Jun 15, 2026 City Council

ALL RIGHT.

THE PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE THE PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE IS PROMOTING STREET SAFETY. AIMING TO REDUCE TRAFFIC HAZARDS CAUSED BY IMPROPERLY PARKED TRAILERS.

PRESERVING THE NEIGHBORHOOD AESTHETICS. IT ADDRESSES THE VISUAL BLIGHT BY PREVENTING LONG TERM TRAILER STORAGE. LV IS LA VERNE IS A BEAUTIFUL TOWN AND THIS CODE IS LOOKING TO KEEP IT THAT WAY. WE'RE LOOKING TO BALANCE OUR APPROACH WAS FLEXIBILITY THROUGH TIME LIMITS AND PERMITS AND ALIGNING OUR CITY PRIORITIES TO INCLUDE SAFETY, ACCESSIBILITY, AND THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL. OKAY. SOME OF THE KEY CHANGES THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IN THIS PORTION.

IT'S GOING TO BE MORE HOUSEKEEPING AND SOME CONSISTENCY UPDATES WITH THE LANGUAGE. SECTION

[00:45:01]

10.4. 0.040 IS THE PARKING VEHICLE FOR REPAIRS. WE BASICALLY REMOVE THE LANGUAGE RELATED TO THE VEHICLES BEING DISPLAYED FOR SALE. RETAINED EXEMPTION FOR REPAIRS AND THAT ARE NECESSITATED BY EMERGENCY. THE SECTION. I'LL JUST READ THE LAST PART 080 OF PARKING DURING PROHIBITED.

DURING FIRE PROHIBITED. THIS WAS AN UPDATE. WE JUST HAD THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IN THERE. SO WE UPDATED TO ADD THE FIREFIGHTERS IN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND SECTION THE THIRD 1.090 RESTRICTED PARKING AREAS SIGNS REQUIRED. ALL WE DID WAS MODERNIZE THE LANGUAGE BEFORE IT SAID CENTRAL TRAFFIC DISTRICT AND WE UPDATED IT TO THE BUSINESS DISTRICT.

ESSENTIALLY IT'S MORE OF THE DOWNTOWN AREA. CONTINUE ON SOME OF THE CHANGES. WE EXPANDED THE TRAILER REGULATIONS. IT'LL NOW COVER MULTIPLE TRAILERS TYPES INCLUDING UTILITY, COMMERCIAL RECREATION, BOAT TRAILERS OR A MORE BROADER ENFORCEMENT.

CLEAR DEFINITIONS WHICH WE LOOK BACK IN THE OLD CODE AND THERE WAS A LOT OF CONTRADICTION WITH SOME OF THE CODE OR WASN'T REALLY CLEAR. OUR GOAL WAS TO CLEAR THAT OUT WITH CLEARLY DEFINED DEFINITIONS FOR EACH CATEGORY. TIERED TIME LIMITS THESE TIME LIMITS MAY VARY BY TRAILER TYPE AND PERMIT SYSTEM AND ENFORCEMENT TO FOCUS THE SUPPORT ON SHORT TERM LEGITIMATE USE BUT ABLE TO DEAL WITH SOME NUANCES THAT ARE HAPPENING IN THE CITY.

IN THE MUNICIPAL CODE. WE DO NOT HAVE THESE PICTURES BUT I THOUGHT THEY WOULD BE A GOOD VISUALIZATION.

BUT WE DO HAVE CLEARLY DEFINED.

DEFINITIONS OF THESE DIFFERENT TYPES OF TRAILERS. SO I WON'T READ THROUGH EACH OF THEM BUT THEY'RE CLEARLY DEFINED NOW IN THE MUNICIPAL CODE. THIS IS GOING TO BE RELATED TO THE PERSONAL UTILITY TRAILERS, THE COMMERCIAL TRAILERS, THE RECREATIONAL VEHICLE TRAILERS OR THE RV TRAILER AND THE BOAT AND JET SKI TRAILERS. SOME OF THE PROPOSED RESTRICTIONS TRAILERS MUST BE ACTIVELY COUPLED TO A VEHICLE AND OPERABLE TO BE PARKED IN THE PUBLIC STREETS. SO BASICALLY THE VEHICLE HAS TO BE ABLE TO OPERATE AND IT HAS TO BE ATTACHED TO THE VEHICLE PROHIBITING THE UNOCCUPIED TRAILER. SO ESSENTIALLY THAT BASICALLY WHAT I JUST SAID THAT IT CAN'T BE JUST LEFT ALONE AND NEEDS TO BE ATTACHED TO A VEHICLE. SO SECTION A DISCUSSES THAT AND THEN THE SECTION B OF 10.4 0.260 PUBLIC STREETS CANNOT BE USED AS LONG TERM STORAGE LOCATIONS FOR TRAILERS. AND BASICALLY IT'S GOING TO REDUCE SOME OF THE CONGESTION. YEAH, IT HAS TO BE COUPLED TO THE TRAILER TO THE VEHICLE.

CORRECT, CORRECT.

WELL, SO RIGHT HERE ON THIS FANCY LITTLE SLIDE, I'LL HAVE SOME OF THE, SOME OF THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE TIMES. ALL RIGHT, SO SOME OF THE TIME TRAILER LIMITS THAT WE PUT ON THIS.

AND AGAIN, A LOT OF THIS WAS JUST TO CLEAR UP SOME CONFUSION IN THE PREVIOUS ORDINANCE. SO NOW THERE ARE TIME RESTRICTIONS AND WE COULD HOLD PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THOSE. SO AS YOU CAN SEE THE PERSONAL TRAILERS, IT COULD BE FOUR CONSECUTIVE HOURS WITHIN A 24 HOUR PERIOD AND UP TO TWO DAYS PER WEEK. THE COMMERCIAL TRAILERS ARE A LITTLE BIT MORE STRICT.

THEY'RE GOING TO BE 2 HOURS APPLICABLE ONLY DURING LOADING AND UNLOADING.

AND ONE THING THAT WE NOTICED IS THAT IN THE PAST WE WOULD SEE THE REPOSITIONING OF VEHICLES. THAT'S WHY WE ADDED THAT LITTLE LOOPHOLE IN THERE. YOU CAN'T JUST REPOSITION, YOU CAN'T MARK IT OR MOVE IT 5FT TO THE LEFT OR RIGHT AND THEN YOU START YOUR TIME OVER.

NO, IT REMAINS THE SAME. THE RV TRAILERS AND BOAT TRAILERS, 24 HOURS WITH A 72 HOUR CAP WITH A PERMIT. AND THAT'S WITHIN 30 DAYS. AND OF COURSE WE ALWAYS HAVE THE EXEMPTION.

THERE'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE STUFF THAT WE'RE GOING TO COME ACROSS SUCH AS, YOU KNOW, YOUR REMODELS OR YOUR TEMPORARY MOVING RELOCATION, SOME TYPE OF HARDSHIP THAT COMES UP, THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AN EXEMPTION PROCESS FOR THAT.

[00:50:02]

BUT THE OVERNIGHT PARKING FOR AN RV OR A BOAT OR SOME OTHER TYPE OF A VEHICLE, THAT'S STILL AVAILABLE AS FAR AS THE OVERNIGHT PARKING PERMIT THROUGH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, THAT IS CORRECT.

OKAY, CONTINUED 10.4260.

THIS IS CONTINUED ON THE SAME SECTION. THE PURPOSE IS THE FLEXIBILITY. SO WITH THE PERMIT WE COULD ALLOW FOR FLEXIBILITY DURING SPECIAL SITUATIONS, BUT WE KNOW LIFE HAPPENS, STUFF HAPPENS. AND WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF FLEXIBILITY WITH THIS CODE. NOW BECAUSE OF THIS PERMIT DURATION AND RENEWAL, THEY'RE VALID FOR SEVEN DAYS AND WE CAN RENEW ONCE EVERY 90 DAYS. THIS IS ESSENTIALLY TO AVOID THE NECK OF NEGLIGENCE OR NEGLECT OF THE CODE WHICH WE'VE SEEN IN THE PAST. I DIDN'T REALIZE HOW LONG THIS ORDINANCE WAS UNTIL I'M UP HERE.

OKAY. SO ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ENHANCED ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY ORDINANCE EMPOWERS THE CITY TO DECLARE VIOLATING TRAILERS AS PUBLIC NUANCES. ENABLING CITATION AND REMOVAL. CLEAR REGULATION. THIS IS ONE THING THAT WE IDENTIFIED THAT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT IS THAT YOU REDUCE THE AMBIGUITY, GUIDING ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL AND ENSURING CONSISTENT RULE ACROSS THE WHOLE APPLICATION OF THE CODE. AND LASTLY, IT'S OBVIOUSLY WE WANT TO BE FAIR. WE WANT TO HOLD RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES ACCOUNTABLE, BUT WE ALSO WANT TO AFFORD THE ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO ENFORCE THE CODE. ALL RIGHT, SO EXEMPTIONS THE GOVERNMENT AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE VEHICLES ON OFFICIAL DUTY, VEHICLES DISABLED DURING MECHANICAL ISSUES, REMAINING THERE PARKED FOR 24 HOURS WITHOUT PENALTY REFUSED CONTAINERS PLACED UNDER A VALID CITY PERMIT. SO YOUR DUMPSTERS THAT ARE PERMITTED AND ACTIVE SERVICE VEHICLES THROUGH PUBLIC WORKS, EDISON, ETC. ALL RIGHT.

SOME OF THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS. THE ORDINANCE IMPROVES STREET SAFETY, INCREASES PARKING AVAILABILITY, AND REDUCES VISUAL CLUTTER.

THERE'S NO PHYSICAL IMPACT WITH THIS ORDINANCE AND THERE'S NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. FINALLY, THIS ORDINANCE IS INTENDED TO ENHANCE PUBLIC SAFETY, PRESERVE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER AND IMPROVE THE OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY BY ESTABLISHING CLEAR AND ENFORCEABLE REGULATIONS GOVERNING TRAILER PARKING ON PUBLIC STREETS. THE PROPOSED UPDATES PROVIDES A BALANCED APPROACH THAT SUPPORTS THE SAFE AND ORDERLY USE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS WHILE ACCOMMODATING LEGITIMATE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL NEEDS THROUGH REASONABLE TIME LIMITATIONS AND PERMIT PROCESS. ACCORDINGLY, STAFF RECOMMENDS CITY COUNCIL INTRODUCED BY TITLE ONLY A WAY FURTHER READING OF THE ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 10.4 OF THE LAVERNE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARKING OF TRAILERS AND SEMI TRAILERS ON PUBLIC STREETS. SORRY THAT WAS SO LONG, BUT ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, LIEUTENANT ALVARADO. I THINK WE'LL GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT FIRST AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU IF YOU DON'T MIND.

THANK YOU, SIR. OF COURSE. WE HAVE MIKE ALT. GOOD EVENING, FOLKS.

MY NAME IS MIKE ALT FROM OVER ON FIFTH STREET. I ACTUALLY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR P.D.

THAT'S.

I'M REALLY.

I'M CONFUSED ABOUT THIS PARKING THING.

YOU CAN JUST ADDRESS US AND THEY'LL. THEY'LL COME BACK UP AND THEY'LL ANSWER WHATEVER QUESTION YOU HAVE.

YEAH, I HAVE A CAR TRAILER.

I GO VOLKSWAGENS. WE TOUR AROUND THE COUNTRY WITH OUR LITTLE BUGS AND THINGS.

AND I PARK ON THE STREET BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE A BIG ENOUGH DRIVEWAY ON FIFTH STREET. YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THOSE LITTLE HOUSES OVER THERE. THEY'RE VERY SMALL DRIVEWAYS. SO I PARK ON THE STREET TO UNLOAD MY.

EVENTUALLY IN THE MORNING, TRY TO UNLOAD MY CAR OFF THE TRAILER, PUT IT IN THE BACK, YOU KNOW WHERE I CAN PUT IT IN THE GARAGE. AND THEN I BACK

[00:55:01]

MY TRAILER INTO MY DRIVEWAY IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE AND I PARK MY TRUCKS. I HAVE A HANDICAP PLACARD. I PARKED MY TRUCK ON THE STREET.

I PICK UP.

SO MY QUESTION IS IF MY TRUCK IS MY TRAILER IS ATTACHED HOOKED TO MY TRUCK AND I'M PARKED ON THE STREET OVERNIGHT MORE THAN THESE HOURS AND THINGS. THAT'S WHERE I'M GETTING REAL CONFUSED. I WAS LOOKING AT THE CITY, THE RULES HERE ON A 72 HOUR LIMIT AND IT SAYS HERE VEHICLES ATTACHED TO TRAILERS AND BLAH BLAH BLAH CANNOT BE PARKED ON THE CITY STREETS MORE THAN 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 2AM AND 5AM IS THAT I'VE PARKED OVERNIGHT AND NEVER HAD A PROBLEM ON THE STREET. HAS THAT BEEN A RULE THAT WASN'T ENFORCED? I DON'T KNOW. SO I GO ON AND SAY, WELL, YOU KNOW, THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM. I PARK IT IN THE DRIVEWAY, IT'S OFF THE STREET. EVERYTHING ELSE. THEN I READ AND HEAR IT HAS TO BE BEHIND A SIX FOOT FENCE, CAN'T BE VISIBLE. WELL, I CAN'T PUT IT IN THE BACKYARD BECAUSE THE ALLEY'S TOO NARROW AND THE ADU THEY JUST BUILT BEHIND MY HOUSE, I CAN'T SWING A TRAILER BACK IT UP INTO MY DRIVEWAY. WHERE AM I AT HERE? I AM THOROUGHLY CONFUSED.

CAN I PARK ON THE STREET FOR A DAY, A NIGHT SO I CAN UNLOAD IN THE MORNING, PUT MY TRAILER IN THE DRIVEWAY AND PARK IT OR DO I HAVE TO PUT A SIX FOOT FENCE AROUND HALF MY DRIVEWAY IN THE FRONT YARD TO HIDE THE TRAILER? TRAILER. GOTCHA. HE'S LISTENING RIGHT NOW. WE'RE GOING TO GO AND ASK MORE POLY COMMENT AS SOON AS WE'RE DONE.

WE'LL HAVE ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, SIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE. PUBLIC COMMENT.

MR. ALVARADO, YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON THAT? INFERRING. WELL, IT BRINGS UP AN ISSUE WITH A HANDICAP PLACARD IN A TRUCK. OKAY.

AND THEN I THINK THE FIRST ANSWER QUESTION WHICH I HAVE AS WELL IS THAT I KNOW THESE DON'T DEAL WITH PARKING AT A RESIDENCE, IS PARKING ON THE STREET.

BUT THE CHANGE HAS BEEN.

BUT.

BUT THE QUESTION COMES OUT TO BE WHAT ARE ALREADY OUR RULES AND REGULATIONS? BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW OF PARKING TRAILERS AT A RESIDENCE. I KNOW I HAVE NEIGHBORS THAT PARK THEIR MOTORHOMES IN THEIR DRIVEWAY. I HAVE MINE BEHIND THE GATE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS THE REGULATIONS FOR LA VERNE ON THAT? OKAY, PERFECT. WHAT I FIRST WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS THE GENTLEMAN WAS ASKING ABOUT SPECIFICALLY PARKING HIS VEHICLE AND HIS TRAILER BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 2AM AND 5AM THAT'S STILL COVERED BY OUR OVERNIGHT PARKING RULES, WHICH ARE IN OUR MUNICIPAL CODE. AND HE WOULD NEED A OVERNIGHT PARKING PERMIT TO DO SO. SO THAT'S NEVER CHANGED. THAT IS NOT CHIEF.

EVEN WITH A HANDICAP PLACARD.

I'M SORRY, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. IF HE HAS A HANDICAPPED PLACARD, HE IS EXEMPT AS LONG AS THE TRAILER IS ATTACHED TO THE TRUCK.

THAT IS CORRECT. THIS ORDINANCE WILL NOT ALLOW THE. I BELIEVE HE SAID IT WAS A CAR TRAILER TO BE LEFT THERE WITHOUT BEING HITCHED. THAT WOULD APPLY. THAT WOULD. THE RULES WOULD HAVE TO BE ENFORCED THERE. IF HE LEFT IT UNCOUPLED, THEN HIS SECOND ONE WAS, OKAY, TRUCKS OUT FRONT, HANDICAPPED. PULLS THAT TRAILER UP IN HIS DRIVEWAY. IS HE IN VIOLATION HAVING THAT TRAILER DRIVEWAY? BECAUSE HE CANNOT.

IN FRONT OF HIS HOUSE.

BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND WHERE HE'S TALKING ABOUT FIFTH STREET.

YOU CAN'T PULL THOSE IN THE BACK ALLEY. YOU CANNOT PULL THEM UP. AND IF HE LEAVES IT IN HIS DRIVEWAY DETACHED FROM HIS TRUCK, IS THIS A VIOLATION OF THE NEW STANDARDS OR DOES HE HAVE A GET OUT OF JAIL CARD FREE? SO THE WAY IT WORKS, AND IT'S BEEN A LONG STANDING PRACTICE OF THE CITY THAT IT'S NOT NECESSARILY SOMETHING THAT WE GO LOOK FOR, IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S DONE BY COMPLAINT. COMPLAINT BASE.

SO FOR EXAMPLE, THE SAME EXAMPLE THAT MR. CROSBY PROVIDED, IF SOMEONE COMPLAINED AND SAID, HEY, YOUR TRAILER IS, YOU KNOW, IT'S AN EYESORE OR WHATNOT, THEN CODE ENFORCEMENT WOULD GO OUT THERE AND THEN WRITE A LETTER ABOUT THAT. SO AT THE CURRENT MOMENT, THE CURRENT PRACTICE IS BY COMPLAINT ONLY.

BUT GOING BACKWARDS, THIS ORDINANCE HAS ALWAYS BEEN IN PLACE. ANYTHING IN A DRIVEWAY.

SO IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER AS LONG AS NO ONE'S SAYING, HEY, I GOT A PROBLEM, WHETHER YOUR TRAILER'S UGLY OR WHATEVER, YOU KNOW. CORRECT.

BUT YOU'LL HAVE A HANDICAP PLACARD. HE CAN PARK OUT IN THE STREET. IF HIS TRAILER'S ATTACHED TO IT. HE CAN LEAVE THAT OVERNIGHT. HE CAN UNLOAD IN THE MORNING, PUT HIS TRAILER IN THE DRIVEWAY UNLESS SOMEBODY COMPLAINS ABOUT IT. IT'S HUNKY DORY.

YES. AND IT'S REALLY TO THINK OF SOMETHING WHY SOMEONE WOULD COMPLAIN. I'M SURE SOMEONE WOULD, BUT YES, YOU'RE CORRECT.

AND JUST NOT EVERYONE IS DISABLED. BUT IF HE DID NOT HAVE A HANDICAP PLACARD, HE WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE CITY AND GET AN OVERNIGHT PERMIT.

AND THAT IS ONLY GOOD FOR 24, UP TO 72 HOURS EVERY 30 DAYS.

[01:00:01]

THAT'S CORRECT. YOU CAN GET IT ONLINE OR IN FRONT OF THE POLICE STATION.

DIDN'T THAT USED TO BE SEVEN DAYS IN A ONE MONTH PERIOD? WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

PARKING OUT IN FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE. IF YOU WERE TO PARK, LET'S SAY A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE, RV, YOU'RE GOING TO PARK IN FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE FOR SEVEN DAYS, YOU CAN GET A PERMIT FOR THAT FOR SEVEN DAYS IN A ONE MONTH TIME FRAME. IS THAT CORRECT OR IS IT STILL THE 72 HOURS NOW? NO, THAT. THAT IS CORRECT.

THE RV STATUTE STILL APPLIES, BUT YOU HAVE TO ACTIVELY BE LOADING AND UNLOADING IT FOR THAT TO. TO BE EXEMPT.

BUT SO A STATIONARY RV THAT YOU PARK IN FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE, EVEN WITH A PERMIT, IT'S ONLY GOOD FOR 72 HOURS.

AND ANYTHING OVER THAT, YOU'RE IN VIOLATION IN A 30 DAY PERIOD? THAT'S CORRECT.

OKAY, THANK YOU, CHIEF.

I'LL STICK AROUND.

SIR, DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? GLAD WE COULD CLARIFY THAT. COUNCIL, ANY COMMENTS, OR QUESTIONS BEFORE WE. THEN I WOULD ASK FOR A MOTION. OH, YEAH, SORRY.

JUST REAL QUICK. NO MOTION YET, IS THERE.

WHAT IS THE PENALTY FOR NOT ADHERING? SO LIKE, IS IT JUST A CITATION AND IS THERE A FINE OR HOW DOES THAT WORK? TICKET FIRST, SIX.

SECOND.

YES, THERE IS A FINE. 401P.

I BELIEVE IT'S $55 AND THEN IT GOES UP FROM THERE.

MR. JOHNSON, ANY QUESTION? NO.

THEN WITH THAT, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? WE'RE GOOD. THANK YOU, SIR. THAT ASK FOR A MOTION WE HAVE. IS THERE A MOTION TO INTRODUCE BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE FURTHER READING OF AN ORDINANCE TITLED AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA VERNE, CALIFORNIA AMENDING CHAPTER 10.40, THE TITLE 10 OF THE LA VERNE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING TRAILER PARKING ON PUBLIC STREETS, PARKING LIMITATIONS, PERMIT EXEMPTIONS AND ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS. DO I HAVE A MOTION? SO MOVED.

CAN I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND VOTE, PLEASE.

ITEM NUMBER NINE, MOTION BY JOHNSON, SECONDED BY CROSBY, APPROVED 4-0 WITH CASUAL KASHIFALGHITA BEING ABSENT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU,

[10. Approval of Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Residential Solid Waste Billing Transfer]

GUYS. THANK YOU, CHIEF.

THANK YOU, LIEUTENANT. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE DISCUSSION CALENDAR IS THE APPROVAL OF A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE BILLING TRANSFER, BETTER KNOWN AS TRASH. CITY MANAGER KEN DOMER, WILL YOU CALL FOR THE STAFF MEMBER WHO WILL BE REPORTING? FOREIGN DIRECTOR WU, HOW ARE YOU TONIGHT? GOOD EVENING.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR. MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL, ITEM NUMBER 10 IS A REQUEST TO APPROVE A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF LA VERNE AND WASTE MANAGEMENT REGARDING THE TRANSITION OF RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE BILLING RESPONSIBILITIES FROM THE CITY TO WASTE MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 2026, WITH NO CHANGES TO RATES, SERVICES, FRANCHISE FEES OR THE CITY'S OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITIES AT THIS TIME. AS THE CITY COUNCIL MAY RECALL, STAFF PRESENTED THIS CONCEPT ON AT ITS MAY 4 COUNCIL MEETING AND RECEIVED FEEDBACK REGARDING CUSTOMER COMMUNICATIONS AND OUTREACH. SINCE THAT TIME, CITY STAFF AND WASTE MANAGEMENT HAVE FINALIZED THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING THAT FORMALIZES THE TRANSITION PROCESS AND CONTINUE TO CONDUCT A COMPREHENSIVE PUBLIC OUTREACH AND EDUCATION PROGRAM.

SPECIFICALLY UNDER THE MOU, WASTE MANAGEMENT WILL DIRECTLY INVOICE AND COLLECT PAYMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS.

BEGINNING SEPTEMBER 1, 2026.

CUSTOMERS WILL RECEIVE BI MONTHLY BILLS DIRECTLY FROM WASTE MANAGEMENT. MULTIPLE PAYMENT METHODS WILL BE AVAILABLE INCLUDING MAIL, ACH, ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS AND CREDIT CARD OPTIONS, AND EXISTING LIFELINE DISCOUNT PROGRAMS WILL CONTINUE. PROCEDURES HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR ACCOUNT RECONCILIATION, PRORATED BILLING, REFUNDS, AND DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS.

THEREFORE, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE MOU, AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT AND RECEIVE AND FILE THE FOLLOWING OUTREACH UPDATE WHICH WILL BE PRESENTED BY JOSH GOLDMAN, WHO IS THE WASTE MANAGEMENT PUBLIC SECTOR SOLUTIONS MANAGER.

THANK YOU DIRECTOR WU.

GOOD EVENING EVERYBODY, COUNCIL RESIDENTS, CITY STAFF. SO AS DANNY OPENED WITH I'M GOING TO BE GIVING JUST A BRIEF UPDATE ON THE COMMUNICATION PLAN EDUCATION CAMPAIGN THAT WE'RE DOING COVERING A LITTLE BIT OF AN OVERVIEW ABOUT THE BILLING TRANSITION PROJECT THAT

[01:05:01]

IS CURRENTLY UNDERWAY. SO WHAT IS HAPPENING? STARTING SEPTEMBER 1ST, WM WILL ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER BILLING AND CUSTOMER SERVICE.

