[0:25] [Music]

[1:27] All right. Good afternoon. I'm going to

[1:29] call this uh special meeting four

[1:31] o'clock special meeting to order. Madame

[1:33] clerk, would you please call role?

[1:35] >> Council member Dinus

[1:36] » Council member Dinus

[1:36] >> here.

[1:37] » here.

[1:37] >> Council member Dedric

[1:38] » Council member Dedric

[1:38] >> here.

[1:38] » here.

[1:38] >> Council member Temple, acting mayor

[1:40] » Council member Temple, acting mayor

[1:40] Carwin

[1:41] >> here.

[1:41] » here.

[1:41] >> And Mayor Estrada is absent.

[1:43] » And Mayor Estrada is absent.

[1:43] >> Thank you. Uh Council Member Dinus,

[1:44] » Thank you. Uh Council Member Dinus,

[1:44] would you please lead us in the flag

[1:45] salute?

[1:50] » Ready, begin.

[1:51] >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the

[1:54] » I pledge allegiance to the flag of the

[1:54] United States of America and to the for

[1:57] which it stands, one nation under God,

[2:01] indivisible, with liberty and justice

[2:03] for all.

[2:06] » You haven't lost your touch.

[2:10] All right, we've got uh one discussion

[2:12] item on our special agenda today, a

[2:14] public safety services community

[2:17] facilities district. Um, Director

[2:20] Hickey, would you please introduce the

[2:21] item?

[2:33] Okay. Uh, good afternoon, acting mayor,

[2:36] members of the city council, city staff.

[2:39] I'm Travis Hiki, CFO of the city, and

[2:42] it's my pleasure to be here today to

[2:43] present the first portion of the

[2:45] workshop for the consideration of a

[2:48] public safety community

[2:50] uh, facilities district or CFD.

[2:55] I would like to thank the executive

[2:56] office including the city manager for

[2:58] their time and leadership in the overall

[3:00] direction of this project. I also want

[3:03] to thank Spicer Consulting Group, deputy

[3:05] finance director Margarita Cornnejo and

[3:08] financial analyst Lori Lockwood for

[3:10] their tremendous efforts to bring this

[3:12] all together.

[3:15] Do we have the slides available?

[3:29] Okay. Uh so in every uh project or

[3:32] program the city initiates, the

[3:34] foundation starts with the five

[3:36] strategic goals and priorities of our

[3:38] strategic plan. The proposal for the

[3:40] public safety CFD really revolves around

[3:43] the goals and priorities of the thriving

[3:46] economy and the safe and safe and

[3:48] vibrant community. Overriding principles

[3:51] of the thriving economy involve planning

[3:53] for long-term sustainability and

[3:55] diversifying the city's revenue sources

[3:59] for the safe and vibrant community. This

[4:01] involves maintaining the city as one of

[4:03] the safest cities where residents and

[4:04] visitors are secure in their

[4:06] neighborhoods and surrounding spaces.

[4:12] So before we look closer at these

[4:14] priorities, I wanted to go back to some

[4:17] information that we provided to the city

[4:18] council a month ago at the joint meeting

[4:21] with the planning commission provided on

[4:23] December 17th of last year. I know the

[4:26] slides are a little bit small, but we

[4:28] just it's just more kind of for context

[4:30] and a reminder of what we talked about.

[4:32] Here we see some of the slides from the

[4:34] presentation provided by Urban 3 as part

[4:37] of their revenue per acre analysis. In

[4:40] the upper left, we see the graphical

[4:42] representation of the city's general

[4:44] fund and quality of life budgets

[4:46] totaling hund00 million. On the left

[4:48] side in green, we see the various

[4:50] revenue streams with the two largest

[4:53] unrestricted sources being sales tax and

[4:56] property taxes totaling 15 $59 million.

[4:59] Another $31 million is generated from

[5:02] licenses, permits, and fees where much

[5:05] of that is charges for services and

[5:07] covers the cost of those services. So,

[5:09] the vast majority of funding to pay for

[5:11] things like public safety comes largely

[5:14] from sales tax and property tax. On the

[5:17] right side in red, we see the

[5:19] expenditures with public safety

[5:21] accounting for $56 million or nearly all

[5:24] of the property tax and sales tax. In

[5:27] that upper right quadrant, we see an

[5:28] analysis analysis of the impact that

[5:31] Prop 13 has on the value of property

[5:34] taxes in California. Prop 13 protects

[5:37] homeowners from property taxes not

[5:39] escalating more than 2% per year.

[5:42] However, that's regardless of how the

[5:44] cost of city services increases.

[5:47] Property tax values are reset every time

[5:49] a property is sold, creating a major

[5:52] variance in the property taxes one

[5:54] homeowner pays for services relative to

[5:56] other homeowners based on how long they

[5:59] have owned the property. You can see an

[6:01] example in the chart where the value per

[6:04] acre is significantly different for

[6:05] various homes in the same neighborhood

[6:08] based on the year of purchase.

[6:10] On the lower right, we see the impact

[6:12] that CFD CFDs have made to diversify the

[6:16] city's revenue streams and somewhat

[6:18] counteract the impact of Prop 13 on the

[6:20] base property taxes. Those neighborhoods

[6:23] with service CFDs are represented with

[6:25] green layers on their parcels and

[6:28] provide ongoing revenue to provide

[6:30] needed services to those developments,

[6:32] including street maintenance, landscape

[6:34] maintenance, traffic signal maintenance,

[6:36] and more.

[6:40] Shifting back to the city's strategic

[6:42] plan objective of supporting long-term

[6:44] sustainability, we see here the many

[6:46] needs and challenges facing the city. We

[6:49] have needs for new and existing

[6:51] infrastructure, including ongoing

[6:53] pavement management activities, a $1

[6:55] billion five-year capital improvement

[6:58] program, and new public facilities for

[7:00] virtually all of our functional areas,

[7:02] including city hall, police department

[7:05] headquarters, public works, maintenance

[7:07] operations center, and a community

[7:09] center. In our parks and recreational

[7:11] amenities and service areas, we have

[7:13] expanded programming, including the

[7:15] introduction of an aquatic program, the

[7:17] acquisition of additional open space,

[7:20] accepted new parks from ongoing

[7:22] development, and are pursuing an

[7:24] annexation process to transfer control

[7:26] of the parks of parks and rideway

[7:30] currently operated by the valleywide

[7:32] park and recreation district.

[7:35] In building a fiscally resilient and

[7:37] strong city, the city remains committed

[7:39] to proactively managing the unfunded

[7:42] costs of the city's pension and OPED

[7:44] liabilities and establishing healthy

[7:46] reserves for both emergencies and

[7:48] planned uses such as ongoing capital

[7:50] outlay needs.

