[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.