LA VERNE RESIDENTS WILL CONTINUE TO RECEIVE INVOICES THROUGH THE END OF AUGUST, BUT THE WAY THAT THE CITY BILLS, THEY'LL RECEIVE AN INVOICE IN JULY FOR SERVICES IN JULY AND AUGUST. AFTER THAT THEY WILL BEGIN RECEIVING INVOICES FROM WM. ALL ACCOUNTS WILL BE SET UP AUTOMATICALLY FROM THEM USING THE ACCOUNT INFORMATION THAT THEY CURRENTLY HAVE IN THE CITY'S BILLING SYSTEM.

IT'LL BE REALLY IMPORTANT THAT ONCE RESIDENTS RECEIVE THEIR FIRST INVOICE AND HOPEFULLY OUR LETTER IN AUGUST WILL WITH INFORMATION, THEY WILL REFER TO IT, REVIEW IT, MAKE SURE THAT IT LOOKS ACCURATE, AS WELL AS BEGIN SETTING UP THINGS LIKE AUTO PAY, PAPERLESS BILLING, DIFFERENT THINGS THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO THEM NOW THROUGH WM BILLING.

ADDITIONALLY, WM AND CITY STAFF HAVE BEEN WORKING VERY CLOSELY TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS DONE COLLABORATIVELY TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S A SEAMLESS PROCESS FOR RESIDENTS AND TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET AS MUCH PUBLIC EDUCATION OUT THERE AS POSSIBLE SO THERE'S NO CONFUSION AND NO SURPRISES TO THE CITY'S RESIDENTS. WHILE I'M ON THIS SLIDE, I JUST WANT TO GO OVER A COUPLE LET'S CALL THEM FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS VERSUS THE BENEFIT OF DOING THIS BILLING TRANSITION. THIS TRANSITION IS DESIGNED TO MAKE SERVICE REQUESTS EASIER AND MORE SEAMLESS FOR RESIDENTS IN LA VERNE. WITH THE WM ACCOUNT, RESIDENTS CAN NOW CONTACT WM DIRECTLY TO GET SERVICE REQUESTS AS WELL AS BILLING REQUESTS DONE IN THE SAME STOP. CURRENTLY, IF THEY HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THEIR BILL, THEY HAVE TO CONTACT THE CITY. IF THEY HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT A SERVICE RELATED MATTER, THEY THEN HAVE TO HANG UP THE PHONE AND THEN CONTACT US AND SOMETIMES THAT DOES CREATE SOME FRUSTRATION AND WE WANT TO TRY TO REMOVE ALL OF THAT.

ADDITIONALLY, SORRY, WE WILL HAVE THE SAME BILLING CYCLE THAT THEY CURRENTLY HAVE, WILL MAINTAIN A BI MONTHLY BILLING CYCLE. SO THIS IS DONE INTENTIONALLY SO THAT THEY WILL RECEIVE AN INVOICE IN JULY COME END OF AUGUST, MAYBE EARLY, EARLY SEPTEMBER. THAT WILL BE THEIR FIRST BILL WITH WM AND THAT SHOULD BE A SEAMLESS PROCESS GOING FROM ONE TO THE NEXT. WE MADE SURE THAT WE'RE GONNA, THERE'LL BE A GRACE PERIOD ALLOWED. SO IF SOMETHING DOES GET LOST IN THE MAIL, WE WILL NOT CHARGE ANY LATE FEES FOR, FOR 120 DAYS. SO IT'LL BE TWO BILLING CYCLES.

WE ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT RESIDENTS, IF THEY DO NOTICE THAT, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING DOESN'T LOOK RIGHT ON THEIR BILL, THEY HAVE AMPLE TIME TO CONTACT US AND GET THAT STRAIGHTENED OUT. THE INVOICE IS GOING TO LOOK DIFFERENT.

ADDITIONALLY, IT'LL BE MORE ITEMIZED. ANY INVENTORY THAT WE KNOW OF OR THAT WE'VE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE SEEN FROM THE CITY, FROM THE BILLING FILES THAT WE'RE GETTING FROM THE CITY OR OUR OWN SERVICE REQUESTS THAT WE'VE COMPLETED ON OUR END, THOSE ARE ALL GOING TO BE IN ON THEIR INVOICE. SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT LOOKS AS ACCURATE AS POSSIBLE. LASTLY, WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT CONVENIENCE FEES. THERE ARE SEVERAL PAYMENT OPTIONS THAT ARE AVAILABLE THROUGH WM. WE HAVE IN PERSON PAYMENTS THROUGH SOME OF OUR PARTNERS, LIKE 7 11. WE HAVE DIRECT DEBIT, ACH, AND CHECK. NONE OF THESE WILL INCUR A CONVENIENCE FEE. HOWEVER, AS IS COMMON IN MANY INDUSTRIES FOR CERTAIN PAYMENT METHODS THERE ARE CONVENIENCE FEES THAT ARE APPLIED. UNLIKE OTHER COMPANIES, WE DO NOT DO IT BASED OFF IT'S NOT APPLIED ON THE TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF THEIR TOTAL BILL. IT'S JUST A FLAT, A SMALL FLAT FEE OF 199 AND THEY'LL HAVE THE OPTION TO DECLINE IT AND USE ANOTHER PAYMENT METHOD IF THEY DON'T WANT TO HAVE THAT CONVENIENCE FEE.

AND THAT WILL INCLUDE THAT WILL ONLY BE APPLIED FOR CREDIT CARD OR OTHER EXPEDITED PAYMENT OPTIONS. AS I MENTIONED, WE'RE DOING, WE'RE TRYING TO DO, WE'VE COME UP WITH A VERY ROBUST AND COMPREHENSIVE EDUCATION CAMPAIGN TO GET THE WORD OUT TO ALL OF THE RESIDENTS STARTING IN MAY AT 120 DAYS. THAT'S WHEN I WAS FIRST HERE NOTIFYING THE COUNCIL, NOTIFYING THE RESIDENTS ABOUT THE UPCOMING TRANSITION.

WE STARTED DOING OUR SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGNS. WE WERE AT THE PUBLIC WORKS OPEN HOUSE WITH INFORMATION MOVING INTO JUNE. NOW, AS YOU SEE, I'M HERE IN FRONT OF YOU WITH THE MOU. WE'VE ANNOUNCED WORKSHOP DATES AND WE'VE ALSO SENT OUT DIRECT MAIL. I WANT TO INCLUDE FOR THE DIRECT MAIL AND I KNOW THIS WAS A CONCERN THAT THE COUNCIL RAISED AT THE LAST MEETING WHEN I WAS HERE ABOUT WHAT ABOUT THE RESIDENTS THAT HAVE LIVE IN THE MOBILE HOME PARKS OR IN THE HOAS WHERE IT'S MASTER BUILD. HOW ARE WE GOING TO GET THE WORD OUT TO THEM? THE CITY'S PROVIDED US WITH THE PROP218 MAILING LIST.

SO EVERY RESIDENT RECEIVED DIRECT MAIL FROM US GOING INTO JULY. RESIDENTS ARE GOING TO SEE A BILL INSERT IN THEIR UTILITY BILL. SO THIS IS THE UTILITY BILL THAT THEY WILL GET THEIR LAST INVOICE FROM THE CITY. WE'LL HAVE A BILL INSERT FROM WM LETTING THEM KNOW ABOUT THE UPCOMING BILLING TRANSITION WHICH WILL HAVE WORKSHOP DATES AND OTHER INFORMATION. IT'LL DIRECT THEM TO THE CITY'S WEBSITE WHICH HAS FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS THAT THEY CAN

[01:10:01]

REFER TO. AGAIN, WE'LL KEEP DOING SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGNS.

STARTING IN AUGUST WE'LL START HOLDING VIRTUAL AND IN PERSON WORKSHOPS. RESIDENTS RECEIVE ANOTHER LETTER AT THE 30 DAY POINT WELCOMING THEM TO WM. THIS WILL HAVE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT HOW THEY CAN SET UP THEIR MY WM PROFILE. AND THEN WE'LL START INITIATING OUT DIALS. SO WE'RE GOING TO START DOING IN THE FIRST WEEK OF AUGUST THEY'LL START GETTING ONE OUT DIAL A WEEK. SO IF WE HAVE AN EMAIL THEY'LL GET IT THAT WAY. BUT IF WE HAVE A PHONE NUMBER THEY'LL GET THE RECORDED CALL GOING INTO THE LAST WEEK. WE'LL SEND THE OUTDOOR EVERY DAY JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T MISS ANYTHING. AND THEN STARTING IN SEPTEMBER WE'LL HAVE A HELP DESK. WE'LL HAVE A HELP DESK AT CITY HALL. SO ME OR ANOTHER ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES WILL BE HERE EVERY THURSDAY FROM OPEN TO CLOSE AT THE FRONT DESK HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT THEY MAY HAVE. SPREADING THE WORD.

THESE ARE SOME, SOME OF THE THINGS YOU MAY HAVE SEEN ONLINE. THE TWO ON THE LEFT, THAT'S THE BILL INSERT THAT'S GOOD THAT RESIDENTS WILL BE RECEIVING IN JULY. THE TWO ON THE RIGHT, THESE ARE SOME OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA ADS THAT WE PUT OUT THERE IN COLLABORATION WITH THE CITY REFERENCING ANDREA. ANDREA AND I HAVE BEEN IN COMMUNICATION A LOT. WE'LL LOOK AT THE COMMENTS THAT WE'LL SEE ON COMMENTS WE'LL SEE ON FACEBOOK. SHE'LL CONTACT ME IF SOMEONE AT THE FRONT DESK GETS A QUESTION THAT THEY DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER TO. SO WE'RE MAKING SURE THAT WE UPDATE THESE AND WE GET THEM OUT IN REAL TIME AS THE QUESTIONS PRESENT THEMSELVES. LAST SLIDE OR SECOND TO LAST SLIDE. THIS IS JUST AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT WILL BE AVAILABLE TO THE RESIDENTS NOW THROUGH THE MYWM PROFILE. THEY CAN REACH US BY PHONE, THEY CAN REACH US BY EMAIL, LIVE CHAT, 24. 7 SELF HELP TECHNOLOGY. THEY CAN USE THE APP ON THEIR PHONE. IF THEY'RE SITTING IN BED AND THEY THINK, YOU KNOW WHAT, MY CAN JUST. MY CAN LOOKS PRETTY BANGED UP TODAY. I'M GOING TO GET A NEW ONE NEXT WEEK.

THEY CAN DO THAT RIGHT FROM THE COMFORT OF THEIR OWN HOME. THEIR PHONE.

THEY CAN ALSO MAIL US IF THEY WANT AND IF THEY REALLY WANT TO PICK UP THE PHONE, THEY CAN ALWAYS CALL AT 909-599-1274. WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT RESIDENTS HAVE EVERY CONVENIENCE, FEE, CONVENIENCE, OPPORTUNITY AVAILABLE TO THEM TO REACH OUT TO US. THESE ARE SOME.

SAVE THE DATES.

THURSDAY, AUGUST 20, IT'LL BE AN IN PERSON WORKSHOP HERE IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS.

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 26TH, WE'LL HAVE A VIRTUAL WORKSHOP.

SEPTEMBER 3RD. STARTING SEPTEMBER 3RD, THAT'S WHEN ME OR ANOTHER REPRESENTATIVE FROM WASTE MANAGEMENT, IT'LL MOST LIKELY BE ME. I KNOW YOU GUYS PROBABLY SEE ME ENOUGH ALREADY. WILL BE. WE'LL BE HERE AT CITY HALL TO RECEIVE ANYBODY THAT HAS ANY QUESTIONS, CONCERNS OR IF THEY JUST WANT TO COME IN AND TELL US HOW MUCH THEY LOVE THE WNB.

LOVE THEIR TRASH.

LOVE THEIR TRASH. AND OF COURSE SEPTEMBER 1ST IS THE EFFECTIVE DATE. AND THANK YOU.

I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.

JUST A COUPLE REAL QUICK QUESTIONS. WE'RE NOT RAISING THE RATES WHATSOEVER TO OUR RESIDENTS. THE SAME COST RIGHT NOW THAT YOU PAY WITH THE CITY OF LA VERNE IS GOING TO BE THE SAME COST YOU PAY.

YOU'RE ALSO GOING TO HAVE TO PUT IT IN A NEW ACH. A NEW ENTRY INTO YOUR BANK TO MAKE SURE FOR A BILL PAY.

YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

OKAY. MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE BECAUSE WE HAVE A VERY SENIOR POPULATION IN OUR MOBILE HOME COMMUNITIES THAT WE'RE VERY GENTLE WITH THEM AND THE FACT THAT IF THEY REQUIRE AND THEY'RE RUNNING LATE ON THEIR BILLS BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT QUITE SURE HOW TO EVEN WITH ALL THIS STUFF, SOME OF THESE PEOPLE DON'T HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY. WE NEED TO BE GENTLE WITH THEM TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SERVICE ISN'T STOPPED. AND THEN WORST CASE SCENARIO, SOMEONE HAS TO GO TO THEM AND SAY, HEY, HERE WE ARE. THIS IS WHAT WE'RE DOING BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO CUT OFF, SEVER OUR TIES BETWEEN LA VERNE AND WASTE MANAGEMENT AND THE FACT THAT YOU NO LONGER SERVICE TO THE CITY OF LA VERNE, IT'S WASTE MANAGEMENT NOW, WHICH I'M KIND OF HAPPY TO SEE ANYWAY. THAT'S A GOOD IDEA.

YEAH. AND THEN I THINK THE BIGGEST THING IS TOO, IS IF I HAVE HAD ISSUES IN THE PAST, I KNOW WE'VE HAD MANY CONVERSATIONS. IF SOMEONE DOES HAVE A BAD CAN OR SOMETHING'S DAMAGED, THEN I THINK YOUR RESPONSE TIME, YOU NEED TO CHECK THAT AND MAKE SURE THAT. THAT IF SOMEONE ASKS FOR A CAN, THEY PUT THE CAN OUT. IT'S NOT THERE FOR THREE OR FOUR DAYS SITTING OUT THERE HALF EXPLODED, BECAUSE IT'S JUST BEYOND REPAIR THAT WE MAKE SURE THE WASTE MANAGEMENT DOES COME AND REPLACE THOSE. IT'S VERY IMPORTANT. BUT GENERALLY YOU GUYS ARE PRETTY GOOD ABOUT IT.

SORRY.

YEAH. AND WE JUST COMPLETED A FIELD AUDIT WHERE WE HAD TEAMS GOING OUT THERE, SORT OF FOLLOWING THE TRUCK A LITTLE BIT, BUT THEY WERE DRIVING AROUND, THEY'RE EVALUATING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CANS ARE IN GOOD CONDITION, YOU KNOW, MAKE SURE THE CANS ARE SB 1383 COMPLIANT, ALL OF THOSE THINGS. SO WE WERE ALSO GOING TO START TO SEE SOME NEW. SOME NEW INVENTORY ROLLING IN. IF WE WERE ABLE TO CAPTURE IT, UNLESS THEY BROUGHT IT IN TOO EARLY, WE'RE GOING TO BE UPDATING THAT AS WELL.

AND I THINK THAT WITH USING THE APP AND ALLOWING PEOPLE TO START SCHEDULING THOSE REQUESTS ON THEIR OWN, WE'LL START TO SEE THOSE ROTATED OUT.

ONE OTHER THING WHICH WOULD BE REALLY NICE ON YOUR PART IS YOU JUST DO THAT, CLEAN A CAN ONCE, FREE, FOR EVERY RESIDENT IN LA VERNE FOR EVERY SINGLE CAN, CLEAN THEM ONCE, AND SAY, WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOU BEING WITH WASTE MANAGEMENT. WE'VE EXTENDED YOUR CONTRACT. A GOOD CLEAN CAN IS A LOVING CAN. SO I JUST THINK THAT, YOU KNOW,

[01:15:01]

MAYBE YOU COULD DO THAT IF.

JUST WANT TO GO BACK TO.

IF I. IF I MAY, TO THE FIRST CONCERN THAT YOU RAISED ABOUT THE SENIORS. THAT. THAT WAS ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS WENT.

AND MIND YOU, I'M A SENIOR.

I DON'T THINK YOU'RE A SENIOR.

NOT AS SENIOR AS ME. I DON'T KNOW.

YOU SEEM PRETTY YOUNG. THAT WAS ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT KEN AND DANNY AND I DISCUSSED WHEN.

WHEN WE BEGAN THIS PROCESS, PROCESS OF GETTING. GETTING THE WHEELS IN MOTION WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE KNOW THERE'S GOING TO BE SOMEWHAT OF A LEARNING CURVE. WE KNOW THAT AS MUCH, NO MATTER HOW MUCH PUBLIC EDUCATION WE DO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO REACH ANYBODY. THAT'S WHY THERE'S GOING TO BE A GRACE PERIOD. WE'RE NOT GOING TO SHUT OFF ANYBODY'S SERVICE. YOU KNOW, IF WE HAVE TO START THINKING OF MORE CREATIVE WAYS TO EVEN HAVE TO GO KNOCK ON SOMEONE'S DOOR, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS.

THIS IS AS SMOOTH AS POSSIBLE.

WE KNOW THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME HICCUPS, BUT THE ONE THING WE CAN AVOID IS NOT SHUTTING OFF SOMEONE'S SERVICE.

COUNCILOR CROSBY, YOU WANT TO GO? WE'RE GOING TO GO AND OPEN UP PUBLIC COMMENT. DO ANYBODY WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? YES, MA'AM.

GOOD EVENING, MR. MAYOR, AND COUNCIL.

JUST A QUESTION. HOW DO YOU TURN OFF SOMEONE'S SERVICE? DOES THE TRASH JUST BUILD UP? HOW'S THAT HANDLED? YES.

YEAH, WE'LL WAIT. ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT THAT WOULD BE.

NO, WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. AND JOSH, CAN YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION? HOW DO YOU TURN OFF A TRASH CAN? I SUPPOSE IT WAS POOR CHOICE OF WORDS. IT WOULD BE THAT THE SERVICE IS PAUSED UNTIL. AND IF THEY, IF THEY GO. IF THEIR ACCOUNT BECOMES DELINQUENT.

BUT WE'RE GOING TO NOT, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A GRACE PERIOD.

FOR HOW LONG? 120 DAYS.

120 DAYS.

WE CAN ALWAYS. AND WE CAN. I DON'T, I, I DON'T THINK IT'LL GET TO THAT POINT. BUT, YOU KNOW, AND IF WE, AGAIN, AS WE, AS WE'RE REVIEWING IT, IF WE SEE, YOU KNOW, THERE, IF IT'S A HANDFUL OF, YOU KNOW, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'LL HAVE TO EVALUATE IN REAL TIME.

BUT THEY CAN ALSO CALL, TOO.

THEY CAN ALSO CALL THAT NUMBER AND GET A LIVE PERSON.

MR. DOMER, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY, MR. MAYOR, AND I'M SURE IF SOMEBODY MISSES A TRASH PICKUP OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THEY'RE GOING TO CALL THE CITY. AND THAT'S.

AGAIN, WE'RE GOING TO BE WORKING WITH JOSH. JOSH IS GOING TO BE HERE ONCE A WEEK DURING SEPTEMBER. AND SO WE WILL BE ABLE TO PICK UP A LOT OF THINGS. BUT WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE COVER ALL THOSE BASES AT FIRST.

BUT THERE IS A GOOD PLAN IN CASE THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN.

JOSH IS GOING TO TRASH TALKER.

WELL, AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, PEOPLE WILL NEED TO PAY FOR THEIR TRASH PICKUP.

QUESTION, COUPLE QUESTIONS.

HOW MANY. I KNOW WE PAY FOR THE BLACK WASTE CANS, THE SIZE OF THEM. HOW MANY GREEN WASTE AND HOW MANY GRAY RECYCLABLES ARE WE ALLOWED TO HAVE AS WELL? IT INCLUDES TWO RECYCLE AND TWO ORGANICS.

SO IF PEOPLE DON'T HAVE TWO, MAYBE THEY HAVE ONE AND THEY WANT ANOTHER ONE. THEY CAN CALL YOU AND STILL GET THAT EXTRA MONEY.

YEAH, THAT'S ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. AND I THINK, AND THEN IN THE INVERSE, TOO, THAT WHEN THEY DO, WHEN RESIDENTS DO RECEIVE THEIR FIRST BILL, BECAUSE THESE THINGS ARE ALL GOING TO BE CAPTURED NOW IT'S GOING TO BE ITEMIZED. I KNOW THAT THE CITY'S BILLING SYSTEM DID HAVE SOME LIMITATIONS ABOUT HOW MUCH IT COULD INCLUDE ON IT. SO IN THAT GRACE PERIOD, IF YOU SEE THAT YOU HAVE MORE CANS THAN YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO RETURN THEM, OR IF YOU DON'T, MAKE SURE THAT YOU DON'T CHARGE THEM FOR IT.

ABSOLUTELY.

SO I GUESS THE. THE IDEA HERE, AND AS THE SOCIAL MEDIA PART OF IT, IS THAT PLEASE CHECK YOUR BILL WHEN YOU FIRST GET IT. MAKE SURE YOU WALK OUT IN YOUR YARD, MAKE SURE YOU'VE GOT THE CANS.

YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE PAYING FOR THAT.

AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO SEE IN THE. IN THE BILL INSERT THAT THEY GOT.

IT'S. WE'RE CONSTANTLY REPEATING THAT.

PLEASE REVIEW YOUR BILL.

PLEASE REVIEW THE ACCOUNT INFORMATION. YOU KNOW, MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE MAILING THIS TO THE RIGHT PERSON.

AND I APPRECIATE THE FLYER THAT CAME OUT ALREADY TO ALL OF OUR RESIDENTS. THE ONE THING THAT WAS JUST MY AHA BEFORE THIS CAME UP WAS NOW WE ARE PRESENTED WITH THE MOU. I JUST THOUGHT WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENTED WITH THE MOU FIRST AND APPROVED IT. BECAUSE IF WE ALL JUST SAY NO NOW THAT THAT STUFF IT'S BEEN. IT'S KIND OF ALREADY IN THE FACT OF THAT'S HOW IT'S GOING TO GO THROUGH. I AGREE. MOVING TO YOUR BILLING RATHER THAN THE CITY AND TRYING TO MAKE SURE IT'S ALL CLEAN AND STUFF LIKE THAT. I JUST WISH THIS MOU CAME FIRST AND THEN RATHER THAN. IT SEEMED TO BE A MUTE POINT AFTER THIS AS WELL.

THE. YES. JUST A QUESTION ON THE FEES WITH THE GREEN, THE GRAY, THE BLACK CAN'T. IS IT THE SAME FOR EACH?

[01:20:05]

NO, THE ORGANICS, I CAN REFERENCE IT TO, GIVE YOU THE EXACT NUMBER. THE ORGANICS IS GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE EXPENSIVE THAN THE RECYCLE IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING. IF YOU ADD AN ADDITIONAL CART.

YOU'RE ALLOWED TO TWO EXTRA RECYCLE, TWO EXTRA ORGANICS.

WENDY, ANY YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT TRASH? OKAY.

VERY GOOD. I THINK WE'RE GOOD WITH THAT.

MOVE TO APPROVE.

LET ME.

THE MOU THAT WE SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN.

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MEMORANDUM AND UNDERSTANDING MOU BETWEEN THE CITY OF LA VERNE, THE USA, WASTE OF CALIFORNIA, INC. WASTE MANAGEMENT, REGARDING THE TRANSITION OF RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE BILLING RESPONSIBILITIES FROM THE CITY TO WASTE MANAGEMENT, EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 2026, AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE MOU AND SUBSEQUENT ADMINISTRATIVE REVISIONS OR IMPLEMENTING DOCUMENTS THAT DO NOT MATERIALLY MODIFY THE RIGHTS, OBLIGATIONS, RATES, FEES, SERVICE LEVELS OR OTHER SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS OF THE EXISTING SOLID WASTE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT AND RECEIVE AND FILE AN UPDATE ON CUSTOMER OUTREACH AND PUBLIC EDUCATION ACTIVITIES RELATED TO THE BILLING. THAT'S MORE THAN THE MOU DO.

WE HAVE A MOTION MOVE TO APPROVE.

SECOND VOTE PLEASE.

MOTION ON ITEM 10 BY CROSBY, SECONDED BY LAO.

APPROVED.