[7:52] And with all of these competing

[7:54] priorities, the city still holds public

[7:56] safety within Meny as a top priority,

[8:00] including supporting equipment and

[8:01] everchanging technology to support

[8:03] public safety needs.

[8:06] So with all of these needs comes

[8:08] pressure to build and diversify the

[8:10] city's revenue base and provide the

[8:12] funding to make Manif a premier, safe,

[8:15] thriving, and inclusive city to live,

[8:18] work, play, and stay.

[8:22] So, the city has done a tremendous job

[8:24] in diversifying our revenue streams.

[8:26] Regular citywide user fees and

[8:29] development impact fee updates keep

[8:30] revenues up to date with changes in

[8:32] development, costs of infrastructure and

[8:35] services, and changes in the economy.

[8:38] Negotiating various community benefit

[8:40] agreements has been a welcome relief in

[8:43] recent times with the economy leveling

[8:45] off. The agreement with Nova Battery

[8:48] Park generated a $5 million CBA along

[8:51] with a $1 million contribution towards

[8:53] the RBBD along with additional onetime

[8:56] sales tax for the cost of materials used

[8:59] in the construction of their site

[9:01] totaling over $15 million in the past

[9:03] two years. Had it not been for this

[9:06] one-time sales tax money last fiscal

[9:08] year, the city would have fallen short

[9:10] of budget projections.

[9:12] The city has also restructured its

[9:14] investment portfolio to maximize

[9:16] investment returns while also keeping

[9:18] the city's treasury safe and liquid. We

[9:21] are looking at multiple years in a row

[9:22] with investment earnings outpacing

[9:24] budget expectations. We also have a very

[9:27] active economic development program

[9:29] including the use of incentives to

[9:31] attract new businesses to the community

[9:33] which will drive growth in sales tax,

[9:35] quality of life funds, property taxes,

[9:38] transient occupancy taxes, and franchise

[9:40] fees.

[9:42] Since the voters approved the enactment

[9:44] of the quality of life measure, the city

[9:46] has remained committed to using the

[9:48] funds exclusively for public safety and

[9:50] infrastructure improvements. Regular

[9:52] meetings with the quality of life

[9:54] committee ensure that the public is

[9:56] vetting the use of these funds before

[9:58] they are presented to the city council

[10:00] for use. However, with all of these

[10:02] efforts, it is still necessary to

[10:04] prioritize a strategy further to diver

[10:08] further diversify revenue streams in

[10:11] support of ongoing services and

[10:13] infrastructure needs.

[10:16] So, this brings us to our topic for

[10:18] today, a public safety services CFD.

[10:21] A public safety services CFD is a

[10:24] legally defensible and sustainable

[10:26] mechanism to ensure that new development

[10:28] contributes its fair share towards the

[10:30] increased cost of public safety. I think

[10:33] the key here is to focus on the word

[10:35] increased. This is not a CFD to pay for

[10:38] existing service levels. This would be

[10:40] to pay for increased levels of services

[10:43] that are required because new

[10:44] development is coming into the city. To

[10:47] say it another way, it's a mechanism to

[10:49] ensure that service levels do not

[10:51] decline to existing residents and

[10:53] business owners within the city.

[10:56] Shane will cover more specifics in a

[10:58] moment, but I want to mention that with

[11:00] new development, most residential

[11:02] parcels are paying property taxes at a

[11:05] rate of nearly 2%. This CFD would not

[11:08] change that rate. It would not add an

[11:11] additional tax to those owners. If the

[11:13] CFD does not move forward, the tax rate

[11:16] would still be up to 2%, but more

[11:18] funding would be made available to the

[11:20] developer of the project to be reimburse

[11:22] for the cost of facilities and fees

[11:24] connected to the project. It is true

[11:26] that the developer reimbursements would

[11:29] be paid off after 30 years when the

[11:32] bonds are paid off. However, we should

[11:34] also keep in mind that the need for

[11:36] those public safety services will not go

[11:38] away and that the fees connected to

[11:40] those properties only represent the

[11:42] incremental cost of those services due

[11:45] to the development coming into the city.

[11:48] The city had started the process of

[11:50] forming a public safety CFD back in

[11:52] 2015. However, the city council at the

[11:54] time chose not to move forward with the

[11:56] formation. Since 2015, many thousands of

[11:59] housing units have come to the city,

[12:01] representing several million dollars

[12:03] that the city would otherwise be

[12:05] receiving. Now, development continues,

[12:07] and if we act now, we can at least

[12:09] capture the remaining units yet to be

[12:12] developed to recoup that incremental

[12:14] cost for that growth. In June of 2025,

[12:17] the city council asked about a public

[12:19] safety CFD. At that time, the city

[12:22] engaged Spicer Consulting Group to

[12:23] perform a fiscal impact analysis for a

[12:26] potential CFD. In September of 2025,

[12:29] staff reviewed the results of the

[12:31] analysis with the finance committee,

[12:33] which recommended the item be brought

[12:35] forward to the full city council for

[12:37] review and discussion.

[12:39] At this time, I'll turn it over to Shane

[12:41] Spicer from Spicer Consulting Group to

[12:43] cover the results of the fiscal impact

[12:45] analysis and provide specifics of what a

[12:48] potential public safety CFD would look

[12:50] like.

[13:02] Thank you very much, Travis.

[13:04] So,

[13:07] so I'll cover a high level overview of

[13:09] the fiscal impact analysis and how does

[13:12] that translate into a proposed CFD uh

[13:16] structure. So, as was mentioned in 2015,

[13:21] um actually I was here doing the initial

[13:23] analysis and so it's funny 10 10 years

[13:26] later here we are again having the same

[13:28] conversation but much critical

[13:31] conversation needed. So, as uh Travis

[13:34] had mentioned, um you know, the city is

[13:37] intending is expecting uh a consistent

[13:41] level of development and consistent with

[13:43] the city's development impact fee

[13:44] analysis that was approved in 2022. Uh

[13:47] that's estimated that at 2020 2045

[13:50] population would grow up to 148,000. Uh

[13:54] at the time of our study, that's an

[13:56] increase of about 32,700

[13:58] new residents to the city.

[14:01] Using the city's current budget and

[14:03] service levels as a baseline, the

[14:05] analysis evaluates what it cost would be

[14:08] for ongoing general fund services to

[14:10] these new residents through development.

[14:13] Through this analysis, it anticipated

[14:15] that revenues for new development for

[14:17] residential would be approximately $41.2

[14:20] million.

[14:22] The general fund service costs for that

[14:24] same new development is estimated to be

[14:26] at $47 million. That new gen cost

[14:30] increase would consist of the addition

[14:33] of additional public safety service

[14:36] personnel to provide those additional

[14:38] services to that community.

