City Council - Special Meeting

When do our new chairs come? Uhoh. Uh, Reese, are we ready?

Yes, we're good. We're ready. Good afternoon everyone. Today is Monday, April 6th, 2026. I'd like to call this special meeting of the Carmel by the Sea City Council to order at 300 p.m. City Clerk, could you please call the role? Council member Baron here. Council member Bder here. Mayor Prom Delves here. Council member Dram here. Mayor Burn here. All are present. Good. Nova, would you like to read the hybrid meeting attendance options and the uh public comment guidelines?

Okay, sure. Um, during special city council meetings, public comments are permitted on items listed on the agenda. After each item on the agenda is introduced, the mayor will invite public comment on that item. Each speaker has three minutes to speak unless otherwise adjusted by the mayor. While stating your name is optional, it helps to identify speakers in the meeting minutes. Remote or in-person participants who do not comply with the requirements of the Brown Act will be muted.

All right. Did you get the hybrid meetings? I can do it if you want. You want me to do it? Okay. Hybrid meeting attendance options. U this meeting is going to be held in person here and there are 1, two, three, four, five, six, seven people from the public. Just so you know, this is an important meeting. We've got seven people here. Um, and it's also on Zoom if you wish to make a public comment or on the city's YouTube page which allows for you you to pause. It's very convenient and you can also watch it anytime after the meeting. Uh, if the meeting will proceed as normal even if there are technical difficulties accessing the meeting online, we'll do our best to resolve any technical issues as quickly as possible. So, we're going to move right on. Um, we're going to take a dinner break around 6:30. I always say if necessary cuz it's on there, but it always is necessary. Um, and we will be taking it right about that time or maybe even a little earlier. Uh, last time we went a little later and and it sort of makes the meeting a little bit too long at the beginning. Um, we're going to have a consent agenda on a special meeting today. Items on the consent agenda are routine in nature and do not require discussion or independent action. Members of the council or the public may ask that any items be considered individually for council discussion and or public comment. Unless that is done, one motion may be used to adopt all recommended actions. We've got them up there in the screen. I'm going to read through them real quickly. First one is a March 3rd, 2026 special meeting minutes. March 4th, 2026 special meeting minutes. And March 24th, 2026 special meeting minutes. Number two, February 2026 monthly reports. Three, February 2026 check register summary. Four, resolution 202622, authorizing the city administrators execution of funding and reimbursement reimbursement agreements with the transportation agency for Monterey

County for the 2025 pavement management program update in the amount of $17,810. Do any council people wish to pull any of those items? Seeing I move to approve the consent agenda. Let's go to the public first. Anybody from the public want to pull an item? Seeing none, I'll go back to Bob in his motion. Second. Thank you. Roll call, please. Council member Baron, yes. Council member Berter, yes. Mayor Prom Delves, yes. Council member Jramoff, yes. Mayor Burn, yes. Motion carries.

And I think we're all very excited about item number four there. It's going to be very interesting to see what the results come out. All right, of business. We've got a lot of numbers tonight and tomorrow night. Also, a lot of tough subjects that have been put off for a long time. I just like to say I'm really proud of this council and our senior leadership in the in the city for being willing to take on these subjects because it's important and it has very long-term ramifications for our city. So, it's it's pretty serious tonight and tomorrow night. Um, and I thank everybody that's here for showing up. I know some of you are going to make some really good comments and we're looking forward to hearing your opinions. All right, let's jump right in. Number five, receive an update on water allocation subsequent to adoption of city council resolution number 2025-097 allocating water resources pursuant to Carmel by the Sea Municipal Code Chapter 17.5 water management program and provide staff with directions. Hello. Are you ready to go? Perfect. Thank you. So, good evening. Um, Mayor Burn, council members, Anna Janette with, uh, community planning and building here on the water allocation updates. So, the purpose for tonight's um report is to go over um updates to the water management program which is codified in the um Carmel Municipal Code Chapter 1750. Um the update will include what our water balance is as of um writing of the staff report. Um and based off of that information, staff has identified um

specific decision points for the council to consider. These include monitoring. Should there be more frequent um formal monitoring? Um should there be a threshold that's set? Um also reallocation. Um, and then how would the council like to begin a request for water from the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District? A bit of the background. Um approximately 5 months ago, the city council allocated 14 acre feet of water given um to the city by the district to um moderately low low and very low income housing, residential, commercial and municipal categories. Water was not allocated to unallocated reserve or the Mallerie Pescadero transfer. So within the last five months um there has been um some water that was um committed to primarily residential projects and commercial projects. Um earlier today staff provided a tracking uh spreadsheet to the city council that um breaks down um these commitments. If you look at that data, the bulk of the projects were residential projects. However, the bulk of the water that was committed um was were for um commercial projects. Currently, we have 13.673 acre feet of water in our total reserves. So then the decision points as um staff identified earlier one is monitoring um how should the city's water allocation be monitored also um how frequently

should it be monitored reallocation that would be the internal re reallocation so at what point should water be transferred between these allocation buckets and then um the last decision point is the request for water. At what point should the city request additional water from the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District? So the first one is monitoring as codified in the code. staff is required to provide the planning commission an annual review of um the water use and allocation and that um review and any recommendations by the planning commission is supposed to be forwarded to the city council in December. If there are any changes in the allocation that requires adoption of a resolution also codified in the code um are certain uh water reserves. So 10% for affordable housing projects as shown on the slide and then it is not quantified but the code states that water shall be reserved for coastal recreation access and essential public service projects. staff poses the question whether monitoring should be um considered to be changed based off of the changes in water availability. So this procedure was codified in 2004. At that time there was very little water um that was free for use which um which didn't allow for certain type of developments. Now that situation has changed. Should we more frequently um go before the planning commission and um the city council or is there a certain thresh threshold that the city council

would like to identify that says once you're close to this point then we need to um we need to report more frequently. Um, another way to look at it is looking at um development or types of development projects and um the certain categories that they're they're tied to. Um, and then also should we look forward and anticipate that there's reallocation? Say we have a project in the affordable housing and we know that there's 10% there, but we've had inquiries from potential project applicants stating that, you know, I think I'm going to submit pretty soon and based off of that preliminary information, perhaps that water is over the amount that is currently allocated. So monitoring is one. The second is reallocation. That is our individual buckets that we've set in our code. The the process is also codified in the municipal code requires a recommendation from the planning commission. So that's one hearing. Then adoption by the city council by resolution. That's a second hearing. That is at least 2 months, 3 months depending on the time it takes to gather that information. The code also sets an intent for the unallocated reserve. It says you should put everything in the unallocated reserve, but you cannot transfer water from the unallocated preserve to a specific project. You have to first transfer it into a bucket and then take it out from that bucket to um give to a project. We also have the water reserves that um staff touched upon. And then um

thinking about reallocation again I would think about perhaps the trends in the water commitments and the permit applications that we have received so far. Um the bottom of the slide there's a question about how our process would take additional time and whether or not that process would hinderance or um create an impediment to development. For example, ADUs, they're ministerial actions. They're not projects that would go to the planning commission for approval. They stay inhouse and they're approved by staff. So, if we had water in our residential bucket and it was at a at a level where it we wouldn't be able to deliver water to an ADU project, it would stall approving issuance of that building permit for at least 2 to 3 months because it would have to go to the planning commission and then go to city council. Um then the district also has an interesting view on buckets. Um it's their opinion that buckets aren't a good idea because it adds a an extra layer of review, but you know in 2004 it was intended to have that extra layer of review. Um and then last is the request for water. So, district ordinance 197 that allowed um the district to give water to agencies. Um but it does not include a process for reallocation after that first allocation. Based on that ordinance there, the district has a lot of water in reserves. Um, if you compare the amount of water they have in their reserves, which is 2,175

acre feet of water, we got 14. City of Monterey had the largest amount and they only got 141. So, there is enough to go around. Sounds like um with consultation from district staff, they stated that because they don't have a procedure, what they would have to do is when one city or jurisdiction asks for additional water, they would kind of stop and do a needs assessment for all of the jurisdictions. So, not sure how long that would take. Um, but I think if we were thinking about monitoring and reallocation and when to request water, that should also be part of that conversation, that lead time it'll take for them to do that need assess needs assessment. Um, I also wanted to point out that the cease and desist order has not yet been lifted. So, when we're thinking of development projects, we're keeping in mind that these are not new meters. It's reuse of an existing meter. Then um also points to think about when requesting additional water is the potential for um supporting economic development. So you can see from the data that we pulled although there were only five commercial projects um the commercial projects had the bulk of the um water that was uh committed. We also have state housing requirements um that would require additional water. Um, and I also want to point out that um, we do have a condition in the city that we're built out, so there aren't a lot of vacant lots where there will be, you know, brand new, uh, development versus redevelopment. So, with that, um, I, um, am here to answer any other questions that you may have. Um, and I have the decision points um, up here on the slide if you know you

kind of want to go through them. And then I also have the table. I don't know how easy that will be able to you could read that from the dis, but if you'd like to go through the water tracking table, I have it here available to you. You are welcome.

Thank you. Nice job. So, this is an interesting situation. You've got all kinds of moving parts here and they're interrelated. I didn't know about the uh the situation with the water district having to go back and look at everybody if any of Is that true? I'll just ask questions first. Is it true that if we wanted to get another let's just say we we somehow managed to reallocate and give all 16 away would and we wanted 16 more. They would have to go and do an analysis of all cities before they gave us our 16. That is what was indicated by the general manager. We have no idea how long that takes. No.

Very interesting. All right, I'm going to open it up for questions for the council. Hans, you want to kick it off? Yeah. My questions are about um what I see as a couple of kind of the hard requirements we have for the use of water coming up. So, one is the the police department and public works building. Um, does the staff have an estimate of how much net new water that building might uh might require? It's obviously a hard question because uh we haven't designed it yet, but um you know an order of magnitude would be helpful.

Um I do not. But I would say in general the exercise would be is taking a look at what the existing fixture count is and then kind of trying to figure out we have a break room, we have restrooms, we have all these things that use water and then you can kind of play with the numbers and use the water district's form to see where you can kind of save or um what's the word you used to use it when we had this last recycle. recycle or it's kind of like mining. What was it called? Sounds like sounds like Hans maybe somebody on the committee or

anybody on the committee. Do you have any insights for Hans's question? Okay. No, at this point at this point I mean I can speak for the like we everything that Anna said is correct. I mean we're just not at that point in understanding what the project even looks like. It's a great question. It's something we're going to have to wrestle with in the not too distant future but we just don't know yet. Okay. Not for tonight, but something to think of. Yeah, this one I think we do have an answer to. I know it was in a a prior council packet, but do we do you guys have on the tip of your fingers the um the estimate for how much water we might need to hit our arena numbers? I think Mary had come up with an estimate at one point and I just can't remember.

Yes, it was presented at the last meeting. I would have to look at it, but I believe it was close to what we were given minus the reserves, but I I could come back. But yeah, we can look at you can look at that while we're doing questions and yeah, in this item we can come back to with that in what within this item. I think Anna should be able to look that up or message Marne.

Yeah. Okay. Um yeah, thanks. No, those are those are my questions because I think um understanding where we have hard requirements upcoming where we're going to need to make sure that we have the water I think is is important for this exercise. So, um thank you. Bob has no questions. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. Um this just touches upon what Hans was was asking. Um so, if for example, if we were to get rid of the buckets low income categories separates to prove that we do have that available um for those developments when they come about.

Yes. So, we have to show that we have to show the state that there's water available. Um and then the way our code is written, there has to be at least 10% reserved for affordable housing. So, we would have to still keep a category with with that and then the rest would be in a bucket. Is is that correct? You you could say that or perhaps it could be three buckets. One larger bucket, one for the affordable housing and one for the coastal access recreation and um and um public facilities. Okay. Thanks, Anna. I'd like to I'm going to let Jeff go next. I have a question to add on to that. I have a I have a question.

Just a second. I just I just want to add on to her. Does when you say 10% is that from the 16 or as we use it up does it does it reset ever? Strict language of the code says 10% of the water reserves. So right now we're there's more than 10% in that bucket but once our overall allocation drops does that mean that too can drop or do we leave it? I think that's a decision point for for council. Might be best to leave it depending on the arena numbers. So, it's not perfectly clear what that really means and how often it happens. Is it automatic or does do you have to come to us to reset it? Right.

Okay. Jeeoff, go ahead.

Um, yeah, another question about related to Allesandre's question. The state requires us to show that we have water for some of the affordability categories. So maybe you know the answer to that. This so so we have let's say we have 100 units that were required to produce under the arena allocation for very low and lowincome housing. Do we calculate a number like 0.15 acre feet per two-bedroom apartment or whatever that number is and then we have to be able to show the state that we have 100 times 0.15 acre feet of water. So we have 15 acre feet of water set aside for those units.

Believe that. How does that how does that work? That I believe that's the exercise that we went through. We did in general if they were like onebedroom, two bedrooms studios, then we'd have like a fixed rate per that type. And if we wanted to do a mix, this is going to be the most amount of water that would be required for that mix. So in in the in in 2025 last year we allocated 3 acre feet of water. So now we have 3.616 acre feet of water in the very low and very low income housing

bucket. Right. So according to this so that is enough to satisfy our our low or low and very low income housing requirement given some mix of apartments. 3.616 616 acre feet is enough to to satisfy all of those apartments, all of those 100 apartments, the affordable component, the right but then there's also one program is like the mixed income program. So there would be like water from that would come from somewhere else the residential bucket

I'm I'm trying to get at Alandre spoke about like some sort of state obligation that we have as opposed to something else. So as sort of context I don't mean this to be a comment yet so but as context you know we've talked about like reducing everything to one bucket and we've heard you know we heard Mr. Stalt come and say that he didn't like buckets and that we needed to sort of exhaust all of our water which obviously makes Hans uncomfortable and makes me uncomfortable. And now we're now this comment from the state from Alessandre referencing the state requirement is that we really can't do that because we need to have some water in reserve for according to the state

right and then Reena also includes more than just affordable right now. So right now I'm just talking about let's just for humor me for a minute. We're talking about the state. We're talking about the the low and very low income which apparently the state apparently according to you know's comment was that the state requires us to keep that amount of water separate from everything else like for those two buckets the low and very low income housing. Right. I'm I'm I'm trying to build something here. So So I can you can stipulate to that for a second.

And then 3.616 acre feet of water divided by 100 is 0.04 acre feet of water per unit. And that doesn't really seem like it's enough to build like 0.04 04 acre feet or you know 003616 acre feet of water doesn't seem like it's enough to build a an apartment. Is that is that is that correct?

That does sound low. Um harvesting was the word I was thinking of but again um a lot of the programs take advantage of um existing development which already has water. So then you would take what water is on the site and then you would add from the allocation but bucket if it was under what you needed to serve that development. So a hotel would have x amount of acre feet of water. You convert that into residential. Now you're adding a kitchen with a, you know, sink, dishwasher which adds fixture units. Then you would have to you'd have to make up the difference through the water allocation bucket

through the very low and low through that sort of category one. Well, let me So, our housing element, you know, relies somewhat on ADUs as well and and those ADUs, so let's say there are 50 ADUs and, you know, five of the 10 five or 10 of them, you know, are, you know, by design, state's words, not mine, um, are required to be, you know, sort of assumed to be low and very low income, right? The state spreads them across all the different housing buckets.

Like, where's that water going to come from? Like if I'm you know assuming that we at some point allow people to build 500 500 foot ADU on their lot which we don't really now by not giving them water like do we have to have water in reserve for those all those ADUs too like and I know you don't have an answer to the qu this question but that's 50 ADUs that we have to have water from to satisfy our arena obligation for these five or 10 low and very low income units. Like where's that? Like like what I'm what I'm sort of getting at is like it seems like we don't have enough water. Like let me ask this as a question. Do we have enough water in our six and or six units for residential which is somewhat depleted in our 3.616 616 units of low and very low income housing to satisfy arena obligation.

Can I can I I look I looked it up. I think I can maybe answer your question a little bit. Marty, it was on page 122 of our packet in November of 2025 on Monday. And she said that like to your point, it depends on how many bedrooms are you talking about, right? So, she said if you did uh one bath units, you could do 57 units. That's her estimate. And if you did exclusively two bath units, 57 units using how much water? The the 3.616 units. Yeah. 3.616 divided by 0063 acre feet apparently per bathroom.

063 acre feet per bathroom. Yeah. And so if you have a two bath, it's like 32 units. So just to benchmark, we're trying to do 349 um I guess not all

uh low not all deed restricted. So um the actual number is you know closer to like 150ish or so but um it just gives you a sense it's only like a third or less of what we need. And I think if I could on the ADU question, the the interesting thing about ADUs, if they do if they are able to be counted as very low or low, that's that's post construction because remember we get credit on the front end prospectively the 30 30 10. But we don't get to actually count them as low or very low until either A we get a deed restriction tied to them, which is really unlikely, or B, what we're going to be doing is is is proving that they're rented somehow at a low rate, but they will have already been constructed at that point. So, they would have needed to have their water ahead of time. So, I'm not sure is really

So, the 50 ADUs I was talking about earlier, that water is not going to come out of category one. Correct. If category one is the affordable Yeah. Yeah. That's correct. Okay, I'm finished. Thank you.

All right, I have a question. Several questions actually. Do you feel that when we made the decision to reup and have more water available? Has that been advertised sufficiently, you think everybody in the community that wants to do a project knows that? And have you seen the kind of activity that you would expect given that we didn't have it and then we did? I I think within the last five months early on there there was more of a desire to add water. Um but since drafting the staff report, there was already one project that was added to the list. Um it's it's kind of it's hard to say. We could always do a better job of reminding folks that there's water available. Um,

do you think do you think it you're sitting here doing this all day long? Did you see like a bunch of people come in and say, "Hey, I've been waiting for this. I need some water. I want to do a project." Did you get that feeling at all initially? Yes, we but we also have questions that kind of go across the board like um one inquiry was can I apply for a permit on a vacant lot knowing that there isn't a meter but have my entitlement start moving forward before I get a meter um to I've been waiting for my second bathroom and now I can apply for my second bathroom. In general though we haven't seen like a mad rush for water. Okay. It didn't seem like

initially there was kind of a bit of a rush and then it's kind of died down. Okay. Um, yeah, go ahead. Go ahead. Yeah. How many empty lots do we have? Do you know like how many lots with that that How many residential lots that need a water meter do we have sitting around? Is it like 10? When I when I was sitting across the hall, it was around it was around 10. Including the ones that the city owns. Um, that's a good question. I don't think so. It's only like three. Yeah, it's only like three or four, but yeah, like the ones that are belong to somebody other than the city was around 10. Okay. Because I would assume that

when the CDO is listed lifted, I assume that all those are going to come lining up, right? Okay. Thanks. Thank you. No problem. So, you you told us that we can't based on the process. I heard you say you're not here because we ran out of commercial water and you want us to give commercial water because that would have to go to the planning commission for a recommendation. Correct. Right. Right. So, we're not going to fix that problem tonight. That's not why we're here. No, it's more thinking of the data where we're at now. When should council start thinking about do we want to wait until December or do we think that that bucket may run out of water before December?

Okay. But you're here for a policy discussion, not reallocating water discussion. That's correct. So, we can take that off the table for tonight. Yes. Okay. And um is the district have is there anybody here that's tied into the district enough that are they talking about fixing this process so that we don't go to this back and forth thing where we wait? We don't we could wait a year for them to make that decision after they go to all the cities. We don't know.

Yeah, it's a great question, mayor. I mean, we, you know, we we emailed the district. We emailed Mr. Stoalt, the head of this. Um, you know, because we we've heard, we've heard him speak a couple times at the podium and, um, I think the message we received initially was, you know, just spend your water and there'll be more water when you want it. I think that maybe some of those details weren't worked out when we first heard that from them, to say the least. Um, trying to be a little diplomatic about this, but um, we can we can get we can get more direct information from them if they're working on fixing this problem, as you put it. Um but yeah, as of right now, we don't have any more information than that other than what you know, Anna put together in her presentation.

So to an extent, until we know that this discussion is sort of a moot point because we can't we can't get rid of the Well, we're going to have a discussion. I'm just asking questions. Is uh have other have other cities been here yet or are we the first to have this discussion? Nobody no other city has asked for additional water. Have they had this discussion? Do you know? Might be worth looking at to see if how what what if they're are they asking the same questions of the district like figure this out? Yeah. Okay. I I think Seaside might be a good uh example.

Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. Do you know like uh so we've used up three acre feet of our 16 acre feet. 16 So of our 16.63 So of our 14 acre feet, we've used up three. So that's, you know, 25%, you know, 20%. Do you know where other cities are in terms of like how much of their allocated water they've used? I do not, but I can find out. Okay. Uh, Mr. Mayor, also just to to kind of put a little bit finer point on the question about what you're here to do tonight. I mean, as a policy direction, you could

you could direct us to go back to the planning commission and and get them to ask them to reallocate water. So, I think that's what you were asking like you you can't move water tonight in a bucket because we have a process, but you can certainly give us that direction to go start that process. Could we change the policy so that we could do that? You could direct us to go change the policy and bring it back to Yes. I have another question that the Jeff's idea to restrict ADU size using water Um, what's happened with that? Have you had projects come in where they wanted to be 200 ft bigger and they couldn't do it?

I I don't know that level of detail. I do know that out of the four that mentioned ADUs, um, they were all under. Um, we do still have applications for ADUs that are over their floor area and they So, are we there's no issue of asking are people standing in line waiting for that to change? So, they are they making their ADUs smaller? I mean, did you see any impact of that our decision to do that? No, because I'm seeing both. So, they're either harvesting from the house and using it for the ADU or they're trying to maintain the floor area.

Okay, great. All right, that's all. Let's take it out to the public for questions, comments. Good afternoon, council. Um, I have a very kind of basic conceptual question and it's based on the fact that we have a housing element that's approved and now we're not even correlating the water use to that housing element. And even though we're monitoring and we've only used 2.9 out of the 14 that we were so happy to allocate, um my question is how are we tying what we identify in the current housing element with water? How is that tied one to the other based on the 149 units that we have a requirement to build? I know that Jeff was trying to get there, but we can only afford to build 50. So my question is if the requirement is from the state for us to build a 149 can we have enough is that sufficient data for us to go to request require Monterey to give us more water or do we need to totally use what we have more than we have allocated and then they go forward for for their question to them. That's number one. The second question or comment is more about monitoring. I think it's efficient. It's great to monitor what we utilize. I think it's great to give the empowerment as you did. You allocated already some water and you give an allocation to the city. I think to empower our city staff to be able to approve projects based on what's already allocated is the most efficient way to run what we how we operate versus trying to bring everything to buckets that we can control and and move around. I think you already get direction with some

allocation. Let's figure out what kind of projects are we incentivizing to based on that allocation instead of having a let's see how we can move the buckets back to the buckets idea. Those are my two recommendations. Um is there any way you can answer my question or no? Brandon after after we're finished public Brandon notes. Hi Nancy.

Nancy Tumi. Thank you. Um just to actually from my experience on working on the housing element and researching what other uh jurisdictions are doing um and information that we've gotten from HCD uh they do not accept a uh constraints on uh our housing plans in the in the housing element as it stands nor its amendment as we're pending authorization uh to tie those to a lack of water availability. So they said point blank, you cannot alter your housing plan based upon questionable water availability. Uh and I will defer to those experts here at the table to validate that information. But that's what we were hearing all along this path that we've been on. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else? There's really nobody online. Is that true? That's sort of sad. Okay. Um, last chance. Hotel people, you don't have anything. All right. We'll bring it back for discussion. You want to start? Okay. Go ahead. So, um, you know, there's kind of a there's kind of like a game theory aspect to this thing. Um, you know, the water district wants us to use our water and get rid of the buckets regime. Um, and have one big pot of water. Um, and that's fine as long as you have the confidence that the water will be forthcoming when you ask for it. Um, the challenge of course is we only have verbal assurances. Um, so at the same time we do have these and that's kind of where I was going with my questions. We have these real hard requirements. We have a uh we have reena numbers right to Maria's point. We also have a new municipal building which I don't know what the net increase in in water usage will be from that but those are the ones that sort of stand out to me. So, you know, to state the obvious, I'm concerned about a scenario where we run out of water. we go to the water district and they're like, "Sorry." Um, which in a small in a small way we kind of just did. Um, so I guess the question is how likely is that? So I spoke to um someone at the water management district last night and I was told that um you know initially the initial allocation we got represented 30% of um Amag's 25year uh forecast uh which is kind of a combination of the arena forecast and a

population growth forecast and so you know how far will that 2,17 75 acre feet get you? I was told the water district thinks it's more than 25 years worth of water just to kind of benchmark. Um so we've obviously you know to just point we've gone through maybe 3 acre feet of 14 acre feet so far. The 14 acre feet represents 30% of 25 years. Um, so that gives me some comfort that they're they actually have a lot of water. Um, another question I asked was how much water do we have to be down to uh for them to give us an additional allocation? Like do we have to have 2 acre feet left? Do we have to literally have zero? And so I was told that it was more like once we get through maybe 2/3 or 60%. Um, so

maybe sort of so maybe when we have five or six acre feet left, something like that.

Um, I was also told that it would probably take maybe like 3 months uh to get a new allocation if we hit that level. Um and similarly I was also told similar to what was in the staff report that um basically like the the lead horse like whichever municipality or jurisdiction hits that trigger first they will go back and do an allocation sort of across the board. But it's only that lead horse that would get kind of a full reallocation and everybody else would get substantially less. So I'm just trying to provide some color on how I understand the process.

If I could interrupt you. So then what did they say? So let's just say we're the first lead dog and we get it that you get something on the order. Then the next person that does it, they go back and do that again for 3 months. Yeah. I So it's it's similar question, right?