40 WITH CASHEL FAGITA BEING ABSENT.

[11. Amendment to the City's Concealed Carry (CCW) Psychological Evaluation Practice and Subsidy Program]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIRD ITEM ON THE AMENDMENT IS THE CITY COUNCIL'S CONCEALED CARRY CCW PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION PRACTICE AND SUBSIDY PROGRAM.

MR. JOHNSON IS CLEARING A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. HE'S GOING TO EXIT THE CHAMBERS UNTIL WE ARE DONE. I CAN ALREADY GUESS WHO'S COMING UP TO TALK ABOUT THIS ONE. SO WE ARE, MR. DOMER. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE POLICE CHIEF SAM GONZALEZ COME UP AND SPEAK, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR. THANK YOU. AND FOR THE RECORD, COUNCIL MEMBER JOHNSON HAS A CONCEALED CARRIED WEAPON PERMIT, SO THAT'S WHY HE'S RECUSING.

SO.

OKAY. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL.

TONIGHT, I'M PRESENTING A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE DEPARTMENT'S CONCEALED LIGHT WEAPON LICENSING PROCESS REGARDING PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS. THIS RECOMMENDATION FOLLOWS A REVIEW OF CHANGES IN CALIFORNIA LAW, OPERATIONAL EXPERIENCE GAINED SINCE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF OUR CCW PROGRAM IN 2023 AND OUR CONTINUED COMMITMENT TO MAINTAINING A THOROUGH, LEGALLY COMPLIANT, AND PUBLIC SAFETY FOCUSED LICENSING PROCESS. SO HOW DID WE GET HERE? SOME MAY RECALL THAT BACK BEFORE AUGUST OF 2022, THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT WAS HANDLING OUR CCW APPLICATIONS AND THE THEN SHERIFF PUSHED THOSE RESPONSIBILITIES BACK TO ALL NON CONTRACT AGENCIES.

THE DEPARTMENT WAS THEN FORCED TO IMPLEMENT ITS OWN CCW PROGRAM IN 2023.

AT THE SAME TIME, SIGNIFICANT LEGAL CHANGES SURROUNDING CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE WERE OCCURRING THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA FOLLOWING THE BRUIN DECISION. THE DEPARTMENT BELIEVED A UNIVERSAL PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION REQUIREMENT PROVIDED AN ADDITIONAL LAYER OF REVIEW WHILE THE CITY SUBSIDIZED A PORTION OF THE EXAMINATION.

SINCE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA LAW CONTINUES TO EVOLVE AND YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE'S ALSO SOME LANGUAGE IN SENATE BILL 2.

BUT MY FOCUS TODAY POINTS TO WHERE THE CURRENT LAW CONTINUES TO PRESERVE THE AUTHORITY OF THE LICENSING AGENCY TO REQUIRE PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS DURING THE BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION TO SUPPORT ADDITIONAL REVIEW OF THE APPLICANT. WHILE THE DEPARTMENT HAS HISTORICALLY REQUIRED PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS FOR ALL APPLICANTS, CALIFORNIA LAW HAS CONSISTENTLY PROVIDED THE LICENSING AUTHORITY WITH DISCRETION REGARDING THEIR USE.

THIS AMENDMENT REFINES OUR PROCESS BASED ON OPERATIONAL EXPERIENCE WHILE PRESERVING THAT AUTHORITY WHEN CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANT ADDITIONAL REVIEW. THIS SLIDE HERE HAS SOME OF THE RESULTS SINCE 2023. AS PART OF THIS REVIEW, I EXAMINE OUR ACTUAL EXPERIENCE ADMINISTERING THE PROGRAM.

SINCE THE INCEPTION, THE DEPARTMENT HAS PROCESSED 223 APPLICATIONS, INCLUDING BOTH INITIAL APPLICATIONS AND RENEWALS. OF THOSE 210 LICENSES THAT WERE APPROVED, SIX WERE DENIED AND SIX APPLICANTS WERE EITHER WITHDREW OR RELOCATED.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, DURING THE REVIEW OF THESE APPLICANTS, WE DID NOT IDENTIFY OBJECTIVE INDICATORS THAT WOULD HAVE NECESSITATED A PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION UNDER THE LEGAL STANDARDS. THE

[01:25:02]

APPLICANTS WHO WERE DENIED WERE DENIED BECAUSE THEY DID NOT MEET THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY TO OBTAIN A CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE. HOWEVER, IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT OBJECTIVE INDICATORS WERE PRESENT IN THOSE CASES. I JUST WANT TO JUST TOUCH ON THAT A LITTLE BIT, MEANING THAT THE LEGAL STANDARDS, EVEN THOUGH THEY FAILED THAT PART, HAD IT CONTINUED, THERE WAS STILL OBJECTIVE INDICATORS.

IF THEY ADMIT THOSE STANDARDS TO REQUIRE A PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAM. THIS EXPERIENCE DEMONSTRATED THAT COMPREHENSIVE BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS REMAIN THE MOST EFFECTIVE TOOL FOR EVALUATING APPLICANT SUITABILITY. THE FOLLOWING SLIDES ARE THE CALIFORNIA CCW ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS THE DEPARTMENT'S VIEW PROCESS IS EXTENSIVE AND INVOLVES MULTIPLE LAYERS OF INVESTIGATION.

CALIFORNIA LAW ESTABLISHES NUMEROUS STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE SATISFIED BEFORE A LICENSE CAN BE ISSUED.

IN PRACTICE, THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF CONCERNS IDENTIFIED DURING THE APPLICATION PROCESS ARE DISCOVERED THROUGH TRADITIONAL INVESTIGATIVE METHODS AND STATUTORY BACKGROUND REVIEWS.

THE FOLLOWING SLIDES SUMMARIZE WHAT IS REVIEWED IN THE PROCESS AND IN THE EXAMPLE PROVIDED EARLIER.

SLIDE APPLICANTS HAVE ONE OR MORE OF THESE CONDITIONS.

APPLICANTS WHO HAVE ONE OR MORE OF THESE CONDITIONS WOULD OTHERWISE BE REJECTED AND WOULD NOT BE PROCESSED TO A PSYCHOLOGICAL INTERVIEW.

SO THIS SLIDE AND THIS SLIDE BOTH HAVE EVERYTHING THAT WE REVIEW. THE KEY COMPONENT HERE IS THE LIFESCAN FINGERPRINTING AND IN MY AGENDA REPORT ON THE BACKSIDE YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A REQUIREMENT NOW FOR RENEWALS WHICH WASN'T IN THERE BEFORE. STATE LEGISLATURE ADDED THAT TO THE LAW WHICH IS IN THERE CURRENTLY AND THAT TAKES EFFECT I BELIEVE IN SEPTEMBER. I COULD LOOK AT THE DATE HERE.

TO BE EXACT, THIS SLIDE HERE HAS CONTAINS WHEN A PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION MAY BE APPROPRIATE. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT DOES NOT ELIMINATE THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS.

PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS REMAIN A VALUABLE INVESTIGATIVE TOOL AND MAY PROVIDE IMPORTANT INFORMATION WHEN OBJECTIVE CONCERNS ARE IDENTIFIED DURING THE BACKGROUND PROCESS.

AS THE LICENSING AUTHORITY, I RETAIN THE ABILITY TO REQUIRE AN EVALUATION WHEN THE FACTS OF A PARTICULAR CASE INDICATE THAT AN ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT WOULD ASSIST IN MAKING AN INFORMED LICENSING DECISION FOR BOTH INITIAL APPLICATIONS AND RENEWALS. THE SLIDE HERE PROVIDES EXAMPLES OF OBJECTIVE INDICATORS, BUT I WANT TO NOTE THAT I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO GREAT DEAL WITH THIS AND DURING MY FIRST PRESENTATION I WAS ASKED THE SAME QUESTION ABOUT GIVE US SOME EXAMPLES.

BUT PROVIDING A CANDIDATE OR PROVIDING ADDITIONAL EXAMPLES PROVIDES THE POTENTIAL OF SOMEONE TO AVOID WHAT TO DO OR WHAT NOT TO DO. THIS FOLLOWING SLIDE PROVIDES OPERATIONAL AND COST CONSIDERATION. WHILE COST IS NOT THE PRIMARY REASON FOR THIS RECOMMENDATION, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ACKNOWLEDGE OPERATIONAL REALITIES ASSOCIATED WITH ADMINISTERING THIS PROGRAM. SINCE 2023, EXAMINATION COSTS HAVE INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY WITH CHANGES IN THE LAW TO INCLUDE SB2. AS I JUST MENTIONED, THE DEPARTMENT INFORMED COUNCIL THAT WE HAD TO CHANGE VENDORS IN AN EFFORT TO MAINTAIN REASONABLE COSTS AND CONTINUING PROVIDING THE QUALITY OF SERVICE. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT ENSURES THAT THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS REMAIN AVAILABLE WHILE FOCUSING ON THEIR USE ON SITUATIONS WHERE OBJECTIVE FACTS INDICATE THAT THEY WOULD PROVIDE MEANINGFUL VALUE TO THE LICENSING PROCESS.

BEFORE I CLOSE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, WHAT I'M ASKING COUNCIL TO RECONSIDER TONIGHT WAS NOT TAKEN LIGHTLY. I RECALL A LONG DEBATE OVER THIS TOPIC AND THE POSITION I TOOK, WHICH WAS A POSITION OF EXTREME PRECAUTION. AS I MENTIONED, THE CCW PROGRAM WAS A NEW VENTURE FOR OUR DEPARTMENT.

AT THAT TIME IT WAS PRUDENT TO GATHER AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE TO ENSURE WE WERE MAKING INFORMED LICENSE DECISIONS. TODAY WE ARE NO LONGER OPERATING FROM ASSUMPTIONS. WE ARE OPERATING FROM EXPERIENCE. AS A LICENSING AUTHORITY, I CONTINUE TO BELIEVE PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS ARE A VALUABLE TOOL. MY POSITION ON THAT HAS NOT CHANGED. WHAT HAS CHANGED IS OUR UNDERSTANDING ON HOW AND WHEN THAT TOOL PROVIDES THE GREATEST VALUE THE DEPARTMENT IS NOT IMPLEMENT. ELIMINATING THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION AS A PUBLIC SAFETY TOOL. WE ARE TRANSITIONING FROM A UNIVERSAL REQUIREMENT TO USE WITH OBJECTIVE FACTS DEVELOPED DURING THE BACKGROUND OR INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS. OUR EXPERIENCE WITH 223 APPLICATIONS DEMONSTRATES THAT THE BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION ITSELF REMAINS THE MOST EFFECTIVE METHOD FOR

[01:30:01]

IDENTIFYING SUITABILITY CONCERNS WHILE PRESERVING THE ABILITY TO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL EVALUATION WHEN WARRANTED.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, MY NAME IS ON EVERY SINGLE LICENSE THAT'S ISSUED BY THIS DEPARTMENT. I TAKE ON THAT RESPONSIBILITY VERY SERIOUSLY. MY OBLIGATION AS CHIEF OF POLICE AND LICENSING AUTHORITY IS TO DO EVERYTHING WITHIN MY POWER TO PROTECT THIS COMMUNITY THROUGH A THOROUGH THROUGH A PROCESS THAT IS THOROUGH AND CONSISTENT WITH THE LAW. SO TONIGHT, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE AMENDMENT TO THE DEPARTMENT CCW LICENSING PROCESS REMOVING THE MANDATORY PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION REQUIREMENT FOR ALL APPLICANTS. AUTHORIZE MYSELF AS THE CHIEF OF POLICE AS A LICENSING AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS CONSISTENT WITH CALIFORNIA LAW AND OBJECTIVE FINDINGS DEVELOPED DURING THE BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION PROCESS. AND LASTLY, ELIMINATE THE CITY'S CURRENT $150 SUBSIDY FOR CCW PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS. AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU, CHIEF.

APPRECIATE THAT. I THINK WE'RE GOING TO OPEN UP PUBLIC COMMENT FIRST AND THEN WE'LL COME UP TO THE DIAS FOR QUESTIONS. I'M GOING TO OPEN A PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM. MAYBE I SHOULD SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. MS. KALUSIK. THAT'S STEFAN. YEAH, THAT'S FINE.

GOOD EVENING. KATHY KALUSEK.

I'M NOT EXCITED ABOUT THIS BECAUSE I'M FOR EVERYBODY GETTING PSYCH EVALS.

I THINK THAT OUR POLICE OFFICERS AND MILITARY ALL GET VETTED VERY THOROUGHLY BEFORE THEY CAN CARRY WEAPONS AROUND.

AND I THINK EVERYBODY SHOULD BUT YOU KNOW, WHATEVER.

BUT I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS.

WHAT BECOMES OUR LIABILITY? LET'S SAY WE DIDN'T REQUIRE A PSYCH EVAL AND SOMEBODY SHOOTS UP A PLACE AND WE ISSUED THEM A CCW. WHAT'S OUR LIABILITY? LET'S SEE THAT ONE ANSWERED.

WHO PAY IF SOMEONE COMES UP THAT THEY NEED TO GET THE PSYCH EVAL THEN DO THEY HAVE TO PAY FOR IT ALL THEMSELVES? HOW DO THEY INFORM SOMEONE THAT THEY NEED TO GET A PSYCH EVAL AND THEN COULD SOMEBODY BRING A LAWSUIT CLAIMING THAT IT WAS DISCRIMINATORY FOR WHATEVER REASON? I THINK THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU KATHY. APPRECIATE IT.

JEAN. MAYOR CITY COUNCIL MY NAME IS GENE QUINN, I'M A LAVERNE RESIDENT. I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION ABOUT THE CCW.

DO YOU HAVE TO HAVE A. I KNOW I REMEMBER YEARS AGO YOU HAD TO BE LIKE A JEWELER OR YOU KNOW SOME SORT OF BUSINESS WHERE YOU NEEDED TO YOU KNOW REQUIRED TO HAVE A CCW. IS THAT THE CASE NOW OR CAN ANYONE GET ONE? OKAY, INTERESTING. AND OF COURSE THERE MUST BE SOME SORT OF CERTIFICATE. YOU PROBABLY HAVE TO GET AHEAD OF TIME TRAINING. THAT WAS MY QUESTION. OKAY, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU MR. QUINN.

MY NAME IS LILI. I'M QUITE HAPPY TO HEAR THIS NEWS. I JUST SAW IT GET REMOVED 150 I THINK IT'S REALLY LOWER THE BIG COST BECAUSE I REMEMBER A FEW YEARS AGO THERE'S A NEWS CALL CCW FEE IS A ROCKET HIGH IN THE COUNTRY. THERE'S CITY CALLED LA VERNE IN CALIFORNIA IS THE HIGHEST IN THE COUNTRY. OUR CITY IS REALLY SO FAMOUS IN A NOT VERY GOOD NAME BACK THEN SO I'M. I REALLY SUPPORT POLICE CHIEF TALK ABOUT BECAUSE THE PROCESS ALREADY HAVE THE FINGERPRINT CRIME ALL THE INVESTIGATION IT'S JUST REALLY COMMON SENSE DON'T REALLY HAVE TO DO THE FURTHER YOU KNOW INVESTIGATION FOR THE PSYCHOLOGY SO THAT'S MY POINT. SO EVEN THOUGH I DON'T HAVE A GUN MY HOUSE HAVE TWO BOY WE REALLY QUITE AGAINST TO HAVE GUN IN OUR HOUSE BUT I DO THINK THE COUNCIL KERRY SECOND AMENDMENT IS REALLY THE MUST FOR CITIZEN SO I'M HAPPY TO SEE SOME ADJUSTMENT WILL BE MADE BECAUSE EVEN BASED ON COMMON SENSE IN AMERICA.

THANK YOU LILLY. APPRECIATE THAT. ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? WE.

YES, PATTY SWOOPMAN LAVERNE.

I AGREE WITH LILY.

I THINK OUR RIGHTS TO CARRY A CONCEALED WEAPON SHOULD BE. I THINK I'M PUTTING A LOT OF TRUST IN THE CHIEF WHO HAS HAD A LOT MORE EXPERIENCE

[01:35:02]

WITH KNOWING HOW PEOPLE RESPOND TO DIFFERENT THINGS AND ADDITION TO THE THINGS THAT ARE ALREADY IN PLACE. HE WOULD BE THE ONE THAT WOULD SAY, WE NEED. WE NEED TO EVALUATE FURTHER. AND I PUT MY TRUST IN HIM.

ANYBODY ELSE? YES, IVON. MS. GALLEGOS, GOOD EVENING.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

FOR AS MUCH AS PEOPLE WANT TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO CARRY AGAIN, I WANT THE RIGHT TO FEEL SAFE IN MY CITY. NO DISRESPECT TO THE CHIEF BECAUSE I LOVE THE LA VERNE POLICE DEPARTMENT, BUT I DO FEEL THAT WAIVING THAT IS NOT THE BEST OPTION FOR OUR CITIZENS. AND IT MAKES US A LITTLE BIT MORE VULNERABLE TO WHAT IS ALREADY A WORLD THAT FEELS A LOT UNSTABLE. I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE CHIEF. AS THE LICENSING AUTHORITY, IS IT UP TO JUST THE CHIEF TO EVALUATE WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE IS REQUIRED TO HAVE A PSYCH EVAL? OR IS IT A BOARD OR IS IT JUST THE CHIEF THAT DECIDES THAT? THANK YOU.

THANKS, YVONNE. I APPRECIATE THAT. WE ALSO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

BOWEN.

GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL.

RICK BOWEN. I HAVE A HOUSE IN TEXAS. YOU GO TO TEXAS, IT'S OPEN, CARRY, NO PERMITS, NO NOTHING. GO TO CHURCH.

PEOPLE HAVE GUNS. AND THEY ALSO HAVE ONE OF THE LOWEST CRIME RATES. SO THERE'S A LOT OF PROTECTION, AND THEY ALL KNOW IT. THEY ALL KNOW YOU DON'T HAVE SQUATTERS.

YOU DON'T HAVE A LOT OF THINGS THAT GO ON BECAUSE THEY'RE PROTECTED.

AND I CERTAINLY FEEL THAT PSYCHOLOGICAL WHEN YOU SEE WHAT THE CHIEF JUST TALKED ABOUT.

HISTORY.

HE'S GOT ALL THE HISTORY.

HE'S JUST SHOWED YOU. IT'S NOT A HUGE PERCENTAGE. AND HE WILL MAKE THE DECISION, OR ANY. ANY CHIEF WOULD BE ABLE TO SAY NO. THIS PERSON NEEDS AN EVAL. SO I FULLY SUPPORT HIM DOING THIS, AND I HOPE YOU GUYS DO, TOO.

THANK YOU, MR. BOWEN.

ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS? OH, WELL, I WAS LOOKING FROM THE CROWD.

THERE'S NOBODY ELSE IN THE CROWD. WE'RE GOING TO GO TO STEPHEN WARD.

STEPHEN, YOU SHOULD BE ON. CAN YOU HEAR US? THERE YOU GO.

YOU, STEPHEN WARD. I WAS SURPRISED TO SEE THIS ON THE AGENDA GIVEN ALL THE FIERCE KIND OF PUBLIC DEBATE ON THIS FROM A FEW YEARS AGO. THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT MAKING THIS DISCRETIONARY. AND MAYOR HEPBURN, YOU WERE THE ONE THAT SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED A VOTE AND MADE A MOTION TO MAKE THIS A MANDATORY REQUIREMENT FOR ALL APPLICANTS. AND I WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT THE DEBATE FROM A FEW YEARS AGO AND WAS STRUCK BY SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT YOU MADE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, LA VERNE BEING DIFFERENT.

OTHER MUNICIPALITIES MAYBE DON'T HAVE THIS AS A UNIVERSAL REQUIREMENT. BUT YOU SAID LA VERNE IS DIFFERENT. WE HOLD OURSELVES TO A HIGHER STANDARD. AND PUBLIC SAFETY IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING. AND IF THIS IS AN EXTRA LAYER OF PROTECTION, THEN WE SHOULD HAVE IT. AND THE. THE VOTE PASSED TO MAKE THIS A UNIVERSAL REQUIREMENT.

MAYOR PRO TEM CASH, WHO I KNOW IS NOT HERE TODAY, ISN'T, YOU KNOW, SERVING. HE TALKED ABOUT NOT WANTING THE CHIEF TO HAVE TO WEAR THE HAT OF A MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL AND HAVE THAT BE A DISCRETIONARY THING TO AVOID APPEARANCES OF FAVORITISM OR MAKE HAVING HIM HAVE TO MAKE THAT DECISION BASED ON, YOU KNOW, ANY FACTORS FROM THE BACKGROUND CHECK. I THINK THE EXPERIENCE THAT THE CHIEF MENTIONED IS PROBABLY RIGHT.

IT'S VERY RARE THAT SOMETHING WOULD NOT COME UP, MAYBE IN A BACKGROUND CHECK THAT WOULD BE FLAGGED IN A PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION.

BUT I THINK THAT IT'S A SMALL ADDITIONAL HURDLE FOR AN EXTRA SENSE OF COMFORT FOR THE COMMUNITY. I THINK THAT'S WHY THE COUNCIL VOTED THREE YEARS AGO TO MAKE THIS A UNIVERSAL REQUIREMENT.

AFTER A LOT OF PUBLIC DEBATE, I THINK THE CHIEF USED THE PHRASE EXTREME PRECAUTION, AND THAT'S THE REASON WHY HE SUPPORTED UNIVERSAL PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMS

[01:40:01]

THREE YEARS AGO. I'M NOT SURE WHAT HAS CHANGED IN THE LAST THREE YEARS TO NOT MAKE US WANT TO HAVE UNIVERSAL REQUIRED BACKGROUND.

EXCUSE ME, PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMS, AND TO STILL HAVE THAT EXTREME PRECAUTION. SO I SAW SOME IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT THIS WAS MAYBE AT A COST TO THE CITY OF FOUR TO SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS. THAT SEEMS A SMALL PRICE TO PAY FOR AN EXTRA LEVEL OF SCREENING AND SECURITY. SO I WOULD URGE THE COUNCIL TO STICK WITH THE PRIOR DECISION AND CONTINUE TO MAKE THIS A MANDATORY REQUIREMENT. I UNDERSTAND THAT OTHER MUNICIPALITIES DON'T REQUIRE IT, BUT AS THE MAYOR SAID, WE'RE A LITTLE DIFFERENT, LA VERNE, AND I THINK AN EXTRA LAYER OF SECURITY IS NOT A PROBLEM.

BEFORE I CLOSE, I DID HAVE ONE QUESTION ABOUT THE SUBSIDY. THE CHIEF DIDN'T TOUCH ON THIS, BUT IN MY COMMUNICATIONS, I HEARD SOME FOLKS SAYING THAT BECAUSE THE PRICE OF THE EVALUATION HAS GONE UP, THE MARKET PRICE, THERE WAS A BELIEF THAT THE CITY HAD TO SUBSIDIZE A LARGER PORTION OF THAT. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S TRUE. THAT'S NOT IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH CALIFORNIA PISTOL AND RIFLE ASSOCIATION. SO I JUST WANTED TO GET CLARIFICATION THAT THE CITY IS NOT, IN FACT, SUBSIDIZING BEYOND $150 FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION.

SO IF I COULD JUST GET CLARIFICATION ON THAT, I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT.

THANK YOU, STEPHEN.

APPRECIATE IT.

FIRST OF ALL, THAT WAS THE BEST CALL OFF.

LET THE OSCARS START PLAYING.

FOR TIME LIMIT.

THAT I'VE EVER HEARD.

WELL, CHIEF, I KNOW YOU HAVE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS SO I THINK WE START WITH KATHY KALUSIK.

YES. AND I'M GOING TO HAVE TO APOLOGIZE TO KATHY. I MISSED. I WAS TRYING TO WRITE THEM ALL DOWN.

CHIEF, CHIEF, CHIEF, JUST ONE SECOND. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE CLOSE PUBLIC.

DOES ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM IN THE AUDIENCE? IF NOT, WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.

CHIEF.

MR. MAYOR.

WOULD IT BE ALL RIGHT IF I ADDRESS THE LEGAL QUESTIONS BEFORE THE CHIEF JUMPS IN? YES, PLEASE. YOU'VE BEEN TAKING GOOD NOTES. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. I HAVE. SO I'LL START WITH THE LIABILITY QUESTION THAT CAME FIRST. THIS IS A DISCRETIONARY PROCESS.

UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW, WE ARE IMMUNE FROM LIABILITY ASSOCIATED WITH DISCRETIONARY DECISIONS, PARTICULARLY WHEN IT COMES TO LAW ENFORCEMENT ONLY. AN INTENTIONAL ISSUANCE OF A CCW TO SOMEBODY WHO WASN'T QUALIFIED WOULD POTENTIALLY TRIGGER AN ISSUE IN TERMS OF THE COST, SORT OF JUMP TO THE END. WE HAVE A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REQUIRES US TO PAY $150 OF ANY PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAM FEE, WHATEVER IT MAY BE. WE HAVE ASKED THAT THAT BE MODIFIED UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES IF THE COUNCIL MOVES FORWARD TO ELIMINATE THE MANDATORY CCW PSYCH, BUT I HAVEN'T HEARD BACK YET.

BUT IF THEY DECLINE TO DO THAT, WE WOULD STILL BE OBLIGATED TO PAY THAT $150. AND NO, WE DO NOT HAVE TO INCREASE THAT AT ANY TIME.

CHIEF.

AFTER THAT, IT'S ALL YOU.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, KATHY.

AND I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT I APOLOGIZE. I WAS TRYING TO WRITE DOWN ALL OF YOUR QUESTIONS AND I MISSED THE VERY LAST ONE, SO WE'LL HAVE TO CIRCLE BACK TO THAT. SO MOVING ON TO YOUR SECOND PART OF YOUR QUESTION WAS WHO PAYS IF WE MOVE ON? WELL, I WOULD REFER EVERYONE TO PENAL CODE SECTION 26190E1, AND I'LL GO RIGHT DOWN TO THE VERY LAST SENTENCE THAT THE APPLICANT MAY BE CHARGED FOR THE ACTUAL COST OF THE ASSESSMENT. IN NO CASE SHALL THE AMOUNT BE CHARGED TO THE APPLICANT FOR THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT EXCEED THE REASONABLE COST TO THE LICENSING AUTHORITY. SO IF YOU RECALL, IN 2023, THE LAW WAS DIFFERENT. AND THEN THE LAW REQUIRED THAT WE UTILIZE THE SAME PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING FACILITY THAT WE USE FOR POLICE OFFICERS. THE LAW CHANGE. I BELIEVE IT'S CHANGED TWICE NOW, AND THIS IS WHAT IT IS CURRENTLY. AND IF WE WERE TO UTILIZE THE CURRENT, WHICH IS THE COUNSELING TEAM INTERNATIONAL, THEY CHARGE $450. SO WE CAME BACK TO COUNCIL. I DON'T REMEMBER THE YEAR AND I APOLOGIZE, BUT WE SAID WE WERE MOVING FROM.

BECAUSE OF THE LAW CHANGE, WE WERE MOVING FROM THE COUNSELING TEAM TO SEAL BEACH COUNSELING, WHICH CHARGED $155, BUT THAT'S WHO PAYS? THAT'S WHO WOULD PAY IF THIS PASSES TODAY.

AND THE SECOND, THIRD QUESTION WAS, HOW DO WE INFORM THE APPLICANT THAT THEIR THEY HAVE A PSYCH. THEY WOULD BE INFORMED BY EITHER MYSELF OR ONE OF MY STAFF MEMBERS TO THE EFFECT OF WE HAVE FOUND SOME OBJECTIVE INDICATORS WHICH WILL REQUIRE A PSYCHOLOGICAL

[01:45:01]

EXAM. AND THEN WE'D ALSO CITE THE LAW THAT I JUST MENTIONED, WHICH IS THE PENAL CODE SECTION 26.190 E1. AND AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS CAUGHT THE LAST QUESTION SHE HAD, BUT I MISSED IT. I WAS TRYING TO WRITE FAST.

I THINK THE QUESTION HAD TO DO WITH LIABILITY. YES.

YEAH. AND I MEAN, I THINK.

RIGHT, I GOT IT. SO, YEAH, THE QUESTION WAS, YOU KNOW, COULD SOMEBODY FILE A CLAIM OR FILE A LAWSUIT CLAIMING THAT THERE WAS SOME KIND OF DISCRIMINATORY APPLICATION OF THE REQUIREMENT? OF COURSE, ANYBODY CAN FILE A LAWSUIT FOR ANYTHING. I USED TO THINK THAT THAT WASN'T TRUE, BUT I'VE LEARNED SINCE THAT, YEAH, IN ANY EVENT, IF THERE WAS A PATTERN OR PRACTICE SHOWING SOME KIND OF DISCRIMINATION, THEN, YES, SOMEBODY COULD SUE. BUT BASED UPON THE CRITERIA THAT THE CHIEF HAS IDENTIFIED, AND CERTAINLY MY KNOWLEDGE AND COMFORT WITH CHIEF GONZALEZ, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THAT WOULD ARISE HERE.

MS. BARLOW, I BELIEVE THE NEXT QUESTION, WHEN THE GENTLEMAN ASKED IF HE WAS UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT YOU NEED TO BE A JEWELER OR STORE OWNER IN ORDER TO OBTAIN ONE. CAN YOU TOUCH A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE BRUIN DECISION THAT REALLY CHANGED ALL THIS? SURE. IN THE PAST, POLICE DEPARTMENTS WERE PERMITTED AND SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENTS WERE PERMITTED TO REQUIRE A SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE FOR ISSUANCE OF A CCW. SO THAT WAS THE JEWELRY STORE OWNER TYPE SITUATION. I NEED ONE BECAUSE I CARRY JEWELS OR WHATEVER. THE BRUIN DECISION FROM THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

SUPREME COURT HELD THAT WE COULD NO LONGER REQUIRE A SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE UNDER THE SECOND AMENDMENT. WE ARE ALLOWED TO DO THE THINGS THAT WE DO, THE BACKGROUND CHECKS AND SO ON, TO ENSURE THAT THE PEOPLE WHO DO RECEIVE CCW PERMITS ARE QUALIFIED, NOT THAT THEY HAVE TO HAVE ONE OR THAT THEY NEED ONE, BUT THAT THEY ARE QUALIFIED UNDER THE LAWS OF OUR STATE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND THE NEXT SET OF QUESTIONS WERE FOR MR. RAND. IS IT UP TO THE CHIEF TO REQUIRE AN EVALUATION? THOSE REQUIREMENTS REALLY IS THE TOTALITY OF THE REPORT THAT I RECEIVE.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION WILL HAVE A REPORT THAT THESE ARE THE OBJECTIVE INDICATORS, WHICH I KIND OF ALLUDED TO IN MY PRESENTATION, THAT'S WITHIN PUSH US TOWARDS A PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION. AND I WOULD LIKE TO STRESS THAT PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS SERVE A PURPOSE IN MANY DIFFERENT WAYS.

SOMEBODY MENTIONED THAT WE DO IT FOR POLICE OFFICERS, WHILE WE ALSO DO IT FOR DISPATCHERS. AND ONE THING THAT SERVES THAT PURPOSE IS THAT OUR POLICE OFFICERS ENCOUNTER MANY SITUATIONS. ONE MINUTE THEY'RE AT A CAR CRASH WHERE FAMILIES ARE INJURED, OR ANOTHER MINUTE THEY HAVE TO NOTIFY A FAMILY MEMBER THAT ONE OF THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS WAS KILLED OR WERE KILLED. AFFECTS THEIR PSYCHOLOGY. SO WE, WE, AND OUR DISPATCHERS, OBVIOUSLY, THEY TAKE THE CALLS AND THEY ALSO EXPERIENCE THAT SAME. SO THERE'S A PURPOSE FOR THAT THERE. IT'S KIND OF TWO DIFFERENT SITUATIONS THERE.

SO THOSE ARE KIND OF POST REQUIREMENTS FOR THOSE.

FOR THOSE REASON.

PROCESS.

OF COURSE. YES. YES.

IN MY SLIDE THERE, THERE'S A PART THERE WHERE THERE ARE SOME DOJ CRITERIA THAT WE HAVE TO MEET. MEANING THAT I COULDN'T BORROW MR. JOHNSON'S HANDGUN AND THEN APPLIED IT FOR A CCW. THAT GUN HAS TO BE REGISTERED TO MYSELF.

MEANING THAT I HAD TO FILL OUT A 4473 FORM WITHIN THE GUN DEALER AND ANSWER ALL THE QUESTIONS THERE. NOW, IF I CHECK THE BOX, FOR EXAMPLE, IF I SAY I USE MARIJUANA, FOR EXAMPLE, I'M A PRIVATE CITIZEN, NOT A POLICE OFFICER, I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO OWN OR BUY A FIREARM. NOW, IF SOMEONE DURING THE CCW PROCESS, AND I'M GIVING AWAY THE ANSWERS TO THE TEST HERE, WERE TO SAY THE SAME THING, THEY WOULD FAIL. I WOULD NOT NEED TO SEND THEM TO A PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAM. THEY WOULD FAIL AUTOMATICALLY. AND THEN AGAIN, IF THEY TELL ON THEMSELVES AND THEN THEY CHOOSE TO FIGHT IT, THEY WOULD THEN GO DOWN TO THE COURTHOUSE WHERE THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY THERE WOULD REPRESENT THE CITY, WOULD REPRESENT MYSELF, AND THEY WOULD ARGUE THE FACT.

AND EVEN THEN, THEY WOULD FORWARD THAT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN WHERE THAT FIREARM POTENTIALLY WOULD BE REMOVED. SO THERE'S A TON OF SAFEGUARDS

[01:50:02]

WITHIN THE LAW. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. I HOPE THAT ANSWERS THAT QUESTION. THEN I BELIEVE WE ANSWERED MR. WARD'S QUESTION.

CIRCLE BACK ON. JUST TO CLARIFY ON THE FEE. RIGHT NOW, WE'RE PAYING $150. WE SUBSIDIZE $150 OF A PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING. IF IT GOES UP TO $450, WHICH IT IS, THE PERSON IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OTHER PORTION OF THE 150. THE OTHER $300.

UNDER YOUR DISCRETION, IF YOU SAY YOU HAVE TO HAVE PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING, WE'RE GOING TO COVER 150, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO PAY THE $300. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. AND I'D REFER BACK TO WHAT MS. BARLOW HAD MENTIONED ABOUT MEETING WITH THE OTHER PARTY WITH THAT, I WOULD DEFER TO HER TO FULLY RESOLVE THAT.

YES. IF NOTHING CHANGES IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.

YES. THE APPLICANT UNDER THAT CIRCUMSTANCE WOULD HAVE TO PAY WHATEVER THAT FEE IS AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T EXCEED THE COST TO US, EXCEPT FOR THE 150 THAT WE CURRENTLY ARE REQUIRED TO SUBSIDIZE.

SO OUT OF THE 223 APPLICANTS, HOW MANY PEOPLE ACTUALLY FAILED AND HAD TO GO TO PSYCHOLOGICAL? WELL, THEY ALL WENT.

BUT HOW MANY FAILED? LET ME REPHRASE THAT.

NONE.

AND I SHOULD NOTE THAT YOU MENTIONED 223. THAT INCLUDES RENEWALS. THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO TAKE A PSYCHOLOGICAL FOR A RENEWAL ONLY IF OBJECTIVE SYMPTOMS ARE RAISED THROUGH THE PROCESS.

HOW MANY RENEWALS HAVE WE HAD OUT OF THE 220? OH BOY, 90, I THINK.

I BELIEVE SO. SO FOR EXAMPLE, WE STARTED IN 2023, SO IT'S BEEN A TWO YEAR PROCESS. SO THOSE WHO HAVE, THEY'RE GOOD FOR TWO YEARS. SO THOSE WHO HAVE APPLIED THE VERY FIRST YEAR WE HAD 98. SO RIGHT AROUND THAT BALLPARK.

AND REALLY WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR RIGHT NOW, AND YES, MR. MR. WARD WAS VERY CORRECT.

THIS IS ALSO THREE YEARS AGO.

YOU'VE BEEN DOING THIS NOW FOR HOW MANY YEARS SINCE? 20, 23. SO THREE YEARS.

SO THREE YEARS. IN THOSE THREE YEARS WE HAVE DONE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF INTERNAL. EVERYONE'S HAD A PSYCHOLOGICAL TEST AND YOU'VE GOT THE MATRIX TOGETHER NOW.

WE HAVE ADVANCED SYSTEMS NOW AS FAR AS BACKGROUND CHECKS, LIVE SCANS, THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT AND, AND I. IT WAS COUNCIL MEMBER LAU THAT ASKED YOU, DO YOU FEEL SAFE? ARE YOU GOOD WITH US? I THINK THE QUESTION WAS, SHOULD WE DO PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING? AND THIS WAS BACK WHEN WE WERE FIRST GOING OVER THIS AND YOU SAID YES. BUT NOW YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU BELIEVE WITH THE LAST THREE YEARS OF WHAT YOU'VE GONE THROUGH, WHAT YOUR STAFF HAS GONE THROUGH, THAT YOU FEEL CONFIDENT THAT WHAT YOU'RE DOING. WE REQUIRE PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING ONLY THOSE PEOPLE THAT WE DEEM NECESSARY. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT, MAYOR. AND IF I MAY, IN 2023 WE WERE TAKING ON A TASK THAT WE HAD NO INFORMATION ON. IF WE WOULD RELY ON THE INFORMATION THE SHERIFFS PROVIDE US PROVIDED US AS FAR AS THEIR PRACTICES AND SO FORTH, IT WAS MINIMAL. AND IN FACT THE REASON WHY THEY PUSHED IT TO US, THEY HAD OVER FIVE, THEY HAD A BACKLOG OF OVER 5,000 APPLICATIONS THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE COUNTY AND THERE WAS MANY, MANY COMPLAINTS. AND THEN IN CHECKING AND DOING A SURVEY THROUGH SOME OF THE OTHER POLICE CHIEFS, THEY ALL SAID, THEY ALL WENT TO THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT.

SO WE REALLY DIDN'T KNOW WE WERE GOING BLIND IN ON THAT.

SO WE WERE REALLY BEING EXTREMELY CAUTIOUS. AND YOU ARE RIGHT. BUT IF YOU WERE TO GO TO WHERE THE LAWS ARE THAT APPLY TO CCW. THERE'S A LOT OF PIECES OF THE LAW THAT REALLY PROTECT THE CCW LICENSING PROCESS. SO IF THEY CONTAIN SOME OF THE EXAMPLES THAT I HAVE ON THERE, THEY'RE GOING TO FAIL. THEY DON'T REALLY NEED TO GO TO A PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAM NOW IF THEY HAVE MULTIPLE ARRESTS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, ALL THAT'S DONE THROUGH THEIR FINGERPRINTS, THE DOJ CHECK AND EVERYTHING THAT'S DONE REGARDLESS. AND NOW LIKE I MENTIONED, EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER, AND FORGIVE ME, I FORGET WHAT'S ACTUALLY HERE, I HAVE IT HERE. IN SEPTEMBER WE WILL BE TRANSITIONING TO THE NEW PROCESS WHERE EVEN RENEWALS WILL REQUIRE A NEW LIVE SCAN.

SO IF THEY DID SOMETHING, PERHAPS THEY, THEY'VE EVEN OBTAINED AND THEY DIDN'T INFORM US ABOUT HAVING A RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST THEM, THAT WOULD POP UP. EVEN THOUGH THERE'S SHOULD BE OTHER SAFEGUARDS, OF COURSE, SHOULD NOTIFY US AS WELL THAT THEY WERE TO RELINQUISH THEIR FIREARMS, ALL THAT.

BUT THERE'S FAIL SAFES IN THAT.

NOW OUR ACCESS TO RECORDS BECAUSE OF OUR INVOLVEMENT WITH LA IMPACT AND LA CLEAR, DOES THAT GIVE US ANY HEADS UP ON MORE INFORMATION OR. PRETTY MUCH ALL OF THE AGENCIES HAVE PRETTY MUCH THE SAME INFORMATION.

ALL THE AGENCIES HAVE THE SAME.

OUR ACCESS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, REALLY THAT'S WHERE WE GET OUR MEAT AND POTATOES.

AND THEY, THEY COULD HAVE COME FROM ANOTHER STATE IN THE US THEY ALL SHARE THE SAME DATA DATABASE. IS DATABASE CORRECT ACROSS THE COUNTRY? THAT IS CORRECT. THE FBI AND THE DOJ DATA ARE ALL INTERTWINED.

COUNCIL, I'M GOING TO START WITH THE MATH QUESTION. 223 TOTAL APPLICATIONS WERE PROCESSED. SAYS 210 WERE APPROVED, 6 WERE DENIED AND 6 WERE WITHDRAWN. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE LAST ONE? IF THERE'S ONE

[01:55:06]

IN THERE MISSING, IT MAY BE ONE OF THE ONES THAT MAY HAVE WITHDRAWN.

OKAY, AND SO IF THEY WERE WITHDRAWN OR THEY RELOCATED, WAS IT AT SOME POINT IN THE, IN THE PROCESS WHERE THEY FIGURED OUT THAT THEY WEREN'T GOING TO BE ABLE TO PROCURE A CONCEALED CARRY HERE.

SO IF THEY WITHDRAW, IF THEY HAVE, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THEY NO LONGER LIVE IN THE CITY OF LA VERNE AND THEY HAVE TO RENEW, THEY WITHDRAW AND THEY'D HAVE TO REAPPLY WHERE THEY LIVE.

OKAY, AND THEN THE SIX LICENSES THAT WERE DENIED, THOSE WERE DENIED BASED ON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED AND ALL THE OTHER METHODOLOGIES THAT YOU DESCRIBED? THAT IS CORRECT.

OKAY, AND THEN CURRENTLY THE RENEWAL PROCESS, THE ONES THAT JUST GOT RENEWED, DID THAT INCLUDE LIKE WHAT IS, WHAT DID THAT RENEWAL PROCESS LOOK LIKE AND IS THE ONLY DIFFERENCE ONGOING, THE ADDITION OF THE LIVE SCAN? THAT IS CORRECT. SO THEY'RE REALLY THE BACKGROUND IS NOT AS EXTENSIVE AS IT IS ON THE INITIAL. NOW THAT WE DO A SMALL PORTION OF THE BACKGROUND. IF THERE ARE INDICATORS THAT PERHAPS SOMEBODY GIVES US INFORMATION OR WE LEARN THAT THEY'VE HAD MULTIPLE POLICE CONTACTS, MAYBE A TRAFFIC, YOU KNOW, THEY'VE GOT A TON OF TRAFFIC TICKETS WHERE, YOU KNOW, PERHAPS THEY'RE MAKING POOR DECISIONS, THEN THAT WOULD WARRANT POTENTIALLY HAVING A PSYCHOLOGICAL. AND AGAIN, I'M GIVING ANSWERS TO THE TEST.

OKAY. SO RIGHT NOW, GOING FORWARD, IF THIS WERE TO BE APPROVED, THEN ANYONE THAT WANTED TO RENEW WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE LIVE SCAN. AND THE LIVE SCAN SHOULD PROVIDE US WITH, WITH ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT THEY HAVE ENCOUNTERED BETWEEN THE TWO YEARS.

OKAY. AND THEN WOULD YOU MIND JUST GOING OVER WHERE FOLKS WHO HAVE A CARRY CONCEALED CAN CARRY FIREARMS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA? BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THESE ARE PEOPLE THAT ALREADY HAVE GUNS.

SO WHERE ARE THEY ALLOWED TO LAWFULLY STILL CARRY OR NOT? IT'S MUCH EASIER TO GO WHERE THEY CAN'T.

SO FEDERAL BUILDINGS, PARKS, CONCERTS, ANYWHERE WHERE THERE'S A SIGN THEY SAID NO GUNS.

SCHOOLS.

AND I BELIEVE IT'S WITHIN 100FT FROM A SCHOOL. WE OFTEN IN SMALL PORTION OF THESE CASES WHERE WE HAVE RESIDENTS WHO LIVE WITHIN 100 YARDS OF THE SCHOOL.

SCHOOL.

I MEAN, WE HAVE TO USE OUR BEST JUDGMENT IN THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO TELL THEM, DON'T THROW THE GUN INTO YOUR CAR AND RUN INTO IT. YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE SPLITTING HAIRS. THERE'S A, THERE'S A HANDFUL OF FOLKS THAT LIVE IN THERE AND, AND THE MAJORITY OF THEM ARE BUSINESS OWNERS WHO POTENTIALLY OWN JEWELRY SHOPS OR WHATNOT OR, OR CARRY LARGE AMOUNTS OF CASH. BUT THEY DO RUN BY SCHOOL.

BUT I SUMMARIZE THAT BANKS, FEDERAL BUILDINGS, COURTHOUSES, SPORTING EVENTS, OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT WHERE YOU GOT TO GO THROUGH A MAGNETOMETER. IT DOESN'T ALLOW FIREARMS. AND I BELIEVE THERE'S ALSO LOCATIONS THAT SERVE ALCOHOL AND PRIVATE PROPERTY WHERE THERE IS NOT, AND I DON'T MEAN NOT PRIVATE PROPERTY OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

PRIVATE PROPERTY IS ONE THING.

PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT IS NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, THAT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY CAN BAR SOMEBODY FROM BRINGING THAT CONCEALED WEATHER.

THEY HAVE A POST IT SIGN.

YES, THANK YOU.

AND I THINK MR. WARD, BRINGING UP HIS COMMENTS FROM BEFORE, I BELIEVE MY COMMENTS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN, WHY TREAT LA VERNE DIFFERENT RESIDENTS THAN OTHERS? BECAUSE THE SHERIFFS HAVE NOT REQUIRED THIS AND THERE'S OTHER CITIES ALL AROUND US AS THOUGH THOSE RESIDENTS STILL CAN CARRY IF THEY HAVE IT INTO LA VERNE. SO IF YOU GET IT ANYWHERE IN CALIFORNIA. YOU ARE ALLOWED ANYWHERE IN CALIFORNIA TO CARRY IF YOU HAVE A CCW.

THAT'S A GREAT POINT. SO IF THEY, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THEY GOT A CCW FROM THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AND THEY COME TO LA VERNE, THEY SHOP HERE, THEY COME TO ONE OF OUR EVENTS, THEY'RE ALLOWED TO DO SO YOU'RE. ABSOLUTELY.

UNLESS PROHIBITED. AND THEN WHAT ABOUT IF THEY'RE FROM OUT OF STATE AND THEY DOES THAT LIKE SOMEONE FROM ANOTHER STATE THAT HAS CCW? OR ARE, ARE THEY NOT ALLOWED TO CARRY? SO THERE ARE SOME STATES THAT ARE NOT RECIPROCAL, AND I BELIEVE CALIFORNIA IS ONE OF THOSE STATES THAT ARE NOT RECIPROCAL.

BUT IT REALLY DEPENDS ON WHERE YOU OBTAIN THAT CCW.

CAN I JUST ADD TO THAT, MR. MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, THERE IS, OR THERE WAS IN THE LITIGATION AN ISSUE ABOUT WHETHER PEOPLE WHO ARE DOMICILED IN ANOTHER STATE BUT SPEND A LOT OF TIME IN CALIFORNIA COULD GET DCWS IN CALIFORNIA AND THE COURT HELD THAT THEY COULD RECEIVE. SO IF SOMEBODY HAS AN ADDRESS HERE, EVEN IF IT'S NOT THEIR PRIMARY PLACE, THEY COULD GET A CCW.

AND THEN MY QUESTION THOUGH IS ON THE RENEWALS A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE I WORK IN EDUCATION AND WE HAVE TO DO LIVE SCANS FOR ALL OUR EMPLOYEES. AND OUR

[02:00:01]

LIVE SCANS ARE. ONCE YOU GET THEM, THEY'RE CONTINUOUS WITH OUR EMPLOYEES UNTIL THEY BECOME NON EMPLOYED OR OUR VOLUNTEERS AS WELL. SO THAT IF THEY DO SOMETHING THAT IS WRONG, WE HEAR ABOUT THAT, SO THAT WE CAN MAKE A DECISION BASED ON WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THEM. BUT IF SOMEONE HAS A CCW AND THEY DO THEIR LIVE SCAN, THAT INFORMATION IS NOT SENT TO YOU FOR HAVING A CCW THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO ANOTHER LIVE SCAN EVERY TWO YEARS.

IT REALLY DEPENDS ON THE CIRCUMSTANCE, ON WHAT IT IS.

LIKE I MENTIONED EARLIER, IF, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THEY HAVE A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INCIDENT, THE COURTS WOULD NOTIFY US THAT THAT HAD HAPPENED IN THEIR CONCEALED CARRY, THERE'S GOING TO BE CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THAT AUTOMATICALLY TRIGGERS IT. BUT FOR EXAMPLE, IF THEY GET, WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT THAT THEY HAVE TO SIGN PRIOR TO, AND I BELIEVE IT'S ABOUT 23 QUESTIONS THAT THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH. AND ONE OF THOSE IS LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTACTS.

