Sewer rate hearing pushed to November

you

you

you

you

you

you

you

all right we will call to order our September 15th 2026 city council meeting we will start with an invocation by our chaplain Bud Chauvin thank you it's good to be here let's begin with a word of prayer almighty god we come before you tonight and i ask that you would impart wisdom and understanding in every issue that's dealt with here tonight that you would help our council to make wise decisions for our city as they lead us and lord i thank you for all the staff all the people who work here for the city thank you for our police department fire department the maintenance workers all the everyone that serves this community and we pray god that your hand of protection would be upon them you would bless them and thank you especially for these officers that are here today and support staff that have been so good and rapidly responding to this tragic incident last month a couple months ago so bless them and bless this council we thank you for them and i look forward to seeing what you're going to do and we ask it all in your mighty holy name amen thank you please rise for the pledge of allegiance one mission

madam clerk can you call our roll for us councilmember goldstein present councilmember Hawley here councilmember o'brien here councilmember van Overbeek yes councilmember Winslow here vice mayor bennett here mayor reynolds here all right speaker card announcement and remote participation if you are in person you should first complete a speaker card found at the back of the chambers once completed turn in your cards to the city clerk speakers are taken in the order the cards are received in addition citizen participation is now available on zoom please note those of you wish to speak via zoom will be asked to raise your hand when it is time for public comment on each specific item once the first speaker speaker begins no additional cards or zoom speakers will be accepted persons demonstrating rude boisterous behavior speaking on matters outside the jurisdictional authority of the city council or are engaging in otherwise disruptive behavior will be called to order if such conduct continues we may call a recess requesting the removal of such person or persons city attorney Ryan Jones can you give us our closed session announcement yes i'd be happy to um so item 2.1 the conference legal counsel existing litigation there was direction provided to to staff and counsel on that as well as the following one 2.2 the anticipated litigation direction was also provided as to item 2.3 the conference labor negotiators that item was removed and not discussed in closed session and that's my report i guess i'll tell you what we're going to do before we come down and recognize you know the chico police officers who responded to the active shooter at the butte county library on june 22nd i would like to ask the police chief to join me down at the podium and we have some announcements and awards

i'll do all right special recognition on june 22nd our community experienced a tragic shooting at the chico branch of the butte county library in a moment of extraordinary danger and uncertainty chico police department dispatchers and officers responded with courage professionalism and unwavering commitment to protecting others their swift coordinated actions helped mitigate the impacts of this tragic event and demonstrated the very best of public service tonight on behalf of the chico city council and our entire community we have the privilege of recognizing the dispatchers officers who bravery were in dedication help protect lives that day i'm going to ask police chief aldridge to assist me in recognizing these amazing members and thank you all for being here tonight thank you mayor and before we get started i just want to say a few words to the staff that are out here to the community that's sitting here right now first and foremost our heart goes out to the family members friends of our two victims in that incident our thoughts are always with families and friends of victims of any sort but particularly in these types of incidents the community also is hurting from that and i want to acknowledge that also i think that whenever you have something this tragic that happens in your community everyone's affected i don't care who you are you are affected and so i recognize that too on that day i just want to add some context to the way the incident was handled and i can tell you i've done some research since this incident and i've yet to find a response an outcome as quick as your police department acted that day it's not my police department it's not council's police department it's the community's police department and so as we get to this handing of handing out of certificates i want you just to think about this for a second the call came into our dispatch center our dispatchers immediately interpreted what was going on they didn't wait to be told they interpreted what was going on and they immediately got officers responding to that scene as quick as they could within um within two minutes under two minutes the officers were on scene and ready to make entry for this incident in under four minutes they had the suspect in custody i think that deserves a round of applause what do you think i've said this several times in our briefings as i've handed out command coins to each of the employees i still have i think one more to give out i see the officer here tonight i should have brought one for him but i will get it to you there's no doubt in my mind that every action taken by each of these employees mitigated further loss of life with the way they responded and held themselves to high standards that day from the start of our dispatch center to the officers that responded and so for me it's a very proud moment whenever i go places i often travel to training conferences meetings and things of that nature across the state and i can't tell you how many chiefs of police or sheriffs or just other employees of police departments have said they were absolutely astounded at how we responded to this so with that i just want each and every one of these employees to know how proud i am of each and every one of them how thankful not only i am but this community is for your actions and it just goes to show that every bit of training that we do in the organization every year the amount of training we do and specifically on this topic right here is valuable because they put it into play that day so thank you mayor i'm gonna let you do your names and i'll pass them oh okay so do we just want to bring everybody down or just one at a time let's do this uh dispatch first okay because there's five one two three four five okay victoria so we'll call down each employee so we'll start with our dispatchers uh victoria panasco come on sammy mentor yeah we're gonna get a picture uh gabriella gutierrez thank you tanya vaquero and laura jacks okay and we'll call down the officers now all right we'll call up the officers now call them all down okay we'll start with the officers officer jason juke stock officer juan valencia officer chris sullivan officer nico de stefano officer tyler hernandez he's not here officer jared valdez officer andrew pearsons officer shane carpenter officer jake ellis officer tanner donnelly

we're gonna go ahead and call up the sergeants too if i could get sergeant trey reid and sergeant keith parsons

Great, that's all, thank you. You want to take those ones? Thank you all for coming. All right, next we have our lovely from Chico Start, if you want to come up and join me. Oh, we got lovely's engines. You're welcome. All right, so on behalf of Entrepreneurial Month, I am, whereas, as America marks its 250th birthday in 2026, we must celebrate the entrepreneurial spirit that built our nation, states, and cities, forged by starters, makers, doers, and dreamers who pursued a better future. And whereas the American dream is at risk, and because America belongs to living generation, it is our turn to renew the nation's entrepreneurial spirit, and whereas entrepreneurs are essential to fostering economic prosperity, creating homegrown jobs, raising incomes, generating wealth, building stronger communities, diversifying goods and services, and reducing inequality and poverty.

And where each of us has the power to be a founder of our nation's future, we encourage every resident to take action that builds a more perfect union. And whereas entrepreneurs have played a critical role in revitalizing the city of Chico, it's also fitting to publicly recognize and celebrate the vital contributions of entrepreneurs to the prosperity and well-being of our community. And whereas the city has designated a point of leadership for economic development within the city government to ensure that entrepreneurs and all business owners are represented in the economic development strategies, now, therefore, let it be resolved that I, Kasey Reynolds, Mayor of Chico, on behalf of the Chico City Council, hereby encourage all residents to recognize, celebrate, and support local entrepreneurs and the entrepreneurial spirit during the nation's 250th startup birthday.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome. And I will let you have a few words. Thank you. Hi. We're Chico Start, and we cover the Northern California region for entrepreneurial resources and entrepreneurial empowerment. But today is about something larger than us and larger than Chico. And so I'd like to introduce Cameron Law, who's from Sac State, who is the California coalition leader for America the Entrepreneurial. And we're going to have him say a few words. Thank you. Well, thank you. So America the Entrepreneurial is a campaign from an organization called Right to Start, which is a national nonprofit organization aimed at removing policy barriers for entrepreneurs and getting started.

And the idea behind the right and right to start is that ultimately every American has the right to start a business and pursue entrepreneurship. And so you might be asking entrepreneurship seems top of mind more than it ever has been before. But if you actually look at data, we've started the least amount of businesses per capita than we ever have as a as a nation. And some of the major impacts that has is on job creation and opportunity for our communities. So a couple of the data points is as we spur entrepreneurial activity for every percent increase in entrepreneurship, we actually have an average household income increase of four hundred dollars. And so we can see the economic impact. Additionally, is one of the major things around entrepreneurship is job creation.

So it's actually the proven net job creator. And so when we look at building a more prosperous Chico or North State, entrepreneurship is vital to that activity. And so the last thing I would share is out of every thousand Americans, only three people start new businesses. And so one of the core goals of right to start is how do we empower those nine hundred and ninety seven people to wrap around the starters like Chico Start does and the mayor has proclaimed I'm in this work at America, the entrepreneurial. And so as we look at the future of the US, we want to put the entrepreneurial spirit back into the forefront of what that means. And that's what this campaign is all about. And so the ask is to go support your local entrepreneurs.

That could be by your consumer dollars or, you know, providing them feedback and support to continue down that path. So I appreciate the recognition and the partnership with Chico Start. They're amazing. They're right across the street. So if you want to start a business, be sure to stop by their amazing resource in the region. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, OK. OK. Shameless plug. OK. Shameless plug. All right. Our crown jewel for the year is called Grow Tech Fest. And it's not a tech conference. We hold this conference because we believe tech touches everything. It's our seventh year. And we have a great lineup. And if you were there last year, you saw the mayor also help kick it off. So we hope that you could all join us.

It's at Sierra Nevada Brewery on October 8th and 9th. And yeah. And the mayor will be joining us this year again. So again, Grow Tech Fest, October 8th and 9th, Sierra Nevada Brewery. Get your tickets now. All right. Thank you, guys, so much for being here. Yeah. Oh, photo op. OK. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, mayor. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. We are going to start with a presentation by Jarrett.

I don't want to boat in, Butte County Public Health Officer on the Big Chico Creek Water Quality. Sorry, I didn't want to butcher your last name. No, you're fine. If you had gotten it right, I would have been surprised. So yeah, I'm Jarett Beaudoin. I'm a family physician. I'm the health officer for Butte County. And I am also, because you guys do not have a health department, the health officer for the city of Chico and all other of my lovely cities in Butte County. I'm here today to talk about Big Chico Creek and E. coli. As you guys are well aware, we had an E. coli 0157 outbreak in 2025. This has put a lot of public sight on water quality in Big Chico Creek. And so I just wanted to come and kind of talk a little bit about it, things that I've learned in discussions with the California State Water Board, with the Centers for Disease Control through our investigation, and things that I think would be very helpful today.

Let me see if I can operate this thing. Hold on. Okay, perfect. Okay, perfect. So I get a lot of calls and emails about E. coli in Big Chico Creek. And the single most confusing part of all of this is that E. coli 0157 is only one of thousands of E. coli species. As you can see from this graph, there are a lot of E. coli species. I am confident that everyone in this room has E. coli in them right now living in their guts. And the vast majority of those are harmless. However, there are some that are harmful. They mutate and then they become harmful. One of those is E. coli 0157. That 0157 is known to cause severe disease. And last year, a number of children were hospitalized because of that infection that they picked up from Big Chico Creek.

This is very important. The other important thing that I think for you all as the leadership of City of Chico to know is whenever you have heard me talk about where E. coli 0157 comes from, that changes based on the E. coli species. So when you hear me on the news saying E. coli 0157 is probably from some sort of ruminant creature like a cow or a deer, that is not the case for all other E. coli. That is very specific to 0157. That's going to be important here in a bit. The other big background that I think you need to know to kind of start thinking about this problem is that there is no real legal requirement for localities to test the water unless told otherwise by the California Water Board.

The EPA and the California Water Board have standards for water quality around bacteria monitoring like E. coli monitoring, but there is no legal requirement. And apart from Sycamore Pool, no other waterway swimmable in Butte County is tested for E. coli. So they don't have to. And so some localities, though, decide to test for E. coli. Are places like Whiskeytown Lake is tested for, Lake Tahoe is tested for, Lake Natomas in Sacramento. There are countless examples of places that test for E. coli on a regular basis as something for water quality. The key exception here is outbreaks. And this is where I really came in for outbreaks. When people start getting sick from a body of water, the public health department will come into the city or state park or whoever is managing that body of water and will do additional testing to see if this could be the source of what's making people ill.

But we do not generally do preventative monitoring of E. coli species. And when I'm talking about E. coli species, I'm talking about the general E. coli species. So let's talk a little bit about that confusion. I forgot I put these signs in here. If you don't believe me, here's some signs from Lake Natomas. Here's one from Folsom Lake talking about bacteria E. coli monitoring. And a lot of people love to compare Sycamore Pool to that Barton Springs in Austin, Texas, which is also cement lined and people swim in it. They test for E. coli regularly. So this is something that is the standard for a lot of these high recreational swimming areas. I talked a little bit about E. coli 0157 and how that's the scary one.

When we did our investigation this summer, we did not find it in the creek at two different times. So it is most likely gone. And yet the city of Chico continues to test for E. coli and is finding high levels of general E. coli, that non-harmful E. coli. Now, why do they do that? Well, the EPA recommends it, and so consequently, we at the health department also recommend it. And it's the idea that when these general non-harmful E. coli levels are high, it's probably an indication that something is awry and that there are other things that could be causing harm, other bacteria, other viruses, other parasites. So when this general E. coli level is high, people start worrying, oh, is the 0157 back?