It's a mess. I'm kidding. So um how how much would we get? Right. like I was told it'd be something on the order of our initial allocation which was 14 acre feet. So that's I'm just trying to that's the best information that I have to to work with. And so I think you know I do wish they would create a a policy on this because you know we're we're trying to operate you know and do the best we can here but there's some uncertainty. So that being said, based on the information at hand and they're trying to do the best that they can as well, um you know, my recommendation would basically be that we um that we allocate some water to the affordable units bucket and to the municipal bucket based on whatever answers we get back from the staff on um you know, how much water is needed for for those require environments and then basically collapse everything else into a single bucket. And so, you know, then when we hit five or six acre feet, we go back and ask for more. And we've been told that when we hit that kind of threshold, um that we would actually get more water. Um and so um in terms of the in terms of the monitoring question um I'm just interested in the usage. So even like a quick update to the council like in 6 months I think it was 5 months this time. I think I'd stick to a six-month cadence for you know the next couple of updates just to see. Um, but we may need to make a couple of adjustments to the municipal code based on what's in there. Um, I'm not exactly sure how this interacts with the the sort of general plan requirement about like coastal access,

reserving water for coastal access. I mean, if we have a big bucket of water for commercial, etc., um and homes. I mean, technically that's, you know, there's coastal access in there. So, I'd be looking for some guidance on that. But that's my main that's kind of where I'm at on it is one big bucket and then only create separate buckets in the amount total of five or six acre feet for the things that we absolutely know we have to have which is you know basically the police station, public works building and um however much of our arena we we have enough water for.

Thank you Bob. Um yeah, I've struggled with this because I mean everything about our code um and all the decisions we've made for decades is based on scarcity um of water and suddenly we're told you have an abundance of water. Um and I think what's happening up here is we don't believe you, right? It's like you you you know the the the water district came to us and said there it is. Take it. You got a lot of water. Um and you know and we still put things into buckets thinking we because it's if it's scarcity we can social engineer some outcomes. Um, it it's you kind of said it's a it's a conundrum and I I think my approach is going to be similar to Hans's is that I'm going to take the water district at face value that we have an abundant amount of water. Um, and uh that uh they told us not to put it into buckets. Um, so I don't know that we should be surprised that when we did put it into buckets and we start to run out of it in one bucket that their answer is going to be, "We told you not to put it in buckets and you still have a bunch of it left and go away. You're, you know, you're not there yet." And so that that's what they told us they were going to tell us and that's what they told us. Um and uh the the their answer that when someone really gets there, you know, we're going to have to check check in with everybody. Well, of course they are. I don't I don't know that that's all that complicated. I think to some extent it's just asking every municipality for, you know, what they've used and what the kind of what the score is. Um, so I'm not sure it's an overly complex uh thing, but they don't want to enter into it until they think they need to. In other words, we're not they're not going to let us be

the trigger. Um, so um you know, so I I'm going to take the water district at at at their face value. I'm also going to take the Department of Housing and Development, Community Development, um, at their face value, which is don't worry, you cannot use water as a governor, as a restricting element, um, for anything. Um, so, okay, that's what you told me. You know, we won't I think um, Hanso suggested we still put some water in in a reserve for that. That's fine. um I wouldn't necessarily reserve enough for all of it because it's going to take a while um to get there if we ever get there. Um so I would u I I would agree that I I'm I other than some sort of reserve for what we think really needs to be a reserve just put it all into into a single bucket and um encourage people to use it and you maybe the answer is we we could be because we're small we can be first. Um, you know, to your answer, Dale, I think if you know, this is a of what has happened. Uh, this is quite a bit for a little town. It's a lot.

Um, and I think it's interesting. You know, we're going to there's a couple of conversions of, uh, retail to restaurants. There's quite some ADUs and just a lot of bathrooms. Um, and I think in general that's these are, you know, people hate development, but these are all improvements to our housing stock and our commercial um, stock that I think we should celebrate. So that's it. All right, Alisandre.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, I appreciate the comments from Hans and Bob, and I'm I'm with you and certainly open to that. Um, I think it would be good to do the um annual monitoring with the PC and the um planning commission, the city council every six months just so it's a little bit more frequent. Um, in the meantime, if we were to change, since that's going to be a process of changing our municipal code, um, I'm open to just sending back to the planning commission something such as, um, taking the unallocated amount of 1.69 and putting that into commercial. So, if there is interest in doing more commercial um, work, they would at least have a little bit more water. Um, and then on that same note, um, I would say that it would be good if we could reach out to the business community to get a sense if there's a lot more development that's being planned or maybe it's just a little bit more. Um, and then also the same with the residential. I was actually surprised um that it's it's still relatively low. I mean, I thought there might be more demand. Maybe there is and they just um they're not aware of it or just haven't, you know, gotten together to get their plans in order. Um but just so we get a little bit of a better sense of um how much use there will be and then um following with what Han said is is uh keep the two categories. Category one for the affordable uh housing um increasing a bit in case we do need more for that police department public works building and and right now we do not know that. Um and then uh the rest could just go in a regular bucket. And then I guess my question out of that would be how long would it take for us if we do want to go change the municipal code? What kind of a process would that be?

Did you get all that Brandon? I think she's been looking at that.

So that'll be an ordinance to amend um the municipal code. Um, we have good bones to work off of and it would just be you know modifying existing language. So if you know staff could bring it to the planning commission in the summer, we'd be able to have a recommendation to um the city council that month afterwards. Because title 17 is part of our local coastal program. It then requires a a certification by the coastal commission. But we can still do the six-month interval without changing the code. It's just getting rid of the the buckets might be a bit trickier. But we can also work with our city attorney and see if there's any leeway the way that the l the existing language is written.

Okay. Thank you. Can I ask a quick followup on that since she's up here? Um, just to be clear, we could provide direction to the planning commission to have them collapse the rest of the buckets into a single bucket and that would not require a change to the municipal code, right? It it it might it could trigger a change depending on how the language is set up cuz didn't we just change buckets around and we didn't have to change the code? Yeah, if we if we it would be there are certain there are certain buckets that we have that are required by code, right, Anna?

And then there are certain buckets that that we collectively sort of made up. So if we want to make the madeup buckets go away, we can do that without a municipal code amendment. But we would just have to that's I think what we would need to do is look at what are those what are those buckets that are required by code right now. And just to drive it to a conclusion just before Jeff starts his comments here, um, aside from the the affordable units, which obviously are in the code, the 10%. So that but that's already there, so that's fine.

Um, what's the other bucket that's required? I saw something about coastal access, but there's no category here that says coastal access. I scribbled a little note on my paper that said, "Well, I think a public works building helps maintain and provide coastal access to the community." So, you know, that you that maybe is your municipal bucket can count towards coastal access. Go. It that'd be a good idea because it would probably municipal

probably would be a municipal project. Um, but it just going off of memory, there are three clear buckets. Um it's affordable. The coastal recreation access public services is one and then unallocated reserve is the other one. So that could we could we could that could accomplish your if if the majority of the council's goal is to have three buckets. I think we can accomplish that without a change to municipal code. That except for you cannot take from unallocated and give it to a project. You have to put it somewhere into a bucket first. Interesting. Okay. All right. Well, let let us do some work on that. Okay. How about I go and then we have that conversation. Go ahead, Jeff.

Um, so I'm uh I share Hans and Bob's frustration um with the with the sort of allocation with the water management district's allocation process. Um I don't really know. I have an I have an idea. Um I'm what I don't share um what I don't share is what it sounds like to me is sort of the strategy and I I'll sort of make this up. the strategy of collapsing everything into one bucket and then just using it like the water management district recommends. Um that sounds like uh a little bit of Russian roulette to me for fear that we end up you know we go from 14 units 14 however many acre feet we have right now 14 or 13.67 six, seven units. We go from 13 to three and then we go to the water management district and it turns out that it's going to take uh that bureaucracy just like us like would take us uh 6 months to figure out how to divvy up all that water because basically the water management district is in some sense a political organization with five elected representatives just like we are. and and we have while we have one representative on the water management district um you know when Mr. Stalt came uh five months ago or 6 months ago in October to to talk to us. Um he's the Brandon of the Water Management District. He's not an elected official of the water management district. And Dave Stall uh doesn't have the power to simply divvy up this water and then allocate it to the rest of us. and so allocated to the rest of the communities including including uh for example unincorporated Monterey which has their own arena out which has their own housing requirements and whatever it is that they're going to do out there. Um so that that process of sort of spending down all the water and then just going back with our handout um doesn't really

make me doesn't uh doesn't make me comfortable at all. Um I think uh another observation before I get into a solution another observation uh to sort of Bob's comment um uh let's see I I'll admit you know Bob talked Bob said a couple minutes ago you know scarcity means that we social engineer some outcomes and I'm completely on board with that like that's as you know as you know um six months ago when we had this conversation a month later when we had the same conversation I talked about allocating uh allocating water to the commercial district and having it all gobbled up by restaurants and that's exactly what's happened. You know, we put we put three acre feet of water into the commercial district and it's all gobbled it's all been gobbled up by water by restaurants which creates a which creates in fact a social which creates a dynamic a downtown dynamic or a community that maybe we like and maybe we don't like but that is in fact our job. Like the five of us up here, you know, we social engineer the community all the time. There's lots of stuff in our municipal code that talks about approved uses and unapproved uses and restaurants and water and and all sorts of things. And so I think that that's our job and and seeing the water gobbled up by restaurants which to use a different topic um to riff on this a little bit creates more of a parking problem um because there are more people expecting to be fed here is an outcome that I don't necessarily see as positive for the community. I could be swayed. Um, but I think that's a discussion that the that the five of us with community input need to have about where we want where we want the downtown community to go and whether going from 70 to 80 or 90 restaurants is really what we want

really what we what we see this village is becoming. Um, so back to so I'm I'm I'm pretty stuck pretty stuck on that. Um, back to the water management district. So my what I think we need to do rather than poking the bear um what I was what one option for what we should do rather than poking the bear is sort of get the bear ready to be poked and and I think that I think that the way to sort of do that is to not show up at the water management district with hey we're out of water we need more water but to send the water management district you know a a letter from us you know in the form of a resolution or a letter from us that says or allow Brandon and staff to do it. Um that says, you know, we're having these problems and we need some guidance from the five elected officials at the water management district as to what we should do. Um I think this area is particularly fuzzy for us right now and we should ask them for clarification. We should try to get our house in order. Um so that we so that then when we go back to the water management district and ask for more water, we can say, "Okay, well, we we've we've done what you wanted us to do or we've done the best that we can do and now we need more water to satisfy our arena obligation." You know, the thing about uh looking at, you know, we put this water into um residential four, you know, we put we had 6 ft of water in there and now we're down to we've used uh 1.2 ft and we're down to 4.8 ft. And when I look at this, when I look at the water allocation spreadsheet, um what I see are uh you know, what I see are bathrooms, bathrooms and kitchens and making houses bigger and better. and that's all great, but that doesn't produce housing. So, we have put this water into a residential

bucket. And yet, if I went down this list of the number of housing units that we've that we've that we've enabled with the exception of I think the ADUs, um, with the exception of the four ADUs, which you I think everybody knows how I feel about that. Um what I don't see is us making progress towards our housing goals even though we've put the money into a residential even though we've put the money into the residential dis residential bucket. Um and and I find that to be um kind of distressing and sort of exacerbates the problem of not having enough water to to sort of meet that goal. So what I think we should do is first figure out amongst the five of us um if we should send a letter if we should send a res you know enable Brandon to capture some comments and send a letter to the water management district and say that we're not happy you know not that we're not happy but that we feel like we're in sort of a a fog and we don't we're afraid of doing this um for fear that we'll run out of water. And then what I also think we should do, and I'm okay with collapsing most of the districts, most of the sorry, most of the buckets into, you know, unallocated reserve. We can get rid of that. And collapsing everything in the commercial, you know, my my my restaurant comments, not my restaurant comments, of course, stand by themselves, but I think we should uh split the residential bucket. I think we should make an effort to start putting water aside for our rea for our reena obligation. And while I think that category number one, which is low and very low income housing, does that to satisfy um those 100 units, I think what's missing is the other 200 units. And I think given that what we see on this spreadsheet and how that how the water has been gobbled up by bathrooms is that we need another bucket um that says this is water that

we're going to use to satisfy our arena obligation and put it aside. And I think if we did that, you know, when we send the second letter to the water management district and say that we're actually asking for water, um, we can say, you know, Dave, to to, you know, to sort of answer Dave Stoalt's comments about not using buckets. We can say you know we put this much we put this much water into the low income bucket which we need for our arena obligation and we put this much this much water into this other reena bucket which we need for the medium and which we need for the other reena buckets and we can say so we're trying to satisfy our reena obligation and we are now out of water in all the other categories. So, we've put aside water for housing. We've put aside water for our police station. And now we're out of water. So, what would you So, put it back. You know, if we send the first letter, by the time we get to that point, we'll be able to say we are trying to save water for our housing obligation and you are telling us to not do that, which I think will put the water management district in a somewhat uncomfortable position. And I think when we're negotiating with them to get more water, I think the way to do that is to make is to put them in the uncomfortable position and say, "We are trying to get water for our housing. Please help us get water for our housing." And that will trigger the discussion at the water management district among all the among all the municipalities and we will all get the water that we need for housing. And I think that by rearranging our buckets, I think that we can do that.

Thank you.

Thank you. So Brandon, we we had a significant discussion about this. I don't a couple months ago and I believe you did go and check like what's the process? How do we get the water? And I think the answer was when you run out, we'll give you more. You got a slightly different answer which yeah, I mean it's this is this is the issue is that the answer I got was also mostly a verbal. I got some email from Dave Stole. I don't know who council member Buddha spoken to, but I doubt he got anything in writing from anybody at the district probably about what they will or won't do. Otherwise, I'm assuming you would share that with everybody. Um, so I think I think we're just in this perpetual loop of, you know, they only they only tell us so much because there is nothing in writing. So, I think that's perhaps what council member Baron's trying to overcome is getting something in writing from the electeds like all five of you who actually have some policy making decision authority uh versus a general manager who his words earlier in the day is just a bureaucrat like me. Um so,

yeah, I think so. I know. I understand. I didn't take as an insult. Do the five of us agree that we need some clarification on it was complicated what Jeff just said, but basically we need we what I'm hearing is we believe we need to put some water aside because we're being told to do it by the state, right? If we have to use up all our water before we can get more, we can't do that because it's going to take some time for those units to happen. So, in the meantime, that's sitting there in the bucket. Now, we're adding to it a fair amount of water perhaps for the municipal buildings, which means we we could never get to a point where we could ask for more water unless they clarified or changed their policy. Is that correct?

Well, there's no policy. Yeah, there there's no policy for some words. Yeah. I mean, they've got us in the tough position because we're trying to do the right thing for our city and for the state and we're not able to do that and then get more water. Well, so if we if we sort of separate out the the topics for a second and just put a pin in the substantive question for a second, does anybody disagree with us making some kind of formal request for like a written policy, a written guide?

That's where I was headed. I I think there's merit in it for sure with with Jeff's idea and then we're getting something in writing which is very important and we can you know have that as proof um in moving forward. So I would support that. Yeah. I mean what I heard Jeff say was really what we're asking for is what is a definition of out. Yeah.

Right. Um and and but I think providing the background of the arena is you know that all of us that you you know all the all the municipalities and the county are being told that right is real. So and out of one side of their mouth they say don't worry about water and the others say yeah well you better reserve. I I think we need guidance. Um, and I think we all do. Got five five recommendations for that. That's something that's something you would do, correct?

Uh, it's something that I can do. I can bring it, you know, bring a draft back to council. You guys could appoint one of you to work with me on the letter. However you guys want to do it, but I for what my opinion is worth, you know, I'm a non- voting member, but I like that too. Just, you know, getting something from the electeds to to give us real direction because I none of us are able to get something concrete from the bureaucrats over there. I think in the the and I touched on this earlier in the meantime we should probably find out if anybody else has gotten here and that's started already. It's hard to believe. Yeah, we can reach out to our colleagues. It's hard to believe that it hasn't happened. Yeah.

Um the next thought I had is should should the planning commission really be having this conversation before it comes to us because they're the ones that actually are doing the projects that cause this stuff to happen. And have they said anything about this before this meeting? Did you get any feedback from planning? And I can speak to what the planning commission has said. I mean, we'll say from a sort of the same level as what we're talking about water district like we need we need this level of conversation with you all who are our policy policy creators in the city.

Um, no, we have not discussed this before the planning commission since 5 months ago, 6 months ago. The planning commission's discussion revolved around how much water to put in each of the buckets and what the buckets were and all that, but this this higher level conversation of sort of like putting put another elected body in a position of giving us direction that that's coming that should come from you five. Okay. So, let me go around and summarize what everybody said. Hans, you started the three bucket concept. I I think I I heard Bob say that you're okay with that. I think I heard Ally say that she's okay with it. Jeff, I think I think I heard you say a little bit.

I'm mostly okay with it. Um I would like to see, you know, we've made again I think it's maybe this is the right time right point to have this conversation. I would like to see um I think it would make a better case to the water management district when we eventually go back to them as for more water um to show them that we have we are trying to save water for projects that increase our housing stock. I think that there is a pretty valid difference between extra bathrooms, which are great, um, because people have been living under the two bathroom rule, me included, uh, forever, and, um, and and fixtures that fixtures that allow more people to live here. Um, such as such as on the like the empty lots are sort of a perfect example. Like we could set up a we could set up a bucket number 1B or whatever we want to call it where we facilitated the empty lots when the CDO is restricted in housing projects and something like that. And I think it's worth so I do think it's worthwhile to I would be okay with collapsing bucket number five into bucket number three as much as I think we'll just end up with more restaurants. Um but um I would like to see um yeah, I'd really like to see a set aside for new housing units in addition to low and very low income housing.

Anybody else see the need for that?

Well, just to push back on it, Jeeoff, for kind of one of the reasons you just said, um I would not want to get to a situation where we could not continue what we're doing. You know, the bathrooms and the kitchens, those things matter. Um, and right and in the interest of getting more people to live here, um, it seems petty, but it's real. That third bathroom is a big deal. A wash sink is a big deal. A dog wash is a big deal. Um, and so I I would not want to stop this by running out of residential water because we're saving it for market rate units in the future. Because when those, you know, to some extent this is first come first serve um and the people that already live here and already own their homes I think are first in line and I don't want to push them I don't I don't want to create a scarcity for them so I would prefer not to do

social engineering through scarcity okay so the three buckets are Brandon why don't you read back what you think the three buckets are since you're going to have to make this happen

well I think that we have we have a couple of buckets we know that are required so we have the affordable housing bucket, we have the coastal access bucket, and then we have an unallocated bucket. I mean, that's that's what the three buckets are. Um, I think we can be creative with what we determine goes into those buckets. I mean, a coastal access bucket. I do I wasn't I wasn't just trying to be cute. Like, I really do believe that, you know, a municipal building that houses our police force and our public works department and potentially other municipal services provides access. It maintains that access safely and securely to the coast. So, I think we can I think we can legitimately say things like that, but I think those are your your three buckets.

Okay. And the other issue I think that I heard the theme is what kind of time frame do we need to have to revisit this? Can I just jump back in on that? Absolutely. You'd actually need four buckets, right? Because you'd need a um you'd need like a the general bucket, right? So, for the like the market for somebody to actually use it, it can't be in unallocated. It has to be in a bucket. So I guess that comes four buckets. That's true. Yeah. You would have to make you'd have to make up a fourth bucket then. So you'd have the three code required buckets and you'd have like a available an available bucket. Yeah. Okay.

I'm still unclear where's the coastal. So your view is that the coastal access bucket falls into the municipal. It falls under municipal. My view is that um if you're want to know is that coastal access means recreation and I think that restaurants like when the coastal commission has used coastal access in in the context of Carmel before it has always meant to me the big picture of what Carmemell provides you know which includes hotels and restaurants like it's pretty clear that hotels fall under the coastal access bucket like to me like that Like hotels provide coastal access. That's the as far as I know that's the coastal commission's definition of part of the what the coastal commission used coastal access. It allows people to come to the coast and stay.

Low cost visitor serving accommodations. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know about low cost but that's their that's their language. Sounds like we need to do some homework on that. Yeah. Okay. Can I provide clarification? Yes. So um the language is coastal recreation access and essential public services. So public works PD. So Brandon's interpretation was correct. Is that what what you just said? Okay. So the municipal bucket just can we just like back that tape up and replay that again? Thank you. Yeah. Sorry.

Yes. Okay. U frame. What I heard mostly was six months. That was for an ordinance, sir. That was if we needed to if we needed to produce an ordinance to get through the coastal commission, all that stuff, that would be No, I was talking about how often should we revisit? Oh, sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Alisandra had suggested six months. Everybody good with that? Yeah. Okay, that's your direction. Yeah, I think we're good. And then um how about direction on communication with the elected body of the water district? I think we had five. Yep. You guys want me to just draft a letter? Yeah. And you're doing it not just for us, but for the whole peninsula.

Yeah, absolutely. On behalf So, on behalf and then I can have the mayor sign it. Um and and what you're pointing out, I think to Jeff's point, it's not just the lowinccome. Correct. It's the whole thing. It's our It's to fill our 349 unit arena requirement. Yes. Understood. Plus, plus reserve some for municipal. Absolutely. And it's not just us that's doing that, right? That's right. There's a lot of those projects going on. That's right. And it's shocking that it hasn't come up and been an issue so far, but Okay. Yeah. Good for us for doing it. Thank you. You know, it's good that we had this discussion. Um, is this discussion going to go back to the planning commission to have their interpretation before we take action or

I don't know if we need to. Um, I just always like to make sure we're including We'll report out to them. Yeah. Um, I mean, they put a lot of work into what they do, and I don't want them to think we're doing their job. No, I don't I don't believe that's the case here. We're definitely squarely in policy land right now. Okay. Okay. All right. Anything else? Any Anybody else have something to say before we close this out? Seeing none, Brandon, do you need any other things answer? No, sir. Thank you.

All right. Very good. Thank you everybody for that discussion and we'll move on. Number six, receive preliminary funding feasibility assessment and provide direction on revenue options, including whether to pursue a potential 2026 sales tax measure. Looks like Jamie's getting up. Hello. Good evening. Good afternoon, mayor and city council. So funding feasibility assessment and revenue options discussion

kind of this is pretty quick because actually we have somebody that's an expert so you can hear some different voices but I'm just going to give a brief introduction uh while they're getting it up because So, yes, you get it. The city council is going to receive a presentation about the various new revenue sources that may be available to the city. So, I'm I'm just going to kind of tee it up for the the folks that we have to give you a a better view of this.

She's right. And so based on the information that we hear tonight, we'll be looking to the city council for guidance about one or more of the likely options. And in addition, we want to generate a conversation about the options themselves and what their timing might be. So uh here tonight is Miss Maya Kit from Civotas. They prepared a presentation for us. They're experts who do a lot of advising of municipalities. They've worked for the county of Monterey and also the Carmel Hotel years. So, they've been here around town before. So, I think with that, I'll just go ahead and turn it over to them and then we can come back and talk through. Thank you.

Great. Thank you so much, Jamie. Um, I'll go ahead and jump in here. Uh, it's great to be here and giving you the presentation. Honorable mayor and council members, as Jamie mentioned, we have been hired to conduct a preliminary funding feasibility assessment. Um we'll be going over the options that we have put together um and just walk you through each of the statutory revenue mechanisms that are available to the city and rank them of course um by feasibility and then outline a few combination strategies at the end uh that we think will be most feasible to help you close your revenue gap. I would just like to mention that this is a preliminary assessment. It's designed to give the council a clear menu of options so that you can decide which of them to advance into a further detailed analysis. Um, my name is Maya Kit. I'm a account manager here at Civotas. We are a full-fledged legal consulting firm. We are experts in terms of advising destinations all across the country on funding mechanisms available to them in their respective state. Um, and so we're excited to share what we've discover discovered for you today. So just as I mentioned a little bit of the purpose of the report, I wanted to just kind of set the expectations on what this report does and does not cover. So on the left you can see that we identify the legal mechanisms that are available to you in the state. We rank them by feasibility and provide the formulas so that your finance team can start running numbers and projections internally. Uh on the right you can see what is not included. this is more of a detailed modeling um scope or you know perhaps the draft ballot language any kind of stakeholder outreach and engagement are not part of the scope. Um but of course as we move on through uh the project if it the council decides to um have us dig deeper into any of these mechanisms or a combination of them uh we can of course provide these uh

bulleted lists outside the scope in a different engagement. So that would belong in the next phase. And just as a caveat, this was prepared on a pretty accelerated timeline so that you can u make the decisions today. And again, if a deeper analysis is needed, we can flag those in the next phase. So just the quick key facts of the financial figures that are driving this analysis. This has all been provided by city staff. The central challenge that we know here is there is about roughly $100 million in deferred maintenance that we need to fund. Um, this includes a 60,000 ft² building alongside the need for a new police facility. This is all mentioned in conversations that we had had previously with the city. We know the city needs an estimated 6 to 7 million in new annual revenue and we know that no single mechanism will close this gap. So there is an expectation to have a combination of a few of the sources that we identified today. As we know, Carmel is a general velocity, which matters because it's limits it because of this status, you're limited to certain um particularly a real property transfer tax that we'll get into in the next few slides. Um and as you know, the November 2026 general election is the primary target for a few of these mechanisms um with willingness to use a second cycle as needed. How to read this presentation? So each mechanism in this presentation follows the same format so you can kind of compare them consistently. There are six fields shown here. Statutory authority, revenue type, bond capability, and feasibility tier. These will appear in each of the slides you'll see in just a moment. The revenue methodology section is especially important as it's going to tell you h tell you and the finance team how to uh project the numbers under each of the mechanisms uh to provide the city council with estimates um which will likely come in the next phase. But at least you can kind of have the menu of options here presented today. So as you know we're not providing projections.

