[0:00] Welcome to the city council

[0:03] >> special meeting this Monday evening,

[0:05] » special meeting this Monday evening,

[0:06] January 12th. Uh, city clerk, may you

[0:09] please call the role?

[0:09] >> Certainly. Mayor Lorraine, council

[0:11] » Certainly. Mayor Lorraine, council

[0:11] member Diaz Nash,

[0:13] >> yes.

[0:14] » yes.

[0:14] >> Council member Frio Gditzky

[0:15] » Council member Frio Gditzky

[0:15] >> here.

[0:16] » here.

[0:16] >> Deputy Mayor Fernandez

[0:18] » Deputy Mayor Fernandez

[0:18] >> here.

[0:19] » here.

[0:19] >> Mayor Lorraine

[0:20] » Mayor Lorraine

[0:20] >> here.

[0:20] » here.

[0:20] >> And council member Newsome

[0:22] » And council member Newsome

[0:22] >> here.

[0:27] » Thank you. I'll just ask uh city

[0:29] colleagues and staff to please silence

[0:32] and turn off uh your phones and devices

[0:34] for the meeting going forward. Welcome.

[0:36] We are excited to be here in person with

[0:39] options for those who choose not to be

[0:41] in person to still participate

[0:43] virtually. This meeting is being held at

[0:45] the Sanonteo Main Public Library due to

[0:48] the construction at city hall.

[0:51] I'd like to share a few logistical

[0:52] reminders to help our meeting here run

[0:54] smoothly. So, for those in the room,

[0:57] please note that after 8:00, the library

[1:00] closes. Staff asks that everyone exit

[1:03] through the back doors behind the

[1:06] seating here, located directly behind

[1:08] the room. Uh, with regard to parking at

[1:10] the library, after 8:00 p.m., the

[1:13] stairwell to the parking garage is

[1:15] locked. Attendees will need to use the

[1:17] elevator and select level P1 or P2 to

[1:21] access the garage

[1:23] z and that would be outside. So you

[1:26] still go out this way and there's an

[1:27] elevator. Just know that the stairwell

[1:29] is locked. Zoom attendees, please check

[1:31] your microphone volume before

[1:34] participating in public comment. We have

[1:36] MCTV here tonight helping us out and

[1:39] they will continue monitoring audio to

[1:41] ensure that there is clear sound for all

[1:44] participants. Thank you to MCTV

[1:47] and thank you all for your cooperation

[1:49] and for helping us maintain an efficient

[1:51] and accessible meeting environment.

[1:54] There are several ways to participate.

[1:57] For those attending in person, you can

[1:58] complete a yellow request to speak slip

[2:00] and hand it to the city clerk.

[2:03] If participating remotely, you can use

[2:05] the raise your hand feature in Zoom and

[2:08] you will be called on at the appropriate

[2:10] time when we have public comment periods

[2:11] for items. If you're calling in via

[2:14] phone, uh please press star9 to raise

[2:17] your hand and then when you're called

[2:19] upon, you can press star six to unmute.

[2:23] These options for public comment will

[2:24] remain available until I close public

[2:26] comment period for each specific item.

[2:30] If you're joining us via YouTube, uh

[2:32] members of the public watching on

[2:33] YouTube, if you wish to provide live

[2:35] comment, unfortunately, we don't

[2:36] currently have that functionality within

[2:38] YouTube. Uh we just have it through

[2:40] Zoom. So, please join the meeting

[2:42] through the Zoom webinar using the

[2:44] access information listed on the agenda.

[2:46] So, if you go to our website, city of

[2:48] samonteo.org, and find our uh meeting

[2:51] there, the Zoom link information is in

[2:54] the agenda.

[2:57] Thank you for your patience with that.

[2:59] Now, we will move on to our study

[3:01] session item for the special meeting,

[3:03] potential ballot measures for November

[3:05] 2026, survey results and council

[3:07] direction. Uh, we have a presentation

[3:10] from Mr. Zachary Rita, senior management

[3:13] analyst with the city manager's office.

[3:16] Mr. Rita, please.

[3:24] » Good evening, Mayor, City Council. My

[3:26] name is Zach Raa, senior management

[3:28] analyst, and we are joined virtually

[3:30] tonight, but with by Timothy McCclar,

[3:34] president of True North Research.

[3:41] The purpose of our study session tonight

[3:44] is uh staff is seeking direction from

[3:47] council on whether to proceed with

[3:49] education and outreach on a potential

[3:51] ballot measure and also it's an

[3:54] opportunity to receive a report from

[3:56] true true north research and Timothy um

[3:59] on a a survey that was conducted um and

[4:02] it will help identify the features of

[4:04] the measures that resonate with voters.

[4:07] So, here are the four options for city

[4:10] council consideration. Number one,

[4:12] should the city proceed with education

[4:13] and outreach on the sales tax measure

[4:17] and return to council for decision

[4:19] whether to place it on the November 2026

[4:21] ballot? Number two, same language except

[4:24] swap sales tax measure for general

[4:26] obligation bond. Number three, both

[4:28] sales tax measure and general obligation

[4:30] bond. And number four is should the city

[4:32] not proceed with education and outreach

[4:34] on either the sales tax measure or the

[4:36] general obligation bond.

[4:39] So just quickly some background on how

[4:41] we got to today. uh in June of 25 uh the

[4:46] budget was approved with uh structural

[4:49] deficit and uh to respond to that in

[4:53] August of 2025 the city council met and

[4:56] reviewed uh the revenue measure options

[4:59] and provided direction to continue

[5:01] exploring bond and sales tax feasibility

[5:04] for the November 26 election.

[5:07] uh that was the direction that staff and

[5:09] True North Research needed to begin

[5:11] designing and and ultimately conducting

[5:13] a revenue measure feasibility study

[5:15] which was conducted in November of 25.

[5:19] Uh and that really focused on the the

[5:21] bond and the sales tax measure. And then

[5:24] just last week, the city council ad hoc

[5:26] subcommittee met and recommended to

[5:28] continue educating and informing the

[5:31] community about the potential quarter

[5:33] cent sales tax measure.

[5:36] At this time, I'll pass it over to

[5:38] Timothy uh to provide uh uh the results

[5:42] of the revenue measure feasibility

[5:43] study.

[5:45] >> Great. Uh thank you, Zach. Can uh just

[5:47] » Great. Uh thank you, Zach. Can uh just

[5:47] want to make sure you've got my audio on

[5:49] that end.

[5:50] >> Yes, sir.

[5:51] » Yes, sir.

[5:51] >> Okay, great. Well, good evening, mayor

[5:53] » Okay, great. Well, good evening, mayor

[5:53] and members of council. Uh Tim McCclar,

[5:55] president of True North Research. Um,

[5:58] we're a firm that uh for about 25 years

[6:00] has specialized in working with uh

[6:02] cities as well as other public agencies

[6:04] around the state and uh using surveys to

[6:06] help them develop a statistically

[6:07] reliable understanding of the

[6:09] communities and the customers that they

[6:10] serve. One of the areas we really

[6:12] specialize in is a revenue measure

[6:13] feasibility studies like what we're

[6:14] going to be talking about here tonight

[6:16] where the goal is to understand if it's

[6:17] feasible to move forward with some type

[6:19] of revenue measure. And if it is

[6:20] feasible to use the research to help

[6:22] guide how you might go about structuring

[6:24] that measure in a way that's going to be

[6:26] consistent with the type measures that

[6:27] your community is uh interested in

[6:29] supporting. Um so I I've got some slides

[6:32] here I'm going to walk through. If you

[6:33] have questions or comments along the

[6:35] way, uh, feel free to jump in and I'll

[6:37] also obviously be available to answer

[6:39] questions on the back of the

[6:40] presentation as well. So, uh, before we

[6:43] get into the results, uh, helpful to

[6:44] take a quick moment to review the

[6:46] purpose of the study as well as the

[6:47] methodology. Uh, as a revenue measure

[6:49] feasibility study, we're really trying

[6:51] to address the three bullets that you

[6:53] see here. The first is to answer that

[6:55] basic question of is it feasible? And

[6:57] what I mean by that is if you as a

[6:58] council were to take the um action of

[7:01] placing a measure on an upcoming ballot,

[7:03] does it have a reasonable chance of

[7:04] success? Uh when we do find that it's

[7:06] feasible, the second bullet kicks in

[7:09] gear, which is to use the research to

[7:10] help understand how might you go about

[7:12] structuring a measure in a way that it's

[7:14] consistent with the type of measure that

[7:16] your community is interested in

[7:17] supporting. There's a lot of components

[7:19] to a revenue measure uh of any stripe.

[7:21] Um whether it be a bond or a sales tax,

[7:24] it's, you know, how much is this going

[7:25] to cost me? uh what uh types of services

[7:28] or improvements would be funded by the

[7:30] measure, what types of accountability

[7:32] provisions might be built into the

[7:33] measure, etc. So, there's a lot of

[7:35] important questions that you as a

[7:37] council would ultimately need to answer

[7:39] before you placed a measure on the

[7:41] ballot, and the research can help guide

[7:43] those uh those uh helping you with um

[7:46] with those uh answers. And then thirdly,

[7:49] uh the research is an opportunity for us

[7:51] to understand how uh information

[7:53] ultimately shapes voters's opinions

[7:55] about your proposal and that in turn can

[7:58] help guide uh city communications. Next

[8:00] slide please. So in terms of the

[8:03] methodology or how we went about

[8:04] conducting the study, we use the same

[8:06] methodology here that we always use when

[8:08] we're doing revenue measure feasibility

[8:09] studies. And the first thing we want to

[8:11] ask ourselves is what election

[8:13] environment do we anticipate that this

[8:15] measure is going to be on? The reason

[8:16] for that is different elections have

[8:18] different turnouts and as you expand or

[8:20] shrink turnout, you could get a somewhat

[8:22] different profile to the participating

[8:24] voters in that election. In this case,

[8:27] we're looking at a potential November

[8:29] 2026 measure. And so, we identified all

[8:33] of the individuals in the city that we

[8:35] uh are known as likely November voters

[8:37] based on when they register to vote uh

[8:39] in the community as well as elections.

