[{"_1":2,"_134":-5,"_135":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111,123],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6383803,"mediaKeyId","2123613-2cb7879dd558ddd2eb68b835dc62727d","parentId",2123613,"title","Votes at a glance: Ridgecrest City Council, Jan. 15, 2025","audioSeconds",5728,"startMs",48000,"endMs",5776000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2123613-2cb7879dd558ddd2eb68b835dc62727d&start=48&end=5776","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2123613-2cb7879dd558ddd2eb68b835dc62727d/thumbnail_48000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6383803/Ridgecrest/Kern-County/California/Votes-at-a-glance-Ridgecrest-City-Council-Jan-15-2025","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6383803-d593c2c9c6b02aa0365d15d8280a179b/orig.mp4?Expires=1773618924&Signature=Of3FgshBol~kLmjHkRxpqwrpVacLO~Zu2ejEm3ELimogsO3jzMzFoBydaksnc8KEyChN2-7kG9geYxXeFzZFP-n5b5EtGrKG5Fd6YOU6bmGDh2V48rJP5uf~RgZ91reeRvJwcarXAFoy-9zn2S-7iZk-GQMRM6XWu9iT9U-RlHsNpNWJIW3uawPSNz3d060Ytuow9hhAzln6WL1U~7rlnuyEfiKNgfUWJ950M6hYfN6kvo2hwQDwFLf9dxB-8~U9DMcbnvfjr2S~g57aIAVP1AlDcJaCEm1px3tnvweSuoFSFhijnJUhduHg-f9I1PCTJZtQeW-w4BWQV8S6zQAbww__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Ridgecrest CA","date","2025-01-16T16:38:25Z","article","This page summarizes formal council votes recorded at the Jan. 15 Ridgecrest City Council meeting. For debated items that required substantive discussion, see separate coverage (for example, the Sergeant Piney Aquatic Center financing and police items).

Agenda approval
- Motion to approve agenda as amended (move item 9 ahead of item 4): Passed 5–0.

Consent calendar (three items)
- Reestablish accounting supervisor classification: Approved (part of consent motion).
- Authorize extension of UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine spay‑neuter grant (date correction noted from 2024 to 2025): Approved (consent); staff corrected the clerical date in the resolution before the vote.
- Proposed FY 2025–26 budget increase to purchase police equipment: Approved (consent).
Vote on consent calendar: 5–0.

Item 9 — Financing authorization for Sergeant Piney Aquatic Center
- Motion: Approve financing documents and authorize execution of certificates of participation to finance construction and equipping of the new aquatics facility, with staff amendments. Outcome: Approved, 5–0. (See separate article for full details.)

Appointments (item 4 and related)
- Mayor Pro Tem: Kyle Blades nominated and appointed (roll call vote: 5–0).
- Vice Mayor: Roger Rajaratnam nominated and appointed (roll call vote: 5–0).
- Planning Commission appointments (multiple incumbents and new nominees): Motion to approve appointments carried 5–0 (nominees included Cody (last name as presented), Bernie Mondragon, Vanessa Hayman, Warren Cox, Bill Ferris; see minutes for full list).
- Personnel Commission, Construction Appeals Board, Handicap Access Appeals Board and other citizen appointments were approved by roll call votes (all recorded as 5–0 in the meeting minutes). See official minutes for full roster and expiration dates.

Item 7 — Police staffing
- Motion: Increase authorized police officer positions from 32 to 33. Approved 5–0. Staff noted ongoing costs will be worked into future budgets and that FY 2024–25 salary savings offset initial expense.

Item 8 — Body‑worn camera contract
- Motion: Authorize five‑year agreement with LensLock for body‑worn cameras, in‑car video, connectivity and redaction services and approve related appropriations for FY 2024–25. Approved 5–0. Staff presented program costs and a phased deployment schedule.

