Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - October 18, 2017LODI CITY COUNCIL REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING CARNEGIE FORUM, 305 WEST PINE STREET WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2017 C-1 Call to Order / Roll Call The City Council Closed Session meeting of October 18, 2017, was called to order by Mayor Kuehne at 6:30 p.m. Present: Council Member Chandler, Council Member Johnson, Council Member Mounce, Mayor Pro Tempore Nakanishi, and Mayor Kuehne Absent: None Also Present: City Manager Schwabauer, City Attorney Magdich, and City Clerk Ferraiolo NOTE: Mayor Pro Tempore Nakanishi arrived at 6:34 p.m. C-2 Announcement of Closed Session a) Conference with Adele Post, Human Resources Manager, and Andrew Keys, Deputy City Manager (Labor Negotiators), Regarding Lodi City Mid-Management Association, AFSCME General Services and Maintenance & Operators, Police Mid-Managers, Lodi Police Officers Association, Lodi Police Dispatchers Association, Lodi Professional Firefighters, Lodi Fire Mid-Management, and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Pursuant to Government Code §54957.6 (CM) C-3 Adjourn to Closed Session At 6:30 p.m., Mayor Kuehne adjourned the meeting to a Closed Session to discuss the above matter. The Closed Session adjourned at 6:59 p.m. C-4 Return to Open Session / Disclosure of Action At 7:04 p.m., Mayor Kuehne reconvened the City Council meeting, and City Attorney Magdich disclosed the following action. Item C-2a was discussion only with no reportable action. A. Call to Order / Roll Call The Regular City Council meeting of October 18, 2017, was called to order by Mayor Kuehne at 7:04 p.m. Present: Council Member Chandler, Council Member Johnson, Council Member Mounce, Mayor Pro Tempore Nakanishi, and Mayor Kuehne Absent: None Also Present: City Manager Schwabauer, City Attorney Magdich, and City Clerk Ferraiolo B. Presentations B-1 Quarterly Update from Greater Lodi Area Youth Commission (PRCS) Commissioners Tasha Shukla and Harlie Litton provided an update on the Greater Lodi Area Youth Commission activities. Ms. Shukla reported that the Commission has returned to its regular meeting schedule following summer break and is in the process of planning the Pig Skin dance 1 scheduled for November 11, 2017. Ms. Litton stated the Commission is also considering a food or toy drive, as well as some holiday service projects. B-2 Legislative Update by League of California Cities Representative, Stephen Qualls (CLK) Stephen Qualls, League of California Cities Regional Public Affairs Program Manager, provided a PowerPoint presentation regarding the 2017 legislative wrap up. Specific topics of discussion included 2017 legislative summary; Democratic/Republican makeup of Legislature; the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017; affordable housing; Local Planning and Authority, AB 649 Small Cells; marijuana and public safety; CalPERS and PEPRA; cap and trade; 2017 League goals; and grassroots efforts. Mr. Qualls thanked City Council and staff for its support and recognized City Manager Schwabauer for the outstanding work he has done on pension reform at both the local and State level. Further, he thanked Council Member Mounce for her hard work and efforts serving as the League of California Cities president last year, adding she did an outstanding job. RECESS Mayor Kuehne called for a recess, and the City Council meeting reconvened at 7:40 p.m. C. Consent Calendar (Reading; Comments by the Public; Council Action) Council Member Mounce made a motion, second by Council Member Chandler, to approve the following items hereinafter set forth, except those otherwise noted, in accordance with the report and recommendation of the City Manager. VOTE: The above motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Member Chandler, Council Member Johnson, Council Member Mounce, Mayor Pro Tempore Nakanishi, and Mayor Kuehne Noes: None Absent: None C-1 Receive Register of Claims in the Amount of $7,334,471.24 (FIN) Claims were approved in the amount of $7,334,471.24. C-2 Approve Minutes (CLK) The minutes of September 26, 2017 (Shirtsleeve Session), September 26, 2017 (Special Meeting), and October 3, 2017 (Shirtsleeve Session) were approved as written. C-3 Adopt Resolution Rejecting Non-Responsive Bid from Nevco, and Awarding Bid for Purchase of Four Scoreboards from Daktronics, of Brookings, South Dakota ($30,873.26); and Further Approving Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for Scoreboard Installation Project (PRCS) This item was removed from the Consent Calendar at the request of Council Member Johnson Council Member Johnson stated that Lodi Sister City Committee president Bill Hinkle expressed some concerns regarding this project during the break and requested the item be postponed in order to give Mr. Hinkle an