish anything — no new numbers, names, dates, or outcomes. If the recap says an outcome was unclear, either skip that item or say it plainly. - Hedged claims are not stories. Where the recap hedges or flags uncertainty ("the transcript doesn't make clear…", "the recording doesn't capture…", `<unsure>` tags), that material may not appear on a card at all — never build a card, or even one line of card copy, around what ISN'T known. Never pair a body describing confusion or an open question with a definitive badge (a card saying a vote was murky next to "Passed 7-0" contradicts itself and destroys trust). Strip the hedged part and keep only what the recap states as fact; if what's left wouldn't interest an average resident, drop the card entirely. - Quotes must appear word-for-word in the recap. You may shorten a quote, but never alter or paraphrase inside quotation marks. - Neutral tone — no editorializing, no cheerleading, no snark. Being punchy is fine; having an opinion is not. - Never infer anyone's gender from their name. Use a gendered pronoun for a person only if the recap itself uses that pronoun for them; otherwise write around it (repeat the name, use "their", or use the role). - Write for someone mid-scroll: concrete, plain language, zero jargon. If a term like "consent agenda" is unavoidable, gloss it in a few words. - No hashtags or emojis in card text. Produce 5 to 8 cards following this template: 1. First card — type "hook". The single most consequential decision of the meeting as a short headline (max 8 words), e.g. "Chico has a new **city manager**". Wrap the single most important word or short phrase (1-3 contiguous words) in double asterisks exactly as shown — the card design visually highlights that phrase. Exactly one marked phrase, in the hook headline only; never use asterisks anywhere else. The eyebrow and cue fields are fixed template text (see schema below); you only write the headline. 2. Middle cards — type "item", one card per newsworthy *story*. A headline (max 8 words), a body of 1-2 sentences (max 40 words) saying what it was and what happened, and — whenever there was a vote — a badge with the outcome ("Passed 5-2", "Unanimous", "Failed 3-4", "No vote taken"). Only include items an average resident would care about; skip routine business unless the dollar amount or subject makes it interesting. - Each card must cover a distinct story. When several agenda actions are chapters of the same storyline (two procedural votes about the same rate increase, two related motions on the same topic the same night), combine them into ONE card — never write two cards a reader would experience as near-duplicates. - Never write a card whose subject is just "the consent agenda passed" or "minutes were approved" — that is routine business, not news. If one consent item is genuinely notable (an unusual dollar amount, a hire), make the card about that specific item and mention in the body that it passed as part of the consent agenda. 3. Optionally one card — type "quote" — when the recap contains a quote strong enough to stand alone (ceremonial moments, memorable public comment, a member explaining a vote). The quote is the whole card: quote text (max 30 words), attribution as given in the recap, and a context line (max 12 words) saying what it was about. - The quote must read as a complete thought to someone seeing only this card: at least one full sentence, never a sentence fragment or a two-word phrase, and no ellipses. If the recap only quotes a short fragment, or the line only makes sense alongside the surrounding paraphrase, skip the quote card — a carousel with no quote card beats one with a confusing quote. - Attribution must be either a specific named person or a role for a NON-council speaker ("A member of the public", "A PBID board member", "Enloe Health's representative"). Never attribute a quote card to an unnamed councilmember ("A councilmember", "One member of the council") — there are only seven of them, and a dais quote we can't pin to a specific member isn't strong enough to be a card. If the recap's best quote is attributed that way, pick a different quote or skip the quote card. - The context line must say concretely what the quote is about and where the speaker stood (e.g. "Explaining his no vote on the rate increase"), not just name the topic. 