 May I have a roll call, please? Council Member Harlan? Here. Council Member Bertrand? Here. Council Member Peterson? Here. Council Member Batoir? Here. Mayor Termini? Here. Please rise and join me in the pledge of allegiance. 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. Tonight's meeting is being cablecast live on Charter Communications, Cable TV Channel 8, and AT&T Uverse Channel 99. It will be rebroadcast Wednesday 8 a.m. and Saturday following the first rebroadcast on Charter Channel 71. Our technician tonight is Lynn Dutton. As a reminder, please turn your cell phones off. Please sign your name on the sheet when you come up to speak to the council. We believe we have some presentations tonight. The first being our new parking enforcement officer. Good evening, Mayor Termini, council members, staff, and attendees for tonight's council meeting. You'll recall that on June 28, we had a swearing-in ceremony here at City Hall where we swore in a sergeant. Sarah Ryan is a newly promoted sergeant, and we also swore in our newly selected parking enforcement officer, Gabe Rankin. And so I am here tonight to formally introduce and present Gabe to City Council and the viewing public. We're really excited to bring Gabe on board. He's been working for about a month. Maybe you've seen him down in the village. He's been working closely with Ben and Oscar and our two CSOs doing a lot of work. And he's performing at a high level so far after just a month with some pretty extensive training. So a little bit about Gabe. He's 21 years old. He's a resident of Aptos. Prior to being selected as one of our parking service officers, parking enforcement officers, he worked with us for three years as one of our explorers. And so it's good to keep him on board. Gabe has aspirations of potentially becoming a police officer at some point in his young adult life. And so it gives me a great honor to present and introduce Gabe to City Council tonight and maybe a warm welcome of applause for Gabe being here tonight. Thank you very much. Gabe, that's the last friendly round of applause you'll get. Just so you know, out there in the public, keep a good attitude. Take a deep breath. Enjoy your job. Don't take anything personally. Thank you. Keep up the good work, Gabe. Thank you. And now we have a new assistant planner being presented by our Community Development Director. Hello, Katie. Karen Council. It is my pleasure this evening to introduce you to Sasha Landry, our new assistant planner. We had quite the recruitment process and quite the pool of applicants and I'm happy to announce that Sasha is a local resident. She graduated from UC Santa Cruz with a focus in American Studies and then went on to San Jose State to get her master's in planning and just finished up this past May. And she's had two local internships as well, one with the City of Santa Cruz and the other with Metro. So she's really familiar with the area, born and raised, and we're happy to have her on the team. Thank you. Welcome. May I have a report on closed session, please? Yes. The Council met in closed session from 6 till 7 this evening. There were three items in closed session that the Council discussed. First, the Council met with its labor negotiator, Daniel Wong-Torrez, concerning the ongoing negotiations with the Police Officers Association. I mean, Danya reported to the Council on the status of those negotiations. The Council gave her direction for ongoing negotiation discussions, but took no reportable action in closed session. The Council also briefly discussed the claim of Carol Kamnitz, which was filed with the City. The Council took no action on that claim in closed session, but is scheduled to consider that claim in open session this evening. Finally, the Council heard from the City Attorney with regard to the Greenway Ballot Initiative matter, and the Council, upon hearing from the City Attorney, gave direction to the City Attorney's Office to file a legal action in order to determine the legal validity of that matter, and the City Attorney's Office will be doing so in due course. Thank you, John. I noted five to zero to initiate litigation on that matter. Very good. Are there any additional materials, Madam City Clerk? Yes, we received a number. For Item 9A, we have a correction to the list that was the attachment and two public comments. For Item 9C, we have revised language to the resolution and two public comments, one of which was just received and is at your desk. All additional materials are available for the public in the back. And then for 9D, we also have revised language to the ordinance. Very good. Thank you very much. Any additions or deletions to the agenda? Staff has no changes. Excellent. We'll go on to public comments. This is a time for members of the public to address the Council on items that are not on this evening's agenda. So if you have an item you'd like to speak to the Council on that is not on the agenda, please come forward. Seeing none, we'll move on to... Sorry, come on up. No, you're not on the agenda, but you can speak to the Council if you're on the agenda or not. But now is the time to do it because you're not on the agenda, so come forward. The way that I can try to work out a very scary situation. Make sure you bring the microphone down. Don't be nervous. We all live here in the same town with you, it's okay. You may proceed. We did get your complaint, by the way. Should I give my name first? If you want, sure. My name is DeVora White, and I'm a long time resident of Capitola. My address is 208 and a half, California Avenue, Capitola, California. And our neighbor is Marla Lytle. She lives in 208. We have a shared landlord. And he lets her have her way. So there's no way that we can ever work out anything with her about our problems with her. Because she has him wrapped around her little finger. She's from a bounty wealthy family of Santa Cruz, so she gets spoiled and gets her own way. And then so we're just left on her own, right? So she can just get away with whatever. So basically, this is why I'm here. I'm not here for all the other harmful acts she's done against me over the years. But I'm here basically as a concern for the whole neighborhood. Because we've had ongoing rat infestation on California Avenue, noticeably since 2016, and even running around the street and stuff. And our neighbors are the attorneys across the street, Dr. Hats, and then he's one of them back there. And Gaitano from the restaurant and the property management on the end of the street along with other businesses. So basically, I felt that since it became worse for us in January that we have a rat and bite infestation now in our residents. That I have had ongoing bites and problems and having to go to the doctors and getting ill on top of other things that are causing health problems. So anyway, I made a concerted effort with all of our neighbors to get together to get rid of the rat infestation. Okay, so we're kind of failing with it and I'm not quite sure why. So we're going, well, my roommate and I have to spend a small fortune every month to try to exterminate the rats and the rat mites. So a lot of our income goes for that. I have a very small income, so it's really been pretty much a hardship. So anyway, June, when we went to Home Depot to get some eco-friendly pesticide stuff. The Home Depot employee told me, well, you do realize, because I was saying, well, our roommate, I mean, not our roommate, I'm sorry. Our neighbor Marla has had bird feeders lining up on her porch area since she's lived there and talking about all the bird feed all over the place. And she goes, did you know that rats and rodents will eat bird food, bird the seed, and chicken feed? And I go, no, I didn't know that. So that's why the rats are getting so fat there because I couldn't figure out why the rats were getting so much food and all that when I know my other neighbors have been very good about not doing that. Well, she has actually vocalized to me that she knows that she's feeding the rats. And she intends to continue. Your time is up, but we get the message. I understand you feel that the feeding of the birds is causing an increase in rat population and the public works will look into that in the city manager as well. So thank you. We all agree that most people have their bird feeders way out in an acreage away from houses. Right. So that's the norm. Okay, thank you very much for bringing that to our attention. Sorry, I'm like, ooh. You're fine. You're fine. It probably went too long. Is there anyone else who would like to address the council on items not on tonight's agenda? Seeing none, we'll come back for city council, treasurer and staff comments. Mr. Treasurer, do you have anything to tell us? Nothing this week. Very good. Staff. Very quickly, nomination period is open for city council. We have three seats open with one eligible returning incumbent. Four individuals have pulled papers. One has already qualified and another is scheduled to pull papers next week. Very good. Thank you. Mr. City Manager, anything for us? We'll go to council. Ed. Nothing? Kristen. Nothing. Whoa. Jacques? Truly. Stephanie. Last Saturday, we had the most wonderful party at the museum. And if you haven't been to the museum lately, there's a new exhibit up, and it's fabulous. But we had a really wonderful event, a book signing for the first ever Capitola coloring book that Frank Hill, the wonderful artist who's done a lot of things around this county and in this town, did the illustrations. And our own Frank Perry, our curator, museum curator, did the narration. And it is a history, it's actually kind of a coloring book for adults, because it talks about the history of Capitola from the beginning. And it starts out with Martina Castro in 1833. Martina Castro was granted much of what is now in Capitola in 1833 as part of the Soquel Rancho. And then there's a picture of the Adobe and Mrs. Castro. The wharf was built in 1857 for loading lumber onto ships. It has been repaired or rebuilt many times. That's the next one. Beautiful picture of a ship. The next one. Capitola began in 1874 as a summer beach resort. Visitors arrived by horse and buggy and slept in tents. And it goes on and on to the present day. And it tells you a lot of facts, probably a lot of you didn't know and a lot of things I didn't know. So we're really learning a lot with this coloring book. So if you have little friends that you think would enjoy it and they would enjoy learning about Capitola's history, stop by the museum. It's a wonderful, wonderful gift. They're only $8. Thank you very much. I have nothing to report except that I don't think we could have fit another person on the Esplanade Park last night. It was truly a packed house for the extra-large concert hosted by Gail Ortiz and Gail's Bakery. Just amazing. I can't believe how many wonderful people, happy people are out there. So we will move on to the consent calendar. These are items that are taken under a single vote. Does anyone like to pull any item on the consent calendar? Anyone from the audience would like to see any item discussed? I'll entertain a motion for the consent calendar. Motion approved. Consent calendar. Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? It's moved. We go on to general government public hearings. Start with consider options on awarding a construction contract for the Capitola branch library. Steve. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Item before you tonight is to consider options on the awarding of a construction contract for the Capitola branch library. Quick background. As you are aware, on June 6th of this year we received three bids for the construction of the library. The low bid was from auto construction in the amount of $12,325,000. At that time, the construction budget, or it still is $10 million, obviously, so we're a little over budget there. Since that time, staff has investigated options on how best to proceed, and in that time it's become apparent that there is additional measure F's revenue. Measure F is the countywide library building initiative that was passed in 2016, which was currently, say, just provide $8 million to our library, and the city manager will give us an update on that in a minute. The project team has also completed a value engineering and cost reduction study. We've basically gone through the plans, identified areas where we could make changes to the building materials, the way it's being built to try and reduce the cost, and we've also evaluated how to proceed if we don't award this contract and evaluated doing it, the redesigned bid project. So in the end, we narrowed it down to three options on how to proceed. In option one, it would be to award a contract to auto construction at the bid amount, and then direct staff to negotiate a deductive change order where we take the value engineering and cost saving measures that we've done, and negotiate a change order with them to reduce the cost of the contract, and we are recommending that we do add one of the bid alternates, which is for the concrete pavers. That is a fundraising effort put on by the Friends of the Library. It's an 18,000 add to the contract, but it's going to generate five or six or seven times that much money in donations, so we would recommend adding that change or that bid alternate to the contract. Obviously in doing that, we're going to have to reduce the cost and develop more revenue, and we'll go into each one of these options in more details in a minute. Option two would be to reject all bids and authorize staff to amend the project manager agreement with Bogart Construction to prepare documents for a design build project. Option three would be to reject all the bids at this time and direct staff to amend the existing plans per the value engineering and design cost changes that we've had and then rebid them, hoping to get the reduced cost. This is an option that's not recommended by staff, and we'll be going into that in a minute. So getting down to measure the options in a little more detail, option one, which just reminds us to award the contract and then recognize additional funding and reduce costs. So there are additional funding that's available, and I'll let the city manager cover this site. Thank you, Steve. So Council will recall that in 2000, I believe it was 16 countywide voters passed measure S to support the redevelopment of most of the branches around the county. One of the things that measure S included was the particulars is that it was a $49 per parcel tax on residential parcels throughout the county, and based on the initial projections, it's turned out that the actual projection of tax revenue has exceeded the initial estimates. In addition, the first round of bonds that were issued, we issued at a lower rate than we had originally anticipated. So there's more money in measure S than was originally thought. We worked with a financial advisor. First off, the financing authority, we formed an ad hoc committee comprised of myself and the CAO for the county. We worked with the financial advisor who's identified between $10 and $15 million of additional measure S funds that could be dispersed to the member agencies. Based on the formulas that are in measure S, Capitola would see its share of the measure S funding increase by between $1.3 and $2 million. We do plan to take this back to the full library JPA board coming up next week, and hopefully then we will be scheduling a special meeting to review a JPA amendment later in August or September, which would then be circulated back to the various city councils for approval. So it's very good news. All of the library projects are under a real financial strain. And the fact that there's additional measure S revenue within the voter approved tax is really positive news. And so far, everyone that I've talked to is very enthusiastic about proceeding quickly with this effort. So that's the good news. So on the cost reduction side, the value engineering study identified a maximum of about $1.6 million that we could take out of the project. This was a pretty hard hitting. Study, and there were some reductions that would impact the library operations in that total amount. But with the parent 1.3 million minimum from measure S funds, we've kind of paired that down to about a million dollars, little over a million dollars in reductions that we can make. And that includes putting another $50,000 back into contingency. And these changes are changes that will not affect the library operations. They're the biggest one is changing the type of foundation that there is. There's other changes to some of the siding, changing the tile, a hundred thousand dollars change and changing the lighting package without changing any of the quality or the amount of light provided that we can just make in the project. Some of them we're going to recommend we make whether we get 1.3 or $2 million. Some are just a good idea at this point. If we get $2 million from measure S, we've identified 757. These are the ones basically I think we should make regardless. And we get to increase contingencies in the furniture budget with that one. So just looking at a timeline for option one. If we were to award a contract tonight, we would finalize the contract and probably take us about four weeks to do that. And that finalizing, it's just we send the documents to them, to the contractor. They send us back to the signed contracts with bonds and insurance certificates, and that usually takes about four weeks. While we're doing that, we will also open up negotiations on the change order, the value engineering change order and anticipate that taking four to six weeks to complete. The contractor needs to look at each item and give us a price. We've estimated that price, but we need to finalize that with them. Once everything is in place. Once the contract's been signed, and the change order has been signed, we would issue a notice to proceed. I anticipate that sometime in mid-September. And then maybe we could see them mobilize the site by late September. The measure S approval process, as the city manager mentioned, the library financing authority will be meeting in August or September to hopefully approve an amendment to that agreement. And then it has to go to each of the separate agencies, City of Scotts Valley, County of Santa Cruz, City of Santa Cruz, and back to your council for approval of that amendment to the agreement. So we anticipate that will be in the September, October range. If we do award a contract tonight and we're unable to negotiate significant changes with the contractor or the measure S funding doesn't come through, we can still terminate the contract. There is termination language in the contract. We would issue a notice to termination. We would be responsible to pay the counter. The cost is incurred to date. So right now, looking at the timeline above of awarding a contract and not issuing the notice to pre-s, we're talking about bonding costs and their staff time, there is a $50,000 termination fee though. If we were to terminate it before we get toward the end of the contract. I estimate that will probably six weeks of their time be upwards of probably $100,000 by the time we terminate that contract. But there isn't out, we wouldn't be on the hook for millions of dollars that the city doesn't have at this time. Steve, is that $100,000 in addition to the $50,000? No, that would be included in the $50,000, yes. Looking closer at option two, has a rebid. So we'd reject all the bids we have now and we would go back and rebid and design build a project. We chose the design build this time because in the design build process, we create what's known as a bridging document and it tells a team of architects and contractors what we want to see in our library. We could give them square footage. We can tell them what kind of HVAC system that we want in there. We really create some specs but we don't provide a design of the building. We then take that bridging document and we take it out to bid like we do on any normal project and we receive bids. Typically, we award a contract to the low bidder. In this case, we could award a contract to the lowest dollar per square foot or closest to the budgetary number. There's different ways that we can kind of write the bridging documents to allow us to award a contract. But it's important to remember that the design, we're not, we don't have a design at that point. We're depending on this architectural and contracting team to put together a project for us after we award them a contract. We anticipate if we do get $1.3 to $2 million in additional measure S funding that the design build library would be 8,000 to 9,500 square feet. And again, it would be a design chosen by the architect and the contractor. Steve, a question on this slide before you move off of it. So as I understand it, option one and option two are both predicated on the additional $1.3 or $2 million coming from the JPA. Certainly option one given the, well, we could, yes. Option one, we do, we can not value engineer enough out of that project to award a contract tonight. And it seems that option two, you're listing here the anticipated monies to get us to 8,000 to 9,000 square feet is also predicated on the same amount coming from the JPA. That's true. If we don't get any measure S funding, we could still proceed under option two, but we'd be looking at about a 7,000 square foot library. Understood. Thank you. So just looking at the timeline for option two, we would work with Bogart construction, amend their contract and prepare the bridging documents I talk about. We would select an architect to assist us with that. Those are typically, they have the details and know how to put them. We have several architects in mind that we would solicit proposals from the assist us with that. And we would prepare documents and we'd obviously include oversight from library staff and the ad hoc design committee and bring those documents back for approval and authorization of bid. I kind of think that's about a three month process before we could be out to bid on that. So the award process includes bidding the documents, evaluating the bids and coming back to the council awarding contract is another two months. Once we've awarded the contract, all our permits are planning approval or coastal development permits and our building permits are now void. So we'd have to go back and reauthorize the project through those agencies. We need to get a certain design, far on deaf and long in the design side. It's just to pay that at least to be four months once we've awarded the contract before we have permits in place. And then nine to 12 months before, so if you add all those up, we're nine to 12 months before construction can begin. And we're looking at further cost escalation the whole time we're moving forward here. So option three to mention the very beginning would be basically to amend the existing drawings, take out what we value engineered and cost identified and try and re-bid it. I think the project manager Dave Tanza with Bogart Construction and myself. We've tried this in the past, not necessarily on 10 to 12 million dollar projects, but I've tried it on smaller projects. When you re-bid a project, I've never seen it come back with any cost savings in mind. Contractors are leery to re-bid a project that you've kind of tried to cut some savings into. It's highly unlikely that either of any of the three bidders have already bid it would bid it again. So you'd be looking at contractors looking at it anew. Basically we need to negotiate savings if we're going to try and use these drawings rather than hope to bid them. So we're not recommending removing with moving forward with option three. So it's kind of listing some advantages of each option here. If we award now it expedites construction and it really locks the cost. We know what the costs, well we know what our funding is going to be and we'll know our costs by the time we get under construction everything will be locked in place. The bid we have locks a lot of the costs in place. Obviously we need to negotiate a change order with them. But it does lock the cost and we don't face any more escalation and costs. One of the more more important aspects is it builds the project that we've shown