Meeting Summary
Present: Gilman, Lang, Rule, Whitman, Mang
This summary was AI-generated to save you time. It may miss or misstate details, so verify against the official recording and the transcript.
At a glance
Closed Session
- The council resumed from a closed session where no reportable action was taken.
- It was noted that potential actions discussed in the closed session would be addressed in the open session.
Arts Grants Awards for 2024-2025
- The Arts Commission recommended funding for 19 applications totaling $30,000 from the approved budget.
- Staff clarified that grants are available to residents of both the City of Ojai and the broader Ojai Valley.
- The council ratified the commission's recommendations, with one member recusing themselves due to a conflict of interest.
Traffic Motor Officer Contract
- Staff proposed a one-year contract for a traffic motor officer at a cost of approximately $350,000 to address rising accident rates.
- Discussion highlighted the use of a used motorcycle from the City of Thousand Oaks to reduce costs and wait times.
- The council approved the one-year agreement, noting that standard contract terms already provide flexibility for termination.
Mid-Year Budget Review
- Staff presented a financial summary indicating a first-half deficit due to revenue timing but a positive full-year projection.
- Council members requested additional time to review detailed data and discuss specific line items with staff.
- The council voted to table the item for reconsideration at the meeting scheduled 30 days later.
Consent Calendar Reconsideration
- Items regarding legal fees, the Climate Action Plan committee selection, and the Habitat for Humanity project were pulled for detailed discussion.
- Staff clarified the income definitions for the affordable housing project and addressed concerns about intersection safety.
- The council approved the remaining consent items (A through F, excluding E) after addressing the specific concerns raised.
Economic Diversification Focus Group
- The council debated the selection process for an advisory committee, balancing public nominations with staff input.
- Members agreed to publicly promote the committee openings to encourage a wide range of community voices.
- A motion passed to authorize staff to administer the selection process for the advisory committee.
Future Agenda and Process Improvements
- Council members discussed prioritizing a drone show proposal following an upcoming goal-setting session.
- The group identified a need to track approved but unimplemented items to prevent them from being overlooked.
- It was agreed to establish a "parking lot" mechanism for these items during the next meeting's goal-setting conversation.
Full summary
Closed Session Report
- The meeting resumed from a closed session. A report was provided stating that no reportable action was taken during the closed session. The council concluded the closed session, noting that potential action would occur in the open session.
Roll Call and Pledge of Allegiance
- Roll call was conducted, confirming all council members were present. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council Member Montgomery.
Approval of Agenda
- A motion was made to approve the agenda and was seconded. The motion passed.
Commission Reports
- The Arts Commission presented recommendations for the year's arts grants, noting over 150 hours spent on the selection process by the ad hoc committee, the commission, and staff. The report included an update on a state arts grant application for an assessment of the creative economy, which was not awarded. The speaker encouraged the city to consider conducting its own assessment of the arts economy.
Public Communications
- Library Update: The regional librarian provided an update on upcoming Ojai Library programs, including a Pokémon Day event, a presentation on the Shakespeare authorship question, a film screening of Wicked, a talk by a career homicide prosecutor, and a workshop on Firewise Living. Additional services such as career coaching, literacy support, and book clubs were also mentioned.
- Stormwater Planning: A speaker expressed disappointment that elements of a previous $900,000 planning grant regarding stormwater capture and street improvements were not incorporated into the latest street improvement program. The speaker requested staff inquiry into why these designs were excluded and urged their inclusion in future programs.
- Environmental Standards (CEQA): A speaker discussed the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), emphasizing the importance of physical testing for environmental hazards on land rather than relying on assumptions or workarounds. The speaker argued for strict adherence to established national standards for residential, industrial, and commercial land to ensure safety.
- Community Garden: The founder of Miners Oaks Community Garden described the garden's features, including 38 raised beds, accessibility accommodations, and scholarship opportunities. Upcoming workshops on seed swapping, gardening, and nature-related arts and crafts were announced.