AND THEY ARE TO NOTIFY US ANYTIME THEY HAVE A LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTACT. AND IF THEY VIOLATE THAT AND WE HEAR ABOUT IT, I CAN REVOKE THEIR LICENSE.

BUT THE PEOPLE HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT NOT THE DOJ DOESN'T SEND YOU.

NO, IT REALLY DEPENDS ON WHAT THEY'VE COMMITTED.

THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN MY OTHER WORLD.

YEAH, THANK YOU.

AND IS THE RENEWAL EVERY TWO YEARS OR IS EVERY YEAR TWO YEARS, TWO YEARS, EVERY TWO YEARS. SO IN THAT TWO YEAR SPACE, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GETTING AN UPDATE FROM LIVE SCAN OR THE DOJ, WE WOULDN'T KNOW ABOUT ANYTHING UNTIL THEY CAME UP FOR RENEWAL.

AGAIN, IT, AGAIN, IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THE, WHAT THE, WHAT THE CRIME WAS.

OKAY, YES.

AND IF IT CAME UP AND THEY DIDN'T NOTIFY YOU, THAT COULD BE AN AUTOMATIC, AUTOMATIC, AUTOMATIC REVOCATION OF IT.

SO BACK UP A LITTLE BIT. SO ON A REISSUE OF A CCW THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING, IS THAT CORRECT? ON A RENEWAL.

RENEWAL, THAT'S CORRECT.

AND THOSE LAWS KEEP CHANGING THOUGH ON RENEWALS, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, AT THE PRESENT TIME, WITHOUT A SPECIFIC INDICATOR, WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO REQUIRE IT ON RENEWAL.

IN THE LAST THREE YEARS, WHAT'S THE YEARLY APPLICATION FOR CCWS? JUST GENERALLY.

ONE MORE TIME, I'M SORRY, WHAT'S THE ANNUAL. EACH YEAR, HOW MANY CCW APPLICATIONS HAVE WE HAD? THEY HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY DECREASED AND IT'S HARD TO PREDICT. THERE WAS TIMES WHERE I WOULD GET 12AMONTH.

I'VE AVERAGED ABOUT THREE A MONTH. AND THEN THERE'S TIMES WHERE I'LL GET NONE IN A MONTH. IT REALLY IS TOUGH TO TELL.

TO GIVE YOU AN EXACT NUMBER, I'D BE GUESSING. BUT AGAIN, RIGHT NOW WE'RE GOING THROUGH A RENEWAL PHASE. SO THE RENEWALS ARE KIND OF.

BUT THE RENEWALS DON'T INVOLVE THE PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING. SO IT'S MOSTLY LIVE SCAN AND ALL THE OTHER THINGS TO RENEW YOUR LICENSE. SO REALLY, I MEAN, I KNOW THAT THERE WAS A BUDGET IN MIND AND I UNDERSTAND THE REASONING, BUT IF WE ONLY HAVE 20 APPLICANTS, IT'S $150 TIMES 20.

20.

I DON'T HAVE MY PHONE. YOU GOT THREE, FOUR TO $6,000 YOU'RE SAYING IS WHAT THE COSTS ARE, IS THAT CORRECT? IT'S, IT'S ABOUT.

THAT'S NOT MY STRONGEST SUBJECT.

THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE A CALCULATOR ON OUR PHONES. I MEAN, I'M JUST ASKING THE QUESTION BECAUSE WE'RE CHANGING. IF WE DO THIS, AND WE DO VOTE FOR THIS, WE CHANGE THE PROCESS. IT'S.

IT FALLS ON YOUR SHOULDERS AS FAR AS YOU'RE GOING TO BE THE ONE AND YOUR TEAM IS GOING TO BE THE ONE THAT'S GOING TO SAY YOU NEED A PSYCHOLOGICAL TEST. WE'RE ONLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS THEY PAY. WHATEVER IT IS. IF IT'S A THOUSAND DOLLARS, THEY PAY THE REMAINDER OF THE OFFENSE $150.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.

AND YOU FEEL THAT YOUR TEAM CAN DO THAT AND OBVIOUSLY IT'S NEVER GOING TO BE 100%. I MEAN, I'M NOT GOING TO EVER SAY THAT. I, I COULD NOT SAY THAT.

NO, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE 100%.

BUT IF, IF WE LOOKED AT FBI STATISTICS ON THOSE WHO COMMIT CRIMES, NONE OF THOSE ARE CCW CARRIERS. AND IF THERE IS ONE THAT I'M MISSING OR WHATNOT, I MEAN, IT'S ONE OF THOSE EXTREME CASES, BUT MOST PEOPLE WHO COMMIT CRIMES WITH FIREARMS REALLY SHOULD NOT BE IN POSSESSION OF A FIREARM.

AGAIN, YOU FEEL CONFIDENT? I DO.

I DO FEEL CONFIDENT. AND AGAIN, THE VERY LAST REVIEW IS ON MY DESK. I REVIEW THE FULL APPLICATION, I REVIEW THE LETTERS THAT FROM REFERENCES, I REVIEW THE DOJ REMARKS. AND AGAIN, THE MAJORITY, THE STRONG MAJORITY OF THEM REALLY HAVE NOTHING THERE.

THOSE THAT DID FAILED BECAUSE THEY, THEY CHECKED THE BOXES THAT THE DOJ ALREADY HAD IN PLACE. AND THEN THERE'S THOSE ONES, ONE AND TWOS WHERE THEY GOT A DUI BACK IN 1990,

[02:05:03]

WHICH COMES UP. AND THAT'S NOT A DISQUALIFIER.

BUT THOSE ARE THE THINGS, THE TYPE OF APPLICATIONS THAT I'VE BEEN REVIEWING.

AND THE ONLY WAY THIS IS GOING TO PASS, IF I HAVE A MOTION AND I HAVE A SECOND, IF I DON'T HAVE A SECOND, IT DOESN'T PASS WHEN WE GO BACK TO OUR NORMAL WAY. IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT TO THE DEPARTMENT CCW LICENSING PROCESS REMOVING THE MANDATORY PHYSIOLOGICAL EVALUATION REQUIREMENT FOR ALL OF APPLICATIONS. AUTHORIZE THE CHIEF OF POLICE AS THE LICENSING AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS CONSISTENT WITH THE CALIFORNIA LAW AND OBJECTIVE FINDINGS DEVELOPED DURING THE BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION PROCESS AND ELIMINATE THE CITY'S CURRENT $150 SUBSIDY FOR CCW PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS IF APPROVED BY THE, IF APPROVED BY THE MOTION AND A SECOND.

YES. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I SO MOVE.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND QUESTION? BRING HIM BACK UP. CHIEF, YOU'RE NOT DONE? OH, SORRY. I'M TRYING TO RECONCILE SOME THINGS HERE.

SO GIVE ME, GIVE ME SOME MOMENT, GIVE ME A MOMENT TO PROCESS HERE. I GUESS MY QUESTION OR MY CONCERN THEN WOULD JUST BE, I THINK BASED ON THE THREE YEARS OF HISTORY, I THINK WE'VE BEEN LUCKY AND I THINK WE'VE BEEN. I THINK THERE'S BEEN GOOD EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE NEVER GOING TO BE APPROVED SHOULD NEVER HAVE A GUN IN THE FIRST PLACE. I GUESS WITH THE TWO YEAR SPAN IN BETWEEN RENEWAL TIMES, THAT MAKES ME A LITTLE BIT MORE HESITANT. I FEEL GOOD ABOUT THE LIVE SCAN IN TERMS OF THAT PICKING UP THINGS OR IF ANYTHING SERIOUS OCCURS WITHIN THAT TWO YEAR PERIOD OF TIME. I GUESS I WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOUR, WHAT YOUR TAKE OR WHAT YOUR OPINION IS ON THE INTERCONNECTIVITY OF THE COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN DEPARTMENTS SUCH THAT WE WOULD GET THE INFORMATION IN SUFFICIENT TIME WITH SUFFICIENT NOTICE TO BE ABLE TO THWART THAT. AND I KNOW THAT'S NEVER GOING TO BE 100%, BUT I DO HAVE OBVIOUSLY CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT POTENTIALLY MINIMAL AMOUNT OF MONEY, IF WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT A BUNCH OF PEOPLE COMING.

BUT I GET IT. YOU KNOW, I, I CAN HEAR BOTH SIDES AND I CAN. BUT I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT YOUR OPINION IS ON THAT.

AGAIN, IT'S, IT'S TOUGH FOR ME TO SAY THIS CRIME IS GOING TO TRIGGER IT. I WILL TELL YOU ALL YOUR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ANY MENTAL. AND I'M GOING TO KIND OF GLOSS OVER THAT BECAUSE THERE'S SOME PRIVACY ISSUES ON THAT. ANY MENTAL HEALTH RELATED, WE WILL GET NOTIFIED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EVERYONE'S RESPONSIBLE FOR.

FOR EXAMPLE, IF SOMEONE GETS 5150, THAT GOES TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND WE WOULD GET NOTIFICATION THROUGH THE DA'S OFFICE THAT THAT PERSON IS TO RELINQUISH THEIR FIREARMS AND THEN THEY HAVE SO LONG TO DO THAT AND IF NOT, WE WERE TO RETRIEVE THEM. THAT HAS HAPPENED TO US ONCE IN MY TENURE HERE WITH THE CITY OF LA VERNE, WHERE THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY PROVIDED US DOCUMENTATION THAT THE PERSON OWNED FIREARMS AND THEY WERE TO RELINQUISH THEM.

SO WE PROVIDED THEM A LETTER AND, YOU KNOW, WE WEREN'T TRYING TO BATTLE IT OUT WITH THEM AT HOME. SO WE MADE SURE, WE WAITED TILL THEY LEFT THE HOUSE AND THEN WE SAID, WE'RE HERE TO PICK UP YOUR GUNS.

AND THEN MY OTHER QUESTION I THINK MIGHT BE BETTER DIRECTED TO COUNSEL AND, OR MR. DOMER, IN TERMS OF EVALUATING HOW THIS PROCESS, IF THIS WERE TO PASS, TO SAY THAT WE WERE GOING TO DROP THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS. WHAT CAN COUNCIL PROVIDE DIRECTION TO SAY THAT WE'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE IN SIX MONTHS, WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE IN A YEAR TO SEE IF THAT'S SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGED ANYTHING, YOU KNOW, PUT UP ANY RED FLAGS OR GREEN FLAGS EITHER WAY ABOUT HOW THAT PROCESS IS MOVING FORWARD.

MOST DEFINITELY I WOULD LIKE TO, I'LL ADD THAT AS PART OF MY, MY, I BELIEVE IT'S EVERY THREE MONTH UPDATE TO COUNCIL.

I WILL ADD THAT PORTION OF IT IN MY UPDATES TO COUNCIL.

THIS ISN'T PROBABLY RELEVANT.

I'M GOING TO ASK ANOTHER QUESTION.

I WAS JUST GONNA SAY THE COUNCIL CAN REQUEST A REPORT AND, AND YOU KNOW, DIRECT US TO REAGENDIZE THIS FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION AT A FUTURE TIME IF NECESSARY.

JUST A QUICK QUESTION OF THE SURROUNDING AREA OF CITIES. HOW MANY OF THE CITIES REQUIRE A PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION? AND HOW MANY CITIES ACTUALLY DO CCW IN YOUR. IT DOES, GENERALLY.

SO I'M GOING TO GO OFF A MEMORY HERE. OUT OF THE 45 CITIES, LESS THAN 10% REQUIRE A PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAM.

AND THEN THE SECOND PART OF YOUR QUESTION WAS. YOU HAVE THE SECOND PART.

I DON'T KNOW. I FORGOT ALREADY.

OH, MY GOD.

YEAH. HOW MANY. HOW MANY ON THAT. THOSE.

ARE THOSE 45? YES. OUT OF THE 45, THERE'S THREE CITIES THAT,

[02:10:01]

IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, THERE'S LESS THAN FIVE THAT STILL GO THROUGH THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, AND THAT'S THROUGH AN AGREEMENT THAT THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT.

BUT THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT DOES NOT REQUIRE PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING. BUT OUT OF THE 45 CITIES, THERE'S 10% THAT ACTUALLY ASK FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING.

LESS THAN 10%, YES.

SO FOUR OR FIVE OF THE.

OF THE CITIES OUT OF THE 45 ARE ROUGHLY. DID THEY PAY IT. YOU KNOW THAT. DID THEY PAY A PORTION OF THAT? I WOULDN'T.

I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION FOR ME, WHETHER THEY PAY FOR IT OR NOT. BUT. BUT I'M SURE THAT IF THE LAW ALLOWS IT, THEY'LL. THEY'LL TRY TO, YOU KNOW, IF THEY. SITUATIONALLY WE HAD. IF MANY OF THE AGENCIES THAT DO REQUIRE US THAT. THAT DON'T HAVE A UNILATERAL EXAM THAT SAY, HEY, YOU HAVE TO HAVE IT, HERE'S WHAT THE LAW SAYS. THEY REQUIRE THEM TO PAY IT.

BUT I'M NOT TO SAY THAT WE'RE NOT LIKE ANY OTHER CITY. AS MR. WARD HAD SAID, WE ARE NOT.

WE'RE LA VERNE, AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE OUR RESIDENTS ARE SAFE. WE ALSO HAVE TO TRUST OUR POLICE CHIEF AND WHAT HE DOES AND HIS CREW DOES AND ALL HIS TEAM TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE SAFE.

AND WHO YOU'RE CHECKING, DOING THESE BACKGROUNDS, THAT THESE ARE DONE EXTREMELY THOROUGH, AND SO FAR IT'S BEEN VERY GOOD.

BUT THERE ALWAYS COULD BE A HICCUP. I MEAN, NOTHING'S GUARANTEED IN LIFE.

NO, NOTHING.

I JUST WANT TO STATE, THOUGH, THIS ISN'T. AND IT WAS STATED A LITTLE BIT, IT'S NOT ABOUT THE MONEY. IT'S NOT.

IT'S NOT ABOUT TRYING TO SAVE MONEY FOR THE CITY BY NOT DOING THIS. THIS IS FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, THREE YEARS AGO, WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WHAT HAS BEEN DONE AND DONE AROUND, AND THE ARGUMENT BEFORE WAS THAT THE PSYCHOLOGICAL TEST, THE OTHER PIECES IN THE REVIEW TALK A LOT MORE THAN A PSYCHOLOGICAL TEST DOES. THE PIECE OF THE ELIGIBILITY FOR THE DOJ, THE LIVE SCAN, THE CRIMINAL HISTORY, THE BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION, THE PERSONAL REFERENCES THAT THEY HAVE AND ONE OF THE INDICATORS IS IF SOMEONE SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION SUGGESTING IMPAIRED JUDGMENT OR CREDIBLE INFORMATION FROM RELIABLE SOURCES RAISING SAFETY CONCERNS. SO SOMEONE THAT THEY KNOW THAT HAS MAJOR CONCERNS, THAT'S PART OF THEIR REFERENCES. AND CHECK LIKE THAT THESE PIECES THAT YOU ACTUALLY DO AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT DOES IS THE MOST RELIABLE PART TO ISSUE A CCW, NOT A PSYCHOLOGICAL TEST.

THAT IS CORRECT.

AND WE FOLLOW THESE EXPLICITLY.

EXPLICITLY IN EVERY SINGLE BULLET ITEM THROUGH. THROUGH THE BACKGROUND PROCESS. I'LL TELL YOU THAT FROM THE SIX THAT WE HAD THAT I HAD TO FAIL. WE PROVIDE THEM LETTERS AND TELL THEM WHY THEY FAILED. I'VE HAD THREE TAKE IT TO THE POMONA COURT TO ARGUE IT AND NONE OF THEM A JUDGE HAS NOT FORCED ME TO ISSUE IT BECAUSE THEY FALL ALONG THOSE CATEGORIES.

MOTION I MOVE TO APPROVE.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND VOTE, PLEASE. THANK.

MOTION FOR ITEM 11 BY CROSBY.

WITH CASHEL TAGITA BEING ABSENT AND COUNCIL MEMBER J.

SECONDED BY LAU.

APPROVED 3 0.

JOHNSON RECUSING HIMSELF.

[12. Direction Regarding Measure GG to Support Paramedic and Ambulance Transport Services.]

NEXT ITEM IS A DIRECTION REGARDING MEASURE GG TO SUPPORT PARAMEDIC AND AMBULANCE TRANSPORT SERVICES. CITY MANAGER DOMER, PLEASE CALL UP THE PERSON THAT'S GOING TO BE DOING WHICH WOULD BE FIRE CHIEF COATNEY. YEAH, WE'LL WAIT JUST A SECOND, MR. CODNEY, IF YOU DON'T MIND.

HE'S PROBABLY ASLEEP. LUCKY.

WE SHOULD. WE SHOULD TAG TEAM AND GO. NO, I'M STAYING OUT.

OH YEAH. OH, EXCUSE ME. I HAVE TO RECUSE MYSELF FOR AN HOUR.

CHIEF CO, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.

WE'RE ALL HERE.

ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING.

MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. ON JUNE 1ST STAFF PRESENTED INFORMATION REGARDING THE LONG TERM SUSTAINABLE OF MEASURE GG AND THE ONGOING GENERAL FUND SUBSIDY REQUIRED TO SUPPORT PARAMEDIC AND AMBULANCE TRANSPORT SERVICES. FOLLOWING THAT DISCUSSION, THE COUNCIL REQUESTED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING EMS WORKLOAD, FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY, REVENUE PERFORMANCE, AND POTENTIAL ESCALATION METHODOLOGIES.

TONIGHT, I WILL BRIEFLY REVISIT THE KEY ISSUES AND FOCUS PRIMARILY ON THE NEW INFORMATION REQUESTED BY CARE COUNCIL. SO JUST TO REITERATE, JUST FOR THOSE WHO ARE NEW TO THIS OR JUST SOME BRIEF HISTORY. SO MEASURE GG WAS INITIALLY

[02:15:02]

APPROVED IN 1981. SO IT'S BEEN AROUND FOR 45 YEARS. WHILE IT'S. WHILE MEASURED GG AND EMS BILLING CONTINUE TO GENERATE SIGNIFICANT REVENUE, THE COST OF PROVIDING OUR EMS SERVICE IN TOTALITY HAS INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY OVER THE OVER THE LAST 45 YEARS. SO THE PURPOSE OF TONIGHT'S DISCUSSION IS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT MAY ASSIST COUNSEL IN DETERMINING WHETHER TO MOVE FORWARD WITH POTENTIAL BALLOT MEASURE FOR THE NOV. 26 ELECTION. JUST TO REVISIT JUST THE NUMBERS REAL QUICK. THE MEASURE GG GENERATES APPROXIMATELY $1.06 MILLION ANNUALLY AND EMS BILLING GENERATES ANYWHERE BETWEEN 1.7 TO $2 MILLION.

CURRENTLY TOGETHER THOSE PROVIDE APPROXIMATELY 2.76 TO $3 MILLION IN REVENUE ANNUALLY. HOWEVER, THE COST OF PROVIDING THE PARAMEDIC AND EMS TRANSPORT SERVICES IS APPROXIMATELY $3.8 MILLION WHICH RESULTS IN A SHORTFALL. PUT ANOTHER WAY THAT THE CURRENT REVENUES FUND APPROXIMATELY 73% WHILE APPROXIMATELY 27% MUST BE SUPPORTED THROUGH THE GENERAL FUND. THE STRUCTURAL GAP IS THE PRIMARY REASON STAFF HAS BROUGHT THIS ISSUE TO COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION. ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS THAT THE GAP EXISTS IS THAT THE ESCALATOR PORTION OF THE OF MEASURE GG IS TIED TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY CPI WHICH IS ONLY INCREASED FROM THAT TIME FRAME OF 300%.

IF IT WAS TIED JUST SIMPLY TO MEDICAL CARE COST CPI, THAT NUMBER'S GONE UP, SHOULD HAVE GONE UP BY 700%.

SO THAT'S WHERE YOU SEE THAT SHORTFALL THERE WE WERE TIED TO JUST STRAIGHT UP LA COUNTY CPI.

WITH THE INCREASED COST OF PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT, IT'S JUST FAILED TO KEEP PACE WITH WHAT OUR COSTS ARE NOW.

THIS SLIDE CONTAINS TWO IMPORTANT PIECES OF INFORMATION THAT WERE SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED BY COUNCIL AT LAST MEETING. FIRST, THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL INCIDENTS NOW ACCOUNT FOR APPROXIMATELY 74%.

I KNOW WE HAD TALKED ABOUT THOSE NUMBERS BUT I WENT AND PULLED TWO YEARS WORTH OF DATA AND THEY HOVER RIGHT AROUND THAT 74 TO 78%. SO I LOOKED AT 2025 AND 2024. THAT OTHER 26% IS JUST THAT'S FIRES, HAZARDOUS MATERIAL, GOOD INTENT CALLS, FALSE CALLS, THINGS LIKE THAT. THERE'S A WHOLE MYRIAD OF DIFFERENT CALLS THERE BUT BY FAR EMS RELATED CALLS ARE THE BIGGEST PERCENTAGE OF THAT.

SECOND OFF STAFF WANTED TO DEMONSTRATE THE FUNDING GAP IS NOT THE RESULT OF POOR BILLING PERFORMANCE.

SO I HAD OUR BILLING CONTRACTOR LOOKED BACK AT THE LAST YEAR TO TWO YEARS AND WE'RE CURRENTLY MAINTAINING A COLLECTION RATE OF JUST OVER 81%. THAT'S A HUGE NUMBER. THAT NUMBER IS THAT EXCEEDS TYPICAL INDUSTRY AVERAGES FOR AMBULANCE TRANSPORT AND REFLECTS A VERY EFFECTIVE BILLING SYSTEM.

THAT'S JUST A REAL QUICK ONE THAT IS STELLAR COMPARED TO MOST AGENCIES. I'M SURE THAT THE RECUPERATION ON LIKE LA COUNTY OR ANY OF THE OTHER AGENCIES, THEY CAN'T HOLD A CANDLE THAT, CAN THEY? NO, NO, THAT NUMBER IS.

YEAH AND THAT IS THIS COMPANY IS VERY GOOD AT WHAT THEY DO, BUT OUR DOCUMENTATION IS GOOD.

EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE DOING WAS TO CAPTURE AS MUCH AS WE CAN.

WE'RE TINY BUT MIGHTY. WE COVER A VERY 8 MILE FOOTPRINT AND WE DO A VERY GOOD JOB AT IT.

SO I WANTED TO LOOK AND SEE IF THERE WAS SOMETHING WE'RE MISSING IN BILLING AND WE'RE ALWAYS LOOKING FOR OTHER AREAS IN THERE. THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT WE, YOU KNOW, APPROVED IN THIS, THIS FEE SCHEDULE THAT IS PROBABLY GOING TO MAKE THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S GOING TO BRING THAT REVENUE UP EVEN A LITTLE BIT MORE.

BUT WE'LL.

THIS NEXT YEAR WE'LL TELL.

SO JUST REAL QUICK, I KNOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE, BUT JUST THAT JUST THE RESULTS OF THE CITY'S INVESTMENT IN THE, IN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT SINCE 2022, YOU KNOW, WITH THE CARES DATA, WE'VE HAD SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS IN OUR OVERALL PERFORMANCE WHEN IT COMES TO THAT CARES DATA, WHICH IS THE BASICALLY LOOKS AT OUR SUCCESS RATES FOR CARDIAC ARREST, WHICH BEFORE 2022 WE WERE FAR BELOW THE REGIONAL, STATE AND NATIONAL NUMBERS AND NOW WE EXCEED ALL OF THOSE. SO WE'VE DONE THAT FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS SINCE DOING OUR REDEPLOYMENT.

CHIEF, EXPLAIN THAT. REALLY TIGHT AGAIN, WHAT THAT ACTUALLY MEANS.

SO IN THE CARES REPORT THAT COMES OUT ON A YEARLY BASIS, IT STARTED IN 2022 AND WHAT IT STANDS FOR, IT'S CARDIAC ARREST REGISTRY TO ENHANCE SURVIVAL. SO BASICALLY THEY'RE LOOKING AT ALL THE DATA BASICALLY FROM FULL ARREST AND THAT INCLUDES BYSTANDER CPR THAT WAS INITIATED,

[02:20:02]

AEDS THAT WERE INITIATED. AND THEN OUR OVERALL SUCCESS RATE IN GETTING BACK WHAT WAS CALLED ROSC OR RETURN OF SPONTANEOUS CIRCULATION, THAT'S GETTING PULSES BACK, WHICH OUR RATES WENT IN 2022.