[8:41] They've taken advantage since that

[8:43] point. And we used a process called

[8:44] stratified and clustered random sampling

[8:46] to choose a representative sample of

[8:49] these likely November voters for our

[8:51] survey. Um by using stratified and

[8:54] clustered random sampling, what it

[8:55] ensures is at the end of this process,

[8:56] we have a sample that matches the

[8:59] November universe on all the dimensions

[9:01] that tend to drive how voters behave

[9:03] when it comes to revenue measures. So

[9:05] the balance by age and gender,

[9:07] partisanship, household party type,

[9:09] where they live within the community,

[9:11] the balance in our sample matches the

[9:13] balance in that likely November

[9:14] universe. And that's really one of the

[9:16] keys to making sure that this research

[9:17] is reliable. Once we pulled our sample,

[9:20] we used three different recruiting

[9:21] methods, email, text, and telephone.

[9:23] Everything's pin protected so that only

[9:25] those individuals who were randomly slam

[9:28] uh sampled and sent an invitation to

[9:30] participate in the survey could do so.

[9:32] They can complete the survey one time

[9:33] only. they had the option of taking it

[9:35] either online or by telephone as well as

[9:37] in English or Spanish, whichever was

[9:38] their preference. Um, we had actually

[9:40] set out and were contracted to do 600

[9:43] completed interviews. Uh, we walked back

[9:46] in the door with over a thousand. Uh,

[9:48] the reason for that is I always have to

[9:49] make some estimates about what do I

[9:51] think the productivity and response

[9:52] rates going to be to the survey in a

[9:54] community. I tend to air on the more

[9:56] conservative side. Um, here we just got

[9:58] a much better response to the

[10:00] invitations than I was anticipating. And

[10:03] uh the benefit of that is we have about

[10:05] an extra 400 interviews to play with. Uh

[10:08] which is great because one of the things

[10:10] we're doing in this study is what's

[10:11] called a split sample uh study where

[10:15] because we're looking at a potential

[10:16] bond measure as well as a potential

[10:18] sales tax measure. Um research has shown

[10:20] that you want to split your samples so

[10:22] that half get one version, half get the

[10:24] other. That's the best way to get a

[10:27] clean read on uh the potential support

[10:29] for each one of those measures. And so

[10:32] we took our,2 interviews, split them in

[10:35] half. And what that means is that for

[10:36] questions that were answered by all uh

[10:39] 1,2 respondents, we have a margin of

[10:41] error due to sampling of plus or minus

[10:43] 3% at the 95% confidence level. But even

[10:47] when we split it in half and so those

[10:49] questions that are specific to a bond or

[10:51] specific to a sales tax, we still have a

[10:53] margin of error that meets the academic

[10:55] standard for statistical liability which

[10:56] is plus or minus in this case 4.3% at

[10:59] [clears throat] the 95% confidence

[11:01] level. So what this basically means is

[11:02] whether we're looking at a bond or a

[11:04] sales tax related questions, we can be

[11:07] 95% confident that the results in our

[11:09] survey are within 4.3% of what we would

[11:12] have found had we spoken with all of

[11:14] your likely November voters.

[11:16] Okay, so with that, next slide, we jump

[11:19] into the results. Um, we like to open up

[11:22] the revenue measure feasibility studies

[11:23] with a few warm-up questions that kind

[11:25] of get folks thinking about their

[11:26] community, uh, before we get to the the

[11:29] issue of the revenue measure itself. And

[11:30] so, uh, the first question this series

[11:32] simply asks them to tell us how they

[11:34] would rate the, uh, overall quality of

[11:36] of life in the community. Would they say

[11:38] it's excellent, good, fair, poor, or

[11:40] very poor? Uh as you can see here on the

[11:42] slide, we've got 86% of respondents who

[11:45] rated the overall quality of life in the

[11:47] city as excellent or good. Um this is

[11:49] actually a really positive result when

[11:51] it with respect to a revenue measure. We

[11:53] tend to find that and I get to do this

[11:56] work around the state for a lot of

[11:57] different communities. We tend to find

[11:58] that in the communities where voters

[12:00] have a high opinion of the quality of

[12:01] life in their community already that

[12:04] they are more inclined to support

[12:06] revenue measures that are geared around

[12:08] maintaining that level of quality of

[12:10] life, maintaining the services that

[12:11] they've be been accustomed to receiving.

[12:14] And so, um, good result there. On the

[12:18] next slide, um, we presented an

[12:21] open-ended question where we said, "If

[12:23] the city could change one thing to make

[12:25] Sonteo a better place to live, what

[12:26] change would you like to see?" Um, this

[12:28] was asked in an open-ended manner,

[12:30] meaning we didn't provide them with the

[12:32] list of options you see here on the

[12:34] slide. They got to just tell us in their

[12:35] own words. We went back and looked at

[12:37] the verbatim responses and group them

[12:40] into the categories you see here. So,

[12:43] um, the number one response there is not

[12:44] sure, can't think anything at 11%. And

[12:46] if you look a little further down the

[12:48] list, you also see about 5% of folks who

[12:50] said no changes, everything is fine. So

[12:53] you've got about 16% of voters who when

[12:56] you hand them a soap box and say step up

[12:59] on that soap box and tell us one thing

[13:00] we can do to to make the quality of life

[13:02] in the community better, they're kind of

[13:04] stuck for an answer, right? And that in

[13:06] some ways is the ideal um answer this

[13:08] question because, you know, they really

[13:10] just don't see any pressing need to to

[13:12] make changes in the community. Among the

[13:15] specific responses we did receive,

[13:16] however, you had about 11% who requested

[13:19] more affordable housing in the

[13:20] community. You had another 11% who said

[13:23] limiting growth and preserving open

[13:25] space was the thing that they'd most

[13:26] like to see. And then followed by

[13:28] reducing traffic congestion at 10% and

[13:30] on down.

[13:32] And then on the next slide, u we ask our

[13:35] last warm-up question where we simply

[13:37] ask whether generally speaking they are

[13:38] satisfied or dissatisfied with the job

[13:41] the city of Sanonteo is doing and

[13:43] providing municipal services. Because

[13:45] we're asking them to speak about the

[13:46] city's performance overall, right? We're

[13:49] not diving into specific areas like

[13:51] streets and roads or public safety. This

[13:53] can be thought of as an overall

[13:54] performance rating for the city. And you

[13:57] see that you've got about three out

[13:59] three out of four uh voters say that

[14:01] they were satisfied with the city's

[14:02] efforts to provide municipal services.

[14:05] You've got about 18% who were uh

[14:07] dissatisfied with the remainder being

[14:10] not sure preferring not to answer. So to

[14:12] give you a sense of of where this lands

[14:14] in the range of possibilities um for

[14:17] those cities that are getting the top

[14:18] top scores um on this question it's kind

[14:22] of high 80s these days and then I have

[14:24] cities that are in the 40s. So to to be

[14:27] at three quarters or 75% of voters

[14:31] saying that, you know, they're satisfied

[14:32] with your performance overall, that's a

[14:34] that's a good solid score.

[14:37] Okay, so next slide. So after those

[14:39] warm-up questions, we get right down to

[14:41] business with what we call the initial

[14:42] ballot test. And the idea the idea

[14:44] behind the initial ballot test is we

[14:47] want to before we get any deeper into

[14:48] this discussion with a respondent and

[14:51] start talking about possible tax rates

[14:52] or how the funds could be spent in more

[14:54] detail or presenting arguments pro and

[14:57] con related to this proposal. We wanted

[14:59] to present to respondents a mockup of

[15:01] what we think that 75word ballot

[15:03] statement could look like and get their

[15:05] reaction. The initial ballot test is a

[15:07] really good gauge of where your voters

[15:08] are at on the natural with respect to a

[15:10] proposal because they haven't seen

[15:12] anything at this point beyond what

[15:14] you're seeing here on the slide. This is

[15:16] the ballot language for the bond and it

[15:18] takes the form of a legally compliant

[15:21] bond ballot statement. Um and so you can

[15:24] see in a bond bond is about bonds are

[15:26] only for capital, right? So

[15:27] [clears throat] they can do things like

[15:28] pave and maintain local streets, fix

[15:30] potholes, repair um you know public uh

[15:33] buildings, things like that. they aren't

[15:35] for services. Um, and we had set this

[15:39] bond at a total authorized amount of

[15:41] $323 million, which would have a tax

[15:44] rate of $30 per 100,000 of assessed

[15:46] valuation. So that's the bond ballot

[15:49] language. On the next slide, same

[15:51] exercise here, only this is for those

[15:54] 50% of respondents who received the

[15:56] sales tax version. You can see the sales

[15:58] tax version's a little different in

[16:00] terms of the language. It can reference

[16:02] both bonds as well as services. And this

[16:05] takes the form of what we call a general

[16:07] tax, meaning it is the funds are not

[16:10] earmarked for any one particular

[16:12] purpose. Uh they will go into the

[16:14] general fund and it's up to council to

[16:15] decide how you would spend those things.

[16:17] But the bullets here give a good idea of

[16:19] the things that you do fund out of the

[16:21] general fund. This was set at a one

[16:24] quarter cent sales tax. That is the

[16:26] remaining increment that is below the

[16:28] cap uh for your city. uh it would

[16:31] provide about $7 million annually for

[16:33] general government use. So those were

[16:36] the two ballot statements we tested and

[16:39] here are the results. You can see on the

[16:41] left side there the bond we had 59%

[16:44] support for that proposal 26% opposed

[16:48] with the remainder being unsure. On the

[16:50] right is the sales tax support initially

[16:53] was a little softer for the sales tax.

[16:54] We had 53% support, 38% opposed, and the

[16:58] rem the rest unsure. Now, one of the

[17:01] important things to keep in mind,

[17:02] however, is that a bond and a sale a

[17:05] general sales tax do not play on the

[17:08] same playing field. A bond requires

[17:11] twothird support from uh participating

[17:14] voters to be successful or basically

[17:16] 66.6667%.

