UnGovr Transcript
iHow this transcript is madeUnGovr transcribes the official recording with automated speech-to-text, separates speakers by voice, and matches voices to the seated roster. Names and attributions are AI estimates and may contain errors.Verify any quote yourself: click anywhere in the transcript and the official video jumps to that exact moment, so you can check any quote against the recording.0:00 – 0:076 turns
632, welcome to the Lompoc City Council Tuesday April 21st regular city council meeting. Roll call please.
Roll call, called by City Clerk
Show transcript
We trust that you are always present God, and so your blessings are always present. As the rain falls on the land would you pour out your Spirit on us? We ask that you fill this room today and the people in it. Guide us and lead us, inspire us and convict us. Give us both creativity and wisdom, grace and truth, compassion and justice. Tonight we lift up the business of this meeting and the needs of our community. We pray for your kingdom to come, and your will to be done. We pray for teachers and nurses, for first responders and counselors, business owners and utility workers, coaches and city councilors.
We ask that you protect our city and those who serve it, that you build and strengthen our community, and that you enable us to care for our people and steward our resources well. God give rest to the weary and hope to the despairing healing to the sick We lift up people who feel trapped, or lonely, or afraid. Bring peace and hope. Protect us from all evil.
And may we and our city be known for love, integrity, and unity. We trust ourselves in this meeting to you knowing that your light is greater than any darkness. And we thank you. Amen. Please remain
standing until we have the Pledge of Allegiance. Ready? Begin.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for
all. Those that have done so Those who haven't done so, a reminder to silence your cell phones. Presentations, I did get a presentation on April 11th. I have an honor to do two more tonight. One is Child Abuse and Sexual Awareness Prevention Month, so if they want to join me at the podium Okay, so presenting to Sabrina Associate Director of North County Rape Crisis. All right. Thank you So proclamation for child abuse and sexual assault awareness and prevention month Whereas child abuse and sexual assault are serious community conditions that affect the health, safety and well-being of all residents. And addressing these issues requires active involvement from individuals and organizations throughout the community. And whereas people of all racial, cultural and economic backgrounds are impacted by sexual violence which is widespread and affects every segment of this community.
And rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment cause lasting harm as statistics show that child abuse, child sexual abuse prevention must be a priority as one in six boys and one of four girls will experience sexual abuse before the age of 18. And whereas Child Welfare Services received 3,927 cases for investigation In North County, including 1116 cases in Lompoc area and 47 unique allegations of sexual abuse investigated. And whereas the emotional and physical scars resulting from sexual violence and child abuse are often long lasting. And whereas working together to educate the community about prevention Support survivors and speak out against harmful attitudes and behaviors is critically important, and whereas effective child abuse prevention programs and sexual assault awareness and prevention education succeed through partnership among social service agencies, schools Youth organizations, faith-based organizations, civic groups, law enforcement agencies, the business community and residents.
And whereas prevention is possible when everyone is engaged through increased education awareness and community involvement while recognizing the compassion and dedication of those working in prevention and response efforts and acknowledging the challenges faced by victims and survivors of sexual violence and child abuse as well as The impact of their families and loved ones. Now therefore I, James Mosby, Mayor of City of Lompoc do hereby proclaim April 2026 as Sexual Assault and Child Abuse Awareness Prevention Month. And the City of Lompoc can call upon all citizens, community agencies, law enforcement, faith-based organizations, medical facilities, and businesses to increase awareness of efforts to prevent child abuse and sexual violence, to learn the myths and facts surrounding sexual assault, and to work together to strengthen the safety and well-being of our community.
0:07 – 0:111 turns
Good evening Mayor Mosby and members of the City Council. My name is Sabrina Ross, I'm the Associate Director of the North County Rape Crisis and Child Protection Center Thank you for recognizing and honoring our work with these proclamations, recognizing Sexual Assault Awareness Month and Child Abuse Prevention Month. I am grateful that the City of Lompoc stands with us in our mission to eradicate all forms of sexual violence and child abuse.
As we mark the significance of the month of April let us remember that education is the key to prevention. I can say with confidence that each of us in this room would rather prevent child abuse or sexual assault from ever occurring than having to intervene in the aftermath of such a heinous crime. This is why our outreach and educational programs are so critical, and why our partnerships with schools, city leadership, and law enforcement are essential.
The children in our communities deserve to be safe and to grow up knowing they can live free from abuse, and those who have been or are being abused know they are not alone and there are people who will help them. Last month I had the privilege of assisting a survivor of child sexual abuse prepare his victim impact statement for the sentencing of his abuser.
He started counseling with me when he was 12, and he is now 16. As he was dictating his statement for me to type up, I asked him, when did you realize what happened to you as abuse? And why did you decide to speak up? This survivor was abused at an age so young that he didn't understand what was happening to him was abuse. He said to me, when I was in seventh grade some ladies came into my class and talked about sexual assault and how to say no and who to talk to if something happened to you.
After that presentation I was thinking about telling my mom and I eventually did. He told his mom who contacted law enforcement He was interviewed by Officer Justice from the Lompoc Police Department, and a second victim came forward. The District Attorney's Office prosecuted that case with DDA Jordan Lockey working diligently to hold this abuser accountable and after nearly four years reached a plea deal that resulted in a 24-year prison sentence.
What began with the center's child-safe educational program at Vandenberg Middle School continued with the courage of a survivor, the compassion and kindness of an officer, the commitment of the district attorney's office to justice, and ultimately ended with prevention because that perpetrator will never hurt another child again. When people ask me where I work, their response is often, I didn't know there was a rape crisis center here.
To which I gently reply, most people do not know that we exist until they need us. And while I would never wish upon any individual or family that they become in need of our services, it is deeply important that people know we are here and that is where you come in. Proclamations like this evening's may feel like a routine part of City Council meetings, but these and the support you provide our agency is incredibly valuable to our work in the community we serve because we cannot do this alone.
The story I shared with you would not have been possible if we didn't have the support of city leaders, if we didn't have the community donors that fund our educational and counseling programs If we didn't have strong partnerships with law enforcement and the district attorney's office, it took a village and everyone here is part of that village. As a survivor of childhood sexual abuse I wish I'd had this kind of village. Much like my client, I didn't truly understand what happened to me until I was in my teens and I felt very alone trying to process that experience and those memories well into adulthood While I am not the reason our educational efforts are so important, my own experience is what fuels me every single day.
Every child deserves safety and when they aren't safe they deserve to know that help is available. No child
Agenda Discussionitems moved / continued / pulled, click to expand
and no adult should ever have to suffer in silence as we continue this fight against sexual violence and child abuse. We need you our city leaders to be our ambassadors to carry the message that education and awareness are not optional. They are vital to building a safe and healthy community Mayor Mosby and members of the City Council, thank you for your ongoing commitment to the safety of your city. And thank you again for this honor and for being our steadfast partners in this work.
I would also like to take a brief moment because this may be my last chance in a public forum with her present to recognize the Center's Executive Director Anne McCarty who will be retiring at the end of June this year. That's 51 working days for anyone keeping track. And it's not just our Executive Director, she is a Lompoc resident for over 30 years who raised her children here and has been consistently dedicated to this community from her start at the Rape Crisis Center 32 years ago, her commitment to the Vandenberg Village Line's various causes, her 22 years with the Every 15 Minutes program and the leadership and mentorship she has provided to countless others within the community who have gone on to become leaders themselves.
She was recognized as Lompoc Woman of the Year in 2018 by the Chamber of Commerce, and this year was recognized by Senator Monique Lamone as a recipient of Woman of the Year and has been nominated by VALOR, the state anti-sexual assault coalition to receive the Visionary Voice Award which will be presented to her at the statewide conference in August. As a Lompoc community member, and I think I speak for many others, I want to say thank you for everything you and your family have given to this city. This has not gone unnoticed and will not be soon forgotten.
Ann,
do you want to come up and say something? You sure? Okay. Thank you for your long years of service. Do I have anybody from Arbor Day? Urban Forestry is not here, are they? Who's here for Arbor Day proclamation? You want the Arbor Day proclamation, Craig? Not quite as spectacular as yours, but trees are important. Yeah. So Arbor Day 2026, whereas Arbor day is a day dedicated to trees and their preservation, whereas tree provide quality living environment, enhance the social cultural sensory and economic dimensions of our city. That's a good one. Economic dimensions right?
And whereas we must ensure the future of our urban forests and for ourselves as well as our children, and all future generations. And whereas the City of Lompoc in partnership with its citizens on Lompoc Beautification Commission encourages all residents of the city and valley to observe Arbor Day by planting a tree on their property or taking advantage of the city's ongoing tree planting program. Now therefore I, James Moseley, Mayor of the City of Lompoc, California do hereby recognize Saturday April 18th 2026 as Arbitrary Day in the City of Lompoc and urge our citizens to plant trees in new places and replace lost trees so that the entire Lompoc Valley will continue to be a valley of distinction and beauty.
Want to talk about? How did we get a tree?
Our urban forestry staff are happy to provide trees for this event, so they have their contact info on the website. Please feel free to contact them. I believe they also are doing a mulch giveaway at the corporate yard. They're giving away some other stuff over there. I don't remember all the details but I believe we have a press release on our website about it.
Thank you.
Go on the website and check it out! All right thank you Craig here you go All right, another presentation. Lompoc Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Bureau to provide a presentation on its annual report. Come on down.
Good evening Mayor Mosby and Council Members. I'm Melanie Lindley from the Chamber of Commerce. And provided some slides for you. I apologize that they are the before and not the after when we had to provide them the after was not completed yet. So what you're looking at is our website update if those of you who remember visiting our website remember broken links grammar errors Just overall, an outdated website. And part of the contract was that we would keep our website up to date and that we would provide really a website that was useful to the community and business members.
We have since done that. In the last month, we created a modern website that is mobile-friendly and that is a better experience overall for the community, for tourism, and especially for our business members So that they can actually get their information out there and hopefully that we all can utilize as a tool to provide that value. So that is what the old website looked like, and now we have a much more updated website that I encourage everybody to take a look at. If you find any issues with it, you can reach out to me and we can update it immediately.
This is the member management software before. It is also not the most user-friendly, we had noticed that their communications were not getting to members. We were having major issues. We had one week in particular where the whole system went down so we have also upgraded that completely. We are with a new provider and we have been extremely happy with them all communications are going through and It gives us immediate feedback for the communications with our membership and has been overall a very good tool for us to work with the business community. So that is the before, and again, the upgraded looks a lot better and is a much better system for our members so far. The feedback has been really positive.
So again, sorry that's all we have as the before picture but there is a much better looking one that is helpful. And then the physical move, the most obvious that everybody has pointed out. We are no longer on I Street in the old building. We're right there on each street. I encourage everybody to stop by and say hi, take a look. We would welcome anyone to come say hello.
It has increased foot traffic. We have had a lot of visitors from anywhere from Canada just locals stopping in to say hello and check it out and find out what's been going on. People who thought we'd been closed honestly for a very long time. We are there every day from eight to four, sometimes five. Honestly we don't actually get out of the building in time but it's been a great experience. We've spoken with a lot of people. They're excited we're back. They're excited we're here.
They have a lot of questions. They want to know what businesses to use. I have a broken heater, who do I go see? And we can pull that right up on our systems and communicate with people right there in the office. We have a reception desk and we have our desks there. I can hear somebody open that door from all the way in the back of the room. I don't have to come running downstairs.
For those of us with a little bit of mobility challenge it's really nice. So the new location has really proven positive for us Membership, we are seeing increased memberships drastically. These numbers are already better than they were when I created these slides. People are joining every day. I had another new member between the time I left work today and the time I got here. We're not seeing drops as we were. We were seeing cancellations pretty drastically.
So memberships are up and we are retaining those businesses. We are having monthly luncheons or mixers, but those are great opportunities for us to get together and really engage with other business community members. They're open to members and non-members alike so that we can really get people engaged in making those connections. And so far they've been a really great opportunity. I've seen businesses connect with other business owners in the community and find ways that they can work Additionally, we are working with the base quite closely to try and figure out how we all can work together.
And those are also good opportunities. We have got Old Town Market on the books. We are applying for permits. We have our themes set. We are starting to schedule and work on the annual banquet, The State of the City. We just had our first quarterly awards for Vandenberg And we are collecting donations and working on the annual awards as well. That's pretty much all I have, if there are any questions?
Anybody got questions? You can't get off that easy!
I was really hoping I would though sir.
0:21 – 0:3026 turns
Well, is this your first presentation? It is, isn't it? It is. Yeah. To us at Council, we appreciate that and congrats on the move. That's going to save you significant money as well, correct?
Yes, yes
sir. And good to hear the membership turnaround is changing. What was that in your circle up there you had on the pie chart you had a...
On the right, yeah.
So what's a courtesy?