opportunity to discuss the matter with the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Director. City Manager Schwabauer responded this was not a time-sensitive matter, and Council agreed to hold the matter over to the next meeting. C-4 Adopt Resolution Authorizing City Manager to Execute Professional Services Agreement Regarding Software Support and Maintenance for Police Department’s Dispatch, Records, Jail, Report Writing, and Property Room Software System with Superion, LLC (Formerly SunGard Public Sector), of Lake Mary, Florida ($156,292.53) (PD) 2 Adopted Resolution No. 2017-194 authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement regarding software support and maintenance for Police Department's dispatch, records, jail, report writing, and property room software system with Superion, LLC (formerly SunGard Public Sector), of Lake Mary, Florida, in the amount of $156,292.53. C-5 Adopt Resolution Establishing Minimum Standards for Property Assessed Clean Energy Programs within City of Lodi (EU) Adopted Resolution No. 2017-195 establishing minimum standards for Property Assessed Clean Energy Programs within City of Lodi. C-6 Adopt Resolution Regarding Evaluation of Energy Storage Systems for Lodi Electric Utility in Compliance with Assembly Bill 2514 (EU) Adopted Resolution No. 2017-196 regarding evaluation of energy storage systems for Lodi Electric Utility in compliance with Assembly Bill 2514. C-7 Receive Report Regarding Communication Pertaining to San Joaquin Council of Governments’ Fiscal Year 2017 TIGER Grant Application (CLK) Received report regarding communication pertaining to San Joaquin Council of Governments' Fiscal Year 2017 TIGER grant application. C-8 Set Public Hearing for November 1, 2017, to Consider Adopting Resolution Setting San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan Development Fees for 2018 (CD) Set public hearing for November 1, 2017, to consider adopting resolution setting San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan Development Fees for 2018. D. Comments by the Public on Non-Agenda Items THE TIME ALLOWED PER NON-AGENDA ITEM FOR COMMENTS MADE BY THE PUBLIC IS LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES. Public comment may only be made on matters within the Lodi City Council's jurisdiction (Government Code Section 54954.3, Lodi City Council Protocol Manual Section 6.3l). The Council cannot take action or deliberate on items that are not on this agenda unless there is an emergency and the need to take action on that emergency arose after this agenda was posted (Government Code Section 54954.2(b)(2)). All other items may only be referred for review to staff or placement on a future Council agenda. Craig Hoffman invited Council and the public to attend the 12th Annual Oktoberfest on Saturday, October 28, 2017, at the American Legion and requested Mayor Kuehne tap the ceremonial first keg during the event. Last year, this fundraiser raised $8,300 for the American Legion. As in the past, half of the proceeds remain with the American Legion and the other half with the Rotary for vocational academic scholarships. Doors open at 4:30 p.m., and the family event will include music and dancing. Interim Fire Chief Gene Stoddard announced the Fire Department is kicking off an event to promote a greater following on Facebook in order to better communicate public safety announcements, information on fireworks, and matters of importance to the public. Lodi Fire will have a treasure hunt starting October 25, 2017, for four weeks to search for a hidden coin using clues posted on its Facebook page. The winners will be entered into a drawing for four seats on the Fire Department's Santa Truck in the parade of lights. The drawing will take place on December 2, 2017, at the Lowe's parking lot along with the Santa Truck, which will be offering pictures with Santa. In response to Mayor Kuehne, Chief Stoddard confirmed the Pink October Fire Department shirts are still on sale. 3 Mushtaq Tahirkheli stated he plans to make it a habit to come to Council meetings and commented that he still has received no answers from Council Members to his e-mails and letters. Further, he complained that the Transit Station signage regarding parking is confusing and should be moved. With regard to the homelessness situation, he stated that he brought up the subject at the last meeting, but Council has yet to take action on resolving the matter. Council Member Chandler responded to Mr. Tahirkheli that he is uninformed on this matter, pointing out to him that Council held a joint meeting with the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors the night before on October 17, 2017, to discuss the homelessness situation. Had he attended the meeting, he would have heard reports on dozens of efforts that both the City and County have made, as well as many other