Fiscal Sustainability Ad Hoc Committee - Regular Meeting

Oh, okay.

Yeah.

Yeah. Don't worry. Okay.

Testing. Testing. Yep.

Yeah.

Yep. Yep. That's required. No. You can say wherever, though.

Okay. Yeah. Okay.

Well, option. That's the one. So we specify. Well, it'll be I mean, obviously, they could be like

Evening. How are you? How are you? Good.

It is.

Hi. This is supposed to get cooler this weekend, but I'm I'm afraid that Eve's gonna pretty much be here permanently soon.

I guess so.

Hello? She's here. Right?

Yeah. She's in the middle.

She's in Oh, she's on Zoom?

Yeah. She's virtually on Zoom.

Yes. Oh,

hi. So I call the 04/10/2025 meeting at work at court.

Jack Dean? Tony Boushala?

Here.

Derek Smith? Here. Jennifer Duong?

Here.

Bill Brown?

Thank you.

Are there any members of the public that would like comment on a matter within the committee's jurisdiction that's not listed on the agenda?

We have one call in user.

Good evening, Chair, everyone. Maureen Milton, Independent Advocate for the Disabled Handicapped Little People and the mobily challenged.

There, everyone. Maureen Milton, independent ad

What I was wondering is what is an EFID that was brought up on a meeting on the thirteenth. And, also, if I'm getting on agenda things, please let me know because I don't have a copy of the agenda in front of me. And when you talked about road development fees on the thirteenth of I believe it was February 13, how would you enact that? Because would that be just a fee for the residents, or or how else could you enact everyone that drives on the city streets of Fullerton? And the other thing was the bed tax.

The bed tax in Anaheim is 14%. We need a higher bed tax, maybe not as high as Anaheim, but we do need a higher bed tax, and that would bring in a little more money into the city. I remember when I worked in the in the district, bed tax in New York, and that was back in the last century. Bed tax in New York was 21%. So we do need to raise that in at least one or two points. So that's what I have today, and I thank you, sir, very much. Looking forward to the rest of the meeting. Thanks. Bye.

Alright. Thank you. So we'll now move to first item on our agenda.

I got a text from Bill Brown. He will not be

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, mister chair, members. Good evening. We do have a presentation for you this evening, and I think that slide deck was sent out as part of the package. Basically, before we get into this into the details, just a a general overview here.

We have a recap of, you know, some of the actions that you took last time, and and you said no to some items and yes to some. Then said we want to explore some others further. So part of the presentation tonight and the focus will be on some of those ones that you want to explore, especially the expenditure reductions. We showed you a slide the last time general fund slide with numbers by department and you wanted to know what positions attached to those numbers. So we have that information for you tonight.

So once we get through that, we'll move on next to the revenue enhancement options. The revenue enhancement options of course the big item there is the sales tax. We'll go through the 1%, the 05% and the 025% potential adjustment to sales tax and what it will net the city in either one of those options are pursued. And the pros and cons of doing whether you do it as a dedicated model or you do it as a general sales tax. We'll go through all of that.

And then I think the last item that we have is the street financing, where basically we'll leverage whatever general fund is mandated to contribute towards street improvement pursuant to that infrastructure ordinance into borrowing a lump sum of money that we can put into the streets to make some improvements. But we'll go through that and discuss the pros and cons of doing that, the short term benefits and the long term impact of doing that. So, however, at the end of the meeting today, our recommendation would be that if the committee can, just by way of information, we have a study session for city council on the budget schedule for May 13. And we're looking forward to presenting a total package to city council at that point. So if the committee today can make certain recommendations or come to conclusions as to a number of recommendations that you would like us to incorporate in that, that will be most helpful.

So that's what we're looking forward to as a good outcome to the meeting tonight. And with that, I'm gonna turn it over to Steven. Steven can go through the slides, and we'll walk through the details of each one of these option.

Thank you, Kingsley. So on this first slide, we have a high level overview of the decisions made at the last meeting as well as the options, which you requested more information on. So really quickly on the yeses. He said yes to a TOT increase option, but only if an add on sales tax option or a measure is explored first. EIFD, which stands for enhanced infrastructure finance district, he also said yes to, but this is not a budget balancing mechanism per se, and this is for future economic purposes and consideration.