So the courtesy members, what we found and these were the numbers that we were looking at when I've been there three months and a week. We had a lot of memberships that were considered courtesy members so those numbers show all of the people that were on our books as members they enjoyed the membership benefits but they were not paying membership dues
Are you turning that around? Are they paying? I mean, you guys
are trying to survive, right? So they are no longer considered members. We have those lists. We are reaching out to those members individually to find out if they still would like to be considered members. But at this point, they will not be receiving membership benefits for free. We cannot continue to operate on the budget margins we have without receiving membership dues.
That's kind of hard when you have a 60% free membership and 40% paying. That's not really the Chamber of Commerce, is that? It's a different chamber.
There are ways to stay included and involved. We have our newsletters. We have our social medias. I would continue to do that but as far as the full membership benefits no. I can't continue to do courtesy memberships in that way.
Very good looking forward to working with you and seeing you at Old Town and State of
I'm filling in for City Manager Dean Alvaro at this meeting, so let's see how I do.
Looking good. Thank you. First off, we're excited to announce that the Summer Park and Recreation brochure is now available. The brochure can be viewed online or in person at the Anderson Rec Center so take a moment to browse the brochure and register for a multitude of upcoming summer programs. And then we also wanted to remind everyone that the annual Parks and Rec and Kiwanis Club's Track and Field Championship is coming up this Saturday, April 26. The event takes place at Lompoc High School's Huck Stadium with check-in beginning at 8 and the events will run from 9 to 3 p.m.
The events include sprints, distance runs and field events so this is a wonderful community tradition and we invite everybody to come cheer on Lompoc's athletes Next we have the City Building and Safety
Division. You said Saturday, did you mean Sunday?
I'm sorry, let me see. It's actually Sunday, April 26th. I apologize. Yes, Sunday. So that's Sunday from 9 to 3 with check-in at 8 o'clock. Thank you Council Member Bridge. Next facility, the city's building and safety division is hosting a developers roundtable meeting. So recently the city hired a new building official Michael Lowe and on May 6th 2026 at 1130 AM here in the council chamber, Mike will be providing a brief presentation on some recent business process improvements and ask for feedback on other areas to focus And we ask that the contractors please contact the building department with any additional questions and to RSVP.
Next, we have the community development department and the city are kicking off the 2050 general plan update. This is a series of community workshops that will be held together public input. The first workshop will be held next Monday April 27th here in City Chambers. The workshop is an open house format And residents are invited to stop in between 630 and 830 to share what they love about Lompoc, what could be improved and what they envision for the city's future.
We're looking forward to some engaging public comments so please join us. Next, Transit and Earth Day. Celebrate Earth Day with City of Lompoc Transportation. So we're excited to announce that along with regional partners SPCAG, Clean Air Express, San Ynez Valley Express and others, rides are free tomorrow Wednesday April 22nd for Earth Day We encourage you to take advantage of this great opportunity to use this fantastic public transit We wanted to take a minute to recognize our library and library staff during National Library Week. National Library Week is an annual celebration that highlights the important roles of libraries and library professionals. The celebration also recognizes the importance of, the value and strengths that libraries bring to our communities.
Thank you to the Lompoc library staff for their dedication to the library not only this week but always. Next, the Lompoc Police Department and the Parks and Rec. Division will be hosting a Senior Scam Awareness presentation. All community members are invited to attend this presentation on Tuesday April 28th at the Dick Dewey Community and Senior Center. The police department will be covering common scams that frequently target senior citizens. This presentation will be held at 1030 a.m.. I think that's a really important presentation for us to make our community aware of scams that are going on right now. And then finally we have a joint special meeting request so we'd like to put forward a request for a joint special meeting with the City Council and the Planning Commission.
We're proposing that the meeting be held on Tuesday July 14th at 6 30 p.m. and it will be the biannual joint meeting and workshop And the 2020, the 2050 general plan update will be discussed. So if the council is amenable to that we would like to request that we reserve July 14th at 630 p.m. for the joint meeting and that's all I have. Anybody?
July 14th? Thumbs up? Yeah? Yes? Mayor Vega? Hot date that night, can't make it? It's fine. So I've got a couple of quick questions and it was just some statements were made, I just wanted some clarification. You're in the hot seat. I'll do my best. Yeah, I know you will. So at the last Public Safety Commission meeting there was concerns about the police department being able to enforce municipal code.
Is there something that we need to do? Or is there something you can explain as to... Mainly there were two municipal codes that are kind of unable to enforce. One was the RV ordinance and the other was bicycles on the sidewalks. Is there something you can fill in on what's going on?
You know, I'm not aware of that. And then municipal codes are the code that the city has and they are enforceable so I can work with our police department to get some clarification on that. I know the council did adopt an RV ordinance in a parking ordinance. So I don't have the information on it but I will work with our chief and our police department on those two ordinances.
And maybe if there's something we need to do maybe we need to go out I'll follow up with that. City Manager
Alvaro when he returns as
well. Another statement I had a question about, and that's the towing service agreement which we as a council have asked for review. And I understand it was said at that meeting that the new TSA was signed already by the police department and I'm not sure how that happened. Is that an agreement that needs to go through the council or is that just bypasses the council?
Maybe some clarification on what happened? City attorney.
I'm not aware of the exact circumstances, but it's an agreement of the city with a vendor so it should come through the council if it's over a certain dollar amount.
Okay maybe we could get a follow-up on what's going on with TSA? We'll put
that on the
list to follow
up with City Manager Alvaro.
Thank you anybody else have any other questions?
0:30 – 0:377 turns
All
right, good job. Thank you Mayor, thank you members of the council. So we move on to public comment on consent calendar and we've got a consent calendar I can see everybody's excited about this one
Mayor, before we get started on the consent calendar, I wanted to state for the record that Council Member Starbuck needs to recuse himself from all of the checks in item number two that are related to the Lompoc Valley Chamber of Commerce. That is because the Lompoc Valley Chamber of Commerce is a source of income to Council Member Starbuck. So he does not need to leave the room because it's a consent calendar item. But any of the checks that are in Item No. 2, he will recuse himself from tonight.
All right, so again public comment on consent calendar. I'll read the consent calendar items into the record We have number one which is the approval of the minutes of the Lompoc City Council meeting for February 3rd 2026 Approval and ratification of expenditures for payroll March 13th 2026 for 2.135 million And a payroll of March 27th 2026 of 2.184 million And we have a voucher register of March 16th to the 20th, 2026 at 1.541 million and a voucher register for March 23rd, 27, 2026 of 2.09 million.
Number three is adoption of resolution number 6809 parentheses 26 approving amendment number two to the Lompoc Police Officers Association MOU 2025-2027 to ensure compliance with CalPERS requirements. Number four is approve second amendment to agreement with Bureau Veritas North America, incorporate for plant checks and inspection services. Authorize the city manager to sign the agreement and authorize the purchasing of materials manager issue a purchase order. Number five is approval of change order requests to purchase order with SWT engineering for landfill gas remediation project And number six is the approval of change order request to purchase order with Ingle and Gray Incorporated for organics hauling and processing service.
And number seven is approval of additional national opioid settlements with six regional distributors, dispensers associated with Pharmacies Incorporated, J.M. Smith Corporation Louisiana Wholesale Drug Company Incorporated, Morrison Dixon Company North Carolina Mutual Wholesale Drug Company Incorporated and United National Natural Foods Incorporated adoption of resolution number 6810, parentheses 26 authorizing the city manager to execute the settlement documents.
And number eight is consideration of modifying the wastewater winter averaging calculation method for calculating wastewater charges schedule a notice of public hearing for July 24th, 2026 for proposed modifications to the wastewater winter averaging calculation method in accordance with Prop 218 Again, public comment. Do any council members wish to pull any items? I wish to pull item number eight.
And you want item number four or did you have a quick question or... Okay, you're gonna pull item number four? Very good. So items that are pulled by the Council will be addressed immediately before the second oral communications near the end of the meeting. So item four we'll pull. I had a couple quick questions before I look for the motion of approval. So, is Steve Clark? Yes. Steve Clark.
I'll just run it through the... I'm good you don't think you need on this one. My question to the acting city manager is When items are related to utilities, I think it'd be appropriate that we run these by the Utility Commission and just to reach out that we do that. It's good to do a trial run. I know Mr. Cross did that with item number eight and it's good for the public to see that in review but I think it's important to get it. The commission disappeared for awhile. We need to get Luke back together. Gives you an opportunity as well As the Solid Waste Regulatory Complaints Supervisor, I know they'd like to hear what you've got to say. It would be great to go to the commission and express what's going on.
Maybe number six, you could answer a quick question on item number six that I had? So if you could come to the podium for that one, I'm sorry. In item number six, this is your first time at the podium for us isn't it?
Yeah. With this group correct.
Good. Welcome. Thank you. So I guess my question is we have a purchase order and we're hauling compost. Is there any way that we could do something locally? We're spending a lot of money conserving and saving the environment hauling product Somewhere else. Is it more efficient or is there just nobody local we can put this together with?
Yeah, correct. England Gray is essentially the closest composter to the landfill. We went out with an RFP back in 2018 and kind of surveyed the lay of the land and they came out on top. They are the closest facility to us, and are able to compost and process the green waste in compliance with SB 1383. And they came out to be the most responsive bidder during that process.
So this request is to get us funding through July while we work through another RFP process to get back into a long-term agreement
0:37 – 0:4412 turns
Yeah it's going up to $300,000 to transport compost. Right?
Yeah and that's partly because we get in so much green waste of food scraps into the landfill And with the additional efforts of Accepting Food Scraps, that's brought those volumes up a little bit. The other reason why this year I think it's been a little bit more expensive is because we grind the mixture of the green waste and the food scraps up at the landfill and the grinder is getting up there in age And so there are like some months, maybe two to three months, four months sometimes where the grinder's down.
And so for this fiscal year we were actually grinding the stockpile from a good chunk of the previous fiscal year. So that's why these expenditures are a little bit higher than in previous fiscal years.
So doing a little catch up?
Yeah.
OK. Anybody else have any questions for that? No? Thank you. Please come on down to the Utility Commission, talk about some composting or something and they'll look at the compliance components that you have to go through and everything you're having to do. I don't have any more questions for you. I do have a quick one for Gabe. It's item number three. The reason why we're doing all these changes, but it's no cost is?
There's no cost to it because that's in the MOU already. What it is, is it's the language that we need to have in the MOU that puts us in compliance with CalPERS and the Public Employees Retirement Law. So it just language changes so that it conforms to their compliance requirements. So there's no change to any of the benefits that are already in the MOU.
Thank you for that. All right, motion for the remainder was items four and eight.
Councilor Ivega what do you got? I'll make a motion that we accept consent calendar with the exception of item number four which will bring back.
Four and eight. Four and eight okay. Seconded first by Vega seconded by Ball let's go ahead vote. Not voted. Was that me? Vega? Try it again, let's push buttons again. Hold on wait till it turns colors we're going to vote one more time. We've got to make the motion and the second and just go ahead and vote. Technology huh how about that guys there we go and that passes five zero all right so Another staff presentation on the implementation of time clocks, direction and input from the council. Who gets to do this
one?
Lucky you. Good
evening Council, Mayor. I'm here to present for a council request on the process and implementation of time clocks We're going to go over the cost and additional considerations. So the way it would incorporate with our payroll system, we would have tablet-sized or tablet style screens at every location within the city where people would read their proximity badge. They'd scan it. It would give them a chance to clock in or give them a chance to clock out as they were leaving. That information would be uploaded directly into the payroll system based on the time in and time out. It would be a dedicated kiosk or tablet at each location.
There's also the ability to do mobile entry, either by phone or by web and the system allows for geotracking and geofencing. So geotracking means supervisors can know if someone is logging in or tracking in by web It will tell them where they're located when they're doing it. And geofencing would restrict the area that the person could clock in from, so there are some issues with that but those are the capabilities of the system.
The cost of implementation, the license and implementation is about $70,000. That's a one-time cost and then 6647 annually after that plus there's a cost for the hardware which is the tablets essentially we'd need about 18 we've determined based on the number one The total cost of the system would be $112,000 to $117,000. There are a couple of things we need to consider, we should discuss. Do we implement it for all employees or just the hourly non-exempt employees? Currently exempt employees just mark their leave time that they're using during the time. They don't clock in, they don't enter their time in and time out.
Non-exempt employees enter the number of hours every day at work. And then for staff who start during their day off-site, there is the mobile app option. There's also possibilities to have a person in every department be the timekeeper and be able to do manual adjustments. For instance if someone is at a conference they can't clock in or clock out or if the electric crew has an emergency weekend So the next steps if we were to implement, the council would be looking for direction and input from council on how we would implement this.
We need council approval to let us know to further pursue this. We would have to hold a meet and confer with all the labor unions that would be subject to time clocks because this is a bargained item, and we don't know how those discussions would go but that would probably be the next step to get direction to start those discussions. And that's what I have, and I'm here for any questions.
