My 3.18.25 Meeting Summary

At our last Council meeting we discussed several significant items.  The majority of time was spent on the Biennial Pavement Assessment Report, which I will go into further details below.

- We received a report on the mid year budget.  There were a few increases in spending that were authorized by Council (painting/carpeting at City Hall, and a new riding lawnmower), but other than that the results at mid year were in line with expectations.  There were various puts and takes, the most significant being increases in contractor spend that was offset by lower compensation expense due to staff vacancies.

Excluding the general fund appropriation ($230K) that was approved with the adoption of the budget, overall the City is projecting a deficit of approximately $110K at year end.

- We discussed a potential pilot program for sidewalk repairs.  Sidewalks in front of residents property are the responsibility of the property owner, however the sidewalk if primarily on City property.  As a result, if sidewalks create a hazardous situation, the City is potentially liable along with the homeowner.  Combine this with the fact that sidewalk repair is often very expensive, the City is seeking ways to mitigate risk and assist homeowners in fulfilling their responsibility.

There was general consensus that the City was not interested in subsidizing the cost of sidewalk repairs directly.  We considered a few different options that included the City facilitating the repair and billing the homeowner, as well as exploring joining other neighboring cities' sidewalk repair program that utilizes a network of qualified professionals.  A larger program may provide benefits of scale.  Ultimately the Council gave direction to staff to seek more information and report back.

- Most of the discussion was around the pavement assessment report we received.  Overall Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of the City is approximately 73.  The scale is out of 100, and is divided into four general condition categories. Pavements in “Good” condition have a PCI above 70, pavements in “Fair” condition have a PCI between 50 and 69, pavements in “Poor” condition have a PCI between 25 and 49, and finally pavements in “Failed” condition have a PCI below 25.  Here are examples roads with different PCI values:

While a score of 73 is considered "good", it also reflects consistent and steady declines over the last 10 years.

The table above shows the current score of 73, with a score of 85 in 2016.  This table also illustrates the work that has been done on City streets.  We typically do work every two years in order to get slightly lower costs with larger scale.  The work scheduled in 2020 was postponed due to COVID.

Picking the streets to work on is a bit counterintuitive.  At first it may seem logical to pick the streets that are in the worst condition.  However, rehabilitating these streets is also the most costly.  With limited funds, the entire pool could be consumed with 1 or 2 streets, leaving the rest of the streets in the city to continue to deteriorate through normal wear and tear.  As a result, it is often more cost efficient to do maintenance on a streets in better condition, as maintaining current conditions is less expensive in the long run, and more areas of the city could be improved.

The City uses a program called StreetSaver.  This program is designed to maximize PCI overall in the City based on the amount of funds available.  Because it costs more to rehabilitate streets in poor condition often StreetSaver will not select the streets in the worst condition for maintenance and rehabilitation work.

Given the steady decline in PCI overall, it is important to determine what level of funding is necessary to maintain the current road conditions.  Each year we receive approximately $1M in our share of gas tax, and other state and local funding.  We accumulate these funds and every other year pick streets to do maintenance on in order to improve the road condition and the overall PCI.

Based on analysis, in order for the City to simply maintain a PCI of 73 that it currently has overall, the City would need to spend approximately $13M over 5 years, or $2.6M/year.  Our funding is approximately $1M/year.

Unless the City is able to spend a significantly greater amount on street maintenance and rehabilitation, the conditions of roads in the City will continue to decline.  At our current rate of spending, this is the projected outcomes on overall road conditions:

Total general fund revenues for the entire year are projected to be just under $6M.  As we enter the budget planning process, we will need to begin a discussion with the community regarding what level of overall services, quality of streets, and maintenance of the City is desired, and what we are willing to pay for.

A link to the detail by street PCI for both the 2025, and 2023 years can be found here:  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sUUWREdNL1FC1iccvXJghYzsAv5IhBd4/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103891531140515892067&rtpof=true&sd=true

- The Oakhurst Geological Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) Board also met and adopted a resolution declaring the intent to increase the overall assessments in the District in accordance with Prop 218.  Ballots will be mailed to properties in the district no later than 4/18.  There will be a public hearing on 6.3.25 to determine the results of ballots received.  More to come on what this means for the GHAD.

Upcoming Meeting 3.18.25

At our next Council meeting, we will be discussing several significant items:

- We will receive a mid year budget report out.  Results at the mid year are largely in line with expectation, though still in a deficit position.  