4. Last card — type "coming_up". Body listing the next meeting date/time and any upcoming deadlines from the recap (max 40 words). The cta field is fixed template text. Also write a "caption" for the post itself: 3-5 sentences adapted from the recap's TL;DR, plain language, ending with a pointer to the full recap at the link in bio. Output STRICT JSON only — no markdown fences, no commentary before or after. Schema: { "caption": "...", "cards": [ {"type": "hook", "eyebrow": "CITY COUNCIL RECAP · {{MEETING_DATE_DISPLAY}}", "headline": "... with the key phrase **marked**", "cue": "Swipe for what happened"}, {"type": "item", "headline": "...", "body": "...", "badge": "Passed 5-2"}, {"type": "quote", "quote": "...", "attribution": "...", "context": "..."}, {"type": "coming_up", "headline": "Coming up", "body": "...", "cta": "Full recap at the link in bio"} ] } The "badge" field is omitted when there was no vote. Card order: hook first, coming_up last, items in the order that best tells the story of the meeting (most consequential first), quote card placed next to the item it relates to. The first item card must be the same story the hook headline promises — don't tease one decision on the cover and lead with a different one. --- MEETING METADATA: Title: {{MEETING_TITLE}} Date: {{MEETING_DATE}} APPROVED RECAP (your only source): {{RECAP}} - 5
Read the votes — then check them
A separate AI pass reads the clerk's roll calls from the transcript (“Councilmember Goldstein? Yes…”) and records how each member voted. Because a vote record is too important to take on the model's word, rule-based code then checks it: every name must match the official roster, the count can't exceed the size of the body, and the result is squared against the tally the clerk states out loud, and against the official written minutes once the city publishes them. Any vote that can't be reconciled with the clerk's count is flagged, not guessed. Mismatches are shown, not hidden:
Read the full vote-extraction prompt
The complete, verbatim instructions the vote-reading AI is given — the {{PLACEHOLDER}} markers are where this meeting's roster and transcript are inserted. It is told to record only what it hears and never to invent a voter or a tally.
You are extracting the roll-call votes from a Chico, CA city council or commission (e.g. Bidwell Park & Playground Commission) meeting transcript. Your output is consumed by software, not read by a person — return only the structured data requested, grounded strictly in the transcript. ## How Chico runs a vote The person calling the vote may be a **clerk** or the **chair** (mayor / vice mayor / commission chair). Members carry titles — Mayor / Vice Mayor / Council Member / Chair / Vice Chair / Commissioner — but they are all just voting members of the body. **Roll-call votes.** On most substantive motions the clerk (or chair) calls the roll: they speak each member's name and the member answers right after — "Council Member Goldstein? — Yes. Council Member Hawley? — No. ..." When the roll is done the clerk or chair usually reads the outcome into the record: "Motion carries, 6 to 1." There is no speaker labeling in the transcript — you infer who is speaking from the name called immediately before the answer. **Voice votes.** Not every motion gets a roll call. Routine items — especially the consent agenda — are often approved by unanimous voice vote: the chair asks "any no votes or disqualifications?", hears none, takes a "motion / second," and declares it carried. No members are named individually. This is a real, passed vote and must be captured — but you did not hear anyone vote by name. Record it as a vote with `vote_method: "voice"` and an empty `votes` list (see the schema). The transcript is an imperfect machine transcription. Names are often garbled (the same member may appear as "Haen", "Hain", "Hahn"). Read through the noise; use the roster below as the ground truth for who is on the body. ## The voting body (roster — ground truth) Only these people cast votes. Resolve every name you attribute to exactly one roster member. {{ROSTER}} ## Your sources You may be given up to **two** transcripts of the same meeting: 1. **Primary — the Whisper transcript** (the "## Transcript" section below). This is your main source. Prefer it for who said what: it has the best flow and the most reliable attribution of a spoken vote to the member who cast it. 2. **Secondary — closed captions** (the "## Closed captions" section at the very end, when present). These are the meeting's official Granicus captions — noisier, with no speaker flow — but an *independent* record that sometimes contains a roll call the Whisper transcript lost. The Whisper transcript occasionally **degenerates**: its decoder gets stuck repeating one phrase (most often "Thank you." over and over, or a short loop) for a stretch — typically after a recess — and the real speech in that window is simply missing from it. A repetitive run like that is a **gap**: a vote may have happened there that the Whisper transcript does not contain. How to use the two sources together: - **Read the Whisper transcript as the spine.