[17:19] And so at this initial ballot test,

[17:22] we're sitting about 8% low uh below that

[17:26] 2/3 threshold, right, for the bond. So

[17:28] we're underwater by about 8%. The

[17:31] general sales tax, on the other hand,

[17:32] plays on a simple majority playing

[17:34] field. And so what that means is we need

[17:36] 50% plus one vote to be successful. So

[17:40] even though the initial support for the

[17:42] sales tax is softer, we're actually

[17:44] operating about three points above the

[17:46] threshold that's required for passage

[17:48] for that option. So it's important to

[17:50] keep in mind as we go through this

[17:52] presentation the fact that the you know

[17:54] the threshold for passage of the bond is

[17:56] quite a bit higher 17 points higher than

[17:58] the threshold required for the general

[18:00] sales tax. Next slide please. So for the

[18:03] bond um we wanted to also dig in to see

[18:07] how tax rate sensitive voters are with

[18:09] respect to this proposal. Um and so

[18:12] naturally kind of the higher the price

[18:14] tag um for a bond all the things being

[18:17] equal the lower the level support you

[18:19] can expect. And so we we did that in a

[18:21] couple different ways. In this first

[18:23] slide here we focused on the tax rate

[18:25] that would be associated with the

[18:27] measure. And we tested three different

[18:28] tax rates. at the top was that $30 per

[18:31] 100,000 of assessed valuation tax rate

[18:33] that was built into that initial ballot

[18:35] test um 75word ballot statement. Um if

[18:38] they were anything but a definitely yes

[18:40] at the $30 per 100,000 assessed, we

[18:43] asked 20 and 15. And you can see here a

[18:46] couple of things. Number one, the moment

[18:48] you kind of put the blinders on somebody

[18:50] and you focus their attention on the tax

[18:53] rate that could be associated with a

[18:54] bond, it has a bit of a chilling effect

[18:57] on support for the proposal. So, at that

[18:59] initial ballot test, we had 59% support

[19:01] with a $30 tax rate embedded in that

[19:04] 75word ballot statement. Here, when we

[19:06] pull the $30 tax rate out and set it

[19:09] aside and focus voters attention on it,

[19:11] support drops dramatically, we're now at

[19:13] 45%. As you then lower that tax rate

[19:17] from 30 to 20 and then 20 to 15, you can

[19:20] see that we're getting incremental

[19:21] adjustments in support. But even at the

[19:24] $15 per 100,000 assessed valuation tax

[19:27] rate, u we only had 55% of voters say

[19:30] that they would support this proposal.

[19:32] That's about 12 points south of the 2/3

[19:36] threshold that's required for passage.

[19:38] Now, one of the things we know about

[19:40] this question is it tends to be a

[19:41] conservative read on support for a bond.

[19:44] The reason being when you talk about the

[19:46] tax implications of a bond in terms of a

[19:48] rate per 100,000 assessed valuation, not

[19:51] everybody knows what you're talking

[19:52] about, right? You have to know what

[19:54] assessed valuation means. You have to

[19:56] have some reasonable estimate of the AV

[19:58] for your for your property. You've got

[20:00] to do math pretty quickly in the space

[20:02] of a poll to turn that rate into a

[20:04] meaningful number. Not everybody's good

[20:07] at that. And so we know that there's a

[20:08] certain percentage of voters who when

[20:10] you present it this way, they know

[20:13] you're talking price tag. They don't

[20:14] know what it adds up to and they'll

[20:16] hedge. They'll say, "No, we're not

[20:17] sure." So that's why on the next slide,

[20:19] we come about a different way. You say,

[20:21] "All right, let me put it another way.

[20:23] If you knew that this measure would cost

[20:24] the typical homeowner about $225 per

[20:27] year, would you vote yes or no?" The

[20:30] $225 per year is the $30 per 100,000 of

[20:34] assessed valuation tax rate multiplied

[20:36] times the median AV for residential

[20:38] property in your community. So those two

[20:41] numbers are comparable. And you can see

[20:42] that when you go ahead and do the math,

[20:44] you do tend to get a more positive

[20:46] response to that amount. Right? When we

[20:49] tested the $30 tax rate, we were sort of

[20:51] in the mid-40s in support. When you go

[20:53] ahead and uh do the math and translate

[20:56] that into a $225 per year for the median

[20:59] homeowner, support goes up to 53%. But

[21:02] here again, we're still well below the

[21:04] 2/3 threshold that's required for a bond

[21:07] to pass. Next slide, please.

[21:10] So, at this point in the poll, we go

[21:12] into what we call the projects and

[21:13] services section. And the and the idea

[21:15] here is really twofold. One is we're now

[21:18] going to start to educate respondents

[21:19] more about what these measures could

[21:21] accomplish than we can possibly glean

[21:24] from the 75word ballot statement. Right?

[21:26] In the 75 words, only about half of

[21:28] those words can be devoted to describing

[21:30] what the measure will accomplish. Here

[21:33] we get to unpack your measures into all

[21:34] these various potential uses. And in

[21:37] that way, voters are getting a better

[21:39] idea about what the proposals are about.

[21:41] The other thing it allows us to do is to

[21:42] look at of all the ways you could

[21:44] potentially spend the money, how do

[21:46] voters feel about each of these ways and

[21:47] which of these are ultimately their

[21:49] priorities. And as you look at this

[21:51] list, first thing that sort of jumps out

[21:53] is every single item on this list has at

[21:55] least twothirds of voters say they would

[21:57] favor spending some of the money on that

[21:59] item. So there's nothing on this list

[22:01] that is what I would call unpopular,

[22:03] right? Like they voters just don't see

[22:05] the merit of the service and aren't

[22:07] enthused about raising their taxes to

[22:08] fund it. That said, you can kind of see

[22:11] a natural break here where um you know

[22:14] the top seven projects test higher uh

[22:18] favorability overall and more intense

[22:21] favorability. And what you do see here

[22:24] is it's sort of a mix of public works

[22:26] and public safety, right? Um and some of

[22:28] these items, the ones that are flagged

[22:30] sales tax. So the number one item, the

[22:32] number three item, the number five item,

[22:34] these are items that can be funded by a

[22:36] sales tax. they can't be funded by a

[22:38] bond because they're serviceoriented.

[22:41] So overall, again, a a strong mix of

[22:44] public safety and public works among the

[22:46] the top rated projects.

[22:50] So if you as a council ultimately choose

[22:53] to move forward with a measure in 2026,

[22:56] there's going to be an election cycle.

[22:57] During that election cycle, there's

[22:59] going to be a lot of discussion and

[23:00] debate in the community about this

[23:02] proposal, right? You'll have advocates

[23:05] of the measure going out and talking to

[23:06] their friends and neighbors and telling

[23:08] them why this is needed and why they

[23:10] should vote yes. You might also get some

[23:12] opponents, right, who step up and say,

[23:13] "This is a terrible idea. We shouldn't

[23:15] be doing it. Here's why." For this

[23:17] survey to be a reliable gauge of the

[23:19] reli a reliable gauge of the feasibility

[23:22] of a potential revenue measure. We need

[23:24] to simulate that discussion and debate

[23:26] in the space of the poll. So we

[23:28] understand not only where are your

[23:29] voters on the natural which was that

[23:30] initial ballot test but what happens to

[23:33] their support for these proposals once

[23:34] they hear positive arguments and once

[23:36] they hear negative arguments. So we do

[23:39] that by uh first testing positive

[23:41] arguments. You can see here on this

[23:43] slide uh the nature of the question is

[23:45] supporters of the measure say blank you

[23:47] insert a positive argument. Do you think

[23:49] this is a very convincing somewhat

[23:50] convincing or not at all convincing

[23:52] reason to support the [clears throat]

[23:53] proposal?

[23:55] Um, and what you see is, you know, a lot

[23:57] of these positive arguments resonate.

[23:59] Um, towards the top of the list though,

[24:01] it's interesting. I've found in just the

[24:04] last uh election cycle that if you can

[24:06] just add a little specificity to some of

[24:09] these arguments, it can make a big

[24:11] difference. Right? So, to talk generally

[24:12] about the fact that you need to maintain

[24:15] roads and you have a lot of sewers and

[24:16] storm drain pipes and parks to maintain

[24:19] will get you a certain reaction. When

[24:21] you can actually quantify and say the

[24:22] city maintains 200 miles of streets, 300

[24:25] m 90 miles of sewer and storm drain

[24:28] pipes and 31 parks, suddenly it kind of

[24:32] puts into perspective the scale and the

[24:35] magnitude of what you as a city have to

[24:38] maintain. And it really sort of

[24:40] catapults this message from being kind

[24:42] of a lukewarm positive argument into

[24:45] being one of your stronger positive

[24:47] arguments. So you can see here we got a

[24:49] lot of positive arguments. as they get

[24:50] traction. Now, at at this point in the

[24:53] poll, voters have now heard more about

[24:56] this proposal, these proposals than they

[24:58] did initially, right? Subsequent to the

[25:01] initial ballot test on the bond, we

[25:02] talked about the possible tax rates that

[25:04] could be associated with the bond. Um,

[25:06] we in both cases had the chance to

[25:08] convey more details about how the funds

[25:11] could be spent. We've also conveyed

[25:13] positive arguments. We have not conveyed

[25:14] negatives. So, on the next slide, we

[25:17] check in with what we call the interim

[25:19] ballot test. We present the same 75

[25:21] words and we ask now that you've heard a

[25:23] bit more where do you stand? You can see

[25:25] at this point we're in a dead heat

[25:27] between these two measures. Uh the sales

[25:30] tax I mean sorry the bond support for

[25:32] the bond actually ticked down a point

[25:34] right? So we're now at 58%. However,

[25:36] support for the sales tax has increased

[25:38] five points and we're now at 58%. So

[25:42] even though we're tied in terms of the

[25:44] level of support for the respective

[25:45] measures here again the playing fields

[25:48] aren't even. We're still about nine

[25:50] points lower than the twothirds

[25:52] threshold that's required for passing

[25:54] for a bond. Meanwhile, we're eight

[25:56] points north of the simple majority

[25:59] threshold that's required for the sales

[26:01] tax option. And then next slide and then

[26:05] we get to the negatives. So the idea

[26:07] behind the negatives is I want to

[26:09] pressure test voter support for this

[26:11] proposal by peppering them with a series

[26:13] of negative arguments. the kind of

[26:15] opposition arguments they might

[26:16] encounter during an election cycle so

[26:18] that we have an understanding of should

[26:21] you get opposition, should they be vocal

[26:23] and get their message out there, how

[26:25] much impact would that have potentially

[26:27] on voter support for your proposal. So,

[26:29] we tested a series of negative

[26:31] arguments. You can see here at the top

[26:32] of the list, the top three all have to

[26:35] do with what we think is probably going

[26:36] to be the dominant theme of this

[26:38] upcoming election, which is

[26:39] affordability, right? Everyone's

[26:41] sensitive cost of living and

[26:42] affordability. uh uh issues and all the

[26:46] top three here kind of focus on that

[26:48] from one angle or another. So we see

[26:50] that the negatives do get some traction.

