Police contract deal fails, heads back to talks

2026 Council Meeting, and we will start with an invocation from Pastor Bryan Meyers from Grace Community Church. Welcome. Thank you, Mayor, City Council. Father, we thank you so much for the opportunity we have to gather here today. Thank you for the freedom we have, Lord, to make decisions in the interests of the people. I pray you grant the Council and the city wisdom in the matters that are before them. Father, we thank you for the city that you love, and I pray that in all things, God, that this city would be a blessing to every person here. God, I pray also for peace in the chamber, and above all, that you get all praise. In Christ's name, amen. Thank you. Amen. Thank you. All right. Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Salute. And pledge. Madam Clerk, can you call our roll for us, please? Okay. Council Member Goldstein. Present. Council Member Hawley. Here. Council Member O'Brien. Here. Council Member van Overbeek is absent. I apologize. Council Member Winslow. Here. Vice Mayor Bennett. Here. Mayor Reynolds. Here. Speaker card and remote participation announcement. There are some new rules on addressing the Council on matters listed on the agenda. If you are in person, you should first complete a speaker card found at the back of the chamber. Once completed, turn your cards into the city clerk, and the speakers are taken in the order received. In addition, due to the change in state law, citizen participation is now available via Zoom.

Please note that the city clerk will ask those of you wishing to speak via Zoom to raise your hand when it's time for public comment on each item. Once the first speaker begins, no additional cards or Zoom speakers will be accepted. Persons demonstrating rude, boisterous behavior, 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 removal of such persons. Mr. City Attorney Ryan Jones, can you do our closed session announcement for us, please? Yeah, happy to do that. There were seven items in closed session, and for all of them, just direction was provided to staff or legal counsel.

And the first one was on real property negotiations. There were nine properties discussed. And there was a city clerk performance evaluation conference with labor negotiators on the items discussed there. And then two existing litigations, the Waddell case and the Schwab case, also direction given to the legal counsel from the city council. One item, potential litigation was discussed. And finally, a public employment related to the city manager position. And that's the report. All right. Consent agenda. All matters listed under the consent agenda are considered routine in nature, and therefore can be enacted in one motion. Are there any no votes or counsel disqualifications? I just want to pull item 2.6 real quick.

Okay. All right. We're pulling 2.6. Any disqualifications? No? Okay. Do we have any speakers? Yes, we do. For the consent agenda, we take it at the beginning, and it's Adam Fidelli. Okay.

And then if anyone on Zoom wants to speak on anything on the consent agenda, please raise your hand. Evening, counsel. Mayor Reynolds. I just wanted to speak briefly about this. You know, we are still way behind on infrastructure catch-up. I would be cautious about adopting this out of a matter of routine business. You know, everybody would like to pay their police force more. There's no question about it. And knowing what police officers do, I have friends. I grew up with police officers. I know what they do. So I would say just be cautious here because I don't know that we're even caught up yet with the backlog of street improvements and repair. So I see that part. I see the sales tax money getting siphoned off, siphoned off.

So I just wanted to speak to it. Thanks. Thank you. And he's our only speaker. All right. Consider motion. Move to approve. Second. And this is for items excluding 2.6. Yes, that was all items but that. Okay. Council Member Goldstein. Yes. Council Member Hawley. Yes. Council Member O'Brien. Yes. Council Member Winslow. Yes. Vice Mayor Bennett. Yes. Mayor Reynolds. Aye. Okay. Carry 6-0 with one absence. And then we'll go to 2.6. Six. Council Member Winslow. Yeah. So I wanted to pull this only because I feel bad sometimes voting no on contracts and I want to make sure that people understand why and that it's nothing against the Police Office Association or their negotiators. In fact, the negotiators did a great job.

From the standpoint of the city's financial health in the long run, this is a longer contract than we're usually committing to with 4% increases in the end. And as Mr. Fideli said, we have a dwindling supply of money for infrastructure and I'm concerned that we're getting ahead of ourselves. This is one of the first, second rounds of labor negotiations since Measure H has passed. I'm concerned about it for the long run. So I think that we should reconsider the approach that we took to this contract. Council Member Hawley. Thank you, Mayor Reynolds. Similar to Council Member Winslow, I want to express my sincere gratitude to all of the city staff, not only our safety, labor force, but also our labor negotiations.

That's okay, girl. It happens. Sorry, Council Member Hawley. I'm trying to clear the deck here. You're so good. But at the end of the day, just like the fiscal impact says, it would be an estimated cost of $5.82 million over the four-year term. And when we've been seeing our Measure H dollars being spent more and more on supporting our staffing levels and these pretty drastic year-to-year increases over major capital improvement projects, that's painful. And that's the voice that I feel that the city wants to be heard at the council level. So that is an explanation for my no vote. All right. Any other speakers? Go ahead, Council Member. I'll keep it really quick. Yeah. I also want to make sure that our public employees get raises that are equitable between departments and that we prioritize our Measure H tax dollars for infrastructure where we can.

So I'm not completely happy with this contract. Thank you. Just so you know, for whatever reason, this is jammed and the next speaker thing's not working. So I'm playing with it. Sorry. Okay. So do we have a motion or? Vice Mayor Bennett, did you want to speak? So I actually did have someone push the button, but apparently that got wiped out somehow. Yeah, it's completely locked. It says disconnected, trying to reconnect. So we're going to have to go old school. Old school. So I'll just look at you and you'll say speak. Thank you, Mayor. Look to my left and look to my right. Go ahead. All right. Thank you, Mayor. So as that active shooter at the library proved, response time saved lives. And a saved lives that night.

Untold number of lives. Response time relates to staffing. Staffing is related to recruitment and retention. And recruitment and retention is related to pay and benefits. Competitive pay and benefits. And that's what we're looking to do with this contract is to be competitive. So we do not find ourselves with less police officers than what we need. And to build back the police department, which we have done, I have done personally, it takes years. I do not want to do that again. Vice Mayor Bennett. Vice Mayor Bennett. Vice Mayor Bennett. Vice Mayor Bennett. It is what is necessary to retain our police department, to make it stronger, I hope, to make it what it should be. An entity that will protect us when harm presents itself.

And that incident at the library is a prime example of how well the police department responded in less than two minutes. They were there and the bad person was out the door. Thank God that happened. And thank you, Pete Valtage, for all that you have done. We need to pay our police department equitably. We need to pay them what is right. And I believe this increase is very, very reasonable. So I'm going to support it unless it's my job. That's my responsibility. Council Member Hawley. Thank you. Just in response to Council Member O'Brien's comment, I do want to make it clear that if the city does not have a long-term cost recovery plan to support these drastic increases, then that money is going to have to come from somewhere else.

And really, my vote is responsive to not wanting to cut the number of staff positions that we have. If we continue to pay increases, either we're going to have to support those monies coming from long-term loans, which scares me. I don't think that's fiscally sound. So I want to protect the number of employees that we have and making sure that we do have a long-term cost recovery plan for this. Can I just add on real quick on the – when we gave a 20% raise to the same association the first year of Measure H, I thought it was a little excessive. But there was such a good reason because we were struggling with vacancies. It's so much not the issue now. And there was Measure H advertisements that said preserve the number of public safety officers.

But we've been adding positions in the police department every year, 10 the first year. And that's where we do have to strike a balance somewhere. So as Councilman Burr-Hawley alluded to, either we're going to struggle with freezing vacant positions and layoffs in the future, or we're going to make more responsible decisions now. And I think we're looking to try to get us to make more responsible decisions now. So I can make a motion that we do send us back to closed session to rediscuss. I'll second that. I'll make a substitute motion. Okay. The best substitute motion is to approve the memorandum of understanding between the City of Chico and the Chico Police Officer Association as presented in the staff report and noted in 2.6.

Second. We'll take the substitute motion first. We'll take the substitute motion, which is to approve the resolution. And Council Member Goldstein? No. Council Member Hawley? No. Council Member O'Brien? Yes. Council Member Winslow? No. Vice Mayor Bennett? Yes. Mayor Reynolds? Fails 3-3 with one absence. So if we go back to the original motion, which was to send it back to closed session, the motion by Council Member Winslow, seconded by Council Member Hawley, I believe. And we will take the vote on that one. Council Member Goldstein? Yes. Council Member Hawley? Yes. Council Member O'Brien? No. Council Member Winslow? Yes. Vice Mayor Bennett? No. Mayor Reynolds? Aye. Aye. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay.

And that carried 4-2 with one absence. All right. Public comment. Members of the public may address the Council at this time on any matters not already listed on the agenda and are within the jurisdictional authority. For those of you who are participating via Zoom, please raise your hand at this time if you would like to speak. Please note that Council cannot take any action at this meeting on request made under this section of the agenda. How many speakers do we have? We have eight in person, and I don't see any hands up in Zoom. None on Zoom and eight minutes each. So I'll take the first three speakers, and if you could hear your name, if you could go ahead and line up in the middle aisle.

Our first speaker is Doug Hipchin, followed by Olivia Henderson, and then Sam Barber. So Doug is first, followed by Olivia Henderson, and then Sam Barber. Good evening. I'm Doug Hipchin, District Manager, Waste Management in Chico. So Mayor and Council, I want to start by saying thank you to Skyler and his team for their time during our performance review process, where I was able to showcase recent performance as well as address any concerns that we were previously unaware of. To recap some of those highlights, I would like to provide you with some statistics that I shared with them. In 2025, we completed 5,289,970 lifts. We brought our customer satisfaction rating up to an 8.25 on a goal of 10.

Total customer service has been 99.84, meaning that nearly 100% of all of our customers were serviced. Out of 5.3 million cart lifts, WM was there when the customer expected it. We are not perfect. We missed 19 customer lifts out of every 100,000. But for those unlucky few we accidentally drove past, they will get missed once in a 365-day calendar period. However, we still drill down to the root cause of that one missed pickup per 1,000 customers to develop real solutions to prevent repeat missed pickups. We conducted a recent graffiti audit here in Chico. After I drove through some of our neighborhoods and identified bins that needed attention, over the course of six weeks, we pulled bins in for repairs, repainted the critical ones to get them up to my standards, and will continue this for the foreseeable future.

I also heard our customers' concerns and listened by fixing our phone tree. If you call the number on the truck, a person will answer in an average of 87 seconds. When there is an issue, and there will be with people and trucks, we solve that escalation within a day. Our premier customer service representatives are trained to address customer issues on the first call or escalate the issue to my operations team. I look forward to showing you the future possibilities that WM and I have to offer. And as a Butte County local, I plan on delivering world-class customer service and real solutions for Chico's Waste for years to come. And I also want to thank a lot of our great customers that showed up here tonight just to speak their mind, whether it be negative or positive.

So thank you all. Thank you. Olivia Henderson, followed by Sam Barber, and then Kelly Lesser. I don't want to give you trash talk whiplash, but I've got some other stuff to talk about. I'm Olivia Henderson. I'm the recycle rep, and I specifically want to talk about what we've been doing out in the community in this first half of 2026. We've been focused on meeting the customers where they are, so out at schools, community events, senior resource fairs, and local festivals. Two of our most successful outreach efforts have been our Touch of Trucks and the Thursday Night Market. We've worked with schools so far in 2026, including Chico Oaks Preschool, Chapman Elementary, the Chico Mothers Club, and McManus Elementary.

Over that, we've talked to 200 children, parents, and educators. Students are able to meet a driver, learn about the truck, safety around the truck. They're able to learn about recycling and everything else that the kids find interesting about trash trucks. In our partnership with DCBA for Thursday Night Markets, I've been able to connect with more than 600 residents just between April and June, answer all of their recycling questions, general service questions. I'm able then to meet people of, like, I need my cart fixed. I'm able to go and get it scheduled to get fixed the next morning. In addition to public outreach, I work directly with local property managers, business owners, to support the implementation of SB 1383 for the recycling organics requirements.

In the first six months of 2026, I worked with approximately 140 commercial customers. That includes site visits and providing outreach. We've also been involved with MVPOA's Housing Expo, Passage's Aging and Disability Showcase, Chico Velo's Wildflower Ride. And through all these programs and outreach methods, we've invested about $20,000 just in the first half of 2026 in in-kind and support in the community. So thank you for the partnerships. And anytime you have any questions, you can always reach out to me. Thank you. Thank you. So Sam Barber, followed by Kelly Lesser, and then Annie Kavanaugh. Hello, Council and Queen Reynolds. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. Last time I was here, I was expressing some concern over the disregard for constitutional rights of the public when they come to speak.

Thankfully, you allowed me my constitutional rights until the last few seconds when Casey made up a rule about using no vulgar language. Now, I know you have your rules of decorum. And that's fantastic. And I want to warn everyone. I might say a naughty word at some point during this. But the rules of decorum cannot supersede my First Amendment right. Okay. As long as I'm speaking on a topic that's within the purview, as long as I'm not causing a disturbance like interrupting someone or speaking out of turn, I'm allowed to say naughty words. It's been decided by the Supreme Court. I believe it was 1971, Cohen v. California. A veteran wore a shirt to a city council meeting. And I'm going to tell you what the shirt said.

And again, vulgar language warning, everybody. The shirt said, fuck the draft. Okay. And the Supreme Court decided that is within his constitutional rights to say that. You're allowed to use vulgar language. So I would appreciate if the council members and the mayor would stop making rules up and trying to intimidate people and get them not to speak. That's not your job. It's your privilege to be a public representative. We're not electing little kings and queens of fiefdoms here. Okay. The other thing I wanted to talk about just a little bit is that horrific shooting at the library. It was, you know, atrocious. I've been a millennial. I've grown up with these mass shootings happening all the time.

It's always been on my mind every time I've gone to school or a public building. And obviously when it happens in a city, maybe we're not thinking it's going to happen to us. But it's a uniquely American problem. And it's, you know, disturbing and horrible. And my heart goes out to everyone affected by that. And I'm thankful for the people who responded to that. I'm growing tired of the only resolution to this being more money to the police, more money to the police, more weapons to the police, more surveillance. It has not worked. It hasn't been working. And I would like to see maybe some mental health care. How can we provide people with mental health care in the city? How can we give people affordable housing so they can have a roof over their head?