The feasibility tier reflects our assessment of legal viability only um implementation revenue potential and voter approval threshold. So stepping into the first one, this will be a transient occupancy tax increase. We are ranking this as the first most viable option purely because it has the strongest legal basis. This is the simplest implementation path and it requires only a majority of vote as it is a general tax. We know that the city already has the collection and infrastructure in place to implement this uh mechanism. And we know that the current combined guest facing levy, the toot plus your um Carmel Hospitality Improvement District assessment comes to approximately 10% which is kind of at the lower end of comparable California destinations and is pretty well below what we see on the national average. National average of uh guest charges at checkout are now at 15.5%. So you're well below the national average and pretty below um other California comparable destinations. And so there's room to increase without becoming necessarily an outlier. The key sensitivity here is of course hotelier engagement. Any increase is going to raise what the guest pays at checkout. And so you want to make sure that hotelier are um understanding how their rate compares regionally and what the revenue will fund. And then of course in addition to hotelier engagement, you of course will want to conduct voter polling as this will go to a vote of the public. Moving on to the transaction and use sales tax. Uh this is a local sales tax add-on. This ranks second. Uh Carmemell has exactly 375% of your district tax capacity remaining under the state's 2% cap. This was confirmed with our analysis of the California Department fee and tax administration and uh the measure X statutory exemption rules there. So, as

you might know, Monterey has already placed an identical measure for the 375% on its June 2026 ballot. They're projecting approximately 4.5 million annually. We know that Pacific Grove is also exploring the same for their November ballot as well. So, this uh mechanism gives the council regional precedent, regional precedent and comparable revenue data for consideration. Next on the high feasibility list are going to be your general obligation bonds. These are the only mechanisms on the list that provides that upfront capital for large projects like the police building. Uh this is secured by an advaram property tax that sits outside the proposition 13 1% cap. The challenge here again is going to be that 2/3 voter approval. So, it's a little bit higher than the uh majority vote required under like the toot or the sales tax measure. So, again, polling before placement is going to be that standard practice. You want to make sure that you can kind of gauge support the court levels ahead of placing this one on the ballot. And this is why again that combination strategies, which we'll get into kind of at the end, are going to be really important. Your general obligation bonds might pair naturally with the toot increase or that sales tax creating that recurring revenue stream to demonstrate your fiscal responsibility to service the bond debt. Next, we're getting into the moderate uh mechanisms in terms of feasibility. This is an option that we've explored. As you heard me say at the beginning, the city of Carmel is a general law city. So, you do not yet have a conversion or you do not yet have a charter. However, charter conversion in a charter conversion plus a real property transfer tax might be a two-step process. The city would first need to adopt a charter by majority vote and then impose the uh real property transfer tax above the state cap. Both

of these initiatives could appear on the same ballot. Uh with of course that real property transfer tax being contingent on the charter me the charters measure passing. A couple of considerations here though. Carmemell's high property value could make this a meaningful revenue source. As we may know, transfer tax revenue is inherently volatile. It fluctuates with real estate market cycle. And there's a critical risk factor here as a statewide initiative that is coming up in the Taxpayer Protection Act under the November 2026 ballot. Um, if this measure qualifies and passes, it actually would prohibit charter cities from imposing transfer taxes above that state rate. So, we'll definitely want to keep a close monitor on this ballot measure if there is serious consideration to uh pursue a charter city status in addition to leving this real property tax transfer. However, on this point as well, um should you still want to consider adopting a uh charter city status and it may not be the case that you actually go for the real property tax transfer initiative in terms of a uh financial mechanism, but at least gaining the status as a charter city as step one would at least open up the um available mechanisms to you. you would have a lot more authority in imposing your own uh local rules when it comes to financing. So this is just an example of one of the mechanisms we could pursue. Um under further investigation on a second kind of phase engagement, we might want to explore what there might be more in the sense of creating these more creative options um that would be available to you under the charter city status. Next on the moderate feasibility, these are going to be your Melou's community facility districts and your enhanced infrastructure financing district

options. These both offer bond in issuance capabilities, which we know this is important for that police building that is going to be constructed. The community facilities district can directly finance capital facilities through a special tax while the enhanced infrastructure financing district captures a growth in property tax revenue without imposing any new tax. So it's capturing that uh tax revenue growth over a certain number of years using uh a particular financial year as a baseline. The community facility districts requires a twothirds vote. It's most commonly used in new development areas. So, a citywide community facilities district in an established community like Carmel may be feasible, but it's rather uncommon. It would require strong voter engagement and a clear project scope. And while the enhanced infrastructure financing district is attractive, we know this is attractive because there is no voter approval. It's just three public hearings. But again, however, in a builtout community like Carmel, the incremental property tax group may growth may be modest at best. So, it's best to position yourself as a more of a complimentary mechanism than again rather a standalone. Moving down the moderate feasibility list, uh parking or excuse me, the property based business improvement district and parking me mechanisms. These are both legally available but have limited revenue potential relative to that six to seven million target. So again this would be more of a supplementary option not necessarily your primary drivers like the ones that we identified at the beginning. A uh pbid levies as you may know a property based assessment for improvements that confer a special benefit on the assessed parcels on the assessed property owners. It's it would be separate from your existing um hotel or hospitality improvement district which is business based but they work very much the same.

And you'd want to make sure that if you wanted to take a look in pursuing a P bid, we'd want to make sure that the deferred maintenance service options satisfy the special benefit test under Proposition 218. So, we just want to make sure that whatever services are implemented um that the city is looking to to to fund, we just want to make sure that that benefit nexus is satisfied in accordance to the law. Paid parking is one of the few mechanisms that can be implemented by ordinance without a valid measure if it's structured as a regulatory fee. But of course, we may know this might be a very politically sensitive uh topic in a walkable tourism dependent village. um and the revenue might be modest at best. Of course, with revenue projections, we'll probably have a little bit more information for each of these, but again, that would probably come in a secondary phase. Getting on to the low feasibility mechanisms that we took a look at. And just so you know, we we really just did a fullfledged deep dive into the available mechanisms to you. So, just wanted to give you a menu of all your options. So, while these are low, we'll still cover them today. So these two mechanisms are ranking low because their revenue potential is negligible at best. It's relative to what Carmemell needs right now. Landscaping and lighting districts are narrowly scoped to specific property improvements and require again that Proposition 218 property owner balloting uh requirement there. Your service fee optimization is may be worth pursuing as a housekeeping matter to ensure that the city's fee schedule recovers the full cost of services. But again, it's incremental improvement. It's not a new revenue source that moves the needle on that deferred maintenance backlog that is really needed at this point in time. Last but not least, we were asked to take a look into the existing uh hotel improvement district assessment. And so, a couple things I wanted to cover here.

Uh the funds again, as you may know, are managed by Visit Carmemell. um they could be redirected to general city services like deferred maintenance, but there are four very legal and practical barriers to doing this. Um first and foremost is going to be that benefit nexus. So as you heard me mention before under Prop 218, whatever the assessment funds must confer a specific benefit on these assessed lodging businesses. So generally study services don't necessarily always satisfy this nexus. it can certainly be explored. Um but again, if that benefit isn't found to be generated on these assessed lodging businesses um in terms specifically to them and not necessarily a general benefit um then we might not be that might be uh roadblock number one. Um the second is the current management district plan. It allocates funds to marketing, admin, contingency and collections. Redirecting any of these funds may be achieved in a modification process. But a modification process would entail um hotel year support and additional petition and uh approval process that again needs to be initiated by those hotels and then of course uh after they initiate it, it would be taken to the forefront by that owners association visit Carmel. We did some preliminary looks into what would the uh voter thresholds look like in terms of support from these hotel years and we did identify that it would take the top 11 uh assess lodging businesses to support a full-fledged modification via the petition process. Um so ideally targeting these you may be able to get the support needed but again ensuring that that benefit nexus is met is going to be condition number one um relative to the services. Um and last here I want to say is in all of this you might open

up a risk to the district if you're using funds for non-qualifying purposes that may expose the assessment to legal challenge. So it could very well be that let's say you do get hotelier support they do support city services and you go ahead and um implement them if again that benefit nexus or someone comes out and you know pokes holes in the district um you are kind of posing a legal risk. It it's not impossible. It just it would require um a lot of strategic messaging and understanding of what do these services look like in terms of benefiting uh the hotels that are going to be assessed. And for that reason, we've ranked it pretty low on on the feasibility scale. Here we have a table that summarizes all the 11 mechanisms that are ranked from most to least feasible. Um, and of course their ability to bond as we know that capital infrastructure building needs to be built. So this is kind of an easy one-step uh overview of all the mechanisms. We did explore a few combination strategies and I will caveat this with um these are just preliminary. There might be more combination strategies that we explore again in a secondary phase when we get more into the nitty-gritty details and go d a deeper dive than just the preliminary. But as you can see there based on a presentation so far there's no single mechanism that closes that 6 to 7 million gap. So we've identified these three options. Combination A pairs that TOOT increase with your general obligation bonds. This is likely the most conventional approach for a tourism dependent city that has that capital need with the tot generating that recurring revenue in cycle one and then the bonds providing that upfront in cycle one or two. Combination B puts both the TOT increase and the sales tax on that November 2026 ballot together. Both being general taxes would require that majority vote. question here is of course whether the

voters or not would support uh these two measures simultaneously. So we'd probably want to do some polling to answer that question. And then last here combination C would be that full package. You're doing the toot plus the sales tax and then the geo bonds as well. Um this is just demonstrating that this new and recurring revenue would be in that first cycle to strengthen that city's fiscal position. And then of course voter confidence heading into the twothirds bond vote. And again these are just preliminary combinations. There might be more that are identified later in a second phase. Here we put together a table that identifies what data inputs would be needed for city projections. So unfortunately due to the time constraints we did not have u time to really dive into what these projections would look like. Um, but we wanted to at least give the city the um data points necessary to start taking a look into what those projections uh could pull under either option. In terms of recommended next steps, we are recommending five. Uh, first would be that near-term decision on whether to advance that sales tax measure to the November ballot. Um second would be after a review of today's presentation and the uh report that you have would be to select maybe three to four mechanisms for more detailed feasibility ranking um and a more detailed analysis. Third would be obtaining the costs of that uh police building um as long as they're preliminary. I think that would help uh understand the budget projections a little bit um in deeper detail. And then of course conducting the voter polling to inform both the rate setting and decision about maybe pairing both November m November 2026 ballots. And lastly um if the city does want to move forward we would then prepare uh a second engagement to cover that next

phase of engagement which would include a more detailed feasibility. uh we could help you prepare a ballot language um implementation uh more detail on timeline or any of these uh mechanisms that I've presented to you today. We could we could take a deeper dive in but I know that was a lot of information that concludes my portion uh of today's presentation. I want to thank you for your time and again um this is just to open up for discussion. We do have those next steps um that we put together with your finance committee. Um but I welcome any questions here at this time.

And mayor, if I could, I think Jamie um has a little bit of a You want You have a couple slides, Jamie, to wrap it all up. Okay. And then we can make both uh Jamie and Maya available for questions.

Yeah, I think that'd be great. So, dramatic pause. Basically, what we did is we went ahead and and took that last slide where she had here's all the different options and kind of grouped it into three columns or buckets like she has. There's high, green, moderate, kind of orange, and low uh reddish. Um and and basically to kind of wrap that up to where we are, what we know is we're already talking about transient occupacy tax. that's on the agenda for tomorrow. So, the main thing we're going to be talking about tonight is do we want to put the the sales tax conversation onto the list for us to discuss. Um, and and also there's this little thing about this hospitality district that came up because there was an idea that well, if you don't want the absolute percentage to increase, maybe you look within the existing percentage and share that that revenue out a little bit differently. So, that's what that was about. Um just to touch on sales tax a little bit. Um basically this is the structure of what the sales tax is today. There's this little red sliver. Um it turned out everybody thought that the tax was maximized and some research found that that little red sliver of available which is 375% is not subject to the cap. So we're asking tonight do we want to talk about that? If we don't talk about that, that is available. Some other entity could also come in and issue issue some tax measure and scoop that up. That cap applies to a bunch of entities, not just to us. And I think that's probably speculation. One of the reasons you're seeing both Pacific Grove and Monterey talking about it now as well. Now that we all know about it, we all know about it. Uh so for tonight, basically what we

were looking for in this agenda item is a determination about whether based on all the information you just heard, there's a desire for us to look at that sales tax ballot initiative because that's shooting for November, the time is really tight. And then the second thing is based on this the length of this list and all these different ideas, is there an appetite for us to do some more work feasibility studies? What ideas do you have regarding the rest of that that list and what might be available to us? So that's it. Any questions

questions? Let's start on this side. Jeff, thank you Dale. I have a a couple questions for Maya and then a couple questions for Jamie. Um, is Maya here? Yes. Yes, I'm here. Um, uh, one question which I'm sure everybody knows I'm going to ask is about paid parking. And you, you stated in your presentation that revenue projections are modest at best. Um, where did that statement come from?

Um, this was just a general assumption um, based off of what we'd seen in other parking districts of your size. Um but again the actual revenue projections we do not have and I think would be the next logical step um to take and you can see we we put the um essentially the the formula to get to these projections in the last slide and I think that would be my next recommendation for the city to do to really understand what these each of these mechanisms could pull. So, do you have So, what we've heard in the past in my, you know, years up here have been numbers between like uh and I'm really not making this up, but variance between like one and $4 million a year. Um, so $4 million a year certainly doesn't sound modest to me. Um, do you do you have a a number when you use the word modest, do you have a number that um you were thinking about or you know, you said cities that are are our our size. Um, what what does the word modest mean in terms of a city that's our size? I was thinking modest in terms of a million but if you have okay a different those revenue numbers I mean you've been experienced more than I have and I would lean to trust your projection.

Okay. Um my second question is about a public vote to issue bonds. So we've obviously we haven't quite really started this conversation. Um, we haven't really quite started this conversation in terms of our uh, police station building, but in your p in your in your materials, I want to make sure I understand this. In your materials, when you talk about general obligation bonds, you are talking about bonds that are assessed on our property tax bill. Correct. Correct.

So, like we pay we pay a park uh, you know, park district fee on our property tax bill. And this would be this would be a bigger line item like we pay $20 a year or whatever it is. So this would be a much bigger line item on our property tax bill that everybody would pay every everybody in the city would pay every year for 20 years or however long we set it up to be.

That is correct. And one thing I would like to add for the general obligations bond that is correct for those. Um the parking business improvement district mechanism that PBID does also allow for bonding. And if if it was the group of property owners decision to pursue something like that in a partnership with the city, um then that uh that would be just contained to the area in which that property district existed and so it wouldn't be citywide like the the general obligations bond. That that that's helpful. Thanks.

Um very helpful. Um is the city can we can the city issue bonds without uh and just pay for them out of revenues you know our three primary and other revenue streams. So so the way that you're talking about is a property tax is a bond that's paid for via property tax um revenues. So it's sort of um secured by property tax revenues. Can the city issue issue bonds, general obligation bonds, and just say, "Hey, we want to issue some bonds to pay for our police station." Can we just sign up an investment bank and do that and pay for it out of our general fund revenues? I I believe so. Um I don't think any of these one mechanisms would prevent you from making that decision on a on a city basis. I would just want to make sure that you have um general bond counsel. We aren't bond understand. So in your in your experience like between those two between those two like bonding mechanisms, one secured by property tax and one secured by just the revenues that the city has, would the interest rate that we would pay in the market be different on those two or do you have any feel for that?

Um that's a good question and I I don't I unfortunately do not have insight on that.

Okay. And then um you talked about on the local taxpayer protection act you talked about an above the cap transfer tax. Does that mean that um does that mean that uh so the normal transfer tax is I think like.1% or something like that correct? The highest the highest one. So if you um does above the cap mean that we could not like let's assume for a second that we were a charter city. Does above the cap mean that we can't go above 0.11? We would not be able to go above 0.11 at all or does it mean we can't have we couldn't have like graduated tax rates so that like houses less than $1 million paid one rate and houses between one and three paid a different rate and houses above three paid a different rate. Does it mean that 0.11% is a fixed rate or that we can't do that uh step strate that step strategy stuff?

Um that's a good question. I'm not sure the answer to that, but I would assume that you would be able to do a tiered structure so long as none of those tiers go over the cap with the the cap being.1%. 1.1 I believe so. 1.1 1.1 I think. One point one.1 Let me go my slide. I think it was in there.

Yeah. Mostly asking about um I'm mostly asking about um Yeah. Well, okay. 1.1 per $1,000. 1.1 per $1,000. So it's basically

0.11.11%. So that so basically like if I if my memory serves like the cities of like San Francisco and LA are talking about transfer taxes in the range of like 2% or more. So a 2% transfer tax is like 1.9% out of compliance. So that would so if this measure passed if this measure made it on the ballot and then passed those transfer taxes would basically be like eliminated all al all together. Is that right? I think so. Unless there's some grandfather pro provision in there. Okay. Um

and then I have a question for Jamie. Um you talk Thank you very much. Those are those are very helpful. So I have a question for Jamie. You tal you put up the pie chart of sales tax revenues. Can we go back to that? Yes. I think it was like the last slide

it was. You have to speak through that one. So, you have this little red you have this little red thing that says available and and there was a bit of uh chitchat about how someone else might come in and take it. Um, you know, with respect to uh the city of Monterey and the Civic of Pacific cities of possible city of Pacific Grove, who are they worried about coming in and taking it? like is it one of these agencies that we've listed on the left or is it like some goblin from somewhere else or

Well, you know, I I think just to help us understand that, see, this is a consultant actually told me that because I hadn't thought about it. Uh this was Tamsy. So, I mean that that's who had that's what that slot was filled by that we just found out wasn't subject to the cap after all. So, you know, to I don't know what the complete universe of potential agencies is that has the ability to issue. I just know that consultants actually advised me that this is what other people are looking at because other cons other agencies can you know if we're the first to the gate um you know maybe nobody else is behind us and the race is just us. We don't know.

Do you think so? I'm looking as I sit here and I see you getting ready to talk Brandon. And as I sit here and look at I see those two big things that say county, are we worried about the county coming in coming in and taking the spot? I think we believe it's a reality that anyone who has the right to put a sales tax measure forward could do it. I don't think we're worried about any one agency more or less than the other. I mean, it could be MST. Um it could be the county. Um who knows? But it is the fact that that is an available cap available available slice of the of the cap now in sales tax. So it's just like some goblin out there waiting to come in and go a goblin who has the authority to tax. Yes. Okay.

Yeah. Thank you, Sandra. Thanks, Mayor. Um Maya, thank you for your presentation. Um I had a couple questions. One is um with a charter city, there's also the possibility of a vacancy tax, and I was just wondering why that wasn't brought up. Is she still here? Yeah, I'm here. Um, I'm unfamiliar with the vacancy text. What is that?

Um, homes that are not used. It would obviously involve creating, you know, a department or somebody under some city office to keep track of people who are not living in their homes and then that they could be taxed and potentially that money could either go to a housing fund or some other fund. So, I was just wondering why that was something that was not brought up. if that's one that an option that is um granted to charter city status. Um the reason for that is because we we just we we did a full-fledged look into what is available and then when it came to the charter city status because it is a um kind of a to be determined option. You would need charter status first in order to pursue any of the options that we were recommending. Um, and due to the time constraint in looking up these mechanisms, we just wanted to at least provide the charter city status as an option, one option with that. Um and unfortunately we we didn't have enough time to to look deeper into what the other options might be under a charter city status um designation. But under a second phase, we'd be happy to dive deeper into what might all be available if you were to pursue charter city um status

because I think council mayor if I might correct me if I'm wrong, but really the exercise was looking at what the what the state has right now on the books as far as state laws for municipal governments like ours who are general law cities. That was the exercise. What can we do in the short term? Um, if we were to become a charter city, I think that's a much bigger list um, enabled by other codes and statutes. So, that would be a deeper dive. Got it. And, and of course, if we want more information, it certainly would be helpful to get revenue projections on all of these. So, we get an idea of how much money you were talking about. Um, another item would be um, with the charter city, if there's the real estate transfer tax is whether the buyer pays or the seller or it's up to us to make that decision. Is that correct?

Correct. Okay. And then my third question is on the enhanced infrastructure financing district. Is that also something that you have to be a charter city to do? No, it's not. Okay. Thank you, Bob. Um uh thank you Maya um for your quick turnaround because we interviewed Maya two weeks ago. So that was pretty good. Um actually my only question at one point is um the uh statement was made that the current combined uh lodging tax toot is 10%. And I believe it is 10% plus the 2%. So really it's 12.

Correct. Okay. um today. So 10 of the tax and plus 2% for the um improvement district. Really plus a little bit because they also um quarter% sales. Yeah.

Yeah. Um so it really but my question is on enhance enhanced infrastructure financing district. Um, I I think I understand the Melo Rouge community district as kind of a classic metro district that a developer would use um and sort of vote onto themselves when they own 100% of the property. Um, but I didn't understand the enhanced infrastructure financing district and you know your your comment about how it's funded by incremental um property tax increases. Can you give me a little bit more of a primer on that?

Yeah, definitely. So the idea is that under this mechanism, it's betting on the increased value of property as a result of improvements and services or infrastructure made within a defined area. And so, um, you would use a baseline year. Most typically it's the previous financial record um as your baseline for property tax um and then project onto as a result of these services that are implemented um by the city or there is a capital infrastructure um project happening or the police building something that would kind of trigger an increase in property value and therefore increase property taxes for years to come. It would capture whatever that increment is above the decided upon baseline from the year before and then those increments of tax growth would be then dedicated to payback um the the services or the infrastructure or anything else um that is under that kind of a district.

Um I I won't go too deep on this because it's just maybe my confusion. Um but it to me every year the county knows what improvements have been made um to properties in in the city. So that that is reflected in our annual property tax. I mean if you know if I did a remodel that was you know $500,000 um the county knows that and increases my AV by $500,000. So, I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm struggling trying to understand how this is any different from that.

I guess it wouldn't necessarily be tied to your own individual property remodeling, it would be a city-led initiative. So whether it's a city funded new building in the area that is going to make living there more attractive, something of that nature rather than individual properties making improvements to their um their homes or things like that. Okay, that's enough to make me accept that it's moderate feasibility at best. Yes. Got it. Thank you,

Hans, please. Yeah, Jamie, I just had a question for you. Maya, thanks for your presentation. The I think the the leadin you said you wanted to know tonight about whether we wanted to proceed with, you know, putting a sales tax increase on the ballot. Is it really tonight or is it do we have a month or two? Just give me the actual timing.

Oh, that's interesting. So, so the closer you get to I mean I think we've talked about ballot initiatives and and we'll talk again tomorrow night. There's a deadline that's pretty far out there. You can wait till that last day to put it on the ballot. I think it's August first week in August. So, tonight's not it. But if you want to be prepared and get the community prepared and do all the work around it, right now the experts are already saying that it's kind of too late to do um uh to to take people's pulses and go out and ask questions and stuff. So, so we're already in that working time frame if you want to uh go out and work with your community and get them prepared, see how they're feeling about it and proceed in that way. So, that's the but legally we have time before we have to put it in the the ballot workpapers.

I think council member really look at this more like how we treated the TOT. We came to you, we said, is this something you're interested in? If you say yes, then we'll go away. We'll work on draft language and come back and it'll be another conversation. It won't be finalized. Yep. Thank you. You're done. That's it. Wow. Back to me already. Um, what's the sales tax right now if you buy something in Caramel by the Sea? I believe it is 9.25. So, you're showing that we have 38% available, but you need that in order to get to 9.25. So, what are you asking us for?

It would actually be an additional three. So, it's then going to go to eight. It's going to go to uh whatever that adds up to 9.5 because you don't show that anywhere. You don't show what the rate would be, right? Yep. It'll be 9.67. Mhm. Six 63. 9.63. Correct. I'm reading that right. All right. And then if you're at a restaurant, we're already charging them a quarter% more because of the the CHID or the CRID. So now we're we're gonna our sales tax rate will end up at a restaurant would be almost 10%. 9 10 10 9 9.88. Correct. I'm just correct. Run the math.

So So if we do this increase, we're up to 9.63 and at restaurants 988. That's what you're asking us. Correct. Okay. And but we don't know the likelihood of somebody else stealing our 38% yet. Correct. And we probably never will until until it happens. But it can happen and it's probably responsible for us to get it before anybody else because it's a lot of money, right? What is it? Three $4 million a year. Yeah. We conservatively we said 2.5. Yeah. So still in terms of meeting our goal, it's significant. It's significant to meeting our goal.

Okay. Um, there's one one option that wasn't on here and it's probably not be a popular thing for me to say tonight given what just happened. Um, and it's the one thing that's working in this town is public private partnerships which take on different forms. One, you have developers use your valuable property to do something they make money on. In return, they build you something. Um, so that's and there's different forms of that, I'm sure. I'm not an expert at it at all. But the other one is philanthropic investments and that's what we're doing with the library. It cost the city nothing. You know, we could have sold a bond to pay for this what's likely to be $20 million project. But but somebody that wants to make a difference in the community paid for it. So I I'd like to add that as one of the options because we're not even talking about that right now. And there might be somebody that might want to sponsor the police station. Who knows? Put their name on it. Again, there's there's different forms of that. So, I'd like to put all forms of that and have a discussion about it at some point because people are saying you should have talked more about it. So, I'm talking about it right now.