to the public. There's been quite a bit of outreach with this design. A lot of fundraising has gone on with it and we a lot of that would go away if we were to start over again. It maximizes our investment where we are to date. We have about a million and a half dollars in design and permitting costs that would for the most part go away if we don't proceed at this point. And it also meets the library program demands. The library went through a needs assessment identified I think originally a 13,000 square foot library for the city of Capitola. When we started this design process we rolled it back to what we are now at 11,700 and we feel that what the community in the library wants. Option two the biggest advantage there is using the design build process. We kind of lose this uncertainty that we had with the way we did it the first time with a design bid process where the contractor and the architect are working together so we're not going to get to the end of that design process and come back with a bid that's you know two million dollars over price. We may come back with a building that's not what we've quite envisioned but it does help control the costs. So our recommendations from the staff report would be either option one to award the contract to auto construction in the bid amount and authorize staff to do a change order. We do recommend adding bid alternate number for the country pavers or reject all bids and authorize staff to move forward with a design bid process. And just staff's opinion that this is our chance to really tie down this contract and get it going and delaying it farther just can do introduces more unknown so staff would recommend option one at this point and that's my report and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you Steve question to staff. In the staff report in the last paragraph we had an option two. It says that finally the fees paid to date for the existing design would be lost estimated at one point five million dollars. OK and then when we drop down to the staff report in option three third paragraph it says the advantages of this option would be retaining the existing design. That means that the one point five is not lost. Yeah because we're going to basically take the drawings that we have now and put the value into we're still spent some money revising the plans but we'd still be based on the one point five million dollar design we have to date. Thank you first anything. No questions questions. We'll open this up to the public. Anyone who would like to speak to the council regarding this item please come forward. Welcome Barbara. Council get my name here. Thank you for having this on the agenda tonight. We're all eager to find out what's going to happen. I strongly support option one when considering these options remember that this library is an investment in our community and in our community's future. It's not like other civic buildings. It's going to be here for 50 years and we're not going to we don't really know in 50 years how we're going to use it. We can't even imagine. So we need to have the building built to be flexible enough to accommodate whatever happens in the library world. With option one we know what we're getting. We know the design. We know the size. We know the programs and services and we know the timeline. We don't know any of these things with option two. We do know that option two will be significantly smaller and we do know that option two will cost significantly more per square foot than option one and the longer we wait the more it's going to cost. With option one we're delivering our community what our community has prioritized in community meetings. We're delivering what we have promised the public during our Measure S campaign and we're delivering what we have communicated to the lead donors during our very successful fundraising campaign to date. With option two we risk not delivering what we've communicated or what people have voted for or what people have donated money for. We've used the current design with significant advantage in our conversations with the public and our lead gift donors and it has been a huge part of our success in getting donations during this quiet phase of the fundraising. We've been successful in obtaining donors for all but a few of the naming opportunities that we've listed and with a significantly smaller smaller library the size that we would have with option two there is not likely to be the same space or the same rooms available or rooms of the same size and they may be perceived as not worth the gifts that have already been very generously donated. So I know many of you were active supporters of Measure S and I know that all of the City Council is either on our campaign committee or on the honorary committee and your names are in our marketing materials as supporting this design and supporting the vision that we currently have. So I'm asking not to back off on your support now. Don't short change our community. As my mother used to say don't be penny wise and pound foolish. So thank you very much for listening and I urge you to vote for option one. Thank you Barbara. Anyone else. Good evening Mr. Mayor and council members and staff. Hi. My name is Christine McBroom I'm a resident of Capitola business owner Measure S payer. And I'd like to speak just for a second about the library. I have two very small children in the condition that the library was in we probably would go two times per week to the library. I'm urging you to make an investment in your community. The kids of this community could use it. And option one looks great. I don't know if I can ask a question but have future measure S funds been calculated in all your numbers. Is it possible to ask a question. The that's what the that's what the extra one point three to two million dollars when when it trued up and we saw what it really was because an estimate before we're seeing that there's 10 to 15 million dollars more coming from measure S than we thought for future 2021 when it expires. So the measure S funding that is essentially the additional funding that would be available in the next couple of years. Got it. So option one looks great. Please. I urge you find a way to make this work for our community. Thank you. Thanks Christine. Welcome Sam story. Always good to see you. Thank you. Thank you mayor. Good evening council members. Thank you for bringing this item to the attention of the public and I just wanted to I think point out a couple of issues about time and money and one about time. We currently don't have a library in Capitola and option one is the only one that will keep us on schedule to being able to reopen the library within a reasonable time frame. If you go with any other option we may be delayed and moving into the unknown about what we may achieve and when we may achieve that and also just looking at the numbers you know when I see option 2 we are basically throwing $1.5 million out the door that will be lost and will go away. Whereas with option one you're risking less than 10 percent of that amount and if the measure S funds and it sounds like those are pretty confident we'll come through and I'm confident that staff will be able to negotiate the value engineers changes to reduce the budget. We will be on time and will be on budget. So thank you and hope you vote for option one. Thank you Sam. Would anyone else like to address the council Linda Smith welcome. My name is Linda Smith and I haven't come before you and spoken on the library to date but it's really really important so I'm here tonight. As the chair of the honorary committee for this campaign I know how much this project means to the community. Capital needs and we've earned the right to have something more than just a library and I think option two we'll get you just a library. The work that's been put into this design supports what the community wants and what the community needs and that's been proven by the progress that we've made to date with the campaign. I've heard some residents in the past compare this to a personal real estate project but it's really a lot different than that. On a personal level your time horizon is much shorter than dealing with the library. Although some of us stay in the same home for many many years we're always remodeling upgrading and if we have growing families we're up sizing. We're doing things that we plan to do and we continue to take advantage of the equity and roll those changes in. In this case with the library what we build is what we're going to have for the next 50 years or more. We're not going to be able to do those kinds of things that we do on a personal level. During the quiet campaign we got pledges that covered 126 percent of the entire campaign commitment. That is huge. We haven't even started the public part of the campaign yet and over 50 percent of those pledges are banked. That money is sitting there it's waiting for us. So we've got the momentum. We need the timing. I'm going to ditto the comments that you've seen in writing and that you've heard tonight about options two and three and ask for your full support on option one. As a fiscally conservative person myself I know it's a tough decision for a lot of you thinking through it but I believe in my heart of hearts that this library not just some library not just another building but this library that we've designed will be a great investment in the future of Capitola and it's worth taking some risk to make it happen. I believe that together we can all make it happen and there's enough confidence in the risk that I see it as pretty minimal. So I ask for your support on option one. Thank you. Thanks Linda. Anyone else. Then we'll bring it back to the council and we'll start with Kristen. Yeah. You know of all the options that I look at when I'm reading the staff report option one is the only one that doesn't say it's going to cost us extra time and extra money. And as I've mentioned before one of my biggest concerns in taking extra time is that even if we take the time and think that we're going to be bringing the cost down by the time we go back out to bid the cost could have skyrocketed again and we'll be right back where we are now. Thank you to the people that got up and gave gave comment about this. I think there's some really good points that have been made and I agree that option one is the way to go and so I'm going to go ahead and make a motion to proceed with option one to award the contract to auto construction and direct staff to negotiate a change order thereafter. Second. It's been motion and second. We'll continue with the discussion. Ed. Thank you. Well it's clear that option two is not a good choice because the fact that we would give up $1.5 million and not be anywhere further ahead of the game makes sense. As to option one you know I'm I'm seeing two options that are still viable option one which was just motion for an option three. Option one has a lot of presumptions. OK. There's nothing in here that definitely states that we're going to receive money from the county. And what we've been doing all along in this process is moving this library along in a fiscally irresponsible method and has got us to this point where when we finally got the second bids from the contractors after we were already two million dollars over budget we end up with a project that's four point three million dollars over budget. So what we're asking to do here in option one is take another leap of faith for two one point three to two million dollars with the funds there by no means guarantee. It's going to take an agreement between four entities Scots Valley Capitola City of Santa Cruz and the county to authorize any additional funds to the capitol library and there's funds from possibly 10 to 15 million dollars available but and there is a distribution formula but that has to be renegotiated and none of that has happened to date. That correct Mr. City Manager. That's correct. Thank you. So here we are in this dilemma and I look at option three which the city recommends against which the only reason that we that I can find why it's not favorable is it is going to delay the project. I've