THAT ROSC PERCENTAGE WAS AT 14.8%. WE ARE NOW AT 33.3% WHICH IS A DOUBLED, MORE THAN DOUBLED OUR CARDIAC WHERE WE GOT PULSES BACK AGAIN ABOVE STANDARDS, WAY WELL ABOVE, WELL ABOVE ALL REGIONAL, STATE, AND NATIONAL. THE BIGGEST PIECE OF THAT IS THE SURVIVAL TO HOSPITAL DISCHARGE. THAT MEANS PEOPLE GOING HOME WITH GOOD NEUROLOGICAL FUNCTION. WE WENT FROM 3.7% TO 11.1%.

TRIPLED, ALMOST TRIPLED OUR NUMBERS.

SO THAT AGAIN, BETTER THAN ANY AVERAGE ANY OTHER.

WE ARE ABOVE THE BAR ACROSS REGIONAL, STATE, AND NATIONAL NUMBERS.

SO THAT INVESTMENT IN THE DEPARTMENT IS THE DIRECT WORK OF OUR FIREFIGHTERS AND PARAMEDICS THAT ARE OUT THERE DELIVERING THE SERVICE, DOING IT.

SO WITH NEXT SLIDE WENT TOO FAR. SO ON THE FINANCIAL INFORMATION, CURRENTLY THE RATE AFTER OUR ADJUSTMENT THIS YEAR IS 690 PER MONTH. AND THAT'S WHAT GENERATES THE $1.06 MILLION ANNUALLY. THIS CHART SHOWS A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES OF WHAT THOSE NUMBERS IF IT WENT FROM 690 TO 1250, WHAT IT WOULD GENERATE ANNUALLY AND SHOWS I KIND OF, I HIGHLIGHTED THE $14 A MONTH RANGE THERE BECAUSE THAT WOULD GET US VERY NEAR TO WHAT THE NUMBER IS. THAT WOULD COVER ALL OF OUR COSTS.

SO THAT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE.

OBVIOUSLY THAT NUMBER WE CAN, WE CAN SET THAT BUT THAT'S THE INITIAL BASE RATE THAT WE WOULD LOOK AT TRYING TO READ RE ESTABLISH OUR BASE RATE AND THEN SET OUR ANNUAL INCREASE FROM. THE NEXT PIECE THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT. AND THIS WAS THE ESCALATION OR THE ANNUAL INCREASE. I LOOKED AT A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT WAYS OF DOING THIS BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT'S JUST TIED TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY CPI, WHICH IS NOT, IT'S NOT KEEPING UP. SO ONE METHOD I LOOKED AT AND LOOKED AT HOW WHAT THAT WOULD BASICALLY GENERATE ON A YEAR BY YEAR BASIS AND WHAT PERCENTAGE THAT IS WOULD BASICALLY BECAUSE PERSONNEL COSTS REPRESENT THE LARGEST COMPONENT OF THE EMS SYSTEM, WE'RE RECOMMENDING AN ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT FORMULA THAT'S BASED ON AN 80% FIRE PERSONNEL COST INDEX PLUS THE REMAINING 20% WOULD BE BASED OFF OF MEDICAL CARE SERVICES CPI.

THAT'S PRETTY CONSISTENT.

AND THOSE NUMBER BECAUSE THE LARGEST PERCENTAGE OF OUR COST IS OUR THE PERSONNEL LABOR AND THEN YOU GOT ALL THE EQUIPMENT, EVERYTHING ELSE THAT GOES WITH THAT. THE AS AN ADDITION TO THAT. SOME OTHER OPTIONS I LOOKED AT WAS SETTING A MAXIMUM AND A MINIMUM. SO IN YEARS WHEN THOSE THINGS ARE LOW, THERE'S A MINIMUM SET OF 2%.

BUT THEN ALSO IF THOSE NUMBERS ARE ASTRONOMICAL, WE CAP IT AT 5. SO IT SETS A GOOD CONTROL MEASURE IN THERE THAT WE'RE, WE'RE KEEPING A STEADY PACE, WHICH WE HAVE THIS WHOLE TIME SINCE 1981. BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO GO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A YEAR WHERE IT GOES TOO HIGH.

THE OTHER PART OF THAT WOULD BE WOULD BE TO RECOMMEND A COMPREHENSIVE EMS COST OF SERVICE PERFORMANCE REVIEW EVERY 5 YEARS WHERE WE LOOK AT WHAT WE'RE CHARGING, WHAT THE ANNUAL INCREASES HAVE BEEN VERSUS WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY COSTING AND THEN ALSO DO A PERFORMANCE REVIEW IS WHAT WE'RE PROVIDING. WHAT'S THE PERFORMANCE WHICH WOULD BE ALL OF OUR CARES DATA AND THINGS LIKE THAT SO WE CAN MAKE THE APPROPRIATE ADJUSTMENTS FROM THERE. AND ON THAT I WOULD LIKE TO TURN IT OVER TO CITY ATTORNEY FOR A COUPLE OF THINGS.

YES, I MR. MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, I IN LOOKING AT THIS, MR. DOMER AND I HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THIS HAD TO GO TO A BALLOT MEASURE.

LOOKING BACK AT THE 1980 LANGUAGE OF THIS MEASURE, WHICH LONG PRECEDED PROP 218 AND PROP 26, IT IS REFERRED TO IN THAT MEASURE AS A FEE AND A FEE FOR SERVICE. IN ONE PROMOTIONAL PIECE THAT WAS PUT OUT BY THE GROUP WHO WAS SUPPORTING THE MEASURE, IT'S REFERRED TO AS AN ASSESSMENT AND IN ACTUAL FACT IT APPEARS TO WORK MORE LIKE AN ASSESSMENT

[02:25:01]

OR A PROPERTY RELATED FEE THAN IT DOES ANYTHING ELSE.

IN MY VIEW. IT'S NOT A TAX BASED ON THE LANGUAGE OF PROPOSITION 218 AND PROPOSITION 26. SO WE THINK THAT A PROPOSITION 218 VOTE IS A VIABLE WAY TO MOVE FORWARD IN MANY WAYS. A PROPOSITION 218 VOTE IS CAN BE ARGUABLY MORE DEMOCRATIC BECAUSE IT'S NOT RESTRICTED TO REGISTERED VOTERS.

BUT EVERYBODY WHO GETS BILLED FOR THIS WOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO VOTE ON IT. SO I JUST WANTED TO OFFER THAT TO YOU AS A POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE. AS I UNDERSTAND IT FOR MR. DOMER, THE COST OF A BALLOT MEASURE IS ABOUT 70,000, GIVE OR TAKE. WHEREAS A PROPOSITION 18 PROCESS, WHETHER IT'S A PROPERTY RELATED FEE OR AN ASSESSMENT, IT WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE THE SAME AND THAT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY LESS EXPENSIVE.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE FACTORS OF A PROP218 VOTE? AND HAVE TO BE A POSITIVE VOTE, NOT A PROTEST? YEAH, IT WOULD NOT BE A PROTEST VOTE BECAUSE IT'S NOT ONE OF THE ENUMERATED SERVICES IN PROP 218. SO IT'S NOT SEWER OR WATER OR REFUSE. RIGHT.

WHICH MEANS THAT JUST LIKE AN ASSESSMENT, YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A MAJORITY OF THE BALLOTS RECEIVED WOULD HAVE TO BE IN FAVOR. SO IT'S THE 50% PLUS ONE REQUIREMENT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH AN INCREASE.

DO YOU ESTIMATE THE COST FOR A BALLOT WOULD BE 70,000? THAT'S WHAT WE UNDERSTAND, YEAH.

AND THE PROCESS COST BE FOR THAT? COUNCILMAN, WE'RE ESTIMATING ON THE HIGH SIDE THAT IT'D BE AROUND $25,000.

BUT I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE LESS.

IT DEPENDS ON HOW MUCH PUBLIC INFORMATION OR MAILERS WE SEND OUT. SO THE MAJORITY OF THE COST WITH THE COUNTY IS PAYING FOR THEIR SERVICES. AND OF COURSE NOWADAYS YOU'RE PAYING FOR THE POSTAGE OUT AND THEN MORE IMPORTANTLY THE POSTAGE OF THAT RETURNED BALLOT. SO WE WOULD STILL BE SENDING OUT INFORMATIONAL MAILERS WITH RETURN ENVELOPES. AND SO THAT'S WHERE THAT COST IS FOR A PROP 218. AND WHAT WE COULD DO IS PULL THE INFORMATION THAT WE RECENTLY DID FROM THE WATER RATE STUDY BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE A SIMILAR AMOUNT, A LITTLE BIT LESS THAN WHAT WE'D BE FACING BECAUSE THIS WOULD BE FOR ANYBODY IN THE CITY. WHEREAS THE WATER RATE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A PORTION OF THE CITY THAT IS NOT SERVED BY THE WATER UTILITY. SO WE CAN PULL THAT AND LOOK AT THAT.

BUT I'M SAYING 25,000 IS A HIGH END. AND THIS RATE HAS BEEN SINCE I THINK WE ADJUSTED IT.

WHEN WAS THE ADJUSTMENT LAST ADJUSTMENT ON THIS RATE? WE DO IT YEARLY.

IT'S NEVER BEEN. WELL, IT'S BEEN. IT'S ADJUSTED BY INFLATION.

BUT THE BASIC RATE, YOU SAID IT'S SIX. IT STARTED OUT AT $1.75 AND RIGHT NOW WE'RE AT ABOUT $6.97.

AND RIGHT NOW WE'RE AT ABOUT 800 TO $900,000 GENERAL FUND ADDITION TO IT BECAUSE IT'S NOT QUITE CUTTING THE COST OF THE ACTUAL SERVICES.

BUT AGAIN, AT THE TIME OF THE MEASURE, JUST FOR REFERENCE, IT WAS $192,000.

AND HOW MANY YEARS AGO? 45. 40.

45.

SO BASICALLY WE'RE LOOKING AT A COUPLE OPTIONS. WE PROBABLY NEED TO GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT, THOUGH, BEFORE WE GO ANY FURTHER.

JUST THE END ONE HERE.

SO.

SO TONIGHT WE'RE SEEKING A CONTINUED PUBLIC INPUT AND COUNCIL DIRECTION REGARDING WHETHER TO PROCEED WITH PREPARATION OF THE NECESSARY RESOLUTIONS AND BALLOT LANGUAGE FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE JULY 20TH CITY COUNCIL MEETING. AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

AND AT THE LAST CITY COUNCIL MEETING, WE ASKED TO BRING THIS BACK AS A DIRECTION INFORMATION ITEM AND KEEP BRINGING IT BACK SO THAT WE GET PUBLIC INPUT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE ON THIS TO HELP US MAKE THIS DECISION.

ALTHOUGH WE DO, IF WE DO GO

[02:30:01]

TO A BALLOT MEASURE, WHICH OBVIOUSLY OUR ATTORNEY HAS SAID THAT THE PROP 218 WOULD PROBABLY BE A BETTER OPTION BECAUSE IT'S AN EASIER OPTION THAN GOING TO A BALLOT MEASURE. IT'S LESS EXPENSIVE. WE HAVE SOME DEADLINES THAT WE HAVE TO.

AUGUST 7TH I THINK IS OUR LAST WHEN WE HAVE TO APPLY FOR A BALLOT MEASURE.

IF YOU MOVED FORWARD WITH A BALLOT MEASURE, I BELIEVE IT'S AUGUST 7TH.

SO THE AUGUST 3RD MEETING WOULD BE WHEN WE'D HAVE TO.

AND WE HAVE ONE MEETING IN JULY AND ONE LAST MEETING IN AUGUST AND THAT'S THE DECISION.

SO. OKAY. THANKS, CHIEF. WE'LL PROBABLY BRING YOU BACK UP.

WE'RE GOING TO OPEN UP PUBLIC COMMENT RIGHT NOW. KATHY KALUSIC.

KATHY KALUSIC, AGAIN, ACTUALLY, MY COMMENT ON THIS WAS GOING TO BE IS THERE A WAY WE CAN NOT HAVE TO PUT THIS ON THE BALLOT BECAUSE. BECAUSE IT'S SO EXPENSIVE. IT'S SUCH A WASTE OF MONEY. SO THANK YOU SO MUCH, ATTORNEY BARLOW, FOR COMING UP WITH THAT. YOU KNOW, WE PAY A VERY SMALL FEE AND I'VE LOOKED AT THIS FOR YEARS AND THOUGHT WE SHOULD BUMP THIS UP A LITTLE. SO I CERTAINLY WOULD BE.

WHERE WERE YOU 35 YEARS AGO? I WAS AROUND, BUT I WASN'T COMING TO.

YOU'RE AT THE NURSERY.

WELL, I JUST STARTED REAL ESTATE, ACTUALLY, 35 YEARS AGO.

BUT ANYWAY, ANYWAY, THANK YOU FOR LOOKING INTO THAT ONE QUESTION I WOULD HAVE. WOULD WE BE ABLE TO, IF WE'RE GOING TO THE PUBLIC WITH THIS, COULD WE SAY, YOU KNOW, WOULD YOU VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS AMOUNT? THIS AMOUNT? THIS AMOUNT, RATHER THAN JUST A NO. SO COULD IT BE LIKE, COULD IT BE YOU WANT TO KEEP IT THE SAME, OR COULD WE. MAYBE PEOPLE WOULD LOOK AT THAT AMOUNT AND SAY, OH, WELL, $10 ISN'T THAT BAD? YEAH, I DON'T KNOW. ISN'T THAT, THAT A POSSIBILITY? SO, BUT ANYWAY, THAT'S, THAT'S ALL ON THAT.

THANK YOU, MR. BOWEN.

GOOD EVENING AGAIN. RICK BOWEN. IT'S JUST INTERESTING.

WE, WE JUST SAW WHAT WENT THROUGH IN LA. WE JUST SAW WHAT WAS TURNED DOWN WITH THE BONITA UNIFIED. AND SOMEBODY'S NOT GETTING THE WORD THAT PEOPLE, IT'S THE DEATH OF A THOUSAND CUTS.

IN THIS CASE, IT'S THE DEATH OF A THOUSAND TAXES. EVERY TIME WE TURN AROUND, THERE'S A NEW FEE. YOU HAVE TO PAY A FEE TO PAY YOUR WATER BILL. NOW YOU HAVE TO. THERE'S A FEE FOR EVERYTHING. IT GOES UP DRAMATICALLY ALL THE TIME. AND I UNDERSTAND WHY WE'VE GOT A SHORTFALL, BUT YOU'RE BLEEDING US TO DEATH. AND THIS IS ANOTHER CASE. LAST YEAR WE DIDN'T DO AN ELECTION BECAUSE IT WAS $60,000 AND SAID, OH, LET'S NOT SPEND THE MONEY. OR TWO YEARS AGO, WHENEVER IT WAS THIS YEAR, WE'RE WILLING TO SPEND $100,000 TO PUT THIS ON THE BALLOT. AND HEARING COMMENTS. OH, IT'S ONLY $6.

IT'S ONLY $7, ONLY $10.

FOR THOSE OF US THAT GET THEIR WATER BILL, I JUST SAW MINE.

IT'S ONLY 30, 40, 50, $60 A MONTH MORE.

IT'S ONLY.

BUT YOU KNOW, WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT AFFORDABILITY AND EVERY TIME SOMEBODY GETS A NEW FEE COMES OUT OF THEIR POCKET. THE ONE THING I NEVER HEAR ANYBODY THAT SUPPORTS THESE THINGS, WHEN THEY GET VOTED DOWN, I NEVER HEAR THEM VOLUNTARILY DONATE THE MONEY, WHICH THEY, THE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, GREAT THING, SAID, WELL, IT'S ONLY FOUR OR FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS. IT WAS 4,000 PEOPLE PAY FOR IT. YOU THINK THOSE 04,000 PEOPLE ARE VOLUNTARILY PAYING FIVE, 600,000 OR 500 OR $600 TO THE BONITA UNIFIED? HELL, NO. IT'S OKAY IF IT'S SOMEBODY ELSE'S MONEY. AND I KNOW IT'S NOT A LOT, AND I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF SERVICES, BUT WHEN WE DID THIS, IT WAS SET IN PLACE. COSTS HAVE GONE CRAZY. AND THE PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S GOING TO BE INTERESTING IF YOU PUT IT ON BALLOT, SPEND $100,000 AND GET IT VOTED DOWN, THEN YOU'RE AT GROUND ZERO. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MR. BOWEN. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? MS. BERRY? I THINK WITH THAT THREE MINUTE LIMIT, I NEED A SENIOR RATE BECAUSE IT TAKES ME THREE MINUTES TO GET UP HERE, YOU KNOW.

THERE, NOW YOU STARTED.

YOU'RE GOOD.

OKAY. I GUESS I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF IT WAS A BALLOT MAJOR. OBVIOUSLY PEOPLE CAN GO YES OR NO AND THEN YOU COUNT THE YESES AND THE NO'S.

WERE YOU SAYING THAT IF IT'S NOT A BALLOT MAJOR. I HEARD SOMETHING ABOUT NEGATIVE VERSUS HOW IT.

IS THAT HOW IT'S PHRASED? CAN YOU.

WELL, MAYBE I SHOULD FINISH TALKING FIRST. OKAY. THE WAY THE WATER RATE THING WAS DONE WAS EXTREMELY FRUSTRATING

[02:35:02]

BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON WHO RAISED THEIR HAND AND OPPOSED IT. WITH NOT AN ELECTION DAY OR EVEN LIKE, I HAVE TO TURN THIS IN OR I HAVE TO DO IT. WE HAD TO LIKE COME UP WITH OUR OWN THING AND WE HAD A LOT OF PEOPLE, BUT IT DIDN'T COUNT. IS THIS GOING TO BE PUT TO A QUESTION OF DO YOU WANT THIS? AND THEN SEE HOW MANY DO YOU GET? 50% PLUS ONE THAT WANT IT. DON'T MAKE US TRY TO GET EVERYBODY OFF THEIR COUCHES TO TELL YOU NO IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DO A BALLOT MAJOR. BECAUSE THE BALLOT MEASURE IS THE MOST FAIR WAY OF COUNTING THE YESES AND COUNTING THE NO'S. AND PEOPLE WHO STAY HOME, THEY DON'T GET TO BE COUNTED ANYWAY.

BUT FORCING PEOPLE TO HAVE TO STAND UP AND SAY NO, IT'S LIKE EVERYTHING'S JUST GOING TO GO THROUGH BECAUSE YOU DON'T GET THAT MANY PEOPLE GETTING OFF THEIR SEAT. WE GOT 1300 PEOPLE. THAT WAS PRETTY GOOD FOR THE WATER AID THING, BUT STILL, I JUST KIND OF WANTED TO KNOW HOW WOULD THAT BE DONE? IS IT GOING TO BE MORE LIKE, WELL, IT'S GOING TO GO THROUGH ANYWAY.

I'M NOT.

I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH A.

WITH RAISING IT. I'M NOT SAYING THAT.

BUT I DO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE PROCESSES NOT BEING REALLY EQUITABLE.

THANKS, MS. BARRY. ANYONE ELSE WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM THAT WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND. OH, I'M SORRY. WE HAVE STEPHEN. STEPHEN WARD, YOU'RE ON. SIR, YOU.

I JUST HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. I. I THINK I'M NOT OPPOSED EITHER TO INCREASING THE RATES. IT SEEMS LIKE A HECK OF A BARGAIN. 690AMONTH FOR PARAMEDIC SERVICES.

BUT I WAS JUST CURIOUS ON THE $800,000 SHORTFALL CURRENTLY COMPARED TO WHAT WE'RE GETTING FROM THE MEASURED GG FUNDS AND THE BILLING COLLECTIONS. THERE WAS DISCUSSION THAT SOME OF THAT HAD TO DO WITH PERSONNEL COSTS. AND SO I WAS JUST CURIOUS HOW THAT WORKED. IF WE'RE LIKE SEGREGATING OUT, WE'RE PAYING PEOPLE IF THEY'RE PROVIDING PARAMEDIC SERVICES OR EMS SERVICES VERSUS FIRE SERVICES. I'M CURIOUS HOW MUCH OF IT IS IF OF THE SHORTFALL IS DUE TO OPERATIONAL COSTS.

THAT THE CPI DOESN'T MATCH THE COST OF MEDICAL SERVICES, MEANING THE EQUIPMENT, THE, THE EQUIPMENT, THE, THE TRAINING, ET CETERA, LIKE THAT, VERSUS JUST WHILE WE'RE PAYING OUR EMS AND PARAMEDICS MORE THAN WE WERE 10 YEARS AGO BECAUSE OF NEW MOUS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO I JUST WANTED TO GET CLARIFICATION ON HOW MUCH OF THE SHORTAGE THAT IS GETTING SUBSIDIZED BY THE GENERAL FUND IS PERSONNEL COSTS VERSUS EQUIPMENT COSTS OR OTHER ACTUAL DIRECT OPERATIONAL COSTS. TWO, I THINK I UNDERSTOOD ABOUT THE PROP 218 AS OPPOSED TO A BALLOT MEASURE IF THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN DO THAT THIS. I THINK I UNDERSTOOD THE CITY ATTORNEY CORRECTLY THAT THIS PARTICULAR VOTE WOULD BE A POSITIVE VOTE. YOU NEED 50% PLUS ONE AS OPPOSED TO A NEGATIVE PROTEST VOTE.

BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT'S 50% PLUS ONE OF WHOEVER VOTED.

NOT OF SOME KIND OF BASELINE NUMBER. I THINK THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTOOD. SOUNDS LIKE THAT WOULD BE CHEAPER THAN A REGULAR BALLOT MEASURE.

BUT IF THE GOAL IS TO TRY TO GET THIS PASSED. I'M CURIOUS IF WE HAVE ANY IDEA ON WHAT THE TURNOUT WOULD BE FOR A PROP218 VOTE VERSUS PUTTING IT ON A REGULAR GENERAL ELECTION CYCLE. RIGHT. IF WE'D GET MORE PEOPLE VOTING IN A REGULAR ELECTION VERSUS PROP218, IT MIGHT BE WORTH THE EXTRA FUNDS. IF THE GOAL IS TO TRY TO GET IT PASSED TO HAVE A HIGHER TURNOUT, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S NOT A NEGATIVE, YOU KNOW, PROTEST TYPE VOTE.

I THINK THOSE WERE MY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

THANK YOU, STEVE. ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. OH, COME ON.

I JUST HAVE BILL MCKENNA.

I LIVE IN LA VERNE.

REAL QUICK QUESTION IS, DO WE. IS THIS LIKE A PARAMEDIC ASSESSMENT FEE OR IS IT JUST THE FEE THAT'S ON OUR.

[02:40:01]

I'M SORRY, I GOT YOU.

BECAUSE I KNOW OTHER CITIES HAVE THIS PARAMEDIC. AS YOU OPT INTO IT, YOU PAY $90 IF YOU'RE IN ARCADIA OR WHATEVER.

SOMETIMES IT'S ON THE PROPERTY TAX BILL. AND IF YOU DON'T OPT IN, THEN BASICALLY IT GOES UNDER YOUR INSURANCE AND EVERYTHING HAS TO BE CALCULATED THAT WAY. SO I'D LIKE US TO LOOK AT ALL THE OPTIONS THAT ARE AVAILABLE WITH OTHER CITIES AROUND US THAT WHAT THEY'RE DOING BECAUSE I KNOW IT'S A GREAT PROGRAM. I KNOW IT NEEDS TO GO UP A LITTLE BIT, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF EVERY TAXPAYER HERE, AS THE GENTLEMAN OVER HERE SAID, IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE GETTING HIT WITH FEES AND FEES AND FEES.

MAYBE GIVE US THE OPTION TO SAY YES OR NO TO THE. THE FEE AND THEN ON AN ANNUAL BASIS AND PAY IT.

AND THAT WAY YOU'RE NOT SET UP WITH THIS OTHER THING. IT'S JUST ANOTHER OPTION I WANT TO PUT OUT THERE FOR YOU GUYS TO LOOK AT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.

CHIEF COATNEY, WE HAD A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS.

YEAH. SO I'LL ANSWER THE LAST ONE REAL QUICK. BUT AS FAR AS THE PARAMEDIC ASSESSMENT FEES, SO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF CITIES THAT HAVE PARAMEDIC SUBSCRIPTION PROGRAMS, THINGS LIKE THAT, WHERE YOU CAN. IT'S A VOLUNTARY PROGRAM WHERE YOU PAY AND WHATEVER THE CITY ESTABLISHES, $150 A YEAR, $200 A YEAR, WHATEVER THAT AMOUNT IS THAT THEY DEEM.