So, that goes to the second item on the list. Just Okay. Pardon? The second item on the agenda tonight is is future fe future ideas for funding revenue. All right. I'm putting that down then. I'm ahead of the game. Um, all right. Well, all good questions all of you had. Thank you and thank you for your presentation. It was very very good and got right to the point. Um let's just start with Charter City. I wait public comments first. I'm sorry we didn't do public comments. Just moved ahead. We got our questions answered up here. Hello mayor, council members. Good to see you. Welcome back.

Thank you. Um, I want to thank Jamie and Meyer for what I thought was a very thorough presentation. Um, in relation to to implementing a local tax for revenue, one option is to levy a sort of parcel task tax tax that can distinguish some properties as taxable under the scheme. My understanding is that the selection of a property district is typically geographic based on zoning or based on land use code. I'd like to suggest a different sort of division, occupancy. Um, roughly half of the houses in our city are unoccupied. Uh, taxing these would raise revenue and encourage their owners to either become full-time residents or rent their homes or ADUs, thus increasing availability of housing. Let's find out if this is possible. U, there is a simple test to determine to which category property falls. Unless there's a person doiciled in California residing there full-time, the property would be subject to the tax. Uh this would effectively work the same way that our sales tax and toot work. They largely tax people who don't live here. Uh to the benefit of the community of permanent residents. It's a tax on empty houses, one of Carmel's biggest problems. I don't know if there's precedent for this sort of thing uh which would basically function as a vacancy tax but I request that the council direct staff legal counsel and the consultant who developed the initial analysis to give this sort of option consideration. Um I do have a question from the um the presentation about the the phrase property owner ballot. Um would such a ballot I'm assuming this is a vote. Would this include um the owners of the roughly 50% of properties owned by people who do not vote here? Um thank you.

Could you could you repeat once again what you originally called your your concept? Um I I believe it'd be a sort of parcel tax, but but the point is that instead of choosing a tax district, you know, based on commercial or, you know, whatever, um you would base it on whether house is occupied by someone doiciled in California. And I find this an intriguing concept because to be doiciled and this is a legal term of art. I'm not a lawyer, but um to be doicile in California, it basically means that you are registered to vote here and you file California tax returns, income tax returns. Um so if you for example own a home here, but you're live in Nevada or Texas or Wyoming or wherever, you're not doiciled here. And so we're going to tax your house as vacant even if you spend 182 days of the year here. You're not occupying it because you're not doiciled in California. You know, there are other indicators. You know, are your cars registered here? Do you have a California driver's license and things like that,

but it's state based? Pardon? It's state based. Yeah. Your concept is if you don't live in California, can we do some kind of Right. And how do you find out if someone lives here or not? You find out where they pay taxes and where they got it. Did Did you get that, Brandon? Okay, good. I have no idea if this is possible, but it struck me as another way to slice the pie. Okay, very good. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else in in the house? Mark, I wasn't going to speak to the presentation. I was just going to speak to revenue in general. So, I don't know if you want me to wait or speak now. Okay. They're saying go.

Okay. Nova's going to put a slide out for us. U Mark Watson with Ins by the Sea speaking on behalf of the Inkeepers Association. And uh I'm also the person who introduced Maya to the city. I'm not sure how I feel about that after seeing number one on our list. Thank you, Mark. But um

yeah, I'd like to uh to briefly discuss revenue forecasting. Oh, first of all, good afternoon, mayor and council. Um, the city current the city's current projection, which you can see on the right hand side of that graph before uh the three lines at the right hand side, you see actual toot and then the in blue and the orange is the city budgeted toot for that particular year. And on the right hand side, the five points that you see the Oh, we're trying to put the timer back. Oh, sorry. Sorry. Just a second.

Okay, we won't have the timer then.

Yeah, I'll be under three, I think. Okay. So the the three lines that you see on the right, so the orange line represents the city's forecasted toot revenue. The blue line represents what the incubate association and visit Carmemell feel that line will look like. And the red line would be the orange line plus a 2% TOT increase which has been proposed. So the city's current projection assumes about a 1.3% annual growth in toot over the next 5 years. But historically since the formation of the HID toot has grown at approximately 5.7% annually even including co and over the past 2 years with reinvestment and upgraded properties growth has been about 12% each of the last 2 years. So the issue isn't whether revenue is growing. It's whether the city's forecast reflects that reality. Because the difference in assumptions is not small. When you project 1.3% growth versus a historically grounded trend, the cumul cumulative gap over the next 5 years exceeds $8 million in projected revenue. That 8 million difference isn't about performance. It's about the growth rate assumption. Exhibit F shows this clearly. The city's forecast tracks well below both actual performance and current trends, while a trendbased projection aligns with what we've consistently achieved. This isn't about optimism. It's about using the most complete and accurate inputs available. As you evaluate revenue today, I'd simply encourage aligning the forecast with demonstrated performance and current market conditions because getting the growth assumption right matters when you're preparing your

budget or considering a tax increase. Thank you. Thank you, Mark. Anyone else here? Seeing none, I saw Shirley Moon online. I don't know if she has her hand up. Um, actually there's somebody on the phone. Phone number ending in 941. Go ahead. The person calling in on Zoom, you can unmute yourself. phone number that ends in 941. Are you there? If so, unmute yourself. All right. If they come back, we'll get them. All right. Nobody else in house? Nope. All right. So, we'll bring it back for discussion. Want to start? Bob, you want to start? Absolutely. Good start. Um, well, I I mean, I think the main question you're asking us tonight is, do we want to proceed with sales tax? Um, so, um, I guess just my reaction to the presentation was, "Thank you very much." Um, it it's what Nancy's been asking for for a long time, and I'm delighted to have it. I feel a lot smarter um, as a result of it. Um, and I I'd kind of like to remind people where

Jeff was going that um, we need to verify this, but you know, our Sunset Center bond is not secured by property taxes, right? It is just paid out of the general fund. I suspect that bond bond council will tell us that a a bond secured by property taxes will have a lower interest rate because it's pretty much a sure thing. whereas one supported by the general fund will be riskier. Um but I think our bond rating is quite good. Um so you know there's there is a path out there um maybe that that says maybe maybe we can bond for um a new building and not necessarily have to go to the voters for a geo bond. And I'm not saying that's the path or not. It's just I I think it's just getting all the uh all the facts on the table. Um clearly that would require more you know additional revenue coming into the general uh into the general fund. Um I think the important part here and is actually Hans um mentioned this in our financial stewardship group. You know let's remember that our deferred maintenance of $100 million includes right now a $39 million uh for that building. Therefore 40% of our deferred maintenance is in and around that building. Um, so you know that bonding is part of this conversation because that's likely the direction we would have to go for that building. But would that that would not also knock off a big chunk chunk of our deferred maintenance. Um, yeah. And I I I think you I think you also got it right in terms of the high feasibility, moderate, etc. Um, I I my thought is that we're going to we're going to talk about toot tomorrow, so we may as well just wait till tomorrow for that conversation. I would propose pursuing

the sales tax um because it's there, it's available. We need money um and um I think it has a reasonably good chance um of of getting approved. I want to know a little more about how much it would bring in. Um but and and if the threat is real that somebody else will take it. I don't I don't want to react because of that. Um but if it's there and somebody Well, if it's there, I think we should take it anyway. Um uh I'm I've always been a a proponent of uh being a charter city. Um it's too late to put that on the ballot in November. Um I we have an election in November. The only certainty of that election um is that Hans and I will still be here after November. Um and we'll have we and so we may have one, two, or three new faces here. So um who knows where the next council will want to go on the topic of charter. Um, I certainly intend to bring it up early um in in the next city council because I think we need to be focused on getting that um on the ballot two years from November which can open the door for some other things if we need them somewhere down the line. So, so on the sales tax, yes. Thanks,

Jeff. Why don't you go next?

I'll put in my s or a standard plug for paid parking. I I still um I still believe that that's a you know, as Maya said, you know, at least a $1 million um a $1 million source of revenue, which is not chump change. It doesn't require um it would not require a a vote um except by the five of us. Um it would not that money would uh is targeted towards people who come here during the day. Um it doesn't uh it you know there are plenty of electronic systems that would allow us to not provide some all or some leeway for residents to park uh for free downtown. Um it could be targeted towards weekends or weekdays or summers or not summers. I think there a lot of flexibility in modern systems and and it could achieve both the goals of raising revenue and reducing the congestion downtown which was was pretty awful um this past weekend as anybody who was driving downtown knows. Um in terms of the sales tax I you know the thing that gives me pause is having two tax measures on the ballot at the same time. That gives me a significant amount of pause. um you know somewhat because I think we may have some voters that say you know we're going to have some voters that say I don't want to raise either one and we're going to have some voters that say I'm willing to raise one and I I would I would fear that um you know both of the measures would end up with let's say 45% of the vote and we would end up we would end up with nothing. So I think that the serial strategy I think that I definitely not definitely but I

think that the serial strategy is a is a better way to pursue that. I also think that we did not um we did uh we put the the previous sales tax increase was on the ballot in uh the I think the spring of I'm looking at Carrie spring of 2020. No, I think it was before I think it was before CO20 2020. I think it was right when CO was starting. We had put it on the

We had put it I remember having a conversation with Jen Ramers up here. Um we had we had argued about that's not the right word. We had discussed uh the wording. We had sort of micromanaged staff's wording of the of the ballot measures um like late into the night at the last possible minute to get it onto the March ballot. Um, and I think, uh, I know I did a little door-to-door canvasing, and I know a couple other people did as well to, uh, promote that. Um, so I'm a little bit wary of going right back to the voters, uh, given that we did that, um, six, you know, what will be what would be like six and a half years ago. Oh, it's not enough money. And and I don't think that I don't think that the argument that a goblin is going to come steal our 38 of a percent is really a compelling ar I don't think that that is a compelling enough argue. Like I don't think that that necessarily adds to the case um of of of promoting that of promoting that. So I'm I'm I'm interested but I'm I'm really mad. I'd prefer to keep the focus where we are right now. Um, I think that the bonding I would have to see, you know, back to the, you know, back to the sort of police station and and what to how to finance the police station. I think, uh, Bob, you've already spoken, so I'll talk to you since that's since that's easiest. Um, I would have to think about if I was going to make the decision about whether we would issue a whether we would raise the and you know raise the sales tax and issue a bond against those general those general obligation revenues or whether we would um use a any one of the one of the sort of property tax base measures you know partial measures whether it's the sort of advorum whether it's the advorum

methodology or the melo district methodology ology, which is like a a flatter version of the tax, you know, on on parcels. Um the two are the two are different. Um they have the same um you know, the the report said that one of them requires more voter engagement and I don't really understand that. Um, but I would have to see um I would have to do some like I would have to see like more work here on the dis to figure out whether one of those two property tax measures was a better bet than like raising the sales tax or eating into our general fund revenues. I don't know. It's not clear to me which is the best one. And it's also um you know it's a little bit risky, you know, it strikes me that it's a little bit risky putting the fate of our police station to a vote. Like I I'm a little bit loathed to, you know, it may be, you know, a quarter of a percent lower, half a percent lower, but it comes with a significant amount of risk. And I'm a little bit loathed to have the future of our police station which is so desperately needed here to be put at the vote of to be put it on a property tax vote. Um you know regardless of which sort of property tax measure which property tax measure we decided to pursue even if we decide you know whatever that whatever that might be. And finally, um I think the charter city option is uh sort of intriguing. Um you know, for the sort of flexibility it would give the city, but I don't think uh I'm I'm interested. I don't think it's a panacea to um I don't think it's going to give the city enough I don't think that it's going to give the city enough a lot sorry enough's not the right word. a lot of as much flexibility in terms of dealing with our own affairs as what I

hear sort of bandied about and you know freeing ourselves from the tyranny of state rule or how however it is that that that little chestnut is always phrased. Um, and you know, so the transfer tax is a great example of something that we used to be able allowed to do and maybe we'll we would continue to be allowed to do it. But, you know, a transfer tax is, you know, honestly, uh, you know, the sort of the anti-propy tax sentiment, um, that we hear a lot that's sort of bandied about that's, you know, this local control initiative before the state and that we hear about um that we hear about, you know, more a lot in Carmel because the property tax values are really high here. sort of people's reliance on on their homes for retirement, you know, that sort of awful system that we have here. Um, you know, when push comes to shove, a a property tax, a transfer tax is nothing more than another property tax. And I think that I think that, you know, and Kevin Roose spoke about the vacancy tax, which I've talked a lot about in a past life, um, which is also sort of a form of property tax. I think that they all face sort of the same headwinds and I they would face the same headwinds if we were in a campaign to if we were in sort of a political campaign to try and get one of those things passed. And I worry about that and and I think what's often missed in the discussion about becoming a charter city is that there's a significant amount of work and community involvement that goes into developing this sort of um constitution for Carmel. You know, right now Carmel has a constitution, the general law constitution that's sort of provided by the state and we would have to write our own. And I think that the sort of political realities that um would go the

political reality that that shows up at the end, which is on on election day, um forces a lot of really difficult, really complicated uh conversations in the two or four years that you know that lead up to the development of a charter. and and you end up my fear is that you'd end up with a lot of thing you know everybody would have something in the charter that they would hate and we would end up with a lot of nova like like it's I think that that process can be a very divisive um can be a very very divisive process and I think that there's a lot of sort of soularching um needed as as the number of full-time residents goes down here um I think that there's a lot of soularching that's really a lot of soularching conversations that will be needed before we would even decide to go down that road. And conversations that need to be made sort of on the on absent the convers like absent the conversation about tax taxes like there's a conversation that needs to be had about the sort of um makeup of our city and and the vitality of our city and all those things. I think those those will come to dominate that charter city conversation and that could be a good thing or that could be a really bad thing and I don't um and so I'm I'm I'm pretty wary pretty wary of that. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. I guess I'll go around at the end and summarize what I think everybody said. If you could help me, Brandon. Sure. Okay. I I sort of heard that as could I have before we go too far with this could I ask a question because I was a little confused by Bob's comment about charter city can't be done this year just from a timing perspective so it's off all we're saying at this point is we think it's a good idea let's do it next year

yeah so the two things as a reminder for council two things we're looking for tonight is basically a green light red light on the sales tax should we come back with a measure and then were there other things that you want us to pursue for future years. One of them certainly could be Charter City, but some of the other property um the property assessments or any of those type of things. Okay. So, if I could summarize what I heard so far in on the charter city is Jeff, I think you were a no. Right now, I'm definitely a no before the election. Right now, just you don't you don't that's not a high priority for Bob. You said you'd be willing to look at it. I think I'm a no before the election. Yeah. Oh, there's no time. Okay. between now and November to I'm just trying to get some data. We're giving

Yeah, we're looking for direction. Let's just call it, you know, after the election. So, there's before election, sales tax, yes or no. After we get through the election and this year, put some some earnest, honest effort into some of these other measures for coming elections in future years. So, you were, I think, a yes on that. Let's investigate it further. Yeah, we'll see what the next council thinks and maybe you're a yes to look further. Not you, Jeff. I'm a I'm just trying to get this as we go. So, I'm a I'm a I'm a definite maybe. Okay. All right. We got that down. All right. Go ahead, Alexander. Sorry. Sorry to bump in there.

Thank you, mayor. Uh, regarding the sales tax, uh, I would be a yes for looking at it for this year. Um, in general, I'd say that raising taxes such as property taxes through the GO bonds would be my least preferred and last option. And we need to keep in mind that these require twothirds of a vote by the public and most members of the public usually don't vote to pay more property taxes and we see the outcry that's already happening u regarding the C uh the Carmelian 5 school district um go bond issue. Um I would favor a more cautious approach to explore and exhaust options as a general law city such as the TOT and the sales tax uh for the 2026 general election. Uh see how much that would bring assuming if they would be passed. And I am still hesitant to rush into becoming a charter city in part because of all the extra taxes that a future council could try to implement and also I share a lot of the um excellent points that Jeff made is that this is just not something that you can rush into as a community. You need uh community input, you need involvement. It is a tremendous amount of work. It would basically um really dominate everything that we're doing if it's something we chose to do that year or two years that it would take um writing a constitution. Um, and it potentially could be a very divisive issue and there are things in there that people would like and things in there that people would not like and um, it would be just a very difficult thing to accomplish. Um, and another example, for example, if we were to become a charter city that we would get tremendous amount of push back from the real estate community regarding something like transfer taxes. Uh, there's also right now the statewide ballot measure in 2026 that could limit um, real estate transfer taxes as well. Um uh okay, I've said some of this already. Okay, as far as the police department building, I I think it's um absolutely imperative that we uh talk to an expert on the municipal bonds as we did with the sunset center. Uh those are

something that would be paid for from the general fund revenues and not from property taxes. Um I'm interested in this enhanced infrastructure financing district. um even though it might just be a modest amount of income that we could get. Um partially because it's something that um it's something we could do as a council and you don't need that uh public vote um and the difficulties that could arise from that. And um that's it. I I just I wanted to just sum up one thing. I know I said this during the strategic priorities meeting, but uh according to our housing element, we still have around a 30% middle class in our community that would be impacted um tremendously if we did property tax increases, especially as some of those people are seniors that are on fixed incomes. Uh, and the last thing we would want to do is to create a situation where they would be forced out of their homes and then that could most likely result in further hollowing out of our community with fewer full-time residents and more vacant and absentee homeowners which um is a huge issue and I think it is something that we are going to have to address as a community um very soon. So, I'm I'm uh definitely on board for looking at how big a problem it is and what we can do. I don't know if it's something that the government can do, but let's at least have a good conversation on that. Um because it is hurting us tremendously.

What about paid parking? Uh I'd say for now I'm a no. Okay. And so what you threw in the mix there for Brandon is the enhanced infrastructure financing district which hadn't come up yet. Correct. Okay. Got that Brandon? Okay. I believe I also mayor I heard a yes on sales tax. I I heard that too. Yes. And you didn't ask me unpaid parking. I would be a yes. I'm going to I'm going to ask you what do you think? Yes. Yeah. Further investigation. Yeah. I'm I'm pretty much right on. So we've got three yeses now. Okay. Or three two yeses. One and no. Go ahead.

Yeah. So I'm I'm going to sound like a broken record, but I um I actually think it's it's kind of important to establish like what number we're trying to go for. So again, $100 million in deferred maintenance. Um, you know, this year we're the CIP budget has us spending $2 million that's not in that deferred maintenance category. So call it $2 to $3 million a year of that because other things will come up, right? So now you're saying, okay, got $100 million nut and we're going to throw seven to$8 million a year at it. you're already talking about 15 years or something, right? And so to me, that's kind of what gets me to, you know, like $10 million number because because otherwise the the time span is so long that you have more deterioration happening and it just doesn't work. So for a reasonable time scale to actually pay that down, um that's where I come up with $10 million. We're got this 9010 policy. So if you take by policy 10% of $39.5 million of projected revenue for this year, we start off with about $4 million to throw at capex just from our revenue. And so now that means you've got to come up with $6 million, right? That's where that number comes from. And so this is a this is a discussion I think we've wanted to have for a long time, which is how do we get there, right? like which puzzle pieces do we do we put together to to kind of Tetris this thing to 6 million bucks. So, how do we close the gap? Um, I'll do sort of a process of elimination. I the general obligation bond. I'm uh I'm pretty strongly against uh a property tax route on that. I think politically it's very um it would be

pretty tenuous and it falls obviously on residents. Um got a lot of retirees on fixed incomes, lots of folks that are house rich and cash poor. Um I it's just not something that I think makes sense. What would make sense would be to have a bond that's backed by um general fund revenue. Um even if that means a slightly higher interest rate. I think that's just a much better option and that the money to pay for that could come through some of these other mechanisms. Uh paid parking um you know as Jeff mentioned is has virtues um noticeably you know it's a it's a tax borne mostly by day trippers which is um a nice feature but I I I say I do start from kind of a place of skepticism. Um, you know, there's something about a bunch of parking kiosks all over town that just doesn't sort of fit with my sense of the character of Carmel. And um, that's just my my gut on it. I'd like to hear what the community thinks. Um, it sounds like we will. Uh, you know, I think to that point, um, another downside of paid parking is that I think that we've seen that it's just one of these topics that becomes hugely controversial and I think it's going to suck up or could suck up a lot of the council's time and and political capital. Uh, the transfer tax, I hadn't thought about this, but it was actually pointed out in the report that a transfer tax is actually highly volatile. Um, apparently it's like two to fourx the swing of toot and four to eightx the volatility of a of a sales tax. Um, and I I really want to make our revenue base more stable and not less. So, I've I've soured on that one or become at least a little bit more skeptical um since learning that. So,

what's left? There's there's really three big ones. You've got tot, you've got sales tax, and then you've got the possibility of basically reallocating money from operating expenses to capital expenditures by changing our 9010 policy. And so, um, you know, we're going to talk about the toot, um, tomorrow night. I would say that, you know, it's it's probably one that's like the least heavy lift in terms of um politically. Uh there are some questions about the degree to which it disincentivizes hotels from renovating, but we we'll talk about that. Um generally, I remain, you know, supportive. the sales tax. Originally, I was pretty skeptical about this because, you know, I think it was 2012, it was like measure D. Um, we had our own our first like sort of homegrown sales tax measure and then in 2019 or I guess 2020, measure C, you know, increased it from like 1% to 1 and a half%. Um, so we've already raised it twice in, you know, 15 years. And I've heard frustration from people who have basically said, "Look, like we did this twice. You told us you were going to pay for these capital improvements. You didn't. It basically um, you know, kind of went to feed the beast and got sucked up by operating expenses." And I actually think that's a fair criticism. Um, that being said, I think, you know, if we were clear that the incremental sales tax revenue would be devoted to capital projects, not on the ballot measure, but through council policy, I actually think that we could get support on that. I think this council has credibility with residents on fiscal discipline. And um, I think we could make that pitch. I'm actually like increasingly

um I'm increasingly uh swayed by this notion of the fact that this um amount of property tax just became available under the cap. And the notion that it literally was taken by TMC, like that was the prior agency that took it to me is kind of compelling. You could have the county take it. Um, we often talk about how we only get 6% of our property taxes, like only 6% go to Carmel. Well, you know, of the nine and change percent that we pay in sales tax, we only get 2.5%. Right. Um so you know uh I think that or one and a half percent I think that the um the opportunity there to basically my my sort of assumption is there's a cap on this eventually it's going to hit that cap again and I would much prefer that we share in that than another agency. Um because as a general law city, we're so restricted, right? Like we only get 6% of property taxes, we only get x% of sales taxes. Um I just think that that that's become increasingly compelling to me. Um, and then, you know, we'll talk about it, but you know, the notion of potentially reallocating some money from um from operating expenses to to capex, you know, you kind of need you kind of need those three to count to um to count to the $6 million. I think the toot number the estimates like at least in year one and Mark makes good points about in the out years with the growth projections but the first year is like 1.93 million and then the sales tax I

think your estimate was what 2.5 million so now you're at 4 a.5 and then if you had some level of reallocation um you know changing from 9010 that gets you closer to 6 million so there's like a feasible way to out there. I think you raised really good points about um the challenges of trying to do two of those things in the same in the same year. It's sort of like you go for guns and butter and you get neither. Um and I don't know the answer to that question, but I'm definitely in favor of um continuing to explore the sales tax one so that we have options. We can do one or the other or both or neither. Right? So, let's let's at least have that option. Um, yeah, I don't what am I missing one of the questions I was supposed to answer here?

No, thank you. I think that's great.

Very well said, Hans. Um, for those of you who haven't been following it, I've been getting some emails from watchdog groups. Um the school district is considering a pretty large bond and it's going to hit our property taxes. The number I saw was $35 per h 100,000 which you know is $750 to3 or $4,000 for those that live here. So if we were to try the property tax bond we'd be piling on top of that and that's not going to be good. So, um I think you would all know given my vote on the occupancy tax or the toot that I would go for the sales tax. I I'm in favor of that. It sort of pushes our sales tax up pretty high, but everybody else is going to be as well. And it also produces almost $3 million. So, it's it's at least a million dollars more than the toot tax. And if we're if we're going to pick one, I'd pick that one. But it's sort of sounding, Brandon, that the majority here doesn't like the idea of both taxes. Is that Am I reading that right?

What I heard was is let's let's put both let's move forward with both measures. And it sounds like perhaps what we're we're being asked to do from council is to do a little bit more research, maybe engage somebody who can give us a sense of what two measures looks like in our city specifically. uh and and you know start to read some temperatures perhaps on what that looks like.

Yeah, I'm I've been for and I'm for doing more investigation on investigation on Charter City. You know, we'll find out at the end of the year what happens with the transfer tax, but the county, if for those of you who haven't been following it, and I have the the county is talking about an extra 5% transfer tax. So now we're talking 6.1% every time you sell a house. Over 10 million, but now they're starting to talk about five million. So that's sort of a big deal as well. Um I like to investigate the enhanced infrastructure financing district. We've talked about that before, Brandon, for for like sidewalk maintenance and you know the things downtown to really beef up our maintenance downtown. And I think that's one of the things that's for. Um I think the other smaller low feasibility things know um in terms of the bonds I I know it wasn't a strategic priority and I know it's not a popular thing but I think we really the the residents of this town deserved to hear from somebody who can educate us like we did tonight on other options of unlocking some value in our highly valuable public property. I mean, Scout House, I've got people hounding me about the Scout House and the Flanders Mansion and we need to sell it and I don't think that was a priority this year, but uh in terms of the parking lots, everything else. I mean, we'll find out what happens with the bond, but I think we should be educated. We haven't done it. People are saying you should have explained it, so let's explain it. Public private partnerships and how that works and how that might solve our problem. um paid parking. I think there are options that are really easy to do and we haven't investigated them. So, Brandon, I really would like you to come back or whoever you're going to assign to the task to really find out how can we do it without a lot of

putting infrastructure all over town. I know Jamie knows a lot about this. This was so one of one of the things that came out of your strategic priorities meeting was to come with a presentation on pay parking. So we're right now I think June chief is what like so he's been he's been getting up to speed going through all the old files that Uler did uh the chief former chief Uler did. Um so we're we're on point to come to you guys in June with a presentation on what paid parking might look like and that's not this isn't related to a vote. So we can do that anytime. Correct. Say there's no time constraints on paid parking. No, it's self-imposed. Yeah. No state laws, no ballots, anything like that. It's different than some of these other things. That's right. All right. That's great. Looking forward to that. All right, I think I covered all those things. Correct.