lived here for 10 years and Capitola has cautiously crept along and everything so I want to understand why it's so urgent to take all these risks now. Of course it's a great project. The library is something this town needs but I don't want to be swayed by the fact that it happened to be closed now because we were optimistic that we were going to be receiving bids that were going to be well within the boundaries that we could afford. It didn't happen. And there's a lot of speculation in item three that says things like the advantage of this option will be retaining the existing design which is why I think we all reject option two because we throw away a million and a half dollars or having to negotiate a change order with the contractor relative to the value engineered savings. Key word there we have to negotiate those value savings. That doesn't mean they're going to happen. I mean there's a lot of great recommendations in there to reduce the eaves from 18 inches to 12 inches and to take the tile instead of all the way to the ceiling only half way up the wall. But these are still negotiations and if you always think that when the contractor says he's going to give you a price and if it goes 50 dollars halfway up or 100 dollars at the top is going to be 50 to the middle it's not going to be that way. It's probably going to be 70 to the middle and you're going to say well how come half cost 70 percent and that's just called contracting. So there's a lot of innuendo in what we're being led to believe but the bottom line is the city of capitol is on the hook for this money. And it's my opinion that we didn't have the money to begin what we already started. We robbed every account we have we robbed some of our PERS return money we we we killed our general account fund. We took money that I don't believe we had to make this library happen which personally I contributed to the library myself but I'm not so eager to spend the city's money because the city has a lot more obligations. So when I look at option three I say this one here allows us to go back take the value engineering items that we've already come to a conclusive list and say we don't need this we don't need that. Put it on the form and the only fear we have is that some contractors might not rebid it or we wouldn't get a good price. But you know what might happen. There could be a contractor that might have missed the bid by a few thousand dollars that wished he was building this library right now and he might bid it lower next time. We don't know that and I'm just speculating that that might happen. But I'm just not eager to sit up here and randomly say OK option one solves all of our problems because the county is going to come through with this money and we're going to make these reductions and everything is going to be wonderful. I don't believe that. If it happens. Yay for us. So I'll be voting against this motion. John. One thing we have to remember is some communities have aspirational projects and some people just do the norm. Capitola is standing out and taking a different way than the norm. This is an aspirational project. So because of that I listened to Barbara and others that has spoken out in the community and talk about the fact that this is something that means a lot to its citizens means a lot to me. I have as a kid my wonderful memories of the library and how much that meant to me as a child. And when you know what the design is you realize a lot of it is given to children's activities space for children decorations motifs that are focused on children. And most of us know that when you spend that money for children it's magnified sevenfold reaching on later into their life they become better citizens. They're more responsible. It's it's worth the investment. This is an aspirational project. It is worth the investment. In terms of the money that we have now extra because as Kristen asked you know words is have we done the the accounting for this. The formula that was reached when S was being negotiated is not something we're going to redo. Everyone is in the same boat. We are the first out of the gate. We're the ones that are realizing right now that trying to get a good cost estimate in this construction climate is very difficult. Every single city county in Santa Cruz is going to be in the same situation. We're not going to renegotiate that divvying up of the funds. They're going to go along with us where the first one in the first one making the request but everyone else is going to see I'm going to need those extra funds too. So I think that is what's going to happen. I think it's comments about renegotiating the value ad the value engineered projects you know that you know taking out of the original design. There's probably some merit in there. I'm learning about construction. I'm learning about bids and I'm learning how the industry works. And when I listen to Steve has a lot of experience in this. There's a dynamic in making the second bid. You've already seen what everyone else has put on the table. That's the new way. That's the new norm so to speak. And it's hard to beat that. I think auto construction is giving us a good bid. I don't think we're going to get a better one. When I looked at the items on the value engineering list I looked at the high cost. I didn't look at the smaller costs. But a lot of them made sense. I think that will win that contract bid with auto construction and reduce the cost significantly. So I'm going to vote for option one. Stephanie. I'm very very happy to support this right now. This is a very important project to the community. And the people that have been out raising funds have been taking the pictures of the library out and showing it to people. And that's why they've gotten such great donations because it's going to be a great library. So I can't change the horse right now because then it's kind of tricky to all those people that have donated all that money for one. Number two I don't want to have option two and lose a million and a half dollars. And I don't want to downsize it anymore. I think that I feel confident now that we've taken out a million dollars out of the design and engineering and furniture and all those different little things. And we feel very confident that we're going to get some extra money from the JPA. Now it is a leap of faith but I'm really very very willing to take it. This is a wonderful project. I want to do it sooner rather than later. And please invite me to the groundbreaking. And I've already invited former councilmember Margaret Fabrizio to the groundbreaking because they we were there to put in the shovels in the ground for that library that's up there right now. Sam were you there then. Okay. So we were there then and we'd like to be there again with our hard hats and shovels to help you. Thank you Stephanie. Not much more I can say except just speaking as a construction person forty plus years. I have to agree with Steve rebids are never successful. The first time the bids come out that sets a new floor for the project. And I've seen projects come out with drastic changes to them and be bid beyond what they came at the first time. No one wants to bid against themselves and I would question whether auto construction would even bid it the second time even with the redesign. So I won't speak any more about this except this is the path of least risk. This is the most responsible plan path for the city at this time. Given where we are is the difference between gambling on the county. Distributing more money which I think is a really good bet. Versus. Two and three with a smaller library and I guarantee you it will come in at the same cost. Because the lines in the sand and the cost of this library. Seven to nine thousand square feet. Doesn't matter. You're going to see the same numbers because they're too easy to write on paper and everyone knows them already. So roll call though please. Councilmember Harlan. I. Councilmember Bertrand. I. Councilmember Peterson. I. Councilmember Botard. No. Mayor Termini. I. Motion passes for one. And applause is appropriate at this point. And we'll move on to report on citizen initiative petition qualification. And the report I believe is given by our city attorney. Yes. No it's me. Oh it's oh I am sorry our city attorney has been preempted by Madam City Clerk. We may add we I think we may add him in at some point. I'm sure. And I have a tech support on that side. So some background for those who are not as familiar with how the city gets its laws. We have a capitol and municipal code and it contains the city's laws which are everything from local land use requirements noise regulations local tax rates much more. And the way that those are usually enacted is by a vote of the city council. However the state provides an option for citizens to make their own laws by taking an ordinance to the voters through an initiative process which is outlined in the elections code. And we're learning a lot about that because I believe this is the first time we've had one in Capitola. On the second of April we received notice that there would be such an action went through the process in the elections code got the legal language got the petition noticed and circulated on the first of June had them come in we did a preliminary look at them said it looks like they've got enough sent it to the county and on June 27 the county came back and said yes you have the required number of votes to qualify this as a ballot initiative. And so we are here tonight to say yes we have a qualified initiative and that you have some decisions to make. In the process the city attorney's office came up with a new language to describe the product. I'll put it up there. I'm not going to attempt to explain what the intent of this is that is the best description that our attorney's office could come up with. So now that we have it and it has been certified the elections code gives you three options. The first is to say yes we're adopting it without alteration you would vote on it and make it law. Second would be to take it straight to the voters and say tonight yes we are ready to put this in front of the voters. And the third is to say we need more information before deciding what to do and to ask for reports. Now the elections code really gives us 30 days to prepare report and another 10 days to make that decision however because the petition came so late and was certified later we don't have that much time however we can ask for a report to come back to us on August 9th to make the August 10th deadline for the upcoming election. One of the reasons to that staff is recommending that we have a report is because we have received communication from the community asking questions about this and we have the option to ask basically anything there are eight things but the last item is any matters that you feel should be in the report. I do understand that some of that decision was made in closed session tonight that there are concerns about the legal language and that was one of the items that the community brought forth in a letter. We've also had questions about whether the initiative is compatible with our local coastal program. So staff's recommendation is that you do ask for a report before making a decision on August 9th that you direct us what information you would like. Obviously you have given some direction to the city attorney and if he wishes to weigh in on this further we can do that at this point but also this is the opportunity for the public to say what questions or concerns they may have and for you to determine what you would like to know before you make a decision. Thank you. John. Yeah actually we have not received direction yet but I am prepared to make a recommendation under 9212 of the elections code. There is a laundry list of items that you can request a report to provide information on and among those items are fiscal impact, consistency with the city's general plan and any specific plans the city may have, impact on transportation funding, impact on traffic congestion and any other matters legislative body request to be in the report and in this particular instance it would be our