How can we make sure that people can afford groceries? How can we make sure that people can afford gasoline when gas continues to go up? You know, I know these things are happening at large because we have a horrible president and a fascist regime in office that isn't doing us any favors. But it is the city's job to respond to that and to try to provide us with some semblance of safety. And I'm just sick of the weapons. I'm sick of it. Like they have 71 types of this SIR-15 patrol rifle. I'm not a gun expert. I shoot guns sometimes, okay? But why do they need 71 rifles? Why do they need this, like, paramilitary force amount of weapons? I just don't see the need for it in the city. And I think it's a waste of money.

That's it. Thank you for not violating my speech this time, Ms. Reynolds. Appreciate it. Thank you. And then Kelly Lesser, followed by Annie Kavanaugh, and then Steve Depa. Good evening, Mayor Reynolds and fellow council members. My name is Kelly Lesser, owner of Urban Couture, located at 245 Broadway. And I'm here regarding the letter to the city received from Greg Scott, Doug Gillen, on behalf of the majority of the business owners, asking for the city to address keeping law and order to our downtown area prior to the January 2027 warren. And I believe Mayor Reynolds had asked to put this on the agenda all the way back in March this year. So I was in hopes that this was still a priority and that we might find it on the next agenda before we lose any more of our downtown merchants.

I had an incident last month where I had to call Chico PD. And when the officers arrived, just based off the situation that I had at the store, those officers were extremely kind, but they couldn't do as much as they wanted to do. And at that point, that's when they started sharing that they have been really looking forward to the end of, you know, Warren coming up. But they also mentioned that they have been asking, a lot of the other officers have been asking their higher ups, what do we have on the agenda? How are we going to start moving forward with this coming so close to the end? And they all three shared that they were frustrated that there was at that point when they were asking their superiors was that they're just waiting for direction from city.

So anyways, I just wanted to bring that here and see if, I don't think you can respond to me, but just really hoping that that is a priority. Because I do know two other businesses that are on their way out too. It's just a real struggle. And I know there's other issues that we're having downtown as well, but it is very difficult. So thank you for your time. Thank you. Annie Cavanaugh, followed by Stephen Depa, and then Jenny Fales. Good evening. Thank you, Mayor and Council members, for this time to speak. My name is Annie Cavanaugh, and I'm a resident of Chico. I've come to request that the Council vote to put a topic on the agenda. I request that the Council proactively consider the City's position on restricting establishment of private prisons for immigration and customs enforcement detention centers within city limits.

I've sent some background information to Ms. Presson to share with all of you a draft ordinance that I borrowed from the city of Los Angeles and a spreadsheet with information about how many other jurisdictions have approached this topic. Many detention centers have been established in vacant warehouses and out-of-use incarceration facilities throughout the country. Although there haven't been any such proposals in Chico so far that I'm aware of, I'm speaking on behalf of many concerned citizens who believe that it is best to address the city's position in advance of any such proposals. Some of the concerns are impact on infrastructure, such as road, water, and sewage facilities. Also, a law enforcement professional has stated that incarceration centers draw family members with no means of support, leading to an increased number of people without proper shelter.

In conclusion, I request that the topic of restricting establishment of future detention centers be agendized and discussed publicly in City Council. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. for being an outstanding community partner to Habitat for Humanity of Butte County. Our organization was in need of a new truck a few years ago. It's an essential tool that helps our team transport materials, equipment, and supplies throughout the county. We had initially approached waste management and applied for a $5,000 grant toward the purchase. Instead of simply considering our original request, their team took the time to learn more about our need and the impact this vehicle would have on our work.

They then encouraged us to increase our request and apply for $30,000. That response speaks volumes about waste management's commitment to the community. They did not just see a grant application. They saw an opportunity to strengthen a local nonprofit and help us build more affordable homeownership opportunities for families in Butte County. We're incredibly grateful for their generosity, their partnership, and their willingness to step forward in such a meaningful way. And this support will have a lasting impact on our work and on the families and communities we serve. Thank you. Thank you. And then Rob Berry is our last speaker. I just want to somewhat humorously share my experience in coming to the meeting tonight.

The first experience was driving around the city council. I noticed that the number of tents on the margins of the city council have increased, not decreased. Then I came into the parking lot and attempted to park in the visitor parking spaces, and I discovered that three of those spaces have now been turned over to city staff-only parking. Once I parked my car, I came walking through the pop-up soup kitchen that was outside the city council, about 30 or 40 people there, using city property for that purpose. And then as I walked towards the city council, there was a tent on the sidewalk on the way to the entrance to the city council with a big garbage bag sitting in the middle of the sidewalk.

And so I asked, would you mind moving your... And they complied very nicely. And as I started to move forward, there was a big terrier bulldog that growled at me on a leash that was long enough to reach me, and I had to change my course and come in through a different way. Now, I know that you're not purposefully trying to discourage public participation in the city council meetings, but if you were, this would be a really good way to do it, is to create a sort of an obstacle course of unpleasant experiences as a way, you know, on the way in to attend the meeting. So, as you know, I believe there are plenty of things that the city could do between now and when warrant expires. And I think the feedback that I'm getting from people that talk to me is that the attitude increasingly is that the city council is not able or willing to take action, even on a minor level, to try to improve the conditions such as I just described.

So, I just wanted to take this opportunity to share that with you for what it's worth, and hopefully something can be done about it here soon. Thank you. Thank you. He was our last speaker. All right. Thank you very much. Public hearings. Item 4.1. A hearing of the abandonment of a vacant portion of property in a utility easement. If there are speakers wishing to speak on this item on Zoom, please raise your hand at this time. And we have a report from our Director of Public Works Engineering, Brendan Ottoboni. Yes. Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Council members. Item 4.1 was a request from owners of the property at 1075 via Verona Drive. Excuse me. The request was to abandon sewer easement at the rear of the property.

Through our analysis and looking at future needs, we do not see a need for any municipal services. We've coordinated with all other utility providers. They agreed they have no future needs. And so, staff has brought forth a recommendation to abandon that existing easement. That concludes my report. All right. Any questions? No. Okay. We will open the public hearing. How many speakers do we have? We do not have any. All right. We will close the public hearing. Consider a motion. Move to approve. Second. All right. We've got a motion and a second. Okay. Council Member Goldstein? Yes. Council Member Hawley? Yes. Council Member O'Brien? Yes. Council Member Winslow? Yes. Vice Mayor Bennett? Yes. Mayor Reynolds?

Aye. Carries 6-0 with one absence. All right. Item 5.1. Introduction and first reading of an ordinance is definishing entertainment zones in downtown of Merriam Park. Again, if there are speakers on Zoom that would like to talk at this matter on this, then now is the time to raise your hand. And we have a report from our assistant city manager, interim city manager, Erik Gustafson. Mayor and Council, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you tonight on this item. While I queue up the presentation, I do want to call out Chico Area Recreation District General Manager, Annabelle Grimm. Some time ago, I think is when we conveyed Depot Park to the district. She introduced herself as the director of fun.

And I thought, well, challenge accepted. Chico City staff can also have fun. And so here we are introducing an ordinance to layer in an entertainment zone in downtown Chico, Merriam Park. So quick overview. What is it? We're going to talk about the legislature that allows it, the reasoning to do it here in Chico. The boundaries, rules will end on a timeline. So entertainment zone, it's a designated area established by a municipality, whether it's a city or a county, where adults age 21 and over may legally possess and consume alcoholic beverages purchased from participating in licensed businesses while walking within a specified area of public right-of-way. The zone operates only within the defined boundaries, established days, hours, and conditions established by the ordinance.

So basically, customers can purchase a drink from a licensed, an ABC alcoholic beverage control licensed participating bar or restaurant, carry that beverage outside within the designated zone in an approved container, and socialize, walk, and the hope is to shop a little bit extra within the zone. Alcohol cannot be brought in from outside of the zone or taken beyond its boundaries. The legislature that allows this really started in the California Senate in early 2024. It was signed into law. It's SB 969 on September 28th of 2024, and then it went into effect January of 2025. So it's not new. We were aware of this effort when it was going through the state senate and really thought, you know, we have some uniqueness.

We had a lot of other things going on. Sounds like a great idea for economic development, but let's see how it goes with some other agencies before. We didn't want to be the first on the bandwagon, if you will, to introduce an entertainment zone. So we've monitored some over the last year and really witnessed their success. So we feel the timing is right to bring this to you for consideration. Really, the reasoning is to assist the downtown area and Merriam Park in creating an experience. We've heard from a lot of retailers, you know, even post-COVID, if you will, the purchasing behaviors have really changed to an online situation. So what we really have to do is focus on creating an experience that will attract folks to come down and enjoy.

So we're trying to enhance public gathering spaces, opportunities, really support economic development, increase foot traffic, create some vibrancy in these particular areas, encourage people to stay longer and visit multiple businesses. And really, it comes down to trying to activate, activate, activate. So that's the reasoning behind this effort. As mentioned earlier, it's been proven elsewhere. We're not the first to the show. So again, we kind of wanted to take a back seat to see how this played out in other areas. And it's been quite successful. San Francisco has, I think, just over 20 entertainment zones now. They've added quite a few since they started early 2025. San Jose has a handful.

Sacramento has a handful. Santa Monica, Long Beach, San Diego, many others that aren't listed here. And then, of course, our neighbors to the north introduced one last year. And it's been quite successful in their downtown area. And this picture is taken from Redding's Entertainment Zone. This shows what we could use as an identifier band. The wristband is purchased or acquired from a participating bar or restaurant. It has that bar restaurant's name on it. We hope that those will, of course, would say Sierra Nevada Brewery or Ramble West Brewery, one of our local establishments here in town. And then an authorized vessel. And they've used a pretty simple vessel with a color-coordinated dot that's aligned with a wristband.

And that changes from time to time and rotates color coordinations depending on the week or month in the zone. Currently, it's a single-use-only vessel, if you will. But our recommendation and our policy will go with a recycled single-use vessel that will, of course, place more recycling facilities within the zone boundaries, too, to accept the trash or recyclable trash that's created from as a result of the zone. So these are the two boundaries that we're proposing, the two entertainment zones. One, of course, is a pretty large swath within the downtown area. It goes from Normal Street all the way to Flume and then 1st, basically, all the way to 9th. You can see it does incorporate our first and main area, Lost Park area, if you will, with, you know, we have some hopes and intents to redevelop that in the near future.

So we wanted to make sure it included that, those parcels as well. And then the Merriam Park parcel on the right. And I do have some other images. If you want to get a little clearer, we could expand those later in the presentation. So business signage, this was taken from Reddings. You know, we don't see the need to reinvent the wheel. This is posted on each participating business. It shows how it works, kind of the do's and the don'ts. I like the color coordination as far as green go on the do's and red on the don'ts. Excuse me. Just simple things, you know, shows how it works. You have to show valid photo ID when requesting a wristband. Purchase your beverage from a participating business.

And stay within the posted entertainment zone boundaries. And those will be signed accordingly with existing budget resources. The don'ts, the easy ones, don't bring your drink into another bar or restaurant. That's a pretty strict ABC rule. Has to be consumed before it goes into another licensed on-premise facility. Don't leave the entertainment zone with your beverage. And of course, don't litter. Don't leave the cups on sidewalks, streets, or planners. And we will increase our recycling receptacles to accept that. So that's kind of the basic signage. Again, just kind of benchmarking what others have done. We don't see the need to reinvent the wheel. Pretty simple. And we will create those with existing budget resources.

Timeline. Again, if it's accepted tonight during the initial reading, the second reading will be at the August 18th City Council meeting. Then it will go into effect 30 days after that on September 18th. So again, this is not just an intent to allow relaxed open container laws. It's really to assist in creating an experience for patrons, increase foot traffic, support economic development, create some vibrancy, and really to support businesses in the downtown area and Merriam Park. So that, my recommendation, is council move forward with the proposed ordinance. And I can answer any questions. Any questions from Eric before we go to speaker? Councilor O'Brien. Thank you for that report. Do we have any input from the university census borders the campus?

Have they weighed in on anything? We do, yeah. We held a stakeholder meeting on June 23rd that was well attended between 30 and 40 stakeholders, both from Merriam Park and the downtown area. The university had representatives there. We've engaged the university on this item on several occasions, and they're very supportive of this effort. Council Member Goldstein. Sure. I guess the first question is the boundary is if, say, in the future we were to need to change them, would that just be an amendment to the ordinance? I ask because downtown is, I noticed, I think at the south end it doesn't necessarily include all the downtown south overlay area. Correct. And say that a business opened there that wanted to be included in this.

Just want to know that we could change in the future. We can. Yeah. We would have to amend the ordinance so it would have to go through a first and second reading like this introduction does, but we absolutely could. And there was an intent from, you know, we had some focus groups. I'd like to thank the Downtown Chico Business Association, DCBA, and the Chico Chamber for all their help, assistance, and support. We've had a lot of discussions, had kind of an interest group working on this, and that was brought up early in the process. There was kind of an intent to really go down to Park Avenue, and we just felt, you know, at the time, we're pretty new to this. That would be a very large zone, so let's start here, see how it goes, and if we need to amend or make adjustments in the future, we could certainly do so.

Okay. That's great to hear that you were already considering the Downtown South and the Park Avenue area because I could see in the future those being great areas for this if it goes well. My other question had to do with the cups themselves. You mentioned trying to make sure they're recyclable. We're going to hear a lot about waste and recycling later, but most plastics aren't super recyclable, so I'm wondering if there's any examples in other cities of more sustainable types of receptacles used. I noticed it said no glass or metal. Correct. And I've seen, like, recyclable, reusable metal cups at some, you know, bars and things like that. I'm just wondering if we looked into other options. And that could be something that's introduced in the future as, you know, maybe the state legislature relaxes that a little bit, but at this point, it's single use.

The idea is try to prevent somebody from, you know, having a reusable container and bringing their own alcohol into the zone, and so that's why it's required that it's a single use at this point, but hopefully that improves. The vessel that we will standardize to, if this moves forward, will definitely be a recyclable material. Okay. Thank you for that clarification, and that, again, we could maybe reevaluate this later as things develop. Great. Thanks. All right. Anybody else? Okay. How many speakers do we have? We have four. All right. Three minutes each. All right. I'll call the first three. Barbara Hanson, followed by Jen Rothenwander, and followed by Molly Koptah. So, Barbara Hanson. Hello.