[26:53] The real question though is what happens

[26:54] afterwards and that is the next slide.

[26:57] So after the negatives um what we see is

[27:00] the bond cools down to 54% at this

[27:03] point. So we are a full 13 points below

[27:06] the 2/3 threshold. um whereas the sales

[27:09] tax cools down less and we're landing at

[27:11] 56% which is six points north of the

[27:14] simple majority that's required for

[27:16] passage. And so one of the interesting

[27:18] patterns in this poll is the bond starts

[27:20] higher and the more people are learning

[27:22] about the proposal, it tends to trail in

[27:25] a downward direction. Meanwhile, support

[27:27] for the sales tax winds up ending the

[27:29] survey higher than it began.

[27:32] Next slide, please. So, I've got a

[27:35] couple wrap-up um slides on the uh

[27:39] polling that I'll share and then I'll

[27:40] kick it back over to Zach. So, what does

[27:43] all this mean? Um yeah, I'm going to

[27:45] circle back to that overarching question

[27:46] I mentioned at the outset as the main

[27:48] motivator for why we do this research,

[27:50] which is to answer that question of is

[27:51] it feasible? What I mean by that is if

[27:54] you as a council choose to place a

[27:56] measure on the ballot, does it have a

[27:57] reasonable chance of success in

[27:59] November? I think the answer to that

[28:01] question really depends on which measure

[28:02] we're talking about. Based on these

[28:04] polling results, we do not see that a

[28:06] bond is feasible. At no point do we have

[28:09] enough support to where I felt

[28:10] comfortable thinking that you're going

[28:12] to be able to achieve a 2/3 uh threshold

[28:16] in November. The general sales tax on

[28:18] the other hand is a different story. I

[28:20] think that is a feasible measure, right?

[28:22] I think there's a path forward for a

[28:23] winning measure. Why is that? What's all

[28:26] the things that you see under the

[28:28] bullets there for uh positive signs for

[28:30] the sales tax? We saw that right out of

[28:32] the gates with just that 75word ballot

[28:34] statement, we had sufficient natural

[28:36] support. We need simple majority. We had

[28:38] 53%. Um and we also saw that as the as

[28:42] voters learned more about that sales tax

[28:44] measure, support for that option grew.

[28:47] Right? That wasn't the case with the

[28:48] bond. It was the case with the sales

[28:50] tax. All of the sort of projects and

[28:53] services that you can fund with a sales

[28:55] tax were popular. We've got positive

[28:57] arguments that resonate. And

[28:59] importantly, at each point in the poll

[29:01] where we circled back to a respondent

[29:03] and said, "Now that you've heard a bit

[29:05] more, where do you stand on these

[29:07] measures?" At every one of those ballot

[29:09] tests for the sales tax, it was above

[29:11] that simple majority required for

[29:13] passage. And that was even after

[29:15] opposition arguments. And so when we see

[29:17] that sort of combination of things,

[29:19] those pieces to the puzzle in place, um

[29:22] that's what we want to see to be able to

[29:24] feel comfortable that you've got a

[29:25] measure that could be winnable on

[29:26] election day. That said, there's also

[29:28] some challenges that come out of this

[29:30] poll that I think we really want to be

[29:31] wide soberide about. Um one is the

[29:35] receptiveness to potential opposition

[29:37] arguments. We did see that um you know

[29:39] should you get opposition we saw that

[29:41] that was going to carve off a bit of the

[29:43] support um for either proposal but um u

[29:47] more so for the bond less so for the

[29:49] sales tax but there was an impact there.

[29:51] Um we want to be thoughtful about the

[29:54] electoral environment in which we're

[29:55] heading into. Um this coming election is

[29:58] going to be hyperartisan like the last

[30:00] few have been and that can have an

[30:02] impact as you get closer to election

[30:04] day. the campaigning, the partisan

[30:06] campaigning sort of hits high gear, that

[30:09] can cause a little bit of a a change in

[30:12] how some voters might view your measure.

[30:14] There might also and probably will be

[30:16] competing measures on the ballot. So,

[30:17] you won't be the only thing on the

[30:19] ballot. And then finally, you know,

[30:22] there are these unknowns and and they're

[30:23] sort of unknown in the sense that, you

[30:25] know, we are currently living with with

[30:28] tariffs. It's having a certain impact on

[30:30] inflation. It's having a certain impact

[30:32] on the economy overall. We don't know

[30:35] what the next nine months is going to

[30:37] hold, right? But these are not totally

[30:39] unknowns. I mean, we are living in this

[30:40] environment now. The question is whether

[30:42] things get a little better, a little

[30:43] worse. Um, and obviously you have these

[30:45] other measures that could be on the

[30:46] ballot. So, all of these things are

[30:48] things that depending on how they play

[30:50] out can create a little adversity for

[30:52] your measure. Um, I bring them up not

[30:56] because I think these are insurmountable

[30:58] challenges. They're just a reminder that

[31:00] when we move forward with a measure, we

[31:02] want to put a measure on the ballot that

[31:04] can withstand some of these headwinds,

[31:06] right? We want to put a a measure on the

[31:08] ballot that we aren't crossing our

[31:10] fingers and holding our breath and

[31:12] hoping that we've got great weather on

[31:14] election day. You know, we want to put a

[31:16] measure up there that's squarely in the

[31:18] sort of space that voters have said that

[31:21] they'd want to see uh and this measure

[31:24] be and and focused on particular

[31:26] services and improvements. Um, and uh, I

[31:30] think if we do that, we're in a good

[31:31] position. Next slide, please.

[31:34] So, although you've got promising

[31:36] results with respect to the sales tax,

[31:38] it's important to keep in mind that a

[31:39] survey like this is not a crystal ball

[31:42] looking forward to election day saying

[31:44] you're going to get 53 or 59% on

[31:46] election day. It's a snapshot in time,

[31:49] right? It tells us where your voters are

[31:50] today. It tells us how they are likely

[31:53] to react to the types of information

[31:55] they can encounter during the election

[31:56] cycle. But ultimately what happens on

[31:58] election day isn't what based on what

[32:00] your poll says today. It's based on

[32:02] everything that happens from this point

[32:04] forward. Right? So it's a kind of a

[32:06] reminder that we need to make smart

[32:08] decisions about the measure that you put

[32:10] in front of voters so that it's well

[32:12] aligned with the kind of measure that

[32:13] they've said that they are interested in

[32:15] sporting and you got to put the work in

[32:18] in terms of communications. So under the

[32:20] category of smart decisions, I would

[32:22] just point out a couple things. number

[32:23] one as a general sales tax. Although

[32:26] there are two elections in our near

[32:28] future, we've got the primary in June as

[32:30] well as the general election in

[32:32] November. One of the conditions of

[32:34] having a general tax is that it needs to

[32:36] appear on that upcoming November ballot.

[32:38] It's not an option for June. I also like

[32:41] the November turnout being higher

[32:43] anyways. And so I I think that's the the

[32:45] date to be focusing on. From a tax rate

[32:48] perspective on the sales tax, I would

[32:49] keep it at the quarter cent. That keeps

[32:51] you under the cap. it brings you up to

[32:53] the cap uh of the the total combined

[32:56] sales tax rate. Um and so I would stay

[32:59] there. In terms of funding priorities,

[33:02] everything you know that we tested was

[33:04] popular. And it's important to keep in

[33:06] mind that a a general tax does not

[33:08] earmark the funds for any particular

[33:10] purpose. But that said, from your

[33:13] general fund, you fund all the things

[33:14] you see there under that bullet. And

[33:16] that's kind of the things that voters

[33:18] indicated they are most interested in

[33:20] supporting. That's combination of public

[33:22] work, public works and public safety.

[33:24] Um, and then from a moving forward

[33:29] standpoint, there's really two paths of

[33:30] communication to be thinking about.

[33:32] There's the non-advocacy communications

[33:34] that the city can do, right? Just

[33:37] providing voters with basic information

[33:39] that helps build awareness of what your

[33:42] service needs are, your capital funding

[33:45] needs, and start to build consensus on a

[33:47] proposal. Ultimately, there would also

[33:49] have to be an independent campaign,

[33:51] private dollars not funded by the city,

[33:54] um that could actually go out and

[33:55] advocate for this measure during the

[33:56] election cycle. And one more one more

[33:58] thing I want to point out is when we

[34:01] started this process, you know, we were

[34:03] looking at potentially a bond as well as

[34:04] a sales tax. One of the things that's

[34:07] important to keep in mind about these

[34:08] sales taxes, there's a cap, right, on

[34:10] the rate that is allowed. Um there's a

[34:13] max uh sales tax rate that's allowed in

[34:15] any uh county. and there's only a

[34:19] quarter% left uh in that within your

[34:22] city. And so there's this 1/4 cent sales

[34:25] tax that's there. Now you as a city can

[34:28] go with a measure and claim that in

[34:30] which case those dollars will stay

[34:32] local, right? The sales tax revenue from

[34:34] that from that measure would stay local

[34:36] and it would be controlled by the city.

[34:38] If the city doesn't take it and another

[34:40] say regionwide or countywide um agency

[34:43] does that effectively will lock the city

[34:46] out of being able to go for that in the

[34:48] future. Right? Once that once that

[34:50] quarter cent is taken it is no longer

[34:53] available. And so you have sort of a

[34:56] limited time you know uh sort of

[34:58] opportunity here to be able to go grab

[35:00] that. Um I'm not sure what other

[35:02] agencies are going to do but um

[35:04] obviously at some point that would be

[35:06] claimed. So, uh, I think with that I'll

[35:09] hand it back to Zach.