[14:41] Between the revenues and the general

[14:43] fund service costs, the estimated

[14:45] negative general fund impact is $5.8

[14:48] million a year. And that majority of

[14:52] these service costs, as you as you well

[14:55] know, is with public safety. Uh the

[14:57] city's general fund estimates about 60%

[15:00] of those uh expenditures for public

[15:02] safety. That is consistent up and down

[15:04] the state and uh with all the other uh

[15:07] local communities that I do business

[15:09] with. Um it is very common to have that

[15:12] be a greater share of those costs. These

[15:14] public safety costs include police,

[15:16] fire, animal control.

[15:18] uh of that 60% expenditure and the

[15:21] shortfall that estimates to about $179

[15:24] per resident which translates to the

[15:26] rates I'll cover in a minute.

[15:31] So with CFDs uh CFDs to provide public

[15:35] safety services is not a new idea.

[15:37] Obviously we talked about it uh in 10

[15:40] years ago and they've been u implemented

[15:43] I've seen any some as far back as 2005.

[15:46] So for over 20 years, even though the

[15:48] law has been around for longer than

[15:50] that, they've been readily used for

[15:52] public safety. So it's not a novel

[15:54] concept. For this CFD, the proposed rate

[15:57] would be $525 per unit for single family

[16:00] residents and $411 per unit for

[16:04] multifamily.

[16:05] It's important to note that this is

[16:07] similar to the maintenance services CFD.

[16:09] So this is only on new development. So

[16:12] the existing community is not and

[16:14] expected to pay these CFD taxes.

[16:18] It is also important to note that with

[16:20] the CFD tax being established with the

[16:23] CFD uh there would be an escalator

[16:26] included. You know in the maintenance

[16:27] services CFD 2017-1 we have the greater

[16:30] of CPI or 2%. But public safety costs

[16:33] increase at a much greater rate than CPI

[16:36] does. And so the proposed CPI as with

[16:39] other uh public safety CFDs are tend to

[16:42] be greater. Proposed here is the greater

[16:44] of CPI or 4%. Now that is the maximum

[16:47] tax rate. It is up to the council of

[16:50] what amount to be levied annually for

[16:53] this public safety CFD or what percent

[16:56] of increase up to the maximum allowable

[16:58] can be applied each year.

[17:01] And as Travis mentioned, this does not

[17:04] change or modify the 2% effective tax

[17:07] rate that's uh already been adopted

[17:09] through the C city CFD goals and

[17:11] policies. And again, that 2% just to

[17:14] recap is based on the estimated home

[17:16] price at the time the C the properties

[17:19] are developed and up to 2% of that

[17:22] effect of that home value.

[17:25] with public safety CFDs they are an

[17:27] order of highest priority when it comes

[17:30] to determining that. So what that means

[17:32] is that that you have the base 1% ad

[17:34] valorum you have your maintenance or

[17:36] public safety CFD and then the balance

[17:38] is what would be eligible for facility

[17:40] financing if so asked by the developer.

[17:45] So how does that compare to the region?

[17:48] So there are quite a few CFDs in

[17:50] Riverside County. The proposed rate of

[17:52] $525 is actually below the region uh

[17:56] county average of $65 per single family.

[17:59] There's a wide range of rates in the

[18:01] county, ranging from $257 for city of

[18:04] Hemet up through over $1,500 for the

[18:08] city of Coachella. Each rate varies

[18:10] dependent on when they were uh formed

[18:12] and also based on the mechanics of the

[18:15] general fund that the cities operate

[18:17] under. I can't attest to some of these

[18:20] uh CFD tax rates of how they were

[18:22] determined, but I can tell you about a

[18:24] number of them as I formed these with

[18:26] these cities most recently just last

[18:28] year with the city of Marietta.

[18:31] So, one of the takeaways is that this

[18:33] tax rate is not an outlier. It falls

[18:35] well within the range of those CFDs that

[18:38] are in the county and wholly acceptable

[18:40] for the this type of CFD. With that,

[18:42] I'll turn it back to Travis.

[18:51] Okay, thank you Shane. Um, so if the

[18:54] council would like to move forward, the

[18:56] city would start communicating with

[18:58] developers that there is an intention to

[19:00] create a public safety CFD for new

[19:03] projects. This would be a new condition

[19:05] of approval for the project. We would

[19:07] also communicate with existing projects

[19:09] that have not finalized their conditions

[19:12] and would negotiate with existing

[19:14] projects on their conditions of devel

[19:16] and with development agreements uh to

[19:18] intemp attempt to incorporate the CFD.

[19:22] The actual formation of the CFD would

[19:24] happen concurrently with the cornerstone

[19:26] development starting with the finance

[19:28] committee before being brought to the

[19:30] city council for formation. Once the CFD

[19:33] is formed, future projects would be

[19:35] annexed into the CFD much in the manner

[19:38] projects are annexed into the existing

[19:40] maintenance CFD.

[19:42] The city would perform regular updates

[19:44] to the fees based on updated growth

[19:46] projections which could result in

[19:48] establishing a newer or updated public

[19:51] safety CFD in the future.

[19:56] So, the recommended action is to discuss

[19:59] and provide direction on establishing a

[20:01] public safety CFD to help fund essential

[20:04] city services for new development

[20:06] projects. And with that, be happy to

[20:09] take any questions.

[20:11] >> Thank you, Director Hickeyi. Um, at this

[20:13] » Thank you, Director Hickeyi. Um, at this

[20:13] time, uh, the city council is welcome to

[20:15] ask questions of staff. Again, this

[20:16] isn't for discussion. It's just

[20:18] technical questions of staff. So, do we

[20:20] have any, uh, questions based on the

[20:22] presentation?

[20:24] Council member Dinus.

[20:25] >> Thank you. Um,

[20:28] » Thank you. Um,

[20:28] so your projections for

[20:31] full buildout

[20:34] if every if if everything's built out

[20:37] the the 500 whatever dollars it was for

[20:41] the single family homes would continue

[20:43] to go on

[20:45] till the house is no longer there I

[20:47] guess forever. Um,

[20:51] so I guess the question is there's some

[20:53] way will there ever be a time where our

[20:56] as we grow in our

[20:59] retail and you know we have a we have

[21:01] toot taxes that you know with the hotels

[21:05] coming in so all that's taken into

[21:07] account and we would on an ongoing basis

[21:09] we'd be short that much money

[21:12] ongoing. Is that accurate?

[21:14] >> Yeah. So this is based on the current

[21:16] » Yeah. So this is based on the current

[21:16] budget structure. Um so uh and both the

[21:20] revenues and and uh expenditures were um

[21:24] escalated consistent with what would be

[21:26] conservative growth uh rec recognition.