Thank you, sir. All right, you got everything you need. Uh, I do believe we have the direction we need. We will continue forward and and we will endeavor to have a draft ballot language to you on sales tax so we can continue that conversation. When we come back, we'll have some more conversation about the viability of two measures on the same ballot for you. And tomorrow, we're going to talk about toot to route this up.

That's right. We will be bringing you the draft toot ballot language tomorrow. Okay. Talk about Okay. Thank you everybody. Good job. All right. I' I'd like to break for for dinner right now. Quarter to 6. You okay with that? I know you'd say yes. That way we don't have to waste doing a bio break. We can just do it all at once. All right. So, we'll be back uh quarter after 6. Everybody relax. We probably have extra food down there. If anybody's hungry, we'd be happy to share it with you. We stand adjourned for the moment. We are in We are in a recess, sir. Thank you. Not not adjourned. We're in recess. We don't have to have access. We don't because we can take the cash.

So, I just want to keep in the back of my mind. So, so you have an option to eat cash. That's all the law requires. So, I think so. Some jurisdictions do. So, but I'm talking about all the different Yeah, that waxing get off. Well, I mean the thing was just ocean.

I know. So, yeah. So, ocean close to So, City of Delmare Day CF. So, City of Delmar, look at their financials. They're two square miles. They're 3900 people. They're on the beach right here. Their parking paid parking revenue is 1.4 per year. 4 million. Their ation revenue.

So I think when you find a place to market Delaware, you don't I think that'll be

I think so, too. I'm not going to get fooled again. That's one thing I've learned in the last year. It always takes longer than you think. We're back in session.

Thank you everybody for letting us have our dinner and thank you Nova for getting us dinner. Um, we're now to order of business number seven, consideration of funding for the fiscal year 2026 27 capital improvement program and direction on options for an accelerated street improvement program in the CIP. Ken Wasaki, our public works director, is going to take it on. First, uh, Brandon's going to take the lead at the beginning here. Thanks. I really wanted Ken to introduce me, so that was that was important to me. Sorry.

No, I just I just want to take a quick minute uh to kind of set the stage for this item. We're going to do it a little bit unconventionally. Uh we're going to try to break the conversation up into two chunks here. Uh the first chunk is going to be the deferred maintenance list, which um you you saw at the previous meeting. It was attached to this item as well as an attachment, but this is the the total list of deferred maintenance items that gets us to that, you know, roughly $und00 million number that we've been throwing around. um as a real issue that needs to be addressed. Uh so that's that's what I want to do first. Uh I'm gonna I'm gonna take the opportunity to put a spotlight on it. We're going to be looking for questions, comments on it from council to make sure one that you understand the items that you don't have any questions. I do want to offer a piece of clarification from the last meeting. Council member Dramov, I did talk to uh Bob Herreri directly. I called him. Uh he did confirm for me that his estimate before included all things. It wasn't just the buildings. Um, also as a side note, he just got engaged this week in Italy. He proposed to his girlfriend, so other than that as well. Yeah. Um, they also happened to visit Chip while they were over there. Um, so that was a little bit of a side note on this item, but I did confirm that, but I'm looking for other questions or comments or deliberations on this deferred maintenance list. Um, and then part two of the conversation after we do that, we'll I'll kick it over to Ken and we'll talk about the CIP, uh, which is going to include the the full five-year CIP and also a brief conversation about the roads, uh, options that we mentioned in our staff report. But for this part, I want to take an opportunity to spotlight the deferred maintenance list once again um, because it plays a major role in how we constructed the CIP this year. It drives us towards that budget gap that we know that we have. Uh, Council Member Bter had talked about the approach of a 9010 versus an 8515. This list is really a driving force in conversations like that. So, with that in mind, I just wanted to put it up on the screen. Um, you all had it as an attachment.

Everyone saw it hopefully. Um, but I wanted to open for council uh comments or questions first. Probably more questions. Let's stick with questions. Is there any questions, concerns about this list? Is something missing? Is there something that you need uh clarification on before we go into the CIP? because I think it's important to have this as a foundational document. So, mayor, with your with your approval, can we just have a quick conversation about this before we move on to the second part of this item? Yes. Okay. Thank you. So, council members, do you have any questions about this or everyone understands it, feels good about it? Um, no clarification needed.

Got one. Could we scroll down to towards the end when we've got Flanders and Scout House? um and even maybe even First Murphy. I I really still think that we there's a lot more that needs to be done on those buildings than the amounts we have.

So, that's a good comment. We did receive that last time. I think one thing to note about this is these are deferred maintenance items. These are things that are needed to bring the building up to a state of good repair. The first Murphy house, for example, we maintain the roof on that. The roof is in good shape. There's no there's no active leaking. Um, we run we run the internal heater. Um, and so we need to paint the building. Yes, we need to uh check for dry rot repairs and repair some of the pathways, but there's no identified project at this house. So, I think perhaps maybe what you're thinking is the cost that it would take to bring it up to ADA compliance to make it a usable, functional building or certainly much more than this $22,000. This is a deferred maintenance list though to bring the building up to a healthy standard. Uh, same thing with Flanders Mansion and um, First Murphy.

Okay, that explains it because that I'm definitely looking at the bigger picture of getting them in a whole different shape. Another good example is Flanders Mansion. If there was if there was a world where we ended up with an RFP and someone came in with a project, certainly there's more than $120,000 of work. In fact, when the city tried it in the past, there was requirements for whoever took that over to to put more money than that into it to bring it up to a livable standard. But this is this is to bring it up to a healthy sort of building building compliance standard. Okay. I appreciate that explanation. Thank you. Another challenge I believe is if if the project gets too large, you do trigger ADA and the whole project massively changes in scope. That's right. Any other That was a great question. Any other questions?

Yes. So, two comments. Um well, two questions. Um, one above this, I think, uh, on the page above up forest for forestry right there. It says, uh, the number of in the box says a million dollars, but the total identified need is $3 million. A million dollars for three years. So, the math isn't right. I You're right. The the number in the box is correct. The words, I believe, are incorrect because we did have quite a bit of catchup in recent years. I think we just we we unfortunately didn't update the words on the side. So, thank you for catching that.

And then the um the streets uh above above. I think this is sort of this is sort of one of my you know mental blocks. It says total identified 8 to $24 million to spring to bring all streets up to a PCI of 100. And I to me that's not def to me like I'm not sure that like deferred maintenance to get all of our streets into perfect condition like some point it's like it should be deferred like to me it seems like it should be deferred maintenance to get our streets up to 50 I think is the word the number you use in the just to use your number um in the CIP 100 like the difference between 50 and 100 is like gilding or regular maintenance or something, not deferred maintenance. And I think that the issue I have with the streets is we're sort of losing sometimes it feels like we're sort of conflating like deferred maintenance on streets, which maybe are streets that are crumbling, with streets that have like one filled pothole or whatever it is. And so I'm not I think that I'm not sure like what PCI of 100 means. That basically means bringing all the getting all the roads to essentially a brand new state. I mean, that couldn't all be done in one year. So, you'd have other roads that would have deteriorated by then.

To toss your words back at you a minute ago, you were talking to Allesandre about Scout House, like getting a Scout House into not into perfect state, but into sort of a serviceable state. And I'm wondering why, like given what you just said, like why are the roads being held to a different standard than than the Scout House than than sorry, First Murphy House? And I think that um like I think that this verbiage, like this way of thinking about roads is part of the reason that we have roads that are in really terrible shape because this seems overwhelming. like $24 million seems overwhelming until you think about getting it up to the up to the number 100 whereas maybe what we should be thinking about is getting it up to 50 or 60 and the number would be less and it would be less daunting and and we wouldn't have people like doing this when they see

it's almost like you know what the next conversation is going to happen in the the CIP because we we agree I'm trying to get like you're going to bring this you're going to bring this back like you told us that this needed to be right and you're going to bring this back to us over and over again. And I want to get this like I want to get that sentence right. Like maybe it's right, but I'm not buying it. No, I think you're right. We need we need to do a little bit deeper dive on on what that what that says and and what the number is. So we'll we'll look back at that. Okay. Yeah. Thank you for pointing that out. Isn't that what we're going to do after TAMC does their survey and we develop some kind of model to forecast it? That's a valuable process. I think we all agree on that.

Yep. Anybody else? Yeah, I was just going to say I had the same exact comment. I completely agree on that. And I think the solution is whatever we scenario we wind up with on the roads, just plug that in as a for maintenance number. Like that's the standard that we're trying to achieve.

Um the other one is so there on that one, you know, the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, right? So, we gain maybe I don't know 8 $8 million there depending on what option we choose right on this number. But then one of the things here that strikes me is all of these things say plus soft costs. And um I would like to be able to include soft costs because obviously we have to pay soft costs as well. I mean there's um those are material. I mean I probably I don't know you'd have to tell me 15% 20% of somewhere in there project cost. So

I mean I tallied I think there's more more on here but it was something along the order of like $35 million of items where it says plus soft cost. So then you're thinking oh maybe it's another $6 million. So again we we lose somewhere like the order of magnitude kind of stays the same. But I think those are two areas to to clean up. And my question is um just maybe just tell me why why we didn't want to include soft costs because it's difficult to estimate or just curious. I mean I think yes in general it's difficult to estimate. We did our best at kind of going through this list in quick order and pointing out ones that we thought would have soft costs. But I think if if the council's interested in having soft costs included in the deferred maintenance list, then we can go back through with a finer finer lens and do that. That's certainly something we can do.

Do do soft costs mean uh personnel costs? Permitting, contracting, all those things that add you know between around 15 to 20%. So a soft cost. No, it's design like design work like anything outside like not operating like I'm operating right. Come up to the the microphone so the people at home can hear you as well. I'm sorry. Sorry both of them. So soft cost like earlier uh mentioned earlier is like the engineering the design permitting um public outreach PR um and other kind of studies that we do like geotechnical survey work those are the soft cost associated in order to build a design into a construction project

which is why you see some items that probably won't have a soft cost associated in a minute um so in a minute we're going to talk about the CIP and we're going to talk about the scenic pathway like the drainage on the scenic pathway, right? So, what's the soft cost there? Like what is the like we we've spoken about like hiring a hydraologist or something. Is that a soft cost? That's like coming out of this year's budget or however it is that that's going to work. And so that's a soft cost. Yes. And paying someone to fix it is a is the cost. Construction. Yeah. Construction cost. Cool.

Seems to me that should be included in this. Yeah. Yeah. That's I I'm I'm taking that from council and we will we'll revise this list. So, as this is as council member Buddha pointed out or I can't remember, sorry if it was council member Baron, but if this is a list that's going to become sort of like part of the the budget conversation on a regular basis, we should we should rightsize it as much as possible. So, um I heard you on both points. Thank you. Public comment if the council's done it. Yeah, it would be great to hear any public comment on this as well on this on this first part. Yeah. And then and then we can shift into the CIP conversation. Any any public comments, Maria?

Good evening. Um I just uh I guess it's my mind works differently but I have a point a simple point of clarification because uh when I think of something that's called defer maintenance for me something that is going to be delayed in a with a certain factor of time correct so when you're deferring some maintenance what is your time frame that's my number one question to you my second question is it seems absurd that I have same item item names identified in the budget CIP that's coming forward and then I have some that are called defer maintenance year. So for example streets we have streets over there and streets here we have the storm drain system and the storm drain system. So in my world that doesn't seem to connect the dots until you tell me okay here is the real program management in me says this is the items that you are agreeing to do with the CIP and these are the ones that you're leaving behind because those are the defer maintenance that you're deferring and therefore we can identify what is being left out because right now you just have a little list with numbers that I don't know how they've been estimated and at the same time know a lot of detail to say what is it that you're not doing in the CAB. So in order to correlate the two numbers it will be easier if we put them in a comparison table or something. Does that make sense?

Yeah. Can I answer that question mayor? Okay. Um so I think actually um what what you're looking at is the deferred maintenance list are things that have been deferred in the past that we have not done. And so this is a list of things we need to catch up on basically which is why you see the same things listed in the CIP because that's that's the city taking action to do the things that are on the deferred maintenance list. So thisundome million dollar deferred maintenance list we're going to slowly be taking bites out of it every year. So these are not things that we're pushing necessarily off into the future. Uh these are things we're actively every year going to be taking care of. That's why you see some on the CIP and some not. when we get to them they'll they'll roll over to the CIP list

and therefore you will relate the number of your budget estimated here of that defer maintenance because you were just asking Allesandre about a specific actions and it's like well that's only a little component of something therefore how much of that million or number that you identify correspond to what's being done and what's being left out. That's right. And another one of our we haven't done it yet and we're going to endeavor to to get something built by the time we get to the end of this budget season, but we will we need to create a tracking tool that shows what we've done on the deferred maintenance list. Um, we've started talking about that. If you look in the CIP right now, there's a

a designation of a D next to which items come from this list. You can kind of start making those connections, but even that's not fully refined yet. need to make sure that we're not, you know, giving something a D credit and then rolling it down to the bottom when 100% of that line isn't actually deferred maintenance because there's some things that are overlap between regular work and deferred maintenance in the same category. So, we're working on that. Okay? You know, eventually you might see something like, you know, a thermometer in front of city hall to show you how much how much progress we've made on our deferred maintenance list, but you take my point that that we are we're going to be tracking it as well. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it, Brandon. To add on to that,

and Alisandra's point was good that it's really 150,000 for I think that's what you were saying for the uh first Murphy house. And that's what she's saying. Same thing. If you're really going to do deferred maintenance, you should do the whole thing on that report and then take the smaller pieces on on the CIP. That's the idea I think I just heard. Okay. Okay. Go ahead. Is the right time to make a comment about pavement? Yes. Excuse me. I think I think Kevin, though, sorry, mayor. I'm so sorry. This is a little bit out, but I think uh what we're looking for is just comments on this deferred maintenance list. If it's the right list, if something's missing, when we get to the CIP conversation, we're going to be talking about pavement as an item. Okay, perfect.

Hang tight for a few minutes. Makes sense. Thanks.

Anybody else? No hands up online. So, let's go ahead and have Thank you, mayor, for letting me take that little left turn there, but I thought it was a good foundational conversation for what these guys are about to talk about. Did you introduce me? I'm just kidding.

Ladies and gentlemen, Kenaki, Brandon, can I just speak to that? So, um, thanks for doing that. Thank you Hans for um when we were earlier talking about revenue sources always going back and talking about this and I mean and the theme is that this is the main event we always need to anytime we have any conversation about finances you got to start with this and let's let's like enforce that amongst each other um because that you know what happens is we very start we we start to find abbreviations for it and then we assume everybody knows what we're talking about and we can't just always have to be disciplined and have that um have that as the north star and hopefully show it go down. So, thanks. Thank you, mayor, council members. Uh today we're going to be talking about the 5-year capital improvement uh plan and uh and also an accelerated CIP options. Next slide. Oh, I have it. I'm sorry. So, the purpose of this presentation um is to review the updated uh capital improvement plan recommended by staff. Also, what we're going to do is present a couple of options for uh a street maintenance prioritization uh for consideration. And then lastly, we want to seek your direction to finalize our CIP budget going forward. The agenda today, we're going to present an updated staff recommended CIP based on current information and council's prior feedback from uh our March meeting. I do want to make uh to note for council that the CIP before you is based on the best information we have today. As with any multi-year infrastructure program, conditions in the field can change, whether through new discoveries uh or unforeseen emergencies. As a result, this plan should be viewed

as a living document that that may be adjusted over time through council approval process to respond to those realities. Additionally, we're going to be presenting options to address all streets that have a pavement condition index, that's the PCI, less than 50. Uh one in to have it done and accelerated in 5 years to bring them all above 50 and the other one uh in 10 years. Now, that doesn't mean the streets are only at 50 or just above 50. Some will be at 100. Some will be at, you know, just above 50. It depends on the treatment that we do on those those streets. So, with that, I'm going to pass this on to Sheree. Good afternoon, um, mayor, council members, members of the public, and my colleagues. So, following up with, uh, Ken's, um, introduction on what we're going to discuss today. Oh, um, I I'm going to proceed on the, um, revisions to the original 5-year CIP plan. Um so these m modifications are refinements to the originally proposed 5-year CIP program as well as updates to the uh proposed fiscal year 2627 budget. But let me do a recap uh first of all on these changes um from the previously um proposed CIP 5-year CIP. So some of the changes include um scheduling on the CIP on the 5-year plan. Some are um some changes include costs associated with the project and there's also some minor changes um in costs that staff has updated. Um so here are the here are the projects

that were modified in the original proposed 5-year CIP. Um some of these CIP as mentioned earlier um have their schedule deferred or moved earlier. Some of them have updated cost estimate and one of the project has been put back as a carryover. Um before I you know before I continue I just wanted to echo the statement made earlier by Ken. Um while staff has adjusted the project scheduling in response to um council's direction. I just want to emphasize also as an engineer that if staff identifies project that presents significant risk or require urgent attention, we might need to rep prioritize this project accordingly. And in such cases, um particularly when issues involve life or safety concerns, staff will promptly inform the council. We simply want to make sure that the council is aware of this potential need for adjustment as we move forward with these projects. So just to give you a little bit of an overview, couple of these uh projects that were were deferred were were the uh retain our retaining wall the retaining wall at Sunset Center that's been deferred to the next fiscal year, the city shingle project, missions trail um preserve project, and then some of the changes in the cost include the PWPD architectural design which was reduced from 5 million into 3.5 million. Uh we also removed the fire inspector vehicle under the fleet and equipment category. And there's minor changes on the micro seal paving project which was incred uh by 25,000 which is now 600,000. The picadelli project or picadelli restroom project is now moved from 2728 to this fiscal year 2726 I'm sorry 2627.

And then the sand ramp was increased from 275 to 400,000 to combine both design and permitting. And the other carryover that was not included in the prior um proposed CIP is the uh shoreline infrastructure repair which is a carryover from last this fiscal year and then the contingency increased from $549 to $600,000. Um so now moving on the uh option one revised 5-year CIP. Um so this option one is being that was so the option one is the refinement again of the original um proposed 5-year CIP that was presented on March 24th. It includes again the changes that were identified earlier either some deferment or change in cost or scheduling. Um it does not include the 5 to 10year option dedicated to street CIP program to bring all roads below uh PCI of 50 to above 50 and it is a moderate CIP program that has a focus on addressing identified streets for rehab reconstruction and has a preventative uh maintenance project on year one but not on an annual basis because it was focused on delivering projects within the budget constraints and capacity constraints as well. But still all the streets were addressing anything below 50 and increasing it to above 50 but but that it did not address all of it. So just to reiterate some of these changes in the 5-year cap plan as you could see in here the scenic drainage is the scenic drainage improvement is now um moved to I'm sorry move to uh the drainage category as requested um for this option one this is just a

revision to the 5-year CIP but does not include a a a street CIP um category that involves um a yearly project. So that's option one. And then um I'm sorry I'm blind. And then the last one is the sunset center as requested by uh council. It has been moved to the next fiscal year um 2728. The next So for the next one, these are the move uh these are the projects that were moved. Piccadilli restroom was now moved to year one of the 5-year CIP and the city hall shingle windows is now moved to year three. Um as you can see here the PD PDPW architectural services is has been um reduced from 5 million to 3.5 million. And then in this last um spreadsheet the shoreline infrastructure repair um as mentioned earlier has been put back in here. It is a carryover from the last fiscal year. Um the fourth avenue outfall which was uh moved to which was moved from 2829 is now moved on year two. And then the mission trail has has also been deferred one year um to fiscal year 2728. And then the last um of the spreadsheet talks about the you know the total of the projects. Once again, we have the grand total for each fiscal year and we also have the the number for the deferred maintenance.

I just I want to jump in for a second here. Um, so this is this is a point again I made in the last conversation that you know we're taking some new approaches this year. We've got the D marker next to things that are deferred maintenance. We're trying to call it out at the bottom. But I do want to note that we recognize that these the number and the blue line, it needs to be refined a little bit. There are certain categories we just went through where there might be some regular work that's being double counted as deferred maintenance. So, um we can't say for sure what that if that number is right. It's probably a little bit overstated, but we're going to continue to refine that as we go through the budget season um and into the future. And this is just what happens, you know, when you're you're doing new things. Um so, I just wanted to point that out that we're we're aware that, you know, the D's are next to things some of all of which might not be uh deferred maintenance. So, thank you, Sh.

Thanks, Brandon. So I just I think I just want to show you in this slide that in comparison to the last um proposed CI 5-year CIP um the last CIP on the first year has about 12 million in total project cost with a deferred maintenance of about 10 million. So that accounted about 80% of the total CIP budget for that uh for each fiscal year. As you can see in here, it's at around 8 10 million now from 12. And then now the deferred maintenance is from 10 million originally to now 8 million. It still is hovering around that 80% um the deferred maintenance hovering uh 80% of the total grand uh grand total. So it's basically similar in terms of um percentage allocation. So now I'm going to move on. That was option one. And so now um moving on to option two and three. So basically um based on council's feedback last uh March 24th um on the prior on prioritizing street maintenance and an initiative of the finance committee, we're presenting uh tonight the 5-year and 10 years street CIP option that will raise all the streets to PC PCI above 80. And I'd like to mention that we did the scenario of actually targeting a PCI of 80 about 80. So that's the scenario we're presenting to you tonight. So this is the spreadsheet that has the two options. On your left is option two, which is the 5-year CIP to achieve roads with a PCI above um 50, but basically a target of PCI 80, and that's spread out in 5 years. And option three is the same um conditions, but trying to achieve

that on a 10-year um program. So, as you can see on the left, um the grand total is around 11 million. So option two is a more is a little bit more of an aggressive street CIP program. It is front-loaded with projects meaning most of the street improvement construction work happens in the second year. The first year would be designed. After that the amount of work continues but gradually decreases over the succeeding years. This option includes an estimated amount of $7.5 million for street improve imp improvement and about $3.7 million for street preventative maintenance projects for a total of approximately 11.3 million. So keep in mind that these numbers are based on the uh street uh saver evaluation completed in 2022. A new street saver report will be completed by the end of this year and the updated data might somehow change these estimates. So now with option three covering the 10-year um period, it is a little bit of a less aggressive um uh program for the street. Um but it still has achieved the same goal, elevating everything under 50 to a PCI about um about 80, a score of 80. In fact, both options two and three aim to achieve an overall network. Like I said, a PCI of 80. To give a comparison of what other cities are are doing, so I did a little bit of research. City of Pacific Grove has a current PCI of 55 and they estimate to have around $2 million annually for their preventative maintenance program. The city of Monterey has currently has a PCI of 80, but they have invested um

around 4 to6 million every year for the last 11 years to achieve that goal. So that's and and that's just for the street uh preventative maintenance. I believe that's different from their street improvement projects. So that those are the two comparisons for side by side costwise. um it includes it includes both soft cost and hard cost but then as I mentioned earlier this is uh based on a 2022 report so it it would might change this coming end of year um with those estimates oh and just to go back so what I want to point out in here is that for a 5-year program it's going to cost you around from these estimates 11.3 million but if you do a 10-year program which is less aggressive, it'll cost you about 16.6 million and I'd like to use the analogy somewhat similar to like a mortgage, right? So, if you do pay payments in like let's say 10 year, you will pay a lot more in the in the first 10 years, but when you spread it out to 30 years, you're going to pay less every year. you you know you will pay at the end but you will cost it will cost more because then you'll have to pay interest in inflation over the span of those number of years but at the end of this it will achieve you know hopefully the PCI of 80 um just a note here that after 5 years and 10 years you will still have to continue a preventative maintenance because you will you will not maintain 80 unless you do maintain your roads after this

and Charlie can I just add a little piece of clarification for the council because you and I have been working on this last time. I know what you're saying, but just to be clear when Shie says a PCI of 80. Um there's two different things here. There's individual score PCI score. So we're we're the the approach here is every road segment in the city is above an individual PCI of 50. So getting everything above 50, which brings your network PCI score or sometimes called like an average PCI up to 80. Um so that that's what that's what we're talking about there. You see 50 on the screen, you keep hearing 80. I wanted to make sure you understood what that was.