[35:12] >> Thank you. So, yeah, just quickly some

[35:15] » Thank you. So, yeah, just quickly some

[35:15] next steps. So, if the council, uh,

[35:17] decides to move forward with option one,

[35:19] two, or three, staff will engage in an

[35:22] educational outreach effort to inform

[35:24] the community about the potential ballot

[35:26] measure. We'll work with True North

[35:29] Research to conduct a tracking survey in

[35:31] the spring or early summer of 2026 so we

[35:33] can get more information about uh likely

[35:36] voters and their feelings towards the

[35:39] revenue measure. Uh we'll also develop

[35:41] draft ballot language and then lastly

[35:44] report back to the council on the survey

[35:47] results and ask for final direction on

[35:49] whether to place the measure on the

[35:51] ballot. That would likely happen in July

[35:53] of 2026. And it's important to note like

[35:56] Timothy mentioned that uh u once once

[36:00] the council if the council does decide

[36:03] to put the uh measure on the ballot then

[36:07] uh after that point the city can no

[36:09] longer spend city resources or staff

[36:11] time on community outreach.

[36:15] So last slide here are the four options.

[36:17] It's really move forward with uh

[36:19] education and outreach on a sales tax

[36:21] measure, a general obligation bond, both

[36:24] or neither. And with that, I'll pass it

[36:27] back to the mayor. Thank you.

[36:29] >> Thank you, Mr. Raa and [clears throat]

[36:31] » Thank you, Mr. Raa and [clears throat]

[36:31] Mr. McCarnney.

[36:33] At this point, I'd like to

[36:36] open for public comment on this item. If

[36:40] you are in the room and have a speaker

[36:42] slip, you can hand it to the city clerk

[36:44] at this time. If you're on Zoom, please

[36:46] raise your hand.

[36:48] Mr. City Clerk, uh, how many speakers do

[36:51] we have?

[36:53] >> Certainly, Mayor Lorraine, if you are in

[36:55] » Certainly, Mayor Lorraine, if you are in

[36:55] our virtual environment, please raise

[36:56] your hand if you wish to speak on this

[36:58] item. We will be calling the last

[37:00] speaker. So, we'll give you just a few

[37:02] moments to do so.

[37:05] Mayor Lorraine, we have a total of three

[37:08] requests to speak. We have two in

[37:09] person, and our final speaker on this

[37:12] item will be Thomas Morgan. We'll begin

[37:14] with our in-person request to speak. If

[37:16] you are participating in person, we have

[37:18] a podium in the center of our room here.

[37:21] Please speak in directly into the

[37:23] microphone. And we will begin with

[37:26] Michael Reagan and using council adopted

[37:29] rules and procedures. We will set the

[37:31] time limit at three minutes per speaker.

[37:35] >> Is this working? Yes, working. Now, not

[37:38] » Is this working? Yes, working. Now, not

[37:38] often I speak have ever spoke down to

[37:41] you. I guess we're speaking down.

[37:43] Usually I'm looking up at you. Happy New

[37:45] Year to all of you. Um that was a great

[37:48] presentation. Um I'm not too thrilled

[37:51] with um consult consultings. Uh the

[37:55] amount of money that we spent on

[37:56] consulting fees. Uh I've seen many of

[37:58] those spent over the many years and uh

[38:01] it seems to add up to a lot of things we

[38:03] could do like we need a roof at our

[38:05] library and our uh del and our senior

[38:07] center. I think that money could be

[38:09] better spent because I think a lot of

[38:10] this stuff we already know and I think

[38:12] what you should do is put this thing in

[38:14] a binder and whenever you want to do a

[38:16] bond or or sales tax I think this pretty

[38:18] much tells you everything you're going

[38:20] to know for the many years because I

[38:21] don't think it's going to change too

[38:22] much. Um my point uh I guess it from his

[38:27] speech not wanting a bond measure I

[38:29] think that's important. My big question

[38:30] was not just the cost of a bond at $323

[38:33] million but the actual pay repayment of

[38:36] it. I think it's almost doubled. So, I

[38:38] think we're looking at almost 600 $600

[38:40] million to repay a bond. So, I think

[38:42] that's a lot of money that should be

[38:44] explained to people on the sales tax.

[38:47] Um, as you I didn't know that before. If

[38:50] we don't take it, it's gone. The problem

[38:52] with that is we seem to be losing a lot

[38:55] of our sales tax revenue in my

[38:58] community.

[39:00] We're losing them all. I see nothing but

[39:03] businesses closing around a lot of the

[39:06] development that we had that you

[39:08] approved for u density and height

[39:11] Safeway store lucky stores and those

[39:13] sort of things for redevelopment we

[39:15] could be losing a lot of a lot of the

[39:17] money that would give us the ability to

[39:20] to have a sales tax. So it seems to be

[39:24] we're going in the wrong direction. want

[39:26] a sales tax, but we're losing so much

[39:28] revenue with with the loss of so many so

[39:31] many retail um establishments.

[39:34] Um, I guess my last point would be that

[39:38] um

[39:40] I do believe because of the um

[39:44] what I've read that the school is

[39:47] proposing a bond, our state has a $2

[39:50] billion deficit and then your guys going

[39:53] to put on either a bond or a sales tax.

[39:56] I think it's the wrong time to try to

[39:58] ask people because I think they're all

[39:59] going to fail. I think there's going to

[40:01] be quite a few of these either bonds or

[40:03] taxes coming up in 26. I think we should

[40:06] look hard before we start spending a lot

[40:08] of time and money trying to get a tax

[40:10] for this year. Um and uh thank you for

[40:14] your time.

[40:16] >> Thank you. Our next speaker will be Dana

[40:18] » Thank you. Our next speaker will be Dana

[40:18] Sahai.

[40:25] » Hi council. Um,

[40:28] I'm against asking uh taxpayers to pay

[40:31] another tax. We've already been asked to

[40:33] pass Measure CC, the flood and storm

[40:35] protection fee, and now this. There

[40:37] seems to be a pattern of asking for

[40:39] money every two years, and I'm concerned

[40:41] that a sales tax won't raise as much

[40:43] money as anticipated since retail

[40:45] continues to shrink in Sano. Just

[40:48] because you can doesn't mean you should.

[40:50] Thank you.

[40:51] >> Thank you. Moving to our virtual

[40:53] » Thank you. Moving to our virtual

[40:53] environment where our first and only

[40:55] speaker will be Thomas Morgan. Thomas,

[40:57] please go ahead and unmute your mic.

[41:07] » Hello. Can you hear me?

[41:08] >> It's a little faint. If you wouldn't

[41:09] » It's a little faint. If you wouldn't

[41:09] mind speaking just a little bit louder.

[41:13] » One second. Let me try to get on my

[41:17] >> Sorry, Thomas. We're not hearing you

[41:19] » Sorry, Thomas. We're not hearing you

[41:19] quite well. If you wouldn't mind

[41:20] speaking just a little bit louder.

[41:28] Now, Thomas, we're not hearing you at

[41:30] all at this time. If you're continuing

[41:32] to speak, maybe having some technical

[41:34] issues,

[41:47] Mayor Lorraine, it looks like we're um

[41:49] unable to hear our final public

[41:52] commenter. Um so, at this time, we will

[41:54] close public comment. Um before we go to

[41:57] console comments, um we are experiencing

[41:59] some technical difficulties at the

[42:01] moment. So, uh some of our virtual

[42:03] attendees are having some difficulty

[42:04] hearing us. Um so, if you could please

[42:06] speak directly into the microphone as

[42:08] you are providing your comments, that

[42:09] would be appreciated.

[42:11] Okay, I will try my best to do that and

[42:15] thank you for the update and I'm sorry

[42:16] to Thomas, but uh at least I know that

[42:20] Thomas uh frequently contributes and can

[42:23] email us uh his thoughts for what it's

[42:25] worth. Um

[42:29] at this time, I would like to ask if any

[42:32] of my council colleagues have any

[42:34] questions members.

[42:36] >> Thank you through the mayor. I'm

[42:37] » Thank you through the mayor. I'm

[42:37] wondering if we can call our um finance

[42:40] director Abby up here to answer a few

[42:43] questions.

[42:46] >> Um primarily my question is if you could

[42:48] » Um primarily my question is if you could

[42:48] explain to the public

[42:52] um about the current city deficit and

[42:54] what the potential impacts would be if

[42:57] we didn't have a sales tax measure or

[42:59] bond measure.

[43:04] Thank you.

[43:08] Great. Sure. Um, and we will be talking

[43:10] about that also when we come back for

[43:12] the midyear budget adjustments in

[43:14] February at the February 20th meeting.

[43:15] So, we'll be going into depth more. Uh,

[43:17] but at this time, we'll talk about the

[43:19] kind of current deficit that we've been

[43:21] talking about. Um, when we came to

[43:22] adopter budget for fiscal year 2526, we

[43:26] had a budget deficit of $12 million. Um,

[43:29] with our revenue estimates and our

[43:31] expenditures. Um after that we also

[43:33] heard that we did not get the full VLF

[43:36] shortfall that we were due for 2526. So

[43:39] we that's another two million that right

[43:41] now um will not be coming in in

[43:44] revenues. So that increased our deficit

[43:45] to 14 million. Um, so what we're looking

[43:48] for is this is we do think that with

[43:51] salary savings and some expenditure

[43:53] savings, we can hopefully get that down

[43:54] to a lower amount, but given that we're

[43:56] seeing about 5 to 7 million in deficit

[43:59] kind of on an annual basis, um, we're

[44:02] looking to an ongoing revenue source to

[44:05] kind of help meet that demand because

[44:08] um, expenses are continuing as

[44:09] everybody's been talking about and our

[44:11] revenues are growing. They're just not

[44:12] growing as fast um, as expenses are at

[44:15] this point. Okay, great. Thank you so

[44:17] much. Um,

[44:24] » I think that's it for me. I just

[44:25] appreciate the clarification.

[44:28] >> Very good, Council Member Nome

[44:32] » Very good, Council Member Nome

[44:32] through the mayor. Thank you.

[44:34] >> Okay. Um, these questions I'm going to

[44:36] » Okay. Um, these questions I'm going to

[44:36] direct towards True North and then if

[44:39] need to we can ask the staff as well. Uh

[44:42] the first question is of the,2

[44:44] interviewees, do we know with certainty

[44:47] or relative certainty that these are

[44:49] Sano city residents that are um voters

[44:52] within the city?

[44:58] » You're on mute.