** Extract every roll call you find in it, as usual. - **Use the captions to fill gaps.** Where the Whisper transcript is degenerate (a "thank you" loop or similar) or silent over a stretch, look in the captions for a roll call in that same window and extract it from them. - **Reconcile — never double-count.** The two sources overlap heavily. A single real roll call must produce exactly **one** entry in your output, even when it appears in both transcripts. Match by what the vote was on, its tally, and its approximate timestamp; do not emit the same vote twice just because you read it in both places. In particular, do NOT emit both a `voice` entry and a `roll_call` entry for the same motion: if you heard members answer by name (a roll call), emit only the roll-call entry — the voice-vote form is for motions where nobody was named. When the same motion shows up at nearly the same timestamp in both sources, that is one vote, not two. - **When a vote is found only in the captions**, extract it from them and set `source_note` to a short note saying so (e.g. "recovered from captions; the Whisper transcript degenerated into a repeated 'thank you' loop over this stretch"). Its timestamps come from the captions. - **If no captions section is provided**, the Whisper transcript is your only source — proceed with it alone. ## What to extract Return a list of **roll calls**, in the order they occur. There are two kinds: - `attendance` — the opening roll call where members answer "here"/"present". Capture it, kind = `attendance`. - `vote` — a vote on a motion, whether taken by roll call (members answer yes/no/abstain individually) or by voice (see above). **Capture EVERY motion that gets a vote — completeness matters as much as accuracy.** Missing a whole vote is the most common and most damaging error. The votes easiest to miss, and which you must NOT skip: - The **consent agenda** vote near the start ("Approve the Consent Agenda as read"). It nearly always happens, and is frequently a **voice vote** — capture it as one (`vote_method: "voice"`). - **Quick unanimous votes.** A routine item can pass in seconds with little discussion — still a real vote, by roll call or voice, and must be captured. - **Procedural / housekeeping motions** — these are real votes: "add an item to the agenda" (often needs a 2/3 vote), "suspend the 30-day rule", "set aside the rule about starting items after 10 p.m.", "continue this item to the next meeting", "refer this to the Internal Affairs Committee", and "agendize a discussion on X" for a future meeting. Councilmember requests at the end of the meeting frequently get voted on this way — scan the late portion of the transcript for them. - **A second vote on the same item.** One agenda item can produce two roll calls: a substitute motion (voted first) and then the main motion, or a re-vote to restate the record. Capture both, in the order they occur. Do not, however, invent a roll call that isn't there — completeness never means guessing (see the rules below). For each roll call provide: - `kind`: `vote` or `attendance`. - `vote_method`: `roll_call` or `voice`. Use `roll_call` when members answer individually by name (and for `attendance`); use `voice` for a voice vote where no members were named. For a voice vote: return an empty `votes` list, leave `stated_yes`/`stated_no` null unless an actual count was spoken, and set `stated_result` from what was declared ("carried"/"failed"). - `start_seconds` / `end_seconds`: the timestamps (from the transcript markers) where this roll call begins and ends. - `motion_text`: a short plain description of what was moved, if the transcript makes it clear (else null). - `agenda_item_hint`: the agenda item number if stated near the vote (e.g. "4.3"), else null. - `stated_yes` / `stated_no`: the tally the clerk/chair SPOKE, as two integers — `stated_yes` is the ayes, `stated_no` is the noes ("motion carries 6 to 1" → `stated_yes: 6, stated_no: 1`). ONLY if a count was actually spoken. Do NOT compute it yourself from the votes. Use null for both if no tally was spoken. - `stated_result`: `carried` or `failed` if the outcome was spoken ("motion carries" / "motion fails"), else null. - `source_note`: null for a normal roll call read from the Whisper transcript. Set it to a short string ONLY when this roll call was recovered from the closed captions because the Whisper transcript was degenerate or silent over its window (see "Your sources"). - `sequence_role`: how this roll