City Council — March 3, 2026

Guys, it's a call to order of the regular City Council meeting. Tuesday March 3rd 2026 630 p.m. The clerk please call roll.

Council Member Ball?

Present.

Council Member Bridge?

Present.

Council Member Vega? Here. Mayor Pro Tem Dirk Starbuck?

Present.

Mayor James Mosby?

Let us pause together for a moment. God of wisdom, compassion and truth we thank you for this city and for the privilege of serving it. For its families and neighborhoods businesses and schools. For longtime residents and those just beginning to call this place home. Tonight we ask for wisdom for every leader here Public service requires clarity when issues are complex, courage when decisions are difficult and humility when perspectives differ.

May the conversations in this room be marked by respect and may every decision reflect a genuine desire for the well-being of the whole community. We also take time to lift up those who serve beyond this chamber. Our police officers, firefighters, our teachers and school staff, city employees, healthcare workers and volunteers grant them protection strength and encouragement in their work.

We pray for all our faith communities and service organizations of many traditions help us to continue building unity not through uniformity but through shared responsibility and mutual respect I'm reminded that leadership is ultimately about service, about seeking justice, loving mercy and walking humbly. May those values shape the tone and direction of this council meeting guide decisions made tonight? May they bring hope renewal instability to the city we care about so deeply.

We offer this in gratitude and unity. Amen

Presentation. Proclamation in honor of Women's History Month and Equal Pay Day.

How you doing? I'm

doing well.

It's been a year.

It's a long

one. Thank you guys. Whereas the National Women's History Month theme for 2026 is Leading the Change, Women Shaping a Sustainable Future. And whereas this year's theme celebrates women's critical roles in environmental, economic and social sustainability encompassing everything from green technology to community resilience and leadership Succession and whereas education has always been a powerful catalyst for change, and women have been at the forefront driving this transformation.

I know my mother was for sure that's for sure right? Whereas it is crucial to recognize the achievements and contribution of women educators, mentors and leaders to motivate all generations to pursue education and leadership roles. And whereas women have been instrumental in shaping societies, breaking barriers and building bridges yet continues to be paid less than their male counterparts. More than 60 years of passage of Equal Pay Act, women especially minority women continue to suffer the consequences of equal pay.

HR director that doesn't happen here right? Whereas four in ten mothers are primary breadwinners in the households and nearly two-thirds are primary or significant earners, making pay equity critical to families' economic security. Equal Pay Day 2026 marks the current state of gender pay gap for women, 81% of full time year round workers and 76% for all workers including part time and seasonal.

And whereas the Lompoc-Vanderbilt branch of the American Association of University Women is dedicated to fulfilling the mission of lifting up the lives of females through recognizing the importance of education, equal pay and by celebrating all the women educating and inspiring generations in our community. And throughout the United States and the world. And whereas, the City of Lompoc recognizes that there is a nationwide pay gap and is to be credited for its transparency in publishing the pay scale for city employees, and it stands with AAEW and others like organizations encouraging that the wage cap in all businesses and institutions in the city is closed across the board. And now therefore I, James Bosley, Mayor of the City of Lompoc California do hereby proclaim March 2026 as Women's History Month and this day, March 3rd, 2026 is Equal Pay Day in the City of Lompoc and recognize the work of American Association University of Women, Lompoc-Vandenberg Branch in improving the lives of females for 60 years and therefore strengthening Lompoc and society as a whole.

I witness it here too and have put my hand upon the seal of the city of Lompoc this third day of March 2026. Thank

you

guys.

Okay, so I've got my troops here. So thank you Mayor and members of City Council and members of the public very happy to be here My name is Dinah Perez Lockhart And I am the current president of the Association of American University Women Lompoc Vandenberg branch and on behalf of the branch we are honored to accept this proclamation as On behalf of all residents, and particularly women here in Lompoc. And recognition of March as Women's History Month and today as Equal Pay Day in Lompoc.