- Construction Concerns: Two speakers addressed construction activity between the Mallory Way cabins and cottages. Concerns were raised regarding violations, including work near unprotected oaks, exposed rebar, and the implementation of a 2007 plan deemed environmentally disrespectful. Specific issues cited included noise, early start times, lack of tree protection for 30 days, and the use of concrete instead of low-impact materials as required by CEQA mitigation.
- Indemnification and Transparency: A speaker requested that ongoing closed session discussions regarding indemnification be brought to the open session for transparency. Another speaker discussed the legal costs associated with the indemnification issue, referencing a "civil war" description in local media and calling for an end to the strife. The speaker requested access to legal opinions and suggested recording closed sessions or waiving privilege to ensure transparency.
- Legal Fees and Competence: A speaker criticized the city's acceptance of legal advice, citing high fees for minimal work by outside counsel. The speaker questioned the value of a $117,000 payment for a 10-page presentation and expressed concern over the city's spending on legal defense versus the cost of indemnification.
- Public Forum on Ordinance: A speaker inquired about the status of a public forum or town hall meeting regarding a previously rejected ordinance, noting that video of the previous meeting was unavailable on the city website. The Mayor confirmed that more information would be forthcoming, and the Clerk noted that the meeting video was available on the city's YouTube archive.
- Staff Introduction: The City Manager introduced Kathy Holman, a new HR and risk management professional with prior experience at the City of Camarillo.
Consent Calendar
- Item 1D (Professional Services Agreement): The City Manager noted a formatting error in the printed packet regarding a finance software agreement with Eli Bailey, confirming the complete agreement with signatures was available on the city website.
- Public Comment on Consent Items:
- Item B (Warrants/Legal Fees): A speaker questioned the breakdown of legal fees, specifically regarding the City Attorney's Office and Myers-Nave, asking how much was spent on indemnification analysis and when the cost of defense would exceed the cost of indemnification itself.
- Item E (General Plan Update/Climate Action Plan): A speaker supported the General Plan update and the involvement of community members in advisory groups. Another speaker expressed concern that the Climate Action Plan Advisory Committee members were selected by staff without a public application process, urging the removal of the item to allow for a transparent, public selection process.
- Item F (Habitat for Humanity): A speaker discussed the Habitat for Humanity project at 408-410 North Montgomery Street, noting the city's purchase of the parcel for affordable housing. Concerns were raised regarding the intersection's safety, visibility, and parking, with suggestions for no-parking zones ("daylighting") at the intersection. Another speaker supported the project but echoed concerns about the intersection safety and the fairness of allowing the project while restricting ADUs for neighbors. A third speaker, representing a neighbor, opposed the five-unit proposal due to parking shortages, visibility issues, and safety concerns at the narrow intersection.
- Legal Fees (Zoom Comment): An attorney for Councilmember Rule commented on the legal fees, stating the city had spent more on legal counsel to refuse reimbursement than the actual cost of indemnification. The speaker characterized the settlement offer as wasteful and noted that litigation was the only remaining alternative.
- Ethics Workshop: A speaker recommended the public view an ethics workshop previously hosted for the city.
Council Action on Consent Calendar
- Item B (Warrants): Councilmember Rule moved to pull Item B from the consent calendar. The discussion focused on the legal fees, specifically the $45,286.20 bill from Myers-Nave and the $118,340.35 bill from the City Attorney's Office. Councilmember Rule questioned the value of the work and requested a detailed breakdown of the expenditures before approving the payment. The Mayor suggested holding the item to obtain details from staff rather than debating the necessity of the counsel. Staff confirmed they were collecting bills from outside counsel and would prioritize providing the Myers-Nave details. Councilmember Rule agreed to the request for details but maintained that the council needed to understand the expenditures before approving the warrant.
- Item E (General Plan Update/Climate Action Plan): Councilmember Rule moved to pull Item E from the consent calendar, citing concerns that the selection process for the Climate Action Plan Advisory Committee was not transparent and that the committee was already "tainted." The Mayor supported the motion to pull the item, proposing to return it to staff to establish a public forum and criteria for a more open selection process. Staff clarified that the committee would be advisory to staff and not a Brown Act body.