[21:29] Um you know this is not you know this

[21:33] not something that is going to be the

[21:35] answer forever. It may need to be

[21:37] updated to be increased or it could be

[21:40] evaluated that okay the city has t taken

[21:42] on a lot more uh commercial development

[21:44] and we don't have to levy as much which

[21:47] has happened in other cities where you

[21:49] don't levy the maximum amount you know

[21:51] you're able to to cover more costs

[21:53] because you had a better performance on

[21:55] through your general fund activities. So

[21:57] this is to protect the city's general

[21:59] fund to the best of its ability with the

[22:02] current uh structure of the general

[22:04] fund. So this will this will not include

[22:07] any of the construction that's going on

[22:09] today.

[22:11] The homes are being built now. Nothing

[22:12] that's in in the pipeline mean for

[22:15] approvals and everything.

[22:16] >> Yeah. So the the typical approach is to

[22:20] » Yeah. So the the typical approach is to

[22:20] identify what would be the next project

[22:22] to come in. We need one project to be

[22:24] the cornerstone to form the project form

[22:26] the CFD. Typically if projects are

[22:28] already underway they're not likely to

[22:31] you know opt in. um at that point it

[22:33] would be voluntary because that project

[22:35] is already you know through its

[22:36] conditions and is not required to be

[22:39] included. You may find a part property

[22:42] that a project that may be already

[22:43] entitled that would want to participate

[22:47] you know and it be a negotiated

[22:49] discussion with the property owner in

[22:50] the city. So it's a business decision at

[22:52] that point and then future development

[22:54] would would automatically be conditioned

[22:56] to participate along with all other

[22:58] residential development.

[23:00] And is it correct that then all the uh

[23:04] special taxes collected for the CFD

[23:07] would be restricted to public safety use

[23:10] only?

[23:10] >> Correct. It is only limited to the

[23:12] » Correct. It is only limited to the

[23:12] public safety services, not towards uh

[23:15] capital improvements or anything of that

[23:17] sort.

[23:18] >> Okay, that's my questions. Thanks.

[23:20] » Okay, that's my questions. Thanks.

[23:20] >> All right, council members, any

[23:22] » All right, council members, any

[23:22] questions from down here? Council member

[23:24] Dedric.

[23:26] Council member Dinus took my first

[23:28] question, but my second one, it's capped

[23:30] at 2%, right? So, is that I know there's

[23:34] the 4% increase that's allowed each

[23:36] year. How does that how does that

[23:38] balance?

[23:39] >> So, the tax rate is going to be at 525

[23:44] » So, the tax rate is going to be at 525

[23:44] and then every year the maximum tax

[23:46] would be the greater of CPI or 4%. So,

[23:50] um that would just increase the ceiling

[23:52] on that CFD tax. How does that play into

[23:55] the 2% we were talking about? Again,

[23:57] this is the difference between the tax

[23:59] and the effective tax rate. So, the

[24:01] effective tax rate is capped at 2%. Um,

[24:04] and that's per the city's goals and

[24:06] policies. So, what that means is that

[24:10] when the home owner, the developer goes

[24:12] to sell his home after he factors in all

[24:15] the advalorum, the public safety, CFD,

[24:18] the maintenance, then he can only go up

[24:21] to that 2%. So, they're different. These

[24:23] are two different um items to

[24:25] >> that's at the initial sale.

[24:26] » that's at the initial sale.

[24:26] >> That's at the initial sale. And then

[24:28] » That's at the initial sale. And then

[24:28] after the initial sale, then the uh you

[24:31] know, if there's bonds, those taxes

[24:33] would be levied. Um and then the public

[24:35] safety services and maintenance

[24:36] services, all everything would be

[24:38] levied. Um but established at that 2% at

[24:41] the onset. Okay. Thank you.

[24:46] » I I got a couple questions. So there was

[24:49] you you had mentioned that uh developers

[24:51] who are currently in the works could opt

[24:53] in on a voluntary basis. Why would they

[24:56] do that?

[24:59] >> They might have some business incentive

[25:01] » They might have some business incentive

[25:01] to do so. Um typically though once

[25:03] they're already in under construction,

[25:05] they've already done all of their

[25:06] proforma, they've already secured their

[25:08] financing. It is highly unlikely that

[25:10] any development. Now you may have phased

[25:12] developments that you could have a later

[25:14] phase be potentially eligible to come in

[25:17] but then you know that's at it's not

[25:20] typical that you would find somebody

[25:21] that's already in process.

[25:23] >> So one thing that you mentioned I didn't

[25:26] » So one thing that you mentioned I didn't

[25:26] see a slide for it here but you said if

[25:27] we if we don't do this there's a

[25:30] developer payment that gets done that

[25:31] would sunset in 30 years. Explain that

[25:34] language to me. What what is it that

[25:36] would be paid out that would sunset in

[25:37] 30 years?

[25:39] That would be the facilities tax. So

[25:41] what what currently you is in existence

[25:44] is that you have a 2% effective tax

[25:47] rate. All right? And the developer forms

[25:49] a facility CFD, one of our CFDs that we

[25:51] formed those that facility CFD is

[25:55] secured to pay off a 30-year bond. So in

[26:00] reality, in 30 years, that CFD would go

[26:03] away. Okay. The problem is is that once

[26:06] in the current environment, the only

[26:09] other revenue source the city actually

[26:12] gets currently would be the maintenance

[26:13] services for ongoing maintenance. No

[26:16] public safety taxes to for above and

[26:19] beyond. Having the public safety CFD

[26:23] would cut into that 30-year tax that the

[26:26] developer would be getting, but the city

[26:28] would be able to continue to levy that

[26:31] public safety tax for perpetuity to

[26:34] provide those vital services once even

[26:36] once the bonds are are paid off. So

[26:38] >> So does this take the place of that bond

[26:40] » So does this take the place of that bond

[26:40] or does it pick up after the bond is

[26:42] paid off?

[26:43] >> It cuts into how much of the bond can be

[26:46] » It cuts into how much of the bond can be

[26:46] issued.

[26:47] >> I see. So what we're going to see is

[26:50] » I see. So what we're going to see is

[26:50] over the next 30 years the impact of the

[26:53] new development would be felt by the

[26:56] city and after 30 years that impact

[26:58] would continue but the payment for it

[27:01] would not. Is that basically what's

[27:03] going on here if we if we were to not

[27:05] implic uh institute this?

[27:07] >> Correct. If you did not institute this

[27:09] » Correct. If you did not institute this

[27:09] then you would not be recouping those

[27:12] increased service costs for public

[27:13] safety even after the bond is paid off.