0:44 – 0:5014 turns
Anybody have questions? Let me first start off. I appreciate this has been, I think I made this motion about 10 years ago was the first time I did it so I've been waiting 10 years for this to come forward and I wasn't on for a while that council brought it forward and then it kind of rolled off magically off the list and we were able to get it back on One of the reasons I did 10 years ago, approximately this was I had a number of employees coming in telling me about falsification of timesheets.
It was in a lot of different departments. There was one that was a large complication and it was with upper management falsification So that's one of the reasons why I asked for this item to go forward. I think the complexity, which a lot of people don't realize is all these modified schedules as well are very hard to follow. And from what I gather, you're not supposed to be trading if you're a 980. You're not supposed to trade Mondays or Fridays. Whatever your day is, you keep your day. But I've witnessed people trading days and even recently have witnessed accidentally Timesheets being forgot about when people on days they had taken half days off and such, and people accidentally forgot themselves.
But I think it's critical especially when people can buy their vacation days or get paid out of their days on the back. That's real money. And I think we need a hardcore accounting to make sure what we're doing. But one of the items I brought up way back when was an accounting of where the people were, whether they were on the clock or not on the clock when something happened.
If it's an accident or in this case, the gentleman I think was down in LA area and was able to prove his innocence because he was on the clock and he was somewhere else so working in his favor. I know there was a case in Sacramento where somebody ended up getting killed and he was on his way to work It wasn't things who exonerated the city because the person wasn't on the clock. In today's times, I think it's very important that we are moving into the 21st century and coming on with this progression so I do appreciate your presentation and openness for us to move forward.
Council Member Ball
you have a question? Sure, just a couple maybe comments and question. I don't really have too much of an issue with it. I think accountability is wise although I do sometimes wonder if...I've worked in restaurants before and there definitely be people clock in and clock out The mayor mentioned something about 10 years ago I think he basically is saying fraud from staff. So, I guess I'd ask if there's any current evidence of management or staff fraudulently filling out this stuff? If so we should definitely look into that because that's quite the claim. So I haven't heard that and no one has presented any information to me about that. Are we out of...I don't know who can answer this but are we out of compliance currently with the way that we record our times?
No. There are a couple local cities I know who have time clocks, but they're not that common. But now we're in compliance and we've always met auditors needs for documentation when requested.
Yeah so again my comment, I'm not against it if this is the way council wants to go so be it. But I just question whether we're going to get better work product or is it a better approach to insist or demand that our directors, managers are keeping their staff accountable and actually checking boxes for things that we need to get done. But again if somebody is fraudulently filling out the time clocks and that's current I think you should bring evidence so that we can address that head on instead of it just being a mention.
And I did at that time, so it was a lower level complaining about a manager director and falsification of timesheets. So I did pass that on.
Is that happening now?
No, that was then. That was like I said when I had made this request.
Do you think that's still happening right now?
I think there's some accidental, I don't think there's purpose stuff. I do know of some accidental stuff that happened. And somebody was actually going oh look, I do my own book right here and I go well remember that day you were off? Oh yeah, I forgot. And it clocked in four more hours than they actually had that day. So yeah, I get it. We're all busy and how hard is it to go beep-beep?
And then there's simple no question about it so...
Sure. So I get there's a couple mentions or it sounds like mistakes. $117 grand for this system-ish? And who pays for that? Where does that come from? Each department pitches in
It would probably be allocated throughout the city departments.
So 100 grand?
Got it,
thank you.
0:50 – 0:5510 turns
Anybody else see any other questions before we ask for public comment? Council Member Ridge.
I've always had confusion on the allocation. We are a cost of service city, and I've never quite understood how staff or how the accounting system is able to know who works on what job if they don't have time codes and time cards. And the answer I always get back, and I think is we just kind of rough order percent it across the year. And then we reallocate it back. Is that still what we're doing now?
Not quite. This is a perfect example. So for instance every department within that is allocated has a cost driver that determines how their costs are allocated. So for instance, the payroll is allocated by number of employees in each department. So if your department's 10% of the employees in the city you're covering 10% of the payroll cost and that would be the same how this would be because it's allocated based on the number of employees within each department so they're counting their share, they're paying their fair share of it It's a little bit different than the other departments.
Just to play back what I think I heard to make sure I understood it correctly. If I bring a project in here to get a permit, 10%, just using your round number of the payroll, 10% of the payroll is allocated across that project?
If you're bringing like a permit
Yeah, I've got to have staff work on the permit and there's some magic number. It's $127.30 an hour or whatever. And a portion of that $127.30 is payroll.
The staff who are working on it, yeah their payroll would be paid for... That would be factored into it.
Any other questions for me to public comment? Thank you, Mr. Cross. We'll open up for public comment. Public comment for presentation on Finance Department Implementation of Time Clocks.
Hello. I just have a question while I'm listening to all this, and I'm wondering how is the time clock going to stop people from misrepresenting their hours? That's people still logging in their hours whether they're doing it on a cardboard or a piece of paper with a pencil or digitally with an iPad or some other device. It's still people entering in their hours, and how does that If they forget to say, oh I took the afternoon off. That's going to be the same across all devices. I would like to know how this expenditure is going to actually solve the problem.
Karen Hallenstein. So, this is city government. This is our local municipal government. It's absolutely mandatory that city employees log their hours and explain their jobs and any overtime they have for transparency. Everything has to be documented. The fact that it wasn't in the past kind of Throws a little skepticism on the transparency, accountability of our city as a whole.
The county is struggling because of misrepresentations with Sheriff's Office and actually a supervisor who's being prosecuted now because of his misrepresentations. We can't act like we won't or don't have to deal with the same type of scrutiny. So please, thank you for bringing this up and asking for more accountability.
0:55 – 1:0613 turns
Maybe I'll send this item. All right, we'll close public comment Bring it back to the council. How hard direction do you need on this? I think that everything that you're presenting up here is something that needs to go forward as far as the proximity reader. I think it should be done and treated, all employees treated equally the same whether they're management or on
No, I was just saying this is a presentation. So is this coming back before council? He's asking for direction. Oh, I understand but does that mean something would come back to
council? Yeah, if that's the desire of council we'll be meeting with the labor negotiations because there will probably be costs involved there. We'll bring back a full report at a future time. Thank
you. That's who he's asking for his direction and input from the council so... I need to get one more head nod for that city attorney.
Yeah, there needs to be a majority to give
touch. Head nod? Councilor Bridge? Councilor Starbuck? Anybody else wants? No? Okay, there's three. All right. Is there any other questions you had with that one? Nope? Okay, thank you. All right. Presentation planning vision general plan update sphere of influence revision process Did you get your window? Was that your window that was down out there when it was raining?
Yes. Thank you for letting me know.
Okay.
Lori Tamura, Contract Planner. Good evening. I'm Lori Tamura, Contract Planner for the City of Lompoc. We're giving you our quarterly update of the progress we're making with the general plan update. As you recall, we had a kickoff meeting on February 3rd. We have just received all of the administrative draft sections of the background report and providing comments back to the consultant and we hope to have the final version next Monday.
As noted previously, we will be having workshops and open house on Monday the 27th. We'll be at the library from 2 to 4 as a pop-up and we will be meeting here at City Hall The time is actually 6.30 to 8.30, and then we're going out to Ryan Park the following morning where we're hoping to catch some pickleball players and others to talk with them about where the city is going.
During that time, we are also meeting with Allan Hancock College and Lucia Lompoc Unified School District so we're reaching out to different organizations.
Is there a reason the hospital, maybe?
Pardon me. The hospital? We have probably a list of 20 organizations that we will be meeting with and they're on our list and...
The reason why I say it is they're probably the largest employer directly in our valley.
We're also going to be reaching out to Vandenberg space for space to the penitentiary list of people that we want to make sure they understand what we're trying to review here and how it's going to give a plan for the future. We have already met with the Chamber of Commerce, and we are collaborating with them on communicating through their newsletters and having that opportunity.
Next slide? You've seen some of these shots before. This is where the work that we're doing right now is updating various elements and possibly merging some of the elements that we have, and so we're focused on efficiency and trying to make this a user-friendly effort. Go ahead. Some of the direction that was provided previously is identify and remove policies that constrain development, update the elements to be concise and feasible and easy to implement. Do not include language that creates obstacles for or higher costs for developers in the land use and the EIR sections need to be included so there's guiding these fear of influences as well as annexations for the future.
We have one of our working assignments was to incorporate ad hoc committee changes into the document, so that is always sitting on my desk and we're working on addressing those comments. And then we're also anticipating the RENA numbers for 2031 as well into 2040. Infill development is an important part of this process, but we also want to be fully aware of the expansion of the city into some of the areas throughout the valley.
We also have to focus on what's happening with SBCAG, Santa Barbara County Association of Governments. They're coming out with a number of reports that are actually taking numbers out to 2060 and so we're shadowing those efforts and responding to some of the comments that they're already sending out to the cities to plan even further out of the window that we had targeted.
We're continuing to work on the municipal service reports. We just got one recently that is updating fire and police services, and so we're responding to that document. And we're also working on identifying LAFCO policies and how they will be woven into this document so that we can make sure that when we go for a sphere of influence or an annexation, that we're consistent with those policies.
So, next slide. These are the areas that we have targeted for study in the land use element as well as the environmental impact report. Some of these are probably reaching but we did from City Council direction included Vandenberg Village as well as Mission Hills and some of the regions to the north. Obviously, the Bailey Corridor is a big part of this and we are also including within the analysis the parks, River Park as well as River Bend and some of the Megalito Canyon area.
We've started our engagement plan. A number of illustrations to come up with the logo. Very similar to the city's logo, but it's highlighted very clearly, you know, 2050 General Plan. The logo above that was the one that was used during the housing element and I believe Councilman Bridge Noted that he finally was cluing into it. So we didn't want to change it too much But we needed to take the housing element portion out of it and so this is the new logo that will be on all of our documents and It's on the website Our website is up in operational I've been through it a number of times you know, you can always polish more but I think it includes quite a bit of The background work that's already been done and also is a good landing page for anyone who is interested in reviewing the work that we're doing with the different projects.
The email blasts are going out, hopefully you're all signed up for it and we encourage people to get on the website and login so they will get notices. And then we are obviously starting our workshops We have our study session obviously tonight is our quarterly update. And then we initially had thought we would be doing our report with the Planning Commission and City Council in June as of today, July 14th will be our next meeting.
Deliverables and schedule. The deliverable is the background report, which we have reviewed. It should be in draft public review form on Monday and will be out for circulation for the public to review and comment. And then they're going to be working on the assets issues opportunities and vision guiding principle report next. So you can see all of the products that will be coming as we move through this process.
This is, again, the schedule of events for the coming year. We're a little bit ahead of schedule right now and we're going to continue to push the envelopes for getting these documents through the process. So we're about at two-year clock, two years and a half but we're trying to get it down to two years so that's our update for tonight I'm available for any questions.
1:06 – 1:1112 turns
Question, Council Member Bridge.
Let's just start with the schedule because it's just a net. Could we in future schedules get progress shown so we know? You said you're ahead of schedule, so that's cool and I'm happy but... That's a great schedule. I just can't tell where we're at on it.
Yeah, I apologize for that. The trends document will be out this next week and then they'll jump right into that visioning plan. And so we'll have that all wrapped up here in the next two months. Right,
and like I say it's a knit. I don't know about the other council members but my vision is that you're going to have reports and stuff that come out if we can get that emailed when it's released then don't have to try to track and remember oh I gotta go look At least for the council members, I for one would like that. So that's a request. The EIR we had talked about using the synergy of all the EIRs that are coming.
Do we think there is a certain date that we would have to start negotiations with those parties to make sure that we're all in agreement? We're going to combine wherever possible studies and pieces of the IR.
The contract that was initiated, I hope I'm answering the question correctly. The contract that was negotiated that you authorized includes the environmental consultant team As part of this so they're already engaged in the materials that are being generated so that we can you know, you see in the timeline. It says environmental impact report line item 6 starting this time next year. We're going to try to scoot that forward because we think that there is an opportunity to take advantage of time But they're already on board and it's the same consulting firm that did the 2010 EIR. Yeah,
I don't think I asked my question very clearly. I apologize. We know that there is an EIR required for Blue Dot. We know there is an EIR required for Bodger. There may be others out there I don't know about What I thought I heard previously, we were going to try to leverage any common components of those various EIRs. And my guess is that we have to establish some kind of agreement.
Well let's just use Bodger for example. Some kind of agreement that says hey, we're gonna all share the traffic study on Ocean Street or something like that and I would imagine we'd have to get in place before we actually started doing that. So I'm questioning if you agree with that statement, is there a date when we should start contacting those organizations?
And even if it's just a memorandum of understandings Share the cost of the Ocean Street traffic study, or whatever components could be shared. Does that make sense to now what I'm trying to reach for?