- We will discuss the biennial pavement assessment report and the 2026 paving project street selection.  Overall the City's PCI is approximately 73.  The scale is out of 100, and is divided into four general condition categories. Pavements in “Good” condition have a PCI above 70, pavements in “Fair” condition have a PCI between 50 and 69, pavements in “Poor” condition have a PCI between 25 and 49, and finally pavements in “Failed” condition have a PCI below 25.

A list of every street and the associated PCI score is included in the agenda packet.

- We will discuss a pilot sidewalk repair program for assisting fronting property owners.  This would involve options for sharing costs with property owners to repair various sidewalks that is the sole responsibility of the property owners.

After the Council meeting, the Oakhurst Geological Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) board will also meet.  There the Board will discuss a resolution declaring the intent to increase assessments in the GHAD in accordance with prop 218.

If you have any thoughts or questions on the above, please let me know.

My 3.4.25 Meeting Summary

Last night the Council met to discuss one significant item:

- We authorized the recording of a noise abatement agreement for Oakhurst Golf Course.  City ordinance prohibits landscaping work before 7am, however due to the nature of golf course operations Oakhurst has always had an agreement with the city that allows them to start earlier.  The prior agreement had expired and the City renewed it with updated terms last night.

The new agreement has a 36 month term, and provides that no maintenance activity shall be performed prior to 5:30am.  It also specifies later start times around certain areas of the course to reduce the noise impact to nearby residences.  The agreement provides an avenue for complaints and a resolution process as well, and includes a provision that a survey of adjacent residences towards the end of the term of the agreement will be conducted in order to collect feedback for any future modifications.

Upcoming Meeting 3.4.25

At our next meeting, there is one significant item we will discuss:

- We will discuss a proposed noise abatement agreement for Oakhurst Golf Course maintenance activities.  This was discussed at our last meeting however an incorrect version of the agreement was included in the agenda packet so we continued this item until this upcoming meeting.

If you have any thoughts or questions on the above, please let me know.

My 2.18.25 Meeting Summary

Last night the Council met and had one significant item on the agenda, however the meeting had extensive discussion on some other topics.

- We discussed a renewal of a noise abatement agreement with Oakhurst Country Club.  Due to the nature of golf course operations, several maintenance activities occur daily and at early hours in the day.  Things like mowing the grass and resetting tee boxes and greens take place before play begins, which is typically at sunrise.

Current City ordinances prohibit certain noise creating activities like mowing lawns prior to 7am each day.  Because time of use for the golf course starts at 7am, maintenance has always happened prior to that time.  Historically there has existed a noise abatement agreement which granted Oakhurst permission to operate certain equipment at earlier times in the day - with the focus on areas away from homes, though not entirely.

The noise abatement renewal did not change any of the existing provisions substantively.  We later determined that the wrong version of the agreement was included in the agenda packet.  In addition, there was feedback provided by residents regarding Oakhurst maintenance operations, alleging operations outside the time permitted per the noise agreement.  As such, the Council tabled this until a later date and asked our City Manager to approach Oakhurst to see if there were other provisions that could be adjusted.

- We discussed the salary schedule of the Police Chief position which is currently vacant and being filled on an interim basis.  The Council agreed to increase the salary schedule by 4% consistent with the agreement that was in place with the prior Police Chief.  When the recruitment period ends, we will discuss with the City Manager whether any additional changes need to be made to attract qualified candidates.

The Oakhurst Geological Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) Board also met and discussed a few significant items:

- We selected a new Chair (myself) and Vice Chair (Boardmember Enea)

- We received the annual engineer's report which indicated several areas where maintenance was recommended.  Without adequate maintenance, the risk of damage due to Earth movement increases.  Without additional funding however, the GHAD would need to use between 2-3 years worth of funding from the future to cover the cost.  Without additional funding, I did not think it was prudent to spend all of the remaining GHAD funds on maintenance that may not add value, and would need to be performed on a repeated basis.  Rather, I thought it was more important to take steps to increase the revenues so as to make the GHAD more solvent.

- We discussed the process for a ballot measure to increase GHAD assessments.  A notice would be sent to all residents in the GHAD, and ask them to approve a rate increase.  The amount of the increased assessment would vary based on the type of residence.  Votes are counted on a per residence basis, with a greater weight going towards those residences of higher value or at higher risk of being impacted.

The Board gave direction to pursue the rate increase, including the establishing of a reserve, and determine whether a citizen oversight committee was possible with this type of assessment.  If the voters of the GHAD approve the rate increase (towards the May/June timeframe), then the GHAD would be funded sufficiently to perform the operations it was intended to.  If the voters reject the rate increase, that would cause nearly all GHAD activities to cease.