agencies and volunteers. Lodi is recognized as a leader in addressing the homelessness issue. He requested that, in the future, he come to the meetings better prepared before criticizing Council. E. Comments by the City Council Members on Non-Agenda Items Mayor Pro Tempore Nakanishi provided a report on the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority, stating that County Supervisor Chuck Winn was asked to form an ad hoc committee. Previously, the Authority was considering a $3 million grant that required a $1.5 million matching share. If each of the 17 members of the Authority paid equally, it would cost $88,000 over a three- year period. Since then, the Authority has determined the plan can be completed for $2.1 million and will ask for a $2.7 million grant. The Department of Water Resources will be asked to contribute half of the amount; the County will contribute $450,000; and the Authority members will cover the remaining $670,000, which is $13,000 each over two-and-a-half years. The grant application will be submitted next month, and, if approved by the Authority, it will then come before Council for approval. Council Member Mounce stated it was positive to hear at last night's meeting with the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors how Lodi is taking the lead on the homelessness situation. There are several committees on this issue, a plan is in place, time has been invested in the Police Department, and a liaison was appointed specifically for outreach to the homeless. She was, however, disappointed with the Board of Supervisors who claimed at the meeting that the County does not have a homeless problem and that, rather, it is a city problem. She stated the County is responsible for Lodi and all of its cities, adding there is a significant homeless population living on the river, which is in the County's jurisdiction. Council Member Mounce stated that, if not for city voters, the Supervisors would not be in these positions. At the meeting, there was discussion about how each city should pay for the continuum of care position at a total cost of $167,000; however, there was no evidence the County would be participating financially, other than from grants from the cities. She stated she fought hard at the League of California Cities and with Senator De Leon for the No Place Like Home ballot initiative that enabled California counties, which deal directly with mental health and housing, to receive shares of $2 billion a year for housing. Lodi and other small cities do not have mental health departments or housing authorities. This money will provide housing for mentally-ill Veterans, and she felt it is the responsibility of the Board of Supervisors to take care of them. She expressed how disappointed and upset she is with the Board for saying the homeless problem is a city problem. Mayor Kuehne reminded the public to purchase a pink or blue shirt from the Lodi Fire Department and a pink patch from the Lodi Police Department to help fight cancer. F. Comments by the City Manager on Non-Agenda Items None. G. Public Hearings G-1 Public Hearing to Consider Introducing Ordinance Amending Lodi Municipal Code Chapter 13.20, “Electrical Service,” by Repealing Section 13.20.185, “Schedule CSS – California Solar Initiative Surcharge,” and Reenacting as Follows, “Schedule RES – Renewable Energy Surcharge” (EU) 4 Notice thereof having been published according to law, an affidavit of which publication is on file in the office of the City Clerk, Mayor Kuehne called for the public hearing to consider introducing an ordinance amending Lodi Municipal Code Chapter 13.20, "Electrical Service," by repealing Section 13.20.185, "Schedule CSS - California Solar Initiative Surcharge," and reenacting as follows, "Schedule RES - Renewable Energy Surcharge." Electric Utility Director Elizabeth Kirkley reminded Council that staff previously informed Council it would like to discuss the California Solar Initiative Surcharge and options to address renewable energy requirements prior to the State-mandated surcharge sunsetting in December 2017. Ms. Kirkley provided a PowerPoint presentation on the matter. Specific topics of discussion included CSI Solar Surcharge (Schedule CSS), background, customer solar installations, Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS)/carbon free requirements, eligible RPS resources, Lodi Electric Utility resources, current RPS requirements, proposed requirements, financial impact of requirements, monthly customer bill impact, options, and staff recommendation. Council Member Mounce pointed out that, traditionally, two-year bills do not have successful outcomes and questioned why Electric Utility believes Senate Bill (SB) 100 with the increased renewable requirements will be successful. Ms. Kirkley stated the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) Legislative