Hello. My name is Barbara Hanson, and my husband and I live in District 6. We've been here about three and a half years, and we have come to really love the city. I am here to ask the council to please vote no on the entertainment zone. The data tells the story. In Chico, California, about 21% of adults regularly drink to excess, exceeding the California statewide average of 18%. Butte County, as a whole, ranks 45th out of 58 counties for cirrhosis and liver disease related to alcoholism. Alcohol is a related factor in roughly 34% of local car accidents, placing it in the upper tier among peer cities for victims killed or injured. A 2022 community assessment data in Chico showed that 24% of 11th graders are using alcohol or drugs compared to statewide average, which is 19%.

But, despite the historically high rates associated with the college demographic, recent surveys show a nationwide and local downward trend in consumption and bar patronage among young adults. I suggest we assist in this sober, curious trend by discouraging practice that encourages freer alcohol use. The chief cause of developmental delay in children is fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, FASD. Alcohol consumed by both parents contributes to the brain damage that affects 1 in 20 births, higher than autism, 5% of the population. The estimated cost of FASD in California is $27 billion. A responsible city council sets policy that protects its electorate, not set up new practice that harms. Please vote no.

Thank you. Jen Rothenwander, followed by Molly Koptah, and then Austin Barron. Good evening. Thank you. I'm Jen, here speaking on behalf of Merriam Park. Thank you. Speaking specifically to Merriam Park, we intend to build our own plans and implement new processes around this ordinance. That means adding more public seating so people have a comfortable place to sit with a beverage, rather than crowding sidewalks. Increasing our private security presence beyond what's currently in place. Installing clear, visible signage throughout the zone so rules are easy to understand and follow. And committing to ongoing public education about the boundaries and expectations of the zone. Our whole food and beverage communities see this as a chance to bring more foot traffic and vitality to the area while doing it responsibly.

Bless you. We're asking the council to move forward with this ordinance. Chico has the chance to do this carefully, collaboratively, and with the community's trust as top priority. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Molly Koptah, followed by Austin Barron. Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Council Members. My name is Molly Koptah. I am President and CEO of the Chico Chamber of Commerce. At its core, this proposed ordinance isn't about alcohol. It's about economic opportunity. It doesn't create a single new business. It simply creates another reason for people to spend more time supporting the businesses that we already have. The Chico Chamber of Commerce did not arrive on supporting this position lightly.

Over the past six months, we have met regularly with city staff, heavily researched Senate Bill 969, connected with communities already implementing entertainment zones, and spoken directly with businesses located within the proposed districts. Our support tonight is a result of that work. Successful commercial districts aren't built around a single destination. They are built around experiences. Think about the way people already enjoy Chico. Whether it's Thursday Night Market in downtown Chico, or an evening in Merriam Park, people rarely visit just one business. They meet friends for dinner, enjoy live music, browse local shops, stop for dessert, grab a cup of coffee, and spend time together.

Every additional stop supports another locally owned business. That's exactly what this ordinance is designed to encourage. Economic opportunity, however, cannot come at the expense of public safety. That's why we appreciate that this ordinance is built with thoughtful safeguards. Participation is entirely voluntary. Businesses decide whether to opt in. Existing department alcoholic beverage control regulations remain fully in place. Drinks must remain within designated boundaries, be served in approved containers, and the city will continue evaluating the program to ensure it is meeting the intended goals. Reasonable people may reach different conclusions about whether entertainment zones are the right fit for Chico.

And those conversations have made this proposal stronger. But tonight, I and the rest of the Chico Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors encourage you to evaluate this ordinance for what it is. Another economic development tool that helps our locally owned businesses succeed while creating vibrant places for residents and visitors to spend more time. This ordinance won't determine whether Chico has great businesses. We already do. What it can do is support and create opportunities for those businesses to succeed. That's time. Thank you. Oh, you're almost there. Sorry. Thank you. Austin Barron is our last speaker. All right. Good afternoon, council. Vice Mayor Bennett, Mayor Reynolds. My name is Austin Barron.

First, I just wanted to thank Eric, actually, for doing so much homework on this. I cut down my speech by like 90%. So I'll keep it brief. As you know, from his presentation, this has worked in many, many, many cities across the state. Um, I have personally been to the one in Reading, the one in Fort Bragg, the one in Sacramento. They worked very well. Um, one of our council members that, uh, former police chief might be happy to know. There were not many incidents that I saw. Um, I saw one cop car at the one in Sacramento, um, dealing with something that looked like it was actually outside of the entertainment zone. Uh, Fort Bragg was nice and clean, nothing going wrong there. So, um, I don't think this is going to be a concern with people over consuming.

Um, this is going to be your casual wine and beer walk, um, and stop in the shops downtown. This is a, this is a great part of a, uh, hopefully future broader, uh, downtown business vitality plan. Um, I'm excited to hear it is going to be going on in Merriam park too, but, um, I think this could be huge for our downtown area. Um, I, I highly encourage you to support it. So thank you. Thank you. He's our last speaker. All right. Any further comment from council members? Council member Goldstein, go ahead. So people live in Chico for a lot of reasons, and we all stay here because we enjoy the outdoors and living in a community like this. I started hanging around in Chico and then moved here about 10 years ago because of our music scene and our venues.

COVID-19 nearly killed all of that. But as the pandemic faded, we got to saw something beautiful that a lot of cities also experienced. Outdoor seating areas where people could not just hang out in a business, but also go outside and bring their food and their beverages if that's their choice. Um, I really, you know, we've talked a lot about parklets and about other concepts for getting people outdoors more, but I'm glad that this is one of the solutions where we can let people, um, enjoy our beautiful streets, enjoy our wonderful weather. Sure. It's hot on a lot of nights, but, um, I go to a lot of live music shows still, and I still hear, dang, I wish we could bring our beers outside like we used to be able to.

Um, so I just want to say, I'm really excited for this. I think it'll be a wonderful thing to let more people spend more time downtown and at other commercial areas like Merriam park. Thanks. Vice mayor Bennett. Vice mayor Bennett. So chief. There we go. Chief voltage, uh, for the benefit of those who are watching, uh, this council meeting and for the people present here tonight, do you have any major concerns or issues with this particular? And I did read the staff report. So I already know the answer, but, uh, I would appreciate it if you would share your thoughts. Sure. Yeah. I spoke with, uh, writing chief a while back about this in detail. Um, when this idea came up, our concern was that it would create problems.

And in speaking with him, they've had zero problems with it and they've had it in place for, uh, quite a while now. And it's very successful. Uh, no extra calls for service, no added issues or anything of the nature. So my recommendation was, you know, approval from the police department. Thank you. Council member, Holly. Thank you. Mayor Reynolds. Um, I'm always in favor of encouraging pedestrian use of pedestrian friendly regions and cultivating community spaces. So I'm really appreciative of staff and community members for working together, um, to hold stakeholder groups and facilitate those conversations to have some tangible policy in front of us. Um, I also really welcome the voiced concerns, not only of people who spoke today, but also, um, any concerns that, you know, city staff might hear in the future in relation to the entertainment zone, because those voiced concerns help us guide safety procedures that are fit for Chico.

So if you have concerns, please keep sharing them. Um, those are important things for us to hear. And lastly, I, I just want to read this little excerpt from the staff report, because I think it's important. Staff does not view entertainment zones as a standalone solution to the challenges facing downtown and to our brick and mortar retailers. This effort is considered one piece of a larger solution puzzle to create vibrant destinations where people choose to spend their time increasing pedestrian friendly traffic and supporting local commerce. So this is one piece of a much larger puzzle. And I'm really looking forward to stimulating downtown through multiple other initiatives. Council member O'Brien.

Thank you, mayor. So, yeah, I can understand if we do this right, that there's a lot of advantages and good things that go along with it. And I certainly understanding that dynamic. Of course, I've got to look at the other side of Chico. You know, we've had a unique relationship with alcohol over the, the past few decades. I lived some of that uniqueness. Some of you in this room probably have as well. So you can understand a little bit of my trepidation when we have worked so hard. So many people have worked so hard to bring that under control. And it really is. It's such a much healthier situation now than when it was when Chico State, when the Chico Police Department were working because we had students that were ODing on alcohol and dying.

It was that bad. We've gotten past that. We have made great strides. I'm encouraged by what the, the chief said, as far as the experiences of other communities, that's I think comforting to me as well. But I want to make sure that we do this right. I'm a little concerned. This zone downtown is huge. This is a massive, massive entertainment zone. It's a little too big for my liking. The Merriam Park I'm not concerned about. I think that's much easier to control, but an entire section of our downtown, that's a lot of area. So I'm a little concerned about that. And the other piece that I would like to bring to my fellow council members attention is in section 100 that asked for a biannual review.

I would ask if we're going to move forward with us, this becomes an annual review, at least initially. So we make sure that this is not going to cause this problem. I hope that's the case, but we have to be responsible and make sure that it does not. We're adjacent to a university with vulnerable populations that we need to also be good stewards for as well, not just our businesses. So if we're going to go through this, let's do it right. And let's make sure that we have an annual review to make sure we're doing just that. Council member O'Brien, that all makes sense. And I appreciate your concerns. If you make a motion to that effect, then I'd support you. Is there anyone else in the queue?

Mayor, do you want to? Council Member Hawley, did you have something else? If you were going to make a motion based upon that, I would reflect council member Winslow's views. And that's actually what I was going to do, but it sounds like you're going to do that. Wait, what if I want to make the motion? We're going to fight. Somebody make a motion so we can. Okay. I would make a motion that we pass the original ordinance, establishing entertainment zones in downtown and Merriam Park with the amendment that the reports be annual rather than biannual. Is that good? I'll second that. Okay. Turn my mic on. That was a motion and a second. To introduce the following ordinance, ordinance of the city council of the city of Chico, amending the Chico municipal code chapter by adding a new chapter 5.45 entitled in entertainment zones and amending section 9.30.040 to allow the consumption of alcoholic beverages in designated areas pursuant to Senate bill 969 as amended to include an annual review instead of biannual.

Council member Goldstein. Yes. Council member Holly. Yes. Council member O'Brien. So reluctant. Yes, but yes, I'll give it a shot for a year. Okay. Council member Winslow. Yes. Vice mayor Bennett. I actually had a large, I'm going to make a comment. I, a large property owner in downtown Chico make the suggestion that we make it sunset it after one year. And I like this idea. We can look at it every year and decide what we want to do next. So I will support the amendment and the motion. Okay. And mayor Reynolds. I'm a, yes. Can I just ask one clarifying question though on the map for air for first street? Does it go to that side of the street? Like I feel like the, well, Presbyterian church probably isn't really concerned about it, but if somebody was leaving, um, uh, trace.

And going over to the college to see a performance. You once you're beyond, you can't not on, not on campus. Yeah. So it's at all. It is on that side of the Presbyterian church. That's that sidewalk on first. Okay. So they could traverse and kind of, once they get to campus, then correct. It stops. Yep. Okay. I just want to make sure it did include first street because that's, you know, and this, this will be signed appropriately, but I also will point out it's the, on the boundary. It's the interior sidewalk is the boundary where the line is. So if that makes sense, it's, it's on the interior, um, side. Perfect. Okay. Thank you. I'm still a yes on it. I just want to clarify. How does that apply to the roundabout?

It looks like it wraps around. This is why. I think at least somebody walking in the roundabout for a week trying to figure out how to get out of it with their beer. All right. 5.2 solid waste franchise. Franchise agreement direction. If you're a speaker on zoom and you want to speak on 5.2, now's the time to raise your hand. Um, and we have a report from our public works director of operations and maintenance, Skyler Lipski. All right. Thank you, mayor, uh, vice mayor, council community. Uh, as we near the end of our existing solid waste franchise, franchises that are in place. Now, um, we have a decision point here to make, uh, as we, as we move forward. So the purpose of this presentation is really just to summarize, uh, the more detailed staff report.

So it's going to be kind of high level. And, um, you know, it's kind of just here to help frame this, the discussion, if you will, there's a lot more detail in the staff report itself. So first of all, what is a franchise agreement? So this is for the folks maybe tuning in that are, uh, not familiar with it, but it's a contract that gives haulers an exclusive right, uh, to provide waste recycling and organics collection. And so communities use these franchise agreements for all of those bullet points listed below, primarily to control costs, set maximum rates, set performance standards, coordinate routes, service days, operations. As you can imagine, uh, waste, solid waste recycling, uh, trash pickup has a certain impact on a community.

And, you know, we coordinate closely with them for all the other services that we provide in operations and maintenance, you know, from tree trimming to street sweeping and everything in between. Uh, we have had these existing agreements in place since 2017. There are 11 year nine month agreements. Uh, we have two haulers in the community waste management for all of the residential service and then waste management and recology split for the commercial service. And the services include those items listed there on the screen. So key dates and timing of this, um, March, 20, 26, the city completed our performance review of the haulers. And today, uh, we're requesting council direction. And, uh, by the end of September, um, late summer, early fall should chance should council choose an RFP RFQ option.

We would like to start moving forward with that. Um, July 20, uh, July 1st, 2027 each hauler may request the first of up to two additional five year extensions subject to city council approval. And of course the franchise agreements term in, uh, June of 2029. So it may seem like this is coming to you, uh, you know, very early when you look at that 2029 timeframe, but, you know, due to the long lead time to procure, negotiate, uh, transition, or even restructure any of these agreements. Uh, you know, we wanted to make sure to get this in front of council early so that we had time to do all of that. Um, we can't go without trash service in a community. And I should note, um, that important note down there below that any proposed extension, amended agreement, procurement, or open market market regulatory framework would return to council for further consideration and approval.

So this is simply just like policy direction at this time. These are kind of the key themes that came out of the performance review. Uh, and if you look at the staff report, you'll see a little bit more detail. And of course, um, you know, council was provided with the full performance review, uh, from both haulers as well. So, So, you know, in general, reporting and field conditions have not always fully aligned. Customer service complaints remain a concern. Diversion, contamination monitoring, processing performance need closer review. Long-term mixed organics infrastructure remains unsolved. That is kind of a regional issue for us, and I'm sure any of the haulers would be willing to take that on.