The AAUW has a very informative website. There are our initials there, just Google that. We have a number of reports on the web concerning women and girls. A very good study on our website is called The Not-So-Simple Truth About the Pay Gap. And I looked up some statistics for Lompoc's workforce, female workforce. And I learned that 59% of Lompoc women 16 years of age and older are in the labor force.

Some of those top industries that employ women in Lompoc are public administration, finance, insurance, real estate property management, transportation and warehousing. But I also learned a troubling statistic Working women in Lompoc earn a median income of $30,775 compared to $40,286 for men. What can we do to help achieve pay equity for women? A couple things. Access to affordable higher education by protecting Pell grants, work study and supporting income driven loan repayments and public service loan forgiveness.

Paid leave helps women and other caregivers to care for children recover from pregnancy and return to work protecting earnings and retirement security. Employers can perform pay equity audits to catch gaps by gender race and other factors Employers can post pay ranges, so there is no mystery on salaries. And I have to commend the City of Lompoc for doing just that.

And employers can also standardize pay and promotion decisions and train managers to make unbiased pay decisions and communicate them clearly. I want to thank the City Council of Lompoc and the Mayor in particular, and his staff. Thank you again for this important recognition on behalf of all working women and families in Lompoc.

All right. City Manager report.

Thank you, Mayor. I wanted to let everybody know that the annual Easter egg hunt is coming. It's a great event and it returns on Saturday April 4th. There will be a lot of egg hunts there and Let everybody know it's coming around. I also wanted to share with everybody that March, the lifeguard training is opening. Registrations will be cleared to receive the American Red Cross Lifeguard Certification. Those trainings will be March 13th through the 15th and Saturday, March 21st.

Finally, I'd like to encourage parents and caregivers to register their children for the spring break camp. This is a great event well planned out by the Parks and Rec Division Pre-registration is required. It's $45 a child, and the camp runs through April 5th through April 10th. And you get more information from Parks and Rec on that one. Got some stuff from the library. We're going to do a focus group Summer Reading Challenge Program. If you're interested in participating in that, it'll be Saturday March 7th at 930.

It's a good opportunity to give insight on what that program could look like for the next challenge. I also wanted to let everybody know that they'll be doing the annual Peeps Diorama Contest hosted at the library. Those who'd like to participate can drop off the dioramas made of peeps beginning Monday, March 16th to Lompoc Library. They'd like the inspirations to be either books, movies, TV shows or locations in Lompoc.

I also wanted to get everybody aware. We had some people run around saying that our water was terrible, and I don't agree with that. And I just wanted everybody to know we're aware of the scam. They're going around in the community. But if you are... You know, if it is a city employee, they will identify themselves. They'll carry identification. If they have questions or concerns regarding verification meter inspections or bills Don't hesitate to call the city because their safety is our priority.

I want to take a moment to recognize our urban forestry team while traveling between assignments, Donald Dubay and Gamero Orwin came upon a serious traffic collision and found themselves First on the scene, before emergency responders had arrived they quickly accessed a fire extinguisher and helped put the fires out so some of the vehicles that were catching on fire.

They helped the occupants get to safety and they were there until the EMS team got there. I just want to...EMS or EMT? Anyways, sorry. I wanted to thank them for their calm response and being just good professionals out in the community doing more than just a regular job. So, thank you guys and Urban Forestry. That's all I have.

You know one of the biggest questions I had people saw that post out there they said what were they doing on the way to Santa Maria? So maybe you could answer that one.

I've got a quick question while you're doing the manager's report.

rules affect the statewide analyses. The next slide here details the financial outcome for an individual homeowner in Lompoc under the 2025 state mandate. Under 2025 code, both a solar system and battery with an estimated upfront cost of $25,000 is included under this code cycle. This cost is typically financed within a 30-year mortgage, and for the purposes of this analysis I based it on an interest rate of 5%, which is pretty conservative considering current rates.

And so what we're seeing is a total cost to the homeowner over the loan period of close to $50,000. My analysis projects the total lifetime energy benefit or savings for that homeowner to be less than $9,000. So the problem with the state's policy is that the homeowners would not recoup the capital investment and it increases the upfront costs of new construction.