[27:15] >> I see. And then is there a

[27:20] » I see. And then is there a

[27:20] is there a definition in the law

[27:24] surrounding this of new development? At

[27:27] what point it it would begin? Is it on

[27:30] occupancy? Is it on

[27:32] >> Yeah. So similar to our our our

[27:35] » Yeah. So similar to our our our

[27:35] maintenance services CFDs, what we

[27:36] typically do is based on only developed

[27:39] property after building permits are

[27:41] issued. So there would be a similar um

[27:44] annual administration component of

[27:46] reviewing new development and if there's

[27:48] a building permit that it made the cut

[27:50] off for that tax year then they would

[27:52] end up paying towards that CFD. If the

[27:55] building permit was after that cut off

[27:57] whatever we define May 1st then it

[27:59] wouldn't be picked up until the

[28:00] following year. But it's only new

[28:02] development. This would not be levied on

[28:04] undeveloped property there. The

[28:06] developers wouldn't be paying this. to

[28:08] be new homeowners and and and develop

[28:10] property that are pursuant to the rate

[28:12] and method that we would be establishing

[28:14] when we bring that back to the council

[28:16] for approval.

[28:17] >> And and who does the payment go to?

[28:20] » And and who does the payment go to?

[28:20] >> So, the payment would go to the county

[28:22] » So, the payment would go to the county

[28:22] and then remitt it to the city um as

[28:25] other uh portion of funds for a specific

[28:28] fund number that be designated for

[28:30] public safety restricted from the

[28:32] general fund. So in that path, do we end

[28:36] up back with a 100% of the assessed

[28:38] amount or does the county keep a portion

[28:40] of it on the way through?

[28:41] >> There there's a 30 cent charge for

[28:44] » There there's a 30 cent charge for

[28:44] putting it on the tax role. But um you

[28:46] know if there's delinquencies obviously

[28:48] that wouldn't come back to the city, but

[28:50] it would be essentially 100% of what

[28:53] gets enrolled comes back for public

[28:54] safety.

[28:54] >> So of the $525 the county would just

[28:57] » So of the $525 the county would just

[28:57] keep 25 30 cents of it and then the rest

[28:59] would come here

[29:00] >> pretty much. So they can't stop it along

[29:02] » pretty much. So they can't stop it along

[29:02] the way and divert it to their own

[29:04] funds. It just they're just mainly a

[29:06] pass through.

[29:06] >> Absolutely not. And we bring in this

[29:08] » Absolutely not. And we bring in this

[29:08] back to the council like all the other

[29:10] CFDs for annual review and approval and

[29:12] the resolution that we would need in

[29:14] order to submit to the tax role.

[29:16] >> In all of the cities that you have seen

[29:20] » In all of the cities that you have seen

[29:20] institute one of these, have there been

[29:22] any ever that have reduced or eliminated

[29:25] it?

[29:27] >> Well, reduced in the Okay. For example,

[29:29] » Well, reduced in the Okay. For example,

[29:30] um you know,

[29:30] >> like for example, I'll tell you exactly

[29:32] » like for example, I'll tell you exactly

[29:32] what I'm talking about. Maybe it'll help

[29:33] you answer your question. If in 15

[29:35] years, Han Road is fully built out with

[29:39] economic development and that's just

[29:40] cranking tax revenue for something like

[29:43] that and it would cover the cost of the

[29:45] public services.

[29:48] Do we just keep taking it anyway or is

[29:50] there a way for us to go, hey, we got it

[29:52] covered? Like the Coronado Bridge, hey,

[29:53] we got it covered. We don't need to

[29:54] charge you for it anymore.

[29:55] >> Yeah. there. So when the through the the

[29:58] » Yeah. there. So when the through the the

[29:58] annual audit uh budget review process um

[30:02] that's when you evaluate how much are

[30:03] you getting from all your uh

[30:05] discretionary funds or how much are you

[30:06] getting from your restricted funds and

[30:08] evaluate how much public safety costs

[30:09] are. I can tell you that I have seen

[30:13] instances where a city had froze the

[30:15] maximum amount and didn't increase the

[30:18] assessment for a couple years and and in

[30:20] one instance because if you recall there

[30:22] was a CPI at over 10%. Well, they didn't

[30:26] go to the 10%. They said, "Okay, we're

[30:28] good for we're levy the same amount we

[30:30] did last year." And they did that for a

[30:31] couple years and then they just started

[30:32] in incrementally increasing just

[30:34] recently. So, you could every three to

[30:38] five years, I would recommend anytime

[30:40] you update your development impact fee,

[30:41] your general plan or what have you, that

[30:43] we would re-evaluate the public safety

[30:46] uh fiscal impact analysis, determine are

[30:48] you right size on new development for

[30:50] public safety services. And that can

[30:52] also factor into how how you're

[30:54] evaluating your annual levies for your

[30:56] existing CFD tax rates for public

[31:00] safety.

[31:00] >> Would this payment be part of the

[31:02] » Would this payment be part of the

[31:02] impound on the mortgages or is it a

[31:05] separate cash issuance? Like is just a

[31:09] bill that the the homeowner would pay or

[31:10] is it rolled into the mortgage?

[31:11] >> It's an it's a it's part of the property

[31:13] » It's an it's a it's part of the property

[31:13] tax bill. So, it's a completely separate

[31:15] line item, completely separate from any

[31:18] uh you know, property tax line items and

[31:21] not part it could be impounded just like

[31:24] their other property taxes, but it just

[31:26] funneled through the county like your

[31:28] other assessments.

[31:29] >> Okay. So, it would be possible to

[31:30] » Okay. So, it would be possible to

[31:30] include it in the impound with the other

[31:32] taxes that are

[31:33] >> it would be. Yeah, exactly. In fact,

[31:34] » it would be. Yeah, exactly. In fact,

[31:34] they would be if they're impounding,

[31:36] >> right? That's what I was suspecting. All

[31:37] » right? That's what I was suspecting. All

[31:37] right. Uh those are all my questions.

[31:39] Council members, any other questions

[31:40] before we move on? All right. Um, madame

[31:43] clerk, are there any requests to speak

[31:45] on this item or has any correspondence

[31:46] been received on this item?

[31:48] >> There are none.

[31:49] » There are none.

[31:49] >> All right. Um, so at this time is when

[31:51] » All right. Um, so at this time is when

[31:51] we get to discuss our feelings and

[31:54] thoughts on this stuff and analyze what

[31:56] we've just been told. So, uh, who would

[31:58] anybody like to chime in on it?

[32:03] » I'll start.

[32:04] >> Thank you.

[32:05] » Thank you.

[32:05] >> All eyes are on me here for a second

[32:06] » All eyes are on me here for a second

[32:06] here.

[32:06] >> Well, you're the you're the finance guy,

[32:08] » Well, you're the you're the finance guy,

[32:08] so that's why we're all looking your

[32:10] way.