recommendation and in addition to the items that I just mentioned that the report provide information concerning the measures legal viability and also its impact on plans besides the general plan and specific plans mentioned in the statute and by these I am referring to our local coastal plan our regional transportation commission plan for the rail trail which is regional plan and also our bicycle transportation plan which is a city plan. So we would be reporting on consistency and conflicts with those four plans legal viability, fiscal impact, transportation funding, impact, traffic congestion impact. That would be my recommendation. Questions of staff? Anyone? Yes, Jock. So in the hypothetical situation that this did go to vote and the public voted to actually approve this what does that say about the public's approval and stance on the plans that we've adopted and considering that when the plans were adopted whichever ones they were they may not have considered changes in the situation going forward. So how would this conflict or maybe promote or compel the city to act differently? It wouldn't. The measure itself the ballot measure itself that's proposed says that it is not intended to amend any applicable plans. So to the extent that you're concerned about change circumstances and the plans may no longer be applicable the proper mechanism would be to go through a general plan amendment process or RTC plan amendment process or a local coastal plan amendment process. But this is specifically what this ballot measure is saying it is not intended to do. So then you have a problem if indeed there are conflicts then you have a problem there a legal problem. So I don't know how to resolve this problem. Maybe you have some ideas since you are an attorney but it seems like we're being asked to do something we actually can't do. Well that's the purpose of the report and our analysis. So the report will lucidate that. Yes. So I consider report very instrumental in the process for the citizenry of capital making a decision. So I definitely would support a report. Let's open it up to the public. Anyone would like to speak to us on this item please come forward. Welcome. My name is Juan Escamilla counsel and mayor. I'm here as a proponent for this initiative to be put on the ballot. First I'd like to thank Linda and her staff. Thank you. I've never done anything like this before so it was kind of cool talking to her and she helped me through this a lot and her staff was returning my emails and it was great. So I appreciate that. Here today we're just get our search certificate for the signatures which I know that we we've got a lot of. I know that the people that worked on this and the community and the city capital came around and we talked to a lot of people had people going door to door so it was very receptive on what was what is proposed for this. So I like to thank them and again just for your time to listen. And I was just happy to get the signatures done and everything done so I appreciate everything that you're doing. Thank you. Can I ask them a quick question. I'm just curious to know what did you talk to the people about or how did you present it. We presented it as a way to use what is there and try to make it a trail or a bike path of that nature to not only to get around Capitola out of the town to go above but also into Santa Cruz if that was the way it was going to go that way because there's been a lot of need for bicycle trails from the West side to the East side. And this is just a part of it. So it was a way to show them how that could be and how Capitola could be at the forefront of that. Are you familiar with the sanctuary scenic trail that was planned along the coast and is still there with spurs to the railroad tracks. Yeah. I mean that's all part of the plan. That's all part of the plan. But isn't the other plan to redo some of the streets and city of Capitola when it comes time to read what do you mean redo the streets to make it. I guess we have to do something with the sidewalks and so forth to make them on both sides or it's not sidewalks on the both sides. So wasn't that going to take up some of the time. We don't have any plans. I don't know but thank you very much for your comments. We appreciate that. Anyone else. Hi my name is Linda Larson and I'm a question document examiner. And I live in Capitola at Capitola Gardens. And I just wanted to let you know that as a resident of Capitola Gardens and a voter I've been inspired by the citizens of this remarkable community community regarding this petition. And coming from a politically oriented family in San Jose where my mother was the president of the legal women voters and had a television program where she talked to people about the planning of Santa Clara Valley. We found out how easy it is to lose control over a beautiful area. So one of the things I can tell you is that it's hard to get people together to rally for one vote one voice. And what I found in this last going through this last month with talking to people about this petition is that there is a voice and that in Capitola what people want to do is to maintain what we have here but make it maintain it so that we can utilize it in a peaceful way. In a way that still allows us to experience beauty of it. And and also allows people to utilize what is here the structure that is here. So what I I did find out that one of the things that people do talk about is maintaining the the beauty and the ability to walk along the roads both with if you're walking your dog if you're in a wheelchair if you're running whatever you're doing you can have access to the beaches and I see that every single day. Capitola that the resistance to having a train go through here is the money of course is and but it's also interestingly enough the noise so the noise that we experience here outside of the emergency vehicles is usually the music that happens you know from the restaurants and that's about as noisy as it can get minus warped warp. So that was quite an experience. So the people all over town are talking about the major construction coming if that happens and so they want to utilize this democratic process of ours to be able to say you know what we want and what we see in the future in five years from now and it's not a railroad it is really a railroad that we can all utilize and enjoy. So that's what I want to thank you very much. Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the council. Welcome. Hello good evening. I'm David Van Brink. So about this citizen initiative to amend title eight of the municipal code. We know this was sponsored by an anti rail group but it's unclear what the intent is the RTC owns the right of way and the trestle and intends eventually to fund necessary bridge reconditioning to support a trail on it or buy it which is a major task. It sounds like some want for the Monterey Bay sanctuary scenic trail to run right up to the border of Capitola to assign that perhaps says trail ends here. Hikers and cyclists will then look down at their phones and make their way through Capitola since the initiative says no signage. And breathe a sigh of relief when the trail resumes on the other side. This seems inconsistent with some of our existing trail plans of course. And then you know the counterpoint to that is until then we have with minor repairs outlined in the 2012 inspection report a perfectly serviceable train bridge. I urge you to follow the staff recommendation and request a report pursuant to election code section nine two one two to review at a future meeting and consider particularly the message of the sense opting out of the trail and leaving potentially a long term gap in the trail continuity. The message of the sense to visitors which are an important part of the economy here. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else. Yes welcome. Good evening Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council my name is Linda will shoes in I'm a resident of live oak but we love Capitola. And I was a 20 year director of the Regional Transportation Commission. In your consideration of your staff recommendation to repair a report about this proposed capitol initiative for your next meeting. Please direct the staff and the city attorney to highlight the following impacts of implementing the proposed measure of past. The probable fiscal impact of the proposed measure both for the city of capitol. And for Santa Cruz County residents and businesses. Who collectively are public owners. Of the Monterey Bay sanctuary scenic trail and the rail trail. Impact of the proposed measure on the capitol village visitors serving economy. Transportation traffic and accessibility impact on capitol residents businesses. And visitors of a significant and probable long term gap in the designated rail trail within the capitol city limits. Safety impact of the proposed measure on capitol residents businesses and visitors in particular those using non motorized forms of transportation. If and when the council decides to place this proposed measure on the November ballot I hope you'll also. Taking unanimous position opposing it. As our public servants and community leaders. Your individual and collective viewpoint on the proposed measures erroneous and misleading findings will be helpful in the community's decision making process. If it gets to that. Working for the public good is complicated. It's not as simple as saying just don't cooperate with everyone else. Especially when is in this case nearly everyone else including the city of capitol its residents businesses and voters. Have recently and explicitly agreed. With the county wide consensus about building the runner Monterey. St Bay sanctuary scenic trail approved by the city itself in two thousand fifteen. And transportation measure D passed by a two thirds majority county wide. In two thousand sixteen. Thank you. Thank you. George welcome. And before you start I sincerely want to thank you for the email you sent me regarding our trestle and that you're paying attention to it. Being careful with it I genuinely appreciate that communication you're welcome Mr. Mayor we're still paying attention to the trestle tonight no doubt good evening council members. I'm George Dondaro the current executive director of the regional transportation commission for the last twelve and a half years and I am a resident of capitol. I just have a few quick comments tonight about this proposition. RTC supports your staff recommendation to conduct an independent analysis of the impacts of the proposition. RTC understands the importance of the trestle as a transportation link through the village. For rail service and potentially pedestrian and bicycle use as part of the Monterey Bay sanctuary scenic trail network. You may know that at the June fourteenth meeting the RTC authorized fifty thousand dollars to conduct a feasibility study of a full replacement of the capitol trestle such that it could accommodate both train and trail. This work will be added to the scope of an existing contract with an engineering firm to conduct inspections of bridges and trestles on the line. Excuse me including the capitol trestle. So this is a recent development and I didn't want to make sure you were all aware of that. The proposition raises many many questions which I don't think will answer tonight. But we hope will be discussed at the future meeting of this council. And I will be sending a letter with more extensive comments to you in the near future. Thank you for your time. Thank you George. Would anyone else like to address the council. Welcome Mark. Good evening Mayor Termini and council members. My name is Mark Mercedes Miller I'm a professional civil engineer. In practice for more than 30 years. I'm also the chair of the. Friends of the Royal and Trail countywide organization founded in 2002. I urge you to adopt the staff recommendation to ask for a report. And the question before tonight is what should be in that report. You know because this initiative will forever amend title aid of the capitol of municipal code. We should take this very serious. One thing you need to understand and I