It's not a problem that can't be solved, but it's something to consider. And this is, of course, you know, related to the Senate Bill 1383, relatively recent requirements making essentially recycling law, as well as a number of other organics rules that go along with it. Future infrastructure needs may increase customer rates beyond a normal CPI adjustment. And so that's just sort of setting the stage that these regulatory requirements are going to require some level of infrastructure improvement. And, you know, that is likely going to increase customer rates. That's a mandate from the state. That's not something that council has the option of bowing out of, if you will. It's something that all communities in California have to follow.

But the takeaway here is that any extension or new agreement should include clear performance standards, strong reporting, audit rights, customer service metrics, and accountability measures. We can accomplish those with any of the options that are presented here. It's important to note that if we do choose an extension, it's a negotiated extension. We don't simply just follow the existing franchise. So we have the opportunity to sit down at the table and negotiate in some of those items I just mentioned. So options presented to council at this time are negotiate a five-year extension with the existing haulers per the existing franchise agreements. And, you know, those are the main points. It would basically maintain the current structure, you know, minimize disruption, and allow us the opportunity to negotiate with the haulers as well.

The second option is to initiate a competitive RFP-RFQ process where you essentially begin to look at a new franchise agreement. It could be with one of the existing haulers that we have now or even another hauler. Be similar to any other RFP-RFQ process that we go through for all of the other services and supplies that we procure. This tests the market for rates, service models, infrastructure, and performance, and allows the city to modernize the agreement. Missed a bullet there. Current haulers could still compete as well. And the third option presented to council is a transition back to an open market system. You may recall this is our first waste hauling franchise agreement here in 2017.

Prior to that, we were an open market system. There were still some rules around that. But, you know, it eliminates the exclusive franchise agreements, which has pros and cons. And it reduces the city's role in rate setting and also reduces the city's role in oversight. I have a slide for pros and cons for each option, but I'm not going to bore you with it. It's just a duplicate from what's in the staff report. I have them here in case through council's deliberation they want to hone in on one option. We can bring that up on the screen and everyone in the community can see the pros and cons for that option. So I will quickly move through those. To the recommendation. So, again, you know, staff is seeking direction here on these options.

Number four, other direction is always an option as well. And it's important to know final contract action is requested at this time. Again, any actual agreements, contracts would come back to council for further deliberation. That concludes my presentation. I'll be available to answer any questions. Any questions for staff? Council Member O'Brien. Thank you, Skyler. Great presentation as usual. And you may not answer this question. I don't know. Put you on the spot a little bit. But of those four or at least three options, what's your preference and why? Yeah. You know, we're here to act on council's will. And so I think it would be great to hear from the community. You know, we – this is our first go at a franchise, a waste hauling franchise agreement.

We've had it for, you know, about ten years now, nine years. And I think we could certainly negotiate in some more terms that would help, you know, allow the staff to be able to get the service that we want out of the providers. That being said, that could happen through option one or two a lot easier than option three. You make a great lawyer. Thank you. But good answer. Council Member Goldstein? Yeah, I just had one question. Can you clarify? So between option one and two, if we were to, say, go out to RFP, that wouldn't preclude the current haulers from applying or being selected, right? Correct. The current haulers would also be able to – Okay. That's what I thought. I just wanted to – Yeah, bid on that RFP as well.

Okay. All right. That's my only question for now. Thank you. Vice Mayor Bennett? Yeah. First, I want to thank you for bringing this to us so early. It's great that we have some time to think about this and consider the options that you presented. I have some additional comments, but I would like to hear from the public first, and then I'll come back on. Thank you. Council Member Windsor? I just want to discuss one of the unsaid options on here that would be under other direction, and just so you can give a little feedback, and so maybe everybody can be aware of the question. Everybody can be aware of the conditions that we operate under for this. But if we were to, like UKI or Sacramento, try to form a public utility that would handle this service, we could negotiate as needed, and we could operate our own method.

But what's the big barrier to us establishing a public utility to accomplish some of this service? Right. Right. So, you know, waste hauling in the state of California is regulated primarily by CalRecycle, kind of the trash and recycling department of the state. However, that is not the state requirement that would prohibit us from moving into that. It would be the CARB laws. So, any municipal fleet, I believe it's 2030, any new additions to the fleet have to be zero emissions. And so, that would make our own waste hauling pretty cost prohibitive as we approach that deadline. That would mean an all-electric or a fuel cell garbage truck. And as far as I know, that technology is not quite there yet, which means if it was all-electric, we would probably have to have three trucks for every one truck that you might normally need.

So, unfortunately, because of the emission laws, that kind of keeps us from sort of building up our own fleet at this time. Yeah, it's kind of crazy to have these government regulations getting in the way of having better government services, but that's how it goes sometimes. All right. How many speakers do we have? We have eight. Eight? Yes. Okay. Okay. All right. I'll call the first three, JoAntha, followed by Diana Ramirez and Celeste Kramer. So, JoAntha. Hello, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council. You know me already, but I'll say who I am for those who don't know me. I'm JoAntha Guthrie. I'm the Public Sector Manager for Waste Management. And I'm here tonight to show support for Option 1 that Skyler put forth in his staff report.

It provides the city with the most balanced path forward, one that preserves flexibility, protects rate payers, delivers results sooner, and creates an opportunity to modernize Chico's solid waste system. I just want to point out that a lot of the things that are accomplished through an RFP can be accomplished through negotiating with your current haulers. So, going with Option 1 does not lock the city into any long-term decision without accountability. The council retains full authority to negotiate updated terms, establish stronger performance standards, require infrastructure commitments, and improve customer service expectations. If negotiations do not produce what you're hoping that it produces, you can still go out to RFP.

So, it's not a one or another, but it's your decision to make. Second, I just want to talk about that Option 1 allows the city to address today's priorities immediately instead of waiting multiple years for the outcome of an RFP. So, you can negotiate now and get those things changed in the current agreements without having to wait. Second, Skyler's report identifies important goals that can be negotiated now. The report also notes that if a new hauler were selected, that the provider would require a year or more, and it is probably going to be more than a year to be able to come in as someone who doesn't have the infrastructure, the staff, the equipment, etc. And then, I also wanted to say that we shouldn't view this as a simple extension of our agreements with the haulers.

That you really do look at it as an opportunity to make the changes that the city is hoping to make. Both the staff report and the proposed negotiation framework make clear that any extension should include updated provisions. The council currently has the authority to negotiate stronger standards than those that exist today. In short, Option 1 is an opportunity to modernize Chico's solid waste system, align it with the city's goals, strengthen accountability, and deliver improvements sooner, while maintaining service, stability, and protecting rate payers. Thank you so much. Thank you. Diana Ramirez, followed by Celeste Kramer, and then Jennifer Morris. Good evening. My name is Diana Ramirez, and I am the Area Manager for Public Sector at WM.

And my public comment tonight is to provide some insight regarding the pricing of an RFP and recommend option one to extend the current agreement with the ability to negotiate new terms. And specifically, what I'm talking about is where is the starting place for pricing if an RFP is selected. The pricing and rate methodologies would reset in an RFP. And that absolutely makes sense because when you think about an RFP, all of the bidders have to have an equal playing field. And so the rate methodologies and pricing would be based on today's market and today's cost of providing services. If the city decides to extend the current agreement, then the rates are based on the market and the cost of services that were first established in creating our current agreement.

And even with the annual price adjustments, the city has a cap on how much the price can be adjusted, which has slowed the pace of rates. So by doing an RFP, it would be a reset on the prices. And the city would walk away from what the rates are today and start with whatever the market, whatever the bidders start with in terms of the costs in the market today. And this is a result of the good work that the city staff conducted when putting together the agreement that we are currently in. And I agree with Joanne Guthrie that the city would still have the opportunity to issue an RFP or consider any of the options if you're not satisfied with the results after doing negotiations with the current haulers.

So as your partner and solid waste and recycling service provider, I recommend option one. Thank you. Thank you. Celeste Kramer, followed by Jennifer Morris, and then Tanya Morgan. Hello, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and all the council members. My name is Celeste Kramer. I'm the general manager for the Downtown Chico Business Association. I wanted to share our experience with working with Waste Management. The DCBA produces over 50 community events each year, and Waste Management has consistently been an outstanding partner with us. They've gone well beyond the services outlined in their contract by helping us provide vehicles for hard street closures, meeting us with us regularly to support event planning and logistics, and even volunteering their staff's time when we absolutely needed it.

They've always been responsive, collaborative, and committed to the success of our downtown. And as you consider the future of these franchise agreements, I want to encourage you to recognize the value of community partnerships that extend beyond basic just service delivery. Waste Management has demonstrated a genuine investment in the downtown, and we are grateful for their continued support. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Jennifer Morris, followed by Tanya Morgan, and then Steve Depa. Hello. Hello. Good evening, Councillor Mayor. My name is Jennifer Morris, and I'm the Executive Director of the North Valley Property Owners Association. Our members own and manage thousands of rental homes and apartments throughout Chico, and they work directly with both residents and waste haulers every day.

I want to thank the city staff for their time into this proposal, and also for Jennifer Arbuckle for her time and the haulers for meeting with us to take in our concerns. And while the surveys from certain haulers have come back positive, unfortunately that's not exactly what our members have experienced in the last 11 years and nine months of the franchise agreement. So our association would like to request that we do go out for RFP. I do appreciate that the waste haulers have developed a way for our members to be able to call the local number and be able to get into customer service. That's a new thing that has happened. But the feedback from our membership has been that they basically needed a new staff person just to be able to manage the garbage franchise and the issues that they have experienced at their properties, especially at the larger communities where we have, say, eight trash bins.

If those start to have issues and they're picked up once or twice a week, and then there's a contamination or an overage for maybe an empty box that's sticking up the lid a little bit, they're going to experience that type of an expense that is going to be compounded by the time that they get their report of what the bill was and then determining if that actually was an image for their particular property. Maybe it's an image for a neighboring property. So I do think that the transparency and accountability needs to be outlined no matter what the city staff chooses, or sorry, city council chooses to do today. But we would like to ask for help in getting that situation a little bit more worked out.

Thank you for your time. Thank you. I'm Tanya Morgan, followed by Steve Deppa, and then Austin Barron. Hello. Good evening, Mayor Reynolds and council members. My name is Tanya Morgan. I'm the CEO of Hill Properties. I'm here tonight to ask the city council not to simply renew the current garbage franchise agreement without meaningful negotiations and a thorough review of how the agreement is affecting Chico property owners, businesses, and residents. Service and billing costs have continued to increase while the level of service has not kept pace. Overage fees are excessive and sometimes charged even when the containers do not appear to be overfilled. When these charges are questioned, it can be difficult to find a clear explanation and a timely resolution.

When customers are required to use franchised service provider, the agreement must include strong protections, transparency, and accountability. We're asking the city to negotiate a cohesive overhaul of its current contract, including fair and transparent rates and fees, clear documented standards for overages, a reasonable and accessible dispute process, measurable customer service requirements, stronger local accountability, and regular review of providers' performance. This is not simply about opposing a rate increase. It is about ensuring that Chico residents and businesses receive fair treatment, dependable service, and reasonable value for what they are required to pay. Please use this renewal as an opportunity to negotiate a better agreement for our community, rather than continuing a system that is clearly not working well for its customers.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Steve Deppa, followed by Austin Barron, and then Annalise Ulrich. Thank you, Council. Just looking back and saying this was approximately 11 years ago that this was negotiated to do this franchise agreement, Dale's probably the only one that remembered what a cluster that was as far as switching and putting half the city on one side of 99 with one hauler and the other half with a different hauler, and the service interruption and the amount of heartache and cost that's going to go on doing something other than, you know, option number one, the thing I would look at as any business would look at is that the cost of acquiring a new client is significantly higher than keeping an old one.

You've got an opportunity to put waste management's feet to the fire, handle some of these situations that they're talking about with, you know, potential overages and things as such with lids being popped up and them taking pictures of your plastic bag going into recycling. And I've noticed in the last 12 to 18 months that waste management has been significantly more responsive in whether they're changing their administration at the top or just handling things differently. I've seen a wholesale change in the way their operation's been run, and I think you've got the opportunity to take advantage of them wanting to stay and get as much out of a new contract now rather than trying to figure out a different contract going forward.

As far as becoming a municipal, picking up garbage and creating your own service, well, you already have unfunded pension liabilities. Add another 50 or 100 employees, and that'll be a lot of fun to balance that budget going into the future. So I think you've got an opportunity to take this private contractor, hold their feet to the fire, get an extension with the things that they said they would be open to doing, and not be waiting three years down the road. If I knew I was getting fired in two years, I don't think I'd be all that responsive. So you've got an opportunity to really make these guys responsive. Get the things that you want, because I've seen the changes that have come down the road, and I think waste management deserves another five years.

Thank you. Thank you. Austin Barron, followed by Annalise Ulrich. Good afternoon, Council. Vice Mayor Bennett, Mayor Reynolds. My name is Austin Barron. I want to support either choosing option two or option three on this item. In my opinion, we shouldn't be protecting the current oligopoly of services here. I understand what our previous speaker is saying and holding their feet to the fire and making sure they're doing right by us, but I think the way to do that is to truly bring this to either RFP or truly the open market, to say that there is other options. So send us your best offer now and not go back and forth ten rounds in negotiations, knowing that you're only going to choose one or two options.

So, you know, I encourage you to think about the impact here on homeowners, on renters, on those on fixed income, and I encourage you to look to see what other service providers there are in the North State that could be serving us. It's not just waste management or ecology. There's NRWS, there's Green Waste, there's Atlas Disposal, Cal Waste, CNS that covers Fort Bragg, Lawson County. There's options out there for us. We don't have to be stuck with waste management and recology, but if they're the best option, then we'll choose them anyways through this process. So I encourage you to look at option two. Thank you very much. Thank you. And our last speaker is Annalise Allrig. Hi, good evening.

I'm representing MWS Properties, which manages just under 1,000 multifamily units in Chico. First, I'd like to recognize Jennifer Arbuckle. She has been outstanding to work with throughout this whole process. I appreciate all her continued efforts. She's worked super closely with MBPOA and has gone above and beyond. Also, Olivia and Wesley, they have been great. They've come to many events. They're a phone call away, an email away, and they respond very quickly. However, outside of their control, the concerns are based on my experience working in property management and conversations with others. I've seen several reoccurring concerns regarding waste management and recology. While some customers have had positive experiences, us as well, others have experienced significant rate increases, some approaching 300% at the start of this agreement, and a lot of that being in the last five years.