Recordkeeping note: The meeting recorded unanimous votes on the above items. Council did not adopt or vote on surveillance policy changes, SB 54 enforcement policies, or the resident’s electrical dispute; those matters were raised during public comment and will require separate agenda items for council action.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City Council Meeting 1/15/2025","oneSentenceSummary","Summary of formal votes taken at the Jan. 15 Ridgecrest City Council meeting; includes consent calendar approvals, appointments, the pool financing authorization, and public‑safety items.","taxTitle","Ridgecrest, Kern County, California","taxId",52022,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6383805,"Resident seeks city help after Edison halts above‑ground meter plan for West Church Avenue build",415,689000,1104000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2123613-2cb7879dd558ddd2eb68b835dc62727d&start=689&end=1104","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2123613-2cb7879dd558ddd2eb68b835dc62727d/thumbnail_689000.jpg","/articles/6383805/Ridgecrest/Kern-County/California/Resident-seeks-city-help-after-Edison-halts-aboveground-meter-plan-for-West-Church-Avenue-build","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6383805-8ca3a73c79cbcc173a099587ea9bf0dc/orig.mp4?Expires=1773618924&Signature=BLuJFmNVL0PkFOXqPge5BfmIgZLxwiKZyQdgCjTGauzWV3lhAE94VzmuGg3Lffr15nll2IEiYZhdh5R2SoBJEczT04fNfEwAM4WIkduhxE87JFQjnOxns1go6zeOewo~3nmQFzZ0CtDpZciHeVwYXY~EaM4iqV6Wd2bKZgQ-T-zMgrh3qHhYu0vNuE--N2Y7GhumjsRQLwniR4POhhEyEIH65cfOVcbHlSXSrQICl~pmUqXE4DRvkTw4EDSslciBzsOqMU1nYLels6WWKvfiU6oaiFwmBG4EQZO3AiA-gFF4xsn3axK3XL8-xeLzF3ySQC1KjAKNnNdCRRyIDheGYQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Tony Rosa, a Ridgecrest resident, used the public‑comment period at the Jan. 15 council meeting to describe an ongoing dispute with Southern California Edison over electrical service for a home he is building at 313 West Church Avenue.

Rosa told councilmembers he received building permits in 2018–19 to build at the address and that Edison had initially approved an electrical release reflecting overhead service and a meter at the rear of the property. After he submitted the release, he said Edison informed him the Ridgecrest neighborhood in question requires underground electrical service and declined to honor the prior release. Rosa said he had spent months trying to get Edison to accept the release and that building‑department staff pointed him to a subdivision‑related undergrounding ordinance; Rosa said the ordinance language did not appear, in his reading, to apply to an individual historic lot and asked the city to instruct Edison to honor the previously issued release so he could finish the project.

City response: City manager Ron (last name not specified) said he would respond in his city‑manager comments and later told the council that the building department had reviewed the matter. He said city policy requires underground electrical service for new builds and that the correct procedural path for a resident who believes an exception is warranted is to request a variance or file an appeal with the planning commission. Ron stated staff had met with Rosa and provided guidance on available administrative remedies; Rosa said he had previously met with staff but did not pursue an appeal.

Rosa estimated he had invested substantial savings and said the delay had cost him money; city staff told the council they would follow up with the resident. No council action was taken during the meeting; staff said the resident would be given the process steps and that he could file for a variance or appeal if he wished.","A Ridgecrest homeowner told the council he received permit approvals to install above‑ground electrical service to 313 West Church Avenue but Edison declined to honor the release, citing a local undergrounding ordinance; the city manager said the ordinance requires underground service for new construction and explained appeal options.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6383813,"Speakers ask Ridgecrest council to affirm enforcement of California Values Act (SB 54)",448,1967000,2415000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2123613-2cb7879dd558ddd2eb68b835dc62727d&start=1967&end=2415","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2123613-2cb7879dd558ddd2eb68b835dc62727d/thumbnail_1967000.jpg","/articles/6383813/Ridgecrest/Kern-County/California/Speakers-ask-Ridgecrest-council-to-affirm-enforcement-of-California-Values-Act-SB-54","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6383813-42df9c1b299cb1f8fbcd70333621975e/orig.mp4?Expires=1773618924&Signature=GKeXsv8~itJ-Qx4Vc28AKWydo5v7RPpZPFAWLwAKSPrE1odNgMYUNN4XuwiZvspMqsju8jsMSMOV08F~HKRVX3Ks0VjU4N585YcixfqhwAGqBzHAOWd4mgr~aQhMK5zBYgBGVP5RKhsyDRb7LYZxAp6a~Mc0LoM3w5R6e2ZzYkrIJYOqtoPuiS~rSP9U~lxkHe-c2zp2-nGgIQTtk8W2dx5D9ezhjRoFJa0Hbt-4hsbEhnpsiyt7Vp2hWL8qeKBDObWBaIP~2g1DKZMarP2rXyXIbQ9~yQEQ6W5ssLl6QTAgRm1TYzLBEHGyCVqHXbYiPGWEv0ZnNvThE8HrPclEPA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","During public comment at the Jan. 15 Ridgecrest City Council meeting, two residents urged the council to affirm the city’s support for SB 54 — the California Values Act — and to sign a local policy limiting inquiry into or reporting of immigration status except where state law or public‑safety needs require it.