[45:02] » Tim, you're on mute.

[45:03] >> Yeah, I'm sorry. Uh can I right as you

[45:06] » Yeah, I'm sorry. Uh can I right as you

[45:06] were speaking I heard a sneeze and so I

[45:08] missed part of what you had.

[45:10] >> Well you you have a great turnout with

[45:12] » Well you you have a great turnout with

[45:12] a,2 interviewees and a city population

[45:15] of about 110,000. So I was curious do we

[45:18] know

[45:18] >> just froze.

[45:21] » just froze.

[45:21] >> Can you hear me?

[45:23] » Can you hear me?

[45:23] >> I'm sorry it just froze now. Um one more

[45:25] » I'm sorry it just froze now. Um one more

[45:25] time.

[45:26] >> Okay. Uh you have a great turnout with

[45:28] » Okay. Uh you have a great turnout with

[45:28] the number of interviewees you have with

[45:30] 12. I was curious, do we know if these

[45:32] are voting Sato City residents or do we

[45:35] just, you know, know that they're local?

[45:38] >> Yeah. No, they they in order to even

[45:41] » Yeah. No, they they in order to even

[45:41] have a chance to be part of our sample,

[45:44] you need to be a a registered voter

[45:46] within the city and based on when you

[45:50] register to vote as well as what

[45:52] elections you've taken advantage of or

[45:54] participated in since that point to

[45:58] demonstrate a pattern of behavior that

[46:01] we would expect would also uh result in

[46:04] you casting a ballot in the upcoming

[46:06] November election. And so and then once

[46:09] we send out invitations, those

[46:10] invitations, every one of those

[46:12] invitations has a hyperlink in it. The

[46:14] hyperlink is unique to that respondent.

[46:17] And so that only people who were part of

[46:20] our randomly selected sample

[46:22] um and were uh sent that invitation can

[46:25] can access the site and they can

[46:28] complete it one time only. So we don't

[46:29] have a situation where someone might

[46:31] say, "Oh, this is a great survey and I

[46:34] want, you know, my hundred best friends

[46:35] to take it. let me forward my invitation

[46:37] to them. It doesn't work that way. They

[46:39] can't access the site. So, we're we're

[46:41] confident that these individuals are

[46:43] residents. They're vote registered

[46:46] voters and they have demonstrated in the

[46:48] past a pattern of participation that

[46:51] would line up with them casting ballots

[46:53] this November.

[46:54] >> Thank you. That's fantastic. That makes

[46:56] » Thank you. That's fantastic. That makes

[46:56] me feel more confident in the the

[46:58] results, too, just knowing that they

[47:00] have been vetted. Uh, second question,

[47:04] and I'm not leaning towards bond, but

[47:05] the bond measure is only paid by

[47:08] property owners. Is that accurate?

[47:12] >> Yes. So, bond is a levy on property.

[47:14] » Yes. So, bond is a levy on property.

[47:14] >> So, does that mean that bond votes can

[47:17] » So, does that mean that bond votes can

[47:17] only be voted by property owners or is

[47:20] it open to the general public?

[47:22] >> Yeah. No, this is even though it's only

[47:25] » Yeah. No, this is even though it's only

[47:25] a a tax on property, same thing as a

[47:27] parcel tax is, right? It's a tax on on

[47:29] property. Uh it is voted on by anyone

[47:32] who's a registered voter who cares to

[47:34] participate in the election can cast

[47:36] ballots on it, right? So you don't have

[47:38] to be a property owner to vote on a

[47:40] bond. You can. It's just like every

[47:42] other u voterdeed measure. You just have

[47:44] to be a registered voter. Makes sense.

[47:46] Thank you. Uh and then I want to talk

[47:49] about the use it or lose it question. So

[47:52] if the sales tax, we go to the sales

[47:54] tax, we have for the city of San Monteo

[47:57] a quarter of a cent. If the county were

[48:00] to put up a competing measure and go

[48:03] after that quarter percent, would again

[48:06] every voter in Sonteo County be able to

[48:08] weigh in on if the cityo has to pay the

[48:12] other quarter cent to the county or is

[48:14] it still exclusive to the people who

[48:16] would be paying the additional tax? So

[48:19] any tax measure that's on the ballot

[48:21] that would be for the city of Sonteo

[48:23] like this quarter cent sales tax we just

[48:25] discussed here that is only decided on

[48:28] by voters in your city right so you get

[48:32] to decide the fate of that measure. The

[48:34] point of the lose it or use it use it or

[48:36] lose it issue is that you know perhaps

[48:39] in a future election the county of San

[48:41] Monteo decides that they want to put a

[48:44] quarter cent sales tax on the ballot for

[48:46] some other regionwide purpose. If that

[48:48] passes countywide, it doesn't matter if

[48:50] it passes within the city of San Monteo,

[48:52] but if countywide that measure passes,

[48:55] that quarter cent is going to apply

[48:57] across the board. And at that point,

[49:00] there is no that quarter cent increment

[49:02] has been taken up, right? It's been

[49:04] used. You as a city would no longer have

[49:07] the ability to go do your own quarter

[49:09] cent because you're up against the cap.

[49:12] >> Okay. And do we know how many of the

[49:14] » Okay. And do we know how many of the

[49:14] cities and towns in the county are not

[49:17] at their fully capped sales tax rate?

[49:21] >> I don't I don't know that off hand.

[49:23] » I don't I don't know that off hand.

[49:23] >> There there's probably, you know, I

[49:26] » There there's probably, you know, I

[49:26] don't want to guess, but I know that

[49:27] there's from counting from my memory,

[49:30] there's at least five or six that are

[49:32] already at their ceiling. And so you're

[49:34] seeing that, you know, there's potential

[49:36] of a regional measure passage. they had

[49:38] to get special legislation to go above

[49:40] the ceiling for that. Um, and so that's

[49:43] what preserves the opportunity for our

[49:45] city to still be able to go after that

[49:47] quarter cent. At some point down the

[49:49] line though, it's like uh the county had

[49:51] measure K pass. That was their sales

[49:53] tax, right? If the county comes in the

[49:55] future wanting a sales tax again, say a

[49:57] quarter cent, then that will go that's,

[50:00] you know, it's estimated that it would

[50:01] generate about seven million annually,

[50:03] that would go to the entire county, not

[50:05] to San Monteo within the city limits

[50:08] >> and county voters would be voting to

[50:10] » and county voters would be voting to

[50:10] take to tax on

[50:11] >> from the city of San Mo.

[50:12] » from the city of San Mo.

[50:12] >> Well, sharing it amongst all the cities,

[50:14] » Well, sharing it amongst all the cities,

[50:14] right?

[50:15] >> Yeah.

[50:15] » Yeah.

[50:15] >> Yeah. Thanks for clarifying. Um, and

[50:19] » Yeah. Thanks for clarifying. Um, and

[50:19] then I I did hear something which is

[50:21] interesting, but have we accounted for

[50:22] the idea that we may be losing 10 to 20%

[50:26] of our sales tax with the loss of them

[50:28] all? Is is that something we've

[50:30] accounted for? And what would be the

[50:32] offset of that? Do we know

[50:36] >> Abby?

[50:36] » Abby?

[50:36] >> So, we're going to be doing an economic

[50:38] » So, we're going to be doing an economic

[50:38] analysis and study as part of the

[50:40] project and it will analyze what that

[50:42] means um overall for the city um with

[50:45] the new project itself. And at that

[50:47] point in time, we'll be able to better

[50:49] understand. But just in general,

[50:50] overall, if you look at cities across

[50:52] California right now, uh sales tax is

[50:55] remaining flat or slightly uh lower than

[50:59] uh what has been typically on average.

[51:00] And so we're experiencing the same thing

[51:02] here. The city though is limited on what

[51:06] revenue generating measures that we

[51:07] have. And so that's why when we look at

[51:10] just uh the different revenue measure

[51:12] options, the sales tax or the geo bond

[51:14] uh were the two that were the most

[51:16] viable in terms of vehicles in order to

[51:18] generate revenue in this uh for this

[51:21] organization in order to provide um

[51:24] essential services to our community. And

[51:26] that's something that I, you know, want

[51:28] to be able to speak to is that should we

[51:30] not receive um additional revenue, we're

[51:33] working on a financial sustainability

[51:35] plan, but the result is is that we're

[51:38] going to have to take a look at our city

[51:41] services and how we provide those uh now

[51:44] and into the future.

[51:47] >> So, sorry, council member, would it be

[51:49] » So, sorry, council member, would it be

[51:49] all right if we asked other council

[51:50] members?

[51:51] >> Yeah. Can I just finish on one just my

[51:53] » Yeah. Can I just finish on one just my

[51:53] my last followup to that was the 7

[51:55] million number that we forecasted is

[51:58] that based on slight deviation or a

[52:01] slight lowering of of last year's for

[52:03] example or is it based on last year's

[52:06] number? So, what we do is with the uh

[52:09] structural deficit, what we do here is

[52:10] to be financially prudent as a city

[52:13] organization, we do a 10-year forecast.

[52:16] Uh really taking a long-term look at our

[52:18] future revenues. And every year for the

[52:21] next 10 years, the city um is forecasted

[52:23] to have the 5 to7 million structural

[52:26] budget deficit with rising costs for

[52:29] services just like um everybody's

[52:31] experiencing um through throughout the

[52:35] nation. and and you know cost of

[52:36] services keep going up overall and so

[52:39] that's something that we as a city

[52:40] organization are having to um deal with

[52:45] as well.

[52:46] >> Thank you.

[52:46] » Thank you.

[52:46] >> Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.

[52:47] » Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.

[52:48] >> Thank you, sir.

[52:49] » Thank you, sir.

[52:49] >> Yes, Deputy Mayor Fernandez.

[52:52] » Yes, Deputy Mayor Fernandez.

[52:52] >> Um a couple of questions for uh Finance

[52:55] » Um a couple of questions for uh Finance

[52:55] Director Viser.

[53:00] » Sorry about the back and forth, Abby.

[53:02] I'm sorry.

[53:05] Um my first question is usually in years

[53:09] past when we've had deficits or gone

[53:10] through um challenging budgetary times,

[53:13] we have been able to count on backfill

[53:16] through grants from the federal and

[53:18] state government. Can you advise on the

[53:20] chances of that occurring to sort of

[53:21] backfill this deficit?