and Review team, as well as staff at the Capitol, feel strongly this particular piece of legislation will pass; although, some of the details may change to make it more palatable. Council Member Mounce stated she would prefer not to make plans based on a two- year bill that may ultimately not pass. Council Member Chandler pointed out that, although this is a two-year bill, there is significant pressure in the legislature for renewable energy, and he believed the City should be ahead of the game. In response to Mayor Kuehne, Ms. Kirkley confirmed the requirement for solar is 1/8 of a cent, which for the average user equates to $0.69 on the bill. Mayor Pro Tempore Nakanishi stated the City is in a difficult position because of the renewable requirement, which creates a dilemma for the City on how to handle the matter. Council Member Chandler agreed this is a difficult challenge relative to the costs facing the City; however, he stated he would not support the recommendation to continue the surcharge because he believes if a sunset is built into a rate, it should be honored as promised to constituents. He stated that, if the State pushes cities in the future, Council can reconsider the surcharge then. Mayor Kuehne stated the surcharge initially went to fund solar, which was paid by all customers; however, only those installing solar systems benefitted from the money. The program ended, and the City met its obligation. He stated he believes it would be disingenuous to continue collecting the money and use it for future fiscal responsibilities. He stated the City should cross that bridge at the time if the State hands down another mandate. Council Member Johnson agreed with his fellow Council Members that this is a difficult dilemma for the City. He stated he understands the suggestion of letting this surcharge sunset and returning to citizens to re-implement the surcharge if the State hands down another unfunded mandate; however, he stated he believes the public will not fully realize the surcharge is a result of State action; only that the City is implementing it. With the ever-changing regulations, he questioned what utilities are doing to push back, to which Ms. Kirkley responded it depends on the demographics throughout the State because each community has a different environmental sustainability plan. She stated staff continues to work with NCPA on this issue and pointed out that some utilities are supportive of the renewable energy requirements. City Manager Schwabauer added that communities such as San Francisco, Palo Alto, and Los Angeles have green-power dedicated councils. Council Member Mounce pointed out that the Governor, as well as supporters of SB 100, have terms expiring in 2018 and 2019, which may have some effect on this two-year bill. She 5 encouraged lobbyists to tell those running for office and for re-election that their dollars will be held back because that is the only way to get to decision makers. With regard to this bill, the Governor signed all bills for this year and SB 100 still has to go through Committee and pass the Assembly and Senate, after which it is up to the Governor to vote for the bill or veto it next October. She stated she is hopeful there could be a change in decision makers on this bill after the upcoming election cycle. Council Member Chandler added there are positive efforts being extended on this piece of legislation that could recalculate the figures for large hydroelectric power. He questioned what portion of Lodi's portfolio is large hydro, to which Ms. Kirkley replied 14 percent. She added that, as written now, large hydro is not allowed. Mayor Kuehne opened the public hearing for public comment. Mike Lusk stated that, because this is not a Proposition 218 issue, he is neutral on whether or not to continue the surcharge. In response to Mr. Lusk, Ms. Kirkley confirmed the City no longer needs to collect the surcharge for solar rebates. Mr. Lusk questioned if the City will increase electric rates substantially if $600,000 is not collected with the proposed continuation of the surcharge. Ms. Kirkley stated there is no date scheduled yet for rate adjustments and that staff will review all revenue requirements to ensure there is enough to pay all expenses. Mr. Lusk stated he understands the proposed surcharge would no longer subsidize private solar installations and that it would be used on solar contracts now and into the future. In response to Mr. Lusk, Ms. Kirkley stated the $600,000 would offset the $1.1 million for renewable energy, but would not fully pay the requirement. The current bill being discussed would add another million for a total requirement of $2.1 million. Patrick Byron concurred the City is experiencing a shortage of funds on this and many other issues, including the pension crisis, and is stuck with unfunded mandates from