Katie (last name not given) described organizing a parents group for Spanish‑speaking families and said many parents were reluctant to use city services because of fears about immigration enforcement. She asked the council to \"sign a policy that prevents local law enforcement from reporting the immigration status of individuals unless it relates to a serious crime investigation.\" Katie said the community needed \"peace of mind\" and that the policy would help make schools and public services more accessible.

Charles Williams, who spoke after Katie, told the council he supported SB 54 because it protects access to essential services while excluding \"serious offenders\" from protections, and he urged the council to reaffirm its commitment to enforcing the statute and its protections.

Council response: Councilmembers did not adopt or endorse a policy during the meeting. The speakers’ comments were heard during public comment, and no formal agenda item or motion on SB 54 enforcement was placed before council. Council members asked clarifying questions about the legislation and where the matter might be agendized for future discussion.

Context: SB 54 (the California Values Act) limits local and state law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration enforcement in many routine circumstances, while preserving cooperation for serious criminal matters as defined in state law. Speakers framed their requests as seeking clearer local affirmation of that statutory approach and a council‑level policy statement to reassure immigrant families.","Two residents asked the council to publicly commit to enforcing SB 54 (the California Values Act) and to adopt a city policy that limits local law‑enforcement cooperation with federal immigration enforcement to serious crimes.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6383815,"Residents urge council to restrict city use of surveillance analytics and camera networks",437,1359000,1796000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2123613-2cb7879dd558ddd2eb68b835dc62727d&start=1359&end=1796","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2123613-2cb7879dd558ddd2eb68b835dc62727d/thumbnail_1359000.jpg","/articles/6383815/Ridgecrest/Kern-County/California/Residents-urge-council-to-restrict-city-use-of-surveillance-analytics-and-camera-networks","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6383815-912b302d6cf2989230e3b7193667d928/orig.mp4?Expires=1773618924&Signature=XGVSumgw52X7xeP5fy6uJxMVHthpdW0U9bxI8ksfvt~GPG7uBn-zxiNFFtiB2FHTKDHbuLgBoUhzEQRnK28wttb~tv20pIINcFzCIaolPmlNYXIEtvs~n0~Tt0qYPz2qjbabTX9GoEksYz4y4ToQBxLi2q4umlXfU0koD6bamdbCAo6Jw9jdlsvS40VhpgT35ANTDbkjfSjsd8SBM6BDr6VySXhIgTssaH66xbl7wbb6AksEmHwPcHMzXQ06gED8EwhoHPt4KmvlYqq6OB~JA72Tj2gSxaru83L~~2WpbG8~OZm3d1AS2FRSb1XvpQJXif1e9KSolZkLIjAjEy08qw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","During public comment at the Jan. 15 Ridgecrest City Council meeting several residents urged the council to reconsider the city’s use of surveillance analytics and automated tracking technologies.

What speakers said: Mike Veil, a Ridgecrest resident, told the council he opposed the city’s use of PlaceAI (referred to in the meeting as \"placer AI\") and the Flock license‑plate‑style camera network, saying both collect metadata and create persistent tracking records of people who spend time in public. \"Track that data far enough and you know exactly who you're looking at,\" Veil said, arguing the systems can turn aggregated signals into identifiable profiles and ultimately erode privacy.

Joe Shermer, a retired law‑enforcement officer who spoke later, said his understanding was the camera system is only activated for incidents but warned that incident records can cascade into multiple incident numbers and extend recordings indefinitely. Another caller, Ronald Porter, asked for clearer Brown Act agenda descriptions for closed session items and repeated concerns about always‑on recording, saying, \"Once it's on the server, it stays there.\"

Calls for action: Speakers urged local limits and broader policy change. One resident advised constituents to contact state and federal legislators to pursue digital‑privacy legislation; others asked the city to put a local stop to purchases or use of analytics and to clarify retention and access policies for existing camera footage.

City response: Council members and staff acknowledged the concerns. One councilmember said an in‑town stop to purchases or funding was possible and could be combined with work at the state or federal level; the city manager did not announce a policy change during the meeting but said staff would follow up on individual requests and complaints raised by speakers.

What was not decided: The council did not take formal action on surveillance technology at this meeting. No ordinance, policy or directive restricting or expanding the city’s use of analytics was put before council; speakers urged further study and potential policy action.