I, as a health officer, am more worried about all the other different things that could be in that creek, not just 0157. And so another big question is, well, why don't we test for 0157 more? In theory, if the general E. coli levels are high, then that 0157 would also be high. And so how do we translate this general E. coli testing to actual swimming? So it's not whether the presence of E. coli is there or it is not. It will always be in Big Chico Creek, these general E. coli, just like they're in our bodies. But it is how much. And that's a very key part of this testing. And so, for example, if there is a lot of E. coli, there's more of a chance that there's going to be more of this bacteria, virus, and parasites that cause other people to be sick.

We can get into the weeds on it, which I'm not going to get in today. But you can check, in theory, the E. coli levels every single day. And if those E. coli levels are greater than 235, the EPA says, ah, that's a little bit too much E. coli. There could be more of these other viruses, parasites, and bacteria. So we recommend probably not swimming. However, testing every day is very strenuous. It's time consuming. It takes a lot of resources. So instead, the EPA gives us a second option. And the second option is to take averages, to test on a weekly basis. Take that average. And if that average is over a certain threshold, you then put up signs to warn people. Oh, the bacteria levels, on average, are a little bit higher this week.

So we're going to recommend that people not swim. Or we recommend that people just don't go into the water with small children who could swallow the water. And so that's the general premise that the city of Chico has now been doing. They've been doing this at least for five years, checking E. coli levels. And before they were checking E. coli, they were checking other types of bacteria, fecal coliform bacteria. But if we look at the big problem, the big problem that I think I really want to make the point of, and I think it's the real reason I'm here today, is not about E. coli 0157 that has gone from this creek and hopefully will not return, but we continue to monitor it. The fact is that these general E. coli levels are always, I should say, usually over the threshold for what the EPA recommends for alerting people of safe swimming.

So this is the past six years of E. coli levels. These are all different dates. The little blue boxes are winter months. The vast majority of these test results are from the summertime. And any of that orange 30-day average E. coli levels, any of them that are over that blue line, which is the EPA-recommended level, are when we should put out alerts that maybe there could be harmful amounts of other bacteria, viruses, and parasites in the water, and we recommend that people take precautions when they swim or sometimes not even swim at all. As you can see, it's almost always over that line. It's almost always over that threshold. And I think a question for the city of Chico is what you want to do about this conundrum.

I am not going to be the one to tell you that, but I have been talking to a lot of smart people and they have thoughts, and I thought I would share these last thoughts with you. Possible next steps for the city of Chico. If you guys are nervous that maybe for the rest of time we will consistently check E. coli levels, they'll consistently be high, and less and less people are going to be swimming in Sycamore Pool, it will no longer be the crown and jewel for the city of Chico because people will just be too nervous to swim. What could they do about it? We could continue monitoring and do advisories, like that is the legal recommendation because of the California Water Board for Sycamore Pool.

You could continue just to do that. You could also add testing sites. I don't know about you guys, but I get a lot of calls about people being like, is it safe to swim at five mile? Or I get conversations with people be like, oh, I don't go to the swimming holes anymore because of Sycamore Pool. We can't say that those two things are connected, so you could add additional testing sites. You could start testing the swimming holes. You could start testing five mile and see if those levels are high. The other interesting things that you guys could do is you could attempt to identify sources. You could try to figure out why these E. coli levels are high. You could test upstream until you start to notice that levels are going down and then try to identify that area.

You could literally walk the stream, do a sanitary survey and look, not you all, not me, but you would hire someone to do it. Or you could test for other bacteria that could identify some animal source. You know, E. coli is in a lot of different creatures, but you can test for specific bacteria that are just for cows, just for humans, just for bird species. And you could try to figure out if maybe that's the cause, maybe horses. Those are kind of the big things. There are other things that you can do as well. You know, these E. coli levels, again, are supposed to represent all these other bacteria, viruses and parasites making people sick. You could do a study in which you ask people after they swim, did they get sick 24 to 48 hours after they swam in Sycamore Pool and correlate that to the E. coli levels to see if, you know, is these generally safe E. coli that are high in Sycamore Pool, are they actually translating to people getting ill?

You could do something like that. And then finally, you could create or organize a group to like look into these issues because certainly I am not an expert. So the big things that I wanted to talk about today, just because these are discussions that we've been having, I've been having with your staff, I've been having with some of you as council members. And I think it is a critical point of what do you want to do about these elevated E. coli levels. And that's all I have. Can I take questions or am I done? Any questions from council? Council Member Hawley. I just wanted to thank you for your time, Jared. I see the outreach that you've been using on your platform with public health. And I've sent that to people many times when they asked me about this.

And I feel that this presentation will also be a helpful resource. So thank you. Wonderful. All right. Thank you all so much. If you guys ever want to get in touch, please. You have open. Just real quick. Can't let you escape too easy there, doctor. But I just wanted to thank you for your very comprehensive report. even made it understandable for a council. So thank you very much. But that really explains a lot to me and helps me to then formulate some possible things to do. But I really appreciate the way you explained that to us. Thank you. That's great. I've had doctors call me and they're very confused as well. So if doctors are confused, everyone's confused. Maybe can we have you send the slide deck to staff and then they can distribute it to us so we have to, the constituents would be great.

Yeah, when we had discussed this before, thank you for the presentation, always very good. Had intended for this to be an action item, but I think that between staff and us, we might return and have discussion about what the city's role in some of this direction is. But there's a lot of other parties in the community that are also interested in this. And thank you for being one of those and thank you for performing such leadership on this. All right, I don't see anybody else in the queue. Thank you. Wonderful, thank you guys so much. All right. Consent agenda. All matters listed under the consent agenda are considered routine in nature and therefore can be enacted with one motion. Do we have any no votes or council disqualifications?

No. Move to approve. Do we have speakers for? We don't have any. Okay, just making sure. Second. We have a motion and a second. Make a motion to approve. Second. Wait a second. Council member Hawley, got it. Just a moment. All right, council member Goldstein. Yes. Council member Hawley. Yes. Council member O'Brien. Yes. Council member van Overbeek. Yes. Council member Winslow. Yes. Vice mayor Bennett. Yes. Mayor Reynolds. Aye. The motion carries seven zero. Public comment. Members of the public may address the council at this time on any matter 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 if you would like to speak now.

Please note that council cannot take any action at this meeting on requests made under this section of the agenda. How many speakers do we have? We currently have four in the room. Anybody on Zoom? Okay. Three minutes each. So I'll call the first three names. If you could go ahead and line up in the middle aisle, Julie Threatt, followed by Ronald Bowens Jr. and then Bo Powell. And Julie Threatt. Hello, Chico City Council. Been a minute. Julie Threatt here to advocate for the members of this community that are injured by the COVID vaccine. So I was here quite often in 2022, 2023. And two weeks ago, when I saw Kevin Walters come up here and talk about the dangers of the vaccine and get a bunch of eyes rolling behind him, I knew that people were still in the matrix.

So I better come back. And with the new city manager, I brought some materials for her too. Just real quick history for me. In 2014, I moved up to Chico. I was a Silicon Valley HR executive before that. I moved up here for a nice, new, quiet life. And I found it in healthcare. I worked for Enloe as a patient ambassador. I was on the board of directors for volunteer services. And when 2020 hit and all hell broke loose and I was watching businesses close and children get masked up in schools and the seniors being isolated in little six foot circles all over town, I thought, okay, what the hell's going on? And here came the vaccines. So I trusted what my government told me and what all of the leadership at Enloe told me, go get your vaccine.

And actually went to work at the clinics. So January, 2021, I went to work at those clinics out at Merriam Park. And I literally helped pass out 200 syringes an hour, almost 60,000 people in this community I watched get vaccinated. I got a lesion on my brain, microangiopathy. I have chronic tinnitus. I've had both retinas detached, five eye surgeries. My mother died in August of 2022 from four shots of Moderna. When I found out that this vaccine was poison and I had to quit my job at Enloe because they wanted to force a mandated booster on me, I was guns ablaze. And where do I go? Where do I find the answers? I started going to the county. I started asking Dr. Andy Miller, what the hell's going on?

When I worked at those clinics, the nurses that I supported from Butte Community College were talking about their mental disruptions all day long. Missed periods, no periods, miscarriages. And I asked Dr. Andy Miller, what the hell's going on? And he just literally laughed in my face, mocked me and out the door I went. I watched a Chico State track athlete get injected in the arm and fall on the floor with a seizure. I'm demanding answers, what's going on? But I documented everything. Jesus put me there for a reason to document what the hell is going on and to come out the other side and get answers. And so I did. I started asking questions at the county. 56 times I've been there demanding answers, getting nothing.

So I decided to come in here today with a big gun. Ronald Afonso Jr. will be up after next to me. He's a California Department of Public Health whistleblower. Tell you what they're lying to us about. Dr. Jarett Beaudoin's continuing to lie, it's a disgrace. So I'm here to again advocate for the vaccine injured. I've now since gone out and gone to 36 counties across the state. I've been at a governor's debate talking about the vaccine injured. I talked to Steve Hilton about this. I've done a lot of appearances across this country. I'm actually named on this research paper why vaccines are harmful for pregnant women. It's not a joke, it's not a lie. You can do something about this. You need to put your heads together.

We have nurses in this community that are hurt. We've got 60,000 people. Do a survey like he asked. Ask people who are vaccinated. They have their addresses, they have their names. Go do a survey and we can help them heal. I've got healing strategies, I've got detox strategies and we can help this community heal, but you can't ignore it. You can't put your head in the sand. Thank you for your time today. Thank you. Ronald Fowens Jr. Followed by Bo Powell and Adam Fideli. My name is Ronald Fowens Jr. I was the public information officer at the California Department of Public Health for more than 14 years. On April 14th, 2022, Harvey Becerra, Secretary of Health and Human Services Agency said, we know these vaccines are killing people of color, blacks, Latinos, indigenous people at about two times the rate of white Americans.

I'm here today to tell you that the feds have failed you. He did not tell you or 40 million other Californians that the vaccines are killing people. The state has failed you. The California Department of Public Health did not tell you that the vaccines are killing people. I told them, but they kept telling you that the vaccines are safe and effective. CDC has failed you. FDA has failed you. I have submitted written comments as well as spoke to both the CDC and FDA about the dangers of the COVID-19 vaccines. State has failed you. California Department of Public Health, Board of Pharmacy. I've even talked to your then Assembly Member, Jim Gallagher. I've even talked to or sent messages to Megan Dolly, your State Senator.

You have been failed by your county, Butte County Board of Supervisors. I've made in-person appearances on October 8th, 2024. Did they tell you that the vaccines are killing people when I stood before them just about two years ago? I made another in-person appearance before Butte County Board of Supervisors on February 11th, 2025. I even gave them a copy of my muzzle truth book on December 16th, 2025. Did they hear anything from the county about what I'm telling you now? Probably not. And I spoke to the Board of Supervisors on Zoom last month. I even reached out to the Chico Enterprise Record, Mike Wolcott, Jake Hutchinson. I even reached out to Jerry Olin. I understand he's since retired. Look, you are what?

One of a handful of cities in Butte County. You have between 24 to 26 pharmacies in your city. You have been failed at the feds, at the state, at the county. I'm standing here before you because no one else has informed you what I'm informing you this evening. 97,529 people across California have submitted injuries regarding the COVID-19 vaccine. And that is just 1%. It's more than like 97 million. 764 people in California has been killed. This is just in California. It's more like 76,400. You have to do something because you guys are administering the COVID-19 vaccines in this city. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Bo Powell, followed by Adam Fideli. Hello again. What a great group of guys, huh?

The police officers who responded to that situation. It's a good thing that the perpetrator was not very skilled at what he planned to do. All of those officers, if they're 58 years old, half of their adult life, Butte County has let farmers spray their families. You just had the Butte County health officer here. They say nothing. They legalize spraying every doctors, every nurses, family. I know you pretend and hide behind your rules. Well, you have pre-election. People got to evaluate your moral, ethical character. That falls in four categories in my mind, personal, professional, parental, and patriotic. Personal level, not one of you as a citizen concerned enough to go to the Butte County board and say, hey, when you legalize spraying, farmers spraying each other, you legalize them spraying my family.