the State; however, he stated he believes the average citizen would not understand whether a surcharge on the bill is coming from the State or the City. He pointed out there are other ways to generate money that the City is not taking advantage of and pointed to the upcoming agenda item relating to medical and adult-use marijuana. The City Manager earlier pointed out the communities of San Francisco and Los Angeles are doing well and have renewable energy; however, both communities receive revenue from cannabis. He suggested Council consider all options and think outside of the box. There being no further public comments, Mayor Kuehne closed the public hearing. In response to Council Member Mounce, Mr. Schwabauer clarified the $1.1 million is for on-going costs that exist today as required by current legislation. Ms. Kirkley added that is the average cost per year under current requirements and stated she would provide Council with the exact figures. The City is currently meeting the requirements under SB 350, which is the current legislation; however, there will be difficulties in meeting the increased levels going forward. Mayor Kuehne summarized the City will meet the current requirements through 2021/22, but will struggle after that point. Deputy City Manager Andrew Keys stated the City is good on paper until 2022, but it will need to begin socking away power with advanced purchases instead of waiting until then. The longer the City waits, the more power will cost. In response to Council Member Johnson, Mr. Schwabauer reiterated this surcharge would raise $600,000 a year; if both renewable energy bills were in place, it would cost roughly $2.1 million to meet those requirements; and without the surcharge, the City will be $600,000 behind the curve. As it currently stands, the City has a $1.1 million guaranteed exposure and would be behind by $600,000. In response to Council Member Mounce, Mr. Schwabauer confirmed that the solar surcharge was previously going toward rebates, but the proposed continuation would go toward renewable energy purchases. 6 In response to Council Member Chandler, staff confirmed that no citizen letters or e-mails were received on this issue. Council Member Mounce made a motion, second by Council Member Chandler, to allow the California Solar Initiative Surcharge to sunset as scheduled on December 31, 2017, with the option of bringing the matter back at a later date if necessary. VOTE: The above motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Member Chandler, Council Member Johnson, Council Member Mounce, Mayor Pro Tempore Nakanishi, and Mayor Kuehne Noes: None Absent: None H. Communications – None RECESS Mayor Kuehne called for a recess, and the City Council meeting reconvened at 8:49 p.m. I. Regular Calendar I-1 Introduce Ordinance Amending Lodi Municipal Code Title 9 – Public Peace, Morals, and Welfare – by Repealing Chapter 9.30, “Medical Marijuana,” in Its Entirety; Amending Lodi Municipal Code Title 8 – Health and Safety – by Repealing Chapter 8.30, “Marijuana Cultivation,” in Its Entirety; and Further Enacting Chapter 8.30, “Regulation of Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis,” within the City of Lodi (CA) City Attorney Janice Magdich provided a presentation regarding ordinance pertaining to medical and adult-use cannabis. Specific topics of discussion included the City's initial ban on medical dispensaries; amendment to ordinance to regulate cultivation and delivery; passage of Proposition 64, the Control, Regulation, and Tax Audit Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA), which established a system to legalize, control, and regulate cultivation, processing, manufacturing, distributing, testing, and sale of non-medicinal cannabis; requirements for State licensing and enforcement by three agencies - Department of Consumer Affairs, Department of Food and Agriculture, and Department of Public Health - which are tasked with, and are still in the process of, creating regulations to govern their areas of responsibility; issuance of licenses to begin on January 2, 2018; provision for local control of cannabis activities relating to commercial sales; no local bans on personal use and indoor cultivation of up to six plants; two licensing and regulatory schemes for medicinal and adult use of cannabis combined under one bill known as Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA); following approval of MAUCRSA, Lodi's adoption of an ordinance disallowing delivery of medical cannabis within City limits, banning outdoor cultivation, and limiting cultivation to inside residential; additional amendments to MAUCRSA in September 2017 for cities to have an ordinance in place before January 1, 2018, detailing which activities are permitted or not; and in the event an ordinance is not in place before the deadline, the State's ability to issue