Yeah, I appreciate that comment or question. Project Meadows, the application that's the SB 330 process that we presented to the council back in August. That project is still moving forward with the County of Santa Barbara. It's about 340 units and they will have to do their own environmental impact report so we are in communication with the county And with the applicant, and we will be possibly bringing a presentation forward to you in May in regards to where the project is at this time. And see if there is some collaboration or synergy that we can do with the work that they need to do as a standalone EIR but embedded into and part of the general plan EIR.
So it just seems like having those discussions sooner rather than later would be
good.
Yes.
Excuse me, we talk about once a month just to make sure that we're
all heading in the right direction. Okay I'm just trying to save money for us all. The slide after the project overview. The two elements that we heard directly from the City Council that we should merge was the urban design element.
1:11 – 1:196 turns
and move that into the land use portion. The economic development also could be moved into land use, but we need to see how that merges correctly.
I'm just trying to make sure we're on the same chart here. We keep carrying those other two as optional. And I could be way off base here, I thought we had decided we were not going to do optional components. Are we still looking for a decision on that?
No, just in response no these are the elements that are in place right now and the direction we heard from the City Council was take every opportunity we can to move those elements into the required elements or come up with a reason why we can't do it And so what we're proposing to do, particularly focused on the urban design and the economic development element is embed those into the land use element. Parks and Rec can be moved into the conservation and open space element.
The only concern we have with public facilities element is that there's so much in that particular element because it covers water, sewer, police, fire, schools, libraries. We're going to implement the land use element. But it doesn't get too
So, I'll use an antidote for example of how we kind of got sideways with another topic. Santa Barbara County projected Lompoc would grow to 60,000 by 2030, I think was the number. It was some magic number and I have a concern that the ARENA incentives that are going on and SB CAG and Lompoc has been $40,000 for 30 years. And other than the Bodgers and River Terrace, I don't see, at least from my perspective a lot of additional growth.
And I feel, I keep hearing about infill and so I have a concern that we're going to pretend like we did in the last reading numbers and that's probably a charged way to say this but that we can have thousands of people infilling into our neighborhoods I don't, I can only speak for myself but when I read that document it seemed we used to call the willing suspension of disbelief. You know I don't believe it but I'll go ahead and sign it because that's well and that's fine I understand but if we drive those numbers into our general plan It could have some ramifications that create barriers for the quality of our life in Lompoc in the future.
And so, as a topic I'd like to see coming back when we have these quarterly briefings what kind of numbers we're saying we're going to grow to and I don't mean it well if we absorb Mission Hills obviously That number comes automatically, they exist. But if the numbers look like we say we're gonna grow to 100,000 people and I'm just picking a number, I'm gonna have a concern on that and I'd like to address that sooner versus later so we don't end up with this big document that says things we just really don't wanna do.
So I share that as just kind of insight
I'm just in response, I feel like you've been sitting in some of our meetings with staff. No! That's the conversation that we're having is this general plan update to 2050 is a crystal ball and what numbers are we going to be analyzing? Some of the documents say that our population is only going to grow by about 3500 people In 23 years, that's no growth. I mean that's just plugging along.
Other documents are saying we'd have 10,000 more people. You know, that's a little bit better as far as growth on 1% to 2% a year type of growth than there was one document that said it would be 60,000 people. Well we need to land somewhere that is reasonable for all of our resources, be it water, sewer, roads, infrastructure and that's what we're doing right now. is coming up with sort of a spread on what we anticipate growth to be for the foreseeable future. That includes reasonable infill and also includes the annexations, includes Burton Ranch being built, includes a number of different things and so we're trying to figure out where that lands.
Okay, it was a word of caution. And like I say, it'd be kind of good if we had in our quarterly reviews, we had some feel for where we're going. My last item is really off the wall but my understanding is that you can have overlapping sphere of influences such as the cemetery might be a sphere of influence and overlapping might be Lompoc. Could we take back and at least discuss in your group having Ocean Park be within our sphere of influence, even though it's not contiguous?
It's a significant resource for our community. And we never have a vote in it, and it impacts our economic development. You know you may come back and say Steve there's no way we can do that but I'd at least like us to consider saying we care about Ocean Park and its impact on our community. It's our only beach access from an environmental justice standpoint We're going to have essentially.
Anybody who's of my age or younger has a difficult time going down Surf Beach because that's so steep and it's not practical. And they're talking about putting a boardwalk in, which is the silliest thing I've ever heard of from Ocean Park to the railroad station. Somehow as a city, I would like to at least see if we can start driving this stake in the ground that says we care. That is important to our community Public comment.
1:20 – 1:288 turns
This item is extremely important to our town, our city. If it's not handled correctly we are not going to be able to support our services. The type of growth that we want here in Lompoc is not just housing. It's the footprint impact of the development you allow. We shouldn't have Fields surrounding our town like we do coming in and touching the street anymore that have been sitting there forever.
We shouldn't have fields east of V Street on Central Avenue all of that should be industrial development And why? Because economically, that's going to keep us in services. You're talking about we haven't had any growth. We have had growth with population in this town. Everybody is doubling up. You say that we don't have growth because we don�t have owned homes because somebody decided they wanted to let Joyce Howerton and her cronies have Surf Development Corporation and make us like The bedroom community for the unhoused and the mentally ill.
Come on people, we need to wake up if we don't start growing this town right? We have nobody to blame but ourselves
So I have a slightly different take on this. I also think we desperately need new housing, we don't even need to get more people moving into Lompoc, we already don't have enough housing for the people we have here and I say that as a parent of young adult children who are still living in my house with their partners because they can't find housing in their own community However, I think it's equally important to maintain our farmland because more people means more food and our farmland is where that comes from. I think it's really important that we stop expanding out and develop and I think it's really a potential solution is to think about moving, going upwards. There's a lot of incredible real estate in our city on top of the buildings that are here.
You know if you look at the shopping centers, you know where Albertsons is? What if there was another story above that that was apartments? There's a lot of apartments you could put in that amount of space of those buildings If you went up a story, even two stories, that's a lot of apartments. You could make it mixed housing with three-bedroom apartments and studio apartments and there's plenty of parking. It's close to jobs. A lot of those people wouldn't even need a car.
I think we should start looking at alternate solutions to the housing problem and stop Digging up our farmland, because we need our farmland.
Anybody else? I see nobody else. We'll close public comment and bring it back to the council. You guys have any more questions? Nothing else? Okay. Thank you. Brings us to oral communications. Three minutes. This is general oral communications.
Good evening, Council. I hope to get through this in three minutes. I have quite a bit to update you on and I'll submit a final report on this when I have it finished. I want to talk about contract compliance. As many of you
know... Can I interrupt a minute? Do I need to leave?
I'm not sure what the commenter is going to be speaking about but generally in public comment no, you don't need to leave for those
topics. Thank you. So recently there are allegations involving Councilmember Bridge and utility rebates. I'm a Lompoc Utility Commissioner, and so I wanted to better understand our rebate program. And so part of that I requested from the city all of the rebates that were submitted for The city missed deadline after deadline for submissions. By the time I got them, 110 days had passed. Based on those submissions, I made other submissions for documents as things became more clear.
For example, the city has a contract with a company called ESG who does a third-party compliance of our rebate program and so I requested those documents again. Dates from the city were missed I want to start by saying thank you to the city for providing me with all of these rebates. Even though I requested all rebates for the 2 years. And the city closed out my request and that they provided them today. They fulfilled another request from ESG, the 3rd party contractor and they submit monthly compliance reports. The city.
What I found is that some of those compliance reports had rebates in there that were not provided to Of the rebates that I have gone through, I'm about halfway through. Roughly 50% of them did not meet program requirements and should have been denied in whole or in part due to failing to meet the requirements of the program. A lot of it had to do with the rebates themselves. The wording in the rebates was often contradictory or just outright didn't have certain language in them, whereas the website had additional language that contradicted the paper forms. It was very confusing.
So for example, on an old rebate it said that you had to use a plumbing contractor. Like the word plumbing contractor was in there but on newer editions of that same rebate form there was nothing on there requiring a contractor or specifically a plumbing contractor but if you go to the website it says you must use a contractor so there's a lot of confusion for I guess a lot of homeowners too on what they could and couldn't do So there was a law firm, Lance Solon Lungard. They did an audit of this program and they flagged 11 rebates with errors.
Concerning to me was that two of those rebates were from our city manager who is the person ultimately responsible for overseeing the program. He used an unlicensed contractor and exceeded legal limits under state law. Now while those acts can be viewed as unintentional, as soon as he became aware of them, he should have reported that. And to my knowledge, that wasn't reported for at least four months. And despite the fact that public funds were at issue, he didn't disclose that.
So at that point I don't see that any longer as a mistake and it raises serious
concerns about public attention. That item's coming up number nine here as well so there'll be public comment as well. MBS General Oral Communications.
1:28 – 1:377 turns
Karen Hellenstein, lifelong resident. I just want to make a comment because there was a comment made just recently about us not respecting agricultural property and To see what the abuse of the agricultural industry has done to our town, you really have to drive around. You have to drive down Sweeney Road. You have to drive out Megalito Canyon. You have to drive Santa Rosa Road and 246 to really get a good picture about what ag does in our area.
And when you do that, you're going to see that we've been impacted by the commercial strawberry farmers now who are very non-environmentally sound. They poison the water. They poison the air. They poison their own product. If you drive around our valley and you look at how Ag has treated Lompoc You can see how it's being used to abuse us because some people don't want growth or appropriate growth in our valley.
That has to end. It's killing our city, it's making us not be able to support ourselves. I mean really everybody we have to look at the The brass tacks on what's really happening to our town. So, I just want to bring that up again. Thank you.
All right. Seeing nobody else rise we'll close the oral communications and bring it back. This is under council request item number nine this is evaluation of city's energy and water conservation rebate programs. City Attorney?
Yes. I'll go up to the podium in a second, but first Mayor, as I understand Council Member Bridge is or the business entities that he is associated with were recipients of some city rebates under the City Rebate Programs and therefore because of the potential of financial interest in the outcome of any investigation into the rebate programs Councilmember Bridge is going to recuse himself from this item and he's going to leave the room.
Mayor and City Council, this item is-
Can you raise the podium so your microphone's a little closer? I don't know. It got way down there. Thank
you.
Save your back.
Thank you. We're here tonight on this item due to a council request that occurred at the last council meeting. As the city council is aware, the fiscal year 2024-2025 annual audit conducted by an independent outside auditing firm called LSLCPAs, they identified one significant deficiency related to internal controls and compliance And that was with regard to the city's conservation rebate programs.
The auditors tested 81 rebate payments that the city issued from February 2024 to October 2025 and found that 11 of the rebates out of those 81 that they tested lacked documentation that the work performed to obtain the rebate was performed by contractors that had an active contractor license with the California Contractors State License Board. And so, the auditors basically stated in their report that those rebates should not have been processed meaning that they should not have been approved and they recommended to the city that they make some modifications to the city's rebate program processing process to clarify that applications should not be approved unless they contain contractor's name, city and state license number.
And they made that recommendation to city management. City management agreed with the auditor's recommendation and recognized that it was not previously part of all of the city's rebate applications to include a contractor license number, and city management agreed to update and clarify on all city rebate applications now that a contractor license number is required in order for the rebate to be approved.
So, the city now is currently verifying that license numbers are there in the application before it approves any rebates into the program. 81 rebate payments from February 2024 to October 2025 that the auditors reviewed and the findings that they made were only with regard to whether there was a contractor license number submitted. The council requested this agenda item, as I understand it, to discuss and to direct staff on whether you would like to have any additional investigation conducted into the city's conservation rebate programs.
And that could be for the purposes of determining whether there were any other applications or rebates that should not have been approved. either for license numbers or for any other reason that they did not comply with the city's rebate program, or to look for maybe any deficiencies in the city's program with regard to how the rebate application should have been processed or what information was asked for.
I'd like to If the council was going to do this, I would recommend that we look to hiring an independent outside consultant or firm to do this review and investigation just so that there is complete neutrality in independence. And if the council wanted to take that course of action, what I would need tonight is some information on what investigation the council wants.
So specifically which of the rebate programs that the city has does the City Council want to include in the investigation and review? And then what date range, essentially how far would you wanna go back And then what questions about the rebate or the rebate program does the City Council want to have answered in the investigation? The cost of that would depend on the scope of work.
It would basically depend on the direction that the council gives tonight. And we would bring those numbers back to the council to approve the vendor agreement to perform the investigation, if that's the council's direction. So I'm available for questions and available to take direction after public comment.
1:37 – 1:4512 turns
So one reason why I made this request was Finding out that the city managers was two of those 11. I was very astonished to see that and that, that was... I don't know what you say delayed before it got to us. I did make a request to see these Rebates back in December and likewise as well. We didn't get him for 90 plus days and Going through a number of those rebates that I did receive myself, I found a lot of Applications that I think had questions to them somewhere requests were It was very difficult to follow. One of the rebates that You could only get $1 a square foot, yet the applicant got $2 a square foot. Even on the form it said you can only get $1.