On the professional level, no matter what you do, if you have clients, customers, employees, they're all being sprayed. Their families are being sprayed. And that's the moral character that you decide to display.

Parental. On the parental, you won't say a word about your own children and their children being sprayed. On the patriotic thing, we've been letting farmers spray the families of active duty military and veterans for two decades now. I attended meetings at the Elks Lodge, where the retired fire commission, a member of the Elks Lodge, I think he was the treasurer, sat at the table with me for almost five years. And I'd tell him about it, nothing. That's how much respect he has for the fire department. You asked me not to pick on you. Well, how about sometime you talk to me and let's suggest, let me suggest to you the ways that we could stop it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And our last speaker is Adam Fideli.

Evening council, Mayor Adams. I wanna talk about East 16th Street. In between the Salvation Army Family Center and Chapman Elementary. My wife works at Chapman. I drop her off there most mornings. I would hope in our discussion and implementation of the catch-up on road maintenance that this would be prioritized. The pavement's in terrible shape. Kids funnel down that street from the neighborhood to get to school, either on their bikes, on foot. I'll have the parents bring them in. Unfortunately, that's not a safe ride. Everything's in bad shape. So only a sidewalk on the South side. There's no sidewalk, bike lane, or anything on the North side. And there's a big old tree that's heaved the sidewalk just before Chapman, goes up at an angle like that.

Somebody's gonna get hurt. So we need to make this a priority as far as our road situation goes. Also, it's a straight shot and people tend to speed. So a speed bump in the middle of a straight shot would be helpful, I think. So just wanted to bring that up in the ongoing discussion of Chico's pavement. Thank you, that's it. All right, thank you so much. Item 4.1, sewer rate adjustment. Brendan Ottoboni, our Director of Public Works Engineering. I'll let you start us off. Yes, good evening. Deputy Director David Kehn will be given a short presentation and we'll follow up from there.

Okay, good evening, members of Council, Vice Mayor Bennett, Mayor Reynolds. My name is David Kehn, Deputy Director of Public Works Engineering. And tonight I will be giving a presentation on the sewer rate adjustment prior to the public hearing. So tonight we'll go over the background, the capital improvement plan that was associated with the sewer rate increase, the proposed rates themselves, public outreach that was conducted, the Prop 218 process, and then we'll spend some time talking about billing methodology. So the background is that the sewer fund has faced some challenges. That's largely related to deferred maintenance and regulatory compliance, which has led to insufficient reserves.

As a result of that, we are now in a position that we first need to catch up, get caught up with that deferred maintenance and some of those regulatory compliant projects, but then critically, we need to establish a sustainable rate moving forward. So that's the two things that we need to do. How do we do that? We utilize a five-year CIP through the Prop 218 process. In June, we presented three options for a five-year capital improvement program shown on the screen here, from a low risk at $134.5 million to a significant risk at $81 million, and Council selected the moderate risk CIP at $106 million. In this scenario, it does lower the near-term rate impact, but does accept some future risk with emergency repair and financial risk.

And that financial risk would be moderate to significant rate increases in the future, but it is a middle-of-the-ground selection, and so we're moving forward with that. So how do we fund this CIP? Through rate increases. Council has selected a cash-funded approach with a year one 55% increase, year two 55% increase, followed by 3% moving forward. So this is what has been noticed to the public. This is what has gone out in the public hearing notice, and this is what will accomplish that CIP. So with that said, we wanted to take some time. Oh, actually, let me talk about public outreach before I do that. So how has the public become aware of this? First, we've created a dedicated webpage. On that webpage, we have all of the materials that have been presented from the December presentation by your Finance Director to the Finance Committee presentations.

All the City Council meetings, materials, agendas, presentations is all available. We also have created two separate YouTube videos that show the wastewater collection system, as well as the treatment plant to show the complexities of operating a sewer utility. It's been picked up by local media, and we also have an estimated sewer bill calculator online. So you can go online, enter your class, enter your usage, and then you can see what your bill will be for that particular year. But the most important part of the public outreach was the public hearing notice through the Prop 218 process. And so the way the Prop 218 process works for a sewer rate increase is it's a majority protest vote. So that means we have to get 50% plus one of all the customers to protest for it not to proceed.

So public hearing notices were mailed to all customers. And a key part of that is that the public hearing notice establishes the maximum rates that Council can adopt. So during the public hearing, if a majority protest is received, the proposed rates cannot be accepted. That's simple. However, if a majority protest is not received, Council can still approve the rates, modify the rates, or even reject the rates with the caveat that the adopted rates must be equal or less than the noticed rates. Within this opportunities, Council can also continue the public hearing to a specified future date to obtain more information, which is what we'll recommend later in this presentation. So in June, per Council direction, we mailed out 26,204 public hearing notices to all customers.

Part of the Prop 218 process is that anyone who owns property and pays a bill or anyone who is directly responsible for paying a bill can submit a protest. Since it's really hard to find out who's directly responsible for paying a bill, instead, we utilized our geographic information system to determine who owns the property and who pays the bill. That number comes out to 20,537, which is less than 26,000. So it's a conservative approach. And so in order to receive a valid written protest, we'd need 10,000. 10,269 valid written protests. We have not counted those tonight because we are asking to continue the public hearing, but that is the number that would need to be achieved. So that's the number that we need to have achieved.

What we talked about in the staff report is billing methodology. And so a key assumption that we went into this sewer rate increase is that we utilize the same billing methodology that was adopted in 2022 sewer rate study. It was defensible then, it was adopted. We saw no reason to change it. However, since June, since council has directed us to initiate this process, we have continued to receive significant concerns from the commercial classes in particular restaurants. And so we've really taken a deep dive into the methodology itself. And to kind of clarify what the methodology is, is you have an overall revenue need. And the methodology is who in your customer classes pays that amount. Some people pay more, some people pay less, depending on the strength of their affluent.

So we did some research and the overall findings is first, there is no industry standard. And second, there is no consistency amongst other utilities. The common thread amongst the utilities is this idea that a higher strength affluent will pay more per gallon than a lower strength affluent. So that theme is consistent that if you have a higher strength, you pay more per gallon than a person with lower strength. But beyond that, there is a wide range of how the billing gets handed down to the customers. So for example, SAC sewer, a major regional wastewater collection and treatment agency, they make assumptions from strength to square footage, and they bill customer classes based on square footage.

Redding, our neighbors to the north, they have either a fixed or a variable charge, depending on the type of water consumption data they have available. Vacaville, Livermore, Fairfield, they do a hybrid method where they have some type of fixed fee combined with a variable fee. Chico, for residential, we utilize a fixed monthly charge and that's per unit. And it's also per EDU because by definition, one single family dwelling is one EDU plus a volumetric rate. So that fixed monthly charge does not change, the volumetric rate goes up and down depending on how much you use. Commercial is slightly different. It's a fixed monthly charge based on EDU plus a volumetric rate. And that EDU is where we take into consideration the volume compared to residential, the strength, that's BOD, biochemical oxygen demand, that's a form of strength, as well as TSS, total suspended solid, which is a form of strength.

So the overall takeaway from this has been with a lack of consistency and a lack of an industry standard, we believe there is an opportunity to look at these different billing methodologies and see if there's a different way and perhaps a better way to allocate costs to the customers that's more in line with our community. And so tonight we have a few options that you can do. You can either proceed with the rates as presented in the public hearing notice, which we're not recommending you do tonight. What we are recommending is that you continue the public hearing notice to November 17th, and at that time, you can adopt rates equal or less than have been presented in the public hearing notice.

Alternatively, when we continue the public hearing to November 17th, if we decide that a revised billing methodology better aligns with our community, then we may need to initiate a Prop 218 process, which is another 45 days and we would be back two months after that. So that is where we are at tonight. And so when we come back, I wanna clarify that what won't change will be the CIP. We've went around and around to find a good CIP and that is a solid number. The operations and maintenance costs, those have been determined. We've worked with our O&M team to get those. And then the inflationary cost increases, those will all remain the same. But what could change is the billing methodology. That's that cost of service allocation.

But something that is critical to realize is that the overall need is still there. So if one group goes down, another group may go up. That's when we will potentially bring forward some debt proposals, work with this new city manager to identify possibilities, looking at some debt options to provide overall relief to the entire community. So that is what we are recommending tonight. And staff's recommendation is that you open the public hearing tonight, receive public comment regarding the proposed rate adjustments, but then continue the public hearing to the City Council meeting of November 17th, 2026 at 6 p.m. I'm happy to answer any questions. All right, any questions before we go to public?

Nope, all right. I don't see any questions right now, so. I'm sure we might have some for you in a little bit. How many speakers? Okay. So we'll open the public hearing. How many speakers do we have? We have eight. Three minutes each, then? Do we have a set time on? On a public hearing, typically 30 minutes. 30 minutes, so we'll. Three minutes each. Okay. All right. So I'll call the first three speakers, and if you can line up in the middle aisle. Lisa Hill, followed by Jeff Hill, and Eric Dinelli. So Lisa Hill.

Good evening. My name is Lisa Hill. I own a restaurant in town. You'll hear from my husband after me. I'm sure that some of you have definitely received letters from me, comments, concerns. You know, on my way here, I just prayed. I'm gonna be honest, because I haven't done this since high school, for one. And for two, I don't want to fight with my city. I want to be a partner with my city, and I'm not. Tom, 6,500% is the increase to my bill in four years. I should get as long as him to, you know, unravel the layers of that onion, because it will take a significant amount of time. But in 2021, when we took it over, our bill was $30 for sewer. I've given my bill to the mayor. I've given my bill to Tom.

I've given my bill to just about everybody, so they could see that I'm not lying. We took a business over that was dying because of COVID. We thought we were gonna have a lot of issues fighting that uphill battle. But because I was a school food administrator, I figured if you can handle a five-year-old at a salad bar, you can probably handle hulas. So I did. Jeff cast in his 401k, and so did I. We spent every dime. I literally had to borrow $5,000 from my son to open hulas. And that was a tough time for us, but we did it. Everything across the board has increased. 30%, not 6,500%. I will ask you, employ you to put yourself in my shoes. I have not owned something for 30 years. I took over something.

They reaped the benefits of having that sewer system at that cheaper rate. I did not. I assumed it when it skyrocketed. And I have done a little homework. And though you haven't found the same thing I have, clean water coming into my building went from $180 to $250. The industry standard is the same for the sewer as the clean water coming in from what I have found. So let's just say my bill shouldn't have been $30. It should have been $250, right? So let's go $250 to what the proposed rate that we're looking at here is. It's 700%. So if I took what I feel like really is the industry standard and what I should have been paying versus what you guys are imposing and businesses are failing. I was in constant talks with Mike at Cal State, which is now closed.

And many others. But the bottom line is it's 700%. People can not withstand that. It's time. And Hula's isn't failing. Let me just say this, please. Because I get this. We have to stick to the time. So hopefully Jeff can pick it up. Thank you. Jeff Hill followed by Eric Dinelli and then Bo Powell. Good evening, council members. Thank you for the police officer presentation. That was a nice surprise. I didn't know that was gonna be here tonight. And was much appreciated. They're well deserved for sure. Obviously, I'm up here to talk about the sewer bill increase and my suggestion to the council is to think outside the box. Look outside the box. Possibly save the city of Chico millions of dollars by letting someone else take it over.

Find a grant. Find the money somewhere else. Look outside the box. You guys are looking down a freaking tunnel and going, yep, that's the way it is. Guess what? Is there any other municipality in this country that is going through the same thing that's going to raise a sewer rate that much? No, I don't think there is. And if there is, maybe you should talk to them and see what they're gonna do about it. But I'm under the impression that Cal Water wanted to take over the system and they were denied. I don't know if that's true or not, but somebody really needs to look into it because that is a entity that's governed by the CPUC. They cannot raise the rates that much. And it could take care of a huge cancer for the city of Chico.

Sounds like a win-win to me, but there's gotta be another way. I can't believe you're gonna try to find a grant for the aqua whatever thing over there by the car dealer, but not for the sewer that affects every citizen of Chico. That doesn't make any sense to me. So please do your job, look outside the box, think about the citizens of Chico when you're talking about the sewer system. And you might have to make some hard decisions. A lot of salaries could be affected, but if they're good at their job, they could go work for the person that's taking it over, right? So it should be a win-win for the city of Chico and everybody, and that's all the time I need. Thank you. Thank you, Eric Dinelli, followed by Bo Powell and then David White.

