[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.