I've also heard concerns about repeated property damage, delayed customer service responses, inaccurate overage charges, inconsistent service, and reports of hazardous situations not being handled properly. For those reasons, I support the recommendation to move forward with the RFP, and then this gives the city the opportunity to evaluate all available options, encourage competition, and then also ensure that we are getting the best value in service. Thank you. Thank you. She was our last speaker. All right. Council Member Winslow. Let's see if this will work. No. It worked on my end this time, but not on your end this time. Go ahead. You're in. Technology. So a franchise is a monopoly contract for a captive customer base, and that's our city.

The workers in a private monopoly usually do their job a lot like government workers do, which is to mean well. They're often paid with comparable standards for job security and benefits. But the people at the highest level who run the corporations holding monopoly contracts are investors that are concerned with return on their investments. They're not democratically elected councils that serve people. We, as a democratically elected council serving people, want to get the best deal for our people. So it makes sense for us to use the benefit of a competitive marketplace to try to get the best deal that we negotiate in order to get better conditions, lower rates. It doesn't make sense to me why we would negotiate without including other parties to make bids on that.

Because of the cost of starting a business in a place where they're not established, it would be very obvious that the best deal that could happen is a really good deal with the providers that are already here because they don't have that startup cost. But this was our first waste hauling franchise, and there's a litany of things that should have been in there that weren't in there or were in there that shouldn't have been in there. And we need to have a very substantial reevaluation of what's the best practices. Fortunately, we have Jennifer Arbuckle, who is very knowledgeable on this. And I think that we have a lot more experience as a society with how to manage these sorts of things that, to me, it's very clear that the direction we should go in is to invite in other companies to make bids so we can get the best deal for our people.

And that's going to look like roughly option two. As far as how we go about that, if we want to take a more involved approach for us as city council members, I would be happy to participate in that because I think there are a lot of details to this. I think there is a lot of value in community feedback coming in for how exactly we negotiate this and what we negotiate for. But in general, option two, to me, seems like the clear best option for the best interest of our people. I don't know who is next. There's nobody in the queue. Council Member Holly. Thank you, Mayor Reynolds. Yeah, just to echo some of Council Member Winslow's opinions on this, while I really appreciate the time that JoAntha has taken to educate on what they've been doing and also a lot of the creative solutions they have to some of our waste management issues in this city, my favorite being the drop and dash, which truly was life-changing for me while I was in the middle of the move.

Very great creative solution. And it has always been my stance as a representative of District 5 to try to stimulate as competitive of a market as possible. So that's why option two is I'm more partial to, just because I want to maintain competitive markets rather than, you know, just a continuation of another five-year term. That five years is a long time. It really is. Council Member Goldstein. Thank you, Mayor. Thanks to our speakers. Actually, I have another question for Skylar, if that's all right. So we had a couple comments about how negotiating could benefit our community versus RFP. And I wanted to ask, if we were to negotiate, as in, I'm sorry, option one, which is negotiating towards the five-year contract extension, what incentive would there be for those haulers to negotiate with us?

Like, are we already selecting the five-year extension and then negotiating? Or if things didn't go well, then could we go back to RFP? Yeah, I think it would be more of the second option. I realize I neglected to introduce our solid waste and recycling consultant on this, Jennifer Arbuckle. Her name's been mentioned a few times. She's here in the room as well, can help answer some of these specific questions. She could probably answer this better than me, but I'm going to take a shot at it. So my understanding is that the franchise just sets up basically the existing agreements allow for two five-year extensions beyond the existing term. It does say that those are negotiated extensions. So in a sense, you are selecting the haulers, but then you're saying, hey, we need to sit down and talk about this franchise.

These are the terms that we want to see. These are the services that we want. They could be additional services. You could be removing services. It's all up for negotiation. And, you know, in any negotiation, the other party has the ability to say, you know, okay, I can do that. I can't do that. This is going to be the increased cost, decreased cost. What would come out of that would be an agreement or a contract that would then come back to council for further deliberation. So it doesn't mean we're choosing them necessarily out the gate. It just means we have direction to negotiate towards a five-year extension. Good to know. Thank you. Also, a commenter stated that going to RFP would reset rates and potentially bring them higher, which is contradictory to the idea that healthy competition could provide us more options for rates.

And I was wondering if you or our consultant had a perspective on what the potential cost to our community could be for rates with these two options. Right. I think, you know, creating a competitive bid environment is always your best tool that you have to get the lowest rate. You know, when my colleague here, Mr. Audubonty, when he puts out a large project, large road project, large road project, they don't sit down and just negotiate with one or two construction companies. You know, everyone has an opportunity to bid, and then, you know, ultimately they'll select the lowest, most responsible bidder. Okay, great. Thank you. And I wanted to offer an opportunity if Jennifer had comments on anything that I asked or responses.

Hello. Yes, I would just comment a little bit on the price resetting because, right, that's important. It kind of depends on so many different factors, right, because you guys can decide how long are we going to make. If we go out to RFP and then we have a new franchise, how long is it going to be? That affects all the price points, right, and what they have, and then who's bidding and what resources they have locally. Some people have local resources. Some people don't, you know, so it's just a gamble. You can't say that exactly, that, yes, it will change the rate structure, but where we're at now in a percent, say we have a cap at our CPI, but also in our franchise agreement, if there's extenuating circumstances with organic processing, they can request additional rate increases.

So it's capped at 5% for CPI, but not for all the contractual negotiations at this point. Does that make sense? Okay. It's a lot of information to take in. Oh, and also somebody had mentioned residents getting up to, like, 300% rate increases. Who has this been happening to? I hadn't heard about it yet. That was Annalise, right? Right. So when you guys, when originally we went from open market to the franchise agreement, and those set prices had to be set in, because at that point, you know, there's no more competition, so people's bills did go up 300%, because everyone was getting a different price, right, because it was competitive. So if Annalise's one property was getting a certain price because she had Recology over there, or Waste Management, and then she got another price when franchised, they had to, you know, lock that down and make it an even price for everybody.

So it affected people all the way from, you know, 20% to 300%. It's just the nature of the reality of the situation. Okay. Thank you very much. I think that's the end of my questions, and I'll just tie it up with, again, I really appreciate all of our community. I want to note, I don't think we heard from people from Recology. We do have our two haulers, and I think that it, I just, anyway, I think I am leaning towards what some of my fellow council members have talked about, with healthy competition being potentially a good option for ensuring that our community, who is currently struggling with high costs of living, including utility rates, to ensure that our community can have the best options.

So that's where I'm leaning is option two at the moment. Yeah, thanks. Vice Mayor Bennett, and then Council Member O'Brien, I got you next. Vice Mayor Bennett, and Council Member O'Brien, I got you next. I'm not going to make a decision tonight, and I'm not even going to make a recommendation, because I wouldn't know what that would be. I don't know which is the best recommendation or the best decision. I have to learn about this project. I have to learn about what a franchise agreement is before I can make an intelligent decision. So I'm going to be making a motion in a second. I know Council Member O'Brien is going to speak, but I'm going to make a motion in a second to move this over to internal affairs and continue with the conversation.

There may be an establishment of a committee to look at this, because it's going to be a very important decision, which will impact all of us. And we've heard a lot of different comments this evening. So I want to take those into consideration. But I think moving it to internal affairs and continuing to work on this is probably the best course of action at this time. Council Member O'Brien. Thank you, Mayor. And thank you to Skyler. Great job on that difficult project. This is really uncharted territory for us. And I appreciate the thoughtfulness in this report. And as Vice Mayor Bennett said, getting it to us with some ability to take a look at this with a little bit more time. So thank you.

So I do like competition. I think that's a healthy thing. That's really how our society works best, particularly in the business world and in the government world as well. However, with this particular one, you may have a company win the RFP, win the bid, and not deliver. I can tell you, at least from my personal experience and my personal experiences with waste management, they're wonderful. They do a great job in our community. I like how they do business in the city of Chico. So I get the competition. I respect the opinions of my colleagues on this. However, I'm a little concerned about the risk of getting a substandard waste hauler that may win a bid but may not do the job. And yes, I know there's recourse to that, but that is a problem for us moving forward.

So Vice Mayor Bennett, normally I would maybe push back a little bit on things that are pushed to internal affairs, but I think since we have a thoughtful staff that is giving us time really to look at this and get down to some of the nitty-gritty details, there's probably some wisdom in that and allows us to make a better and more informed decision. I will support that motion. Council Member Hawley. Just wanted to repeat a small piece from the staff report on page three. It says delaying direction could significantly compress procurement, negotiation, and transition timelines, and I really want to be cognizant of that if my colleagues are considering punting this to internal affairs just based upon the patterns of this specific council on extended deferrals.

Council Member Goldstein. Sure. Thank you. Real quick, I agree with the sentiment that we need to ensure that whoever we're contracting, that they do deliver. And I also feel that part of the reason that we're here hearing from some of our members of the public is that they feel that there are issues with the current performance. And I think some of those, like the performance reports, were confidential, so they're not included in the staff report. But I just want to be sure that we're clear that it, although I'm sure our waste haulers are, you know, trying their best and doing well, that there are some current issues and that we want to make sure that we either negotiate those or go to RFP.

And so we have risks right now with continuing business as usual. I just want to make that clear. Thank you. Council Member Wenslow. Director Lipski, theoretically, say we were to give direction with initiating a competitive RFP process. What would be the next step? When's the next time that the council would weigh in? And would it make sense to insert a committee hearing like an internal affairs before that? Yes. So, I mean, I think it would depend on if that is included in the motion as far as a separate subgroup, subcommittee, or, you know, even a visit to internal affairs prior to actually selecting an option. Should we be given just direction to pursue option two at this time, then that would, you know, staff would have direction, RFP, RFQ, so we would go revisit the franchise agreements.

We would obviously coordinate it with our solid waste and recycling consultant, Jennifer Arbuckle, to help draft that RFP, RFQ. Should council choose, we would bring it back to council for deliberation at that time before we actually put it out. I think that would probably be the best course of action. Okay. Yeah. So we could offer direction that would tentatively say let's move forward with an RFP. And then if, as we see in committee, we could be looking at some of the bigger questions and soliciting community input before we finalize anything in that. That's what I think would probably be wise to keep this moving forward while keeping open to whatever options. What's the cost to go out for an RFP?

Because it's not free. So we're going to have a consultant draft it, all that. So what's the approximate cost to the city to go out to RFP? Right. I don't have that exact number. I think if I could put our consultant on the spot who's done these before, perhaps she could give a range. $50,000, $100,000, $200,000. Get some other consultants in to put bids in. It wouldn't cost any more than, you know, I'm already contracted and paid. So it would just be, depends on the stipulations you guys, we decide all you want into the RFP, like the different auspices of service sizes and all that and how long it would take. But it's not astronomical to make an RFP. I've written many of them, so, you know, a first draft, a couple weeks, you know, maybe 60 hours.

Gotcha. 60 hours at whatever your hourly rate is. So the part that we're missing here, I feel like, is it would cost us nothing to go back and negotiate with the franchise haulers that we have right now and see if we can make the changes that we need and still go out for RFP? I think Waste Management has 100-ish employees that are in our community, and I don't know how many Recology has. I mean, maybe you guys can tell me, like, these are people that are invested in our community, own homes, live here, have children in our schools here, work here. Like, they're invested in our community. We have laws coming up on recycling of food and things like that that we need to get done. If we're talking not even having a new hauler in here for three or four years and then having to put all these new things into place, we're postponing what may be done.

So I would lean more towards seeing if we can get ironed out the things that we are concerned about, having an ad hoc or internal affairs or whatever, have the listening sessions to what we are. But, I mean, I don't know. These are employees that are in our community, invested in our community, and have been for 10 years. And I'm more apt to at least seeing if we can fix whatever the major issues are. And if we can't fix it and we can't agree, then we go out for RFP. But it seems like we should at least start with what we have, is my opinion. You're in the queue. I couldn't agree with you more. We're talking about people. We're talking about businesses. But we're always talking about people.

So, again, I'm going to make the motion to move this to internal affairs so we can discuss it further so we have some time to do our research and due diligence regarding franchise agreements and perhaps find out what the issues may be. There are some references to issues, but I'm not sure what they are, vague references. And we can find that out as well. So my motion is to move this to internal affairs and keep working on it. It is not my intention to put this off. So, and we've got time to work on it. But it is my intent. It's doing its own thing. It's doing its own thing. Sorry. So that's my motion. Period. That's it. I'll second that. And the reason why I'm seconding that, really, Mayor, I think you hit it on the head that waste management, at least from my experience, has been a great part of our community.

They've been here for 10 years. I don't think you just dismiss that. And if there are issues that the community has, wherever those issues happen to be, I would like to hear about them. I don't know what those are. I haven't heard them. But I think we need to understand what those are so we can move this process forward. And I think this is a way to do just that. And I would just echo that I did write down, you know, I heard the word transparency three or four times. And I think that's super important. I heard fees, that there are strong protections, that we look at the overage fees, and that there's a way to do regular reviews. So I clearly heard, you know, the issues, and I think there are things that we need to address and look at.

But I think that can be done in internal affairs. Council Member Goldstein. Just real quick, we did get some information about performance review, but I'm probably going to do it. Sorry, we got some performance review information just to counsel, but I'm sure there's more that we could read into this. I don't want to put more work on internal affairs when we could be doing it here, but I think, you know, this warrants a bit longer of a discussion. How do our internal affairs members feel about that? Well, I'm happy to look at things in internal affairs. I'd be happy to see it in an ad hoc committee. Sometimes that's a little more comfortable, flexible for people, and there's all the specific points.

I just think that we should be giving some direction rather than just leaving it open. Like we didn't come in and understand what a franchise is, and therefore we have to, like, re-explore it from the fundamentals when we were given a performance review, and we've had the staff report out for longer than it's been on the agenda. And I just think that we, to me, it's really clear. We can start to move towards RFE, feel like we're not satisfied with that, or feel like we're not getting anything really substantially new, and then we go back and we negotiate. Like we totally have that option, but it is about keeping our options open. This is how we understand what's available to us to get. Like we can't be doing this, like, sole service negotiation and know what's open to us.