Good evening, y'all. I guess I'm here to just put my situation on the record, very similar to the speakers before me. Just a quick kind of timeline as to what the reality for owning a restaurant and paying a sewer bill has been like for five years. Five years ago, my water bill was about 250 and my sewer bill was about 70, $80. And a couple of years ago, that changed. You guys, the bill was split up and the sewer ended up on a different bill. And that bill was supposed to increase by 35%. That's what was told to me. It went to 600 immediately. So that's about an 800% increase. So that's about two years ago. And then now it's currently about $900 and my water bill is about $400. So this proposal puts it at maybe close to $1,600.

And then, no, no, I think $1,200 and then close to $2,000. So like, I don't know what else there is to say. That's hogwash, right? Like that's not a thing. You can't, I can't be paying twice as much. The fact that I'm paying twice as much right now for sewer that I am for water is ridiculous. So I don't know if my situation is representative of everyone's. I know we have a very similar situation, but I could use an assist. If one of you guys could reach out to me after hours and figure out if I have a special thing going on with my restaurant, or we have a special thing going on with our restaurants that make that calculation. Like, I don't know why that calculation is so complicated. It's just seven X.

Like, that's the calculation. It's all, you've got this huge equation with all this fancy numbers and stuff, but it's just seven times what it was. So I don't like, I don't know. Anyway, it seems simple. If you could help me with that. Thank you. Thank you, Bo Powell, followed by David White and then Molly Kopta. I've heard you talk about the sewer thing multiple times and it's all about how it's been kicked down the road. I think for the new city manager, it's important for her to understand why it was kicked down the road. Back in 2004, Butte County started accidentally overpaying the city and other communities within the county. And then two years later, Butte County started spraying everybody with the orchards were painted white.

You have to be situationally clueless not to say it. And during that time, the next six years are from 2004 to 2014, the city was overpaid something like over $6 million. At the same time, that law enforcement in every town just ignored the spraying and stuff. When I came here in 2014, the first time, Chico PD was trying to get raises. It was in the news and review. They've had 180% raise in the past 10 years. Mr. Powell, make sure we're staying on sewer. What? Make sure we're staying on sewer. It is the subject of why it was kicked down the road. Okay. So 180% raise they got. So the money what they couldn't spend on the sewer and stuff where they're kicking the can down the road, went to the law enforcement and stuff who was ignoring, refusing to enforce the law.

In the paper, the news and review later, they have the article saying about this, but of course the newspaper doesn't put the two together. The city clerk should be able to explain to you. At the end of 2014, the city purged their records. They were gone from whatever it was to digital and they were purging their records. I wonder why. I think you need to look into it. Thank you. David White followed by Molly Copta and then Kenneth Richards. Hello everybody. I'm also a local restaurant owner. I have been for 16 years over on Nord Avenue. My business has been there since 1999 and I'm in the same boat and I worked for a Fortune 100 company that helped start Kona's in 1993 downtown and the cost of food is not your fault.

The sewer situation is not your fault, but when I was lucky enough to get a starter home down in Laguna Creek in Elk Grove in 1988, they let me know that I was gonna have to pay a higher tax rate and higher utility rates because I was putting a burden on the local system that wasn't prepared for the future unless I paid more because I was in a brand new home and I see that a brand new corporation came in with a new chicken restaurant, good for them. My question is, is we want growth, we want more housing. All these projections and what we're gonna pay right now is based on where we're at, but yet we wanna grow and the new people coming in, the new restaurants coming in, they're taxing the current system more than we who have been here already and we're having to pay for unfortunate situations that you didn't create but are here, but then we have all these new restaurants, new homes being built and they're not paying more to help the burden that they're causing and that's something to look at as well because we do need growth.

It helps us all, but I'm starving. I was lucky enough to work for this company making an incredible amount of money and I made a decision to buy a business for my friend and I struggle every day to make ends meet. I'm ashamed to have to charge almost $20 for a foot long sandwich because that's what I have to do to survive and again, it's nobody's fault, it's where we're at, but the numbers that are being discussed are scary and every customer that I had as a sales rep for this Fortune 100 company as a food rep, they're all gone. There's not one of them that's still in business except the one I own and it's sad to hear that. So, you know. knowing the folks that have already spoken. My problems in volume are much smaller, but it hurts us all, because we're all part of the tax base.

So I appreciate you guys trying to consider other alternatives so we all can survive and support the community. Thank you. Molly Kopta, followed by Kenneth Richards, and then Annalise Ulrig. Thank you. Sorry, I'm still getting used to the scooter. Good evening, Madam Mayor, Mr. Vice Mayor, and members of City Council. I am here to speak on behalf of the Chico Chamber of Commerce, and by extension, the business community. We have been monitoring this topic since it came in front of the Finance Committee earlier this year. We understand the need for fully funded, up-to-date infrastructure. We know there's no one in the city who would argue against that. We also have heard from a large cross-section of the community, specifically businesses of all sizes, of how detrimental this rate increase will be.

So I'm coming to you tonight to ask that you exhaust every possible option for alternative funding before we go with an all-cash offer that would negatively impact so many businesses, and by extension, the ability to properly fund the necessary infrastructure in this community. So the Chamber is committed to continuing to work with this community, continue to work with this Council, with the city staff, and we're happy to make ourselves available at any point in time to help look into everything, source different information, and work with you to find a solution that we can approve of. So thank you all so much for your time. Have a wonderful night. Thank you, Kenneth Richards, followed by Annalise Ulbrich.

Good evening. I presume most of you don't know me because I'm a really just an average person. I am a U.S. citizen. I'm a taxpayer. And part of my background is that I have been a working man for many, many years. I went back after I retired in June of 2023 and found that I had worked part-time for seven years and I worked full-time for another 37 years of my life. I have always paid my taxes on time. I've always paid my water bill on time. I've always paid my sewer bill on time. So when I retired, I started crunching some numbers. I was in the business that worked with some numbers. And what I looked at last year, I'm now on Social Security and maybe my math isn't perfect, but I can have paperwork at home to support this.

My Social Security increase last year was less than 2%. Yeah, you heard me right, less than 2%. So when people send me a thing that says my rate is gonna go from $32 a month to 49.60. Now, my math may not be perfect. I've heard a lot of different numbers here tonight, but based on my math, maybe a little more forgiving, that's a little better than 35%. So I'm supposed to get 2% more. Maybe we'll be optimistic and say that maybe next year I'll get 5% more, but the sewer people are gonna get 35% more because otherwise they just can't make ends meet. But the shortfall, 30% or more, I'm supposed to take the hit and I'm supposed to figure out how to make ends meet based on that shortfall. So I really just wonder if people are thinking about the average homeowner, the average taxpayer, people living on a fixed income now, has this council considered giving an exemption or a reduced rate for senior citizens?

Uh, that wasn't a rhetorical question. Unfortunately, you get to make your comments, but we're not allowed to answer back. So we'll take your comments. Well, I hope the council will answer back at some point in the future. And anyway, yeah, I'll end this with a quote. I believe Martin Luther King said this, an injustice committed against one is an injustice committed against all. Thank you. Thank you. And our last speaker is Annalisa Ulrich. Hello, my name is Annalisa Ulrich representing MWS Properties and MVPOA. We appreciate the city staff taking additional time to evaluate the sewer billing. We're hearing reports of significant amounts of missed billing, substantial back bills, and then even liens being threatened on properties where owners report never receiving the original bills.

Before asking rate payers to absorb a substantial higher rates, these billing and collection issues need to be fully understood and corrected. We need to understand how much revenue may currently be unbilled or uncollected and what impact that has on the financial assessment that was made. I also think there's a big disconnect between Cal Water and Util 360, which I think needs or is causing major issues. Thank you. Thank you. That was our last speaker. All right. Council Member Hawley. I'll take this opportunity to respond to our second to last speaker. Yes, we did consider a rate lowering specifically for fixed income and low income residents, but it was determined when we went over it with staff, it would increase significantly the rates overall that would have to be levied for the administrative burden that would come with it and determining the qualification process.

But it is still something that we have, a concept of a plan built out that can come back to council once this rate is potentially approved. Not to sound like a broken record because we've talked about this extensively, but for the people who have not been in the multiple finance committees and city council meetings where we have talked about this, I do wanna reiterate a couple of things that I think all seven of us up here empathize fully with the fact that California is facing a significant cost of living crisis. Also that the sewer rate specifically has faced extended deferral when the council was very aware about major capital improvement projects and aging infrastructure and California state unfunded mandates that had to be addressed.

And the rate increases were deferred for an extended period of time so that the city of Chico's were significantly lower than any of our neighboring jurisdictions for many, many years. And now we're bumping right up to that of Reddings. I also wanna recognize that some of the off cases where for example, a property that's a restaurant might be using 50 to 59,000 gallons of water per month and might be in a serious default situation is not a good case study to bring about as an example of what's happening across the board. Just wanna remind council of that. And also we have limited autonomy for how we can levy these taxes just disproportionately. Of course, in Capistrano Taxpayers Association versus city of San Juan Capistrano, it was determined under Prop 218 that the rates by property type must directly reflect proportional cost of the service attributable to each specific parcel.

The reason that laundromats, restaurants, et cetera are paying higher fees than just residents and homeowners is because it takes a significant strain on these wastewater systems and sewer systems to maintain. So our hands are tied in that aspect, but I will say in the other aspect of long-term financial planning and long-term revenue planning, we have failed our constituents and failed our business owners in the macro lens. I wanna recognize that and I wanna recognize that we're gonna do our best to correct that moving forward. And under the assumption, we'll continue discussion further. I'd also like to make the motion to one, open the public hearing and received public comment regarding the proposed sewer rate adjustment and two, continue the public hearing to the city council meeting of November 17th, 2026 at 6 p.m. to allow staff additional time to evaluate current billing methodology and associated rates.

I'll second that. Council Member O'Brien. Are we not having a discussion? Are we jumping right to? She made a motion. We can still continue our discussion with the motion on the floor. Okay, all right, thank you. I appreciate that. So what is not in dispute is the real infrastructure need. I get that. Staff has been very clear about that. I think what is in dispute is how we get there. And that's what I think we're struggling with, regardless of who's to blame or not, we are then given the task of figuring this dynamic out. So I also wanna thank staff for recognizing that our methodology may not be perfect. There may be better options out there. I appreciate that from Brendan and David. I think that's an important acknowledgement.

But I keep going back, and I heard this last time from business owners. Really, the residential, I think that's mostly not perfect. I think individuals are able to absorb that a little easier, but businesses are the ones that are really taking it in the shorts, so to speak. So how do we find that ground that is going to meet that infrastructure with recognizing that maybe this methodology is not perfect? Can we find a better methodology? And I think that's really where we need to get to, is looking at that methodology, see if there's something a little bit more palatable, particularly for our business owners, because I hear you loud and clear. It's tough to be a business owner, small business owner these days, with all the different pressures, all the different taxes, all the different costs you guys incur, you guys get hit and hit and hit.

And so I don't want to be one of those bodies that hits you with, again, additional costs. So if we can somehow alleviate that, soften that blow, I'm all for that. So I appreciate the fact that our staff recognizes that there may be some better ways to implement this. Council Member Van Overbeek. Yeah, thank you, Madam Mayor. So I think there's some misunderstandings. First of all, the sewer fees go to pay for the sewer system. They are not commingled with the general fund. So the fact that the police got a raise has nothing to do with the sewer rates. They just aren't commingled. The second thing I want to reiterate is that we have been mandated by the state. We don't have any negotiating ability, and we have some critical need to upgrade the infrastructure.

And so the $106 million is something we have to do, and it has to come from the sewer rates. So those are givens. The only mechanism we have to soften the blow is to do what other cities do, and that is to issue bonds so that we can, the sewer rate increase is gonna happen, but we can soften that blow and spread it out. So that's something we have to do in order to make this work, and I completely support the idea of continuing this until November 17th so we can hear about some alternative methodologies. Council Member Winslow. Thanks, I'll just round out a couple of things that I heard that weren't answered by anybody else because I think we're all very close to on the same page here. As Council Member Van Overbeek alluded to, we had a vote over whether to take financing in order to lower the immediate brunt, but that leads to higher rates in the long run because we're paying interest.