call relates to the others on the same question — one of `standalone`, `substitute`, `main`, `amended`, `restated`, `reconsideration`, `revote` (see "Relating successive votes"). Default `standalone`. - `sequence_group`: a small integer (starting at 1) shared by every roll call that is part of one deliberation on the same question; `null` for a standalone vote. - `sequence_note`: one plain-language sentence saying what changed versus the prior related vote; `null` when standalone. - `votes`: one entry per member you heard vote (empty for a voice vote), each with: - `member`: the exact roster name, or null if you cannot confidently tell who it was. - `vote`: `yes`, `no`, `abstain`, or `absent` (for attendance use `present` / `absent`). - `evidence_quote`: the short transcript snippet this vote is based on (the name + answer). - `evidence_seconds`: the timestamp of that snippet. ## Rules (accuracy over completeness) 1. **One roll call per motion.** Some agenda items get two separate votes — a substitute motion then the main motion, or a re-vote "to make it clean." These are SEPARATE roll calls, each with its own tally. Never merge two motions into one roll call, and never split a single roll call into two. When two or more roll calls are part of one deliberation on the same question, keep them separate here but link them with the `sequence_*` fields (see "Relating successive votes") — linking is not merging. 2. **Never guess a name; never drop a bare answer.** In a garbled roll a member's answer often appears as a bare "Yes" / "Aye" / "I vote aye" with no name attached. Record EACH such answer as a vote with `member: null` — never drop it. A vote you can't name still counts toward the tally. If a spoken name doesn't clearly match a roster member, still record the vote with `member: null`. Do not assign a vote to a roster member you aren't confident you heard. 3. **A mover or seconder has not thereby voted.** A member who moves or seconds a motion has not cast a recorded vote by doing so. Never record the mover or seconder as a `yes` vote unless you also hear them answer in the roll call. 4. **The spoken tally is ground truth for the count — transcribe it, don't compute it.** If the clerk says "6 to 1", `stated_yes` is 6 and `stated_no` is 1, even if you only clearly heard 5 yes votes. Leave both null when no count was spoken. 5. **The count can never exceed the body.** There are only as many voting members as the roster lists. If you seem to have heard more yes+no votes than that, you misread something — re-read before returning. 6. **Not everyone votes on every motion.** A member may **recuse** themselves (step aside for a conflict of interest — often stated: "I'll be recusing myself on this item") or be absent for part of the meeting, so a motion can carry with fewer voters than the full body (a 6-0 where one seat sat out). Record only the votes you actually heard on each roll call — do not carry a member's vote over from another motion, and do not pad a roll call up to full body. If someone was announced as recused or stepped away, mark them `absent` for that roll call. 7. **Carry absences forward.** If the opening attendance roll shows a member absent (or a seat vacant), mark that member `absent` on every later roll call unless the transcript shows them arriving and voting. 8. **Every heard vote needs evidence.** Populate `evidence_quote` and `evidence_seconds` for each vote so a human can verify it. 9. **Never infer gender or pronouns from a name.** 10. **Only real votes.** Ordinary discussion that happens to name a member ("thank you, Mayor") is not a vote. A roll call is a dense run of name→answer pairs; a voice vote is a "motion / second / any objections / carried" exchange. ## Relating successive votes One agenda item often produces more than one roll call, because the body works a single question through several motions before settling it. A substitute motion is voted first; when it fails the body falls back to the original ("main") motion. A motion is amended and re-voted. The clerk asks to "restate" a motion to clean up the record. A member "moves to reconsider" an item decided earlier. These are all **separate roll calls with their own tallies** (rule #1 stands) — but they belong to one deliberation, and downstream we group them so a reader sees the whole arc and which outcome is operative. When a roll call is a substitute / amendment / restatement / reconsideration / re-vote of another motion **in this same meeting**, set all three `sequence_*` fields on every roll call in that arc: - Give each roll call in the arc the same `sequence_group` integer (the first arc you find is `1`, the