Upcoming Meeting 2.18.25

At our next Council meeting there is one significant item we will be discussing:

- We will discuss an adjustment to the Police Chief job classification and associated salary schedule.  In connection with our recruitment effort to hire a full time Police Chief, the City Manager is recommending an increase to the base salary of the Police Chief of 4%.  This is consistent with the scheduled increase in the contract with the prior Police Chief.

If you have any thoughts or questions on the above, please let me know.

My 2.4.25 Meeting Summary

On Tuesday the Council met and discussed several significant items:

- We first interviewed three applicants for one open Planning Commissioner seat. The seat was vacated when Councilmember Enea was elected and we interviewed applicants in order to fill the open seat for the remainder of the term ending in June 2026.  Of the three applicants, the Council discussed and voted to appoint Nate Brzovich to the Planning Commission.  Nate's approach to listening to community feedback and balancing that with what the law requires was what was persuasive to the Council.  Congratulations, Commissioner Brzovich!

- We discussed and decided in favor of entering an agreement for investment advisory services with UBS.  UBS currently acts as a custodian of City funds in a non-discretionary manner.  This means that UBS can execute transactions for various securities, but only as the City specifically directs.  There are associated fees, and we are essentially buying at retail.  By entering into a advisory agreement, UBS becomes a fiduciary to the City, and will be authorized to act on the City's behalf within the approved investment policy of the City.

There are multiple benefits of such an arrangement.  While there is a 30 basis point fee associated with this arrangement, there is no cost for any individual transaction.  Because UBS is authorized to act on the City's behalf, there will be no time where cash is sitting idle and not being invested.  This will yield greater returns, but it will also free up staff time so they can focus on other activities.  We will also be able to exit certain positions that are underperforming and redeploy those funds towards higher performing securities.  Overall this should yield greater returns on the over $12M in City funds.

- We formed an ad hoc committee consisting of Mayor Trupiano and Councilmember Tillman.  Upon taking the role of Mayor, Mayor Trupiano reached out to Councilmember Tillman in an effort to address her previous requests for an investigation into fellow Councilmembers and training.  A result of that meeting was an agreement to propose this ad hoc committee in order to facilitate a governance training workshop for Council and staff.  Councilmember Tillman stated that this ad hoc committee and training satisfies her previous requests and I'm glad the Council can move forward and appreciate Mayor Trupiano's leadership in this matter.

- We authorized the City Manager to enter negotiations with Three Putt Development, the company that owns the Oakhurst Country Club, for the sale of city owned property adjacent to the overflow lot near Oakhurst.  The city owned property does not front any street, and was declared surplus by the City last year.  We also discussed with the City Manager the terms that the City was interested in during closed session later in the evening.

- We discussed the potential restriping project on the 4 lane section of Mountaire Pkwy.  Many residents spoke at the meeting, and others have been in communication via email and phone calls.  There were several that were opposed to taking action, and several that were in favor of taking action.  What was under discussion was a "road diet" - reducing the number of lanes in an effort to reduce speeds.  Included in this plan was also the addition of dedicated bike lanes.

There was some concern expressed regarding emergencies and egress.  Because there were no physical barriers being contemplated, in the case of emergency the overall width of the road was not going to be impacted so access would be unchanged if there were a need.

When the Dana Hills HOA surveyed its residents on a potential lane reduction, approximately 25% of households responded.  Of those that responded, 2/3 were in favor of the lane reduction, and 1/3 were opposed.  Ultimately the HOA did not feel it had enough feedback to take a position on the matter.

The largest concern the Council had was cost.  The section was recently repaved, though marked with temporary paint in anticipation of the discussion we had.  We have also applied for a grant that would cover a portion of the overall projected ~$250K cost.

Overall I was in favor of this work because the goal is public safety and reducing speeds.  Traffic safety and speeding is a significant concern I hear from residents all over town and while it does cost money I believe it worth it in an effort to improve overall safety.  The Council decided to proceed with the planned road diet, wait to hear if we are awarded the grant, then incorporate the actual road work into the already planning 2026 road work.  This has the potential of reducing the overall cost as we would get some economies of scale by grouping this project with larger projects.  The vote was 3-2, with myself, and Councilmembers Tillman and Diaz in favor.  Councilmember Enea and Mayor Trupiano voted no primarily based on the cost.