Nos are on the right side in our next. You said no on a pension obligation bonds, and this no is to issuing a pension obligation bond to finance the paydown of the city's UAL obligation and further incur debt to do that. You also said no to suspending the infrastructure fund for either one year or even multiple years at all. So that's a no. As far as exploring further and what additional information you requested of us and will hopefully help us decide today, we will review, the general fund expenditure reduction options, and we will revisit the add on sales tax options, which are listed before you on this slide.

So we will go through each option. We'll allow the committee for discussion and any questions you may have of us, and then we'll take a vote after each option. At the end of the presentation, we can review the actions taken today, and we could also review the priority of the yeses voted yes or any of the options. So first up, we will discuss the expenditure revenue, expenditure reduction options. This is the same slide we showed you at the last meeting.

And just really quickly, we have two options that, we're looking at. So one is reductions by service areas, and the second option is essentially across the board fixed reductions. So this is two and a half percent or even 5% reduction across all department budgets. Both these options present significant challenges. Under either option, service levels will be significantly impacted.

This may likely lead to downsizing the organization and any potential layoffs. And also to since public safety encompasses the majority of the city's budget at 17 per 72%, it would be difficult to not look at public safety as part of the reductions. So on this next slide, this was the information that was requested at the last ad hoc committee meeting. So, at the last meeting, you requested, you know, how many general fund how many positions are in the general fund? So for the general fund, we do have 419.75 budgeted full time equivalent, which we call FTE positions.

And this is out of a citywide total of 618 FTE positions. Also, just to quickly add, this number really, four nineteen, should be lower by five because that includes the city council members, which we obviously cannot reduce.

So,

again, you know, as you can see, public safety encompass encompasses the majority of the general fund position count. We've also broken out the sworn number of positions versus the nonsworn positions for each of the public safety departments, you know, for your reference. Are there any questions on on this slide? Yeah. Yeah.

So it could be a combination of, you have a position that's split funding. So Yeah. So, you know, we could have someone, let's say, in our department administrative services that does, you know, some customer billing, and they could go to you know, part of their salary could be water fund or sanitation fund. But also, too, we do have a small number of part time positions that are budgeted. So a part time typically is 0.5. And then in some rare instances, we could have a three quarters part time position as well.

Silly question, but I

That's a that's a good question, man. And that's why we label a full time equivalent. You know? That's why the FTE there is is not just a hard number

Uh-huh.

One for one. So it's just the full time equivalent.

Equivalent. Okay.

Any any other questions? Okay. We'll continue. So Actually, my apologies. So I, you know, I I think at at this time, we wanna if you have any more discussion points on this, on the expenditure

If you wanna go back to that slide for just a second because park and recreations, we only have 15 almost 16 people, that's it, working at park full time? Is

it Yeah.

But parks and rec doesn't they don't do the make do

Yeah. More of

the program.

Okay. Mhmm. I it's weird. Like, have you remember it seems like yesterday. It's probably been twenty years ago. You know? We had, like, a 100 employees in Parks and Rec. I don't know if you guys remember back when you don't rememb oh, shit. Susan Hunt was the have you been around for a while?

Not that long.

Sue anybody remember Susan? You remember Susan? She was so we go back in time. No. We had Alice Loia to e Before Alice, it was I think Joe Feltz might have been before Alice. Was. And then before Joe Feltz, it was Susan Hunt. This is going way back in the maybe the tens, whatever. I remember at a point in time we had close to a 100 people working in park parking rights. What happened to that whole department? Be Sometimes.

It could be a couple things. One, it could be three different things. One, we have had to reduce staff just because of the financial situation. So that might be part of it. But the second is it may have been not full time equivalents because a lot of parks and rec Uh-huh. Are part time employees or their what what's the other term we use for it? Non regulars. Non regulars. Yeah. And so they may have said we have a 100 people, but may not have been a 100 full time equivalents or Yeah. Regulars. And then the third thing is I don't know at that time. I I'd have to go back and research it whether or not they did the maintenance of the parks at that time or not, which would also have impacted.