Slide three outlines the community-wide fiscal impacts of the state's mandate, which I've broken up into two main categories. The first is the impact on housing affordability. As analysis on the previous slide showed each new homeowner faces a net financial loss when we scale this to the 2,000 new homes anticipated in the general plan. The cumulative net cost imposed on these new residents totals approximately 78 million dollars That is real money that could otherwise be in our residents' pockets over the first 30 years of their home's life.

The second point addresses utility solvency. The addition of 2,000 solar homes means our utility loses the ability to sell energy at the retail rate. This lost sales margin would create an estimated $600,000 annual deficit for the Lompoc Electric Utility. So this structural deficit to cover the shortfall and to ensure the utility remains solvent, the city would be likely forced to take budgetary action such as cutting services or increasing electricity rates for all existing customers across the community just because new construction requires solar and a battery now.

This brings us to the proposed solution. And what I'd like to say before I talk about this is, this is just an example for you guys to consider during discussion before you give direction to staff on how you'd like us to proceed. So if this isn't something that you have an appetite for, I'm happy to go back to the drawing board and look at some other I am highlighting an opportunity to impose a defensible fee that is based on the actual tangible value the system provides to the utility.

And this is really important to note because we're in a unique position to own our own public utility where, unlike other communities where PG&E could benefit from having more solar, the citizens, the community actually does benefit from more solar as well. This value is the avoided wholesale cost, the money our utility saves by not having to buy power from the wholesale market.

As shown, this benefit amounts to approximately $776 per home per year. Now I want to explain how I got there. We use that annual saving to determine the system's total real value to the utility, which is the foundation of the proposed fee. Think of it like a lottery prize. You can choose to receive annual payments for 30 years or you can take a smaller single lump sum payout today. That lump sum is called the net present value In our case, the utility's annual prize is that $776 it saves each year. That savings occurs every year for a 30-year life of the solar system so the net present value of the 30-year stream of savings is approximately $12,000.

That $12 thousand dollars is the real value because it is the total upfront present day financial benefit the utility would gain from having that one solar system live on the grid. Now that would mean that the council could elect to have up to a $12,000 fee and justify that. However for the sake of this discussion I proposed as shown in step two a much more conservative fee of $950 per kilowatt about 25%.

This is for a typical three kilowatt system which would result in a final in lieu fee of about $2,800. So this proposed fee again is less than 25% of the typical system's calculated real value, making it more reasonable and defensible. It provides a more affordable compliance path and allows the city to still invest in the funds in local energy projects that can benefit all rate payers.

So based on the outcome of tonight's discussion, staff would be prepared to bring a draft petition to the California Energy Commission along with corresponding City Council resolution for your formal consideration at the first meeting in April. To draft such a petition and resolution effectively, staff requires the council's policy direction on just a few key items. Whether or not to petition the California Energy Commission regarding the cost-effectiveness conclusions in Lompoc, the in lieu fee structure, and then also if there is a desire for an in lieu fee how those funds would be used.

And that concludes my presentation. Thank you.

Any questions? Councillor Boehme.

Thank you for the presentation again, I think in general terms I'm understanding if we have a lot of new houses with solar that's going to take away revenue from our public utility and that might fall on rates going up on everyone else that just got older houses that doesn't necessarily have the mandate. Is that fair?

That's one component of it. The other and more significant component to it is that the state cost-effectiveness study, which is specific to individual solar systems for individual homeowners doesn't seem to apply in the City of Lompoc because of the unique nature of the public utility and the lower rates and the current rate structure. So there's two components for the council to consider. There is how it impacts new construction, but also how it impacts the community at large because we are the beneficiaries of the public utility as well.

Thank you for that. And then just second question, I'm always curious because I hate it if we have to reinvent the wheel there has to be some other cities not many but have their own public utility or are there some is there any precedent for any of this? Are there examples? Are other cities fighting the same fight or trying to figure out how to circumvent the mandate?