[53:25] >> Um I guess in terms of I don't know

[53:27] » Um I guess in terms of I don't know

[53:27] that's been a large part of how we have

[53:30] backfilled in the past. I think we have

[53:32] done a lot of belt tightening.

[53:34] >> Sure.

[53:34] » Sure.

[53:34] >> Um and kind of relied on special revenue

[53:36] » Um and kind of relied on special revenue

[53:36] sources, but I do know that's something

[53:37] that we're working on now more

[53:40] aggressively probably than we have in

[53:41] the past. So um but I think the

[53:44] >> So So I would just say that the grants

[53:45] » So So I would just say that the grants

[53:46] typically are utilized for one-time fund

[53:48] funding sources. There may be um some

[53:51] carveouts I would say with our police

[53:52] department um where we are able to use

[53:55] uh DOJ, Department of Justice grants uh

[53:58] to be able to help us on an ongoing um

[54:02] on an ongoing ongoing source of income.

[54:04] What we have done uh previously or the

[54:06] last two years is we're tapping into our

[54:09] reserves in order to get us through uh

[54:12] these lean times. And so with the city

[54:14] of San Mateo, when you really look at

[54:16] just the the revenues um overall as a

[54:20] city when the economy as well and you

[54:24] know we really rely on home sales here

[54:26] in this in this community because we

[54:28] have a real property transfer tax. We

[54:30] are the only city in Sanonteo County who

[54:32] has a real property transfer tax. But

[54:34] you know we're seeing historic lows in

[54:36] the volume of home sales in this

[54:39] community. Well, we're seeing that in

[54:40] the nation actually because of the high

[54:42] cost of interest uh for homes. And so,

[54:45] uh with that, when the interest rates

[54:47] are lower and the housing market is hot,

[54:49] the city then generates, uh more

[54:51] revenue. And what we've had is, you

[54:54] know, financially prudent city councils,

[54:56] this current city council and management

[54:58] overall to be able to store up reserves

[55:00] so that we can get through a lot of

[55:02] these lean times. But when we look at

[55:04] the forecast, we're still 5 to7 million

[55:07] uh looking down a structural deficit for

[55:09] the next 10 years. And our reserves can

[55:11] get us, you know, uh, you know, get us

[55:14] by for the next few years, but we really

[55:16] have to, you know, look at, um, how do

[55:20] we get out of that structural deficit?

[55:22] And so, um, what we've presented over

[55:24] the past year, we're working on a

[55:25] multi-prong financial sustainability

[55:27] plan. And this is one of the many um

[55:30] initiatives that we're looking at in

[55:32] addition to like what you were saying

[55:33] about grant funding sources looking at

[55:35] our real property. Um we have a bunch of

[55:38] mechanisms that we're looking at

[55:39] generating revenue um overall.

[55:42] >> Okay. And fully advising the fact that

[55:44] » Okay. And fully advising the fact that

[55:44] you are not psychic but um just given

[55:48] the tenor of the situation of what we've

[55:49] encountered with our CDBG funds, is it

[55:51] unlikely that we would get any federal

[55:54] supplements outside of law enforcement

[55:56] funds?

[55:58] So dependent on the grant terms, it's

[56:00] really going to be, you know, it's

[56:02] limited because of um what they have put

[56:06] into the terms itself that the city

[56:08] cannot align its work with what the

[56:11] federal government's terms are. And so

[56:13] um what we're actually looking at is

[56:15] alternative funding sources right now to

[56:16] support our most vulnerable CE members

[56:19] of our community to provide essential

[56:21] services to them as well. And so we're

[56:23] not, you know, this this current year

[56:25] right now, we have staff putting a

[56:26] proposal together because we can't tap

[56:27] into those federal funds this year um

[56:30] where we're going to have to dip into

[56:31] potentially our reserves in order to

[56:33] float [snorts] because it is essential

[56:35] services to our most vulnerable

[56:37] community members.

[56:38] >> Okay. And I believe that the state is

[56:40] » Okay. And I believe that the state is

[56:40] also suffering from a multi-billion

[56:42] dollar deficit. Is that accurate?

[56:43] >> That is correct.

[56:44] » That is correct.

[56:44] >> So is it unlikely that we'd be getting

[56:45] » So is it unlikely that we'd be getting

[56:45] any state funding beyond what we've

[56:48] gotten recently?

[56:49] >> So the state actually has taken funding

[56:51] » So the state actually has taken funding

[56:51] away. So, the vehicle license fee um is

[56:54] one great example of that this year

[56:56] where the city is owed by state law to

[56:59] get at least its full recovery of its

[57:01] VLF fee. And so, we were shorted by 2.25

[57:04] million in this last fiscal year. And

[57:07] now, in the governor's recently released

[57:09] budget, I doubt that there's a line item

[57:11] for VLF funding for this city. And

[57:13] that's an additional $7 million deficit

[57:15] that we would look at. We were receiving

[57:17] those revenues over the last 20 years up

[57:20] until last year. and that spot has

[57:22] turned off now because they're not

[57:23] meeting their legal obligations uh to

[57:25] the 20 cities and the county of

[57:27] Sanonteo.

[57:28] >> And my last question, sorry to Abby or

[57:31] » And my last question, sorry to Abby or

[57:31] to Alex, have we taken any uh this is

[57:34] beyond just the item on ahead of us

[57:36] right now, but have we taken any action

[57:39] with or discussions with any of our

[57:40] legislative representatives about

[57:42] increasing is that do we know the

[57:44] process for increasing our our sales our

[57:46] tax capacity?

[57:48] So an overall ceiling, you're talking

[57:50] about exceeding the ceiling itself. It

[57:52] would it would take special legislation

[57:55] and in talking with our legislative

[57:56] consultant, it's a big deal to be able

[57:58] to get above that cap.

[58:00] >> Um right now we still have ceiling and

[58:03] » Um right now we still have ceiling and

[58:03] so we're still have a quarter cent here

[58:05] and so that's why we're focused on that.

[58:07] But I know other cities have looked into

[58:08] like a good example is South San

[58:10] Francisco was looking at options of how

[58:12] um you could look at that in years past.

[58:14] I don't know where they're at uh now,

[58:15] but just overall that's the other, you

[58:18] know, only other route in order to um

[58:21] increase your ceiling sales tax here.

[58:23] >> Thank you very much. Thank you, Abby.

[58:25] » Thank you very much. Thank you, Abby.

[58:25] Thank you, Alex.

[58:28] >> Council member Diaz Nash.

[58:29] » Council member Diaz Nash.

[58:29] >> Thank you through the mayor. I'll try

[58:30] » Thank you through the mayor. I'll try

[58:30] and be quick. Uh these are largely for

[58:33] Tim. And number one, as part of your

[58:36] presentation,

[58:38] was I clear in understanding that there

[58:40] was a possibility to do a follow-on poll

[58:43] so that when we know the real

[58:45] environment closer to the summer of what

[58:47] other sales taxes or bond measures may

[58:50] be up, we can go back and take the

[58:52] temperature then.

[58:54] >> Yeah. Um, so the idea would be that uh

[58:58] » Yeah. Um, so the idea would be that uh

[58:58] probably [clears throat] springtime,

[58:59] early summer before council would have

[59:02] to make a an official decision about

[59:04] whether to place a measure on the

[59:05] ballot, you'd have a what's called a

[59:07] tracking survey and that would give us

[59:09] up-to-date information in that moment in

[59:11] time in that climate. We would also at

[59:14] that point have a much better idea about

[59:16] what other measures might be sharing the

[59:17] ballot with you. And so we can also

[59:20] build in that into the poll so we have

[59:23] some sense of what the sort of you know

[59:25] to the extent that it's sort of a

[59:26] competitive landscape how that would

[59:28] play out in the poll. We could we could

[59:30] build that into the study. So that is

[59:31] the idea. So this wouldn't be the last

[59:34] piece of information from your voters

[59:36] that you'd be seeing in terms of the

[59:39] their you know assessment of what a

[59:41] sales tax might look like.

[59:42] >> Great. Thank you. That's that's good

[59:43] » Great. Thank you. That's that's good

[59:44] news because it will be much more

[59:45] realistic environment. My second

[59:47] question is in reading through the uh

[59:51] the cross of the research is it a very

[59:54] very high level generalization to say

[59:57] that the respondents tended to be more

[1:00:01] positive about immediate services like

[1:00:05] public safety or filling potholes and

[1:00:07] they weren't as predisposed to putting

[1:00:10] money up to fix buildings which were in

[1:00:15] general not quite it is immediate to

[1:00:18] their lives.

[1:00:19] >> Yeah, you kind of have a mix of things

[1:00:21] » Yeah, you kind of have a mix of things

[1:00:21] with the results here, but you are

[1:00:24] correct that what we normally find when

[1:00:27] we're doing these types of studies is

[1:00:28] that voters will gravitate towards

[1:00:31] services more so than facilities

[1:00:33] themselves. That said, streets and

[1:00:36] roads, which everyone drives on and gets

[1:00:38] to experience every day, you know, if

[1:00:40] you have needs there, those tend to be

[1:00:42] kind of high level. And then the other

[1:00:44] is there is a growing awareness in the

[1:00:46] public about infrastructure right in

[1:00:48] general and the importance of taking

[1:00:50] care of that. And so when I looked at

[1:00:53] these the one of the nice things about

[1:00:55] the sales tax option is it allows you to

[1:00:57] address both services as well as capital

[1:00:59] needs and infrastructure whereas a bond

[1:01:01] is strictly infrastructure and so you

[1:01:04] can't really deal with some of those

[1:01:05] service priorities that your voters had.

[1:01:08] >> Thank you. And my last question in

[1:01:10] » Thank you. And my last question in

[1:01:10] looking at the key objections, the first

[1:01:13] was taxes are already too high. Number

[1:01:16] two, a fear of money being mismanaged.

[1:01:19] And number three, I need more

[1:01:20] information. That last one, needing more

[1:01:23] information. Could I interpret that as

[1:01:26] an opportunity that with appropriate

[1:01:30] public education on this this um

[1:01:34] potential measure that there could be

[1:01:36] opportunity to increase the uh the

[1:01:39] support?