I the reason why I remember that very clearly because at that point in time in my life when my kids were very young and I was coaching them in football at Lions Field before the Lions Field is the new Lions Field with the turf and then the stadium. We had the old field that was grass, worn down, and there was a a little outhouse, a little building there that the Pop Warner and the Bobby Sox, we used to share it as a as our shared space during the seasons. And then it and there were other fields around the city that had buildings, you know, like, they call those outbuildings on the park, recreation buildings or whatever. They were kinda multipurpose buildings for snack stands, for weigh ins, for board meetings of the organizations. You know?

And then everybody got the pink slip that all the organizations in Fullerton got the boot because Park and Rex was they were growing, and they kicked everybody out, and they were now staffing all these facilities. And we've gone full circle now a few years ago. The city started to rent those things out to Yeah. Groups that would

So that would be another part of why you see the reductions is because we used to have all our own staff running those facilities, and we have leased out

those facilities.

I've I've seen the city go full circle from zero to all volunteers, full staff, back to volunteer, and now subleasing. It's just you know, for for a guy like me, I've been around for a few years. It's kinda interesting to see how this whole thing plays out. Thank you for letting me share that.

And just to further clarify on Parks and Recreation, Eric's correct. We do have a number of nonregular employees that's not included in this count. And also too, this is just the general fund piece as well. So I think we're actually closer to about 22. We do have a few employees that are funded by one of our enterprise funds called the Brea Dam Recreational Fund.

Mhmm.

I believe we have, like, one water fund employee that takes collections on the fees and things like that. So

Uh-huh. Very good. Thank you.

So

with this, though, I think the the request that from staff is that maybe you have that discussions the committee discussed this item and decide whether you wanna pursue it any further or what you wanna do with with this information and whether expenditure reduction, it's something that you wanna put on the table or cancel consideration.

Put my microphone on. Do we do we know how much money the city will anticipate saving by if we do go and use this fire department for ambulance services and cut cut out the contractor that's doing the ambulance services? I know that there's an expected savings or maybe you know, we won't be spending the money, so we'll be saving it. Do we know how much money we'll be saving? Will that be contribute like, lessening the general fund obligations?

I was hoping to get an answer. I I know we kinda this is something that just came up fairly recently, and I don't know if it's been fully vetted in terms of the savings. Do we know?

So I I remember seeing a chart. I want you know, I was watching the meeting online, and there is a chart that that shows in fact, I think I may have pulled it up. I think it's well, it's on the website. It's part of the supplemental Right. Information. Is that is

that part of our Yeah. I mean, is that something that is gonna make a significant reduction in expenses? Because I know we're spending a lot of money on the contractor to do those ambulance to to provide that.

I think as the committee member pointed out, it's on the website, and that item was presented to cancel the last meeting and cancel approved to approve it to move forward. I don't know about yeah. There there will be some savings. Yes. On the top of my head, I don't know the exact number.

Yeah. Yeah.

You can find it.

Yeah. The chart actually shows what what they're projecting year by year, whether or not can view that. You know? I don't know.

Yeah. I'll double check. I wanna say it was, like, $202,100 and 150,000 a year.

Okay. It's not in the mid it's not in the millionaire class.

Oh, it's definitely not. No.

No. Okay. So it's not as if we

can And, actually, those are projections, and that's if we meet the expenses the way you said. But let me double check on that. Okay?

So yeah. You know? Yes. Yeah. We are considering that. You know, that will be factored into the projections for when we go to council Yeah. On May 13. But it's not that significant in the scheme of things.

Excuse me, Eric? Eric?

You change.

Oh, one of the were you gonna go look something I was gonna ask you. Two meetings ago, we were I know we got it got dropped in the last meeting, and I forgot to bring it up. But the idea of the downtown bid that perhaps we could save a million dollars on the bid if we if we had a, you know, a a fee for the nightclub fee, for example, that they could pay for the police officers. And I I I don't know if you were gonna bring that back or because it didn't come back at the last meeting. Do you remember that?

You know, we were talking about, how much money we could save the taxpayers, the general fund, if we had a bid, which is the business improvement district because we have general fund paying for specific departments to place specifically the downtown.