Nothing comes without costs. Along with that, there was a mention about the proposal to sell our sewer system to CalWater. That was a real thing that happened. You can look at the reports of it. They said they wanted to be our sewer partner. As I would say, I pay somebody for housing, but I don't call them my housing partner. I call them my landlord, and they would have been our sewer lords. And there's no reason that CalWater had any interest in taking over the system except to charge us more in the long run. And the idea that it's kind of fanciful to think that they would have avoided some of the costs that we have, they have the same regulations. They are governed by the California Public Utilities Commission.

They have to ask for these rate increases, but those rate increases get granted. This Council even sent a letter endorsing a rate increase by CalWater for some filtration stuff that happened. And I don't think that's a very common thing that happens, but they do face the same pressures. The only difference is that while it's a public system, it's publicly controlled and we manage the payroll, we manage the rate increases, and we manage other things we can do to make it a better system, and we don't have the profit motive in it. There also, as I mentioned, of why these rate increases are going to pay for, I think the word is sewer people. I might be slightly off this, just in my memory looking at the funds some months ago, that about 11% of our sewer fund goes to payroll for our own employees.

These costs are far outside of where our specific workers are and they've received pay increases comparable to a majority of the city employees in just recent years. And yeah, I think it's good that we're looking at different methodologies. I was a bit shocked that we're this far down in the process and we just now find that there can be different methodologies, but it's also just to understand that there's like no free lunch in this. If we do find a way, as it looks like we can, to offset some of the burden on restaurants, I think that can be very good because all these restaurants staying in businesses, business is very good for all of us, but that does mean this offset somewhere else. And that means that there's higher residential rates.

That's means there's higher rates on other businesses. And I think that given the sort of the severity of the hit on some of these businesses that we've heard in particular restaurants, that's a good idea. And I'm supportive of us going and doing that, but it's not coming without costs on some other side. And that's just what it takes to manage a business. Us as a city managing a public enterprise, just as a small business owner, you're managing your incomes and expenses. Thank you. Vice Mayor Bennett, no. Oh, Council Member Goldstein. Go ahead. You're not. No, Bennett, can you go first? Go ahead, Vice Mayor Bennett. So I've been meeting with Deputy Director Kehn for many months now, trying to look at alternatives, options.

And I know that Director Ottoboni is working on this tirelessly, trying to find the right methodology to use such that the burden on people, businesses, residential folks is not as drastic. And I'm keeping, I'll speak for myself only, I'm keeping a completely open mind. If we have to go to debt financing, we'll do that. I will take a look at that. I will take a look at every option available for us to find the right, and that's what we're working on. We're gonna try and find the right methodology, the right formula, the right way to do this so it's not such a hit, as many people refer to it. And I know the city manager's working on this as well, and I appreciate that. So it's not over, folks.

You have an idea of how painful this might be, but it's not over. So we're gonna continue working on this. We've got a little bit more time to work on it. So have a little faith in our desire, our ability to find a better method. So that's all I have to say. You can believe me. You cannot believe me. I'm just gonna tell you that's how I feel. All right, Council Member Goldstein. Yeah, thank you for the presentation and to our community members who've spoken up. I hear these concerns, and we've been hearing them, and we're working hard to find a solution because we truly do not wanna negatively impact our business community or our residents in Chico with higher costs of living. I think we're getting closer to a solution, and I'm really glad that our staff will be able to look at this even closer.

I hope we can find some ways to make it hurt less and I want to reiterate that we're going through this process and looking at drastic increases because we're suffering from the effects of previous inaction of kicking the can down the road on sewer fee increases and like one of our speakers mentioned in the future we need to be very cautious that we're not having new development be subsidized by the existing businesses and residents of our community. So we need to make sure that we plan in the future so that we're not in this situation again and I trust that our staff will do their best. Thank you. All right. We have a motion and a second on the floor. Did you have something else Vice Mayor Bennett?

No. Okay. So we have a motion and second on the floor. I just want to put for the record that I will vote yes to move this to the 17th but that's all that I'm voting yes on continuing to look at other no way no how no why do I support I don't know one resident one restaurant in Chico that can afford to pay $3,200 a month for sewer and water like that's just insane so because yeah they might be able to pay it but then they're not going to be able to have any customers to come eat food there because food's going to be too expensive. So yes move it to the 17th let's see what else we can do and hopefully we'll have some great work from staff and some answers back in November. So anybody else we have a motion and second.

Okay. I'm confused. Are you making an alternative motion? No I was just clarifying that my motion my yes on this is just that we're moving it to the 17th. Can we do that without a substitute motion? That's what the motion is. I just want to make it very clear. Okay so all right so it's a motion and a second to continue this public hearing to the City Council meeting of November 17th. Council Member Goldstein. Aye. Council Member Hawley. Yes. Council Member O'Brien. Yes. With the expectation we're going to exhaust every option like Molly had suggested. Council Member van Overbeek. Yes. Council Member Winslow. Yes. Vice Mayor Bennett. Yes. Mayor Reynolds. Aye. Carries 7-0. All right our second public hearing Mary Jo Alonzo our housing program manager.

Okay good evening Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Council Members. My presentation tonight provides an end of year report required as a condition of receiving federal funding through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD. The report is referred to as the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report. I will refer to it as the CAPER. The purpose of the CAPER is to report on the progress in carrying out the City's five-year strategic plan for both the CDBG and the HOME funding as well as reporting on specific achievements over the last year's annual action plan. HUD discusses the City's actions to further fair housing. The full CAPER report was included with the Council agenda as attachment A to the staff report.

The presentation will provide a review of the uses of the funding which focuses on supporting the five-year plan priority needs that are affordable housing, homeless prevention, homeless services, neighborhood revitalization, and economic development. The first priority need is affordable housing. Both CDBG and HOME funding supported affordable housing over the last program year. Support includes both affordable homeowner and rental housing assistance for the following projects. The City partnered and donated land to Habitat for Humanity for the Habitat Wisconsin project. Also known as Roslyn Court. As you see in the pictures, Habitat has made significant progress on completing the infrastructure and site improvements.

CDBG funding has been utilized for those and will continue to be used along with HOME funding to support the construction of five self-help homes. As part of the 25-26 HUD annual plan, Council approved funding for the rehabilitation of Turning Point Commons. We have a before and a mid-progress updated picture there that I think was provided to me today. This is a 66-unit project located off of 8th Street between Highway 32, Bidwell Park. It's financed with low-income housing tax credit that was secured in March and the construction started shortly thereafter. The rehab is progressing, moving toward completion that's set for late next year. The second priority need is homeless prevention. The City maintains continued partnership with the Housing Authority and participating social service providers through the tenant-based rental program.

We assisted 17 households last year. Domestic service funding was also provided to Chico Meals on Wheels, who supported 318 elderly and disabled homebound adults, and the Peg Taylor Center provided adult day services for 80 adults. The third priority need is homeless services. CDBG funding went towards directly supporting homeless individuals through programs provided by Catalyst, Domestic Violence Services, True North Housing Alliance, and Chico Housing Action Team, as well as the Community Action Agency. Over the past year, over 800 individuals were assisted through public service funding. The City sets aside 15% of our grant, which is approximately $148,000, to provide these services. The fourth priority need is economic development, where CDBG funds were used to support small businesses through training and counseling services provided by the Small Business Development Center.

The program exceeded their goal and provided counseling for 158 low and moderate income businesses, with 57 of them being newly assisted. And the next priority need is neighborhood revitalization, which utilizes CDBG funding to support code enforcement activities in low and moderate income areas, helping to prevent neighborhood decline. This slide shows a code enforcement activity citywide. The areas with vertical lines represent low and moderate income census blocks, and the purple hexagons identify hotspots where code enforcement cases occurred at a significantly higher concentration than would have been expected if cases were randomly distributed throughout the city. An easier way to think about this is that instead of mapping every raindrop, we're showing where the puddles form.

It's a little bit different than what I've shown you in years past. I wanted to explain that. For CAPER reporting period purposes, we focus on the code enforcement activities that happen inside these low income census block areas. Overall, last year, the HUD programs expended, CDBG funds expended almost 500, sorry, home funds was $597,000, and CDBG was 800, almost $826,000. As previously mentioned, two educational fair housing workshops were held last year, with a total of 170 individuals attending those. The city continues to provide fair housing referrals, and we also regularly update information on our website, as long as brochures that are available. I'll close out by talking about the recent affordable housing developments in Chico.

Following disaster recovery funding and tax credit allocations to our region, the city has seen the completion of 12 new affordable housing developments. The finished developments are shown on this map here, and account for 1,117 units that are completed. There are currently four developments that are undergoing construction. That will add another 276 units over the next two years. As you're aware, the city received $32.5 million in CDBG DR allocation. We went towards funding three projects. Here's Cusick Apartments. It's a 75-unit large family apartment complex on East Avenue. The Oleander Housing Project is an infill development located on the Esplanade. It's a 37-unit supportive housing project.

And Chico Bar Triangles is an infill development located between Notre Dame and Forest Ave. off of Roe Bailey Drive. The project includes 69 units with one manager unit. All three of these projects are complete and fully leased. In closing, the full CAPER report has been available on the city's website for over two weeks and included with tonight's agenda. A public notice was published in the paper on August 28, inviting public comments. At this time, no public comments have been received, but if anything is received during the public hearing, I will add that as part of the report that's submitted to HUD. And this concludes my report, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Any questions for Mary Jo before we go to speakers? Councilmember Hawley? I just wanted to say thank you, Mrs. Alonzo. A lot of work that you've put into this, and I'm also a big appreciator of your PowerPoint transitions, very underutilized these days. Councilmember O'Brien? Yeah, I also want to thank Mary Jo as well. I'm looking at specifically the CDBG expenditures. You seem to get a lot of bang for the buck, which is not always the case with government, so well done. I'm looking at small businesses that were assisted, services to people that were in need to include domestic violence victims, seniors, and those with disabilities that were provided meals by Chico Meals on Wheels. It's just a very impressive list, and I just want to thank you for putting those dollars, those tax dollars to good use.

Thank you. Thank you. I will say that all the agencies are very appreciative of you guys continually supporting them. So, thank you. Vice Mayor Bennett? So we've known each other for a long time, and I've always appreciated your dedication and commitment to your piece of the pie in running Chico and keeping Chico vibrant. So I just want to say thank you, I appreciate you, and I look forward to working with you for many years. Councilmember Winslow? I will just also say good job with the presentation, the update, where all this money's going, and also we do have so many different organizations doing so much in town, and it's amazing that we're able to spread this money around and get into so many different projects.

One that didn't make your highlights was our sewer assistance program funded the connection of two households, two new sewer customers. That should help. I already have two more this year, too, provided they're paying their bill, and we're billing them. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. We'll open the public hearing. How many speakers do we have? We don't have any. All right. We will close the public hearing. Consider a motion. Motion to approve. I'll second that.

Okay. Councilmember Goldstein? Great work. Thank you. Yes. Councilmember Hawley? Yes. Councilmember O'Brien? Yes. Councilmember van Overbeek? Yes. Councilmember Winslow? Yes. Vice Mayor Bennett? Yes. Mayor Reynolds? All right. Thanks for getting through that so quick. I saw your report, and I was like, oh, no, I should have taken a break, but we will take a break now real quick before we go through the rest of the regular agenda. Thank you.

I know. Okay. Item 5.1, slide letter agreement. We have a report from Barbara Martin, our Administrative Services Director. Katie's going to be right back. I told her we were starting. She said that was okay. Okay. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor Reynolds and Council. Item 5.1 brings forward two side letter agreements related to classifications at the City Animal Shelter. The first agreement is with the Chico Management Employees, also known as CME, and would move the Animal Services Manager from an individual employment agreement into the CME Bargaining Unit. The second agreement is with UPEC Local 792 and would add three animal services classifications, the Animal Services Associate, the Animal Services Technician, and the Registered Veterinary Technician to the unit.

When the City assumed the responsibility for animal services from the Butte Humane Society in 2012, these employees became City employees but remained unrepresented. At the time, it was intended to be a temporary arrangement while the City determined the appropriate bargaining unit placement and allowed time to analyze the shelter services and the longevity of the City providing these services. That temporary agreement has continued for approximately 14 years. There are currently six employees in these classifications with 8.5 allocated positions. One of them is a halftime position. And this agreement will formally place them within the CME and UPEC bargaining units and provide them with the same negotiated terms and conditions that apply to other employees in those units.