BUT IF YOU PAY THAT, YOU, ANYONE IN YOUR FAMILY, WHATEVER THEY GET, IF THE AMBULANCE COMES OUT, PARAMEDICS COME OUT AND TRANSPORT YOU.

THERE'S NO FEE.

THERE'S NO CHARGES FOR THAT.

HOWEVER, IF YOU DON'T, IF YOU'RE NOT PART OF THAT SUBSCRIPTION PROGRAM, YOU ARE ON THE HOOK FOR THE FULL COST IF IT'S NOT COVERED BY YOUR INSURANCE. SO OBVIOUSLY THEY'LL SEND THE AMBULANCE BILL, AND IF NOT, THEN THERE'S NO FORGIVENESS THERE IN THOSE. YOU'RE EITHER PART OF THE PROGRAM OR YOU'RE NOT.

WE DON'T HAVE THAT PROGRAM HERE WHERE YOU CAN OPT OUT. IS THAT CORRECT? NO, WE DO NOT KNOW.

EVERYBODY HAS TO BE PART OF IT, RIGHT? CORRECT.

SO WE'VE LOOKED AT OTHER OPTIONS. I MEAN, THERE IS IF YOU WANTED MEASURED GG TO GO AWAY AND NO ONE PAID, BUT THEN THERE WOULD BE WHERE CITIZENS ARE JUST ON THE HOOK FOR THE FULL BILL EVERY TIME.

AND I DON'T, YOU KNOW, THAT'S BEEN ANOTHER DECISION TO BE MADE. SO THE. AS FAR AS THE TOTAL OF THE PARAMEDIC COST, I KNOW THAT CHRISTY COULD PROBABLY SPEAK TO THOSE A LITTLE BIT BETTER THAN I CAN FOR THE ACTUAL HOW IT'S BROKEN DOWN. BUT JUST FOR AN EXAMPLE, THAT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THAT SHORTFALL THERE, THE TOTAL COST IS PARAMEDIC AND EMS TRANSPORT. SO THAT PAYS FOR ALL OF OUR AMBULANCE OPERATORS. SO THAT'S THE FULL PERSONNEL COST THERE. IT'S ALL OF THEIR EQUIPMENT, THEIR UNIFORMS, THE AMBULANCES, THE MAINTENANCE THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. AND THEN FOR THE FIREFIGHTER PARAMEDICS, WE'RE PAYING FOR A FIREFIGHTER, THE PARAMEDIC THE ADDITIONAL COST THERE IS WHAT THE PARAMEDIC BONUS IS, AND THEN THERE'S PARTS THAT ARE FACTORED INTO THEIR PENSIONS, THE OTHER THINGS THERE.

BUT I'LL LET CHRISTY CAN BREAK THAT DOWN AS FAR AS THE PERCENTAGES FROM THE FINANCE.

SO AS MENTIONED IN THE REPORT, THE CALCULATION OF THAT COST FOR PARAMEDIC SERVICES REALLY IS NOT A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW. WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS LOOKED AT THE HISTORICAL WAY THAT WE, PRIOR TO 2022, PAID FOR THE PARAMEDIC PORTION OF THAT LICENSE WAS WITH A 15%. THAT HAS CHANGED, BUT THAT WAS HOW WE WERE USING THE CALCULATION. HOWEVER, WITH PARAMEDIC CALLS BEING PROBABLY 90% WOULD BE MY GUESS, 70%.

THAT'S NOT MY EXPECTATION.

SO WITH THAT BEING 70%, WE'RE REALLY NOT CAPTURING THE TRUE COST OF WHAT IT TAKES TO PROVIDE THOSE PARAMEDIC SERVICES IF WE'RE ONLY TAKING 15%. AND YET REALLY, THE NUMBER OF CALLS THAT WE HAVE IS 70%.

THE OTHER THING I WANT TO POINT OUT IS THAT PERSONNEL COSTS ARE. ARE HIGH, RIGHT? THEY ARE A LOT. IT IS BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE WHAT DELIVER SERVICES. WHEN SOMEONE GOES TO PROVIDE PARAMEDIC SERVICES, IT IS NOT JUST A MEDIC. IT IS NOT JUST A FIRE TRUCK. THERE ARE PEOPLE THERE, AND PEOPLE COST MONEY. THAT IS REALLY THE BIGGEST COST OF REALLY, NOT JUST PARAMEDIC, BUT ALL OF THE CITY'S COSTS, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT IT TAKES TO PROVIDE THOSE SERVICES. WE ARE, YES, WE DO PROVIDE OTHER SERVICES THAT ARE OPERATIONAL THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, PAYING FOR A UNIFORM OR PAYING FOR THE TRUCK, BUT THE MAJORITY OF THOSE SERVICES ARE PEOPLE.

AND SO REALLY, AS MENTIONED

[02:45:01]

IN THE REPORT, WE REALLY NEED TO DO A BETTER REVIEW OF HOW MUCH IT ACTUALLY COSTS US TO PROVIDE THOSE SERVICES.

AND IT IS NOT A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW.

BUT THIS, THIS IS NOT. THE GG MONEY IS NOT MONEY THAT WOULD GO TO GO TO RAISES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. IT'S THE COST OF THE SERVICE OF THAT.

BUT IT'S NOT LIKE, OKAY, WELL, THE GG MONEY'S GOING UP.

OKAY, NOW WE'RE GETTING FIREMEN, DIFFERENT RAISES.

NO, NO, THAT IS NOT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. WE ARE TRYING TO IDENTIFY THE WAY THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY CALCULATING IT.

AGAIN, IT NEEDS TO BE REVIEWED, BUT THE WAY WE ARE CURRENTLY CALCULATING IT, WITH THAT 15%, THE AMOUNT THAT WE ARE RECEIVING FROM MEASURE GG AND FROM THE INSURANCE BILLINGS IS NOT COVERING THAT COST, WHICH REALLY, AS I IDENTIFIED, IS PROBABLY NOT WITH 70% OF THE CALLS BEING MEDICAL, IT'S NOT REALLY COVERING THE COST OF IT. AND SO THAT NEEDS TO BE REVIEWED, WHICH WAS IN THE REPORT THAT WE NEED TO REALLY LOOK INTO STRICTLY PARAMEDIC.

THAT'S IT.

SO WHAT'S THE PROCESS FOR INCREASING THOSE FEES TO THE INSURANCE COMPANIES? OR IS THERE A PROCESS TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT? SO OUR RATES THAT WE'RE ABLE TO BILL ARE SET. THERE'S COUNTY NUMBERS THAT ARE SET.

BUT WE CAN DO AN EVALUATION OF OUR ACTUAL COSTS, WHICH IS WHAT WE DO, AND THEN WE'RE ABLE TO BILL FOR THOSE ACTUAL REIMBURSEMENT COSTS BECAUSE WE HAVE A TOOL.

SO WE'RE ABLE. AND THAT'S WHAT WE DO CURRENTLY. SO WE FACTOR IN ALL OF THOSE THINGS THAT WE CAN AS FAR AS HARD MATERIALS, WEAR AND TEAR AND APPARATUS.

ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE FACTORED IN, RIGHT? BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO THE HOSPITAL, THE INCREASED COST OF FUEL AND TIRES, AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE FACTORED IN.

AND THEN WE'RE ABLE TO ACTUALLY CHARGE MORE THAN WHAT THE COUNTY SETS AS THE RATE BECAUSE WE HAVE OUR OWN 201 RIGHTS AND WE'RE ESTABLISHING WHAT OUR SERVICES THAT WE DELIVER TO OUR CITIZENS.

BUT BECAUSE WE'RE GOING ABOVE, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WHAT THE MINIMUM STANDARD IS, THEN, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ABLE TO RECOUP THOSE COSTS. SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE ABLE TO CHARGE.

BUT WE'RE CHARGING. WE DO THAT EVERY YEAR. WE LOOK AT THAT RATE STUDY FOR WHAT WE'RE CHARGING FOR SERVICES AND WE MAKE THAT ADJUSTMENT.

BUT WE'RE STILL AT AN $800,000 DEFICIT BECAUSE NO MATTER WHAT, WE'RE DOING REALLY WELL ON OUR COST RECOVERY. I KNOW THAT FOR A FACT.

YES, VERY GOOD ON OUR COST RECOVERY. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE REALLY HAVEN'T TOUCHED THESE RATES FOR SO LONG THAT WE'RE WAY, WAY HOLE. AND THAT PROVIDES AN AMAZING SERVICE FOR OUR RESIDENTS. THEY GET PARAMEDIC MT. THEY GET COMPLETE SERVICE AND CARE. AND WE SHOWED YOUR MATRIX. THE MATRIX ARE STELLAR IN OUR COMMUNITY, BETTER THAN ANY OTHER COMMUNITY.

COULD I, MR. MAYOR, COULD I ADDRESS THE 280? YEAH. WELL, THERE ARE ACTUALLY TWO QUESTIONS. ONE WAS THE QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER WE COULD HAVE OPTIONS THAT SORT OF WOULD BE LIKE RANKED CHOICE VOTING, WHICH ISN'T REALLY AN OPTION IN EITHER A BALLOT MEASURE OR A PROP 218 PROCESS.

UNFORTUNATELY, I THINK THE 218 PROCESS PROVIDES YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE COMMUNITY AND THE INPUT AND ALL THOSE THINGS THAT YOU TRY TO RIGHT SIZE WHAT YOU'RE SETTING IT. THE OTHER QUESTION WAS ON THE MAJORITY VOTE.

YES, THIS IS NOT. THIS WOULD NOT BE A PROTEST VOTE UNDER PROP 218. IT WOULD REQUIRE THE COUNTING OF VOTES. SO BY WAY OF EXAMPLE, IF 1,000 VOTES WERE CAST, 501 OF THOSE WOULD HAVE TO BE YES FOR IT TO PASS. SO I HOPE THAT ANSWERS THAT QUESTION.

I GUESS ONE OBSERVATION THAT I'VE HAD OVER THE YEARS IS THE FREQUENCY OF CERTAIN LOCATIONS THAT OUR PARAMEDICS GO TO, TYPICALLY MOBILE HOME PARKS, HILLCREST, JUST THE ELDERLY COMMUNITIES.

AND I KNOW IN THE PAST WE'VE HAD REDUCED CHARGES FOR THESE SERVICES FOR THOSE FACILITIES, MAINLY TO GET THE BALLOTS PASSED. I'M JUST CURIOUS AS TO. IS THERE ANY WAY TO LINK THOSE FACILITIES TO THIS FEE SERVICE OR IS IT.

IT'S. IT'S CALL FOR CALL.

[02:50:03]

SO IF ONE. IF ONE PARTICULAR ADDRESS IS. IS WHERE WE RUN A LOT OF CALLS TO, IT'S STILL.

WE DON'T CHARGE THEM ANY DIFFERENT. IT'S THE SAME. IT'S THE SAME.

IT'S A RESIDENTIAL PAID CHARGE OF $6.90 PER INDIVIDUAL PER MONTH.

NO ONE.

NO ONE GETS A DISCOUNT.

IT'S FOR UNIT. OH, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

YEAH, THE CHARGES PER UNIT.

IT IS PER UNIT. HOWEVER, FOR A FACILITY LIKE HILLCREST, THEY DO PAY MORE THAN THEY PAY PER BED. WE DO HAVE A.

SO THEY PAY MORE. THEY PAY MORE.

THE UNIVERSITY PAYS MORE.

IT'S NOT JUST ONE FEE FOR THE UNIVERSITY. WE DO HAVE MULTIPLE UNITS THAT ARE ON THAT. THOSE BILLS.

SO TO CLARIFY THEN. SO THOSE ARE PER BED COUNT.

I'M NOT SURE IF EXACTLY PER BED IT MIGHT BE PER ROOM.

RIGHT. WHEREAS, LIKE, IF YOU.

WHEREAS IF YOU'RE IN A HOME AND THERE'S FOUR PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THAT HOME, THERE'S ONE BILL RIGHT NOW, IT'S $6.90. IF IT'S ONE PERSON IN THE HOME, IT'S $6.90.

I MEAN, WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS, GUYS. WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT A PATH, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO COME BACK AT OUR NEXT COUNCIL MEETING TO DISCUSS BECAUSE THERE'S A.

WE EITHER DO A BALLOT MEASURE OR WE DO IT. SEEMS LIKE THE BEST WAY TO GO WOULD BE A 218 PROCESS AND JUST BRING IT OUT TO THE COMMUNITY AND SAY THIS IS WHERE WE'RE AT. WE NEED TO PICK ONE OF THE MATRIX, OBVIOUSLY, BUT I THINK THAT'S FOR ANOTHER MEETING.

MR. MAYOR, CAN I MAKE A SUGGESTION? YES, PLEASE.

IF YOU AREN'T PREPARED TO GIVE US DIRECTION TONIGHT, WE'RE GOING TO BRING THIS BACK IN JULY. WE COULD BRING YOU IN YOUR NEXT AGENDA, REPORT SPECIFICS ON WHAT THAT PROCESS WOULD LOOK LIKE, AND PERHAPS BY THEN THE FINANCE DIRECTOR WOULD HAVE MORE FINANCIAL INFORMATION TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT WHAT YOU WOULD SPECIFICALLY ASK FOR IN THAT BALLOT.

COULD WE. IT'S JUNE 15TH, AND I KNOW OUR TIME FRAME IS SHORT, BUT WE'RE HAVING A VERY LARGE COMMUNITY EVENT COMING UP VERY SHORTLY. SO IN A SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME.

BUT THOUGH GETTING INFORMATION OUT THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD PLACE AT A CITY PICNIC OR A FOURTH OF JULY EVENT, CONCERTS IN NEPAL OF HANDING OUT INFORMATION OR A TABLE HANDING OUT INFORMATION ABOUT THIS. I KNOW OUR LOCAL NEWS AGENCY HAS BEEN POSTING A LOT ABOUT THIS LATELY AND APPRECIATE THAT.

BUT I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE SHORT TIME ABOUT ONLY TWO WEEKS OF THIS STUFF ACTUALLY HAPPENING OF THOUGH TRYING TO GET INFORMATION OUT SO THAT WE GET RESPONSES FROM OUR RESIDENTS. YOU KNOW, TONIGHT WE'VE HAD QUITE A BIT MORE PEOPLE ONLINE 6 THAN WE'VE HAD IN A WHILE. WE'VE HAD MORE RESIDENTS HERE TONIGHT THAN WE'VE HAD IN A WHILE, WHICH IS GOOD.

BUT IT'S SUCH A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF OUR VOICE GETTING OUT. HOW DO WE GET OUR VOICE OUT THERE SO THAT PEOPLE KNOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS AND REALLY KNOW WHAT IT'S FOR? BECAUSE YOU KNOW THAT PARAMEDIC SERVICE, A LOT OF PEOPLE MAY BE NEW TO THE CITY MIGHT NOT EVEN KNOW THAT. THEY DON'T SEE IT ON THEIR BILL 690 THEY DON'T NOTICE IT. AND WHAT IT'S REALLY FOR THE INFORMATION THAT THEY GET. SO THAT KIND OF THINGS WANT TO MAKE SURE AND TRY TO GET OUT AS MUCH. ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'RE HAVING QUITE A BIT OF SUMMER THINGS OF HAPPENING THROUGHOUT THE CITY ON THAT, YOU KNOW, GOING THE PROP 218 PROCESS MAY GIVE US A LITTLE BIT MORE BREATHING ROOM IN WHICH TO, YOU KNOW, GET THAT INFORMATION OUT. I CAN WORK WITH THE FIRE CHIEF. I COME UP WITH SOMETHING. WE BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE TABLES OF SORTS AND ALL THAT STUFF AROUND THE PARADE ROUTE. WE DON'T WANT TO GENERATE ANY ADDITIONAL TRASH THAT SOMEBODY WOULD TAKE A LOOK AT AND DO THAT.

BUT IF THERE'S SOME INFORMATIONAL SIGNS THAT WE CAN DO TO HELP PEOPLE, QR CODES, WE'RE ALWAYS TRYING TO GET PEOPLE TO COME BACK TO OUR WEBSITE WITH THE INFORMATION. SO MOST CERTAINLY EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION WOULD BE ON THE WEBSITE TO INFORM OUR RESIDENTS. SO WE CAN WORK ON THAT.

ABSOLUTELY.

SO CAN I ASK THEN WHEN THIS COMES BACK TO COUNCIL? I'D LIKE A TIMELINE, A PROPOSED TIMELINE IF WE'RE GOING TO GO THE PROP 218 ROUTE. I NOTE THAT THIS IS ALREADY CURRENTLY ON OUR WEBSITE

[02:55:01]

MEASURE GG. IT HAS FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE ACTUALLY SEEN IT. I KNOW THAT THERE WAS AT LEAST ONE SOCIAL MEDIA PUSH THAT HAD A SUMMARY OF WHAT MEASURE GG WAS FOR.

BUT I THINK TO COUNCILMEMBER CROSBY'S POINT IS THERE ARE PROBABLY A LOT OF NEW PEOPLE THAT HAVE MOVED HERE, NEVER EVEN KNEW WHAT IT WAS FOR. AND IF YOU'VE NEVER USED THE AMBULANCE SERVICE OR HAD SOMEONE IN YOUR FAMILY HAD TO USE IT, HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE BENEFIT IS. I KNOW SOME PEOPLE HAVE BROUGHT UP THE SUBSCRIPTION MODEL. I THINK PERSONALLY SPEAKING, IN MY OPINION, AND I LOVE TO HEAR DIFFERENT, IF THIS IS THE CASE, IF I'M WRONG, THEN I'D LIKE TO KNOW.

BUT TO ME, THE SUBSCRIPTION BASED MODEL FAVORS THOSE WHO CAN AFFORD IT. AND I THINK WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A COMMUNITY BASED MODEL THAT SAYS WE TAKE CARE OF OUR OWN. SO I WOULD NOT WANT TO SEE THAT GO AWAY BECAUSE I THINK FOR OUR MORE VULNERABLE POPULATIONS, WHETHER YOU'RE YOUNG, DON'T HAVE INSURANCE YET BECAUSE YOU'RE BETWEEN JOBS OR WHATEVER, OR YOU'RE ON A FIXED INCOME, MEDICARE ISN'T CUTTING IT, WHATEVER IT IS. I PERSONALLY THINK THAT MEASURE GG ACCOMMODATES FOR THAT. BUT I'D LIKE TO KNOW BECAUSE MAYBE I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THESE SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES AND WHO IT ACTUALLY SERVES AND HOW THAT MIGHT BE BENEFICIAL TO A POPULATION THAT CAN'T AFFORD IT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT COST DIFFERENTIAL WOULD BE. I KNOW YOU MENTIONED SOME CITIES CHARGE, YOU KNOW, 150, 200 A YEAR. YOU KNOW, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS HERE. WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW IT'S $82.90 OR WHATEVER IT IS A YEAR ON THE CURRENT 690 MODEL. AND THAT COVERS US TOTALLY. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT SUBSCRIPTION MODEL COVERS YOU TOTALLY. IF YOU HAVE TO TAKE AN AMBULANCE, RIDE SOMEWHERE. I DON'T KNOW.

AND I DON'T KNOW WAVES AND I BELIEVE LIKE IN FULLERTON, PREVIOUS AGENCY I WORK BECAUSE IT WIPED OUT ALL THE FIRE DEPARTMENT RELATED CHARGES.

AND THEN FOR ANYONE WHO DIDN'T, THEN THEY ARE ASSESSED THE BILL, WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE. SO IF THEY HAVE INSURANCE, YOU CAN HOPE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, AND IF NOT, THEY BILL, THEY GET BILLED FOR THE REMAINDER AND IT GOES THROUGH COLLECTIONS.

AND IF THEY DON'T PAY IT, THEN IT COMES OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND OF THAT CITY. IS THAT CORRECT? TO ACCOMMODATE FOR THOSE COSTS? YES, FOR THOSE OTHER CITIES.

RIGHT. SO SAY THE MARKET.

IF IT DOESN'T GET PAID.

SO, OKAY, SO I WOULD LIKE SOME MORE CLARITY AROUND THAT AND I DO THINK AS PART OF THE EDUCATIONAL PROCESS THAT HAS TO BE SUSSED OUT BECAUSE I THINK WHEN YOU JUST SAY SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE, PEOPLE GO, YEAH, IF YOU WANT IT, THEN YOU CAN PAY FOR IT.

RIGHT. BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THE CONSEQUENCES ARE THERE FOR EVERYBODY. SO EVEN IF YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR NEIGHBOR AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY CAN AFFORD A SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE.

YOU MIGHT CARE THAT IT'S GOING TO COME OUT OF YOUR GENERAL FUND. SO I'D LIKE THAT PARTICULARLY ARTICULATED. SO IF I'M WRONG ON ANY OF THESE POINTS, CALL ME OUT ON IT. BUT I'D LIKE THAT INFORMATION IN ALL ITS ACCURACY TO BE PRESENTED TO FOLKS.

AND I DO. NO ONE EVER COMPLAINS ABOUT AMBULANCE AND PARAMEDIC SERVICES. NO ONE EVER COMPLAINS ABOUT IT. SOMETIMES WE GET A BILL THAT GOES TO THE WRONG PLACE THAT'S ABOUT IT AND THAT'S TAKEN CARE OF IMMEDIATELY. THIS IS A SMALL PRICE TO PAY FOR THE SERVICE THAT WE GIVE WITH SUCH AMAZING CARE. AND I DO THINK THAT. BUT IT NEEDS TO BE EXPLAINED QUICK, SHORT, SWEET. WHAT'S THE 218 PROCESS? IT'S 50 PLUS 1 AND IT'S THE POPULAR VOTE. IF YOU VOTE YES, IT'S A YES. IF YOU VOTE NO, IT'S A NO AND THEN TALLIED OUT AT THE END.

BUT ALSO THE MATRIX, AS FAR AS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT AND ALSO THE ESCALATOR IS VERY IMPORTANT JUST TO SAY, HEY, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.

THIS IS WHERE WE'RE AT. GET IT OUT TO THE PEOPLE. AND I DO THINK WE NEED TO CAPITALIZE ON THE, ON THE THINGS WE HAVE COMING RIGHT NOW. IF WE CAN GET SOME INFORMATION OUT THERE TO SAY, HEY, WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS SHORT, SWEET, TO THE POINT, BUT BE SPECIFIC ON WHAT WE'RE DOING AND THEN WE CAN BRING IT BACK AS THIS IS PUT ON A BALLOT OR 218. IF A VOTE NO HAPPENS, IT STILL CONTINUES THE WAY IT IS RIGHT NOW.

THAT'S CORRECT. DOESN'T CHANGE.

I'LL MAKE SURE THAT'S IT.

BECAUSE YEAH, MAKE SURE THAT NO MATTER WHAT YOU VOTE, WE'RE STILL $6.90 PER PERSON OR PER HOUSEHOLD.

SAID EARLIER, IF THEY VOTE NO, THEN IT'S ALL GONE AWAY.

NO, IT'S NOT AN EITHER OR.

IT WOULD BE AN INCREASE. IF THE INCREASE WAS VOTED DOWN, THE EXISTING WOULD CONTINUE.

AND THEN CAN I ASK FOR THE ESCALATION? I KNOW YOU HAD MENTIONED THE DIFFERENT METHODOLOGIES WITH WHICH WE COULD CONSIDER ESCALATION.

COULD YOU DO AN EXAMPLE AND PUT NUMBERS TO IT? BECAUSE I THINK SOMETIMES WHEN IT JUST SAYS, OH, 80% OF THIS, EVERYBODY'S LIKE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT 80% OF THAT IS. OR IF IT'S 2% INCREASE OVER 5%.

LIKE IF WE CAN JUST KIND OF GIVE A SAMPLE.

YEAH, I HAVE IT. I HAVE A CHART THAT. I KNOW IT WAS JUST A LOT.

IT WAS PRETTY BUSY. AND IT'S AN EXAMPLE.

I WOULDN'T GIVE A LOT, BUT I'D GIVE 80% OF THIS, 20%. AND THEN BOOM, THIS IS WHAT IT IS WE CAN TELL OURSELVES LATER IS FOR THE FIREFIGHTER COSTS AND WHAT THE 80% OF THAT LOOKS LIKE. AND THEN IT SHOWS HOW THEY'RE BOTH ADD UP.

AND THEN WHETHER YOU READ THE MAXIMUM OR. OR IF IT'S IN THE MIDDLE THERE, BUT. OR IF IT'S LOWER THAN THE TWO, WE AT LEAST GET THE TWO MINIMUM.

SO YOU CAN DO THAT.

NOW YOU NEED A MOTION FOR THIS, BARLOW. JUST A MOTION TO CONTINUE ON THE 218 PROCESS.