We have to invite some other parties in to kind of commentate on that. So I think we should be moving forward to at least narrow down some decision points, and an RFP is going to look similar to, like, a negotiation, so we can talk about those things, and we can always pivot back. But in order to move forward, I think that we should be looking at more at option two and asking for staff to proceed with initiating that process. So I'd make a substitute motion that we do the same thing, send it to a committee, but ask staff to come back with recommendations on option two and, like, key decision points. I would second that motion. And like staff has already reiterated, although it does cost some money and staff time to have that RFP drafted, approximately 60 hours, give or take.

I think compared to the potential savings that could create more open opportunities for lower rates for everyone who lives in Chico, it would be worth consideration. That was a second. We've got a substitute motion. Okay. So the substitute motion was to refer option two, to land on option two, but to refer the discussion to IAC. Yeah, and direct staff to come back with some two IA with some key decision points before we move forward with the complete drafting of the RFP. Okay. And this is the substitute motion. So let me take it first. All right. Council Member Goldstein? Yes. Council Member Hawley? Yes. Council Member O'Brien? No. Council Member Winslow? Yes. Vice Mayor Bennett? No. Mayor Reynolds?

No. It fails 3-3. So I'll go back to the motion, the original one, which was to refer, I believe, all three options for consideration. In addition, find out the issues with our existing haulers. And that was to go to IAC. Is that the motion is? Okay. All right. I'm made. Council Member Goldstein? Okay. I'm sorry. Can you restate the motion? The motion was to send all three options and not limit it, but to also vet the issues that are currently being experienced with our current haulers and to get more input on all of the items. What? Yeah. I feel it's not my favorite, but yes. Okay. Council Member Hawley? No. No. Council Member O'Brien? Yes. Council Member Winslow? Yeah. Vice Mayor Bennett? Yes.

Mayor Reynolds? Aye. It carries. Five. One no and one absence. All right. I'm going to take a break and come back for 5.3. 5.3, agreement to Chico Municipal Code Title 18R Utility Underground Requirements. If you are on Zoom and would like to speak on this item, now is the time to raise your hand. And we have, well, I have on my report, Brendan, but it looks like we have somebody else presenting tonight. Yes, we have Associate Engineer Nat Craddiville and Senior Traffic Engineer Sean Hummer doing the presentation for this item. Nat, how do you say your last name? Craddiville. The CH is silent. All right. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members. My name is Nat Craddiville, and I'm an Associate Engineer with the Public Works Development Engineering Division.

Item 5.3 before you proposes amendments to Title 18R of the Chico Municipal Code to clarify utility undergrounding requirements and update the City's Streetlight Foundation Standards. These changes implement prior council direction related to the January 2026 Utility Undergrounding Appeal and the Streetlight Foundation Standards that were deferred from the November 2025 engineering updates. Following council direction, City staff worked with the Chico Builders Association to develop clarifying language for Section 18R 08080 and ultimately reached a compromise on a modified, under-reinforced Streetlight Foundation detail that meets accepted engineering calculations and performance criteria. I will be providing a brief overview of the utility undergrounding portion, which addresses utility undergrounding requirements.

After that, Sean Hummer, Senior Traffic Engineer, will present the Streetlight Foundation Standards portion of this item. This amendment clarifies how the City applies Section 18R 08080. It's not changing. Yeah, it's not. There we go. There we go. So, please, please, please, please, p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p installations and existing overhead utilities.

That lack of distinction created uncertainty during project reviews. In some cases, the code could be interpreted to require a developer to underground existing overhead utility lines simply because they were adjacent to a project site. The proposed amendment resolves that ambiguity and provides a more consistent standard for applicants and staff. The proposed clarification is straightforward. The undergrounding requirement applies to new utility installations. Existing overhead utilities adjacent to a development site would not automatically be required to be placed underground. Undergrounding those facilities would be at the discretion of the developer and the utility provider. However, if existing overhead utilities conflict with required public improvements, prevent improvements from being constructed to city standards, or create documented safety concerns, the city may still require relocation or undergrounding if necessary.

Examples include conflicts with site distance, access and accessibility requirements, required public improvements, or documented fire and police safety concerns. In summary, this amendment provides clear code language and improves consistency in the city's application of utility undergrounding requirements during project reviews. I will now turn it over to Sean to present on the Streetlight Foundation Standards portion of the Title 18R amendments. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and Council. I will be covering the proposed update to the city's streetlight standards. The current standards have remained largely unchanged since 1998. As part of our broader update to the engineering design standards, we identified this detail as an opportunity to modernize while maintaining safety and improving constructability.

As this change can affect construction costs for development projects, staff worked closely with the Chico Builders Association, which I may also refer to as CBA. Both parties retained independent licensed engineers to review the design. On May 11th of this year, city staff and the CBA and each organization's structural engineering consultant met to review the assumptions behind the originally proposed standard, anticipated load conditions and possible alternatives. Through that engineering review, we reached consensus on the CBA-provided foundation design alternative. The new design was provided by the Chico Builders Association's structural engineering consultant and uses less reinforcing steel and concrete than the previous prescriptive detail proposed by city staff.

It's fully supported by structural calculations and meets safety and performance criteria for the anticipated service loads. In other words, we're moving from the more safe and conservative approach of using Caltrans prescriptive standards to a performance-based standard. The new standard has been independently verified by structural engineering consultants both for Chico Builders Association and the city. And the most noticeable change is the simplified reinforcing cage. The revised design reduces reinforcing and concrete while maintaining the structural capacity required for our street light installations. The result is a foundation that's cheaper and easier to construct, requires less material, and still provides the safety and durability that we expect from our public infrastructure.

One of the practical benefits of this revised design is the reduction in reinforcing steel compared to the previous spiral cage detail. While the material savings on an individual foundation are modest, those savings accumulate across the subdivision without compromising structural performance. Importantly, this recommendation represents a collaborative solution developed jointly by the city staff, the Chico Builders Association, and the structural engineering consultants for both. The Chico Builders Association proposed a foundation detail that was less than the current industry standard, but was amenable to us since it was backed up by engineering calculations. This resulted in a reduction of steel of approximately 63% and a reduction of concrete of nearly 20% from our original proposed detail.

With that, staff recommends adoption of both resolutions and we're available for any questions that you may have. All right, does the Council have any questions? All right. How many? Yeah. Council Member Goldstein? So, question on the streetlight foundations. We previously had discussed this. And my concern is that we could be sacrificing, you know, the safety of our infrastructure to be able to cut some costs. Are you still concerned about this or do you feel that this compromise has led to a design that can both reduce some costs while still being as sturdy and safe? Yeah. Staff does feel this compromise accomplishes both. We have engineering calculations that back up this particular detail as where really it's our professional responsibility to do so.

Okay. Thank you. All right. That's my only question. Thanks. Any other questions? No. Okay. How many speakers do we have? We have one. Okay. Austin Barron. Austin Barron. Austin Barron. Austin Barron. Good evening, Council. I'll be brief on this item. My name is Austin Barron. My name is Austin Barron. Good evening, Council. I'll be brief on this item. My name is Austin Barron. Firstly, I want to thank you for collaborating with CBA on this item. I believe they can provide some serious insight into how these costs can kind of ricochet into the private market. You know, we're reducing our initial costs now on these items, but it's also reducing these in-home sale prices on residential subdivisions.

It's also going to be helping to reduce commercial rents on commercial developments if we aren't having to underground an entire section of line that is down the street from our project. So, you know, I'd also invite you to coordinate with the Sierra North Valley Realtors Association if needed on items like this because we can provide some data on how this ricochets into our clients. But I encourage you to keep having these in-consumer cost-based thinking on items like this. Yes, you know, we want to make sure everything is safe, but we also want to think about, you know, it's not just affecting the developer. It's affecting the end consumer on this. So, thank you. Thank you. All right. Council Member O'Brien, I think you hit your...

Yeah, thank you, Mayor. I just want to compliment our staff. Excuse me. Compliment our staff. Brendan, great job working with some of our constituents to come up with a compromise that does not compromise our safety of our infrastructure. I think that's outstanding. Not always easy to accomplish. You did that. So, well done, and I appreciate your efforts. Is that a motion to approve? Yes. As a matter of fact, it is. I'll second that. All right. We got a motion. Okay. Council Member Goldstein? Yes. Council Member Hawley? Yes. Council Member O'Brien? Yes. Council Member Winslow? Yes. Vice Mayor Bennett? Yes. Mayor Reynolds? Aye. Carries 6-0 with one absence. All right. 5.4, Garner Lane Development Coordination and the CARD Agreement.

If you are on Zoom and would like to speak, now is your time to raise your hand. And we have the Director of Public Works Engineering, Brendan Ottoboni. Yes. Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Council Members. This is a unique item. And so unique circumstances often result or create unique opportunities. And I think this item represents that, an opportunity to partner with some local partners on getting infrastructure built and serving development opportunities at the north end of town. So a little context, Garner Lane is currently an existing two-lane road that was previously built on the county. The ultimate build-out intended for Garner Lane to serve that development is a three-lane road.

So it will be one lane in each direction with the center turn lane so that safe access is provided to businesses and opportunities to access on both sides of the road. It will also include bike lanes, curb and gutter, sidewalk, landscaping, our standard details for fringe improvements. Typically, for new developers' responsibility is to build out to the center line of the roadway. So in 2021, Courtesy Motors went through their development process and project and had a significant upfront capital cost. And so through that process, the city approved a development agreement that allowed the deferral of those frontage improvements for a period of 20 years. Fast forward to today, and CARD is working on their aquatic center project and would be responsible for the other half of the roadway.

So with that, if we built one side, you still wouldn't have enough room to have a center turn lane and the full complement of all those roadway amenities. And so we jumped in to help and participate in the full build-out of that roadway. So the engineering department jumped in. We pursued the design of that whole roadway. We partnered with Courtesy Motors and CARD to look at opportunities to have this built out in one fell swoop. A little caveat to that, at the intersection of Garner Lane and Esplanade, there will be a future roundabout. We have recently secured about $5.5 million to build that in 2029. And so that's alleviated some of our fiscal responsibilities in the future to improve that.

If you're familiar with that area, it's at an acute angle. It creates a lot of site distance safety issues. So the roundabout would kind of be a traffic calming measure, but also a traffic circulation improvement. So this item is, again, a unique partnership to have the roadway improvements done now. And what that would essentially entail is the city fronting roughly $2.8 million for the construction of the full roadway. CARD has a contract with Slater & Sons, and Franklin Construction is a subconsultant of Slater & Sons, and have agreed to do it at reduced costs. And so there's a great opportunity also to have this work done by local contractors at a reduced price. And so, again, what this item would do is essentially the city front the money and then enter into agreements with both CARD and Courtesy Motors for repayment of their proportional share of costs over the terms of the agreement.

So if not done, what would essentially happen is we would have piecemeal infrastructure dilapidated, become difficult to manage and maintain long-term if one side of the road is new and one side is 60 years old. So I believe this is an opportunity to celebrate a partnership. We have funding in the capital project for Garner Lane right now because we're anticipating on needing that for the roundabout, but we've since secured grant funds to free up that money. So this really seems to be a win-win-win opportunity for all three partners involved. That concludes my report. We do have representatives from CARD and Courtesy Motors. I'm not sure if they have speaking cards, but they're available to ask any questions as well.

All right. Thank you very much. Any questions for staff? Okay. How many speakers do we have? We don't have any. None. Okay. Anybody on Zoom comments? No? No. Okay. Just make sure before we move forward. All right. Is there a motion? I'll move to approve. I'll second it. Good work, Brendan. Council Member Goldstein? Yes. Council Member Hawley? Yes. Council Member O'Brien? Yes. Council Member Winslow? Yes. Vice Mayor Bennett? Yes. Mayor Reynolds? Absolutely. Carries 6-0 with one absence. All right. June 16th, Finance Committee Minutes. If there's anybody wanting to speak on Zoom on Finance Committee Minutes, then please raise your hand at this time. Who's doing a report on this? Is it Vice Mayor Bennett?

Are we doing Finance Committee Minutes? Yes. Well, I think I recognize the Chair isn't here tonight because he's ill. This item was brought back because it was a motion. It wasn't an actual motion, but there were several. There were three suggestions. So I don't know if the Vice Mayor would like to address those. It looks like it would take more than an hour of time to do these things. And so we wanted to get direction from the Council if that's what you want staff to pursue. And the three things are analysis of the commercial lease rates and compare them to the current lease rates for Chico Regional Airport. And then Council Member van Overbeek wanted suggested staff amend future financial reports to include color coding, green for good, red for bad.

And then another thing on cities, priorities, buildings, vehicles, staff. So you're asking for permission for us to move forward on that. Right. Vice Mayor Bennett? So I'll make this very brief. My suggestion regarding commercial rent rates at Chico Municipal Airport is a comparison of what the city buildings or the city is charging versus perhaps a different number if we were to look at the market rates. Very simple. And I'll be discussing this further with Mr. Lipsky soon. Number two, I don't even remember that. Do you? I don't even remember that. I don't remember the color coding of. So I'm going to say when Tom's back, he can talk to himself. And then number three, he can talk about it. He can say whatever.

I really don't think it's necessary. It's a lot of work for you. Is it a lot of work for you? In terms of the insurance information? No, color coding. Oh, color coding. Well, it's a modification of the reports. I recognize that those reports are lengthy, so I understand what the concept is. I've been looking at him for four years. I'm used to it. So we'll talk to Councilor Van Overbeek a little bit more about that. And then number three, that is going to take up three days, I've heard, from somebody. So that would have to be to review the insurance situation with the city of Chico would be approximately three days. So that would be a requirement, or that would be something that the city council would have to authorize.

And I'm not prepared to make that suggestion that the city council authorized that, because I believe it's done at the budget cycle. So what's the intent of that, so I'll make sure I understand that request? I'm not sure. I don't want to speak for Councilmember Van Overbeek, but it was clear when I read all the minutes and listened to the audio. It was more about he wanted to understand, and if we look at how we insure our properties, buildings, and vehicles. I remember former city manager Sorensen came to me, and he said that I believe there's already a process in place where finance consistently looks at that, and that that would be an onerous task for staff. And so if you want staff to stop doing what they're doing currently and work on this, then it would require a vote of the council majority.