Yeah, so the first time going back to the Energy Commission's records it looks like the 2019 code cycle there were several cities that petitioned and only one of them actually made it through. There are a couple of individual projects that petitioned as well and those were approved but But right now, I'm just seeing it's the Trinity Public Utility District. I've spoken to their manager who has talked to me about the process.

Their situation is a little bit different than what we have. They just have access to very low energy costs where here we are our own public utility so I think that there's actually a smoother policy pathway for us to still achieve the Energy Commission's intended goals while also creating more cost-effective approach for our builders.

Thank you for that. I guess my only other suggestion is as soon as we can really, and you've done a great job here but again, as we simplify it and are able to talk to some of our regional leaders in the Assembly and the State Senate, again notifying them that this might create a pretty big inequity for some of our citizens if we don't have the ability to be flexible with that mandate. So thank you for your presentation. Yeah, thank you.

Council Member Vega?

Hi. You mentioned an interesting thing because you have the 2020 mandate for all new construction here. We don't have a rate structure that even allows them a benefit, so it seems like we're not even that close to having a program because of the loss of revenue Based on kilowatt hour. So the benefit to the new construction people because they buy a home already with solar installed, you take away the factor of their investment I'm not sure where we're going with this. I can see why Lompoc is known as non-solar compliant because of the rate structure So it seems to me that we would have to build a rate structure that would have a benefit to solar and somehow be subsidized through the state or something for this, for the energy. You know? It seems like so it's not a total loss.

So I'm not sure if you have any comments on the new construction and what's going to happen or what happens with the new construction that's already here, that's already solar retrofitted If you were to buy a new home here with solar retrofitting, how would it affect you?

Yeah. Great questions. I'll do my best to hit as many of the points but please feel free to chime in if I'm getting off here. The beginning in 2019, which the code became effective in 2020. All new construction was required to all new single family residents were required to install solar along with the new construction And in 2025, they added a energy storage system mandate along with that. The justification from the state for a new code like that is that they were able to demonstrate through cost-effectiveness studies which were at large throughout the state.

I've worked on some energy policies with other jurisdictions and they thread a very fine needle to justify cost effectiveness And in Lompoc, where we already have very low rates compared to a PG&E or Southern and Edison. Those studies are actually pretty easy for us to demonstrate to the state that the numbers don't work out for our residents. The one thing that I would be concerned with in this policy or submitting it to the state is that their cost-effectiveness study, again threading that very thin needle, is only based on solar and it's based on a specific size system in a certain area.

And so In fact, in new construction there would still be the requirement of solar readiness and so they would still have all of the conduit in place as well as spaces within the breaker panels to still install that pretty easily to retrofit it. So I think the bottom line here is there's no benefit for anyone in Lompoc

to use their solar as what you just said monetarily. Cost structure. We don't have a way of subsidizing anybody that goes on solar, so basically it's not a good investment for someone to do that here. It's there as a mandate, so you're saying if we get the mandate waived for the new construction, it lets somebody off the hook? I'm not sure if it's the builder or whatever.

You know they probably still have to install it But I'm not sure what you meant by the waiver, you know, of not installing solar in the homes. Okay? So that people don't feel a little bit like they've been taken for a ride so to speak because you buy a benefit but there's no benefit except for to know that you're using solar.

That's right. Thank you.

I think the solar would come to play to benefit once people get to Tier 3 power usage, but in Lompoc generally speaking our average is around the Tier 1 which is the cheapest rates. It doesn't really come to benefit until you become up at the highest level which does meet the threshold of mandates for development. I agree with your tier 3

Could you go back a slide or two where you made a statement I want to understand? It was about one more. I heard a statement in there about our rates being negatively structured. You didn't use those words, but you had a reason in the paragraph. Maybe it was one more slide back. Can't be that one then, huh? I think what you were referring to is the fact It's kind of like the tax on mileage because the EV cars are not paying for the infrastructure. So we have a fairly large component of infrastructure rate built into our variable rate We recently, I thought, put in a $5 flat fee for a meter.