So just it looked like there was a lot of mismanagement of this process. Just a lot of questions that I had with that and again I was very astonished to find out that the city manager had two on that 11. And I'm still confused as to what is the process on getting the cleaned up, trued up? Are there more people gonna be prosecuted? You have somebody being prosecuted already on this.
What about the rest of the people that are on that list? Is that something that's down the pipe on them? Are they sweating it or what's going on? Maybe you can answer that.
I don't know what's in the minds of the rest of the people on that list, but I do know that as a result of this investigation report there will probably be a list of rebates There could be a list of rebates that should not have been processed and approved. If desired, the city could look at those to see if there is any evidence of fraud or criminal activity that would need to be or could be reported to the district attorney's office.
I am in no way saying that I have any knowledge that there is any fraud because I have not reviewed these things. I think there is certainly ... I have not reviewed them in detail, but I have reviewed them enough to see that there are applications that did not have contractor license numbers and application forms that ask for contract license numbers, and there are application forms that do not ask for contractor license numbers. So I think there's a number of questions that need to be answered or that should be answered about the rebate program, and again if any evidence of fraud or any criminal activity is uncovered then that can be reported to the proper authorities.
Okay, Councilor Boehme. So I'll say a couple things on this. I actually agree in a few different ways. I believe that if there are process deficiencies—I think that's the term you guys used—then those should be absolutely corrected and we should look back and see if there is—and I agree with the mayor—if somebody committed fraud a year-and-a-half ago, we should do the right thing. That should be reported appropriately.
And I share the concern as well about the city manager. I learned about that at the same time as you did, again for my own reasons. I feel that's interesting to say the least. Since you have reviewed that application from the city manager, so he did or didn't use a contractor license?
The application that the city manager submitted to obtain a rebate did not have a contractor license number on it. It's debatable, I would say whether the application asked for a contractor license number or whether one was required.
So he didn't provide one but he for certain didn't provide a false contractors license?
Well, he didn't provide any contractor license numbers so certainly it was not a false one
Got it. Let me ask you a few questions if you don't mind. Can you confirm that we're talking about process deficiencies, does that excuse or erase someone knowingly or fraudulently filling out a form? Meaning is if they, if we just didn't have the process protected as well as we should've, does that absolve someone from Is it their responsibility to tell the truth on a form that they? No. So would it be fair to say that blaming staff for false information knowingly submitted by an applicant is wrong?
Is it fair to blame staff if someone knowingly and fraudulently fills out an application? They should have caught it, we should have had a better process but is it the staff's fault
I think that's up to each individual person who would want to review these applications. It's difficult to say it's someone's fault if it's negligence in reviewing an application And it depends on what the application asks for and what the application doesn't ask for. I think that's up to the individual evaluator who wants to lay blame somewhere.
Sure. Let's expand on negligence, if staff didn't catch something or they didn't have a process in place to verify something or they didn't verify that is it their fault if someone left something missing? You know, I forgot to fill something out. No, probably not. They should have caught that and they should kick it back because the person didn't complete the application there.
I mean that depends on what the rules of the program are. I mean if someone didn't complete the application does the rules of the program say that it should just be denied or that it should be given back and given a second shot? That depends on what the rules of the program are.
Is it appropriate to ask finance staff a couple of questions on this? Sure. Mr. Cross, if you would just a couple quick questions. This LSL audit that came through which showed that there are some process deficiencies I think one of the lines that is said what was the effect or potential effect says the city may process rebate applications with supporting documentation from fictitious contractors Now have we found, has there been any of the applications that have been reviewed in that audit? Did you find any additional fraud in any of those using fictitious?
No. We haven't.
1:46 – 1:5214 turns
Let's see. Corrective actions. All right, so there's been some process deficiencies. There's been some issues with maybe giving out rebates that shouldn't have been given out because there was not complete information but the auditor said there needs to be some corrective actions and from what I understand that's been put in place. Can you tell me a little bit about those correctives?
Measures that have been put in place?
Sure. And we put them in place before the audit had begun, we recognized it was a deficiency and we agree with it. So yes now we are requiring contract numbers. We're researching after it's provided. We're verifying that it is an active contractor with an active license We're screenshotting that, including that with the application that we send on to our third party and we're saving it all in documentation.
Got
it. So I guess I'd be curious if we did some sort of investigation what do you think that would provide us in terms of additional information that the audit hasn't caught or that staff hasn't corrected? Maybe you can talk to me about that.
We may find that there are other applications that don't have a contractor's license. I don't believe, it's my understanding they weren't always checking for that so there quite possibly could be more of those but the solution to that, I'm not sure what that would be if we would need to go back in time to see whether the contractor had a license back then or not I don't know at that point, but we may find more.
But I don't know what the remedy would be to that.
Well thank you so much for those. City Attorney, I'll wait until public comment and then have a few more questions for you. Thank you.
Jeff, is it possible for your office to at least come back with some sort of report to see on the application process as far as when it changed? What the inconsistencies were on the application process for the different rebate programs. At least From your findings, when it changed and what the inconsistencies were on the paperwork. We heard different things that some applications did not ask for a contractor's license.
I'm not sure what the different rebates were for or if the paperwork was all the same or just changed. Obviously there was a little lack of oversight on some of that stuff, but I was just wondering as far as the paper trail Did the paperwork actually change as far as the application process you know through the years In the last you know five six years You know has there been an inconsistency from the city asking for different criteria to be approved?
You know
I think staff has as much as said that it has the applications have changed over the years
Yeah, yeah. I just was wondering just because you know to pay for an investigation for all this stuff You know, I'm just I Think that's something you can provide some of some of the information, you know If somebody's wanting to without going into an outside third party
Yes, I think I would be comfortable If the information is available, writing a report about how the rebate applications have changed over time?
Yeah. I think if I could make that request, I don't know if anybody else would be okay. I think bringing that information back to council would be good knowledge. I think some of us wonder the timeframe and what kind of changes were there and what was deleted I mean that would at least probably solve some of the questions here because obviously we're not a, we're just not one of these people that are trying to accuse people.
Yeah so that would be more of a history, a factual history of the application process rather than an evaluation of what are Deficiencies that are were in the program and then what rebates should not or should or should not have been approved So that would be the difference between what
yeah I'd like to see that if we can I don't know if we need another head nod or not But I'd like to see that information come back because it's answering a couple of questions that are unknown for the public Yeah, I get some support.
We can get direction from council after at the public comment. Okay? Thank you
So I know there's a lot of focus on whether someone is a contractor or not, but there are a lot of other variables in the application. I mean that's just one of many, many variables and again like I said some of the items that I saw was rebates being paid for like one said sheetrock work. Well sheetrock work is not part of a water damage or water leak issue yet there was There's a lot of other things.
of them and their review were wrong. The ones I had looked at, I hadn't looked at them all but it was right around 40% of what I saw were questionable in my eyes which was enough to trigger me to want to get down to the bottom of it. We know what happened with LHCDC a long time ago and the lack of oversight that seems to keep haunting us. Right, Council Member Sturbrook?
So, I mean that's one of the questions or reasons why I was wanting to get this cleaned up I think one of the things that can happen is somebody can be required to give the money back if it's a false or otherwise application, correct?
1:52 – 1:587 turns
In theory, yes. We would have to think about what the mechanism is for requiring them to give the money back. I mean essentially at the end of the day it could be a court action like a lawsuit, small claims lawsuit if we really wanted to get the money back. But yeah those kind of remedies would be something that we could discuss after we see what the issues are in the report.
Council Member Raul do you have another question?
No I think, yeah. I have several questions but I think I'll wait until public
comment. Okay. I see your light on there. No worries. Alright we'll go ahead and bring this up for public comment
Good evening again. So I want to clarify with the rebates, there's different rebates for different programs you have your run-of-the-mill like water scents or toilets or shower heads and then you have your energy wise your washer and dryers or refrigerators 99% of those rebates are fine like those are processed fine it's your big rebates for landscape work for Water leak detection those are the ones where you have a lot of requirements in the program A lot of inconsistencies and then a lot of payouts that shouldn't have been approved.
Part of my report has that history that you're asking for, when the forms changed, what changed, what the inconsistencies were. I'd like to see that from the city attorney as well. One thing we haven't really talked about is there's this third-party company called Efficiency Services Group. We pay them $75,000 a year and it goes up 3% a year. They take all of our rebates, and on the contract it says ESG is responsible for reviewing and processing rebate applications to ensure that they comply with program requirements and for verifying project documentation as complete, accurate, and compliant. Part of that contract says they have to maintain a $1 million errors and omissions bond.
It's a question of how do we pay for this? Remedy to kind of solve some of this. But yeah, as far as the rebates go, some of them are pretty obvious and some were more meticulous. For example, Walmart did a energy conservation rebate. And in those you say, you have this many wattage light bulbs, you have this many, this is how many hours they've run. You come up with kilowatt hours and then you say your new ones are these many wattage We're going to have this many fixtures, and then this is the new calculation. And you come up with a kilowatt hour as you multiply it by $0.15. It's pretty straightforward math.
Walmart did seven. They had an engineering company do seven calculations. All seven were wrong. All seven were in Walmart's favor. They got overpaid thousands of dollars. Almost every rebate that came through for the energy conservation for the lighting ones, the math was wrong. No one checked the math. A lot of these came down to issues of contractor license, but again there was other issues that came into play.
One was submitted on a receipt paper. You know you'd buy at Walmart a receipt book. It had no name of who did the work. It had no like receipts from a company. It just said material $300 and labor $2,700 and there was absolutely no identifying information but it got approved. So some of them were super obvious. Some of them are more nitpicky, but at the end of the day my bigger concern was that you had a city manager who also submitted rebates improperly and he's supposed to oversee the program.
You submitted a copy of your findings, is that what you're saying? I'm going to send it to the... The clerk? To the clerk. All right. Look forward to seeing your findings. Thank you.
This is a really hot button item because it was made that way by the systematic targeting of the city councilman through the city employees and the district attorney which is purely political Now, we really need to know if the city manager used a licensed contractor. We need to know that because if he didn't then he should be prosecuted just like the City Councilman is full barrel right?
I'm going to say the same thing I said at the Board of Supervisors today nepotism Cronyism and partisan political manipulation in our city government or our regional government makes all of us victims. So we really need to analyze exactly how this situation is handling, what the forces are involved that are going on here because when I bring up to you the death of Liliana Zuniga in our Lompoc police station on the 13th of March, 2023. That was never revealed to the public, never adequately investigated.
That is real corruption. that really needs to be investigated properly. Kevin, she may be dead but her spirit is not dying. We want to know why Liliana Zuniga died inside your facility and we want the answers. We still want the answers and so does her mother.
1:58 – 2:1211 turns
Anybody else? Item number nine. Seeing nobody else, we'll close public comment and bring it back to the council.
Mayor, yes. If I could take a moment to just make a couple comments because the city manager's rebates have come up in this item and I wanted to clarify a few things for the record. First, the city manager was one of the actually I believe it was two of those 11 rebates that audit found that did not have license, contractor license numbers in the application.
I wanted to clarify that it is not illegal to hire an unlicensed contractor to do work. It is illegal to work as a contractor if you don't have a license but it's not illegal to hire an unlicensed contractor. Even if it's not illegal, it can be a requirement of the city rebate program that a contractor license number has to be used. I mean, a contractor license number has to be included in the application.
Like I said, there were some applications that said list your contractor license number. It must be included and there are some types of rebate applications that did not have that requirement. And I also wanted to state Lastly, that the city manager even though he's not here tonight, he is recusing himself from all involvement or participation in anything having to do with this agenda item or the investigation that may be conducted if the City Council directs it.
Thank you. Yeah, I don't. And what I said before, it does not appear to me the diminutive amount of money that a lot of people were getting. I think one was $100 rebate that somebody got. It's Did people mess up? And you heard one about Walmart on a math equation. And I actually saw a couple others in there that math equations were off in the calculations. I don't know what calculator they ever used, one of those new math calculators but we heard from the public comment that there were a number allegation. I can't wait to see the paperwork as it progresses forward to see that just simple math numbers were off and I did witness that as well Coincidentally, there was actually an application put on my place for a water leak all filled out for me on my desk in the council office which I knew from years ago that you couldn't get any rebate unless the work was done by a contractor.
I still got it and didn't fill it out or wouldn't fill it out. It wasn't worth the headache and rebate potential that came out of it. Very curious, I know what I read. I know the public doesn't necessarily want to hear what I read or what I saw. And that's what was my request of looking at this and trying to drill down to not only through a third party's eyes, independent which would mean away from the city attorney or from city staff.