[32:10] >> A couple things. Yeah. Yeah. I

[32:11] » A couple things. Yeah. Yeah. I

[32:11] understand, you know, public safety is,

[32:14] you know, our highest priority here and

[32:17] we want to continue to make that so and,

[32:19] you know, continue to be one of the

[32:21] safest, uh, cities in the state. Um, so

[32:25] I I I understand where we're going

[32:26] there. I just I'm a little conflicted,

[32:28] you know,

[32:30] um, you know, we're putting the burden

[32:32] on our new residents, but their new

[32:34] residents are the ones that are going to

[32:36] cause the increase. Um, you know, as we

[32:39] add these things, it keeps shooting up

[32:41] the price of homes. That's my that's one

[32:43] of my part I'm I'm concerned on, but uh

[32:46] for the greater good. I understand why

[32:48] we need to do it. Um,

[32:51] c can I ask you to that point, you were

[32:53] here in 2015 when this was discussed,

[32:56] right? You were on council in 2015,

[32:59] >> No, you weren't here then.

[33:02] » No, you weren't here then.

[33:02] >> I was 2018.

[33:03] » I was 2018.

[33:03] >> 2018. Okay. Then I'll ask him when

[33:05] » 2018. Okay. Then I'll ask him when

[33:05] you're done. I I was going to ask you,

[33:07] but

[33:08] >> I can make up something.

[33:11] » I can make up something.

[33:11] Um, so I, you know, and

[33:16] my concern is, you know, the greater of

[33:18] of CPI or 4%. You know, your your

[33:23] example was, well, it got to 10%, so

[33:25] they decided not to do that. But there's

[33:26] nothing saying that that a future

[33:29] council can't say hey we're going to do

[33:31] the whole 10% just you know irregardless

[33:35] of what you know well benefits the

[33:37] residents or not that that's that's my

[33:39] largest concern doing that and um and if

[33:44] there could be some mechanism in the in

[33:46] this to say what you know I know it'll

[33:48] be looked at annually and re-evaluated

[33:51] but some way that you know that after

[33:54] that each year it we need to be able to

[33:56] either reduce it, eliminate it or pause

[33:59] it or something like that and not just

[34:02] continue on. I mean, I think it

[34:05] shouldn't be left necessarily to the

[34:07] discretion of, you know, oh, we don't

[34:10] need 10% this year. I mean, that's a lot

[34:12] for some homeowners to see, you know, a

[34:14] 10% increase in part of their property

[34:17] tax. So, I I'm I'm concerned about that.

[34:20] >> We we do have the option to include a

[34:23] » We we do have the option to include a

[34:23] cap if we would like to do that. We it's

[34:26] kind of not the default position because

[34:29] to protect the city in the event of

[34:31] sustained uh high CPI increases, but we

[34:35] could have it be 4% or CPI capped at 6%

[34:39] or 7%. I mean there we could establish a

[34:41] cap if we if the council would like to

[34:43] do that.

[34:44] >> You know, I just that's just my concern.

[34:46] » You know, I just that's just my concern.

[34:46] I'm think I'm putting myself in the

[34:47] shoes of of the new resident that comes

[34:49] in here after this has been approved and

[34:51] and implemented that, you know, here's

[34:54] just another line item on my tax bill

[34:57] and now I've been paying, you know, $500

[34:59] a month and all of a sudden there's a

[35:01] 10, you know, 10% 10%, you know,

[35:04] inflation, all a sudden it jumps up. You

[35:06] know, that would, you know, I hate to be

[35:09] the city council that I get all those

[35:10] phone calls when that happens. So, that

[35:12] that's my concern. uh if you know some

[35:14] way we can address that. I don't know

[35:16] what the other council members uh their

[35:18] concerns or if that's a concern at all.

[35:20] But that's one thing I just other than

[35:23] that I understand I I support it. Um it

[35:26] certainly does not impact our existing

[35:29] residents at all. So it's a it's a

[35:32] benefit to those that are living here

[35:33] now and it was just it is a a minimum

[35:37] amount for the future residents that

[35:40] would give them the enjoy the public

[35:42] safety that we enjoy now. But but my

[35:44] concern is then you know if it's if it

[35:47] goes up to 11 12% you know here was you

[35:50] know here what LA just you a couple

[35:52] years ago was 9% inflation here in

[35:55] Inland Empire that's that's a hard pill

[35:57] to swallow when you're going to raise

[35:58] everyone's you know uh rate by that

[36:04] thank you council member Temple you're

[36:05] next up

[36:07] >> yeah if if you want I can add a little

[36:10] » yeah if if you want I can add a little

[36:10] bit of color to that if if you'd like.

[36:12] So that's great. Um you know

[36:15] it is it is a a decision that the

[36:18] council gets to make. Um I know working

[36:20] with city staff you know there is there

[36:24] was a reluctance even to increase that

[36:27] um on maintenance services which was

[36:29] acceptable. It was a greater of CPI or

[36:31] 2% and we didn't go to the 10. So

[36:34] there's prudence that's exercised

[36:36] obviously but what that does is it just

[36:38] allows for that maximum to increase.

[36:40] doesn't mean that you levy that amount

[36:42] that maximum amount. So that's where you

[36:44] know even though the maximum could

[36:45] increase and as Travis mentioned you

[36:48] could have seven years in a row of 8%

[36:51] public safety cost increases and then

[36:52] how you you know you you can balance

[36:55] that right but even though the max goes

[36:57] up we're only increasing it by 4% each

[36:59] year so you still have the capacity to

[37:02] catch up in the future. So that's where

[37:05] you know you give have the give and take

[37:06] and then it becomes a decision of the

[37:07] council every year.

[37:09] >> There's be some analysis done each year

[37:11] » There's be some analysis done each year

[37:11] to saying you know here's what our

[37:13] anticipated public safety costs are over

[37:16] our baseline and this is how much

[37:18] revenue we anticipate. So therefore this

[37:21] is how much we should increase you

[37:23] whether we stay at 2% 4% or whatever uh

[37:26] to levy these taxes. I think that would

[37:29] to me give a lot of comfort knowing that

[37:31] we're just not doing it and you know,

[37:34] and storing money away, uh, but actually

[37:37] meeting the needs of the city without

[37:40] overcharging our residents.

[37:45] » Thank you, Council Member Temple.

[37:47] >> Yeah. Um, Shane or Travis. So, first of

[37:50] » Yeah. Um, Shane or Travis. So, first of

[37:50] all, um,

[37:52] where it does not increase the overall

[37:54] maximum property tax rate of 2%. We're

[37:56] just carving out a portion of that 2%

[37:58] instead of for the developers. We're

[38:01] taking that for this purpose. Correct.

[38:03] >> That's correct.

[38:04] » That's correct.