- Item F (Habitat for Humanity): Councilmember Lang moved to pull Item F from the consent calendar to address a constituent's question.
Decisions and Vote Outcomes (Consent Calendar Segment)
- Agenda Approval: Passed.
- Consent Calendar Items: Items B, E, and F were removed from the consent calendar for further discussion. The remaining consent items were not voted on in this segment as the council proceeded to discuss the pulled items. No final vote on the full consent calendar was recorded in this transcript segment.
Economic Diversification Focus Group Advisory Committee
- Discussion focused on the selection process for members of a staff advisory committee. Council members debated whether to invite specific individuals or open the process to public nominations. Concerns were raised regarding the need for a robust body that includes residents interested in town livability, as well as the necessity of staff having input on who they will work with. It was noted that a ratification process involving the Council could potentially classify the body under the Brown Act. The discussion concluded with an agreement to advise staff to publicly promote the committee openings to encourage a wide range of voices and to authorize staff to administer the selection process.
- A motion was made to advise staff to promote the openings of the advisory committee to the public, encouraging a wide range of voices, and to authorize staff to administer the admission of the committee. The motion was seconded. The motion passed.
Consent Items (A through F) – Reconsideration
- Discussion addressed Item F regarding affordable housing. A clarification was requested regarding the definition of "middle-income households" referenced in the staff report. Staff explained that the term is derived from a Memorandum of Understanding with Habitat for Humanity, calculated as 30% of 120% of moderate income, which equates to approximately $36,000 annually. Staff noted that the report should have been clearer that the MOU covers low-to-moderate income. Additional discussion occurred regarding the publication of a report on permitted affordable housing projects, with a suggestion to include historical data on housing built over the years.
- A motion was made to approve consent items A through F, excluding Item E which had been addressed previously. The motion was seconded. The motion passed.
City of Ojai Traffic Motor Officer
- A motion was made to remove this item from the current agenda and move it to a future date. The motion failed for lack of a second.
- Staff presented a report recommending the hiring of a traffic motor officer at a cost of approximately $350,000. The recommendation was based on data showing a 45% increase in injury accidents in 2024, a ranking in the top five for bicycle accidents in 2022, and one traffic fatality in 2024. Staff stated that current resources are insufficient for dedicated traffic enforcement and that a motorcycle offers a cost-efficient, flexible resource for the downtown and Abalado areas, particularly for addressing e-bikes, pedestrians, and narrow roads. Staff noted the availability of a used motorcycle from the City of Thousand Oaks, which would reduce costs and wait times compared to purchasing a new unit. The proposal includes a one-year trial period with monthly reporting.
- Council members and staff discussed the officer's role in education, engineering, and enforcement. Questions were raised regarding the officer's schedule, specifically the desire for weekend coverage, and the potential for e-bike registration or licensure. Staff indicated that while the Council can adopt regulations, they cannot outright prohibit e-bikes, and that e-bike policy should be addressed as a separate agenda item. Staff confirmed that the position would not require backfilling and would not incur overtime costs.
- Public comment was received from multiple residents. Supporters cited the need for enforcement to address speeding, stop sign violations, and e-bike safety, noting that education alone has not resolved the issues. Opponents argued that the cost is excessive, enforcement does not significantly reduce crash rates long-term, and that funds should be directed toward engineering solutions such as interactive speed signs, improved lighting, and sidewalks. Some commenters expressed concern about the criminalization of youth behavior and the potential for disproportionate impacts on marginalized communities. One commenter referenced a 2012 Auditor-Controller report and a 2022 assessment regarding high per capita law enforcement costs and contract issues.
- Council members discussed the proposal, with some expressing support for the enforcement component as a necessary third prong of safety alongside education and engineering. Others expressed concern about the cost relative to the overall police budget and the need to review the broader law enforcement contract. Questions were raised about the flexibility of the contract, the ability to terminate the agreement if ineffective, and the availability of data regarding the previous motorcycle officer program from 2001–2005. Staff confirmed that the contract could be flexible and that data on the previous sporadic officer's citations and hours could be retrieved.