Right. So I think at the I didn't remember that we were supposed to bring anything back, but I think that the questions on the bid were, one, it has to be something specific that only benefits certain groups, and then you have to so let's say let's say using your example, policing, if there's whoever benefits more than they would have to pay. They also it's like any special district, the businesses would have to vote for it. So so you'd have to get 51% would have to under the I think it's under the two eighteen process, would have to vote for it. So it's not an automatic.

Actually, I think it was if 51% voted against it, then it doesn't go forward. I think 5% can say actually, nobody can even return the the no. You know, if let's say you went out for a bid Mhmm. And nobody said boo, you could actually enforce a bid. But if 51% or 50 plus 1% said no, then you could not you could not create a bid.

That's the way I'd I'd wanna double check on that. You might be right, but I'd wanna double check on that. Because on the under the two eighteen, there's certain things like water and sewer that are exactly that where 51% have to oppose it. Yes. I thought so I've done bids before. I thought it was 51% had to approve it, but I'll I need to double check

on that. No. But but that kinda wasn't part of our Yeah. We were looking at that as ways of saving. You know? And I know it was only I mean, it could be a million bucks, you know, if we enacted. But the question was, can we specifically, you know, go I mean, can the city legally attacks one use? For example, nightclub use versus a flower shop.

What what you would do is you'd have to show you'd have to do a you essentially have to show the benefit level through some type of study. You'd have to show the benefit level, and then you can charge the different property owners based on the benefit level. So if it's nightclub, using your example nightclub, then if they're showing a higher generation

of

that need for police than, let's say, a flower shop

Yes.

Then you can do it based on percentage. You have to calculate

that. But at the last meeting that we had, that was not one of the savings option or or an option.

You can put that in as a

You know, it's just I I I forgot about it at the last meeting to talk about that. I'm like, oh, that wasn't one of our choices of all the things that

we could

You could put that in and add that. Back to that? You could add that in for the

sake of reconsider. Legally, maybe you wanna run this by attorney, legal department, is that we wanna make sure that if we do go forward with that as a cost savings for the general fund, that we need to make real sure that it doesn't that the people in the in the business district do not get taxed. They don't they aren't using that

Yeah. So you'd it would it'd have to it would include a stay. So this would take some in-depth to do a study to show which users benefited to what level.

Yes.

But you could you could pretty much for this discussion, if you want to say that that should be something that the city council should consider moving forward.

Yeah. I I thought we all kind of did you go ahead. No. Finish

your thought.

Yeah. I I thought a while back, we all kinda thought that that was something that would be worth looking into, and it just at the last meeting, it it wasn't on our agenda.

Well, that I mean, that's an easy one. You Okay.

Yeah.

That's gonna take a study and

Yeah. I was I was thinking that it what what we need is a legal opinion on whether or not that you can actually do that. Because if in fact you can't, then let's stop talking about it. If you can create a special district with the only people that are paying into that are those that are causing the, you know, let's say, causing the problems of having police and fire there on a regular basis. No. Kingsley? No. I'm sorry. Yeah. Sure.

We can run that by the city attorney. And as the city manager said, I mean, it will even take a study. Let's assume the City Attorney says, yes, you could do that, then we have to go study it to determine the impact and what level of impact that is. And what how is differentiated from the baseline, you know, that other other businesses. And if it can be done, then we'll pursue it. But it's it's something that would take some time Yes. You know, to to really go study.

And may I Yeah. So I I obviously, we're not empowered to make a study. But I I certainly would support moving the item forward from this body to the city council to, you know, to look at it. Obviously, there's a lot of questions. Legal is one and, you know, figuring out what savings exist in any event, whether we're talking about public safety or, you know, how much money would we save if we could allocate some of that cost over to the businesses, and then they didn't not approve So, anyway, all that is to say that for the purposes of this body, I'm I'm happy to second the motion if

you wanna Yeah. Great.

Try to craft it, and then we can move it along. Yeah.

Yeah. I'd like to make a motion that we we analyze Mhmm. A business improvement district for Downtown Fullerton that specifically addresses the cost savings to the general fund by creating a bid in that business improvement district. The businesses within that business improvement district, those businesses would be the people who are attribute those expenses to or I don't know how you say it. Delegate, you know

The affected businesses?