[38:04] >> Okay. Um, so I I actually really

[38:07] » Okay. Um, so I I actually really

[38:07] appreciate what Dean said. Um, you know,

[38:10] nothing's more permanent than a

[38:11] temporary tax. And you know, I don't

[38:14] want to be that city where we we vote

[38:16] for something that uh we hope one day we

[38:19] may either eliminate or lower or keep

[38:21] the same and and you know, we we come to

[38:24] accept the fact that we have this money

[38:26] and we keep using it and one day we'll

[38:27] ask for more. I don't I don't like that

[38:29] and I don't accept it. I do I do

[38:31] appreciate this very much and am in

[38:33] favor of it. Um, but I would I would

[38:36] appreciate um uh a regular reassessment

[38:42] to see where we fall, how we're spending

[38:44] the money, and you know, perhaps one day

[38:47] as uh as we get the uh the economic

[38:50] development corridors um producing and

[38:54] doing what they ought to do. This is

[38:56] something that we could either decrease

[38:57] or eliminate, but I am in favor of it as

[38:59] as you've written it. Thank you.

[39:02] >> Thank you. Council member uh Dietrich,

[39:03] » Thank you. Council member uh Dietrich,

[39:03] do you have any comment?

[39:05] >> I would just reiterate that again, I

[39:06] » I would just reiterate that again, I

[39:06] think we all agree public safety is one

[39:08] of our highest concerns. Um I appreciate

[39:10] the fact that it's not increasing the

[39:12] property tax bill. I mean, aside from

[39:15] the potential future increases, which

[39:17] would happen even if it was the other

[39:19] bond, right? Not necessarily as high.

[39:21] So, I am definitely in favor of this

[39:23] because I think it serves a dual benefit

[39:26] that front. Um, I do agree that I think

[39:28] there should it should be we should be

[39:30] the future city council should be

[39:32] presented the data to make anal an

[39:34] educated analysis as to how to deal with

[39:36] it any potential future increases or

[39:39] reductions, but I'm not necessarily in

[39:40] favor of instituting a cap that might

[39:42] hamstring them if they needed it for

[39:44] that.

[39:46] >> Yes. U my question was I was I was going

[39:48] » Yes. U my question was I was I was going

[39:48] to ask council but he wasn't here. Why

[39:50] did they say no in 2015?

[39:58] Um, they initially said yes and then

[40:01] they didn't vote on the second reading

[40:03] of the ordinance. So, it got

[40:05] >> they didn't vote at all or they voted no

[40:06] » they didn't vote at all or they voted no

[40:06] at the second reading.

[40:07] >> They didn't vote at all. They didn't get

[40:08] » They didn't vote at all. They didn't get

[40:08] a second on the second reading of the

[40:10] ordinance. It got through the public

[40:11] hearing favorable and went to the second

[40:13] reading of the ordinance and didn't get

[40:15] a second.

[40:16] >> Do we know why?

[40:18] » Do we know why?

[40:18] >> Above my pay grade.

[40:21] » Above my pay grade.

[40:21] >> Fair enough. Um,

[40:25] » Fair enough. Um,

[40:25] I wasn't here at the time, but I

[40:26] understand there was pressure from

[40:27] developers

[40:29] that that's what it would sound like to

[40:31] me. Um,

[40:34] so is it

[40:36] is it possible to have a like a a a

[40:41] reviewable cap?

[40:43] I mean, nothing's nothing's permanent

[40:45] here, right? So, anything can be

[40:46] reviewable.

[40:48] What What is the ask that's being made

[40:50] of staff right now? what is the what is

[40:52] the preferred ask from staff on this as

[40:56] far as percentages go and then caps and

[41:00] all that kind of stuff.

[41:01] >> So so the way the process is going to

[41:03] » So so the way the process is going to

[41:03] work is we'll um we'll get that project

[41:06] that'll come in and then we'll be uh

[41:08] preparing a formation documents for the

[41:11] council consideration

[41:13] in that as like the other CFDs that have

[41:16] been formed in the past. There will be a

[41:18] resolution of attention on consent and

[41:19] then there will be a public hearing. Um

[41:21] the staff report is going to outline

[41:23] exactly what's being proposed. Um in

[41:25] that rate and method of portionment I'm

[41:28] presuming will go under the standard

[41:30] practice as other agencies are

[41:32] implementing this public safety CFD

[41:34] single family multi- family with the

[41:35] rates and an escalator. That escalator

[41:38] can be um up for discussion and if if

[41:41] acceptable gets approved as part of the

[41:42] formation. Now that tax rate would be

[41:46] only implemented to those properties

[41:48] that annex into that CFD

[41:50] in the future in the event that you know

[41:53] three years down and there's another

[41:54] development impact fee update uh

[41:57] analysis and we push push the

[41:59] development out to 2050 we re

[42:01] re-evaluate and if at that time we said

[42:03] well you know we're doing really well on

[42:05] our general fund and that we we think

[42:07] that $425 is a better rate so then we

[42:10] can reestablish a new tax CFD public

[42:12] safety with that reduced rate on new

[42:14] development. There's an adjustment from

[42:16] switching to a new CFD at those moments.

[42:19] But the other ultimate um application is

[42:22] that whatever you set the tax rate

[42:25] doesn't mean you're levy at the full

[42:26] amount. So what we're talking about is

[42:28] we're saying the 525

[42:30] will escalate the maximum tax. And if

[42:31] it's at 600, but you say we only still

[42:34] need 525, we only levied 525, but you

[42:37] have the ability in the future to go up

[42:39] to 600. So we're really not hand you

[42:42] know restricting the opportunity in the

[42:46] future. We're just saying you have a

[42:47] ceiling and then annually we'll review

[42:50] what's what the amount should be levied

[42:52] and make that decision present it to

[42:54] council for approval.

[42:55] >> I maybe my question wasn't clear because

[42:58] » I maybe my question wasn't clear because

[42:58] your answer to me wasn't clear and

[42:59] either I'm not getting it or I'm not

[43:01] asking it right. So, if the staff were

[43:04] to present us with a proposed ordinance

[43:06] right now, what is the language in there

[43:09] that staff is looking for? It says 525

[43:12] per single family unit, 411 per unit,

[43:14] and it says subject to annual escalator

[43:17] greater of CPI or 4%. Is that the

[43:20] language that staff is asking for or is

[43:22] that one of several ideas that are being

[43:25] presented to us

[43:26] >> for council for for recommendation to

[43:29] » for council for for recommendation to

[43:29] come back?

[43:31] I I right now it's proposed to include

[43:34] uh CPI or 4% unless council directs

[43:36] differently.

[43:37] >> Okay. So that's the ask is these amounts

[43:40] » Okay. So that's the ask is these amounts

[43:40] increase at a rate of the greater of CPI

[43:41] or 4%.

[43:43] >> That's that's what would be proposed.

[43:44] » That's that's what would be proposed.

[43:44] >> Okay. That's what I want to make. I want

[43:46] » Okay. That's what I want to make. I want

[43:46] to make sure what it is that we're we're

[43:48] either adjusting or looking at or

[43:50] reviewing.