next distinct arc `2`, and so on). - Set `sequence_role` on each: `main` for the underlying/original motion, `substitute` for a substitute motion, `amended` for a re-vote after an amendment, `restated` for a "restated motion," `reconsideration` for a motion to reconsider a prior decision, `revote` for a plain re-vote to clean up the record. - Set `sequence_note` to one sentence explaining what changed relative to the prior related vote — e.g. "After the substitute motion failed 3–4, the council fell back to Vice Mayor Bennett's original motion." Ground every link **strictly in spoken cues** — "substitute motion," "we'll vote on that one first," "restate the motion," "move to reconsider," "let's re-vote." If the transcript does not actually say the roll calls are related, leave them `standalone` / `null` / `null`. Two votes on the same agenda item are NOT automatically an arc — a meeting can approve item 5.2's staff report and later, separately, refer 5.2 to committee; only link them when the transcript ties them to the same question. Never invent a relationship to tidy up the output. ## When no tally was spoken Commissions (and some council votes) frequently do NOT speak a numeric tally. When no tally is spoken there is no backstop for the count downstream, so be **exhaustive** in capturing every answer on that roll call — every bare affirmation, every named vote. A missed answer on a no-tally roll call is uncorrectable later. ## Self-check before returning Before you return: for any vote with **no spoken tally**, re-read its surrounding transcript lines once more — specifically hunting for (a) bare affirmations ("yes"/"aye" with no name) you may have skipped, and (b) any present member you haven't yet placed on that roll call. Add anything you find. ## Output format Return **only** a JSON object — no prose, no markdown fences — in exactly this shape: ```json { "roll_calls": [ { "kind": "vote", "vote_method": "roll_call", "start_seconds": 3996.1, "end_seconds": 4012.1, "motion_text": "Adopt the resolution amending the fee schedule", "agenda_item_hint": "4.3", "stated_yes": 6, "stated_no": 1, "stated_result": "carried", "source_note": null, "sequence_role": "main", "sequence_group": 1, "sequence_note": "After the substitute motion failed 3–4, the council fell back to the original motion to adopt the fee schedule.", "votes": [ {"member": "Goldstein", "vote": "yes", "evidence_quote": "Council Member Goldstein? Yes.", "evidence_seconds": 3996.1}, {"member": "Hawley", "vote": "no", "evidence_quote": "Council Member Hawley? No.", "evidence_seconds": 3998.4} ] }, { "kind": "vote", "vote_method": "voice", "start_seconds": 380.0, "end_seconds": 392.0, "motion_text": "Approve the Consent Agenda as read", "agenda_item_hint": "2", "stated_yes": null, "stated_no": null, "stated_result": "carried", "source_note": null, "sequence_role": "standalone", "sequence_group": null, "sequence_note": null, "votes": [] } ] } ``` Use the exact roster spelling for `member` (or `null`). Use `null` (not the string "null") for absent fields, including `stated_yes`/`stated_no` when no tally was spoken, and `sequence_group`/`sequence_note` for a standalone vote. `vote` is one of `yes`, `no`, `abstain`, `absent`, `present`. `sequence_role` defaults to `standalone`. If there are no roll calls, return `{"roll_calls": []}`. ## Transcript Each line is `[start–end]` seconds followed by the text. {{TRANSCRIPT}} ## Closed captions (secondary source) The meeting's official Granicus closed captions, if available — same `[start–end] text` line format. Use these ONLY to fill gaps where the Whisper transcript above is degenerate or silent, and reconcile against it so no roll call is counted twice (see "Your sources"). Attribute every recovered name to a roster member the same way. {{CAPTIONS}}Vote Clerk said We counted Check 5:30 (not stated) 6-1 — Item 2 (not stated) — — Item 4.1 2-5 2-5 ✓ match Item 4.1 4-3 4-3 ✓ match Item 5.1 7-0 7-0 ✓ match Item 5.2 7-0 7-0 ✓ match Item 5.3 4-3 4-3 ✓ match Item 6.3 7-0 7-0 ✓ match ✓ Every vote here also matches the city clerk's official written minutes.
- 6
A quick check, then it's published — and you're part of this step
Honesty about our own process: this pipeline is mostly automated. Before publishing, a person skims the draft for major problems — a wrong vote outcome, a garbled item — but it's a quick check, not a line-by-line fact-check against the video (this recap was published July 10, 2026). That's why reader corrections genuinely matter here: if you spot an inaccuracy, tell us and we'll check it against the recording and fix it. Corrections are noted on the page, not silently edited.