Yes. Thank you for that clarification. Okay. So now um I'd like to walk uh through the comparison of the 5year and 10ear CIP program along that includes the alternative um street CIP options. As you can see here, this is like the 5-year schedule for both the 5year and 10ear CIP program. I mean obviously the 10 year we don't like we we didn't have those extra 10 five years afterward starting with option two. So basically the it's the option above the option the option to includes both the street improvement program and the street ma uh street preventative maintenance program again as mentioned it takes a more aggressive approach aiming to raise all streets below currently below a PCI of 50 to a target of um PCI of 80 um I guess it's a global uh like it's a global uh PCI score of all the streets the improvement this improvement program is front-loaded, meaning it has a lot more projects in the beginning with year one dedicated to design as as mentioned earlier and year two beginning construction. Preventative maintenance continues annually throughout the entire um 5-year program. And then as you could see in the schedule, it's spread throughout every year. You have a preventative maintenance program now. And then you also have a street improvement program with um the design and construction, you know, like um pattern in there. Option three also includes both improvement work and preventative maintenance but is less aggressive and again spread across five uh 10 years. Preventative maintenance at this in this um option is more front-loaded and distributed evenly across the full 10 year. The improvement cycle follows a repeating pattern like I said um design the first year, construction the next

and continues over the entire time frame. Um, even with this more gradual structure, option three still achieves the goal of raising all streets below PCI of 50 to a target of PCI of like 80. Um, both programs share one key uh requirement. So again as mentioned earlier even after completing this 5year and 10ear CIP the city would have to continue an annual preventative maintenance but would would cost you less because now you're maintaining hopefully uh global PCI of 80 rather than some streets under under 50. This ongoing um investment is critical to maintaining the improved conditions and keeping the PCI above um 80 moving forward. And Char, before you move on, just to kind of put a fine point on this for council, the the idea of these options, option two and option three, is that these are essentially like building blocks that you can lift off to this page and you can insert into the full 5-year CIP that you're you're looking at. Um the the numbers across the bottom, the yellow and the blue, that's what the inserted block does to the total at the bottom. So you'll see that the numbers in the first year are roughly the same, 10 million, 10 million, but they they they start to differ as you go down the road. But that was the notion of these two things. These are options you can pick up off the page and put in into the CIP and change out for what we currently have proposed.

Okay. Thank you. And so that is uh so in conclusion um the staff request council direction on the following items. So whether to proceed with a refined original 5-year CIP program or to select one of these two alternative street CIP options and also we'd like to seek your um direction on whether to retain, remove or postpone or defer any of these current projects included in the staff uh proposed uh CIP plan. And that's the end and we're welcoming your feedback and questions. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Hans, do you have any questions? I do. Let's see. Um there on page 112 of the packet, uh there's design listed for the design costs listed for the various road plans. Page 112.

Yeah. And option one, which is basically the status quo, has a design cost of 500,000. And then option three, which is the um which is the 10-year program, has a design cost of 200,000. These design costs are these for like year 1 basically. This is for 26 27 design costs. Uh are we speaking about the 10-year program? The one with the option three. Yeah. Okay. So on this on the street improvement project design. This right up here. Oh.

So it's basically saying that's the cost for design in year one. Yes. This is for this fiscal year 26 27. Got it. Okay. So it's lower on option three presumably because it's going to be spread out. Yes.

Got it. Okay. Um, and then in a similar vein, if you go to page 123 of the packet, yeah, that the the only question I had on this was the the preventative maintenance. So, if I have a situation where we're doing the work faster, presumably the quality of the roads is going up faster, which is the one, the 5-year version, shouldn't the street maintenance, the the preventative maintenance piece be lower there than in the 10-year option?

Uh, I'm sorry. Which, uh, can you repeat that question? Are we talking about option three?

Yeah, in Well, I'm kind of comparing them. So in the in the chart on the left, we are um going gang busters and trying to basically improve the quality of roads quickly. So that the PCI the average PCI score is rising um is rising much more quickly. Shouldn't the def shouldn't the preventative maintenance cost per year be lower in that scenario than a scenario in which we're doing the work more slowly? So I think how I differentiate in here the street improvement actually has includes project that are a little bit more major in construction costs it's the reconstruction or rehabilitation like a mill and pave um work like that or AC work the street preventative maintenance are treatments that include microsurfacing and micro seal which are I guess less in cost um and So those are kind of two different projects. Um the it they differ by the type of treatments basically. So we get aggressive on the street improvement um on the five years because we want to tackle more the projects in the first year and it goes down. But on the street preventative maintenance what we did was it's it's really an equal amount of num um cost that we um kind of distribute or allocated every year. The reason why it's increasing in a way is because we inflated it um because as years goes by construction cost just goes up. So that's what the assumptions and condition we put on the scenario option two. I'm not quite I'm not quite following the logic, but I um do you understand my question?

I do. Well, I think just from a and char maybe check me if I'm wrong on this, but I think what the council member is asking is, you know, if we're if we're doing more in the 5-year plan um and getting the roads up to a level where they are in really good shape, why are we spending more on preventive maintenance? But what I think the answer might be is that by year, you know, year two and three, we've actually brought more roads forward that are at the point now all we have to do is maintain them and like this preventive maintenance. There's actually more roads potentially that we have to do preventive maintenance to that are that are at that point because we're not doing major repairs in in the 10-year program. There's still several roads out there that haven't even been touched yet that don't qualify for preventive maintenance because they're not at that level. So, as we're creating, as we're fixing more roads, getting them back to a PCI of, you know, close to 100, then we have to shift into doing the preventive maintenance each year. So, the number of roads that require preventive maintenance increases faster in the 5-year plan than it does in the 10-year plan. Yeah. Does that that's that's how I would I mean, that's I'm just imagining that that's what the reason is, but

um it kind of is, but then they also address different kinds of street um conditions. So the first one, the street improvement again talks about a little bit more of the worst streets and then the other one are more I I guess like there's cracks that let's let's say we just have to do like a micro seal to to elevate the condition and then maintain it so that it wouldn't go beyond below 50. So

that's fine. Um I I think it's something to just kind of double click on cuz it just looked fishy to me. Um the other one is you know when when I proposed these scenarios we had the three components right we had uh nothing below 50 average PCI score of 80 globally and then the third component was uh best management practices on preventative maintenance so like the micro sealing at a regular interval like every 5 to 7 years. So does this does this include that? Is this assuming like for $400,000 a year, you're telling me that I can do preventative and maintenance on every applicable street in Carmel at a 5 to 7year interval?

So when we did this scenario, we included all the uh streets under PCI 50. So I believe there's like 47 streets identified from that uh 2022 report. So that's addressing everything right now under 50. and then having a global PCI like you said of 80. So we do that by doing the option two and option three was what we did was we just did a yearly maintenance and not the every 5 years only or every seven years. So

I'm not quite following that but does it does it include I'm I'm also I don't know if Marissa and Ken you guys are involved as well. I mean, does it include um does it include hitting every uh street that needs preventative maintenance at those prescribed intervals? Yeah, it's an estimate remember out out year what might fall. They they will fall below a 50 at different intervals based on use and and and current. But it's not it's not about whether it falls below a 50. This is preventative maintenance on all the roads. Right. Right. This includes a schedule of preventive maintenance and best practice.

Yes, it does. Yes, it does. And as you asked those three scenarios, it does the the raise everything above 50, but it also to do that. What we found the score in the system says if you do all that, then your overall score will be an 80. So it achieves two things at the same time by bringing everything above 50. Yeah, I know. I see that on the the taking the stuff up from below 50 and that. But my question is really about this. I'll be honest with you. Right now, we're spending a million dollars a year on like on average

on roads and um the uh the typical spread has been like 60%, you know, like we had this conversation with Rob, 60% preventative maintenance, 40% more hardcore street. Sure.

Improvements. Um 60% of a million is $600,000. We have not been anywhere close to doing the appropriate amount of deferred maintenance or of preventative maintenance at the right intervals. Like we've run the numbers. Like it's not even close. That's $600,000. This thing says we can do it for $400,000. And so I just there's something about it that I think I think what we're I think when and we can like you said we'll double click on the numbers a little bit more but I think where we're the reason that number changes because you're going more aggressive on getting the streets up to a higher level. Yeah, I was more I guess it's a comment at this point, but I I have some suspicions that those we can refine it because we're going to bring this back with us. Whatever you guys tell us to do, bring it back with us for the draft budget in May so we can have the answers to those questions for you in May.

Yeah, I think my point is basically it's a critical like one of the things we're trying to do is prevent deferred maintenance in the future. And so there's a few goals. One is Jeff's point about we don't want any like really bad roads. So we achieve that with the 55. We you know the average is helpful. The other piece is you know we don't want this accumulating deferred maintenance and we want to get to it at the right point in the deterioration curve. And so um I want to make sure it has that third prong of actually having the best management practices for the right intervals. And when I look at it just I don't have confidence that that's the case. questions.

We're on questions, right? Um so, um have you factored in the concrete roads with any precision in terms of you know what what impacts they have on both cost and timing? Um I don't necessarily have done like each individual one because these are numbers spit out by the program. So um we do have some streets like you know Ocean Avenue. We've done a reconstruction of that street just this uh this fiscal year. But yes, anything um all types of treatment are actually included in that scenario. So from overlays to CIP um to micro seal to uh reconstruction which is that's typically a concrete reconstruction. So they're all included in there and those pricing were based um just to give you a little bit of a background I guess. Um what I was told was the the but the the cost estimates are based on bid summaries from a lot of the cities around here. So if you have a 2022 um report those bid summaries came from 2021 2020 so they are a little bit outdated and so that's why we tried to inflate these numbers but you know these are not the latest numbers and that's why when I say that these are estimates at this point there's going to be in a few months a new updated one um but that will include like what you said is like anything PCC um reconstruction

okay um And this is questions on CIP as well, right? It's not just on the pavement. Yes, that's right. Yeah. Um I I don't have a print out. Where where did the Fourth Avenue outfall end up? So the Fourth Avenue um ended up on the second year fiscal year 2017. Push design out to 2728. The design. Yes. Um 900,000.

Yes. Um but there are some already work that's kind of currently being done. So we just finished the geotechnical study last week and so that's just understanding what's the layers underneath that. So um again that was completed like this past week. Okay, that's the only questions I have. Go ahead.

Thank you. Um thank you Sher for your presentation. I've got a couple of questions. The first one is actually for Jamie and this is um things that I've asked Brandon during our um one-on-one sessions and so I thought these would be helpful for the whole public to know and then I've got some for you coming up as well. Um so this is just a question because all of us our our memory maybe has faded a little bit. So when we did the previous police department project, uh we had spent we had 3 million set aside and we spent 300,000 for the previous architect and between maybe 150,000 to 200,000 for the consultant and then we did some emergency safety repairs on the police station to address the most pressing things that had to be taken care of. So the money that's left from that 3 million, did we put it back to the general fund or do we still have that to be able to transfer for our new PD project?

So the question you're asking is specific to the end of the fiscal year 2425 which we just closed off. Um my initial understanding was that we thought all of the emergency repairs were done and that that all that that money then flows back into fund balance and is no longer reserved. I will tell you a little bird has told me that they were just doing some work just recently. So those are invoices that we potentially did not anticipate coming through. So we're going to take a look at that and see that would be additional capital spending in the current fiscal year that we hadn't carried over for but it's not material. It's probably not a very large amount.

Right. Right. So it should be mostly done. So of the 3 million most of that did flow back into ending fund balance. So, it's now available for us as we do this year's budget process to identify what those needs are. And in the capital projects tonight, that 3 million is a fresh start just on architecture. There's no discussion as of this moment for any more of those old repair emergency repairs. Got it. Thank you. I appreciate that. Okay. Then I've got a couple more for Sher. Um, and you weren't here for this last year, so maybe Brandon might be able to help on this one. So, I remember that we put aside updating the electrical vehicle chargers for the Sunset Center North lot and I believe we transferred it over, but I don't see it anywhere in any future thing. I know we've got the Vista Lobos electric chargers, but I don't see the one for the North Lot of Sunset, and I was wondering um

I think I'm going to give that either to Brandon or Ken. Yeah. All right. Good. Yeah. Go ahead. So, I was very much aware about the Vista Lobos and that's that's in flight and as you know that we're already kneede in that one so that we're just carrying that forward. Uh the north lot, I don't know much more about that one. So, that wasn't in this list. So, right. So, if we can find out what happened with that and then put it for a future year. Obviously, not for this current. Most definitely. Yeah, we'll do.

Super. Thank you. Uh let's see. Couple other things. Um grants. A lot of people have suggested, especially on things like with the beach, that we're looking at an $8 million price tag overall for everything. Are there any kind of grants that we could apply for, anything that could help with some of that cost? Um, well, for the EV one, there's a BG& grant for that one, but for some of the other stuff,

the other projects. Yes. So, um, there are some potential grants. uh one I forgot the name like it was more for environmental and climate change but we already passed the level one and so for the level two what you would need is you would need typically a design and we don't have design for that cuz it's up for construction so we might look at the next rounds um of grants because some of them do require some sort of like preliminary design and as you see most of them are just to go you know to do go to the design phase Okay. So, just something to keep in mind and I don't know if you would be the one looking for them or if somebody else from another department or how that works out. Maybe someone from the more environmental uh could help out with that, but just so it's coordinated that perhaps we can take advantage of something like that.

Yes.

Okay. Um couple more questions. So, um, on the Piccadilly restroom, I'm really getting specific questions for people who are absolutely not understanding the cost and especially, uh, the business owner who has his, uh, business next door and he said he got a private estimate, you know, not doing it, having the government do it for 200,000. He cannot understand why it's so much more. And I don't really have the answer. So what can we explain as far as the it's total of 150,000 per design, 600,000 per built, so total of 750,000. Yes. Um so I've done a lot of um you know building projects to including a bathroom. So as you know typically it would include a design. So, we would need a structural engineer to do that, do that design, get a building permit. And then a little bit of a background on the utility, existing utility um on that. It does not have its own sewer system. It is attached, I believe, to the next building, which is not going to happen. If you're going to put a new bathroom, we're going to have to a new dedicated sewer system for that as well. Um and increasing like another water line or probably increasing a little bit. Maybe, maybe not the capacity of that water line because now it's going to service too. Um, so I'm going to have to run through that and then reconstruct the park a little bit too. Well, that's that's very helpful cuz I I was not aware of any of the rest of this. So, this is just understanding the scope of this is much larger than we initially expected and that explains the cost. So, that's that's very helpful to know. And then my last I think this is my last Yeah, I think this is my last question. um on the Flanders foundation. I'm not too familiar with what the problems are and my only concern about bringing it up is I worry because a foundation repair could end up being something much larger and much more expensive. So perhaps um after you explain to us what what the

situation is if that might be something that we consider pushing um forward one year. So I mean what our staff, our crew has said is that when we've looked at it, there's now um kind of major cracks that we assume are foundation issues. So the cost will include more condition assessment just to make sure. But yes, it is to repair the existing kind of cracks that were developed um on the floors for a couple of years now. So it is like a deferred maintenance more to bring it up to code and usability. We can certainly decide if that's something to keep and thank you and I and I um yeah, I think you did a great job. So, thanks.

Thank you,

Jeff. Okay. Um a good thing that this chart is still up. So, I'm having like I'm having a difficult time sort of comparing apples to or apples to apples here with this chart because one of them goes to 5 years and one of them goes to 10 years. So, let's say I'm looking at options. So, so on the right my 10ear score. So after 10 years in the right scenario the rows are in a state let's just call a state S. So with option two on the left um how do I what numbers are missing to fill out the remaining five years. So year six, year seven, year eight, year nine year 10. Am I missing like five blue numbers? like so so I have green numbers and blue numbers on both sides and let's say I wanted to com I wanted these scenarios to result in all of my roads being in the same state at the end of 10 years after at this so what are the five what are the five rows of numbers that are missing in the chart on the left are they just $400,000 blue numbers so the chart on the right has $400,000 generally in the blue so on the left. Do I just add $5 $400,000 and then I'm in the same state after 10 years?

Um uh so we did the scenario using again the smart saver. So basically how it's coming how I guess I could explain it is that for the 5-year CIP you put a scenario saying I want all these 30 or whatever 47 streets to be above 50 and have a global PCI of um 80 and so it spits out these numbers right I mean we adjusted the numbers yeah so that so so let me go so after 5 years we're in that state what will it take to be in that state after 10 years given the left given so in the scenario on the left mh

what are the maintenance numbers that need to go in that blue column such that after 10 years we're still in the same state. So those are the numbers we have not done yet because we were just doing everything to achieve the 80 and not to maintain it afterwards. So we still need to get that number. Do you think like I'm I'm not asking for like $368,000. Do you think that there it would like what's missing here are5 $400,000 numbers or something like that like and I promise I'm not going to hold like I promise I'm not going to go back and listen to this kind of tape.

I see I see Ken shaking his head. I think I think the answer is yes. I mean, if the notion is that option two gets you to a point where everything's above a 50, PCI, average score of 80, then we're at a point of doing a lot more preventive maintenance. That's where our focus is going to be. So, I think I think you're right, $400, $500,000 all the way down the righth hand column. There's probably Sh there'll probably be some street improvement projects that crop up where where a road over you in that next 5year period dips into below 50. So, maybe there's a street improvement project. So there might be one project in there, but it it sounds like talking to Ken and Charie about this that you know the the five years after are going to be mostly preventative maintenance.

So if I assume that and I'm again I'm making up these numbers. If I assume $500,000 a year, so I add $2.5 million to 11.3 million and I come out to $13.8 million. So now I'm looking at 138 13.8 million on the left and $16.6 $6 million on the right. Does that seem like it's sort of in the right ballpark? Like that's the amount of money we would save by doing all this work up front and having less of a burden less of a burden in six. Ken said yes. Okay.

Um Ken, you and I had a conversation. You and I had a sort of a conversation this morning and you sent me a whole bunch of numbers that I don't understand. And and during that conversation, you told me that you repeated what Hans said a few minutes ago that we're doing like 10 segments a year, whatever it is to we're fixing some we're doing a whole bunch of maintenance and then we're doing using leftover money to do repairs. And you made the statement to me that I so you made well you made a lot of statements to me that I don't understand. And my question to you is, if we continue on the path that we're on now, do we ever catch up or do we does the PCI just go down and down and down down until we, you know, it looks like Yeah,

good question. Um, and to answer your question, yes, streets do decline over the years. Just like painting a house, you always have to paint it ever so often. So, the same same with street

work. So we're trying to get first ahead so that everything's above 50. That was the whole goal of both these scenarios. Now that they're above 50, now it's like how do we maintain that above 50? Some will need more treatment, some will need less treatment. So it's hard to have that global ball, crystal ball looking at the future after 5, 6, 7 years or after 11 years what that looks like. But it will need to continuously be maintained because they will decline over over years. So if we do less maintenance, some streets you can keep doing maintenance and it keeps it above that PCI and that's all you have to do is the maintenance as opposed to a bigger. Let me ask you let me let me as I sit here and stare at this chart, let me ask you a slightly different question. Sure.

In the in the graph on the right, year 10, $1.83 million or $400,000. So let's say we go through all this work, we do all this work in year 10 by this schedule. Yes. What's year 11 going to look like? That's a good That's a That's a very good question. I don't have that. Is it going to look like to Brandon's point before, is it going to look like $200,000 on the left and $400,000 on the right? No, it's not going to be that type of circulation. Our our goal is to get it in a in a way where we're doing more maintenance. So, your maintenance dollars will be probably about four, five, $600, depends on the the uh 11th year,

but your street improvement will be much less than that. it wouldn't be, you know, 1.8 million. Uh could it be 200,000, maybe could be 800,000. It just depends on what streets at that time. Uh what segments what they look like uh at that time on 11th year. So it's it's just it's a it's a hard to determine what it's going to be, but it wouldn't be the let's say 1.8 plus 400,000 uh 22 2.3 million uh a year of work. Okay. I don't know if that helps. Yeah, I'm trying to explain.

Okay, I'm I'm done with streets. Thank you. Yes, sir. I have one two more questions. Um, one is could you explain again what the transfer switches are at city hall and Valobos? Um, uh, so the transfer switches really are for emergency purposes. So, Billy Lobos is considered like the EOC um you know location. So, during the blackouts that's one of the identified and we don't when there's a blackout there's no backup generator and so we need those switches to be able to use the generators. So, that's the purpose of that. Where's the generator?

We don't have the generator yet. Um, so currently the switches, the transfer switches have to be put first and then I think what we're talking about is probably renting it out because the generators are coming in on year two. I mean that could be transition to include both transfer uh switches and generator in one year. Okay. Um, and then I'd like to talk about what our field trip the other day, the drainage on scenic, the drainage issue that caused the uh caused the caused the erosion. Yeah. I don't know what's the right word. Yeah. Whatever it is.

Um and and so I'm looking at this item which is on this sheet of paper. This this is like the CIP in a nutshell. Right. Okay.

And it says $200,000. It says $100,000 carryover. $200,000 budget needed in 2627 soft cost. Don't care about that. and construction cost in 2728. Can you describe Can you describe a little bit about like what's going to happen like what let me let me repeat back to make sure I understood. So you're going to hire like staff is going to hire like a hydraologist to look at the flow of water on the scenic pathway and that's going to happen in in in those areas among a whole bunch of other areas and that's going to happen in this fiscal year, right?

Yes. Like you're in the process of sort of doing that right now, spending $50,000 or whatever that number is to do that. And then what's the $200,000 for in the budget for uh this coming year? Like what's that going to be spent on? like emergency repairs. Okay. So you mentioned already one of them one is actually a surveyor. So we need a topographic survey in order to identify the elevations in grade. Is that the hydraologist or is that someone else? Um it's not necessarily a hydraologist. It's a survey like a genetic engineer. That's different. It's different. Okay.

Yes. So what they need to do is look at the elevations and the grading. Then they'll identify the low points. Right. And then after that they're going to do the design to actually do the the design the grading and all that kind of work and gen issues too. Um and that can be done by a civil engineer and so that cost include a lot of the soft costs. That's the $200,000. Yes.

Yeah. Yeah. So so council member to your question. So we're this year you're correct. We're going to be bringing on a hydraologist um and probably doing some of that surveying to figure out where the low points are. And then next year is when we get into the design. So the hydraologist and the surveyor, they're going to allow us to create what the solutions are. And once we decide what that solution is, these will be the the the cost for designing that solution. And that's the So the solution is the $1.5 million in 2728. That's right. Different. Okay. So the things that I I apologize. Are we talking about the scenic path improvement or the eroded bluff emergency repair? Scenic pathway. Are they Is there another item that I've missed? eroded bluff emergency repair. That's the 200,000

down there. That's the one. Uh yeah. Okay. So, the eroded bluff emergency repair is going to happen next year, right? That's right. Yes. And is that going to be based on the work that the Probably not based on the work the hydraologist does because that damage is already done. Mhm. Yes. So yes, so we are already in the process of hiring that consultant actually and we did already like you've seen like a preliminary repair. Um I saw a bunch of white plastic there. It's basically that and some rip wraps to cover that.

There's stuff under the plastic too. Sorry. But but that is the recommendation of a geotechnical engineer um to put rip wrap there. Yes, that's that's actually the recommendation, especially when a a rain is coming to just cover that area for now. So, that amount of work in there, which includes $200,000, um, and just go back. We're going to get the rip wrap from somewhere. It's our city crew had to do that. Where did the rip wrap come from? I don't know.

Okay. Um, so I guess my question is, you know, the damage from from from looking at the damage, the damage was caused by the installation of the baseboard. That damage was caused by the installation of the baseboard when the fence was done, right? That's what it looks like. And there are other spots like I was walking today and I took some pictures on scenic um sort of southwest of 13th where the water has run down the pathway um along the baseboard along that board that was installed. And so there's a gouge there's a big gouge that looks like the the baseboard channeled the water into the ocean side of the path. and there's a gouge and the and the uh um

the pitch

the the DG is gone and the sort of the gravel underneath it is exposed and it's kind of a mess and it's maybe a little bit dangerous and and all that. So, what are we going to do to the boards? Like, you know, we had a lot of damage this year. We had that $200,000 in damage this year caused by a water problem from the boards. Are we going to take the boards out? Yeah, we we've taken a number of taken that I think the recommendation from the engineers to remove that and then to regrade um the scenic pathway to make sure all those low points are addressed. But I think that is the intention is to remove um all the current boards except maybe from some areas that are really flat already like maybe I'm not sure if to remove it or at least make it flush to the ground so that the water can still spill as um not in a concentrated but like a sheet flow which is the natural water um you know runoff process

right and so that's going to happen before the next rainy season like that's going to happen sort sort of soon. Yes. Yes. And and the the pitting or the channeling that's been done like on the section that I was talking about between 13th and St. Lucia and there there's a whole bunch of other ones like from between 13th and 12th and 12th and 11th up to that up to that uh stone overlook. Those are all going to be fixed before like this summer or whenever it is. So all that all that DG is going to be sort of repaired.

Yes. So there's that we after we talked to you, we had like a um you know we talked to our consultant um and doing some conceptual design. So um obviously the full design might not be ready for October which is the start of rainy season. So, we're going to try to do some preliminary repair and um removing probably those boards and then addressing the low spots and just kind of regrading it to make them flatter in like as a short-term solution for now. And then the long term is in continuous design. It's just to make sure that we're addressing it before a rainy or a storm season that's going to happen October 15. Well, the start is October 15th, right? And so

we're just kind of addressing that, but also then addressing like the long-term design for the um entire project. So before the rain on October 15th, your your date, not mine. Um you're going to remove most of the boards and you're going to replace you're going to try to spot fix most of the DG and the gravel that's exposed that was caused by the baseboards and and all that. That's the intention. Yes.

Yes. And then during the rainy season, the stuff that you haven't fixed is going to be sort of inspected regularly by uh public works staff and it'll be spot fixed during the so we won't have any more incidents where the water we'll be watching and so we won't have any more incidents where the water all gets channeled down into one low spot on the boards and gouges out the cliff. That's right. Okay. Thank you. Thanks for your patience. Thank you.

Okay. Um, in regards to that, those boards are exactly where the 4x4 boards used to be, but they rotted out. So, they were removed and those were replaced. And the whole idea almost three years ago now is we need to replace the DG. That distance is how much the whole path had eroded previously. The whole path was eroding into the bluffs and the bluffs were eroding the boards. The four the 8 by8 posts. I don't really want to do this here. I I'll be happy to walk you down there, but the 8 by8 posts are leaning like this because the whole bluff is falling in.