And what wasn't clear to me, I'm sure it was made clear but I don't remember asking the right questions, was that $5 flat fee does that end up reducing our Distribution fee, I think that's more than 50% of our fee is distribution if I'm not mistaken. So did the flat $5 meter fee reduce that or did we just add that on top?

The $5 fee lessened the, I think there was no increase the first year because we've had small increases I think it stayed the same. So

it stayed the same distribution fee, but in the future maybe it reduces the distribution fee. Is that what you're telling me?

Initially I believe it lowered the distribution fee but there are scheduled increases to the distribution fees so I'm not, I think it's lower than it would have been though.

Okay, so if we send you back for another analysis It would seem if you took that $5 to, I'll just throw a number out, 20 bucks and did away with the distribution fee. I'm not sure it has any impact on that but I believe it does have impact on motivation for people to retrofit their solar on their home and it would essentially be a wash to the city which is, I'm not opposed to what you're trying to do. It seems like a very high hill to climb but another way to accomplish what we're trying to do there is to change that variable distribution fee to a flat fee that would cover the infrastructure and then if people put in solar they would get a return on investment so that's the only comment I have on that

Let me come back to Councilor McGehan.

Sorry, I cut you off for a second. It's okay. So basically the direction that we could give as part of the council since it doesn't make cost-effective sense here is the mandate that you referenced a waiver from the state. Has that already been applied for or is that what the direction is you're looking for tonight? That we apply for a waiver for new construction for the City of Lompoc or is that a statewide thing?

That's the direction we're seeking tonight from the

council. Okay, I just wanted to clarify for everybody because going back and forth and it's not cost effective And I don't think we're looking to raise rates So I think I just wanted to clarify for us so we stay on the same page We're not rattling on all night about something different. So why don't we stay focused and maybe After public comment, maybe give good directions. That's why I had to ask him. Okay guys. Thank you

Councilmember Boehl

So just knowing that it could turn out really bad for ratepayers in a worst case scenario for Lompoc, I have no problem with proposing to the state to allow us to maintain some flexibility. As a suggestion we might you know their general good intentioned idea might be to have more green energy and benefit from those things. No argument there for me but maybe we can remind them that we are part of NCPA and they do have a pretty balanced Thank you.

They're right in the middle of building out Riverview Terrace. I was curious, can you tell me how does this play into what they're required to do? What are they building on the ground here with regard to that mandate?

It would be my understanding that it would only be applicable to houses built under the 2025 code and river terraces being built under the 2022 code. There are some differences in the code, in the mandates. under the 2022 code, which is where the bulk of the cost actually comes from. I did survey and ask them about how much those systems cost and being able to do it at scale they can get a solar system in there between $8,000-$9,000 a new home. And so that is right around 30 year payoff for those homeowners. So they're right at break even

Awesome. And again, I'm not sure this is the question and maybe come back with a little bit more clarity on it but as Council remembers and again there's no argument here but just a meeting or two ago they were telling us hey be prepared be prepared the load is going to go up quite a bit because of all the demand that's mandated from the state in terms of new electric cars and electrification you mentioned tier 3 which I think 37 cents kilowatt for the city And right now, you know we're staying low but we've also been told that the demand is going to go through the roof. So I guess I'd be curious to know like okay with that separate mandate where we're going to electrify everything does that change this equation's balance at all down the road?

Meaning more people are closer to paying tier 2 and tier 3 rates just because of their total consumption. Thank

you, Mr. Chair.

No, we just had a gentleman last time talked to us about updating our you know our infrastructure for our electrical department meaning we need a second substation. We are going to have a much bigger power draw because more people have to plug things in and change their stoves and water heaters and so forth have to be So, just considering that we've been told that the demand is going to go up and there's projections for that. I would just be curious like well with that separate mandate and with this one does that change some of that penciling out down the road?

But again, I'm not sure that's something you can answer right now. Just know I'm kind of curious. Yeah.