Is this to determine necessity of insurance or look for cost savings, something along those lines? I'm not 100% sure, but I think it's more about the philosophy of what we use to determine what our deductibles are, what our premium, and how they affect our premiums and that sort of thing. Something that we do annually anyway, but I think he wanted more of an understanding of that process. I think the council was looking for a full analysis of how insurance rates and insurances are established by the Finance Committee, and then he would take a look at what the results are and determine something. Would we be all okay with just moving this item to next meeting when Councilmember Van Overbeek is here to speak for himself?

I don't see anything urgent on this. Yeah, I want to be fair to Tom because he may articulate this in a way that makes perfect sense. I think that's a fair request. Okay, so I'll make a motion that we move this to our next meeting. I'll second that. You don't have to. Oh, no. We'll just move it. Just move it? And bring it back. Okay, perfect. Everybody else good with that? And Vice Mayor, your thing, I'm sure, on Chico Airport, that can wait. Okay. Absolutely. All right, 5.6. Councilmember Winslow requests water quality for Big Chico Creek Watershed. If you are on Zoom and would like to speak, now is the time to raise your hand. Councilmember Winslow. Thank you, Mayor Reynolds, and thanks, everybody, for entertaining this.

I do think it's a really important thing, and I try to be really succinct all the time with you guys, and I might fail here. But I'll start with I've been very concerned about a variety of issues and even the perception of issues in Big Chico Creek. I think that swimming in the creek is a really important part of growing up here, and I worry that because of some recent events, some children may grow up here and not really get that experience because there will be at least a perception that it's not safe for them. And I think that when we look at our – remember that strategic planning we did, and I don't have my glasses, but I think it's on the wall somewhere here, and it's like protect our primary community assets.

This is very high on that list, and I think there's a range of responsibilities that we could have or should have, but it's actually quite confusing because there is a cross jurisdiction. Councilmember van Overbeek said when I agendized this, he's like, aren't the issues in the upper watershed? And some of that is true. Some of that's not true. But I think that there's ways in which the city can be a support, if not like the primary engine of some collaboration. And let me articulate just like the range of issues that I see. One is just to be sure, based on our tests of E. coli, the water is not significantly less healthy to swim in than it was a few years ago. But the thresholds are really confusing, and now we have new signs that are convincing a lot of people that it is especially unhealthy now.

And what makes that worse and is kind of related in us reviewing our thresholds and deciding to put up this new signage was the E. coli 0157 outbreak last summer. And there's also long term, there's reason for us to believe that in the long run, the water is going to be less healthy. Because due to climate change, we're going to have more of a precipitation happening in the winter. That winter is going to be warmer, so more of that's going to run off. And especially if we see depleting groundwater levels, there's going to be a lot less water in the creek. And that just means higher concentrations of whatever contaminants are in there. So I think there is reason for us to be concerned about the health and the quality of the water in the long run.

But right now, we have a range of questions. And I asked for some people, Buchanan Public Health, CARD, and City Public Works to meet in February. And I'm happy to say that these are great people working for these agencies that take this very seriously. And they've all done really good work. So since I had that meeting, Buchanan Public Health has really taken off and done the 0157 testing, which is really complicated and really expensive. And they seem to be doing the best that we can do in getting that as local as it can and as cheap as it can. And they've done some, so we have some reassurance there is no presence detected of ECOI 0157 in the creek now. I think we're going to want to keep looking at that because we're going to have the recurrent fear.

CARD has some summer camps with kids. And they've been doing similar water quality testing that we do in Sycamore Pool, but their analysis is much more robust. And that's great. And they're sharing the results with the city. So now we have more data on the quality of the water than we did before. Now, I think it's worth looking at what efforts we could do to bolster this. I think this is a really appropriate discussion for the Biddle Parks and Playground Commission. So I can say all these things and then just make a motion that we make it a regular item on their agenda so that they're able to sort of coalesce some sort of efforts. But I think we also should get some commentary on this. And if you saw Dr. Jarrett Bowden from Public Health, who is in some conference in Kentucky, sent a really good email with a list of different recommendations.

If it would have got it soon enough, I could have just made that my report. And some of that included, like, establishing a technical advisory council to try to deal with these. I think there would be a real benefit in there being some research done on our own creek in collaboration with Chico State. I also know, because I've talked to a lot of people there, that there's interest in that. Whether the city can somehow kick in to sponsor a study or something like that, I think it's really worth considering. So, as I said, I would have trouble wrapping this issue. I hope you have sympathy with my efforts in it. And I'd also just like to hear from other council members in terms of how you feel about this and what kind of direction we can provide to staff to try to tackle this issue comprehensively.

Council Member O'Brien, you're... Yeah. Go ahead. So, thank you, Mayor. I do think it's an important issue, and I thank the health of our citizens as it relates to swimming in a longstanding, I wouldn't call it a pool, but creek is important. And understanding what those dynamics are, I think the testing is very important. Are you suggesting partnering in some kind of study analysis, whether that's with Chico State or a consortium of people to really understand this issue? Is that what I'm hearing? Yeah. And I can definitely go into more detail. But yes, I think there's value in a study because the thresholds that we have set that requires the post-swim advisories come from studies. People had to trace it.

Nobody really knew. State public health didn't know. And it comes from studies of a Michigan beach. It's a completely different circumstance. So, we really don't have a good idea of what thresholds of E. coli are a good indicator of when people are going to get sick. And if we found that out by studying our own Sycamore pool, we'd have the best results out there. And we actually probably would share them with other areas and give them a better idea of when to issue these swim advisories. So, is there a cost associated with this, or is it something that we'd look maybe to get? Is there a cost associated with this that may be offset because of the generosity of our friends at Chico State? Have you looked into that?

I can't tell you exactly what it would cost. I do think that for us to sort of sponsor this, I think that we probably would have some collaboration with Chico State because they also have a stake in this and they care in the part of the community. I will mention that Dr. Bowden listed this in his little spreadsheet of ideas here. And he did say likely the most expensive option would be conduct the swim or illness study and would require consultants and could last a few years. All right. So, maybe looking at some of those options and what the cost would be, is that a fair representation of what you're looking for? Yeah. I mean, that's definitely a big piece of it. I do think that this warrants a regular update at the Bidwell Parks and Playgrounds Commission.

This is sort of on the idea that there's more little actions that we could take than we really know. And if you read the little gender report that I wrote, I looked back at this Big Chico Creek Watershed Alliance that existed in the past, was dealing with fish health, salmon and fish passage, also water quality for recreational purposes, sort of all of the range of issues that connect to watershed. This alliance existed. They had a lot of activity. And they shifted their funds over to Beat Environmental Council. And they hired a watershed coordinator. But that position has since gone away. So, really, nothing like that exists anymore. And that actually came out of, it was council direction. And it was out of the Bidwell Parks and Playgrounds Commission that that came originally.

And so, I think that by spurring the discussion there and having regular updates, some other interests, of which there are many interested parties, would probably come together and forward this better than the six of us could up here. All right. Thank you. Thanks for bringing this forward on the agenda, Council Member Winslow. And I would definitely be interested in spending some administrative staff time coordinating this effort, mostly because this is the single biggest issue that I hear, like, the most misinformation surrounding. The things I've heard from the community, which partially, I think, has to do with the communication methodology surrounding this issue has been extensive. So, not only looking into how we can collaborate with local partners like the university, but also looking into our communication methodology surrounding this, I'm very interested in.

Council Member Goldstein. Yeah. I agree with the sentiment expressed by my fellow Council Members. This is really important. It's the heart of our community, Big Chico Creek and Sycamore Pool in Bidwell Park. It's part of why people want to live here, and it's a really unique experience, and we need to keep it safe and, yeah, make sure our water quality is good. And to do that, we have to have accurate information. So, I also would support potential for some staff time as well as partnerships to study this. So, thank you for bringing this forth. How many speakers do we have? We have one. All right. Just a moment. Tracy Vincent. I was actually hoping that I'd be a little more clear when y'all got done talking, because now I'm even more confused.

So, the topic started out to be about E. coli in our creeks critical. We have public health that handles that. And, yes, we need to stay on top of it. I swim a little higher up than the one mile, but I'm confused now because we're mixing groundwater policy, possible habitat restoration, wildlife reintroduction. These are all separate policy matters that I feel like we're lumping into one topic here. And that's why I was very confused how it started out talking about E. coli testing, but then now we're moving in and branching into many different things. I feel like we're talking about a lot of different policies that don't really blend together. overall picture, but I feel like we're clumping a lot of things that probably shouldn't be mixed at one time.

And I really think that public health should be leading our way on the E. coli. Definitely partnershiping with the college because that's important. But, again, we're talking about groundwater policies, wildlife reintroductions, development questions, a lot of stuff up and down that don't really mix and match. And I feel like that that needs to be clarified of what exactly we're talking about and whose responsibilities they are and where they fall because leading the way for E. coli is a public health issue. So I feel like we're mixing and matching. I would hope we could get some more clarity of what we're actually talking about with this. Thank you. Thank you. She's our speaker, our only speaker.

All right. Let's pick up on that. Yeah. Go ahead. I totally understand that because there's a lot of interconnected issues around water quality. But I do want to take this opportunity to ask Director Lipski, just because the city's taken some action recently in response to some of these things. And I wonder if you could just quickly go over the signs, the testing that we do, and anything else that people should know really briefly. Right. Right. So the city follows a precautionary notification system that's been established by Butte County Public Health. We are not epidemiologists. We're not experts in that. But we do have those experts at our disposal in the county. So they've put together what I call, I refer to as our action plan.

It's our advisory document. In essence, in summary, when we get a sample that's greater than 100 NPN, most probable number per milliliter of E. coli, we post the advisories. And those advisories are exactly what they sound like, just saying, you know, be advised, higher levels of E. coli detected. There's a little bit more information on those signs, as well as a link to our actual website that has even more information, frequently asked questions and whatnot. If we exceed a 320 NPN per milliliter sample, then we'll post a swimming not advised sign, which sounds the same. But we're trying to really inform the public. And these signs are a little bit more dramatic. They're like red, and they sort of catch your attention that, you know, that you should not be swimming in the water at this time due to the higher levels of E. coli.

Okay. Nice. Thank you. Go ahead. Vice Mayor Bennett, go ahead. And how often do you test the water, Director? Yeah, the water is tested weekly during the swimming season, except in those instances that we are in a swim advisory, and then it's tested daily. Okay. So you're testing independently of Butte County Health? No. We do pretty much the only primary testing in the pool as it relates to this action plan. So that's done by the city. It's actually done by contract with the contract lab here in town. They perform the testing. There's a couple of samples upstream and downstream in the pool, kind of near the beginning of the pool and downstream of the pool, that are taken during each sample event.

Those sample results are posted on our website so the community can see them. Again, they're done weekly during the swim season. Unless we're in an advisory, then they're done daily. There is a delay on sample time. That actual process to get that number takes a little bit of time, so it's about a week or so until we have those numbers. And then how often does Butte County test the water? And they're not doing it at the one-mile area. They're doing it someplace else along the creek? As far as I know, Butte County only got involved because of the 0157 testing, and that's when they helped facilitate that testing with the state, with the state CDC. Okay. Thank you. So to answer your question, they don't do any ongoing testing in the creek that I'm aware of.

They were just in the paper today, and I'm trying to think. It sounded like they were doing continued testing, but I'd have to read it again. Yeah, they did one in April and one in May. And the last year, the first one they did, it was really difficult. They had to airlift the samples to the CDC headquarters in Atlanta. And so that was like this February, me asking people to talk. It's like, how can we do this without a plane to Atlanta? You know, trying to simplify it a little bit. And public health, I think, has really figured out, and I think we've got the best options available. You know, I was kind of considering, you know, could we do this in-house in a certain way? And it seems like there's permitting requirements for laboratories and stuff that make that maybe not the best option.

But if we were to find it positive, maybe we would think it would be worth some investment in trying to localize some capacity for that. But one of the many things that's been spinning around in my head about this, if you can tell. And I can try to just make a motion really just to punt this off into future discussion. If that's amenable to everybody. So I'll make it a couple part motion. Because one is I do just want to engage our Bidwell Parks and Playground Commission. So I would ask to agendize for them a discussion on collaboration on measures that can be taken to improve Big Jucco Creek water quality. And our understanding of it, just testing plus. And then that we also would agendize our own report to council.

I'm trying to go slow because Ms. Preston is typing it out. You can get back to me. I took notes on my notepad. And that we agendize to us a follow-up discussion on this where we invite Dr. Bowden from Buchanan Public Health. He did indicate in his letter he was willing to do that. And that we direct staff to look into city participation in a swimmer illness study that would allow us to amend thresholds to be more realistic. But better understand our swim advisory thresholds. Does that make sense? That was three parts. That was one commission discussion that's very broad. One just inviting Dr. Bowden to present to us. So we in the public have an opportunity to hear some of what he thinks we should know, being a public health guy.

And three is that staff look into this sponsoring of the study. So the last part of that motion would probably help us put like some kind of budgetary number on how much a swimmer illness study could cost. If we wanted to pursue something like that eventually. Yeah. And I have been in the public health or sorry, the public works office. I'm talking to staff about it. And how I imagine this to be operationalized, which is just what I imagine is Lindsay Amundsen is our deputy parks director, service director. She's been dealing with like creating the signs and stuff. And she also used to work at B-SIR with Chico State. And so I was really familiar with the people around there who would be the other partners, I think, in this study.

And I imagine that she would talk to some people and try to come up with a plan for a study like that. So I have a maybe a friendly amendment. We'll see how you receive it. So I understand what you're asking for. And I think we do need more information. And certainly getting to an awareness of the levels of the pathogens, particularly E. coli, is very important. But I also want to understand the cause. What is causing this? I've looked at different speculative causes. I don't know. Maybe something has come out that's more definitive. I haven't seen it. But understanding the cause, if we can do something about it, I think that's also a worthy conversation. Yeah. Thank you for saying that because there's a lot of components to this.