What to watch for: Residents requested clearer public disclosure about what systems capture, who can access the data, retention schedules and whether vendor redaction or deletion procedures are auditable. Council staff acknowledged follow‑up would be needed to answer specific questions about data retention and operational access.","Multiple residents raised privacy and civil‑liberties concerns about PlaceAI (metadata analytics) and the Flock camera system during public comment, asking the council to curb city use of the technologies or to seek state/federal restrictions.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6383820,"Ridgecrest OKs 33rd police officer position and five‑year body‑camera contract",436,8443000,8879000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2123613-2cb7879dd558ddd2eb68b835dc62727d&start=8443&end=8879","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2123613-2cb7879dd558ddd2eb68b835dc62727d/thumbnail_8443000.jpg","/articles/6383820/Ridgecrest/Kern-County/California/Ridgecrest-OKs-33rd-police-officer-position-and-fiveyear-bodycamera-contract","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6383820-e846f93e3e6ca37fc789799b3d260cff/orig.mp4?Expires=1773618924&Signature=UqqRRSkVN-lPMBNbvS-Y6rL9z2giCTyPP-ijxFvSNepdERssvlrspniFna2EMah-VsBdMpVWYMYdfUfwBew5UNqgXB421OCeUPioDT3NbpcITrR3DNr0jG1HVFwHtOohxin7yWlR2yqczUn1Coyk6WTKSaPARqbs09Lmy~f8eyAnn6Btj0fihyyILxqM0b9wxjw7cLCN3V4brB0RAojXr6wPLqRlm6b-hSNJNEDT~kn12u566mbN3t~vg4AQN2YTwFn5ooymFoQ6jWWBxfQwuZFo5CbHH28X9FqMVLMMQUl-RxpS1TGzE98mfX-W977Of9fuYJOqY1datExGqfn4rQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Ridgecrest City Council on Jan. 15 approved two public‑safety items: an increase in the authorized police officer count from 32 to 33, and a five‑year contract with technology vendor LensLock for body‑worn cameras, in‑car video, cloud storage and CJIS‑compliant redaction services.

Chief (name not specified in the record) told the council that the department has averaged about 4.5 officers of attrition per year over the past decade and currently had officers in training, officers in the academy pipeline and several officers on injury leave. He said the additional position gives the department flexibility to recruit and place a trainee in the academy so the department can maintain full operational staffing over time. The council approved the personnel increase by unanimous vote, with staff estimating an ongoing cost of roughly $83,525 annually if the position remains in the baseline budget; salary‑savings for the 2024–25 fiscal year cover initial costs.

On body‑worn cameras: The council also approved (5–0) a five‑year services and equipment agreement with LensLock, which staff selected after vendor comparisons and community meetings. Chief told council members and members of the public that LensLock was chosen in part because it offers in‑person FBI CJIS‑compliant redaction services, an important consideration for privacy and public‑records requests. Staff said the company will ship equipment and a phased deployment will place body cameras on officers within weeks and outfit patrol vehicles over the following months.

Costs and budget treatment: Staff provided a multi‑year cost summary. The presentation showed an estimated first‑year program cost of roughly $129,500 (largely equipment and initial installation), followed by annual service costs of about $83,600 for the remaining contract years, with an approximately $14,000‑per‑year estimate for Verizon connectivity in marked patrol cars. Staff said the total five‑year implementation figure discussed with LensLock was about $547,190. Staff also noted that LensLock agreed to a deployment schedule that avoids a significant immediate fiscal year impact by staging vendor charges to align with the city’s July 1 budget year; however the city will need a one‑time appropriation in FY 2024–25 of roughly $72,100 to cover Verizon cards for marked patrol vehicles.

Privacy and policy: Chief said the department drafted a camera policy that governs when cameras are activated, retention schedules and redaction procedures. He said the policy generally requires officers to activate cameras during enforcement or other designated interactions, but allows limited discretion for certain privacy‑sensitive locations (for example, medical treatment areas) where no law‑enforcement purpose exists. The department and LensLock representative said redaction capabilities and limited public release are part of the vendor service.

What council approved: The council voted unanimously to add the 33rd officer slot and to enter the five‑year agreement with LensLock, and authorized the budget adjustments necessary for the FY 2024–25 partial‑year costs. Staff will include ongoing contract costs in the FY 2025–26 budget cycle and said it would return with implementation details and training plans.