licenses for commercial retail operations for the sale of adult-use cannabis or growing operations for cultivation. Ms. Magdich reviewed the regulations under AUMA relating to personal use allowances, restrictions on personal use, transport of cannabis, and cannabis tax. In response to Mayor Kuehne, Ms. Magdich stated that honey oil is not concentrated cannabis. Council Member Mounce added that concentrated cannabis is in vapor similar to cigarettes. In further response to Mayor Kuehne, Ms. Magdich stated that current law does not list churches as a restricted location for smoking cannabis. She pointed out there can be no distinguishing between tobacco and cannabis by restricting one and not the other. Ms. Magdich stated there is a 15-percent State excise tax on recreational cannabis, but medicinal cannabis is exempt from State and local taxes. Other forms of excise taxes can be levied on the local level for recreational or medical, including cultivation, manufacturing, and business licensing taxes; however, that would have to go to the voters on a ballot. Ms. Magdich reviewed the 7 existing City of Lodi code regulations and staff recommendations as detailed in the staff report. City Manager Schwabauer pointed out that, if Council takes no action on this item, the time to have any kind of regulations on adult-use cannabis will lapse and there will be no rules in Lodi. He stated the recommendation is to adopt the ordinance as proposed or with minor adjustments. If Council wants to consider a tax, he recommended it adopt the proposed ordinance to put regulations in place and allow time for staff to put forth a ballot measure. Council can always change the ordinance at a later date. Ms. Magdich stated the soonest a tax measure can be taken to the voters is November 2018 for a general tax, and she pointed out that the three enforcement agencies have yet to finalize their regulations. She agreed with the City Manager that, if Council is inclined to consider retail establishments for adult use, it allow time for the regulations to be set and tested. She stated many people believe money from this tax is a panacea, but it is an all-cash industry that comes with public safety concerns because it increases crime for both the buyer and the purveyor. Council Member Chandler asked the City Attorney to explain the delivery clause for medical marijuana in the proposed ordinance. Ms. Magdich stated there is an exception to delivery that does not include those who transport medical cannabis to a qualified patient or person with an identification card serving as a caregiver; therefore, a caregiver can purchase medical cannabis outside of Lodi, bring it into Lodi, and give it to the person for whom they are caring. Delivery is defined as commercial delivery, but drivers for out-of-town businesses delivering to a neighboring community cannot be stopped or prohibited when passing through Lodi. Council Member Mounce expressed support for allowing commercial delivery of medical cannabis to patients in Lodi and would like to see that amendment made to the proposed ordinance. Afterward once the regulations are in place, she stated she would like this on the ballot to see if citizens want this in their community. That is too great a decision for Council to make, and voters should have a say. She stated that medicinal marijuana has helped a lot of ailing people, California voters decided this is what they want, and she believes it was wrong for legislators to try to change the law without letting voters decide. Council Member Mounce stated there needs to be compassion toward those who do not have the means or mobility to get their medications and that delivery should be allowed because not everyone has family or caregivers to help in this regard. In response to Mayor Kuehne, Ms. Magdich stated the direction is up to Council. A majority of Council previously voted not to allow delivery; therefore, the recommendation is to continue the ban on medical delivery and add the ban of adult-use cannabis. She stated that, if a majority of Council would like to allow delivery of medical cannabis in the City, it include specific language to protect the City. With the aid of an overhead, Ms. Magdich reviewed the proposed language to include requirements that a medical dispensary be licensed by the State of California and in good standing with the City; it register with the Lodi Police Department so the City knows who is coming into the community to deliver medical cannabis; it notify the Lodi Police Department within 24 hours if there is a change in drivers; it update its information January 1 of each year to ensure the business is still licensed; and it notify the Lodi Police Department promptly if its business is the target of a crime in Lodi that resulted in a theft of money or product. Mr. Schwabauer cautioned that the standards of what