[43:51] >> Um go ahead. And if I could just

[43:52] » Um go ahead. And if I could just

[43:52] clarify, you know, when the CFD is set

[43:55] up, there's a document called the rate

[43:56] and method of aortionment. And that's

[43:58] where you establish these parameters,

[44:00] and that's a one-time thing that's

[44:02] adopted when the CFD is formed. And as

[44:05] Shane has talked about, you have this

[44:07] annual escalator. And every year when

[44:10] you want to levy the amount for that CFD

[44:13] for that year, you come back to the

[44:15] council, you adopt the levy for that

[44:17] year. And that's where you have the

[44:19] option to go. Well, under the rate

[44:21] method of aortionment, it says we could

[44:23] our maximum rate is this, but we think

[44:26] we're good at this level. We want to

[44:28] keep it the same. And so, it's sort of

[44:30] kind of concrete when you adopt the rate

[44:33] method of aortionment, but your annual

[44:36] levy each year can be modified as long

[44:39] as it's below the maximum rate because

[44:41] the RMA establishes the maximum rate for

[44:44] each year going out into the

[44:46] >> So, what did Moretta do as an escalator?

[44:54] believe they did the same uh 4%

[44:57] >> CPI or 4%

[44:58] » CPI or 4%

[44:58] >> CPI or 4%.

[44:59] » CPI or 4%.

[44:59] >> All right. Uh Council Dinus, you have a

[45:00] » All right. Uh Council Dinus, you have a

[45:00] question.

[45:01] >> I I know Travis kind of answered it, but

[45:04] » I I know Travis kind of answered it, but

[45:04] I'll I'm digging back into my archive

[45:07] memory here of CFDs. Usually when you

[45:09] issue bonds that and Shane does the all

[45:13] his calc runs his magic and calculates

[45:15] everything for the annual the the

[45:18] payments of it for the to put on special

[45:20] tax roles that you take what the what

[45:23] the debt service is and what kind of and

[45:25] how much you collect

[45:28] from the property owners

[45:31] that um to meet that to meet that debt

[45:34] service payment. It's only if you only

[45:37] if you lack

[45:39] If you're the levy is insufficient to

[45:41] you, then you increase the go to the

[45:43] special tax and increase that amount to

[45:46] pay for the debt service. So, it sounds

[45:48] like this is kind of what we're going to

[45:50] do with this

[45:52] CFD is you look at what the costs are.

[45:56] you know, while you get the $525 on

[45:58] whatever percent that is. And then if

[46:00] it's not enough to cover the difference,

[46:02] then you'll have to go above the 4% or

[46:05] start approaching the the CPI then to to

[46:08] to make sure you get levy enough to pay

[46:10] for the the public service uh difference

[46:15] that we need have. I mean, I don't make

[46:18] it makes sense to me a lot, but

[46:21] >> Well, from my standpoint, did did you

[46:22] » Well, from my standpoint, did did you

[46:22] want to respond to that or was there

[46:23] anything that

[46:24] >> I I I'm sorry. I had to look I clarify

[46:27] » I I I'm sorry. I had to look I clarify

[46:27] Marriott is at a flat 4%.

[46:29] >> So they didn't do the CPI. They went

[46:30] » So they didn't do the CPI. They went

[46:30] flat 4%.

[46:31] >> Flat 4%.

[46:32] » Flat 4%.

[46:32] >> Yeah, that's

[46:35] » Yeah, that's

[46:35] >> that's kind of what I was thinking as

[46:36] » that's kind of what I was thinking as

[46:36] well. You know, I something you said

[46:38] resonated with me that, you know, we

[46:39] don't want to impose a new tax on the

[46:41] residents, but the new residents are

[46:42] causing us an increase in the services.

[46:44] I mean, we can't provide if we if we go

[46:47] to 175,000 people without affording the

[46:50] cost of it. we would have to hold off on

[46:53] that development until economic

[46:54] development catches up, but economic

[46:56] development won't come in unless the

[46:58] rooftops are there. So, it's kind of a

[47:00] >> states,

[47:03] » states,

[47:03] >> right? We need more housing. So, um it

[47:05] » right? We need more housing. So, um it

[47:05] would seem like the the the new

[47:07] development drives the need for more

[47:09] public safety. We're going to need more

[47:10] fire coverage. We're going to need all

[47:12] those kinds of all those people with

[47:13] pets, animal control, that kind of

[47:14] thing. Um I do get scared about CPI as

[47:18] well. would I would be inclined to to

[47:23] implement this with a straight 4% like

[47:26] mya did. I when I was thinking the

[47:29] reason I asked I was I was thinking in

[47:30] my head I want to make sure that I

[47:31] wasn't being completely way off base

[47:32] financially. Um I can't believe Lorie

[47:35] Stone voted for this that had to have

[47:38] gone 4-1 that way. No, it went 5. Crazy.

[47:41] Um,

[47:43] but I would like some sort of language

[47:47] in it that makes it a prominent question

[47:50] each time the budget comes in. Like just

[47:54] it because this seems like the type of

[47:56] thing that I would I wouldn't want

[47:57] future city council members to just roll

[48:00] it into the big giant stack of stuff to

[48:02] consider. I would I wouldn't want at

[48:04] least for the time being for people to

[48:06] look at it individually and just go, "Oh

[48:08] yeah, that's right. We're going to look

[48:09] at this each time to see if we need to

[48:11] keep doing it or not.

[48:12] >> Well, I I mean, if you increase the the

[48:16] » Well, I I mean, if you increase the the

[48:16] rate over 4%

[48:18] because CPI is higher, I think it the

[48:20] way to help to ensure that the council

[48:23] understands that it has to come back for

[48:24] approval from the council before they

[48:26] they make that increased.

[48:29] >> You do have to go to council each year

[48:31] » You do have to go to council each year

[48:31] to have the council approved the levy

[48:33] that we send to the county. So it could

[48:35] be a part of that report when you adopt

[48:38] that levy that there's an analysis that

[48:40] that fee is justified and within the

[48:42] maximum parameters.

[48:44] >> Yeah.

[48:45] » Yeah.

[48:45] >> Okay, that makes sense. Um, do we have

[48:47] » Okay, that makes sense. Um, do we have

[48:47] any other questions or comments from

[48:48] from council? Um, do you need a vote

[48:52] from us or do we is there direction? It

[48:54] seems like we're all in consensus here.

[48:55] It seems like a pretty clear message.

[48:57] >> Yeah, I think it's planning clear,

[48:59] » Yeah, I think it's planning clear,

[48:59] mayor.

[48:59] >> Okay, then I think we've got it. Well

[49:02] » Okay, then I think we've got it. Well

[49:02] done. Thank you, gentlemen. Appreciate

[49:04] it. Um well with that that was the only

[49:06] thing on our special agenda item. So at

[49:08] 4:47 we are adjourned.

Menifee Special City Council Meeting - January 21, 2026

Transcript