[1:01:41] >> Yeah, certainly. I mean um what that is

[1:01:43] » Yeah, certainly. I mean um what that is

[1:01:43] is often times you know that question of

[1:01:46] for those who were no or not sure on the

[1:01:49] measure at the initial ballot test we

[1:01:51] ask them why. Um, and when somebody

[1:01:53] says, "Well, I'm just not ready to vote

[1:01:55] yes because I I just need more

[1:01:57] information and I want to know more

[1:01:58] about what the needs are, how this money

[1:02:00] is going to be used, etc., etc." That is

[1:02:02] an opportunity. Certainly.

[1:02:04] >> Great. Thank you. Those are all my

[1:02:06] » Great. Thank you. Those are all my

[1:02:06] questions.

[1:02:07] >> Thank you very much.

[1:02:10] » Thank you very much.

[1:02:10] And, uh, I appreciate the questions that

[1:02:13] have been asked so far. I did just want

[1:02:15] to check to see if there were any more.

[1:02:18] Okay. Uh, great. I I feel like I've

[1:02:22] heard

[1:02:24] uh some concerns over

[1:02:29] trying to raise funds when it may not be

[1:02:33] uh completely necessary, when there may

[1:02:35] be additional costs related to the

[1:02:37] raising of those funds. Um and concerns

[1:02:40] about sales tax uh as it exists in our

[1:02:45] city today and perhaps in our future.

[1:02:48] But I I heard also uh some

[1:02:53] uh facts being shared through uh our

[1:02:57] city staff about

[1:03:00] the current uh deficit we're

[1:03:01] experiencing and um some of the

[1:03:05] volatility uh in our budget and what we

[1:03:09] can expect in our future. Um,

[1:03:13] given this, I just wanted to go around

[1:03:16] the room and ask uh

[1:03:19] folks to let me know and the folks the

[1:03:22] community know what they uh would like

[1:03:24] to consider among these options. I think

[1:03:26] the good news about having four options

[1:03:28] is that you can pick one and uh you can

[1:03:31] maybe give a brief comment uh or two as

[1:03:33] to as to your your reasoning and uh

[1:03:36] would anyone like to go first?

[1:03:39] Yes, council members for your quick

[1:03:40] dates.

[1:03:41] >> I'm in favor of supporting option one,

[1:03:44] » I'm in favor of supporting option one,

[1:03:44] um, which is the sales tax measure. Um,

[1:03:47] you know, I think it's critical that we

[1:03:49] keep essential services. Um, and it

[1:03:51] sounds like we're going to continue to

[1:03:53] be in a structural deficit where that's

[1:03:55] at risk. Um, and if we want to keep the

[1:03:58] status quo, that means we have to invest

[1:03:59] back in the community. Um I would like

[1:04:03] us to kind of explore for the broader

[1:04:05] infrastructure needs that 323 million on

[1:04:10] um deficit that we have for capital

[1:04:11] infrastructure perhaps coming back in

[1:04:14] 2028 with something. Um but for now I

[1:04:17] think we should focus on closing the

[1:04:19] existing deficit. So I'm in favor of

[1:04:21] option one.

[1:04:23] >> Thank you.

[1:04:26] » Thank you.

[1:04:26] >> Council member Newsome. I am also in

[1:04:28] » Council member Newsome. I am also in

[1:04:28] favor of of a measure of option one. I

[1:04:32] think as council member Kadiki said that

[1:04:35] we could look at a bond measure for the

[1:04:37] future but I think for the 2026 we

[1:04:39] should move forward with um outreach and

[1:04:41] education for one.

[1:04:43] >> Thank you

[1:04:45] » Thank you

[1:04:46] deput uh deputy mayor Fernandez.

[1:04:47] >> Um I am also in favor of option one as

[1:04:50] » Um I am also in favor of option one as

[1:04:50] someone who's serving on the ballot

[1:04:52] measure committee um with council member

[1:04:55] Gaditzki. um we got to see all of these

[1:04:58] um options and in real time as the

[1:05:00] polling was happening with the different

[1:05:01] options and I don't think that any

[1:05:03] elected official wants to tax the people

[1:05:08] especially during an economic downturn

[1:05:10] but this is a really challenging time

[1:05:11] and there are basic services that many

[1:05:13] folks need in the city. So unfortunately

[1:05:16] we have to occasionally choose um

[1:05:21] that option and so I will be continuing

[1:05:23] to support option one.

[1:05:26] >> Thank you. Council member Diaz Nash.

[1:05:28] » Thank you. Council member Diaz Nash.

[1:05:28] >> I also will support option one and

[1:05:31] » I also will support option one and

[1:05:31] agreeing with my other council members

[1:05:33] but also adding the fact that sales tax

[1:05:36] gives us an opportunity to get revenue

[1:05:38] from visitors and people who are not

[1:05:40] just members of the city. So it helps to

[1:05:43] spread the burden a little bit more.

[1:05:47] >> Thank you very much.

[1:05:49] » Thank you very much.

[1:05:49] >> Yes.

[1:05:49] » Yes.

[1:05:49] >> To the mayor. I also just want to make

[1:05:52] » To the mayor. I also just want to make

[1:05:52] one comment. Sales tax does not include

[1:05:55] certain things like medications.

[1:05:57] >> So prescription drugs and groceries or

[1:05:59] » So prescription drugs and groceries or

[1:05:59] carveouts.

[1:06:01] >> Thank you.

[1:06:02] » Thank you.

[1:06:02] >> Thank you. I too will join uh the other

[1:06:07] » Thank you. I too will join uh the other

[1:06:07] council members in uh supporting option

[1:06:10] one at this time. Um

[1:06:14] and I I do agree with those who uh have

[1:06:19] shared interest in

[1:06:21] reconsidering revenue options in the

[1:06:23] future. Um I I do appreciate the public

[1:06:27] comment uh you know indicating that each

[1:06:30] time we do this it does cost some money.

[1:06:33] Um but I I do believe that uh

[1:06:39] the situation can change uh and and each

[1:06:43] time we look at it uh though some of the

[1:06:46] metrics may may appear similar uh it's

[1:06:50] it's important whenever we consider

[1:06:52] going ahead with a ballot measure of

[1:06:53] course which would require more expense

[1:06:56] uh to to make sure we have the the best

[1:06:59] knowledge and information available. And

[1:07:01] so it may just be uh a a necessary cost

[1:07:07] to make sure we're making the best

[1:07:08] decisions we can. Um as others have

[1:07:11] mentioned,

[1:07:13] uh I I do think it's it's important to

[1:07:16] uh shore up our budget when uh in an

[1:07:19] environment with significant volatility.

[1:07:22] uh we we have an opportunity here to ask

[1:07:24] our community and again I just want to

[1:07:27] uh

[1:07:29] you know reiterate that we're we're

[1:07:32] exploring something that will go before

[1:07:34] the public and the voters will decide

[1:07:35] what happens here. But um we can ask our

[1:07:39] community for something that helps us

[1:07:40] ensure that we can weather future

[1:07:43] budgetary storms and continue to provide

[1:07:46] highquality services and maintain them

[1:07:48] properly uh properly in good times and

[1:07:51] in lean. Uh the city manager mentioned

[1:07:54] having a 10-year forecast

[1:07:56] and uh I I think this helps this has the

[1:08:00] potential to give us a better chance to

[1:08:01] plan our budgets for multiple years at a

[1:08:03] time without feeling as though we may be

[1:08:06] in an emergency uh every year. And uh

[1:08:10] the use it or lose it uh phrase I I I

[1:08:13] think is is

[1:08:15] just another reason to consider that

[1:08:17] because uh this may be a limited

[1:08:20] opportunity to to focus money that we

[1:08:22] may find ourselves spending anyway um in

[1:08:26] the future toward more local services.

[1:08:30] And

[1:08:32] another uh comment

[1:08:34] >> just adding on what you're saying,

[1:08:36] » just adding on what you're saying,

[1:08:36] Mayor. I think the public needs to know

[1:08:39] that we're not just uh sitting here

[1:08:42] moaning the fact that we're losing money

[1:08:44] from the state, but that we are part of

[1:08:46] an active lawsuit with all the other

[1:08:48] cities in the county suing to get our

[1:08:51] VLF funds. So, we are fighting very

[1:08:54] proactively for that money as a

[1:08:56] long-term foundation for our city. And

[1:08:59] also I think it would be very important

[1:09:01] to address concerns that the public has

[1:09:03] raised that this if any sales tax

[1:09:06] measure were to pass, there would be a

[1:09:08] very strong oversight component of it

[1:09:11] like with measure S where there would be

[1:09:13] a committee that would look and see how

[1:09:15] is the money being spent so that it

[1:09:18] aligns with what if voters do vote for

[1:09:21] it positively where that money aligns

[1:09:23] with what they want.

[1:09:26] >> Thank you for that. um Mr. Raa

[1:09:29] » Thank you for that. um Mr. Raa

[1:09:29] >> of the direction we need.

[1:09:31] » of the direction we need.

[1:09:31] >> Thank you very much.

[1:09:32] » Thank you very much.

[1:09:32] >> Thank you.

[1:09:33] » Thank you.

[1:09:33] >> Uh and thank you all

[1:09:35] » Uh and thank you all

[1:09:35] >> Mr. Mayor recess till next meeting.

[1:09:38] » Mr. Mayor recess till next meeting.

[1:09:38] >> Uh yes. Well,

[1:09:39] » Uh yes. Well,

[1:09:39] >> thank you Tim.

[1:09:39] » thank you Tim.

[1:09:39] >> That that is our one item from the study

[1:09:41] » That that is our one item from the study

[1:09:41] session. And uh city clerk, I think you

[1:09:43] noted that we may need a little extra

[1:09:45] time given our venue.

[1:09:46] >> Yeah, we we might need about 10 minutes

[1:09:48] » Yeah, we we might need about 10 minutes

[1:09:48] just to switch over. We have a couple

[1:09:50] extra hoops to jump through to prepare

[1:09:51] ourselves for the regular meeting. So,

[1:09:53] if we could resume in 10 minutes, that

[1:09:54] would be greatly appreciated. Very good.

[1:09:57] In that case, uh let us do that.

[1:10:02] Thank you.

City Council Special Meeting, 1/12/26

Transcript