To drill down and see what's going on moving forward it seems to be that we're taking it more seriously in the application process and stuff but looking back I mean again some of those Receipts that people were submitting were things out of the little cheap books that you can go pull down at Walmart, scratching some scratch and getting some cash back. I just think...I couldn't have rebated or paid somebody. I guarantee the IRS wouldn't have taken them. You know? I guarantee that much.
I too would like to see the history because historically understanding where you were In fact, one of the documents that I mentioned was again on an old application that said maximum a dollar square foot. Maximum $1,000 and yet that person was paid out $2,000 using an old form. Why was that even? It didn't make any sense. There's a lot of things they're just passing out some cash and from what I gather the third party auditor was actually taking direction from staff on the processing.
And what was that one said? Well, they're not a contractor but we see him around town so we kind of know he's legitimate. So we'll grandfather that one and just pay it out. What? I mean there's a lot of little hokey pokey going on in this stuff and I think if we need to get it drilled down If there's errors in insurance, I assume most of these guys have that.
There is your answer to who will pay for it. These guys are getting $75,000. We need to look at this whole program and it appears like we might be spending more money on employees on a program for rebates than what we're passing out itself. I think we have a couple city employees that are part-time employed, two or three through this process and then we have an agency up here for $75 thousand dollars?
We're probably losing money implementing a program So anyhow,
you got some questions Council Member? Sure. Comments and some questions. So let me first go through the things that I agree with. I certainly agree with a lot of what was said. First public commenter that came up, I certainly agree that there is a difference between somebody who's got a new washing machine and has appropriate documentation versus somebody I think it's up to council if they want to spend a lot of money with the city attorney's office and go to court and try to get a lot I know how that might work, but I do want to make a couple of other comments. While I appreciate the passion to look into all of these things, I want to bring it back to the reason the audit was originally performed.
Mr. Cross, why was the audit originally this extra audit that cost the city $9200, I believe? What triggered that?
We were notified by the district attorney that there was an investigation going on, and as such we are required to report that to our auditors as a potential issue for fraud.
Thank you for that. And again, I look forward to any report that you might provide if there is additional fraud that comes to light. I think we should report that just as aggressively as this. But I want to make it very clear while the city... You know, I'm not defending the City Manager. My personal opinion is, look, I don't make half the money that our City Manager makes. A quarter million bucks a year and taking advantage of the rebate program is a bad look at best.
But again, he didn't provide a false contractor license. He didn't so there is a difference between somebody doing that or not. What frustrates me is the council and I appreciate some of you in the room being here is the council has had the same evidence that I have had right in front of us and I'm happy to show anyone on my screen in this room if you'd like to see it But there's a sitting city councilman who has put a form in that has an invoice from a company that does not exist, and it does contain a contractor's license that is not legitimate. It is from a person who went out of business in 1994 from Escondido, California.
That is a sitting city councilperson applying for an application using an application with fraudulent information That's right here in front of us and I'm happy to show anyone with that. So, sorry that frustrates some. Again from my perspective, anyone that you send to us that has used a fake contractor's license, I think we should take the exact same look and as you mentioned in your comments Mr. Mayor, we should definitely pass that along to the district attorney.
I'll leave it up to the public to decipher should there be any difference in the way that we treat or have expectations for a sitting City Council person. I'm the recipient of accusations and allegations, definitely dealt with that but it does shock me that when this whole council has had evidence right in front of them, evidence is the forms They don't mention that at all, they just talk about well somebody did sheetrock or somebody did something. I get that but if we're going to talk about the reason that this is even here, the reason that this even came up, the original issue that triggered the audit was that you had to report somebody filling out a form and providing fraudulent information and anyone that has some sort of legal understanding and I think some of you in this room do or claim You commit fraud when you fill out an application knowingly.
There's not a period where you get to push that back and say, I get a do-over. You mentioned the IRS, Mr. Mayor. I guarantee you the IRS would not give me a do over if I used knowingly somebody else's social security number. So let's just let it be what it is, I guess. But the evidence is right here in front of us I've got an invoice here, got an address for where the invoice came from.
Got a license number that's fraudulent and yet we still don't talk about that. We act like that didn't happen but we want to go figure out if somebody got paid a little bit extra for sheetrock. I'm all for finding deficiencies. I am all for fixing the system. I am all for cleaning up City Hall making sure that we have a process that we don't give away money that we shouldn't.
But your lack of willingness to even address something when you have the evidence presented to you makes me wonder if there's a purposeful attempt to cloud or muddy the waters, to make it sound like everyone committed fraud. I'd like to see some more evidence on that. I think that's completely fair. We have evidence because they gave us the same documents that they gave the public.
Frustrates me. Thank
you. Any other questions? I think especially with the advice of the city attorney, we need to dive in to look at those. I think we should do the investigation on those applications just going back approximately two years. Go back two years and investigate to see if these applications were material errors like addition Misrepresentations, the application not complete and what we're looking at on that whole level.
Granted moving forward you guys are doing good it looks like with the scrutiny aspect but I'd like to go back the two years on that to be investigated by a private third party not the attorney. Council Member
Boehme. So again, I have no problem in checking. I have no problem with the city being transparent and providing documents that are requested for. I guess my only question is why do we pick two years versus how long has this program been in existence? Is somebody getting off the hook because three-and-a-half years ago they fraudulently...
If you want to modify that to a longer term, that's fine. I just figured if we saw two years and we go hell, we'll choose we better go back more You know, I don't know if you've got a better idea. Give me three years?
Four years? What would you like? I'm just saying you're asking the city to go back and be very specific and to overanalyze and get really into the weeds about applications for a certain time period. If this system or process deficiency has existed at City Hall for longer than two years or since the onset of the program then I guess what I'm wondering is why wouldn't we want to know the whole thing? Let me ask, well
how many years has it been around?
2:12 – 2:1819 turns
I'm not aware of how long it's been, but I know LSL's audit went back to February 2024. So we'd be covering the whole two-year period. It's the same two-year period essentially with what they did with a third party.
City Attorney, do you have a better time frame? Do you think there should go back further or what would you...I just grabbed two years. I don't...not trying to exonerate somebody or something.
I would be doing the same if I were making decisions. Pick some reasonable time frame and then if it looks like, wow there's a lot here we need to go back further. Would you feel better with
three years? I'm fine with two years if that's what the city attorney thinks is okay. I'm just saying it would really be unfortunate if somebody got off the hook because they committed fraud and provided, you know, they forged a document and provided fraudulent license numbers three-and-a-half years ago. I think
what I do is I'm waiting to see what we've got. I know what I see? I'm asking for the third party's eyes. And then if we saw more than we could ask for more, I guess. I just randomly picked
two years. I think maybe, and again not insisting we wait until those numbers come back but I'd like to hear more from you or the rest of council on what are some of those parameters that you would like to see if we found additional fraud. Or when do we expand this into the entire length of the
program? I think they should look for all angles of improper applications. There's a lot of variables. It's not just math, I think. Like one of those I said there was no way you could really determine the square foot they asked for the sod rebate. They just put a number up. There's still computation of the yard to just whatever it was 948 square feet or something like that and they took the word for it.
So I mean I think there has to be a little bit more thoroughness but That I'm asking at all
points of that. So, I mean, I'm with you. I'll defer to the city attorney if he thinks that two years or whenever the audit was originally started, that's enough for us to gain some additional insights into how lax the program was or how much fraud existed. That's fair and then we can make that decision.
I think two years is reasonable but it's within the council's discretion.
Okay, all right. So I'm two years that... Council Member Starbuck what do you
got?
Well
I would assume that we're going to do a third party on this and I think part of the timing ought to be is when did the application change or various applications if it was 2 1⁄2 or 3 years ago or was it only 18 months? I have no idea. The argument you know. The application inconsistencies in this whole period of time, whether at two years, 18 months or three and a half. What the hell? I have no idea on that either.
When did we hire the consultant? Does anybody have a time? Was it within two years, three and a half, 18 months? These are basic questions that if we're going to do a timeline let's do it all the way back. You guys are asking but you know we don't know. We're taking a guess right now. It's
2019.
Yeah, what about before that? What did we have in the rebate program before we hired a consultant? You know I don't know if a two-year maybe we ought to have a little leeway on when we hire this third party to go maybe a little further back and we can get a real pedigree on what the hell's going on. Councilor Vega.
You know, I have a different take on this again. I already mentioned about the history of finding out what the applications were. It sounds like one of our speakers has some of that history that we need to see. I know we're trying to push forward and spend money with no recapture of any of this money, no matter what we find, what the results are. I just think I get it. There's a push there to find out if there was inconsistencies and who got money that shouldn't have or...
I just think we should have that information first before we move forward because the city attorney and the finance director, they can provide all this information and also show us what the corrections have been on these applications and when they were before we go to the next step. It just doesn't sit well for me with me to spend third party money when we're over here trying to save a nickel and spend a dime you know?
I just
don't see the recapture.
I get it, but if it's been corrected and they can give us a timeline and show us the applications where there are questions. I just don't see it just because someone omitted a contractor license that we're going to go back and get some money. We're going to spend more on that just like we do with any other civil lawsuit and we don't have insurance on this part of it.
So that's my feeling. I just think we should get more information instead of hiring a third party and then tell us why, why we should hire a third party and waste that money on it. We should be fiscally responsible.
Did you review all those? All the council got those documents didn't
2:18 – 2:3218 turns
they? The 81 rebates reviewed by the auditors were provided to all council.
So I don't know if you had a chance to look at any of
those? I got you. But like I say, nothing stands out where I would spend whatever money your guys are planning on spending for third-party review. That's just my feeling, guys. Sorry. All
right. So let me carry on with what I was looking for. Let's go back two years. Third party to review that, answer the questions that we have up here, Casper Vega, the historical changes of documents Council Member Starbucks. The third parties that were involved in reviewing how far that is, and right?
I had the applications when they were changed and consistencies in applications. And the consultant, when did he assume responsibility for approving so to speak?
Did you have anything else you wanted
to add with that? So I think that's all fair. We'll see what information comes out. I kind of want to learn a little bit about the loopholes that might exist, that are they taking staff's best effort which the staff is trusting people to truthfully fill out a form and then? I bet you there's probably a loophole there. So I'd love to learn about what is if we were to say hey it's their fault that they missed all these compliance issues and stuff. They owe us money. I'd love to know how that works and what the rules are on that personally.
So we had that go back two years with the questions that we just brought in through here would be my motion. Is that good?
Yes, I understand that and I would also say that I think when we bring will bring back some of that factual information about when the application changed and when the ESG contractor was hired in the next agenda item to hire the investigator. And if at that time, the council sees that factual history information and decides you want to do five years instead of two years, you can make that decision at that time. The other thing that I'll bring back with the next agenda item is I'll take a look at any financial remedy that we could possibly get from the vendor because of all of this and whether that money could be used to potentially pay for the investigation or to potentially pay the city back for public funds that maybe should not have been issued in rebates.
Okay, is that good? Yes. I think so. Real quickly one more question and maybe only if you guys think it's a good idea. I'd love to maybe get two or like if council realizes there's a bunch of rebate funds that were paid out that shouldn't have been paid out because somebody was missing something on our document or they didn't have enough information what are our clawback options meaning obviously the bond maybe they can pay for that but maybe somebody just took money from the city they shouldn't Take it from the city. And then is that just become a complicated can of worms, a one-on-one court case with 200 people? Or I don't know. I'd just love to know what our options are to get any of that money back that shouldn't have been given out or maybe council has to decide no this is okay they can keep it because it's not that bad or it's close enough.
I would just like to know... I'll
bring back that information too so that the council can decide do we even want to do this investigation report given what the remedies available are after the report is done. Maybe you decide you don't even want to do the report if the remedies are not sufficient, so I'll bring that back next time too. The last thing that I wanted to know was which rebate programs do we want to include? Essentially all of them, the residential and the commercial?
I think you should look at all of them. The refrigeration replacement stuff's pretty cut, maybe. But that should be a pretty simple one to see. You got a receipt, you bought it in, you bought it out. It shouldn't cost much money to review that one. But I didn't review that level of those.
So even the very, very simple ones include them in the evaluation?
I think so. We don't want to discriminate. All right, so there's our motion. Did we get a second on that motion? Seconded by Starbuck. Motion by myself. Let's go ahead and vote. Okay. And that passes 4-0, one not voted with Council Member Bridge stepping out. So with that I want to take five real fast. It is 855 so we'll be back here... Let's do 10. We'll be back at 905.
We're chewing through it. Woo-hoo! 9.05. Welcome back to the Lompoc City Council meeting, Tuesday, April 21st. Now that Council Member Scarbrough's teeth aren't floating anymore we'll try to finish. Item number... where are we? Number 10. Who is on number 10? Contract planner, Lori Tawara. You're up again. Yeah, it's kind of the same but different.
I don't want him to ask the same
question. Follow along.