As part of this process, we also reviewed these classifications and salary ranges to ensure they are appropriately aligned with comparable City positions. Both agreements have been through the meet and confer process and, if approved, would become effective with the pay period beginning September 20th. And the staff is recommending approval of both of the side letter agreements as submitted and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions for Ms. Martin? No? All right. How many speakers do we have? We do not have any. All right. Is there a motion? I'll move to approve. Okay. Which one? Who was that? Who gets it? I'll just pick. You pick. I'll second Tom's motion. How about that?

Okay. Thank you. All right. Councilmember Goldstein? Aye. Councilmember Hawley? Yes. Councilmember O'Brien? Yes. Councilmember Van Overbeek? Aye. Yes. Councilmember Winslow? Yes. Vice Mayor Bennett? Yes. Mayor Reynolds? Aye. Carries 7-0. All right. 5.2 or? Okay. We have Ms. Barbara Martin again from our Administrative Services Director. Thank you again, Mayor and Council. Item 5.2 is another side letter agreement with the Chico Management employees establishing a risk manager classification. This does not add a new position or increase the City's authorized staffing. It reclassifies an existing Administrative Specialist position within the Human Resources and Risk Management Division to a risk manager.

The incumbent in the current position, the Administrative Specialist position, is retiring at the end of this month, and it's provided us an opportunity to make this an organizational change without impacting an existing employee. The City previously had a dedicated risk manager position, which was eliminated in 2013. Since that time, the City's risk and safety responsibilities have continued to grow and are currently being managed within Human Resources, along with broader operational responsibilities that they have. This reclassification restores that dedicated managerial oversight of functions including workers compensation, liability and property claims, employee safety and OSHA compliance, accident investigations, insurance coordination, training and prevention, and loss control efforts. The risk manager classification will be placed within the CME bargaining unit with a salary range aligned with the senior human resource analyst position. This estimated additional cost of the reclassification reclassification is up to $43,000 annually at top step. That cost is distributed among city funds through the general liability and workers comp reserve fund allocations. Those costs are spread throughout all funds within the city and no supplemental appropriation is required at this time. The city and CME have completed the meet and confer process and staff is recommending approval of the side letter and the related amendments to the city's position allocation and pay schedules and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Any questions? No. How many speakers do we have? Zero. All right. Consider motion. Move to approve. Second. Okay. Councilmember Goldstein? Aye. Councilmember Hawley? Yes. Councilmember O'Brien? Yes. Councilmember van Overbeek? Yes. Councilmember Winslow? Yes. Vice Mayor Bennett? Yes. Mayor Reynolds? Aye. Carries 7-0. All right. 5.3. Councilmember Hawley's request regarding the Vina GSA. Councilmember Hawley. Thank you, Mayor Reynolds. I trust you all saw my councilmember write-up. This is a pretty straightforward ask. I'm just looking for the City Council to approve a letter officially from the City of Chico to the Vina Groundwater Sustainability Agency Board of Directors reminding them that there are a multitude of beneficial users within city limits that are pretty significantly affected by the groundwater sustainability plan that they are to submit in the next couple of months. So my my ask today is not necessarily a sponsorship of any different alternative when setting sustainability criteria, but it's just frankly laying out a handful of beneficial users within city limits, how it impacts the city, and why the Board of Directors should keep that in mind when ultimately submitting that groundwater sustainability plan periodic review and amendments. And I'm happy to answer any questions on specifics. Councilmember Van O'Briek, I see you have you. Is your question for Ms. Hawley or? No. No. Okay. It's part of the discussion I was trying to get. Okay, so perfect. I got you in the queue. Any questions for Councilmember Hawley and or we'll go to speakers? No. Okay. How many speakers do we have? We have one. All right. Marianne Paiva.

Good evening. I'm shocked I'm the only speaker. Please forgive the sociology lecture you're about to receive. My name is Marianne Paiva and I'm a concern and I'm concerned about what Vina GSA's groundwater management plan could mean for Chico. I urge you to accept the agendized item from Ms. Hawley at the next meeting or at a later meeting. In the adopted 2022 groundwater sustainability plan, Vina GSA set measurable objectives at 17 monitoring sites or wells. I compared those objectives with this historical record. At nine sites, the measurable objective is at or below the historic low for that well. At another seven, it is within 10 feet. So at 16 of the 17 sites, the objective is at, below, or within 10 feet of the historic low. 15 of the historic lows I identified occurred either in 2014 during the 2012 and 2000 to 2016 drought or during the 2020 to 2022 drought. They are drought levels. Vina released the draft five-year update today. The monitoring network is being expanded, but the draft retains the 2022 measurable objectives for the 11 wells that remain. And it describes the measurable objectives as the desired state for the groundwater levels to be reached by 2042. That matters because the California Department of Water Resources previously warned the management that management to Vina's proposed objectives could result in groundwater failing, falling below historic lows at many monitoring wells. DWR specifically said Vina could establish more protective measurable objectives rather than defaulting to the trend of long-term groundwater decline. Yet the new draft retains those objectives for the original wells that remain. We also know impacts can occur before Vina's formal standards are reached. Under modeled spring 2021 conditions, Vina's groundwater dependent ecosystems study estimated that 86% of likely groundwater dependent ecosystems had groundwater deeper than their modeled rooting depth thresholds. 86% of GDEs were separated from the water that was that was feeding them. Even while every representative monitoring well with a valid reading remained above the goal that Vina has going into the future. Under the current draft language, the formal groundwater level undesirable results still requires two monitoring wells over time to be below that level. The plan also says domestic well and other groundwater use impacts may occur during dry years without constituting an undesirable result. The new draft acknowledges that the depth required to access groundwater is a concern, but the long-term concern is not only access. A 2026 peer-reviewed study found that large portions of the Sacramento Valley aquifer system shifted to irreversible compaction during the 2020 and 2022 drought, permanently reducing groundwater storage capacity in affected areas. I'll end this here. The levels will be catastrophic if we maintain MOs as our normal. It's time. Thank you.

All right. I see. I'll get you next. Councilmember Reno. Rick. Yeah, so the staff report, there are two asks in the staff report. One of them is for the city staff to report on this, and I'd like to learn more, and the second was for us to write a letter, but I don't think we want to consider a letter until we know more. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Winslow. All right. That totally makes sense, and I, but I want to make a case that there is something that we want to say in the weight of the city of Chico in these conversations is worth putting out beyond what we currently have, which is Councilmember Hawley as our representative. The groundwater sustainability regulation is a very new thing in California. It's a new thing in the world, really. California is pioneering it, and so we didn't really know how to arrange this exactly, and California legislature comes up with all kind of creative solutions, and theirs was this Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, SGMA, and we are implementing it in the way that, in our own creative way, as are other areas within the state, all very differently. The way we have it set up here is there's a Vina Groundwater Sustainability Agency, and there's five board members. Chico consists of the vast majority of the population of the people there, but our representation on the board is dramatically reduced beyond, like, what our stake is in the system. So what is the Durham Irrigation District with the whole of, like, I don't know, a few hundred people or so living there? 1,500, thank you, has a seat on the board. There is a board for an agricultural rep, which is kind of redundant in that. There is a domestic well user rep, of which there are, you know, maybe a couple thousand, I think, there, which tends to side with the City of Chico on it, and then there's a county rep, which the county tends to be dominated by agricultural interests. So the City of Chico has specific interest in it because we use water in a different way, and that's, in one hand, is our drinking water, and cow water pumps are drinking water, but they're not out here advocating for us. That would be the City of Chico's job. And the other concerns that we have relate to the adverse impacts that are, that the state requires that we consider all the time, which is these groundwater dependent ecosystems that were referenced. That's our urban forest and the way that the oak trees have, are dependent on the groundwater levels in order to stay alive in these drought times. Another is surface water connectivity and the amount of water that's in our creeks, which also dilution is a solution to pollution, relates to the E. coli levels that we see in the creeks by how little water there is. And back in the day, people spoke of, um, swimming holes in Little Chico Creek, and the reason why that isn't the case has a lot to do with the fact that our aquifer levels have been allowed to drop so low. So the fact that they're tolerating thresholds that are so far below these other sub basins in the area is of concern to us. The fact that it is so different is should be of concern to us, and the City of Chico should stand up for what are our interests, at least articulate them to them beyond just having Councilmember Hawley on the board. I think it makes a lot of sense to levy the expertise that we have within our city staff and levy the weight of the city in a way that we can to try to shift the outcome of this, because the pseudo democratic process that we have established for Sigma in the Vinyl Groundwater Sustainability Agency is not doing justice to the interests of the people of Chico currently.

Councilmember O'Brien. Yes, thank you, Mayor. So I do support hearing more about this. I appreciate Councilmember Hawley for bringing this to our attention. Um, so I support the first recommendation that she provided. However, I do agree with Councilmember Van Overbeek. This is premature to draft a letter when we don't have all our information. Let's find out exactly what we have. Then we can decide what we want to do with that information. But let's hear the information first. I'll support the first party recommendation. Councilmember Goldstein. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilmember Hawley, for bringing this up. And as usual, including such a detailed Councilmember report. Our city and our region have no future without our water. So sustaining our groundwater is an incredibly important concept underlying all of what we do as leaders in our community. People love Chico because we have our urban forest canopy, our creeks, our farms, and more. And we need to ensure that we can sustain our region's groundwater. So it is really important for us as leaders in our city to speak up about this. As Councilmember Winslow mentioned, we have a proportionally small stake in the Vina GSA being, you know, the majority of the residential users in this area, but we only have one seat on that board. So if we can, as a city council come to some agreement on the things that are important to us for groundwater management, sending that letter would be very important. I do agree, having all the information in front of us is essential. So I'm hopeful that we could, you know, keep that in our motion that we want to come back with staff information, and then we discuss the content of what that letter could look like. But both are key parts here. There's not really much point in us just getting more information if we don't do anything with it.

Vice Mayor Bennett. So someone suggested that I watched the Bidwell Park and Playground Commission meeting, the last meeting where you spoke, and there was quite a conversation about this groundwater issue in the Vina GSA. I came away from it totally confused. It was more than I could absorb or think through. So I do support us having more information so we could make an intelligent, informed decision, which is what we are supposed to do. And I do agree that a water issue is is incredibly important. I remember our for our urban forest manager talking about some of the ramifications if the groundwater dropped too far, that being Bidwell Park. So there's a lot of questions I have in my head. And I would really appreciate somebody trying to explain this in layman's terms, perhaps. So I do support. Let's find out more information. And then let's take a look at what we want to do about a letter. I support your suggestion.

Council Member van Overbeek. So I have a question for Skyler. Do we? Do you think your staff has the expertise to address this? Or do we need to ask some people to come in and help us with this? I'm certain our staff, specifically urban forest manager Richie Bamlet, has the expertise to be a voice in the conversation and part of the discussion, clearly an advocate for the city of Chico canopy. He spoke to that end at that Bidwell Park and Playground Commission meeting. So some of those concerns have been voiced. So I, I know Richie and respect Richie. But and Richie is a tree advocate, which is what his job is. So I would like to hear from Richie. But I would also like to hear from somebody that has a broader perspective. I mean, why is why is this?

I want to understand what's the other side of the story? Could we have what we can get this off? Maybe we could consider having Miss Kamie give us a presentation. I was just going to make a suggestion. We also have, you know, Mr. Kehn is oftentimes in those meetings, and I think would reflect the city's perspective a bit more accurately, as well as Brendan, his last name. We have two city staff members that are almost always, you know, covering that role and facilitating that discussion that I think it would be appropriate for. But thank you all so much for those comments. Oh, one more council member. I was just gonna say, are we confident that we have enough expertise within those individuals that you mentioned to provide us with a comprehensive review of this, at least for us to understand as comprehensive we can understand?