would ask for is its fiscal impact. Particularly the cost of delaying or even losing funding for the design and construction. Of the portion of the coastal rail trail within city limits. Portions of segments 10 and 11 estimated at more than 18 million dollars in construction costs. In the MBS ST. I would also have the report investigate. What the cost of denied funding might be as a result of the. Damage this ordinance will cause to the city's relationship with their your regional transportation commission. As well as the cost of denying your capitol citizens. Access to the coast. Access to planned active transportation improvements. And other legal claims as previously outlined in the letter from Joanne Noche. To the city attorney and copy to you on May 4. In addition I heard some comments about checking its internal consistency with your. City adopted local coastal plan I think there's some serious issues that arise as a result of this measure should be adopted. You may want to understand the cost impacts of that. It would also be wise to understand its impact on funding for transportation infrastructure of all types. But especially active multimodal transportation projects and public transportation. Public transit projects. Available through the regional transportation commission. Including capitol's portion of self help self help funds. That would otherwise be available through the state or federal government. In addition. The report should investigate the initiatives impact on the following. The likely minimum delay in getting any of the Monterey Bay sanctuary scenic trail constructed within city limits. As the measure specifically states. That no city of capitol a department agency or employees shall expend any funds or resources related to the construction reconstruction operation maintenance financing marketing. Or even signage for a detour of the trail onto capitol streets or sidewalks. Especially since the master plan does not have a detour of the coastal trail on the city sidewalks and streets. That is the plan. Lastly I think it would be wise to have the report understand. The impacts on. That's the public policy that was adopted in the MBSST to develop trails in such a way that future rail transit services along the quarter are not precluded. Thank you. Continue. No. Finish please. Thank you mayor. So especially in light of the non cooperation clauses embedded in the initiative the report should investigate the likelihood the portion of trail within city limits could be delayed for many years. Perhaps indefinitely. An outcome with which the citizens of capitol and your neighbors both east and west of you would be very unhappy for many reasons including the fact that all trail users passing through capitol would then be forced onto city streets and sidewalks anyway. Thank you. Thank you. Next. Dennis. So the council and staff. This this trustal in this this section of court was pretty dear to me. I spent 14 years my life fighting to get a purchase and then also to begin a plan on this thing. So I'm not letting it go easy. The initiative process. I mean there's a good reason this never happened in capitol. It really isn't needed here. And that that I think that we elect public officials to make decisions for us make the right decisions in this case. We're loaded with two we have two commissioners in a very in a hundred and in less than less than 10,000 people population that represent the RTC. So we have good representation on that on that committee. This the initiative process has been under a lot of scrutiny in California last couple of years for good reason. Is it really a good mechanism for government to make decisions. This initiative before he was a perfect example of why the initiative process doesn't work. It's poorly written. It's it's not clear in its purpose. The initiative the initiative will really do nothing will have nothing to do with bikes or safety of pedestrians. The initiative has to do with keeping motorized vehicles off the off of this corridor. That's also that's what this whole thing is about. And so if the initiative said that then then you have something clear to the public to to to vote yes or no on. This trestle here will never be rebuilt without railroad money. It's too expensive to rebuild it would if it was met if it was left to just a pedestrian corridor. There is no money possible to rebuild that you would still have to ride your bike through the village and you still because someday and and and everyone's starting to see it now that this trestle is going to be is close to abandonment. Can it hold a freight a freight car now. Question. A couple other bodies that we have even discussed tonight is the federal federal railroad Commission. They actually would have to abandon this section of rail line to to for for that for that for anything use but rail on there. So the process is is much deeper than this initiative to take the power away to what you do it. You have land use decisions in community but you do not have land use decisions on a federal railroad. I think that needs to be looked at. This is historic structure. Secretary of Interior has say on how it's redesigned and how it's rebuilt. I think that it is it's a good idea at this point for the Council to direct staff to look into this and find all all the answers to the questions that have been raised tonight. And the fact that we don't know a lot. And and I'm looking at my two representatives. If this thing passes in this community does that mean you don't have a say of which way you vote. You would have to vote to what this says here. Does that take you off as a voting member of the RTC on this issue. I think it does. I think if this passes you will not have to say you'll have to vote as this as this initiative states. Thank you Dennis. Thank you. Anyone else. Seeing none we'll bring it back to the Council. Start with Stephanie. I think this is a very strange initiative. When I first read it I thought what in the world is this about. We spent years planning the sanctuary scenic trail and then the rail trail came along after that. But there were always plans to have the coastal route for walkers, bikers, wheelchairs, automobiles to learn about the sanctuary and travel along the coast with spurs up to the railroad because when we were planning this years ago the train people said, what about us? What about us? And we said, you can join us and we can have the trails go up to the to the rail line. That's fine. But we're going ahead and working on our trail along the coast. From Davenport to actually stopped in Capitola. That's when we hadn't finished planning to go on down to Watsonville, but we had tentative plans for that. So it still needs to be marketed as a sanctuary scenic trail where people will learn about the sanctuary and go to the coast and read the interpretive signs and go to the visitor centers and learn about the coast. The rail is sort of secondary. That came along afterwards. So what happens on the rail line is, you know, the rail is RTC's business. But I don't want anybody tying our hands on what we're going to do in Capitola as far as our sidewalks and streets and our other plans for people to get to the beach. Because that is that's that sort of set in stone. We have it in our general plan, our local coastal plan, our bicycle plan and the sanctuary scenic trail plan. It's all there, all the maps, all the pictures that's all been adopted by everybody. And I don't understand this this measure. It's a very strange measure that tells the city what to do. It tells the city to, I guess, ignore our policies and all of our other plans. So it seems very illegal to me. Thank you, Stephanie. I support asking for this report. I'd like to see what the citizenry will be faced with when they make their vote choice. Thank you, Christian. I don't have a lot of lot to add citizen initiative petitions or are new to me. I'm still wrapping my head around, you know, what it all means and what it would all mean in the long run. So I support asking for the impact report. You know, I think as we all sit up here, I think one thing we all tend to agree on is we all want to know what the citizens of Capitola want for their city. And to my knowledge, they've always entrusted those decisions to the city council. And we put ballot measures on before and some have been successful, some haven't. But they've given us guidelines as to what the citizens request. And what I feel this does this initiative is it takes the power away from this body to make decisions for the citizens of Capitola, which goes against the reason I think we're all up here before you to serve. So we've made lots of documents. We've done general plans, as Stephanie mentioned, the Coca-Cola coastal plan, Metropolitan Transportation Plan, lots of plans, lots of time, lots of effort that we've agreed upon what's best for this not only the city, but for the entire county. So with that, I agree with my other colleagues up here that I would like to make a motion to adopt a motion for the staff recommendation, which is to report a petition of amend Title VIII pursuant to elections code 9212 be presented at the August 9th city council meeting with some inclusions on the staff report, as the city attorney mentioned, to make sure that we include on the staff report items 1, 2, 4, and 7, which are fiscal impact, consistency, funding, and traffic issues. But there's a myriad of issues listed in I'm recommending 1, 2, 4, and 7. Also with some to also to look at and view legal viability and make sure it's consistent with the local coastal plan, is it the Monterey Bay, scenic coastal trail, and the metropolitan transportation plan. So that would be my motion. Is there a second? Yeah. OK, before we take the vote on that, I think it's good to note here that all these steps of caution have nothing to do with subverting the initiative process. We all serve the electorate up here. It's very important to us. The initiative process is near and dear to everyone's heart in California. At the same time, we took an oath to manage Capitola and to make decisions for it. So we're trying to balance these two, which is why we are going cautiously down this path. So with that, may I have a roll call vote, please? One point of clarification on motion. Yes, John. That includes you. I didn't hear Ed mention the bicycle transportation. Yes, it was in there. Stephanie had mentioned that. I'll say all the appropriate plans there includes all of them. I don't know that I got them all. I mentioned a few of them. Stephanie covered a couple of other ones too. I heard the bicycle come in there. Five or six plans were mentioned. And Mark, do we have a copy of your letter? Yes. And then we have Linda Willshews, and so we'll accumulate some of those points in there and have the city attorney address them all. And we'll receive that report back prior to making the decision to put it on the ballot, correct? My recommendation, we're going to be obviously a little hard pressed to put this report out within the next two weeks, but we would welcome any comments from anybody with a concern. They should be in writing and they should be submitted a copy to my office, a copy to the city manager, and they should be submitted by next Wednesday, so we have time to assimilate them and take them into consideration. But we'd welcome all comments. And this report for the audience and those listening at home, in no way, this report will in no way prevent this measure from going on the ballot, but as the city attorney mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, before everyone got here, in closed session, we also directed them to look for a legal determination by a judge on the legal validity of this measure. So that's also part of the process taking place here tonight. May I have a roll call vote, please? Council Member Harlan? Aye. Council Member Petrand? Aye. Council Member Peterson? Aye. Council Member Bator? Aye. And Mayor Termini? Aye. Passes unanimously. And for the speaker who talked about our perfectly inspected in 2012, you should talk with George for a while. I'll leave that to you. Yes? You still have the issue of directing city attorney's