qualifies as medical marijuana is so broad that it is almost meaningless and that, as long as one has a medical cannabis card, anyone can deliver the product. He wanted to ensure Council was aware that the exception to permit delivery of medicinal cannabis is a significant allowance. Council Member Johnson agreed that putting this on the ballot would be the ultimate expression of the will of the people in Lodi; however, he pointed out the interest on this issue has dwindled as compared to the past. The City received only three comments on this item and there is not an overwhelming groundswell of public interest as evidenced by what Council sees and hears at the meetings, which may mean people are ambivalent on this issue. Mayor Pro Tempore Nakanishi stated he is opposed to dispensaries but is compassionate toward ailing individuals who need the product; however, he was not aware of how extensive the use is, which will make it more difficult on the Police Department. 8 Council Member Mounce pointed out that three outspoken members from the past have since passed away, but she promised Robin Rushing she would have an open mind on this issue. She stated it is foolish for anyone to think medical marijuana is not already being delivered illegally and she does not want ill people arrested for getting their medicine. She stated she believes this is going to happen one way or another and that, while she is not a fan of cannabis in general, she believes the City is leaving money on the table and the voters should decide what to do. Mayor Kuehne stated he has had personal exposure to medical marijuana with ailing family members and understands its benefits; however, he was concerned about opening the door for deliveries and prefers to see how everything flushes out after January. He stated he would support the ordinance as written. In response to Council Member Chandler, Mr. Schwabauer stated that, if medical cannabis dispensaries are allowed, Council can add language later for the Police Department to recover costs for enforcing the delivery system, subject to a fee set by resolution. Mayor Pro Tempore Nakanishi expressed concerns with delivery and dispensaries and is leaning toward prohibiting both. Council Member Mounce stated that, despite the opportunity for crime on a variety of levels, she still believes delivery of medical marijuana takes the crime out of people who are very sick. She stated she believes now is the time to correct the ordinance with regard to medical marijuana delivery and worry about the other piece after January 1, 2018, when the legislation passes. Mayor Pro Tempore Nakanishi commended staff for bring this issue forward and stated he believes a majority of citizens in Lodi do not want marijuana in Lodi based on the complaints of smell and the time Police spends enforcing the matter. He stated that many Americans are addicted to opioids and that youth steal opioids from drug stores; therefore, dispensaries will attract criminal activity. He shared that a Stockton City Council Member has two dispensaries in his district that he no longer wants because they are unsafe. He stated that, as a physician, it is illegal for him to write a prescription for medical marijuana. He supports the ordinance as written. Patrick Byron spoke in support, stating he uses marijuana for medicinal purposes and is very passionate about this issue. He stated that medical marijuana can be used for almost any ailment and provides an alternative to opioids and other dangerous drugs that do more harm than good. He opined that most cannabis users do not come to meetings because public opinion has made them criminals. He stated he operates a non-profit cannabis business with the goal of helping people. Mr. Byron stated the proposed ordinance makes medical cannabis outdoors a misdemeanor, which may be a violation of the Compassionate Use Act. He believes there is a demand in Lodi for medicinal cannabis and asked whether Council prefers delivery by a regulated business with background checks or criminals running an unsafe product through the black market. Some time ago, he submitted a Public Records Act request for information relating to criminal problems and incidents relating to marijuana for the last 10 years, and the City had no responsive records; therefore, he suggested there is no evidence that marijuana is a public nuisance. He stated people should have a choice to use cannabis and pointed out the City has many events that openly promote drinking and sell alcohol. Chelsey Taylor spoke in support, stating that every day she witnesses the struggles her boyfriend, Patrick Byron, has with his ailments, as well the benefits he receives from medical cannabis. With regard to an earlier comment, she explained that concentrates come in oil form as mentioned, as well as in hash, kief, resin, and rosin, and there are