Traffic Officer Contract (Item 2)
- Discussion focused on the proposal to hire a traffic officer for a one-year period at a cost of approximately $350,000. Council members expressed support for the measure as a necessary public safety intervention to address traffic violations and deter unsafe driving behaviors. Concerns were raised regarding the city's budget constraints, potential reductions in state and federal funding, and the need to analyze the overall police budget and Measure C spending. Staff clarified that the State Supplemental Law Enforcement Grant provides approximately $200,000 in rolling funding that can be applied to additive measures such as an additional officer, and noted that the fund balance could also be utilized.
- A motion was made to accept the traffic officer contract for a one-year period, which was seconded. A friendly amendment was proposed to include a provision allowing either party to cancel the contract if the arrangement was not working out. Staff and the Sheriff's Department representative noted that standard contracts typically include notice periods (e.g., 90 days) and buyout provisions, and the Sheriff indicated that the position could be absorbed back into regular patrol if the contract was terminated. The amendment was discussed but not formally adopted as a separate motion; the discussion centered on the flexibility inherent in standard contract terms. The motion to approve the one-year agreement was put to a vote and passed.
Arts Grants Awards for 2024-2025 (Item 3)
- The Council reviewed the Arts Commission's recommendations for the 2024-2025 Arts Grants Awards. Staff presented a report detailing the grant cycle, which received 19 applications, and the vetting process conducted by an ad hoc committee. The total funding for the program is $30,000, allocated within the approved city budget. A question was raised regarding recipients located outside the city limits; staff clarified that the grants are available to residents of the City of Ojai and the Ojai Valley, as the program is intended to benefit the broader community sphere of influence. Public comment was received suggesting an increase in funding and a broader study of the arts' economic impact.
- A motion was made to ratify the Arts Commission's funding recommendations for the 2024-2025 cycle, which was seconded. One council member recused themselves from the vote due to family connections to potential recipients. The motion was put to a vote and passed.
Fiscal Year 2024-25 Mid-Year Budget Review (Item 4)
- The Council discussed the Mid-Year Budget Review report. Several council members expressed a need for more time to review the detailed financial data and to hold informal discussions with staff regarding specific line items and budget adjustments before taking action. Staff presented a summary of the city's financial status, noting that while the city is currently operating in a deficit for the first half of the year due to the timing of revenue collection (such as property taxes and transient occupancy taxes), the full-year projection remains positive. Staff highlighted key priorities including fiscal stability, infrastructure strengthening, and organizational efficiency, and corrected several typographical errors in the written staff report regarding revenue figures and fund balances.
- Discussion ensued regarding the timing of the review in relation to the upcoming annual budget cycle. Staff indicated that approving the adjustments was necessary to establish an accurate baseline for the development of the next fiscal year's budget. However, the Council expressed a preference to delay action to allow for a deeper analysis and relationship-building with staff. A motion was made to table the item and bring it back for consideration at the meeting scheduled 30 days from the current date. The motion was seconded. The motion to table the item was put to a vote and passed.
Council Member Reports and Future Agenda Items
- Council members provided brief reports on their activities. Discussion occurred regarding the scheduling of future agenda items, specifically a proposal to transition from fireworks to a drone show. Council members noted that while the item had received preliminary support, the Mayor suggested consolidating future agenda items for a goal-setting session in two weeks. It was agreed that the drone show proposal, due to its time-sensitive nature, would be prioritized for inclusion on the agenda following the goal-setting session.
Discussion on Tracking Approved but Unimplemented Items
- The meeting concluded with a discussion regarding the status of agenda items that had been previously voted on and approved but not yet executed. Members noted that some approved items appear to be lost or unaddressed after approval. Suggestions were made to establish a "parking lot" mechanism within the agenda to ensure these items are revisited and not overlooked. It was agreed that this topic should be addressed as a goal-setting conversation at the next meeting.
Adjournment
- The meeting was adjourned. No formal motions were moved, seconded, or voted upon in this segment.