But, like, the triage of if we were to find a spike in contamination, knowing that we're able to respond and not just shut down the creek for a whole season, just on the overly cautious assumption that it's there. I would really like for us to have a plan. What I would say is maybe as a friendly amendment to add on that is in our report from Dr. Bowden that we do hold the potential for an action item where we could, after hearing from him, kind of take further action to try to address that. And certainly understanding costs, all those things, we have to get down to those details. But I think those two things, and certainly our public health doctors is an excellent resource for us and would greatly welcome his input.

I think just before we take this to a vote, the only thing I would like some more clarification on is punting to the Parks Commission. So you said specifically a discussion on improvement of Big Chico Creek's health? Yeah. I said collaboration on measures that can be taken to, a discussion on collaboration on measures that can be taken to improve Big Chico Creek water quality. Okay. And our understanding of it, which is to say testing plus other things, as the speaker alluded to, there are things like beaver restoration that have been shown to really improve water quality in the long run. And Fish and Wildlife has a beaver restoration program that we could apply for a grant for. So just to be sure I'm clear on the Bidwell Park and Playground Commission, that's for them to have a conversation, to talk about things to bring back to us, not to institute changes and beginning.

Yes, of course. Yeah, yes. Okay. I just want to make sure that sometimes commissions like to get a little excited about things and start instituting things and doing things. But they could bring recommendations back to us after they do all their. Yeah, yeah. Hopefully, I mean, I would hope it would develop. You know, they'll develop it in some way, and other people will come in and participate there as opposed to, you know, coming into our meeting environment. So we have a motion in a second. I think everybody's good. Yes. Got a motion in a second. And so Council Member Winslow made the motion, and then who was the second? I didn't hear one yet. I second it. I thought you were the second. I did provide a friendly amendment.

You did a friendly amendment, but yes, I did get that. All right. Council Member Goldstein? Yes. Council Member Hawley? Yes. Council Member O'Brien? Yes. Council Member Winslow? Yes. Vice Mayor Bennett? Yes. Mayor Reynolds? Aye. Carries 6-0 with one absent. 5.7. Council Member Winslow requests parking access in Upper Bidwell Park. Again, if you're on Zoom, this is the time to raise your hand to speak on this item. Council Member Winslow? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all for that and entertaining a couple of discussion items of mine. This one is way more straightforward, although I can't tell you what I know for sure what the best course of action is. But there was direction that was quite a while ago.

I'm going to go back to 2019 to 2021. There's direction from the City Council to put in, to charge for parking, to park at Upper Park. And the purpose of it, from my research on it, was very much to raise funds for the park. And as this is coming into, it is about to happen. People knew it was about to happen. And then we all heard from some members of the public come in to express concerns about it, feeling like it kind of privileges access to the park. And I think everybody has some sympathy with that. And I thought it was worth us having a discussion about it. And I will say that in my research on it, I saw that number is based on 2017 traffic data that having a $2 fee to park for one day at Upper Park would generate $800,000 annually, which would put into funds specifically for improvement of the park.

And once I saw that $800,000 number, I was like, if that's true, that does make me think a little bit about whether it's worth doing or not. But I do think that we owe it to the people that you came in and talked about this, the fact that we passed Measure H. Partly to help support our parks too, between this direction being given originally, I think it's worth us having the discussion about. But to be honest, when I saw that $800,000 number, I was like, if that's true and that's going straight to the park, if we do this, it'd be hard for me to not want $800,000 a year for park maintenance and improvement. How many speakers do we have? Okay. Okay. So what do you want to do? Oh, Council Member Hawley?

Yes, this is more for staff. Just when I've been to Upper Park lately, I've seen little bits of what looks to be some infrastructure that's been implemented in the parking lots already. And I'm just curious to hear staff's report on exactly how much has already been done into this process. Right. It's been a pretty minor investment. What you see so far is that what we call parking lot A, we have, you know, essentially a concrete pad, some bollards, and that would be the location of the two kiosks, parking kiosks. For folks that don't purchase the parking permit, annual permit, and don't use the mobile passport app, they could interact with the kiosk as an alternative to those two. Really minor investment so far.

And since this item was agendized, we've sort of just pushed pause on any further implementation. I figured that would be the case. Yeah. This is something I'm split on, too, for a lot of the exact reasons that you've stated. I know it's more municipal standard for cities and counties to implement these kind of parking passes, even if they are fairly affordable. It can, that minor cost can be a barrier for people to enjoy the park on a recurring basis. I'm someone who goes there at least weekly. So I would be a person who would buy that annual pass for sure. But, you know, it can be a barrier for some people, of course, and just, like, the amount of community feedback that we've received on parking changes that have happened in downtown, regardless of my personal opinions on how that has played out.

But, yeah, I can see this being somewhat of a barrier. But having $800,000 specifically to go into a fund that would have to benefit the park, that could be beneficial in a lot of ways. Vice Mayor Bennett, did you want to talk? Okay. Council Member Goldstein? I'll let you think about it. Thank you. So, first, surprised by the lack of commenters here. Even our parking guru, Jesse, has left. So, I guess folks like me, we're focused more on parking downtown because that's more of a parking management scenario, at least from the way that I see it. This was a bit different because it was instigated by a desire to help fund the park. And as was put in this staff report, or council member report, basically, we then passed Measure H, which could theoretically make up for that funding instead of having parking cost money in the park.

I'm sympathetic to our community members who've spoken on it. But I think that if we – I think one option here could be to bring this back with maybe a modern analysis. It's been seven years of whether this is necessary now. And then I think we would also see more community comment if this was under kind of the main agenda items. But that's just an option. What I really would like to ask staff is if they can comment on that $800,000 figure that was projected to be generated by parking fees in the 2017 report. Does this – okay. Yeah. In the, what, 2019 report based on 2017 data? I'm trying to gut check if that figure sounds reasonable from only $2 parking fees. Yeah, I could comment on that. And that was done by, you know, analysis by a consultant, Dixon, that analyzed the usage there.

We had traffic counters out in – from 2015 to 2017, I believe. And they counted half a million trips, vehicle trips per year on Upper Park Road past the Horseshoe Gate. So it's – or the entrance gate, excuse me. So it's significantly traveled. And I think that usage has only compounded or increased since then. To comment on the delay to, you know, it was – it passed council in 2021. And there is an intent from staff to finish the dirt portion of the road improvement projects. And that took place 2021, 2022. And then we prioritized the surface treatment to the paved portion of Upper Park Road. So we wanted to finish that, too, before we introduced, you know, the kiosk infrastructure and the fees.

So that took place. And then, you know, the kiosk rollout in downtown, excuse me, had some hurdles that it faced. So we wanted to iron out those, if you will, before introducing it into Upper Park. So that was another reasoning for the delay. And then before you know it, a few staffing changes and a little bit of turnover, some years has passed. So it's just been on a – kind of an intentional hold since then due to those reasons. But, you know, will the council, if we want to reintroduce it or rediscuss it, we could absolutely do that. Otherwise, we have direction 2021. We've started to implement some of that infrastructure and have intentions on moving forward with it with the direction from then.

Thank you for the clarification. Well, I certainly wouldn't be personally offended if we did not take action on this and allowed that direction to stand. I think it would help for concerned community members to say that we had this conversation, we looked at it, and we looked at the potential for $800,000 for the park and decided that that was valuable. I also didn't mention, but there was – like, the direction included a lot of exemptions for seniors, 62 and older, people with disabilities. That was, like, not exhaustive. There was a long list of people that were meant to be excluded from having to pay for parking there. And, yeah, I mean, and as much as we passed Measure H, but, like, we passed Measure H and we have quickly committed a lot of those dollars.

And we continue to have needs outside of the park too. So it certainly would be a benefit. It's not like we're rolling in dough, so to speak. So I could be comfortable with that. But I would like to, you know, point out because in thinking about this, I had noted, as I've noted for a really long time, that Upper Park is a huge destination for a lot of people. And we have a big, like, mountain biking kind of community. I don't really do it myself. It's really scary for me right on those trails. But we don't really have bike parking out at Upper Park. People may have noticed. And I do think when thinking about, you know, access to it and to the extent that it is a parking problem, that that parking lot fills up and that it would be nice to give some direction to put some nice-looking, visible bike parking out at Upper Park, like somewhere around the entrance of the Yahi Trail, so where people would park their bikes to hike there, and just around Monkey Face, which is probably the most common place.

I definitely feel that having the $800,000 approximate revenue from this parking fund go into something tangible like that, that the community can see and see exactly how the park is benefiting from that, while also adding an alternative option to paying the $2 fee and get to Upper Park a different way, which, of course, not everyone has the ability to do. But for the people who do have the ability, the bike parking would be available. Because I think all we have right now is just, like, a tiny rack by the observatory, right? Yeah. I mean, at Monkey Face, it's, like, literally you'll see a bunch of bikes up with a pole. That's it. Yeah. Just a pole. So I think when the community can see, like, a tangible benefit, it creates a perception that the feeds are actually going to benefit the community in a tangible way.

So it sounds like we're leaning towards no action, and then if we wanted to talk about putting bike parking up there, then we would need to agendize that for another discussion, because that's not what's on the agenda, right? I mean, definitely Upper Bidwell Park access, and I put it on there. I did that intentionally, as you might have guessed, but I think we could take action. Parking access in Upper Bidwell Park. But I want to know the cost and what this looks like. And I'm not opposed to it necessarily, but I need more information to vote yes on something that specific. So maybe after we have the first year of revenue, then the conversation could be what do we want to focus that revenue towards, and do we want to do a project or whatever, and maybe it comes back separate than budget season.

But once we have an actual dollar amount, then we can bring it to council and we can talk about it. Some glamour projects. Glamour. And let the public come and tell us what they'd like. My button's not working. Yeah, nobody says. If I may add, I believe things like bike racks, at least downtown, those usually aren't a council decision that I'm aware of. So I imagine that it's within the purview of the Parks Department to maintain their bicycle infrastructure, if there is enough funding to upgrade racks without our direction. But, you know, I think if we wanted to make sure that funds are used for that specifically, we could determine it up here. Just throwing that out there. All right. So we're moving on.

Are we good? Okay. 5.8. We have nothing posted after the agenda. Reports and communication. The following reports and communications 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. City. Thank you, Mayor. Vice Mayor, do. Just a couple of quick things. You know, we're well into the economic fatality strategy effort that's underway. Pleased with the results so far. You've seen a draft story map site that I think will be useful for businesses and staff, citizens, and real estate agents moving forward. So we're looking to finalize that. We're also looking at some economic impact software that could be used by staff, council, even citizenry, when analyzing, you know, a certain potential business that would come into town, a development, or even an infrastructure project with that economic impact would be to Chico.

So excited for that effort. Our Opportunity Zone 2.0 deadline has been extended to the end of July, so we're still working on that effort to get that finalized. And, you know, economic development is a vital and critical piece. As we look forward into the next two years, it will be essential to closely monitor our revenue and expenses, of course. We just received Q1 sales tax figures. And as kind of predicted, cumulatively, there's some fluctuations between different sectors, but cumulatively, they're down 0.07%, so just slightly. Could likely deal with some different reporting from different business sectors, too, but kind of in line with our revenue projections of being flat going from 26 into 2027.

Summer construction season is in full swing. Public Works Engineering has a lot of active projects. Seonothus Avenue reconstruction is well underway, I believe, being paved next week. South Park Drive, same, well underway, being paved next week. Eaton and Frollo Roundabout, 20th Street from 99 to Notre Dame is in process. Fair Street, North Cedar. And then, as you know, kind of a little, we'll do an official press release soon, but Salem Street Bridge Project received a Project of the Year Award from American Public Works Association. So hats off to our engineering side of Public Works. Same with O&M. Lots of grinding operations that are essential to the surface treatments and part of the integrated service delivery plan of both engineering and the operations of the maintenance side of Public Works.

Police and fire continue to respond to a high level of calls, providing excellent service delivery. We currently have two battalion chiefs on reimbursable assignments, one in Utah and one in Colorado for large fires in both of those states. Administrative services is continuing to pay the bills and recruiting for our vacancies at a very fast pace. And, of course, community development, hefty level of plan review, and moving forward with many active developments and some larger ones in the pipeline. So things are going well, and that concludes the report. Thank you. Monthly financial report is filed for information only, and periodic review of delegated authority for final map approval is on there.

And Councilmember request pursuant to our APMP 1010, Councilmembers may verbally request an item to be agendized at a future meeting. After stating what the item would be, a majority of Council is needed in order for staff to agendize. Councilmember Hawley. Thank you, Mayor Reynolds. I want to preface this request by stating it more than likely will just be an informational discussion for the Council. I'm not sure whether any policy can even materialize this, but just to have a discussion on existing and potential changes to temperature-specific cooling standards for residencies and commercial properties. Second. Just to state that one more time for the full Council, to have a discussion on existing and potential changes to temperature-specific cooling standards for residencies and commercial properties.

I think that was spurred by one of the downtown restaurants that had, I think, an AC that's incapable of keeping the kitchen cool enough for, like, basically safe human habitation. That's what this is in reference to? Not specifically, but yes, partially. Just more of a holistic discussion. Some municipalities have moved forward with temperature-specific requirements for tenants in buildings that are trying to operate businesses or just live. Of course, the state does have habitability standards, but just seeing, like, how the city is currently made. Again, I didn't put an insane amount of work into this because I don't know if you're interested in discussing the topic at all. I know you'd put together a detailed staff report telling us more about it once we approve discussing.

Cool. Okay. Second. All right. Council Member Goldstein? Yes. Council Member Hawley? Yes. Council Member O'Brien? I'm going to vote no. We have a number of protections for employees and such, different state mechanisms, and I'm weary and leery of adding more regulation to our businesses are already over-regulated and struggling, so that's a no. Council Member van Overbeek? Oh, excuse me. Sorry. I thought he might have appeared. Council Member Winslow? Yes. Vice Mayor Bennett? I would have to have a lot more information about this particular item, so I'm going to say for now, no. Mayor Reynolds? He's allowed to vote how he wants to vote. Mayor Reynolds? I'm going to say yes to hear more information.

I highly doubt that there is a lot that we can do as a City Council. I don't think it's wading into waters that is enough, but I will listen to the conversation. Okay. It carries forward to you with one absence. Anybody else? Nope. Okay. We will adjourn to our regularly scheduled City Council meeting on August 18th at 5 or 5.30, depending on what time we start closed session. See you in a month. Thank you. Thank you.