Good evening. There are a lot of
colored pictures that you've got there. Good evening. Laurie Tamora, contract planner for the planning department and I'm here presenting an item for consideration letter to be sent to LAFCO signed by the city manager. This item came up as we were reviewing the municipal service review from last year. There was a table in that document that I decided to research it a little bit further, and it was quite evident that the table was wrong. Are you able to find it? OK.
So, that particular table identified five properties outside of the city that the City was serving. Those five properties had gone through the official LAFCO process for an outside area service agreement and was approved by LAFCO. The properties were Beatty, GTE, Campbell, Bodger and Perry. The way that the document in those MSRs were listed didn't seem right.
So after reviewing city files and finding the actual approval documents it was clear that instead of identifying about 250 acres of land that was outside the city being served We were only serving about 50, 60 acres. So as noted on the screen that's the table that had been used for the last five years in MSR reports And what we would like to do is send a letter to the LAFCO to use a new table. If you can go to the next slide, the new table would look like this. It actually identifies the person BD. They were applying for one single family dwelling unit that was done in 1995. It involved 34 acres.
GTE has a cell tower that is about half a mile south of the city of Lompoc and it had an outside service agreement for electrical service. The South property, which was formerly known as the Campbell property is about 17 acres and it's just serving one single family dwelling. Bodger had properties applied for a outside users agreement, and it covered their 43 acres but it was for ag buildings.
And then the last one was Perry, and that's a single family dwelling application. And it was on five acres of property. So if you could go to the next slide? We also found through research that the city provides services to a lot of other lands outside of the city. But these agreements were done prior to 2001. So you may all be familiar with the Frick Springs property up south of Lompoc and that particular water system serves about 16 parcels.
Lompoc Cemetery, 1968 has a water service agreement The River Park, which the city owns about 41 acres net acreage. That initial water service wastewater and electrical service started in around 1972. There is a Vandenberg village community service district agreement that was originally initiated by Park Water Company in 74 and then reinstituted in 77 for wastewater service.
So the village community service district collects and manages the sewer lines within the district property, but the conveyance comes through a pipe to our Lompoc City plant. We also have a long-standing agreement with Vandenberg Air Force Base, now Vandenberg Space Force Base to provide wastewater processing. And that is about a four mile pipeline that goes into the base and collects for a lot of the stuff that's in the center of the base.
And then lastly we had River Bend Park Also has water and electrical service, and that was established in 1994. So the first map that's above here shows those five approved outside users' agreements, and there's no problem with those. If you could go to the next slide? I'm sorry, scroll back. I do have one point to make on the other one. Thank you. As you can see down at the very bottom there is a little green dot that is the Frick Springs location and it comes with a water line down Megalito Canyon Road to serve the properties that are identified in I'm just before you come into the city limits and so that is one of the areas that we're identifying as a potential annexation in our sphere boundary.
Adjustment as part of the general plan update. So then you also can see with the property that is identified for the budget property, that's the 43 acres of theirs on that has an outside user agreement. But again it's just for their egg buildings The Campbell the South property that's in pain. Was identified for a single family there's that little small pink dot over there in the right there that's for the cell tower site and then the Perry So those are the outside uses agreements that the city already has. This is the correct record, this is the map that we'll be sending to LAFCO along with the revised table.
We also want... The question that came up at a LAFCO meeting probably about four meetings ago was the question LAFCO does not acknowledge the fact that the City of Lompoc is serving these other areas because it never came to them for approval. And so the question that we are including in the letter is how do we get acknowledgement from LAFCO that we have these outside agreements that were serving, that did not go through the process because state law did not require that those that were prior to 2001 come to LAFCO. So the letter that we've prepared and it's part of your package first asks for The correct reference to this new table, and then also what do we do with all of these other agreements that we have that we are currently serving? And we certainly do not want to not serve them.
Which was kind of implied by the statement that was made at LAFCO. So our staff recommendation is that we discuss this item and then direct the city manager to sign the letter and forward it on to LAFCO.
2:32 – 2:4025 turns
Do I have a conflict?
Not that I'm aware of.
One of those 16 is us, I believe.
Say that again?
I believe one of the 16 on the Frick Spring is one of my properties.
Yes. If we're going to specifically discuss Frick Springs area, which I think we are because we're requesting that LAFCO recognize that then yes you should recuse yourself from that part of the discussion.
Do I need to leave?
Could have ordered us a pizza or something, huh? All right. My question is good job but the Bailey Avenue sewer line what do we do about the Bailey Hour sewer line and all those sewer assessments we charge all those people all the way down Bailey Avenue I mean we have a sewer line we have through the county and the city We're going to be looking at the sewer line. The county approved sewer assessments, the county supervisors approved it. 5859 or something like that.
What do we do about the sewer line is that? Is that something we should bring back later another time I get a good job on all this. But there's one other thing
You're right. I need to look into that a little bit more and include it in this analysis. I was focusing in on all the other ones.
We got a lot of clean up you're doing, and I appreciate that. When I got to LAFCO, I was asking what about all these places? And they didn't recognize it, and it's one of the things that hold against us for expansion is they say, oh, we didn't know you were there. So I mean, I think that's only thing that I saw Did you have something, City Attorney?
Yes, Mayor. Although we have a sewer line in place there, we're not actually providing service to those areas so there's a difference between that and the service agreements that we have where we're actually providing service which is what LAFCO needs to recognize but I think it's also important for LAFCO to at least know about the sewer lines
as well. We charged them so it was kind of a promise to serve So we kind of, even though we're not serving we promise to serve. And we do have our sewer line which going down Bailey are even allowed to access it and work on it. You know I mean,
I just know that we're not providing service there.
If I could make a suggestion is, uh, I think that the information that we have in this letter and the materials that we provided are correct. I think that what we could do or I'd recommend is that we spend a little bit more time just solely focused on the Bailey corridor and the sewer line there and we can send a separate I think it's timely for us to get this in. And then we can pursue the other and follow-up with another letter to LAFCO.
Yeah, thank you for this update and presentation. I'm just curious, you brought something up that, you know, there's... Councilor Boehme, could the
microphone get
away from you? There's this cutoff in 2001 with what's exempt from LAFCOE's permission slip versus anything after that. Is there anything, I mean can you dig in on that a little bit or is there anything in jeopardy that we're servicing now that's after 2001 that LAFCO can have a beef with or is this just something update the paperwork and they need to sign off, tell me more about that.
So we have not had another outside area service agreement request come since the ones that are listed here and the only two that were prior to or during that period of time was the Bodger the Perry project. Everything else was prior, and a lot of these were the ones that were identified in the second table. I mean they're quite old and we've been serving them for quite awhile and they're in our capital plans for the sewer plant and they're in our water plants for infrastructure so they're part of what the city is doing right now
So let me just clarify a little bit. So it's just an update for LAFCO. They can't say, well you didn't talk to us about it because it's exempt because it's prior to 2001. This is just a paperwork update and they can't be like, well we can't recognize it because we never talked about it?
Well, actually they do want to have a conversation with the city in regards to these items. Because they did not show up when we did our municipal service report for water and sewer. They weren't listed. So the effort that we're having with LAFCO is to update and fresh the reports and show what we are serving. And so that second table is showing those areas, I mean, I was surprised that we were serving Vandenberg. You know, I'm sure that's common knowledge but it wasn't something that I was aware of. And so we are going to work with LAFCO Get this included when the municipal service report comes in for water and sewer. This other table will be included in that report. Okay,
and that should be enough to get past this issue and just move on to other things that we can talk about? Meaning LAFCO is not going to use one of these things say like well We have a loophole to stymie your progress because we didn't know about something or that's just nothing we should concern ourselves with
There was a moment and the mayor was at the meeting, there was a moment in this conversation when they started to talk about, you know, Vanderbilt village being served by the city and in other places. Where it was like, really you are. Are you sure? You never got approval from us to do that and so we're just responding to what they implied and we are going to make sure that the record reflects that we've had these long-standing agreements and we are serving and responding to those agreements.
Perfect, and I thank you for that. I was just kind of thinking there might be some worst case scenarios that pop up and become a nightmare just because...
And as noted the city attorney's research on this made it clear that prior to 2001 there was no need for a lawful approval.
Thank you for that clarity. I appreciate it.
2:40 – 2:4613 turns
Councilor Stover? Just a quick question. Is it relevant if it's within the city limits, like Allan Hancock College we provide all services to that. It's right on a border. Would that be something important or just forget it because it's already part of the city?
Well, Allan Hancock College is in the city.
But it shows the ability to cross the street I guess. Not important then.
Yeah and then...
I think he's referencing the statements that get across the river And the fact that we're already over there, but I mean you already have that with the other developments up there. So yeah, they know I've been kicking and screaming and filling the dots and all this stuff that we kind of weren't supplying them in the last 20 years in a number of updates. They were just kind of casually cruising through so yep.
Anybody else any other question before I go to public comment? All right, thank you Lori. Let me get the public comment and see if we can bring it back. Public comment? Okay, we'll close public comment and bring it back to Council when I get a motion to... What do you guys want? Staff recommendation? Thank you. Now what? Now we got to get Council Member Bridge back in here.
We've got to do item number four. Sure. Good thing we're testing out that AC today. Item number four, Mario, Community Development Director. You're full blood now. You made it through the interim, huh? Big dog. All right. So this is the second amendment to the agreement for Bureau of Veritas North America plan checks. Did you need a presentation or did you have questions?
I can just ask questions. When did this overrun occur?
Just throughout. The 87,000 should get us current until June 30th and then we'll have another P.O. Extended for the next year with extra money so we can cover anything that's not done in-house by our in-house employee. So all of the overruns were from From not having a building official since August, and then she wasn't able really to do that many plan checks. So we were sending a lot of that information and still are two BBs outside. And those are extra charges that aren't in the current $100,000 purchase order.
So that contract is for in-house Those services are in-house, so anything else that we send out is extra money from that current contract. So our goal as a building with the division being fully staffed would be with our building official and our in-house That would be the extent of our services unless there's things in house that we can't produce, then we would go to BV. But the goal is to handle everything in-house with our onsite consultant and our building official now being on.
So the 87 is not only covering the additional building plan check, it's also going to carry us through June. Is that what I heard you
say? Yeah, that should carry us through June. There are still some items that are outstanding with the outside BV reviews.
And then did I hear you say we're getting another amendment in June?
Instead of coming back to council, instead of having $100,000 PL, I'll be working with finance when we renew for the second year that will have the ability to use outside BB contractors because it will exceed the 100,000 that's for our in-house. So we don't have to use it. It's just if somebody is out or And we need to get something expedited. We'd have that extra leeway to be able to bill against that PO.
And there's one more year on this contract? Is that what I heard you say?
It's an ongoing contract, so there's no end date on the contract. So if we wanted to terminate in the contract it has those stipulations on termination.
2:46 – 2:5413 turns
This is an indefinite contract forever?
If it's not serving what our needs are and if, yeah. It's basic as of right now that there's no end date. I mean we can always choose a staff to say in two years we want to reevaluate and go out to RFP and see if we can get Thank you. Council Member Ball?
So tell me this $87,000 is covering what time period?
Since we lost our building officials so since August we've occurred a lot of extra outside billings for outside services.
And I'm going to try and get you a point here just thank you for sticking with me. First on the RFP idea, I hate the idea of an internal contract. I feel like that we lose a sense of competition and we never know if we're getting a good deal or not. And again, I'd love to maybe get it for no reason other than it's fair for us to see what's out there and make sure we're getting a fair deal. But past that, I think a bigger issue is talk to me about building staff right now. What do we have internally?
We have one building official, one building inspector, a plans coordinator and our economic development specialist. Are we missing positions right now? No. We're fully staffed but the reason in the past that the contract has been in place because it's been such an up-and-down so to be able to have a full time employee and not have Then the volume that they're coming in would be.
Thank you. And I guess this is getting to my point, is that ultimately I think and I may be wrong but it might make sense to pay a good wage to make sure that we have internal staff because unless I'm wrong, it probably costs us more to outsource to a contractor to do that work than we could also be providing in City Hall. And you're saying fully staffed at the moment?
To me that means what we shouldn't even have to use an outside contractor except for rare occasions considering yeah, we do have a housing You know a build-out going on right now. We don't have a lot of the stuff that's happening
Yeah, well We're fully staffed with it what the contractor on board if we didn't have the contractors and we would need an additional plans examiner Would that be nice to have that person here that the five days a week? Yes, it's it's just We're going to have enough. To keep a full time with the I think it's important for us to have that on site. But having that onsite and the consistency is a value to us in the city, we're just not putting everything out to outside consultants I would prefer that we had staff that could just take care of all this work here.
Maybe we're not paying benefits, but we're paying a pretty big fee and whatever. I just feel like we owe it to our community to have staff in City Hall that can do this work and be professionals about it. So I'd love to know down the road when we come to budget talks is this a good deal for us or is it better for us to consider actually keeping and getting somebody in-house?