I'll chime in here. So as staff, we have a spot on the management group for the Vine of GSA. So we are not the staff, but the Vine of GSA has their own staff. So I would suggest we invite them to come do the presentation because they are the experts that are leading that charge. We participate. Obviously, Mr. Bamlet is our urban forest manager, and he has a component of an understanding of the urban forest as it relates to the groundwater. But yeah, Deputy Director David Kehn serves on that management committee of the Vine of GSA. And so we can coordinate with the Vine of GSA staff to do a presentation if that's the direction the council goes. Yeah, and maybe just to help, you know, staff out a little bit with my vision here, it would be completely inappropriate for us as the city council to make a determination of what sustainability management criteria and language in the GSP is appropriate. That is not at all what I'm advocating for here. All I'm advocating is potentially even a paragraph or two just laying out that the city of Chico is a major stakeholder when it comes to beneficial users of groundwater, and that we would like to see, you know, a handful of points of those beneficial users be addressed when that Vine of GSA Board of Directors is ultimately making that decision. Two things. Firstly, I really want to be responsive to, you know, Councilmember O'Brien and Councilmember Van Overbeek's request of learning more before a letter is drafted. But I do want to say that this decision to have Vine of GSA staff move forward with the GSP curation is being made on October 14th at 5pm. So this is a bit of a time sensitive issue. The plan is ultimately going to be approved finally and a meeting after that. But it's like really difficult to be an advocate that far along into the process. Ultimately, it would not make sense for us to send a letter after that October 14th at 5pm deadline is what I'm saying. So to have the applicable staff come back and give just a brief 10 minute presentation on how groundwater levels could affect the city of Chico would have to come back in conjunction with a draft letter. And again, it's not a lot I'm asking here for just a paragraph or two. And we can also make edits right in that motion before the October 14th meeting occurs.

I also want to lay out that anyone who watched the Bidwell Parks and Playground Commission presentation that was significantly more technical, in my opinion than it needed to be to lay out. Yeah, groundwater issues like even councilmember Winslow's point of interconnected surface water, it's really much more complicated than our aquifer dips below certain levels and our creeks start going dry. That's not how it works at all. I mean these studies are incredibly intricate and show that different creeks have different levels of connection with the aquifer depending on how far west and what kind of soil is underneath it. We do not need any of that information for this. So I just want to make it clear that when we're asking for a presentation at our next early October meeting that we limit it to 10 minutes and it specifically be a brief overview of of how this affects City of Chico beneficial users. I think that's why my suggestion was to have our city staff members who are present in that conversation to present. It doesn't even have to be 10 minutes.

But if a majority of our council thinks it really should be Ms. Loeser or maybe Dr. Buck then you know we can make that direction as well. For me to support the motion I would definitely want Ms. Loeser or Mr. Buck to do that or at least be part of the presentation and I would not limit it to 10 minutes. I'm saying maybe most of our presentations we give a 15 minutes max. Some people go over because it is very complex. I understand that they will make it as easy as possible but it also needs to be digestible enough that everybody needs to be feel comfortable signing on to said letter. So I don't want to restrain them to 10 minutes because it's very complicated. If people want to ask questions it's going to be longer and we have a big this will be going to the bottom and we have a big agenda on the sixth already. So I want to ensure that we so that's for me to support it I would definitely want somebody from. I think that's an appropriate ask. Yeah thanks for clarifying. So I agree I don't want to limit I mean I don't want it more complex than it has to be but I'd rather have too much information than not enough. So are we ready for a motion? Yes. Council Member Goldstein go ahead.

Thanks Mayor. Real quick so are Loeser and Buck are those GSA staff? Okay I hear a muttering. Technically county staff. Okay great. Yeah I would support having people from the GSA or county as well as our staff to give their perspective. Yeah I think that's all I needed to say thanks. They just eat breathe and sleep this 24 hours a day it's their only job. So yes. I just wanted to add so the the draft plan came out today and tomorrow night there is a workshop for anyone who's interested in it. It's at the Chico Masonic Family Center from 5 30 to 7. They're going to be presenting on the document and reviewing the staff. So if anybody from the public is interested that's a great place to plug in. Same with council same with staff. I highly recommend that we actually do have our staff experts review and dig in for the comment letter not just the higher level summary. I was going to do that anyways. So we'll get some expert watering engineering or somebody that can give us the input on how it affects us so that we can actually let them know. Comments are due October 16th I think. So if we bring it to the 6th we have them present. We bring some staff bullet points for council to consider then we can draft that letter and get it to them on time for the 14th excuse me. And then they'll even take late comments the comment period closes October 26th. But in order to get it to that meeting we need to get it to them the 14th. So we can definitely help coordinate that. Thank you manager Haen and I also included the Vanna GSA website at the bottom of my write-up. You can find you can search any keyword that you're interested in learning more of and you can see the entirety of documentation that's been presented to the board and curated by staff there. Did you want to make a motion council member van Overbeek?

Well are we are we ready? Yes. All right I'd like to make a motion that we I'm sorry let me back up. I'd like to make a motion that director Ottoboni and director Lipski select whatever staff they think is appropriate to give us a report on the status of the Vanna GSA and how it impacts the city. And then make a friendly amendment Tom to include when we say staff that staff would include a Vanna GSA rep as well. Yes. Thank you. So to be clear the ask is for our department head of engineering and O&M to identify applicable staff to report out how this issue affects the city of Chico. Okay and the amendment was to include a Vanna GSA staff member as well by council member O'Brien. Can I also make a friendly amendment that a draft letter be presented alongside with that as the city manager just laid out for us? No not until we have the information.

Okay in that case I'll make us I'm sorry. Well just to clarify Ms. Haen suggested bringing back bullet points draft bullet points for them to include in a letter. So I don't think we would have a complete letter you what I heard you say is for that meeting we would have the bullet points that we could discuss that we want to go into the letter as long as we agree then we can move forward on signing a letter. So we would I would propose that we would take direction from council on the sixth for what needs to be put into the letter. So if staff is going to take a look and analyze it then we're going to bring you our analysis forward which will more than likely be some bullet points on where we see areas of concern or support etc. The Vanna staff can present as well our staff will present their findings and then council can discuss give direction and if you want us to write the letter you can tell us what to put in it on the sixth and we can get it in time for the 14th. Yeah so we need to decide whether or not we're going to do a letter and it feels like you're trying to stampede us into this I'm not going for it so if you have a substitute motion so is there a second? No I didn't actually make a substitute motion and I apologize if my communication thus far has been interpreted as you know steam rolling ahead I that really isn't not my intention and um yeah let's vote.

Was there a second? I'm sorry I I have I think we assume it came with the friendly amendment from council member. So I asked for the friendly amendment that is also my second. Okay all right and that was to make sure that there was a representative from the Vineage. What he had what council member van Overbeek said as far as our staff but also including a Vineage GSA rep in that presentation. Okay all right just a moment let me get rid of that draft letter. Council member Goldstein. Yes. Council member Hawley. Yes. Council member O'Brien. Yes. Council member van Overbeek. Yes. Council member Winslow. Yes. Vice mayor Bennett. Yes. Mayor Reynolds. Aye. Carries 7-0. All right item 5.4 council member van Overbeek's request to talk about the ALRP program. ALRP all right so um we have a young reporter in the room Chris Hutton put your hand up Chris. Chris is a couple what are you four or five months out of school?

And as as his first big story he's the one who uncovered the. No it was Elias also in the room. Okay well all right. They all look alike. Anyway Chris is a good Chris Chris is a good guy. So we've got this controversy around the ALPR system. The police department is having Captain Jeramie Struthers do an audit. There's I have complete confidence in Captain Jeramie Struthers who I know well enough and the chief who I know better that we're going to get a clear picture of what happened what didn't happen and the results are going to be reported on Monday the 21st. There's some people in the community who for whatever reasons have a different opinion of the police department than I do and I believe that they will question any results of an audit that are performed by the police department. So therefore I have proposed that we create an ad hoc committee with former police chief O'Brien council member O'Brien and council member Winslow who are not going to do the audit but they would select a third party decide on what expertise was necessary and select a third party to review the results of the audit conducted by the police department.

All right I'll be happy to take any questions. Council member Winslow. Thank you. Thanks for the suggestion. So for one I mean the skepticism in the community on this particular issue is the reason why this was such a notable story to point out was because there were there was a huge mistake that led that story being a story and then secondarily well I appreciate the recommendation of putting me on an ad hoc committee. I struggle to see what expertise I would bring in the selection of a vendor that I wouldn't be able to contribute from here. I don't know people that do audits of this. Okay so is that a question? That was yeah if you want to elaborate on your rationale for having an ad hoc committee as opposed to just selecting by the council and if we were to pay some people to audit. So I think I think we want to make sure that whoever the audit is is unquestionably unbiased, doesn't have an agenda and I think you were recognized as the senior progressive member of the council and a police chief O'Brien has deep expertise and how these systems work and I think if you two agreed on somebody and I don't know what that person looks like either right but you two are very bright guys and you'd figure it out pretty quickly but I think if you two were involved in the selection of a third of this unbiased third party that that would be accepted by almost everybody in the community. Okay thank you.

I do understand that. I do think that you know to use your own word that it feels like we're kind of steamrolling into that we're going to pay an audit to happen and I'm not sure not having seen Captain Jeramie Struthers report yet that I know that that's the best course of action. Granted I want people to either have full confidence in our use of this technology or I want us to not use technology people are uncomfortable with but I think that after the special meeting I'll have a much clearer idea of the sort of direction that I want to go with it. All right I see you're on Council Member O'Brien but I got Council Member Hawley in the queue. I don't know if your thing's not working. So I'm I'm willing to do whatever I think that Council Member Van Overbeek was looking for some impartiality like he said unbiased opinion he wanted the hard hardcore conservative in you Addison and the hardcore liberal and me to kind of bounce out and I understand that that perspective so I'm willing to do whatever this council wants to do. I don't think you necessarily need to have expertise in selecting an audit firm company individual I think it's someone to look at that and you can do your research you do research well and come up with a an individual or entity to do this for this city.

I will say that I completely trust our Police Department Chief Aldridge and all his staff whatever they tell me and would tell us I believe it to be absolutely true. However if this helps the community to understand this issue a little bit more I'm in particular this this part of it this audit I'm willing to jump in and lend a hand. Council Member Hawley. Thank you Mayor Reynolds. I fear I'm still having trouble understanding the benefits of forming an ad hoc committee on this with staff and council member time as opposed to just directing staff to put out an RFP for auditors that are third party and we delegate staff to do as as they almost always do which is determine which third party would be appropriate and reputable to conduct this.

Council Member Goldstein. Oh thanks Mayor. Yeah I think I shared similar questions as some of my other council members but I'm glad that we're all talking about better oversight of the ALPR system and making sure that our public understands and has trust in what the city's doing but I my main questions are why move to an ad hoc where we can't have all council members discussing like if the intent is to have more public input and kind of a back and forth on how to move forward with ALPRs I think that could be a potential advantage of an ad hoc committee but I haven't seen precedent in say selecting a consultant from an ad hoc committee before and also somebody brought up the question of are there people who specifically audit this type of program and I am curious maybe our Chief of Police could weigh in if there's any precedent for you know firms doing audits of this type of technology and any other thoughts I guess if Chief Aldridge wants to weigh in.

Yes thank you and I respect the conversation that's going on right now. I do feel I do feel like it's a little cart before the horse kind of thing before our presentation on Monday because that could make council change their perspective. Yeah so I don't know that there's a vendor if you will that does this kind of stuff my recommendation was have council as your auditor all seven of you come to the police department we train you in the system we provide you the the CEGIS training the the waivers that you have to sign and then have you dig into it yourselves who better to audit us than the seven of you who are the oversight committee of the police department that's my recommendation because I've never heard of a third-party vendor doing something like this it would be more like an internal affairs investigation that you are hiring a company to investigate an officer for some specific violation the other option I feel is our city attorney's office they're looking out for the greater good of the city of Chico not Billy Aldridge so if I made a mistake or in policy or law or some fashion they're going to tell you what that is so those are my opinions but like I said I do respect the conversation and an idea I just don't know I kind of feel like it's a bridge to nowhere to be honest with you because we're going to present everything we've already admitted what has happened I'm not trying to hide anything there's full transparency in the process and everything that you're going to see Monday so I think it might be a little early to make that decision well thank you for letting me put you on the spot I appreciate it I'll add I think my opinion here is that we should wait until what comes out of our Monday public input and conversation and that we could continue this conversation on Monday if we feel that that is the next direction council member van Overbeek yeah I don't have any problem if we want to wait until the presentation uh on on Monday the the 21st and I'm also not hung up on it being councilman O'Brien and Winslow um but I but the city attorney and city manager have a full plate at this point I mean that would be the alternative but one of the questions that needs to be answered is you know I think this is you know I think this is a database kind of issue it's a technology issue it's not a police issue but if you want to defer this till after the presentation from Captain Jeramie Struthers I presume I'm fine with that all right I've got two more and then we'll go to our speakers council member O'Brien yeah I would agree with that I think we should wait until after the presentation that makes perfect sense and if we do want to go down this road um I would ask first if our city attorney's office would you guys have the capability to handle something like this I know it's it's new territory all this new technology there's not a ready-made outfit that comes in and does audit typically because it's so new but would your be able to come in and do some type of audit if that was the direction this council wanted to go.