YEAH, WE'RE JUST LOOKING FOR DIRECTION AND I THINK WE HAVE HEARD.

AND JUST TO CLARIFY, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE COUNCIL REALLY WOULD LIKE US, ALONG WITH SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS THAT WERE MENTIONED AT THE END, TO KIND OF REFOCUS THIS AS 218 AND GIVE MORE EMPHASIS ON THAT WHILE WE'RE STILL LOOKING AT THE POTENTIAL OF A BALLOT MEASURE. BUT

[03:00:02]

FOR THE NEXT TIME TO BRING BACK THE TIMELINE AND SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON A POTENTIAL 218 PROCESS AND WHAT THAT MEANS.

AND TO CLARIFY ONE MORE TIME, I KNOW WE SAID LIKE TWO OR THREE TIMES HERE, BUT A 218 PROCESS GOES TO EVERY RESIDENT IN THE CITY. SO THEN IT GOES TO EVERYONE THAT ACTUALLY PAYS FOR THIS RATHER THAN A BALLOT MEASURE, ONLY GOES TO PEOPLE THAT ARE REGISTERED TO VOTE AND PEOPLE THAT VOTE.

THAT'S CORRECT. THIS GOES TO EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE CITY.

IT WOULD. YES.

WHICH IS EVERY HOUSEHOLD.

WHICH INSTEAD OF THE 30 OR 40% OF PEOPLE THAT VOTE, OR LIKE MY HOUSEHOLD, FOUR PEOPLE VOTE, IT ONLY GOES TO ONE. ONE PERSON.

SO WHO IS THE ONE PERSON IN THE HOUSE THAT GETS TO VOTE? YEAH, I'LL EXPLAIN THAT IN THE.

IN THE UPCOMING REPORT.

OKAY, SO RIGHT NOW, DO WE NEED A MOTION FOR

[13. Resolution Adopting the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Budget]

DIRECTION OR DO YOU JUST HAVE DIRECTION ALREADY? WE DON'T NEED. CHIEF.

THANK YOU, STEVE. THE FINAL DISCUSSION ITEM IS RESOLUTION ADOPTING A FISCAL YEAR 202627 BUDGET. CITY MANAGER DELMER, PLEASE CALL FORWARD CHRISTY LOPEZ TO OUR FINANCE DIRECTOR.

I'M GOING TO CALL FOR CHRISTY LOPEZ. THANK YOU.

GOOD EVENING.

OH, YES, IT IS.

MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. TONIGHT, I AM PRESENTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2026-27 BUDGET FOR ADOPTION.

THIS BUDGET REFLECTS MONTHS OF PLANNING, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSIONS REGARDING THE CITY'S FINANCIAL OUTLOOK AND INCORPORATES THE DIRECTION PROVIDED BY THE COUNCIL THROUGHOUT THE BUDGET PROCESS.

THIS SLIDE HIGHLIGHTS THE BUDGET DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, BEGINNING WITH DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET PREPARATION IN JANUARY AND CONTINUING THROUGH THE MULTIPLE ROUNDS OF REVIEW, THE STRATEGIC PLANNING SESSION, BUDGET STUDY SESSION, AND THE BUDGET FOLLOW UP MEETING, WHICH WAS ON JUNE 1ST.

THE FINAL BUDGET. BEFORE YOU REFLECTS THAT COLLABORATIVE EFFORT. AND BEFORE I GO ON, I JUST WANT TO THANK ALL DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS AND STAFF WHO WORKED ON THE BUDGET WITH OF COURSE A SPECIAL THANK YOU TO JESUS JAIME, ISABELLA GUZMAN AND ELIZABETH LUO IN FINANCE WHO WORKED TIRELESSLY TO COMPILE AND CALCULATE ALL OF THAT DEPARTMENT DATA. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2026-27 BUDGET AND APPROVAL OF THE ACCOMPANYING RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING A LITTLE OVER $1.16 MILLION ACROSS ALL CITY FUNDS AND FIDUCIARY ACTIVITIES. NOW WE'LL GET INTO SOME NUMBERS. THIS SLIDE PROVIDES A HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW OF THE CITY'S BUDGET WHICH WAS POSTED ONLINE FOR PUBLIC VIEW IN DRAFT FORM ON MAY 18.

WITH THE PROPOSED BUDGET POSTED ON JUNE 10, WE ALSO POSTED A EMAIL ADDRESS FOR ALL RESIDENTS TO SEND US QUESTIONS AND UNFORTUNATELY WE DIDN'T GET ANY. BUT THAT MEANS WE ANSWERED ALL THE QUESTIONS WE GOT, BUT IT WAS THERE LOOKING FOR PUBLIC INPUT TOTAL RESOURCES ARE PROJECTED AT APPROXIMATELY 97.8 MILLION, WHILE TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS OR EXPENDITURES TOTAL APPROXIMATELY 100, 101.6 MILLION. AND THIS AGAIN IS FOR ALL OF THE CITY'S RESOURCES AND EXPENDITURES WHICH INCLUDE THE GENERAL FUND, ENTERPRISE OPERATIONS, SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS, CAPITAL PROJECTS, INTERNAL SERVICES, AND FIDUCIARY ACTIVITIES. SO THE CITY'S LARGEST FINANCIAL CHALLENGE REMAINS PERSONNEL RELATED COSTS. AS I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY WITH PARAMEDIC SERVICE FEE IS PEOPLE DELIVER SERVICES AND DELIVER THE MAJORITY OF THE SERVICES THAT LA VERNE DELIVERS. AND SO THOSE COSTS ARE INCREASING APPROXIMATELY 6% OVER THE CITYWIDE BUDGET DUE TO NEGOTIATED COMPENSATION ADJUSTMENTS, MERIT INCREASES AND BENEFIT COSTS.

IN ADDITION, THE ANNUAL CALPERS UNFUNDED ACCRUED LIABILITY PAYMENT IS INCREASING CITYWIDE FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.7 MILLION TO 2.3 MILLION, WHICH IS ROUGHLY A 37% INCREASE. AND THIS SLIDE JUST BREAKS DOWN OVER THE YEARS HOW THE INCREASES HAVE HAPPENED.

SO YOU CAN SEE IN THE PRIOR FISCAL YEARS WHERE WE HAVE HAD THOSE INCREASES AND POINTING OUT AS WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST, IN 2024 THAT UNFUNDED ACCRUED LIABILITY OR

[03:05:01]

UAL WAS A LITTLE OVER $10,000 AND NOW IN 2027 OUR BUDGET IS ROUGHLY 2.4 MILLION, SO IT HAS INCREASED DRASTICALLY. THIS PROPOSED BUDGET INCLUDES 197 AUTHORIZED FULL TIME POSITIONS CITYWIDE. WHILE SEVERAL STAFFING REQUESTS WERE DEFERRED DURING THE BUDGET BALANCING PROCESS, THE BUDGET MAINTAINS STAFFING NECESSARY TO CONTINUE PROVIDING PUBLIC SAFETY, INFRASTRUCTURE, RECREATION, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES.

THE PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TOTALS APPROXIMATELY $7.9 MILLION.

MORE THAN HALF OF ALL CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDING IS DEDICATED TO WATER AND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE, WHILE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS ACCOUNT FOR APPROXIMATELY 37% OF THE PROGRAM. EARLIER THIS YEAR, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED WATER AND SEWER RATE ADJUSTMENTS TO ADDRESS LONG TERM OPERATING, REGULATORY AND INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS. THOSE RATE ADJUSTMENTS ARE REFLECTED IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2627 BUDGET AND SUPPORT INVESTMENTS IN THE AMI WATER METER CONVERSION PROJECT, WATER TREATMENT, FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS, PIPELINE REHAB, AND SEWER SYSTEM UPGRADES.

THE WATER FUND INCLUDES APPROXIMATELY 13.6 MILLION IN RESOURCES AND 15.5 MILLION IN APPROPRIATIONS OR EXPENSES, WHILE THE SEWER FUND INCLUDES APPROXIMATELY 2.1 MILLION IN RESOURCES AND 3.5 MILLION IN APPROPRIATIONS. AND I DO WANT TO SAY I'M GOING A LITTLE FAST HERE, SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. AND ALSO THIS IS THE THIRD TIME WE HAVE BROUGHT THIS FORWARD SO I DIDN'T WANT TO SPEND TOO MUCH TIME ON IT.

BUT OF COURSE IF THERE'S QUESTIONS I WILL DEFINITELY ANSWER THEM.

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-27, GENERAL FUND RESOURCES AND APPROPRIATIONS ARE BOTH BUDGETED AT APPROXIMATELY $49 MILLION, WHICH MEANS WE ARE BALANCED.

THE BUDGET IS OPERATIONALLY BALANCED AND DOES NOT UTILIZE GENERAL FUND RESERVES TO ACHIEVE THE BALANCE.

THROUGHOUT THE BUDGET PROCESS, STAFF IDENTIFIED AND IMPLEMENTED EXPENDITURE REDUCTIONS, PROJECT DEFERRALS, OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES, AND REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS TO CLOSE THE BUDGET GAP.

FOLLOWING COUNCIL DIRECTION ON JUNE 1, STAFF INCORPORATED APPROXIMATELY 233,000 IN ADDITIONAL ADJUSTMENTS, INCLUDING SHIFTING APPROXIMATELY 150,000 OF POLICE DEPARTMENT COSTS FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO PROPOSITION C TRANSPORTATION FUNDS. THESE COSTS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH TRANSIT RELATED PUBLIC SAFETY ACTIVITIES AND ARE RELATED TO THE RECENTLY OPENED A LINE STATION. AND THAT IS HOW WE SHIFTED THOSE FUNDS THAT WE HAD ORIGINALLY IDENTIFIED TO REDUCE OR CHANGE THE SPECIAL EVENTS AND PUT THOSE FUNDS BACK IN AND SHIFTED THE FUNDS FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OVER TO PROP.

THE CITY'S RESERVE POLICY REQUIRES A MINIMUM RESERVE LEVEL OF 20%. THE PROJECTED RESERVE LEVEL AT THE END OF FISCAL YEAR 2026-27 IS APPROXIMATELY 31.2% ESTIMATED.

IMPORTANTLY, THE PROPOSED BUDGET DOES NOT RELY ON THE USE OF GENERAL FUND RESERVES TO ACHIEVE OPERATIONAL BALANCE.

ONE OF THE THINGS I DO WANT TO POINT OUT, AND THERE IS A NOTE AT THE BOTTOM, IS THIS DOES EXCLUDE THE SOLID WASTE EXPENDITURES AND NOT SUPPLY THE PERCENTAGE OF THE 31.2 HAS INCREASED FROM THE PRIOR YEAR AND THAT IS BECAUSE THAT PERCENTAGE IS BASED ON OUR EXPENDITURES. SO THAT'S WHY THAT'S INCREASED AND FINAL THOUGHTS THE PROPOSED BUDGET IS BALANCED WITHOUT THE USE OF GENERAL FUND RESERVES. THE CITY CONTINUES TO INVEST IN CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE, PARTICULARLY TRANSPORTATION, WATER, AND SEWER SYSTEMS, WHILE MAINTAINING CORE MUNICIPAL SERVICES. PERSONNEL COSTS AND RETIREMENT OBLIGATIONS REMAIN THE CITY'S LARGEST LONG TERM CHALLENGE. STAFF RECOMMENDS ADOPTION OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2026-27 BUDGET AND THE ACCOMPANYING RESOLUTION AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION AND I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.

THANKS, CHRISTY. APPRECIATE THAT. WE'RE GOING TO GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT FIRST. I'M GOING TO GO TO OPEN A PUBLIC COMMENT AND VIEWERS JUST SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. MR. BO, GOOD EVENING AGAIN. I'D LOVE TO KNOW WHERE THIS NUMBER WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE EXCLUDED SOLID WASTE

[03:10:01]

$3.4 MILLION. WHERE WOULD THAT NUMBER BE IF WASTE MANAGEMENT WASN'T TAKING OVER THE BUILDING? IT SHOWS AT THE BOTTOM. THE GENERAL FUND ESTIMATED BUDGET GOES FROM 48.7 TO 48.060. WOULD THAT $3,408,000 BE IN THE NUMBER SOMEWHERE? MAYBE. I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND IT. BUT IT WOULD SEEM THAT NUMBER WOULD HAVE TO BE SOMEWHERE IF IT WASN'T SUDDENLY TAKEN OVER BY WASTE MANAGEMENT. AND IS THAT A REASON TO HAVE WASTE MANAGEMENT DO IT? SO OUR BUDGET APPEARS TO BE BALANCED VERSUS SHORTFALL POTENTIALLY OF 3.5 MILLION.

THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON PUBLIC COMMENT? MY NAME IS LILY. OKAY, HERE AGAIN I'M PRETTY MUCH A NUMBER PERSON BEFORE BUT AFTER I BECOME A FINANCIAL PLANNER THIS YEAR. SO I REALLY DIG DEEP ABOUT THE NUMBER. SO I'M GET MY ATTENTION. IT'S THE SALARY BENEFIT INCREASE. IT'S REALLY GOING TO INCREASE A LOT. AND I WILL START TO THINK ABOUT HOW COULD WE REALLY AFFORD HAVE OUR OWN FIRE DEPARTMENT AND POLICE DEPARTMENT IN COMING YEARS.

IT'S REALLY A BIG CONSIDERATION. I REALLY THINKING RIGHT THE COST OF THE SALARY AND BENEFIT. I REALLY CHECKED THE WEBSITE TODAY BECAUSE I HAVE A GROUP TO TALK ABOUT HEY, HOW'S THE SALARY? AND THEN ALMOST HAVE SOMEBODY SCREAM HELLO, IT'S A $400,000.

IT'S MORE THAN THE PRESIDENT TRUMP. I SAID YEAH, YEAH BECAUSE YOU KNOW THEY ARE PROFESSIONAL AND THEN NOT JUST SALARY AND WITH THE BENEFIT TOO. AND THEN ALSO I COULD TELL A LOT OF WHAT IS A VOLUNTEER JOB. SO MAYOR AND THEN CITY COUNCIL ELECT OFFICIAL. PRETTY MUCH NO SALARY. IT JUST HAD THE BENEFIT. SO I EXPLAINED FOR THAT. BUT ALSO I'M THINKING I TAKE A LOOK AT THE NUMBER.

SO MOST OF SALARY IS HAVE A ONE QUARTER IS GO TO THE BENEFIT AND NOT JUST SALARY. ACTUALLY MY CURRENT JOB IS A FINANCIAL PLANNER IS A SPECIFIC RETIREMENT AND GROUP INSURANCE.

SO I DEFINITELY LAST YEAR ASKED ABOUT HOW IT RUNS IN THE CITY. AND THEN IT'S ALREADY LIKE IT'S ALREADY SAID I MISSED THE DEADLINE AND THEN ALSO ONLY REVEAL LIKE A FEW YEARS. SO I JUST STOPPED THERE. BUT ACTUALLY THIS YEAR I TAKE A LOOK AGAIN.

SO EVEN OFFICIAL NEED TO ELECT EVERY TWO YEARS AS AN INSURANCE AGENT ALL THE POLICY NEED TO THE ANNUAL RENEWAL. WHY NOT ALL THE BENEFIT OF GROUP INSURANCE, ALL THINGS PUT TOGETHER JUST WAIT TILL LIKE A FEW YEARS TO TAKE A LOOK UNTIL SOME PROBLEM HAPPEN AND THEN THINK ABOUT ANOTHER OPTION. SO I DEFINITELY WILL RECOMMEND.

ACTUALLY IT'S MYSELF I REALLY RUN THE PROPOSAL. OKAY. IT'S THE FREE, IT'S NOT CHARGE A CONSULTANT FEE. SO I FEEL LIKE VENDOR AND CONTRACTOR NEED TO REALLY HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE A LOOK EVERY YEAR, NOT JUST WAIT TILL FEW YEARS LATER BECAUSE I AM PRETTY MUCH ON THIS FIELD FOR A FEW YEARS AND THEN I REALLY KNOW COMPETITION REALLY MAKE THE SERVICE BETTER. AND MAYBE WE COULD CHOOSE A BETTER PLAN TO LOWER THE COST OR I WOULD BE HAPPY TO SEE THAT IF MAYBE THE BENEFITS BETTER COULD KEEP OUR EMPLOYEE MORE STABLE. WE WILL NOT LOSE OUR POLICEMEN AND FIRE DEPARTMENT IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE THE COMPETITION THEY COULD JUMP TO OTHER CITY BECAUSE THE BETTER, BETTER BENEFIT. SO THAT'S ONE THING. SO ALL I NEED I THINK IS A SET OF APPOINTMENT THIS YEAR, NOT WAIT TILL YEARS LATER. SO I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE THE PROPOSAL.

THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. AND WE HAD ONE QUESTION. CHRISTY, YOU WANT TO ANSWER THAT FOR THE WASTE MANAGEMENT PORTION? YES. SO THAT IS A SERVICE THAT'S PASSED THROUGH. AND SO THE REVENUES AND THE EXPENDITURES HAVE BEEN OFFSET.

AND THE ONLY AMOUNT OF REVENUE THAT HAS BEEN MAINTAINED IS THE AMOUNT THAT WOULD BE WITHIN THE CONTRACT THAT WAS PASSED TODAY, THE MOU. AND IF WE CONTINUE TO HAVE THAT $3 MILLION, THEN INSTEAD OF THE EXPENDITURES BEING 48 MILLION, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN 51 MILLION. SO IT IS NOT IN THERE. AND THE REVENUE AS WELL. YES, THAT NUMBER IS ONLY LOOKING AT THE EXPENDITURES TO

[03:15:01]

IDENTIFY WHAT THE PERCENTAGE IS OF THE RESERVES. BUT YES, IT IS REDUCED ON BOTH SIDES.

AND AS FAR AS THE OTHER QUESTION, I THINK PART OF IT WAS RELATED TO. YES.

OH, I'M SORRY. I THOUGHT I WAS, I WAS TRYING TO.

IT WORKED.

IT WORKED. I'M SORRY.

I THINK THE QUESTION THAT LILY HAD TOO WAS WE, WE HAVE OPEN ENROLLMENT FOR OUR HEALTHCARE PLANS AND THE EMPLOYEES GET TO CHOOSE. AND WE ALSO ARE VERY CRITICAL ON OUR EMPLOYEES THAT HAVE OTHER BENEFITS FROM SPOUSES THAT ARE NOT PART OF THE CITY. THEY CAN USE THOSE SPOUSES. SO WE TAKE A LOT OF CARE IN OUR PROGRAMS AND WE TRY TO GET THE BEST AFFORDABLE PROGRAMS THAT ARE GOOD FOR THE CITY BUT ARE ALSO GOOD FOR THE EMPLOYEES. SO YES, WE DO THAT QUESTION CORRECT.

AND THEN I DID WANT TO JUST POINT OUT THERE IS AN ERROR ON TRANSPARENT CALIFORNIA WHERE THEY HAVE MISCALCULATED. AND I HAVE REACHED OUT MULTIPLE TIMES. MR. BOWEN REACHED OUT TO THEM AS WELL.

AND THEY DID FIX IT FOR A LITTLE WHILE, BUT IT IS UNFORTUNATELY BACK TO BEING INCORRECT. AND SO THOSE FIGURES ARE CALCULATING OVERTIME TWICE. SO IT REALLY DOES INFLATE THE NUMBERS THAT ARE ON THERE. THE OTHER THING I DID WANT TO BRING UP BECAUSE LILY DID IT LOOKED LIKE SHE WAS KIND OF REFERENCING THIS IS THESE ARE THE PERCENTAGES. AND SO I BELIEVE SHE MENTIONED PEPRA VERSUS CL CLASSIC MEMBERS. AND AS YOU CAN SEE, AND NOT PICKING ON THEM.

BUT I'M JUST GOING TO POINT THEM OUT BECAUSE THEY DEFINITELY ARE THE MOST EXPENSIVE. THEY'RE ALSO WORTH IT. ALL RIGHT, GUYS.

BUT IF YOU CAN SEE AT THE TOP, CLASSIC SAFETY, THOSE ARE MEMBERS THAT ARE PRIOR TO 2018, I BELIEVE IS THE YEAR THAT PEPPER WENT INTO PLACE. OH, SORRY, 2012.

AND SO THE COST OF THEIR RETIREMENT IS 27% FOR THE CITY, WHEREAS NEW MEMBERS OR PEPRA MEMBERS, THE COST IS ROUGHLY 14%. AND SO IT'S ALMOST DOUBLE FOR THOSE MEMBERS THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, THOSE CLASSIC MEMBERS. AND SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE NUMBERS ON TRANSPARENT CALIFORNIA, THEY DO NOT GIVE YOU THOSE DETAILS. AND THAT IS PART OF THOSE, THE DIFFERENCES IN THE BENEFITS.

THANK YOU, CHRISTY.

COUNSEL.

SURE. JUST THANK YOU FOR YOUR TEAM AND THANK YOU AGAIN.

THIS IS OUR THIRD MEETING TALKING ABOUT THIS. THE STATUTORY IS 2. BUT I REALLY APPRECIATE COMING AND WALKING US THROUGH THIS AND KEEP WALKING US THROUGH THIS SO THAT OUR RESIDENTS REALLY SEE THIS AS WELL. AND I ALWAYS AGAIN ASK YOU ABOUT THE RESERVES AND WHEN I STARTED, THE RESERVES WHEN I STARTED WERE AT.

AT ONE POINT IT WENT DOWN TO ABOUT 26, 25% AND WE BROUGHT THOSE RESERVES BACK UP. AND YES, THEY ARE ONLY BASED ON OUR. NOT OUR REVENUES BUT ON OUR EXPENDITURES AND OUR LEFTOVER DIVIDED BY THAT. SO APPRECIATE THAT. SO IF WE BRING DOWN OUR EXPENDITURES, OUR RESERVES ARE BETTER AND IT'S GOOD AS EVEN MY HOUSEHOLD BRINGING DOWN OUR EXPENDITURES. LESS MONEY GOING OUT MEANS MORE MONEY IN MY HOUSE. I TRY TO TELL MYSELF THAT NOT MY WIFE, BUT APPRECIATE HOW THAT WORK. I APPRECIATE THAT AND APPRECIATE COMING TO US MULTIPLE TIMES AND THEN ALSO NOT JUST IN HERE IN MAY AND JUNE, BUT HAVING A RETREAT AND COMING AND TALKING ABOUT WHAT WE ARE USING AND COMING AS A WHOLE MEETING AND HAVING RESIDENTS COME THERE.

THIS HAS BEEN OUR SECOND YEAR BUILDING THE BUDGET FOR THAT AS WELL. SO APPRECIATE THE CITY AND WORKING WITH US AND REALLY BRINGING IT OUT FORWARD TO OUR COMMUNITY.

MR. JOHNSON, TRACY, I KNOW YOU PUT IN A LOT OF EFFORT, A LOT OF TIME TO APPRECIATE.

NO, THANK YOU TO YOU AND YOUR TEAM AND TO ALL THE DEPARTMENT HEADS. I KNOW THAT WE HAVE INSTRUCTED YOU GUYS TO GO BACK MULTIPLE TIMES TO TRY TO, YOU KNOW, TAKE BLOOD OUT OF A TURNIP OF A STONE, WHATEVER THE SAYING IS, THAT I'M SCREWING UP BECAUSE IT'S NOW 10 O'. CLOCK. BUT THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR HARD WORK. I DO THINK, YOU KNOW, THE WORK IS NOT OVER IN THE SENSE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THIS BUDGET IN FRONT OF US, BUT WE STILL HAVE YEARS THAT WE HOPE THAT THE CITY CONTINUES. SO WE'RE GOING

DITTO.

[03:20:02]

TO HAVE TO KEEP BEING CREATIVE AND KEEP THINKING ABOUT WHAT WE CAN DO. BECAUSE I THINK YOUR POINT IS WELL TAKEN THAT THE SERVICES OR THE THINGS THAT PEOPLE ENJOY MOST ABOUT THIS CITY ARE MADE POSSIBLE BY THE PEOPLE WHO WORK IN THIS CITY. AND SO I DON'T TAKE THAT FOR GRANTED, NOT ONE BIT. BECAUSE I'VE LIVED IN OTHER PLACES WHERE YOU CALL AND YOU ASK FOR SERVICE OR YOU SEEK HELP FROM, WHETHER IT'S POLICE OR FIRE OR PUBLIC WORKS OR WHATEVER IT IS AND YOU MIGHT NOT GET A RESPONSE RIGHT AWAY.

BUT LA VERNE IS KNOWN FOR BEING RESPONSIVE TO ITS CITIZENS AND SO I APPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH. SO THANK YOU.

DITTO.