Council members who spoke supported the measures as a way to stabilize staffing and to increase transparency and training opportunities. The chief said officers and the local officers’ association supported the camera deployment.","Council voted 5–0 to add one police officer slot to help offset steady attrition and to authorize a five‑year contract with LensLock for body‑worn cameras, in‑car video and related services; staff said the program will be deployed in phases and initial hardware/Verizon connectivity costs will be covered in the current budget year.",{"_33":124,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":125,"_41":126,"_43":127,"_45":46,"_47":128,"_49":129,"_51":130,"_53":131,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":132,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":133,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6383825,"Council authorizes lease financing to move forward with Sergeant Piney aquatics center",2775,3001000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2123613-2cb7879dd558ddd2eb68b835dc62727d&start=3001&end=5776","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2123613-2cb7879dd558ddd2eb68b835dc62727d/thumbnail_3001000.jpg","/articles/6383825/Ridgecrest/Kern-County/California/Council-authorizes-lease-financing-to-move-forward-with-Sergeant-Piney-aquatics-center","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6383825-273957d2d513ccbe8ec438364e8398e8/orig.mp4?Expires=1773618924&Signature=asyZlV2O2UJR-bIzhwPtOROkFA2odOw7sXoNDbx4CTSTMsg3-F5qji09u~16JgtFdPn-aznZpVtvdAtj0l-dfXyFyAOe8TzpdJEDt0RCCjecsKn7h2KuKYICsapladTXdiO7E0HBkeu~9Bb37Gocsz70T76hG~TnXe8RU83qgFpmvOWDCMl8SnwdYPryuJmqpM-Q5Rd8PJq-fX1pX7pSpE8hfkAm9zWBlOZVCzXq~HDfO0SqGO1JlZLlERMXSgxDq5KOfhqOMQG5yzbWhRu4NQB6PiTxjD4Pw6jesDSNid5PquGIq4y8rR28IX-DXvVijFNFVkUS-HhojiIJv9VwaQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Ridgecrest City Council on Jan. 15 authorized the city to proceed with lease‑back financing in the form of certificates of participation to fund construction and equipping of the Sergeant Piney Aquatic Center.

The council approved a resolution (motion passed 5–0) that authorizes the form of financing documents and directs the city manager, finance director, city clerk, mayor and vice mayor to execute the documents required to issue the securities and close the loan, with staff to return as needed for final approvals.

Why it matters: The project is the largest capital undertaking the city has advanced since passage of Measure P. Council discussion focused on how much of Measure P reserves to use as a down payment, how the debt service will be impounded over time, and how the financing schedule fits the city’s bid and construction timetable.

City staff and the city’s financial advisers outlined the structure at length. Rob Pankratz of the city’s financing team said the transaction will use a lease/leaseback structure common in California municipalities: the city will use an unencumbered municipal asset as the leased collateral, lease it to a counterparty and receive proceeds that fund the pool construction; the city then makes lease payments that are assigned to a trustee to pay debt service. Bud Levine and representatives from Hilltop Securities and Stradling Law joined the presentation.

Key numbers discussed by staff and the financing team included an estimated par issuance in the $13.1 million range (staff modeled a not‑to‑exceed par amount in the resolution), an anticipated premium of about $1.1 million and total sources near $14.37 million under the advisers’ early estimates. The team noted an updated all‑in true interest cost (AIC) in market motion was about 3.76% at the time of pricing work, and target closing was set for Feb. 27, 2025. Staff said the full pool purchase price is budgeted at roughly $17 million and that the financing schedule allows for value engineering once bids are received.

Down payment options and reserves: Staff presented scenarios using $3 million, $6 million and $9 million of Measure P reserves as a down payment. The staff recommendation and council preference coalesced around a $6 million down payment funded from Measure P reserves to preserve general‑fund unassigned reserves and still support available cash over the nine‑plus year financing horizon. With that approach staff estimated an annual debt service payment of about $1.1 million and an impound (reserve) payment of roughly $0.5 million per year to smooth final years’ obligations, producing an approximate annual draw on Measure P of $1.6 million while the financing is outstanding.

Next steps: With council approval the financing team will publish a preliminary official statement, market the certificates, price the offering and return with closing documents. Council members and advisers noted they will return to accept construction bids and award construction contracts once competitive bids are received.

Council reaction: Several councilmembers said the $6 million approach best aligned with the commitments made to Measure P voters and would keep the city’s general fund reserves at healthy levels while allowing the project to move forward. The motion to approve with the staff’s amendments carried unanimously, 5–0.","Ridgecrest City Council approved a certificates-of-participation lease financing plan to fund construction of the Sergeant Piney Aquatic Center and directed staff to finalize related documents; council and finance advisers discussed sizes of a down payment, debt-service estimates and a target closing date.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: Ridgecrest City Council, Jan. 15, 2025

Resident seeks city help after Edison halts above‑ground meter plan for West Church Avenue build

Speakers ask Ridgecrest council to affirm enforcement of California Values Act (SB 54)

Residents urge council to restrict city use of surveillance analytics and camera networks

Ridgecrest OKs 33rd police officer position and five‑year body‑camera contract

Council authorizes lease financing to move forward with Sergeant Piney aquatics center