Sure, I've got a few statements here. About a year and a half ago, two years ago there was a case that was moving through the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding restaurant associations versus the City of Berkeley who actually did have an electrification mandate for their city And the Court of Appeals came back and stated that was actually illegal, and that they could not mandate full electric in all new development. Based on EPA standards from like the 70s.

I did check in with the Public Utilities Department about future demand and it's my understanding that there is enough demand for what we are currently projecting, but I would defer those questions.

Hi, thank you for having me here. Stephen Valle, I'm our Electric Regulatory Compliance Coordinator. Yeah so I think it's kind of interesting being a California electric utility where we're up against increasing loads and we're also up against a pretty steadfast renewable energy portfolio requirement. That's actually 60% by 2030, which is right around the corner.

So the past few years we've done great because a while ago, I want to say maybe a decade or more than that ago, we purchased a lot of renewable energy certificates in the open market for the cap and trade program, now cap and invest. We are in a position now where last year we just used the rest of those Thank you, Mr. Chairman. pay quite a bit, probably an equal amount as what the generation is for the transmission just to bring that power here. So I think this is a way that we can leverage this and have an economies of scale kind of situation where we have localized renewables in our portfolio somewhere localized. That's all I can go for right now.

Yeah, I think we have some we do have a letter. I would say the state is pretty stringent on their electrification measures and goals They do have some you know phases out So I believe in a couple years you won't be able to get a gas water heater You know, we have electric vehicle mandates which right now is a really weird time also everything's kind of in flux but People in the market is shifting that way. A little slower lately, but it's still a shift so we do still see more homes than before with electric vehicles and electrified appliances. Electric appliances are pretty efficient as well so that's definitely a component too that people are looking at.

You know, at the end of the day I think we'll be able to provide and that's what Lompoc has done over you know the past decades is we provided a service at a great rate. At a good cost and that's part of our argument is to say we have a really great way that we can save on cost instead of having the dollars go outside of Lompoc. We also have this means of keeping it local so yeah I hope that answered.

If I could just add one more thing, so really two parts to this tonight. One is of course the petition to the state and your guidance on whether staff should pursue that. That would have to come back to the council for your approval it'd be actually approved through a resolution but then also and to your point Council Member Ball There is an opportunity to also still retain or get some of that benefit through an in lieu fee structure. And so if there was an in lieu fee imposed, such as the $950 a kilowatt, the developer would still be paying that at the start of construction which would then get turned over, of course, to the new homeowner. They would be paying for it. So it would be an upfront cost to the public utility by buying a house here.

And then what we do with that money or how it is spent for the better of the community would be at your discretion as well.

That's very helpful from both of you, thank you very much. I'll probably have some follow-up questions just to learn a little bit more but I think it's important for us to avoid accidentally setting up a system where we didn't get a waiver, You know, the state to understand how unique we are with our public utility. And a lot of folks in this isn't a rich town see the rates go through the roof but I do like this idea and again, I'm curious as soon as you get kind of a green light or some hesitation about whether they'll accept that proposal but I think what you presented is pretty solid and I'd support it for sure. Yeah.

Let me open this up to public comment If you want to talk about this item, just this one.

Good evening Mayor, City Council, Karen Hauenstein. So this green energy bunk is not cost effective at all It's cost us a lot, it's continuing to do so. I think it's one of the major reasons why we very well may have a regime change at the highest levels of our state government soon because it's failed. We've basically traded at the federal level any monies that could have come in to help us Increase the safety in our community by getting our bridges that we need, bringing the commuter traffic into Lompoc. We traded that through salad carbohol for the wind farm out in Miguelito Canyon which was a horrendous graft money suck, money wash Almost as bad as the cartel money washes, which are horrible and still going on today.

The state of California bailed out PG&E in 2019 after they filed for bankruptcy after the fires The state of California and PG&E has a nepotistic relationship, especially with relation to this green energy bunk that they've fed all of us that we're paying for. It's going to continue costing us. So when you consider the issue of solar on people's houses remember The Lompoc utility does not have this relationship with the state of California that PG&E does.