Yeah, I think it's something I could talk to some of my partners who specialize in this. We have not done an audit that we're talking about. We definitely do legal review of the system, but perhaps we could blend the legal review with kind of an analysis of how the system is running and could assist in that fashion as well. Thank you. Vice Mayor Bennett. So I liked your idea about taking a look at this with the committee till I realized this is Tuesday. We're gonna be back here in a couple of days and hear the report, and then we'll know much more than we know now. So thank you for backing off a little bit. I really liked the idea though that you had, Chief, that we actually sign off on waivers or confidentiality agreements, learn how to operate within the AOPR system and take a look at it, and then we can report what we find.

I really liked that idea because it eliminates any ambiguity if it's necessary. If it is even necessary after Monday, it might not even be necessary, but I really like your idea. I think that's a good one. Maybe the ad hoc committee could be me tracking Mike O'Brien's movements around. How many speakers do we have? How many speakers do we have? We have two. All right, three minutes each. Okay, Julie Three, followed by Julian Zenner. Yeah, thank you, City Council. Yeah, after going through COVID, anything surveillance always gets my hair on the back of my neck standing up. I've been digging into this. I went to a DFLOC NorCal meeting and learned all about this. This isn't just a Chico issue. Go look on TwitterX.

Go put DFLOC or ALPR, and it's a hot topic all over the place. Governor DeSantis just recently pulled all contracts for these ALPRs on state roads, and he said, quote, it's none of the government's damn business. I also sent you some information from Grass Valley. I also sent a Graham Paul weight in on this yesterday. Good read on FLOC. The more that government, both state and federal, uses de facto general warrants to treat citizens like they are all likely criminals, the less Americans feel they have any semblance of privacy. There's a really good article attached to this. Again, on TwitterX, you gotta be on that. The Hill article today, FLOC cameras and TSA searches are making our Fourth Amendment a dead letter.

If you go to DFLOC.org, which I did, and you look at the cameras in Chico, there's one really right on Bruce Road. Why is there one on Bruce Road? Who's picking where these cameras go? That's where the stupid hotel was supposed to be built. Why did we decide to have one there? I don't understand. Also, there's been 153 to date, if you go to DFLOC.org, municipalities that have canceled their contracts. There's also a map that you can go to now. They just rolled this out. You see that? Those are all of where the Butte County Sheriff's Office feeds coming out of their FLOC cameras going out outside of California and all around the place. So go to DFLOC.org and take a look at that map. I will also say that the, I don't get why we have an ad hoc committee.

Citizens are gonna be digging into this no matter what you do. And I think having the ex-police chief be on the committee just makes no sense. It's like the fox watching the hen house. I did send you an article from Raynette Sennum. Raynette Sennum was the mayor of Nevada City. She did a great article saying FLOC was never the end game. It was the practice round. She said on August 11th, Grass Valley, California's police chief suspended the city's license plate cameras and canceled the FLOC contract. They were off polls by noon the next day. Residents had pulled 18 months of query logs, 3.9 million searches by 357 outside organizations in a town of 14,000. One resident put the number north of 7.5 million and showed FLOC's public dashboard had been badly undercounting.

If you haven't gone to look at the CEO of FLOC safety camera, he calls people looking at these cameras terrorists. I don't appreciate being called a terrorist. It's kind of harking me back to, you know, moms going into school board meetings. So we need to be really careful. I think we need to dig in just besides what happened with this particular situation. Thank you, Chico Sol. But also what these cameras are doing in this community. I think it's ridiculous. Thank God, Glen County, where my grandchildren live, don't have them. Thank you. Thank you, Julian Zinner. Thank you.

Good evening, city council members and our city manager. How did we come to this? A small item, 449.5.B.1, tucked away in 916 pages of the Chico PD police manual that allowed illegal sharing of surveillance camera data outside the state and with ICE. Our police chief says he was unaware of this item and subsequent facilitating MOUs. The answer is Lexapro, a private $80 million annual revenue company formed by ex-cops turned lawyers, hired by over 90% of California law enforcement agencies to write their policy manuals. Updating manuals to confirm whether a changing state law is their major marketing claim. After Chico Sol broke the cameras sharing story, Lexapro replaced a small item with a much larger item, draft 450.4.

That specifically states that the data will be, quote, shared with Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, and federal law enforcement agencies. Posted July 8th, 2026. All illegal under SB 54 and SB 34. In the past week, this item has also been removed. So now Chico has cameras, whether they're active or not, I don't know, without any police policy. Our council, the police department, and Alexa Paul have failed us. It is past time for the council to implement a genuinely independent review commission to help the council and the police department stay on the right side of the law and morality. An outside independent review of this fiasco is a good start. Thank you. He's our last speaker. All right, I'll take a motion or not.

So my motion is to, that we not do anything and wait until the meeting. Thank you. Mutual protection. That we postpone this until the, carry this forward to the meeting on the 21st after we get the presentation and not decide now. All right. I'll second that. Okay, motion and second to move it to after the presentation on. Can I ask a clarifying question? Sure. Does that need to be its own agenda item on the next meeting? How is our meeting going to, I should look at. Okay. Just carries. It just makes it a little cleaner because then it's clearly, we will be talking about possibly doing an ad hoc committee versus we're getting a presentation and normally in a presentation, there's not action.

So that makes sense. It'll make it cleaner. Cool, thank you. Council Member Goldstein. Yes. Council Member Hawley. Yes. Council Member O'Brien. Yes. Council Member van Overbeek. Yes. Council Member Winslow. Yes. Vice Mayor Bennett. Yes. Mayor Reynolds. Aye. Carries seven zero. All right. Reports and communications. The following reports and communication items are provided for the council's information. No action can be taken on items under this section of the agenda unless council agrees to it on a subsequent agenda by city manager, verbal report from city manager, Ms. Haen. Mayor, council members, Gillian Haen, city manager. Just want to give you an update on what I've been working on the last few weeks.

Met with Chico Unified Superintendent, Greg Blake, Chico State President, Steve Perez and Enloe President, Mike Wiltermude. And all of those meetings were wonderful opportunities to collaborate on future projects. Chico State President and I will be meeting monthly now. We've talked about a lot of opportunities moving forward. So I'm sure you will hear about those to come, more to come on those. But those were great meetings. Also met with DCBA, Downtown Chico Business Association, met with the Concerned Citizens for Justice and attended the saluting local government real estate reception and met a lot of local realtors there, which is a great connection there. The staff and myself did have a call last week with the attorney general.

We did let council know, we did talk a bit about our automatic license plate reader process policy and implementation along with city attorney Jones. And that seemed to be a very positive call. They want us to follow up after our Monday meeting. So we will do so and keep you informed there. I attended the Sacramento Valley Division of Cal League of Cities meeting and I offered to host the November meeting here in Chico. So that'll be a great opportunity for us to talk about all the great things happening here in the city. Looking forward to that. Also attended our HR department and our police department put on a really great pepper spray training for city staff, I was very impressed with that.

We not only got to be educated and hear a whole presentation, but they put up the targets and taught us how to actually use the sprayer, which I've never gotten to do. So I appreciate it for that. Our officer did a great job and I encourage anybody who hasn't done that to do that. So now I'm certified to carry it around the city hall campus. Did they spray you? Is that part of it? No, but we saw videos. You had to know what it's like before you're authorized to use it. No, no, no. We saw videos of it happening to other people though. In process, I'm good to just watch that. Next week, the mayor and I will be attending the California League of Cities Conference down in Anaheim, representing the city and learning the latest and greatest about what other cities are doing with complex challenges, such as those that we're dealing with here in Chico.

Unhoused and aging infrastructure and taxing and all of the things, economic development. So we will go and we will learn and we will bring back to you what we hear. Planning commission this Thursday, the 17th is gonna hear a whole set of residential readiness code updates and the zoning code. So that's an exciting time. If anybody in the public is interested in hearing about that, it's a lot of housing stuff forward from the housing element requirements. So we're moving forward and progressing on those areas. So that's great. And then one thing I did want to mention, it seems that each meeting we're getting about two or more council member requests and our agendas are getting very full. So from now towards the end of the year, we just added another one for the Vena item, but every meeting from here until the end of December is largely packed.

So we will, if we get anything new moving forward, be looking at a 60 to 90 day bring back instead of a 30, unless you choose to do a special meeting, extra meeting or go longer. But if we want to keep the agendas consistent and business moving, it will take a little bit longer. I know we have two items from the last meeting, the rent stabilization and the Tykert ponds. And we're looking at not being able to bring those until most likely December because of the very meaty agendas, which I'm happy to share with you all and have that conversation if necessary. Starting in the new year, I'm hopeful that we can get back on track again. It's just all those end of the year things like the caper and the sewer rates and the waste management.

And so all these really big ticket items are going to take some time and energy to get through. So just wanted to make you aware of that. And that concludes my report out. Thank you. All right, a council member request pursuant to APNP 1010, council members may verbally request an item to be agendized at a future meeting after stating what the item is. The majority of vote of council is needed in order for staff to agendize. Do we have any council member requests? Not me. Mark that one on the calendar. Council member Winslow. Yeah, I actually did. I mean, yeah, hearing that it does kind of like put it off, but I think I was thinking of something. So I think it's in something that maybe people would be agreeable to everybody.

And so it's been really nice weather out. It's fantastic time of year for doing things. And I got invited to a block party happening just down the street. And there was a band playing on a porch and there was people hanging out on the sidewalk in front of it. And then across the roadway, other people hanging out on the sidewalk and the green strip. And I asked them like, you know, why aren't you like in the roadway part of it? Because there's no, it's not used. Nobody's driving through there or anything. And they said, well, they didn't want to get a permit because then they'd be liable if somebody tripped on the curb or something. And made me think that we set a pretty, I went and checked out the process we have for a street closure.

It's preferable, they do close the street. It would make it more of a compact party. Also, we require barricades so that somebody couldn't drive through such a thing. And it's pretty low barrier things for somebody to hold a block party. And I want to encourage this sort of thing. So the discussion I want to have is about our requirements. It's chapter 14.50 of the Chico Municipal Code on street closures and the requirements we put for insurance and fees on very small block parties like that. So in short, you want to have a conversation about street closures? That's the motion is to have a discussion on street closures. Second, because we're not supposed to sell our motion. We just have to say what the motion is.

It's a little story. I appreciate it. I'm just trying to be even because I cut Tom off the other day too. Well, I wasn't invited to that party. So just kidding. It was on the street between our districts apparently. Joking around. I appreciate the sentiment. There's a motion and a second to agendize a discussion on street closures and the regulations surrounding that. Block parties. And block parties. Understandable. Okay. Council Member Goldstein. Excited to discuss this, yes. Council Member Hawley. Yes. Council Member O'Brien. I'm going to vote yes, but I think we need to be respectful to what the city manager just told us. So this is likely to be pushed off for many meetings, but I will vote yes at this point, but I think we need to be mindful of what she just told us.

Council Member Van Noverbeek. Yeah, again, I think we need to respect what the city manager requested and also we're coming up on winter. So there aren't going to be any block parties until spring. So we can put this off until January. You ever spent a winter here before? It's nice out. No, I just mean, I don't think it's something we need to resolve right now. So I'm going to vote no. I'm trying, Council Member Hawley. So, I'm sorry, was that a yes or no? Sorry, that was a no. Okay, thank you. Council Member Winslow. Yes. Vice Mayor Bennett. No. Mayor Reynolds. Aye. Carries five, two. Any other Council Member requests? Not trying to be mean and cutting you guys off. I'm just, the city attorney was nodding at me and I'm just reminding when we make our Council Member request, it's a very brief, short request of what we want to talk about and we're not supposed to sell why or why we are trying to do it.

So I'm just trying to enforce the rules. So that's it. Can I, you can, you've been joking all night. We've all been joking all night. Ms. Presson, I have that we're adjourning to our October session, but are we actually adjourning to the 21st? Yes. Okay, I was just wanting to make sure. Just go ahead and state that. Okay, so yes, we're adjourning to the 21st for the special meeting and we are going to have closed session on that day. It will either be at four or 4.30, time yet to be determined, regular meeting at six for that and then we'll be back on October 6th, so. All right, thank you very much, have a good evening. All right, thank you. Thank you.