office to prepare an impartial analysis of the measure for the ballot pamphlet. That is still on this agenda. That's right. We didn't take care of that. We will be presenting the actual measure on the ninth. Can we include it at that point? Sure. Would that be appropriate? Right. Good. Thank you. I'll move on to rocketing on to number three on our agenda tonight. Consider a resolution placing a special transient occupancy tax measure on the November 6, 2018 election ballot. Staff? Mr. Mayor, members of the council, last month we talked about a number of different items that we could potentially place on the November ballot. At that point, council gave conceptual direction to prepare the documentation necessary to include a TOT measure on the November ballot, cannabis tax, and also to take a look at the transition of a treasure from an elected to an appointed position. So the first item we're going to touch on this evening is the TOT. This was a little bit of background that I know is repetitive from our prior meeting, so I'll go quickly, but our TOT, our transient occupancy tax on hotel guests is currently 10% in Capitola. In the county and the city of Santa Cruz and in Watsonville it's at 11%. Watsonville has placed a measure on the November ballot to go from 11 to 12. Scotts Valley has placed a measure on the November ballot to go from 10 to 11. And in Capitola each 1% of TOT is about $155,000 of revenue. And obviously a change in the tax requires voter approval. Councilmember Botdork presented to the full council at the last meeting a proposal that he worked out with some business leaders in the community, essentially a 2% point increase in the TOT to go from 10 to 12 that it would be a special tax requiring two-thirds approval. That 0.4% of the increase would go to local business groups for them to increase marketing efforts and to use for other community improvements. The intent would be to split the funding between the BIA and Chamber of Commerce equally and that the chamber funding would be removed from the general fund which has currently been $30,000 a year out of the general fund. And then 0.35% of the TOT increase would be dedicated to youth and early childhood education programs based on the current TOT that would be about $54,000 per year. And in our current grant cycle request we've received applications. We haven't yet made the award. We'll be doing that next meeting. We have $32,000 in grant requests from direct youth serving nonprofits. So there is potential there to increase the amount of funding available for those types of programs. And then the remaining 1.25% would be dedicated to the general fund at $194,000 a year. And there was a unanimous direction to proceed with all the documentation and the ordinance necessary to put this on the November ballot at the last meeting. So the direction tonight is to adopt that resolution which would place the measure on the ballot. It would also to direct the city attorney to prepare an impartial analysis for publication as required by county elections code. And then lastly consider designating one or two council members to take the lead in developing a list of folks to be the ballot argument signers and the rebuttal of signers. And with that, I'm available for questions. Any questions, council? Seeing none, we'll open it up to the public. Anyone who would like to speak on the subject, please come forward. Our Fred Ted Burke. Welcome, Ted. My name is Ted Burke. And I'm just here to publicly acknowledge the great work that the council and the city manager and the hospitality industry working together has come up what I think is a win-win situation for the industry that's going to be impacted by a higher tax but in a way that is manageable for them. Helping the city out of a tight spot fiscally that it's in right now primarily due to pension obligations that won't be permanent but certainly are on the horizon. And I just appreciate the goodwill and I will support this measure when it's on the ballot. Thank you, Ted. Appreciate it. Anyone else? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the council. Ed. Yeah, I want to go along with the comments of Mr. Burke. I started out about three months ago reaching out to lodging, restaurateurs, hospitality people, trying to figure out a way for the city to generate some revenue along with helping some groups that can really use funds to make money. And I think it's a great opportunity for us to invest in our own town and community and business. Our business in this town is tourism and to bring people in and fill up the lodging facilities, the bleed off of that is it fills up the restaurants and benefits everybody in town shops and retail operations. So although it's almost impossible to get everybody to agree on everything and there were some people that were not in favor of this, I would say yes. And I think based on that and based on, you know, as people with any history know, four years ago we tried to do this and failed miserably. With only a 50% vote I feel very confident this time around that with the support of the people who have come forward and with the good areas that we've designated where these funds are to go, that this is as was just said a win-win-win for the citizens of Capitola, the tourists in Capitola and all the businesses and especially for the city. So I'm going to make a motion to adopt the staff recommendation as printed. Second. Kristen, comments? Pretty much everything Ed just said actually. I'm excited for the opportunity to increase funding to youth and early childhood programs. I'm excited that this benefits our business community. I think it's a good step forward. Wonderful. Stephanie? I agree. Nothing else to say. Jacques? Maybe there is. I thought so. Yeah, I thought so too. You know, I really like the fact that we're putting a permanent funding stream in for businesses here that do so much for this community. But in particular I'm very happy that we're saying Capitola is very much focused in a permanent way on providing money for children's activities that help benefit their life. And as I mentioned earlier our library indeed is going to be largely focused on activities in space for kids to grow. So, you know, maybe Capitola is experiencing something here that's going to be really significant. A larger focus on children. And I really have to thank Ed for putting this arrangement together. I know it was very hard. There's multiple meetings. And I think it's a great opportunity to accomplish something that I think was said many times was impossible. And I know other leaders like Ted and others in the community helped you do that. And so a large shout out to them just as well. Thank you. Anyone who thinks Capitola is not worth an extra 1% doesn't get around much. I think that you talk to anyone who ill-advisedly chooses a hotel in some of the neighborhoods. What did I do? Our hotels are always full and they will remain full even if we build another one. So I think Capitola is worth 100% more in my humble opinion. It has been noted that the idea of the donation or the allocation to the business community, the Chamber of Commerce, and early childhood education is a shell game for things that we do already out of the business community. And I think that's very much in favor of this. This is actually, this solidifies that contribution which means once it goes to the voters and once the 66% vote is taken past, it is written into law that those percentages will continue to go regardless of the whims of future councils. That's very significant. In addition to that, all these funds increase with time. Year-over-year increases in terms of whether it's the room rates going up, whether it's just general inflation, we have seen year after year more TOT coming in. So this is an increasing fund for all these worthy causes and I will now ask for a vote. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Unanimous. Thank you. We'll carry on. And now we will go on to consider a resolution placing the local cannabis tax rate on the November 6, 2018 ballot. Staff. Mr. Mayor, members of the council. So just a little bit of background for those of you who have not been following this. Both Santa Cruz County and the City of Santa Cruz have not to exceed cannabis taxes at 10%. The county has set their cannabis tax rate currently at 7%. The City of Santa Cruz has set their tax rate at 8%. Obviously, a tax would require voter approval. At the last meeting we discussed this. In council direction at that time was unanimous to place a resolution on this meeting's agenda to set a maximum tax rate for new cannabis retailers in the capital of 7% and to set the initial rate at 7%. You will recall that the consent agenda this evening included two other ordinances related to this. That one was establishing the land use code necessary to have up to two retail cannabis dispensaries on the 41st avenue corridor in the CR zoning district and a second ordinance that would put in place a retail licensing ordinance for our police department to enforce. Those ordinances, while we have the second reading, neither one will come into effect unless the tax measure is approved by voters. So with that, staff recommendation is to adopt the resolution placing the measure on the November ballots and then consider designating one or two council members again to develop a list of argument and favor signers. And without them available for questions. Questions? Hearing none. Anyone from the audience would like to speak to us? We'll bring it back to council. Motion to adopt staff recommendation. Second. Any further comments? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Dude. Is there a need for the signature of people? We'll figure it out. We may now move on to a resolution to place a measure on the November 6, 2018 ballot asking voters to change the treasurer from an elected to appointed position. Staff. Mr. Mayor, members of the council. So at the last meeting we received a presentation from the treasurer about the advantages of shifting the treasurer position from an elected to an appointed position. The recommendation from the treasurer and from staff would be to consider proceeding with a ballot item with unanimous council support. The reasoning for this is that prior polling the city did several years ago indicated that it was a real coin toss, whether or not something like this could pass, which is really points to me that we would need a strong education campaign and really unified council on something like this if we were going to put it on the ballot and really have a chance at seeing it pass. There's a number of advantages to having an appointed treasurer that the treasurer pointed out at the last meeting that includes sort of the duplicity of roles between the finance director and the treasurer, potential risk and clarity about rules and a number of other items that he listed at the meeting. And so at the last meeting council direction by a four to one vote was to prepare the documentation necessary to put this on the November ballot. Mr. Treasurer, do you have anything you'd like to add? You're doing fine. All right. So with that, my recommendation would be with unanimous council support adopt a resolution to put this measure on the November ballot. If there isn't unanimous council support, my suggestion would be to not put it on this ballot and consider it maybe in two years or four years when the climate is right. And again, you may wish to designate a couple of council members to work with the treasurer. If you do put it on the ballot to develop a list for argument signers. And just as a note, all these several measures we put on the ballot and we need two council members signing, I will take requests from council members and we'll appoint two for each of them in a coming meeting. Members of the public, would you like to speak to us on this? Christine McBroom, one of our former treasurers. Good evening. So just want to kind of first shed some light on what the city treasurer does. When I was the city treasurer a while back, every couple weeks went in, looked at the checks, confirmed them signed off. The main job in my opinion that the city treasurer does is they lead the finance advisory committee, which I think is invaluable to the council. They go in and dig in the numbers and then they come and form an opinion or recommendation. And then generally the city treasurer presents that recommendation. Some positives about the city treasurer being an appointed position is generally they're appointed by somebody who has looked at numbers for the city. They're well educated about all the different things that are happening in the city. Whereas if you just put it on the ballot, you sometimes can get somebody who's not quite familiar with all the ins and outs of the budget and what not. So I'm not here to say that you should get rid of the treasurer. I'm just here to say that we really need a city treasurer that is educated, well-versed in all the budgets, all the items in the budget, and well-educated with the situation in Capitola. So I think having an appointed position would be a wonderful thing. Thank you. Question? Yes. If you don't mind. When you said, there was a statement you made. You said it was invaluable to have, you said it was invaluable. Was it invaluable to have the treasurer on the fact committee or is it invaluable to have a fact committee? It is invaluable to have a fact committee. Not necessarily requiring a treasurer to be on that. Not necessary. Thank you. Yes. Anyone else? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the council. Stephanie? Well, a few years ago, we put this on the ballot with the city clerk, and Pam Greninger was a city clerk, because at the time, we had had a previous city clerk who was elected, and she sort of did the minutes whenever she felt like it, and it didn't really work out too well. So then luckily, Pam came along and of course did a wonderful job. But we put it on the ballot to have an appointed treasurer and city clerk, so we would get qualified people to do it, because at the time, I said to Pam, what if we have somebody that's elected that can't type? I mean, that's how long ago it was. Now it would be word processor. But that could happen. You could have somebody elected who just didn't have the skills for the job. And so that's why I think it's really valuable to have somebody that's appointed, because then whoever's appointed to the council and whoever, the finance committee with recommendations will get somebody that has some background and has some experience and has an interest in it. So that's why I think it's going to be terrific to have it as somebody appointed. I think it makes sense to have an appointed treasurer for the reasons that have already been brought up by our current treasurer and our former treasurers that to really have someone who has the skill set necessary for this kind of financial oversight, I think an appointment makes sense. I agree that we need to have someone appointed to that position. I believe the dynamics of financing has changed. And a lot of the precautions that are put on us by the state that our finance officer and our finance department has met will continue to be met. I think former treasurer McBroom made a good point that I've highlighted about it's invaluable for us to have the fact committee. And I don't want to take that away. And at no time do I want to invalidate either the service of Peter Wilk or Christine or anybody else who served as treasurer because I think that was an important part at the time. But I think what we're learning is that over 50% of the cities in the California no longer have an elected treasurer. So this is just a form of redundancy. I hate to say that. I think the fact committee is critical. I think there are two members, if I'm not mistaken, of the council on the fact, along with the finance manager. It will continue to be a very important arm. I know that we, before we do budget requests, the fact committee comes to us and makes a recommendation and gives guidance. And I would say most of the time we try to follow that guidance when it comes to the investment, you know, how we deal with any funds that might be left over. So I think the important thing to remember is this is not about the personality or the title of the position. It's moving forward, streamlined in our operation. And so at that point I would like to make a motion that we approve stack recommendation to not have an elected treasurer. Second. Okay. We'll continue the discussion. I think it's time for council to comment. And just as a note before Jacques speaks, could we incorporate into the ballot language the fact that the Finance Advisory Committee and the citizens on it, and the council members on it will still remain? This does not change that. Mr. Mayor, I think that language will go into the argument. Okay. Good. Yeah. As long as it's noted somewhere. Jacques. So I was a city treasurer. And like others have pointed out, it was a learning curve. I was trying to figure out if I should do this job, not having been a treasurer, although I just had gotten my MBA a couple of years ago. So Pat, before that, so that's some familiarity with finance. But city finance is a lot different than business finance, which is what the MBA is mostly focused on. So I went around and talked to multiple people, city government. And I went around and talked to multiple people, city government. I remember Tony Galtieri, he had been a city treasurer. Before that, he was on the council here for many years. And he says, you make it whatever you can. So I did. So I did pursue any single little question I could find. And found a lot of things that I thought needed to be corrected. But I wasn't the same kind of person that I think is the undercurrent here that everyone is really quite fearful of that memory. I worked it quietly. As far as I know, not many people knew that I did those things, but I affected some changes that were good. I did pursue every single payment until I understood how that was a part of the city's function. I did pursue charges on credit cards until I was satisfied that these credit cards were being handled properly by the persons entrusted with them. And I just didn't do it once a month. I did it for four years. The city treasurer position is, as Steve said, maybe a vestige. Excuse me. Peter Wilk, sorry. And maybe there was a time when there was more citizens involvement in the cities and the community functions that we take for granted largely. And maybe we are taking that for granted. And that's why we end up in situations where we don't like the decisions of those we elect. Because we don't have that kind of involvement. City Treasurer and Capitola, yes, is something that does have some power as designated by the city, excuse me, by the constitution. But those powers can't be exercised here. There's so many checks and balances within our city government. There's no way we could take all the money and invest it willy-nilly on the stock market or something like that. All these different fears. The city treasurer does not sign the checks. That's handled quite ably by the finance department. And I think it's a good idea to have a city council that can look over the shoulders of people in city government and say, why are you doing it that way? I wasn't involved in getting this to city council right now. If I had been, I would have said, hmm, what are some of the problems that are facing us and what are some of the potential problems? Stephanie was sort of asking Peter. And we went over part of that. And I tried to understand where it was coming from. And I realized I went through the same trajectory. I went through the same trajectory. A lot of things you have been doing, I did too. Including, can we get more money for the money that we have in life? I talked to the county treasurer, assistant treasurer because he was the treasurer. And I asked him, what should I do? Well, I talked to the assistant treasurer. So I did. I spent quite a bit of time talking to the city, the assistant treasurer of the county of Santa Cruz to try to figure out how this actually works and what options do I have? There's really not much. But I still consider myself a regular citizen behind the office, you know, behind the front desk. And I could ask questions. Not many city governments or other kinds of options like that, where people make decisions, where a citizen injury can actually be there and ask questions and have the right to ask those questions and expect to get those answers. And that's what the city treasurer is in Capitola. But I'm going to vote for this. And I'll tell you why. I want the city, the city residents to make that decision. This is something that keeps coming up. And if this isn't valued by the citizenry of Capitola, then we shouldn't continue to have it. But I'm saying it is a good vestige. It's not a vestige. It's whatever the person who runs for that position in the city of Capitola makes it. Now, if it doesn't pass, and the citizens of Capitola say, I want a city treasurer, I think it is worthwhile coming back and saying, you know, there are some problems. And maybe we should look at trying to reframe that position so we don't have those issues come up. I'm perfectly willing to say we could find a solution to the issues that we feel are problematic for the city treasurer position in Capitola. But I will vote for this one. Thank you, Jacques. I'd like to have a motion and a second. I have a question. Councilman Bertrand before we vote. Yes. Councilman Bertrand, I appreciate your efforts to align with the council and vote yes on this. But when you're campaigning for re-election, will you be campaigning for or against a treasurer? I haven't qualified for that position yet. I am in the process of filling out a notification that I want to apply and I want to make sure that I have the right to vote. Thank you, Jacques. I have a question for you. Should you campaign for city councilman, while you're campaigning, would you be an advocate for or against a treasurer? You can say neutral, too. I've had people come out strongly if I campaign for it and I've little heard about that but I'm learning to be a politician so I'm going to withhold my comment on that. Thank you. Well said. We'll have a roll call vote. Councilmember Harlan. Yes. Councilmember Bertrand. Yes. Councilmember Peterson. Yes. Mr. Chairman. Yes. It's unanimous so it will go on the ballot and thank you very much. We will now move on to the last item on our agenda. An ordinance adding chapter 1.50 of the capitol of municipal code pertaining to electronic filing for campaign statements. I have to think it is our city clerk that's going to give a report on this. Yes. And it's oral. This is pretty much a clean up exercise. We began two years ago with the process of doing electronic filing for conflict of interest forms using the firm net file. And we are now ready to increase that and offer that same service to those who are filing all of the many forms that are required by the Fair Political Practices Commission as they run for office. One of the many advantages to this is not just for me for storage but it tracks and aids the filers. It keeps their information. It does their math. It tells them if they're missing a box that needs to be filled out or checked so that we have fewer mistakes made. It immediately puts the information up online as soon as it is filed so it increases transparency. And the company is willing to and will do both phone support and come in in person and work with each of the candidates and their treasurers to help them set up the process and understand it. So this is the ordinance that the state requires first reading to authorize us to have the system in place. Any questions? Any questions? Thank you for getting this. I appreciate it. Anyone in the audience like to speak on this? Hearing none. Is there a motion? I so move that we accept this. Second? Is there a second? Second. Okay, good. It's not that late folks. It's not that late. Come on. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? That brings us to the end of our agenda. And I'm happy to say that we did great things tonight. So good night, Capitola. Be nice to each other. Yes. Meeting adjourned. I thought you were going to smash your phone. Oh, yes.