many products out there for specific needs. She stated this business is not based solely on cash, but also relies on money orders from credit unions and grocery stores. She suggested that, if the delivery aspect is concerning to Council, it could consider a medical or recreational dispensary in Lodi to eliminate the fear of deliveries from outside locations. The ordinance could also state that only drivers from local dispensaries can deliver and only one pre-paid delivery can be made at a time. In that case, the driver would not have cash on hand and only a set amount of product. She stated that dispensaries are very secure because of the requirements and that a local dispensary would eliminate the black market that already exists. 9 Mushtaq Tahirkheli spoke in opposition to allowing marijuana in Lodi, stating the product is bad, controlling usage will be difficult, and anyone can get the product. He urged Council not to allow marijuana because it will likely turn Lodi into Stockton and add a greater burden on the Police Department. Council Member Johnson made a motion, second by Mayor Pro Tempore Nakanishi, to introduce Ordinance No. 1947 amending Lodi Municipal Code Title 9 - Public Peace, Morals, and Welfare - by repealing Chapter 9.30, "Medical Marijuana," in its entirety; amending Lodi Municipal Code Title 8 - Health and Safety - by repealing Chapter 8.30, "Marijuana Cultivation," in its entirety; and further enacting Chapter 8.30, "Regulation of Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis," within the City of Lodi. VOTE: The above motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Member Chandler, Council Member Johnson, Mayor Pro Tempore Nakanishi, and Mayor Kuehne Noes: Council Member Mounce Absent: None I-2 Adopt Resolution Approving Classification, Job Description, and Salary Range for Position of Executive Administrative Assistant; Adding One Executive Administrative Assistant Position; Deleting One Secretary to the City Manager Position in the City Manager’s Office; and Deleting One Legal Secretary Position in the City Attorney’s Office (CM) City Manager Schwabauer introduced the item regarding the classification, job description, and salary range for the position of Executive Administrative Assistant, stating this action would combine two positions into one. The incumbents in the two positions are retiring, and, while it will be impossible to replace them, staff felt it was an opportunity to realize a savings with the combination. Deputy City Manager Andrew Keys provided a presentation on the matter. Specific topics of discussion included financial forecast and the need to take advantage of vacancies that arise by nature of attrition, consolidating duties among staff, no direct impact on residents, additional burden on staff that may affect work product at the current pace, financial benefit to City of $109,000 per year, and recommendation. Mr. Keys stated if staff becomes overwhelmed with this change, it will reconsider the direction. Council Member Johnson stated he supports the recommendation with the caveat that staff must speak up if the burden becomes too difficult. A lot of duties and functions will be funneled through this individual who will work for the City Manager, City Attorney, Deputy City Manager, Finance Director, Business Development Manager, and new Risk Manager at a higher level. Council Member Mounce expressed her appreciation for the two retiring employees, Secretary to the City Manager Susan Lake and Legal Secretary Peggy Nicolini, stating they are amazing individuals and she will miss them greatly. City Attorney Magdich concurred with Council Member Mounce, stating they will be difficult to replace and have provided a significant amount of assistance to both divisions. She stressed the importance of leading by example and that, while both divisions will take on greater clerical and administrative duties, this does represent a great cost savings. She assured Council that staff will come back in the event this does not work out well. Council Member Mounce made a motion, second by Council Member Chandler, to adopt Resolution No. 2017-197 approving classification, job description, and salary range for the position of Executive Administrative Assistant; adding one Executive Administrative Assistant position; deleting one Secretary to the City Manager position in the City Manager's Office; and deleting one Legal Secretary position in the City Attorney's Office. 10 VOTE: The above motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Member Chandler, Council Member Johnson, Council Member Mounce, Mayor Pro Tempore Nakanishi, and Mayor Kuehne Noes: None Absent: None J. Ordinances – None K. Adjournment There being no further business to come before the City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:58 p.m. ATTEST: Jennifer M. Ferraiolo City Clerk 11