That's the bigger problem. This is not the right place to do this. I disagree with your whole assessment and I'm happy to spend days to go through this with you and explain it. But what we need to do if you want to really fix it right now is put two drains in. Ken and I did this. There's two low spots there. There's like hundreds of feet where there's no drain. They just forgot to put drains. You know, the corrugated pipes going into the ocean. So, the water is building up. It never happened before all these new drainage pipes were put in. It's never happened. So you need to fix the pathway. Let's spend a million dollars because that's what it was budgeted two years ago

to put new DG and we've already done all the estimating and stuff when Bob was here. And then the path will be level. There's a two° slope between the curb and that board. That's the proper slope. So the water will drain off into the bluff evenly. Otherwise, the whole pathway is just going to keep eroding into it. But I'm not going to do that here. So, I agree with Hans's evaluation and Jeff's evaluation on this street maintenance. I think the whole idea, wasn't it, Hans, that we want to look out 20 years, like if you put the money in now, over 20 years, it's like 5x, 10x of what you can save by doing slurries instead of having to replace the whole road. So, I would like to see a 20-year thing, and that's what I think we had planned on doing when they did the Tampy survey, right, Hans? Am I wrong?

Yeah, I think I think they generally use your microphone, sir, please. Hello, SiTo. Um I I think they're generally in that kind of like 10-year window. But, um that was one thing we were trying to get. I think if um if we had used nickels, we might have been able to get that. But, uh we'll get it. We'll get it. it's included in the next TAMC thing. But but the whole idea is is you look out over a longer period and you I think doing five versus 10 years does it's not meaningful to me

because the whole idea of investing the money earlier is that those numbers in green and blue hopefully will be less over time but you're still going to at some point 101 15 years you're going to have still have to tear up one of the roads because the slurry only works so many times. No, it's a great point. And the way that they the way that they operationalized the number is if you remember they had that graph um that had it was a bar graph basically and it showed total deferred maintenance over time in various scenarios and it shows like if it's is it growing is it staying the same or is it

and um the way that they do that is they basically take this concept of like if you immediately in that year wanted to get every road to a PCI of 100 like how much would it cost you? um which is fine. I mean it's not it's one way to do it but at least you have a sense of like by that standard metric are we falling further behind or are we you know finally eating into the backlog. So hopefully you know maybe in the fall. Yeah. And I think you know to to defend a little bit Char and Ken like the assignment we got was a 5y year and a 10 year program. We did not get a 20-year assignment. So, to our to our credit, I mean, I I want to be clear like, yes, I think that would be very helpful, but we were not asked to do a 20-year exercise.

I'm I'm just saying it's really not apples to apples. I I like what you did. Yeah. I think it's a start. I think I think we can do better with this. I will take that note for sure. But we we definitely didn't fall short on not doing a 20-year exercise on this one. I think the bottom line is the sooner we spend more, the more we'll save later. Yeah. I think in the end we're what you're going to ask us is how much should we spend for the next few years and I think we'd like to spend more as a council. That's what I'm hearing.

Yeah. And like I said in one of my um statement in there is like this is not the end of it. Like basically at the end of this you will continue your street preventative maintenance to even catch up on what's falling and to try to keep on the above 50 or 80 target. So as an example I said earlier Monterey spent about 10 years to just achieve 80 and they will continue their preventative maintenance. I was told obviously for almost perpetuity to maintain that I just but it will be less less cost at the end. I love the fact that we're doing this at all. Yeah.

And and taking a more strategic long-term view of this because the payback is huge. It's huge and I don't think we'd have a pro problem convincing the public that we should be spending more on roads because the payback over 10 20 years is is massive. Right. That's all I have to say. What more direction do you need? Oh, we need to have public. We're supposed We're still Yeah, I'm sorry. I got too far into that. Sorry. We're We're design We're designing boards and things. We're into this. Remember Kevin does want to talk about this. I can't I can't wait to hear the comments. Come on, everybody. Let's go.

Nancy to me, I have one comment. I still question the ability to execute on the near-term one-year plan. Uh do we have enough staff even if we could throw money at it? So, it's the prioritization of those projects in the next coming year is still a outstanding and a gap item for me. Thank you. Thank you, Nancy. All right, Kevin. Hello. Hello again. Um about pavement. Now, um so it's great to see an accelerated paving plan. I'm all for it. I do want to point out that at least in residential areas, uh much of the undulating pavement, you can drive by my house to to feel the roller coaster effect. Uh much of it seems to be associated with work that opens the street, particularly replacement of sewer laterals. And there's been an epidemic of sewer lateral replacements ever since that became required by somebody a few years back. So I know from personal experience because I've lived there that at least some jurisdictions require contractors to post a maintenance warranty bond whenever pavement is opened in case it settles or breaks within some amount of time. I've mentioned this to council before but he requests that you do the analysis or this the study or the staff work or whatever um to proceed to implement such a requirement. So the purpose here is not only to have better pavement is to transfer the repair cost for poor work back to the contractors who did it wrong in the first place. Thank you. Thank you. That was quick. Scott, you have anything? Scott did some nice work.

Yeah. Scott Lan, I guess you know who I am. Um, so I just had one other thought that goes beyond the three that I mailed emailed in that I wanted to throw out here and this is suggestion for a 1 to2year delay on the now I guess it's $3.5 million police public works facility replacement architectural design and the thought is to both improve our financial position uh which could help lower bond financing costs. I don't quite know when the timing of that, but I think that's something to be thinking about. And also um there to take advantage of an opportunity to address uh not only the the facility but also the housing uh mandate with an exploration of public private um partnership opportunities. I really feel a well ststructured RFPled process um cost us very little to consider and could be especially critical uh when the downside of failing uh in our implementation and the housing element is so significant and also when spending three and a half million on a architectural design may not be aligned with one of those um public private opportunities. I just can't see why we wouldn't want to explore this relatively lowcost option to reduce our risk while we sort out our financial uh situation and uh um give what is a lowcost opportunity uh um to explore those options a chance.

Thank you.

Okay. Maria Ruse and without dinner and our buddies their stomach. We offer we offer you some sandwiches.

A few questions and um just from the standpoint of the comparison of the 5year to 10 year. Um not sure why our second year we we go pretty high in our uh street improvement versus starting very low in our amount. So when I'm forecasting you start 450 and then you go to 2.5 million in the second year and then you start going down. um seems contradictory in the sense of like why are you saying if you need this money why don't you start first year full-blown you I mean that would be my first thing you mean or if you program like if you look at your numbers I also think that at the bottom you're forgetting like what Jeff was pointing what are the costs of operating with during those five years are remaining so you can compare apples to apples the 10-year costs of of the second of the first column versus the first the second column that's One, regarding facilities, I have a couple opinions. Number one, architectural design for your public works, the the police department, $3.5 million that cover scope, cost estimates, and potential development strategies. I'm sorry. Let's go negotiate those contracts with somebody who can do something for an affordable money. This is all we're getting for $3.5 million. The scope of work and potential development seems an absurd amount of money. That in my opinion, uh I've done consulting work and that that is like way way too much in my opinion. Uh the picidilly uh design, you had $150,000 uh supposedly looking for a budget for this year of only 80 because you have a 70,000 carryover. But then you talk about needing additional 600,000 next

year. So explain to me what you're really going to do now with 150,000 and then putting $60,000 more next year in a bathroom. So I would suggest look at a bathroom as a whole. Do the ADA compliant comp components. Put the bring it to scope in as one project but don't defer. Here you have 70,000, then you have 80,000, then you have 60 600,000. Do it as a complete project and maybe you can negotiate that price down as well for a bathroom. I guess I live in a city that has $1 million bathrooms and 600 600 $750,000 bathrooms. I didn't live in cities like that before. Bathrooms were a lot more inexpensive to produce. But I would say that's another one that caught my attention because for why defer it? Why? Why do it in two years versus one? That's one. Another one question for you. And then the last one I'm going to your f favorite one is a Flanders mansion. Um we're repairing it for $150,000, but then you put in more additional money in the budget. So maybe we ought to consider as we look at budget and we look at sources of revenue, what do we before fixing or when we're fixing it, think about possibly looking at options of selling it or selling the m the mansion itself and keeping the the ground the land around it. But I would say if we're looking at sources of revenue, let's look at that one. And the last element which we have talked about is I love the idea of looking at grants. grants for anything that is in many ways parks, recreation, environmental things. My kids live in the world of grants. There's money out there for grants. Let's learn how to apply for grants and look for grants that are related to environmental things that apply to our

city. So, those are all my comments. I've been accumulating them. Sorry about that. I think you made yourself clear. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? Shirley, do you have anything to say? She's online. There she is. Go ahead, Shirley.

Shirley.

Shirley, you can go ahead. We can't hear you, Shirley. Give you one last try. All right, it's not working, Shirley. We're going to have to move on. Last chance, everybody. Surely if you can get it working I'll bring you back. Just keep trying. Guys downstairs if you could keep it open. All right. Let's bring it back for a discussion. Hans, go ahead. So, I'll start with I'll start with the roads. I think the uh there's there's some savings with going with the um I guess it's option two, kind of the most aggressive option, but I I'd like to hear the discussion, but I think at the moment my preferred option is number three, um the 10-year option. Uh I think it's kind of the Goldilocks option. It gets the job done in terms of achieving those metrics. Um, but it spreads the cost to keep the total CIP number at around $10 million. In the in the more aggressive scenario, you're bumping up into 12 north of that per year in some of those years, which is problematic. Um, it also keeps you at three project managers instead of requiring four, which I think is also we've struggled to we've struggled to find one, so thinking about getting to four really kind of is tough. Um, so that that to me again feels like um feels like the right

approach. I really it's funny, Kevin, when I I frequently when I go over those little bumps, I remember that comment you made about the warranty bond and I've always thought it was a great idea. And so, uh, Brandon, if the team could I I'll add my support for that. If the team could investigate that, I think that's actually a fantastic idea. Overall on the CIP, I think it's I think it's a really good list. There's not a lot of Vandy projects here. I not really any. It's all meat and potatoes, deferred maintenance. Um, and the stuff that's not deferred maintenance, like fleet, etc. It's usually stemming from a a hard requirement. So, I actually feel really good about this list. Um, you know, thank you for the thank you for the explanation of the Piccadilli restroom because I couldn't wrap my mind around that either. But I remember when I went out there to tour it, somebody told me that the the sewer and the water was tied into uh the restaurant next door. And so, yeah, now I'm envisioning you're envisioning us tearing up the whole park to run, you know, water lines and sewer lines. And that makes more sense. It does make me step back though and say, is that the right place to put another restroom? Right? That's probably something we should sort of hit pause on and think about. Is there somewhere else downtown where the incremental cost to add another restroom is just lower? So, that's something I would suggest. Um, but again, overall, um, I feel pretty good about it. I do have that question for you, Ken, and I should have asked it during the the question period, but like do you feel like this to NY's question, this this year one CIP budget

is doable? I mean, $3.5 million is designed for the police station, so you know, that that helps, but I don't know. What are your thoughts there? Well, I'm glad to answer. So, uh, option one and option three, I think is doable with the staff that were proposing there. This isn't the road stuff. This is just, um, next year's just in general, just in general, the CIP as you see, we're we're asking right now, we have two PMS that are supposed to be on the books. We've been working with one. Uh, so if we had the two more, you know, uh,

we would have a CIP manager. So if I think what what Ken's trying to get at is that yes, we can do it with the structure we're proposing having a CIP manager and two project managers. When do those people like need to be hired? You're talking about doing this for a fiscal year that starts July 1. We're both looking at Marissa and we've all talked about this. This is going to be an all hands-on deck recruitment because if the council invests in this and we will all talk about how important our infrastructure is and getting it back up to snuff. Like if this is a council priority, we're going to focus on it and get this team in place. Great. Love to hear it. Okay. Thank you.

Um thanks. Um, you know, I think it's interesting that, you know, I this council loves data and street saver is like this data machine and we kind of get sucked into it and start to treat it like a crystal ball and it's not. Um, it's not. And so, you know, I I think what's been laid out for us is more than adequate. It's directionally helpful. Um, I actually agree with Hans and I'm surprising myself because I was my inclination was to go with option two. I think option three, um, is just more realistic. Um, you know, we we do not currently have the revenue in place to do option two. Um, we're talking about increasing revenue. U, but, you know, let's not get ahead of ourselves. So, if if if if some something special happens and we can move and get things more done quickly, great. But I I think that's where we need to be. Um and then with the overall CIP, same deal. I think it's directionally correct. I feel way uh better about it this year than I did last year. Um frankly, last year I had no idea of our capability and neither did Ken, right? It was you were you were new. I was new. And u um uh but to get this amount done, we just said it. We need two more project managers. Um Nancy an important point is that our project management costs we do not consider operational we consider those capital costs. So in our whole 9010 um scenario that's actually where those are c and that's true today because the the the costs of that labor are ultimately capitalized and they end up in the balance sheet. So, it's it's the the accounting of that is appropriate um to do. Um Piccadilly bathroom. I just keep laughing. I've never been a fan of doing more. Now that I know where the

sewer really is, maybe less so. I I did it yesterday. I walked from uh the public washroom uh at First Murphy House. I walked slow. It's 3 minutes. Um I walked pretty slow to the Devonorf Park bathroom. It's 4 minutes. Um, and there there were no lines at either one. Um, there was a short line at Piccadilli, so maybe the timing was yesterday. And interestingly, it's only 2 minutes to the library where there's a bathroom, but it would have to be open on a Saturday. Um, the PD design. Yeah, great question. What do we get for $3.5 million? We don't know yet. I mean, they're just it's a placeholder number to figure it out. But my assumption is that it is full architectural um drawing, something that you can put to bid um for construction. I believe that's the point of it. Um but, you know, we still have bids coming in. So, I I think putting a big number on it as a placeholder is the appropriate thing to do. Um but I I think we're in good shape on this at this point. we get one more kick at it in six weeks um when we look at you know adopt the rest of the budget and see how well this all really fits in with the opex so look forward to that great work um public works people thank you very much Shere in particular happy to have you

and council member dels I just want to add a little bit of color to what you said about the next kick at it we are we are getting your approval for this for the next year's CIP tonight so we can bake it into the budget that we bring with you I just want to make that clear yeah thank Jeff. Jeff, go ahead. Half a kick. Yeah, I'm I'm I'm sort of cackling because nothing is ever really said until that last vote is taken. And of course, the five of us reserve the right to tinker with the CIP up to the up to the very last minute. I should have said that our desire tonight is to get that from you. Thank you. Thank you for reminding me where the power sits on this DAS. I appreciate that.

Um I don't really have anything to add. I'm I'm fine with the with the I think, you know, Hans made some good points about Hans and Bob both made some good points about the 10-year road plan. Um, you know, I I'm I'm looking at the five-year plan a little wistfully because I've been talking about it for 5 years, and we would have been at the 10-year plan if we had done it 5 years ago, but, you know, better late than never. So, the 10-year plan is fine. Um, thank you. Thank you Shi and and Ken for all your hard work and dealing with all of us asking all these inane questions. And finally um to the to Maria's comment about the the PD project. You know it's a $30 million give or take project. You know Bob's right. You know it's this we're we're seeing architect numbers. It's a whole suite of services from you know design through construction management to post construction services. Um

what

community meetings? Yeah, community meetings, organizing, like the whole it's like the whole nine yards. Um 10 or 15% is what you see on projects of that size. Um that's just that's just the way the the proposals that you know, Alandre and I have been looking at are pretty consistent um in terms of their size and it is what it is. So that's uh that's what But again, thank you uh Ken and and and Sharie for your work. Um, I I was hopeful for trying to do the five-year plan. Maybe that was a little bit too um optimistic and not realistic. And I think I agree with um everything that Hans and Bob said that we um I mean, as much as we'd like to get a lot of it done because it's, you know, you hear people say, you know, the condition of our streets, um I think the more responsible thing to do would be to do the 10-year plan. So, um I'm on board with that. Um, and furthermore, just, you know, having to add an extra project manager and bring the costs into the, you know, $12 million range seems like just too high a number. If we can keep it at 10, I think that would work better. So, that's where I am on that.

All right. I agree. Great job, everybody. This is not easy, right? Throwing darts to some extent on some of this stuff. And the thing that really scares me about this whole thing is is Shahi last time said when I asked her about inflation it's 6 to 10% that's 8%. So if it's really 100 million and that's really true that means it's going up 8 million a year something. It's going up. So we're we're catching up but not as fast as we think. So I think it's important that we're efficient with the money that we spend and we make sure we really do it when we say we're going to do it. Um I need permission to go for a walk with Sher. I've never I have not had the any time with her yet. I keep trying, but she's really busy. So, I need to turn over some stuff I know that that you don't know yet. And I think it will help you with some of these projects that are sort of iffy. Um, I just think the message on roads is let's spend as much as we can afford to spend. And I think option two looks like that to me. Would you agree? You guys are in the weeds more on the on the budget, but I what I'm hearing, Jeff, were you number two? as well or option three. Option three. Option three.

I look wisfully at number two and maybe if you and Osandre were on board, strong on board with number two, maybe I would be the swing vote for number two. But um I'm hearing we can't afford maybe we could do option two and a half, but absent that option. I think option three and if we find some funds, we can push that forward a little bit is what I'm hearing. Um I've got some questions on some of the other stuff, but I think it's going to flesh itself out. You guys are still doing work and you're still getting up to speed on some of those things, but great job. We took another step forward. Do you have the direction you need? I think so. I what I hear from the council is that you you're okay. You've approved in concept the the CIP we presented tonight with using option number three for the roads approach.

Uh so we will fold that into your draft budget that you see in May. That's great. Thank you. Great job. Can I ask a clarifying question because I also heard about Picadelli. So, is that something we want? I didn't hear I didn't hear a consensus direction to push that off. Um, but we can pass the council. I'm going to pass some information that I think

I'll make a comment. I think Hans um Hans made a comment that maybe that's not the right place for a bathroom. And I think Bob was talking about how all the other bathrooms are closer. The bathrooms like even at Bob's slow pace are not very far away. Um, but Piccadilli is where people go. um fortunately or unfortunately and I would give Hans a little bit of an out and I would say you know at some point you're going to have to come back with us to us for Piccadill for the Piccadilly project right either architect or budget or whatever it is and I so I think you get one opportunity to maybe you could ask cons you get one opportunity to scout another location I I don't think you'll find one

we'll go for a walk together I I like the location as I said last time I don't think we should spend $750,000 on it. I think council member Delves is actually drawing a bathroom right now for us to build, which is saving us a bunch of money. Thank you, council member. All right. Let's wrap this up and move on to the next subject. Uh number eight, review and approve the rep approval of the comprehensive schedule of fees for fiscal year 2026 to 27. And that's you Jamie. Anything. All right. Now you're showing pictures.

Okay. Now it's good evening for sure and I feel like seventh inning stretch here, right? Um so while we get the slide up, I'll kind of set the stage.

This is here tonight not because of any of the other things we've been working on, but it's interesting because it all comes together. This is here because this is the time of year when we need to bring this in. Um, so every year we look at the fees and we decide uh we we update them in preparation for the coming fiscal year. So let's get into what fees are. So So tonight we present the fees scheduled for 2025 and look for council's direction and approval of those. And the way it works is it comes in today big public notice in advance of this so that the big crowd could be here to look at the fees. Then it comes back again in another month. We look at it again, approve it. Then it it requires public notice on on mo both of those. And that's because the fee is all about the services that the city provides to individuals um and as such to individuals. It's allowed to recover the cost of providing services to individuals. The last time we had a study was 23 24 and then we've been doing CPI CPI. Tonight we're bringing in the study. It's the policy to come and do a study every three years. Um what we want to do is take a look at those and then think about how they're going to impact our budget next year. So the study report says the city is legally allowed to charge a fee to a user or a customer for services provided to the city by the city to them. Those include plan checks, tree permits, annexation, parking permits, etc. The importance here is that it is an accurate set of fees, that it's equitable, and that it protects the general fund. So, let me kind of dig into that a little bit. A fee the fee for a service is based on the cost of the service. The fee cannot contain a profit margin for the city. If the fee for the service is properly balanced or equal to the cost of the

service, the individual pay individual pays for what they get. if the general fund uh and the general fund is unimpacted by that. If they're not in balance in general, the general fund ends up subsidizing individuals. If we don't cover our cost, we're subsidizing what an individual is asking the city to do. The study has two primary parts. First, it looks at the time and materials for providing each service. Then the cost of the time and materials is calculated and the result is the fee to cover the time and the cost. This study found that the time required to perform most services was generally unchanged from prior studies pretty much solidly. We did it differently. We want to see if we got some learned something new and it was pretty much the same times. That's super relevant because the study then found the cost to perform the services had mostly increased. The increases to a number of fees are notable. Uh some of this increase is because the study is being compared to last year's fees. So those fees are already a year old. In addition to those fees being a year behind, uh what we found is the first year after the last study, we didn't do any increase. So we were already one year late and behind on our fees when we started. And then from then to now, we were doing CPIs, which is the general Bay Area CPI. which is not necessarily what our costs are. Um the other thing on here, so that's a little bit about costs. Updated fees have increased substantially for those reasons. Uh there's also new fees on here that will capture the extra costs included uh in some of the projects that we're doing. We're providing some extra services or diff different services from what we were doing before. So there's some new fees on the schedule to cover those. And finally, there's some new fees added so that some big costs that the city might incur can be properly allocated back to

the private projects that incur them. Read development. These are some real big things we just haven't been sophisticated about, but we could potentially be seeing some of those costs coming to us. So, we're putting those fees in place to recover those costs because they could be significant. So, notable changes include tree permits. uh some trigger laid costs have gone up as a calculated fee represents the actual time incurred by our very busy forester. We're looking at his actual hours running around. We also see that streamlining and special event permits have gone down and that reflects some efficiencies we've managed to get in those processes. The amount of the noted on the fee schedule for individual uh initial historic assessments has also been corrected to reflect the cost of the payment that the city has been making to an outside agency or or a consultant in addition to their own costs. So we've have had our costs and we've been writing a check to somebody else. The fee on this schedule represents both of those costs because they're real. And finally, new development related fees such as grading and public improvement have been added so that the city can recoup those significant costs whenever those big projects take place. So go through this. So to summarize, the completion of the study allows us to balance the fees against actual costs. Comparisons show us that the proposed fees are generally less than the same fees calculated by other local jurisdictions. Tonight, we're reviewing those fees. Then we're going to come back in May and look to adopt a formal fee schedule so that we can implement it at the start of the fiscal year and our new budget. In the future, this list will continue to be evaluated for completeness and for accuracy. And there's a possibility that we might be able to put a fee waiver process in place if that is desired by

the council as well. So in conclusion, we recommend that the schedule be reviewed and adopted as presented so that it is in place for the start of the new fiscal year. And with that, you've got a fee schedule uh which is got a tan top and then a couple of gray columns. It compares last year's numbers to this year's numbers. And then you also have in your package the fee study itself. And that's that's my my overview of this. And mayor, I just want to close with a couple quick things. Um, so one is I want to recognize Jamie for the job that she did on these fees. She brought in a new process for doing time studies and fee assessments. So the city has never done this level of detail before. Um, maybe some of you saw them, but Jamie implemented a system where we have these little handheld devices you carry around with you and literally punch a button, you stop and start. They were battery powered, so people were taking them out in trucks with them while they were doing work. So big kudos to Jamie. She pushed really hard to get that done. And big kudos to all the department heads too because they had to work with their teams to get those in and make people not scared of carrying around a device basically that was about figuring out how much we're doing so we can be paid for the work that we're doing. That's the first thing I want to say. The second thing I want to say is is a line that I added to Jaime's staff report because I felt it was really important that um I'm just going to read it because it says it's worth noting the city is actively working on initiatives to enhance customer service and to make the processes more efficient. You know, we're talking about fees for service and service is really important to me. I think while it's important to have the correct fees, it's also important for those who pay for those services to feel as the level of service they get is aligned with the cost they pay for it. So, I want to I want to say that out loud because it is a commitment that we have to the people we provide the services to to do a better job of providing those services.

Yeah, for sure. Okay. Well said. And I agree. Excellent job. There's a lot of line items on here. Little thick. I have to say those terminals cuz I came from the supermarket industry and we had in 1970 we had more advanced terminals than that. They were pretty interesting. I don't know if anybody saw them but they really were like ancient things. They were even the right color of brown. They even the right color of brown from like the old but it worked. Yes. And it kept the cost down. Okay. Uh questions. Let's start over with Jeff. Thank you, Dale. Um I have a couple questions on the master. They all say master fee schedule on um that big one. Yeah.

Let's see. Page number of the of the fee schedule. Building services. Yeah. And I was going to say there's actually a printouts with numbers on them too to help you. Yeah. My own. There we go. We're going to bring it up. Building services. I think it's I've written my notes on mine on page four. Um general plan update. 3.5% of all building and safety permits. What does that mean? So, it's interesting. I actually had to do some research here. You haven't seen that in the last few bits. It's just been kind of dropped into the background. Do I dare ask you how you did an estimation if we've never

Yeah, actually, and this is a I totally geeked out on this. So, basically what it is is you're allowed to recover uh costs that benefit the individuals. And so one of the things that all of the cities do is they look at it and they say, "When we're doing general plan work and all these other subsidiary pieces of work that go along with the general plan, it's a massive amount of hours we're paying to consultants and using internal staff time." And then what happens? It doesn't come out as just one service. This little percentage is saying all that work we did to make those plans is so what made it possible for that homeowner to come in and get the things they needed done. So it's a little tiny sir charge that folks put on. So what we did then is we went back and looked and said what in general are the major costs that we've incurred in those big studies.