Yeah, we'll evaluate that in the next budget cycle. Thank you.
Any other questions? All right, let me open up public comment. Nobody for public comment? I'll close public comment and bring it back to Council. Any more questions for the Community Development Director or any motions? What you got? Nope. Item number four. I'll make that motion that we accept. All right. Seconded by Ball, motion by Vega, seconded by Ball. Go ahead and vote.
Thank you. Thank you Mario. And that passes four yeses and one no by Council Member Bridge. Item number eight, Mr. Krause. Can you give me a quick presentation on what this is? Consent calendar items are normal or customary. This isn't normal or customary, so I think for the record it's good as well as it's got to be noticed that we hear and the public hear it as well.
I don't have one prepared, but I can wing it. So currently we calculate wastewater usage based on a four-year rolling average. It's $9 for residential unit, 928 or something. We calculate it based on the winter months of January, February, March water usage. We average that and then the following July I'm going to talk a little bit about our current accounting system. Our current accounting system is a manual process for changing all of the accounts and the proposal And then that would be the usage for the following 12 months.
The process is because it affects customers rates or usage, it's a prop 218 requirements so this item is to allow us to send out a notice to all residents, all property owners to describe the process to them We're going to have a public hearing on July 21st. We would not be allowed to do this if less than 50% protested, then we would be bringing it back at that time for approval. And then it would go into effect 30 days after that, which is essentially September 1st.
So would you be doing January, February, March of 26? Or would you be moving so you're going I guess the problem is because people weren't advised at that time. That's the only downside I can see, you're kind of back to the fact that they weren't warned. Although we had a very wet year so a lot of people probably weren't using a lot of water January, February and March to water their yards.
2:54 – 3:0127 turns
They wouldn't know it was the only year factored in, but that's true. We do account for leaks also if a customer has an established leak they contact us we re-evaluate what their tip of the water would have been and we adjust based on
that data. Can you explain to me with the fiscal impact that you say 40% of customers will see an increase?
The January and February read so far. We looked at about 40% of have an increase over what their four year average has been the dollar amounts are a little misleading because looking at the residential average It's hard to nail down a residential customer. We have some, a lot of single family residential customers but we also have a residential apartment that's like 200 complexes and that counts as one unit so the $10 per unit, that swayed a lot by the larger complexes. I did a deeper dive into that and I can't come up with the exact amount because I can't identify which ones are just single families There are a lot of high apartment multi-family complexes that really skew that.
We haven't raised the rates in forever. So one of the reasons why we didn't raise the rates is about this time last year, we have $13.1 million in our account. So understanding that we were well exceeding our reserve policy and granted right now revenue is below expenses And one of that is because people need to start flushing their toilets more, taking longer showers.
And I'm going to get on a campaign that during wet years we start using more water because people are conserving so much right now. I think 1988 was our highest water usage and people keep conserving And our expenses keep going up, we end up having to raise the rates. So at times when we have plenty I'm gonna go out there and campaign which probably get in trouble with conservation but we need people to take longer showers and flush their toilets more et cetera et cetera so your rates are gonna go up you might as well use more water anyways so we don't have to raise the rates.
One of the other parts that rate increase that was proposed just you know is that Thank you very much. Thank you. We might have to tune up those allocations that are in there as well. Are we still charging a million dollars property tax fee at the wastewater plant? I don't have that in front of
me, sorry. $985,000 I think it is? Yeah. Which is I think being litigated in San Jose or something like that but anyhow... That might unwind that mess but anyhow okay thank you! Anybody else have any other questions? We got a lined up Councilman Rivega.
So in simple terms for the public here, I can read the staff report who's the benefactor of this change? Is there a benefactor?
There are a lot of benefactors. I think it's the clear process, it's easier for customers to realize what they're being billed for if a customer wants to affect their bill they can have a smaller usage in winter and it will affect their bill quicker as opposed to waiting through a four-year average for it to have an impact It will help billing process. It won't be a manual billing process, it'll help accuracy and efficiencies within the billing department.
I think those are primary benefactors.
So if you were to leave it the way it is right now do we lose money or do we make money?
We probably will make more money a little bit more under this scenario Which would probably mean we won't have to do a rate increase or as large of a rate increase in the future.
Normally when you go down to averaging and my thought process it's to benefit the rate payers but that's not the case in this case. I get it, but in general because the public's listening. Yeah we can go through all these talks about every little line item here, but the public is listening to what's in it for them okay? That's why I want it stated in a more clear layman's fashion because politicians they tend to talk and say a lot of stuff, but it's not understood by the public.
If we have a customer whose water usage drops a lot in the winter, in the year, they won't see much of a decrease for a few years. This way they'll see a decrease by the following July for the next year. So I think in that way it benefits the customers because it gives them a little more control over what they're paying.
But you know the cost in the background, because you said it was a manual entry point. It's a lot of work on your guys' end right?
Yes it is.
Why would you guys want to do that much work?
We don't. We want to convert to this so it's an automated process.
Oh
you're eliminating
that okay. I thought
you
were giving yourself more work
for a moment
there. Oh
no oh no.
Why would you do that?
No we work hard enough. It would eliminate that process. Okay. It would use our billing system to its fuller potential.
Thank you. I just want the public to understand it, so thank you for that explanation. Councillor Bridge?
3:01 – 3:0721 turns
I just really have a comment. A lot of people do not understand that, for example, turning their sprinklers off for those three months saves them on their wastewater and when I explain it to them The number one complaint I've had is, you mean it averages four years? The guys who were there before me used a lot more water than I do. But I'm not going to see it if I save it. So to me this is a good thing. This was a win-win because you can immediately impact your bill by turning your darn sprinklers off in the winter or taking less showers. I know Jim doesn't like that.
And we save a bunch we should See a labor savings and that always in the end goes against our rates So
we do have a five-unit minimum so you can still take a few showers
Conservable Yes Thanks to the mayor's reminder. I'm tempted to go home and take shower as soon as I get home I think that would help my mental state But I did have a question There is an impact, and I know roughly 40% of customers might see an increase. There's a pretty big number attributed to the commercial side of things. Is there nuance there as well?
There are some large commercial customers who sway that as well.
So it doesn't mean everyone's going to get an average of 100 bucks extra a month on their thing? Okay, I just want to make sure. Thank
you. It's hard to come up with maybe a median would have been a better benchmark than the average but I didn't have that at the time.
You clarified, I appreciate that thank you and it'd be nice to get that interim off of your title sometime soon too.
Any other questions? Can I go to public comment, you're correct. Just want to see if you've got anything else. Any public comment? No public comment. Close public comment and bring it back to the Council for a motion to approve. Council Member Vega made a motion. I'll make the motion that we accept. I'll second. You're approving everything as their request, correct?
Do we need anything else, is that good? You got that motion, okay. Go ahead and vote. And that fails. Ah! We've got you Bob. Passed 5-0. So I want to see if he was paying attention. What do you want to do now, Councilman Villeneuve? Turn the page? Yeah, 4 and 8, okay. Let's see. Did we ask written communications?
Nothing more than you've already received.
All right. Oral communications, your last two minutes. Anybody got something they want to say for two more minutes? Seeing nobody rise, we'll close that and come back. We do have a closed session at the end of this meeting but we're going to go through the council comments and meeting reports. Council Member Ball. I
have a council request and I could do it during my turn.
Okay, well, whatever. Go ahead. I'm sorry didn't see your me get ball Councilmember ball first.
Yeah, I'll be quick. City managers standing in place of our original city manager, I'm just keep throwing it back. I know Council Member Vegas brought it up before too as far as I know we put funds towards translation services some time ago and we see a lot of other cities acting on this much quicker than we seem to be able to do this. I had somebody email me from the community today saying you told me that was already paid for and I know there's always an excuse or some technical something but
I'm going to go ahead and let Mr. Cross answer that one, I think he has more information on that. Thank you.
We're in the testing mode for translation services we are hoping it will be in place by the next meeting. Wow, that's great news!
Thank you. They were here this last week doing all kinds of work in here. Alright, Council Member Starbuck?
No reports.
Council Member Vega? I do have a council request. I had one of my commissioners and then another one responded, so after speaking with the city attorney, I'd like to bring up and ask that the city attorney bring back some options for our joint meetings with our commissioners. I think that he has a couple of options he would like to bring back to us, maybe we can do a couple of changes here because It's an inconvenience for some of the commissioners, so city attorney can if he could bring back a couple of options for us to discuss.
It's kind of a disservice to have closed session at the end of the meeting I think. So I think that probably if we could figure out a better schedule to have our joint meetings, you know, the commissioners, if they need five more minutes or something instead of chasing them out, I think sometimes maybe another Tuesday, alternate Tuesday maybe do them I would like the city attorney to bring back a couple of options for us, okay? Outside of eliminating him off the handbook. I'm not sure who's going to go there but those are one of the options of having a joint meeting. I just think having closed session is a really important item and I don't think that we should be doing it at the end of the meeting. We should get that thing taken care of. That's city business.
It's very important and it could be a money saver so if I could get someone to support Would that be okay? Jeff, do I have to say more?
No. Just to be clear this is options for scheduling our joint meetings with the commissions not right before council meetings but what are some other options? Yeah,
some other options and maybe alternate
days and... How many more commissioners do we have for the joint? I don't think we were due in a library or airport. I don' think we were. Were we?
3:07 – 3:1313 turns
Can I offer just
that? I believe we have maybe three more.
That's a lot.
Suggestion, it's a change in the council handbook and the commission handbook.
So I'm open to any of the ideas but maybe adding on one of the ideas is that and I know we can't always predict whether we're going to have closed session or not all the time but perhaps we could double up once in awhile on a meeting that doesn't have closed session. I don't know if that's even possible but you start at five I'll give you a head nod with that.
I would like a council request to have an agenda item come up, come back to review the policy on eternal contracts. We had two today. I would like to know what the policy is on that. Whatever is convenient for the staff. I'd just like to know what
the policy is here. OK, I'll give you a backup on that to get a third on contracts and how some of them have continuation clogs or eternal contracts as they were being called and what the policy is on some of these contracts that just keep rolling over. The only gray one was 2011 or something. So we got Councilman Starbuck on the third on that? Okay. That it?
You have some else? Yeah,
Council Member Vegas, sure why not. One more council request. I'd like maybe possibly if you guys don't mind, have the city attorney come back. It was a question of streamlining some of these agenda items since we have no say so on the agenda. He does. I'd like to see if he could influence City Manager and maybe limit some of the presentations we have so we can have enough discussion time not to feel rushed, you know?
Lots of presentations. We have a closed session still, we had a joint meeting. I just feel like we should be paying attention a little bit more and you know, I'm one of the culprits here looking at the time sometimes as we all have a life and it would be nice if they could streamline the agenda To be a little more user friendly instead of long presentations because I feel that some of the presentations can be condensed. They're good presentations, but I think they should be condensed and allow us who deliberate make the decisions to be able to ask the questions and more on the time you know a little bit more of the time for us as council to ask more questions so we make better decisions. So it's just if we could kind of entice this city attorney he has an influence over there To see what they can do.
I'm happy and willing to have a discussion with the city manager about that.
Let's see, I represented the City of Lompoc, LAFCO, SPCAG. What did I do? A few other events. I've got another event this weekend for the base commander. The request that I'm looking for is a presentation but Those pretty concise, but those who don't watch county supervisor meeting. There was the sheriff did one with Project Opioid that he had that needs it's I think it's very telling what's going on and I think the council here. I think they're astonished to see that in five years we've had somewhere around 140 150 people die.
In this town and he's it's not a very long presentation, but maybe we can reach out And he has some documents relating more specifically to the city of Lompoc.
Didn't I just make a motion to shorten them? We'll do half-sheets for you.
Thank
you.
3:13 – 3:1513 turns
So we can get that out to the public, what's going on. Council Member Ball. Anybody else? Council Member Bridge. All right. Oral communications on closed session? Is that where we're going now? All right. Anybody here for oral communications on closed session? We have conference with Domino's Pizza. Wait, what? No. Conference with labor negotiators. City designated representative.
No deans. We have Robert Cross, Gabe Garcia, Jeff Malawi. And who? Where's
Che Johnson? Who's that? Che Johnson is... Oh,
it's online. I gotcha.
Correct.
For the ABUW we've got one item.
He will not be joining us online tonight.
Lucky.
Yeah.
Okay. It'll be us. All right and after that we come back to open session. Any idea how much time you guys think? Two hours okay. We'd be talking about just kidding. How
much? 20 to 30 minutes. Maybe
20 to 30 minutes, we'll be back. Very good. Hey, you ready? All right. Bring it back into open session.
Mayor, City Council met in closed session to discuss the one labor negotiation item on the agenda. Council gave direction to staff but there was no reportable action.
All right so with that we're good? Everything else is good all right we will adjourn till a regular meeting at 6 30 p.m. on May 5th. Good job.