I don't think we're talking about the same thing. We're talking about um well it's general general plan update 3.5%. So, a general plan is like the general plan. Maybe I need Anna to answer this question. Like, what is a general what does a general plan update have to do with building and safety permits? I'm not talking about general plan amendment.

General plan update. Um, my understanding is this fee is charged to pay for a future update of the general plan, which would then benefit the uh property owner's residents. So, we're required to update the general plan every semate law. We're a little bit behind. Can we find it? I want to make sure. I want to make sure we're we're talking about the same thing. is what's um right under back up back just under S.051 051 general general plan update right there. Third line.

Oh, and let me be clear. This is a percentage of a percentage, by the way. It's not a it's actually assessed on top of another fee. So, it's a fraction of a fee. So, let's Okay, let me let me When is someone going to pay this fee? This fee that's listed when they pull their when they pull their building permit. So, when they pay for what for any building permit that they they pull. So it's tacked on to each building permit. So it'd be tacked on to the line below it. For example, building plan check. So it's you pay a certain amount based on the value of your project on building plan check. Do you know what this is?

Okay. So I'm not I'm not making I'm not every year every year we go through this. So don't go away. So I'm I'm I'm building an ADU on my house. Am I going to Am I going to pay this fee? Yes. Yes. If you're changing out your windows, if you're doing a re- roof, anytime you pull, this is a this is a this is not pull a building permit. This is not a general plan update. The general plan is a This is a This is a This is a building permit plan update. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. No, if that makes sense. Okay, so my apologies like general plan is a term of art. No, it is no is a and I it is the general plan. No, you're right. So, let me let me try. So, this is a sir charge that already exists 3.5%. That you get charged when you pull a building permit. There's fees like some cities have technology fees, things like this that go into a future initiative. So this this is a an initiative that collects a small fee that adds up over time that the city will would use to update its general plan.

Do we have So okay, so that's interesting. Do we have a design guidelines update fee that we charge on no houses on homes to go like fund the effort that we're undergoing to update our design guidelines? Could we uh you could you could you could create a fee that's associated with a you know a future action. General plan fee is a is a very common fee that you see because it's every every city every municipality in California has a general plan that they have to update on a somewhat regular basis. It's it's I guess I would say it's a more justifiable fee than a than a design guideline fee. Yeah.

Okay. Um, further down there's something called at the bottom of this page is something called a stop work investigation. Correct. Oop. What is that? That is literally when we found that that somebody is doing something they should have had permit or other permissions or reviews for and they don't have it. We walk in and say stop. Now we've got to go back and look at everything that's happened and and check it all out. And it it actually causes us to subst to spend a substantial additional amount of time. So that's what that is. That's the You should have done it the right way the first time, but it's because the cost is high. Does that make sense?

Yeah. Why do we charge that? Okay. Why do we charge So, do they pay that whether or not we issue a stop work order? No, it only happens when somebody's been found to be proceeding with work, but they never got the permits they were supposed to get. Yes. When we issue a stop work order. And so do you think that having a set fee is the right thing as opposed to having like an hourly rate like some of the other some of the other fees are? I I think that it's right. It's it's generally the same amount, but we you see that it's also it you have a double double hit on the building permit fees as well. So it it is a punitive that part of it is. Yeah.

And then um on the I think on the next page the tree fees So, you made a you made a statement in your presentation that we were going to bring the tree fees back up to I'm kind of paraphrasing where they belong cost based on the cost. Correct. And if I remember right, and do you remember this? Like we have this discussion every year about reducing the tree fees. That's right. So when I'm looking at 205, 205, 698, and 205 is that my guess is that's half of what they were last year. That's likely I kind of remember that

from 410410 $1396 and410. Do you agree the case? I do. Yeah, that that's what I remember from last year. And just like last year, we need to bring you what the what our proposed fee is for the full cost recovery because that's our job. And then you guys as the policy makers decide if you want to subsidy that by, you know, cutting it in half or cutting it further or less. And do you have any insight as to why the tree pruning permit uh went so without looking at why the tree pruning permit is so much more than the others?

I don't know. Maybe Ken can speak to that. Do you know why the the tree printing permit took a a much larger jump than the others? Does this conversation say threefold? I can tell you that I don't think that the 205 was systematic or mathematical. I think it was just a flat number that was laid on top of all of those.

I like your idea of mathematical though, so I was going to I think it was 50%. I mean, I was here I think they just got all Yeah, that's what I think. I think it's just been slapped down to 205 uh and and that would just kind of carried down. And so that's why this gives you an idea to see how much some things take more time than others. So just putting the same price on all of them maybe doesn't make sense. Where do you want to incentivity? Where do you want to recover cost? Do you know how many of those we issue every year?

Okay. Thank you. Alisandra, no questions. Hans, uh, no questions. No questions. No questions. No questions.

Public comment, please. Just one comment that I found the report lacking in comparisons with areas that surround us. I don't know if that has to be relevant to your decision-m but that's what I was expecting was far more information on uh what other jurisdictions charge in some of their major areas. So there was the one in the staff report, but I didn't see andor it was oblivious to me where the rest of that information might have existed. So again, it might not be relevant to your decision-m because if this is indeed a cost recovery model, this is where we stand. So thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, this is this is more of a question than a comment. Um, and I don't have a particular stake in this. I was just browsing through this and it jumped out at me. On page 137, um, local initiative processing, it says $200 per initiative. This fee is limited by state law. Then it proceeds to show the current fee of $200 and then proposes to increase it. So, is the state law limit $200 or is it something else? Because if it is $200, I don't think we can raise it if it's limited by the state. So just a question. Thank you. Maria, do you have any out of curiosity?

Hi Jamie. Um in the category pull the microphone down. Excuse me. My husband just was here. I saw um one uh for the community activities commission. I I would like to I always follow the different uh event permits. Just to clarify, where is the uh all the per the permit for um car week? Is it under the special event rental of what the rental plus? So we we can come up and answer questions after if that's okay. Well, yeah, but you usually don't. Okay.

Okay. I have noticed so when I ask her questions and then the questions of them get asked but mine don't. Yeah. Is it okay if we answer her the two questions afterwards? Thank you. She's not going away until we

I'm going to stay here. I'm just kidding. And then the one thing that surprised me is how how under what if you do a comparison with other communities like Nancy suggested uh seems um a little bit overkill to increase to have an increase of fees of 374% or 132% for trees in the tree removal knowing that we're surrounded by trees here. So since we put the importance on trees so much, the increase seems out of proportion to anybody I mean to what I would imagine is acceptable. Um but I that's more a question also out of curiosity. How do do you justify 132% increase or a 3774% increase in a pruning permit? So that's my second question. Thank you. I'm I'm leaving but I expect answers. Brandon, thank you so much. Thank you. Anybody else? Okay, bring it back. All right, I'm going to I'll take the last question and Jamie, you can start making your way up to answer the question of the $200 and the car week permits. But with respect to the question about how do we justify the 137% increase on the tree fees, um I think Jamie tread and did a good job of this covering this in her presentation. Uh a couple things here. one in previous years. So every year we're starting with a reduced fee for tree permits that the council the year before subsidized. So the the number is already low. We come back with what the actual costs are for a permit. So you're always going to see that number jump back up. Um and then secondary to that, what Jamie talked about in her presentation is that not only did we miss a CIP increase one year, but this was the year every 3 years we do an actual tally of the number of hours that it takes to do something now. And so that's why you see that sort of compounded this year. It's it's multiple factors.

Yeah. And then Jamie, hopefully you can speak to the $200 state limitation question that Mr. Roose had and then also Maria's question of where are the permit costs for the car week events at? So, I think that the and he's talking about S120 if we went there. But basically, it looks to me like that's a typo and we're we're not trying to increase the fee by the amount that's typed into the schedule. So, we need to research it to make sure the initiative uh cost is still limited to 200 and hasn't changed and then probably fix that one back down to 200 or whatever it's allowed to be cost. So, right above that line is the same thing with the candidate cost. Oh, yeah. Exactly the same.

Thank you. So, we'll go double check those because it looks like there's some sort of formula that's fed up onto those.

So, we will check to make sure the code doesn't have any incrementing effects and then put it back because we also have another one of those up and building. There's a few things where they're trying to incent so they lower the cost at the state level. So, and then car week I believe that is special event permit S-094. So, and that's one of the ones where we actually have kind of streamlined our processes and and it's taking less hours than it used to. So, so, um, there's something. May I? Yeah.

There's a So, we used to have fees for parking spots and and Maria Maria Roose's comment about par caused me to look for that. And there's a fee for the Norton garage, which is fine, which is probably the first year I haven't asked any questions about that. Um, but we have um we allow we allow people to rent out parking spots for the day. And I think traditionally that fee has always been in this calendar in this schedule. So I Oh, go ahead. There's a fee. There's a parking fee. I just need to make sure it's the same one.

What page is it on? 161. It's right here. Oh, there it is. Thank you. Just just above film. Put it up. It's just No, put it up. I believe it's 161. be that embarrassed. You could just tell me what page it's on. I don't because I'm looking at it and then you I don't have mine doesn't have page number. So, I know. What does it look like? It It's on the last page of the fee schedule. Just kind of wrapped that big long uh schedule wrapped around. So, you should have it. There you go. Because it wraps from this one down here. Oh, right.

Yep. So there wasn't and and actually the only thing that changed was the permit times, the other the direct times for the primary permit. So the rest of those fees are unchanged from prior years. As you can see, they're exactly the same. We didn't even increment them. So, the parking stall rental is $861 plus $100 a stall. That's right,

I believe. So, and the parking star rental peak demand is $200 a stall, but no $861. It's still It's still the $861. So that the the peak demand rental that would be like during car week it goes from $100 to $200. So that that all falls under the same. I think we need to just format that cell a little bit better. Yeah. Could you just like move just move the the Yeah. the text from the the above cell to that cell too. So we charge them so it's clear that they get $861 plus $200 a stall.

Absolutely. This is that's really important for us to this is what gets published. Do you are those the don't you think we should raise our fees? That's a question that's a question we would ask. Is $861 is that a is the $861 a staff time charge and the $100 and the $100 like a rental fee which I know we're allowed to charge what we want. Well, yeah. I mean, what the backstory is is that these fees had gone unreasoned for uh five or six or more years and then I found them last year and raised them all substantially. Which one? The $86100.

It should be around the special event and the beach and the special event overtime. So, I we kind of just kicked them all up. And so, this year, um I didn't have any new data to support a different calculation, so we left them. But, we can definitely go back and double check. Are these fees based on like your your time methodology or are they just numbers that uh we we can we can tinker with because we pulled them out of the You did interviews last year on these ones, right? To get the hours and then the fee amount like the the flat fee amount is something that the council has the authority to change as like a rental fee if they want. But the 861 we would not want to recommend changing because that's that's a cost recovery number.

Yeah. And basically these what he's saying is these are are complex beyond just the time study. So these are got other factors that are involved in them and so they weren't all covered in this year's time study. But to your point, they're recovering costs. There's other things that layer on and come together when we put these fees together. But if you wanted to, sir, to your question, if you wanted to take the $100 per day for regular and $200 per day for the peak demand, if you wanted to double those, you the council could certainly do that because those are Well, it's been it's been hundred I know it's been $200 a day for it's a long time. That's right. Yeah. Because that's been like the standard car week car fee forever.

Mhm. And so when someone has a when someone has a big car event downtown like that takes up like four blocks, do we count up the number of stalls that they use and then charge them?

That's where the so that's why the the permit fees that we get. I think this is why Maria was asking the question because the permit fees we pull in during car week are pretty large. And it's the parking stall rental that that is the reason that drives that because if you look at what the permit cost fees permit fee costs are, they're not that high, but it's all of the parking spaces that they rent is what drives that that big revenue number. And it's the same number for, you know, if we got, you know, a clothing store operator that rents two stalls in front of their store and puts a red carpet down. Yeah. Yeah. That also they pay the same price. $861 plus $2. I know. I think we should raise the $200.

Is that it? Oh, I mean, I think we should raise the $200 and I think we should half the tree fees except for the appeals like we do like we do every year. And then Alessandro will complain that we should half the appeals and I'll give in and then we'll just half all the treaties. We've done that. We've done that a couple times. Go ahead. Go ahead. Do what he said. Thanks. I'm not sure exactly what it was. I don't even So, I just won't go there. Just do what you want to do.

Um Okay. So, the only thing I'm going to be concerned about tonight is the the tree permit um costs because, as we all know, we want to encourage residents to maintain their trees and remove dead branches that are fire hazard. And I know every year we go through this. Um I I mean, so we went the evaluation just so everyone knows. So, it went from 205 to 475. Tree removal permit for dead tree is 205 to 475. tree removal permit 698 to 1631 and tree pruning permit. This one is seems the most um increase is 205 to 971. And I'm already hearing people saying that these are gouging type prices and and I think in the name of um encouraging people to maintain their trees and and the fire safety. Um I'll toss this out there. I know Bob may have a back and forth. Well, that's due like we have cost you.

Um, for example, the tree evaluation 205 to 295. I I know that this means that we are subsidizing, but maybe as to Jeff's concern, we can increase a by a couple hundred these car week rentals and so maybe that will cover for a little of it. Tree removal, dead tree 205. Um, what if we did 395? And then the tree pruning permits, that's you're just pruning from 205 to 295. Um, and then also, um, I remember asking Chip, but Brandon, I'll ask you if the city has a policy, if somebody for financial reasons is unable to afford this, but needs to get some work done, if the city will wave the costs for them. We don't,

that's one of the things Jamie was talking about in her presentation. We don't currently have tree free waiver policies. Um, I don't believe. Right. No, we don't. We don't have a waiver policy, but we were looking the county has some examples of waiver policies. So, we were looking at that language. If that's something that's desired, we could kind of maybe polish that up a bit and bring it back because right now, if we want to if if someone we can bring fee waiverss to the council, you have the decision-m authority to do that, but we don't at a staff level right now. Um, but if the council were to adopt some sort of fee waver policy under a certain threshold for certain criteria, we could use that. I think it would be worth at least looking into and and we could model it on the county and maybe adapt it. However, we're happy to produce something and bring that back to you in the next, you know, few months.

Okay. Appreciate that. Thank you. Did you say anything about this one? The appeal? No, I did not discuss the appeal at all. I just wanted to focus on the tree cutting. So, what was you had uh what was the dead tree fee? Dead tree uh from 205 to 395. And then you're okay to go that high? I'm not. I'm not I'm not okay with going get hurt. Well, I was trying to be somewhat Sounds like you could go lower. Sure. I didn't think we were going lower. Okay, pick a number. 295. Okay, we'll do 295. Same as the other one. Yeah, it's for consistency. You've got all three the same. And what about the tree removal permit for 1630?

Um, oh, that one. Um, so is that is to remove a perfectly live tree, but you just want to get rid of it off your property. Is that what that would be for? It's a dead tree. Yeah, that's that's not a dead tree removal. That's a tree removal permit, you know, for construction or Yeah. Okay. Um, so let's do 60095 to stick with the same sort of look. But yeah, I I'm I'm So, should I go? Yeah. Is that Is that all you had? I actually didn't I I left that off my list.

How did you feel about the parking spaces for car week? Oh, for that? Um, we could easily add a couple hundred or at least 200. I mean, I'm open to you're interested in everyone else. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Go ahead. Contrary to the belief that I am always Scrooge, um I I think they just leave the tree fees al alone where they are right now. I don't I don't want to raise them. They're very high already. So that's the floor that I'll set. Um and I'm completely fine, Jeff, adding the 200 to 300. Find what happens. Like I don't know. I'm just Yeah.

Can you guys clarify? Are you suggesting going from 200 to 300 for the s for the for the busy car week or you saying go to from 200 to 500 per space? Are you asking all of us? I'm just these two guys are seem to be on the same page. I haven't heard from Hans yet. Okay.

I I think we could increase them significantly because I think there the demand is infinite basically. Um and so well it's not infinite but people will pay it. Um, the only other thing I'll said the Norton garage, sorry, is um I don't want to debate the 2500 per year. I just want to know that all all of them are rented for the whole year and that we're maximizing the revenue from that and it's not half because it's always it always appears 2/3 empty. Yeah, I have it on my homework list. So that's from you. Thank you. Thank you. Yep. And that's an affirmation that you have it on your list or an affirmation that they're all rented. affirmation that I have it on my list for followup.

Yeah, I asked that like I asked Anna and so I started this whole Norton cord thing like seven years ago. I I got it. It's on my list now. I've been at it for a year. So he's going to take it over for you. Anything else? Okay, you can you can you can talk you can have it. Go ahead. Done.

So I'm for keeping the tree fees uh where they are. Um, I would I'm I'm less interested in if it's a if it's a live tree and it's like a construction removal, I'm fine to just have that be a um whatever it costs us, you know, whatever you have in your study. But these other ones, the tree evaluation, the tree removal of a dead tree, the tree pruning permit, you know, I I'm in support of keeping those where they are. If folks want to go a little bit higher, I could also go with Alisandre's numbers. Um, and then on the car week stuff, I'm I'm okay to raise those as well.

So, we're not just Oh, sorry. Go ahead. So, we're not like last year we had So, last year just to so first just to be clear, we're not talking about what are we going to do with the appeal to the Forest and Beach Commission. So, this is the thing that I was ribbing Alessandre about. um before sorry um we so 1891 I don't think that's what the cost was last year I think we reduced that fee too and I think um I didn't want to and Allesandre did and I think we reduced it by 25%. Do you remember

that? Did we? The first column is the actual printout from the approved list. Yeah, but I think council member Bar that is a reduced also sub I don't think it was no 1,891. I think it was a little bit I think it was higher than that like 23 2400 or something like that. Yeah. And now this you're speaking about the appeal. So, they've already had a chance to talk to the expert who's come out and evaluated it. Now, somebody wants a different answer. So, they're going at the

I I mean, I would I would just say like I would leave the fee at the proposed fee, but Alisandre and I negotiated last year and which was completely fine and I think we ended up in you know at the last year's equivalent of 3331 at 1891. like I would leave them at the proposed fee and and and the council voted to reduce them. And so my question to the four of you is what should we do this year? And then my other question was first. Do you don't remember this at all?

Not really. I mean looking at it, it does I I can see where where you know it just the one to the forest and beach. Do what if we matched it to the cost of an appeal to city council at 2 2712? Yeah, when I did I did the math just cuz that I have a recollection of a quarter reason why 25% increasing 1891 by 25% gets us to 2364 which is around you know 2,400 bucks. That's what I had in my memory from last year. I

mean I would leave them the way that Jamie's proposing. those two because time is time, time is money. I'm fine. Leave it.

Okay. All right. I I have um couple. So, where are they? Mark the I've had the people that are involved with the sewer business putting in sewer laterals. There are just some things sort of like removing a dead tree that you sort of have to do and you have to fix your sewer line. And I would just love I I should have done this, but I'd love to know cuz at the time the complaint was COD is charging like $250 and we were charging $841. Doesn't sound like much, but when you're the homeowner and the guy's going out and doing this, it all adds up. And I would just like to match what COD does or maybe be a little higher than them, but we were like the uh sewer lateral or the street excavation, I'm sorry, which is what happens when people are tearing up their sewer line.

I'm looking down. Maybe you can make a separate one for something that has to do with sewer lines as opposed to any kind of other work. Interesting. I'm trying to find it. It's uh I don't know what page number it is. It's Oh, it's under encroachment permit street excavation. Yeah, I'm sorry. Should have was memorized. Yeah. But so the mayor's suggesting that we we create a secondary permit fee. So when you're doing street street excavation for a sewer lateral tie-in, which eventually has to happen at some point, that that's a lower fee than the all other street excavation.

And I researched this at the time and it didn't seem like it was that big of a deal in terms of labor. Rob Culver goes out there and takes a look at it a couple times. And COD's already doing it. I mean, there's multiple people looking at it. If if you call up COD, you could probably find out they charge $300 for theirs and it's just way different. Yep. Sewer lateral match cod. Is that what it would be called, Brandon? Is that what it would? Sewer lateral encroachment. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, it would be encroachment permit for a sewer lateral replacement. Yeah. It's a lot of pressure on the people that do that for a living. I don't know where is this. Yeah, there's a street cut, but I can't find it.

Right there, Nova. Okay, you got that one. If you could check on that. and the new bench location adoption of existing benches. It's just $1,500, $3,600. We're already charging them $750 for future maintenance, and then we're charging them a really high fee just to change the plaque, which is like Leo going out for like 15 minutes. Do you want an answer? Yeah.

So, yeah, that's one of the ones I actually printed the detail on is adopt a bench, new bench, and replacement plaque. And what's happening is is that we are actually having public hearings. And so we have uh project planners, we have building directors, we have public work directors. They're all in this public hearing process for all these different bench things. So you just end up because their people really care and so they want they're engaging everybody. Okay. Well, I didn't complain about that. I'm complaining about the the the plaque the plaque $530 the plaques I do that it costs like $50 for the plaque and Leo 15 minutes.

We can what we can do is we can go back literally my time study says that both the public works and the planning director involved in replacing a plaque. Let me go back I think we can take a harder look at that. The one the one that I think I wish we would replace them more because I can't read 90% of them. They're all corroded and nasty. All right, let me check. Let me check. Be nice to know who they were for. The rest the rest of it if you've done time and motion studies and that's what it costs. I get that. Um the one last one was the trees and I'm I I'm for Alisandre's number of 295 for all three of those. I think that the tree removal permit might be more. So I don't know 99.95 for that. Do you have a

on that one? Thank you for bringing this up. I would say um I'm I'm with Hans uh leaving it at 1631 and and so is Bob. Okay. All right. So the the third one down. So it says 205 205 698 205 and and I think there the three of us that think to 1631 should say the same. If you're taking out a live tree then you pay full freight. And I think the reason I didn't put it on my list is because I thought only the other three that we discussed should be reduced. So I assume that I was okay with leaving it at that. I mean if it is a live tree

that you're doing just mostly by choice I guess. 295. No 205. They said 205 205 205 for tree evaluation, tree removal, permit dead entry entry. Dale said Dale said 295 which is what Allesandre said and um I'm in the middle between Bob's 205 and their 295. So maybe we could just go 250 250 I I might make a comment that if you were a retailer these prices are pretty all over the place in terms of the rounding and I don't know if we could take a quick look at that but it's probably too late. So what do you guys want? 250 250 2 I like It's a nice round number. Sounds good. Okay. 250. 250 and and I guess 1630 or

1631. Okay. All right. Uh in the benches you're going to take a look at and then council the one I I I shudder to ask this question. But the last last thing I need because there was a lot of conversation about it. I do need a number from the majority of you for what you want to take the peak pricing up to for the street parking. Can I make one comment on that? If you must. I didn't have a number. All of it. This needs to be a that needs to be a group. That one needs to be a group decision. Double it to 400. Double it to 400. I'd be more gentle with that because we're getting we're going to get a lot of complaints.

So, Mayor, I've got something to say about that. Um, a few weeks ago, you authorized um our office to prepare a um a license agreement with Good Roots. And the terms at that time that we discussed were that um Good Roots was going to pay the city is 21,000 and change um in exchange for that they were then going to do this I'll call it valet parking of cars um $200 a spot on uh ocean and then $100 a spot on downtown streets other than ocean. So I've drafted that. I've sent it on to Ashley Wright and they're reviewing. I'm expecting to get comments back soon and then I'm going to send them on to the um community activities commission. The reason I bring all this up is I don't know if that what I just explained to you is going to impact what you all want to do about these parking fees.

No, that's sort of a one-off, I think. I mean, you're giving them a contract telling them what they're going to pay separate from this, I believe. Well, there's two two pieces going on here. One is what they're paying the city, which is the 21. The other is what they're charging the um person whose vehicle is being parked and what we incorporated into the agreement was 200 because that was in your fee schedule. So if you increase it now, do you want to make it an exception for the contract with Good Roots or do you want to tell Good Roots they're going to have to charge people, you know, whatever number you're going to come up with? Leave everything with Good Roots alone. Yeah.

Um I proposed it said 200, I said four. You'd rather have something a little less. You want to go with three? Maybe we still have an executive session tonight. I'm fine with 400. That's two for 400. I I'd prefer something lower. And that would apply to the Good Roots contract. No, that's a one-off. You're going to do a contract separately. I I think that's okay. Like I'm sort I'm okay like going up to three and seeing what happens and sort of revisiting it at this point next year. Good. 300. Sounds good. Excellent. Thank you, council.

Decisive action. Another point. Um I'm not sure if this was covered or not, but I looked up the elections code 9202 after Kevin's comment on the fee going from 200 to 1953. Did you cover that already, Jamie? I we were going to go check to make sure that's probably wrong. I I did that and it's elections code 9202B like boy and it does say that the fee shall not exceed $200 and this is the current version of the code. So that fee needs to remain at 200. Great. Got it. Yep. 25 and 200. Who was that called that out? Kevin. Kevin.

Good. Good job, Kevin. Brandon, you said you have an attorney. Turns out you've earned your pay. Hey Brandon, um request that maybe when we do this next year that if you guys could take notes of what we you know of the six things that we focused on and you could just tee those up. Yes. We're all Yep. And we'll the process now is that we we take this we come back to you next month with this redone with us watching the video probably five times to figure out what happened tonight and then we will come back and repackage it so that you can look at it one more time and say yes this is right. I think you can do it in two times. Wasn't that we use AI?

We got um and and for those of you watching this you weren't here to comment and you didn't give us any input unless you sent us an email and I didn't get any. So, uh, if you want to speak up, you better speak up fast because this is happening. Good job. Excellent work for everybody, every city employee who took part in this. Thank you so much for the time that you invested. It's worth it. Thank you very much. All right. I believe now we're going to I got to find my We're going to go into close session. Did you want me to announce