The affected businesses. Thank you. Mhmm. Effective businesses.

Okay. Mhmm.

Okay. And we'll make sure we caveat Yeah.

I mean, that could be a million dollar a year savings, you guys. Yep. Because I think that's what chief Reyta said with the police. I think they were down now. They used to have eight full time police officers for the downtown when he was working because he worked the they call it the echo unit. The echo unit is a specific unit that for the Fullerton Police Department that works the downtown nightclub scene at, you know, after between ten and two at night. Mhmm. And they are specifically dedicated to keeping the peace in downtown. And if the general fund is paying that, the taxpayers of Fullerton are paying that, it's not really fair if it's created by a specific group of businesses. Those businesses should burden the cost. I think

I agree.

I assume we need a yeah. Second. Okay. First bet.

Second. Yeah. K.

I'm a formally call the vote tens. Derek Smith?

Yes.

Tony Boushala? Yes. Jack Dean? Yes. Jennifer Duong?

Yes.

Thank you. And I'd like to make a motion that we we definitely get together again, that we have another meeting. I know I was kinda surprised this kind of indicated we were gonna try to finalize everything tonight, but I I I'm not ready to do that. I was I was expecting another meeting, to be honest. So May 13, I guess, is the is the first study session, and I I guess we wanna be have something for that. So we would probably need to meet before then. It would be

Can we do you mind if we just sort of get through as much as we can, and then we can sort of assess what we can between now and thirteen? Okay. Thank you.

Yep. Okay. So I guess the question now is, are we is the committee ready to make any sort of recommendation on expenditure reductions, or do you wanna go through the sales tax options?

Yeah. I'd like to kinda put it all together as a one package. Like, you know Mhmm. Okay. If we keep going through it, then we can kinda yeah. K.

Okay. So we'll now discuss the add on sales tax revenue enhancement options as we presented earlier. So this is the same informational slide we've shown, the last few meetings now. I won't go over the detail, but you have it before you for reference. Okay.

K. This slide nine is actually shows a news a new sales tax add on chart chart. So this option is for the dedicated, add on sales tax option. And, on this chart, we're showing the effects of a 0.5% dedicated add on, sales tax measure for streets or or any other infrastructure. And we show the options of the 1%, zero and a half percent, and and zero and a quarter percent as well.

But the option I I I believe we're presenting for vote is the 0.5%. So as you can see, the 0.5% or half cent would generate an additional $15,000,000 for streets. At the same time, this will the the city will continue its negative deficit position, and this would not help towards resolving its operating deficit issue.

So

in summary, yes, this does help the city address our street problem, but it does not help the city's, overall fiscal position for the general fund. And this option, as you know from prior meetings, since it's a dedicated, sales tax measure, this would would require, two thirds or 67% voter approval if taken on the ballot. This next slide shows, another option, and this is for two dedicated, add on sales tax measures. So this chart shows a 0.5% dedicated add on for streets or infrastructure as well as a zero and a half percent dedicated add on sales tax for public safety. So in total, these will be the a combined 1%.

So as you can see on the chart, the the half cent sales tax would generate $15,000,000 for streets as well as $15,000,000 for public safety. In this scenario, this helps both address the city's streets issue and towards the city's operating deficit issue as well. Under this scenario, though, the city would have a slight deficit of $2,000,000, and then this would require two two thirds or 67% voter approval on both sales tax measures.

I'm sorry. If if if assume this would be like measure a would be a special purpose and measure b would be general fund, but they would both require two thirds? Or measure a would would

Understood. Well Okay.

I'm sorry. Say it again. Maybe I'm Oh, yeah. Fine. Especially?

Safety. Well, public safety passes through general fund. You know? It's not general purpose. The different the difference there is that it's not general purpose where where the general fund can use it for any other purpose. It will be solely dedicated to public safety.

So that would require as I understand now. So because it's special purpose

Yeah.

It would be it would

Requires two to 7%.

Yeah. Okay. We have to do two measures that would require 200. Yes. Thank you. But

to clarify, our public safety departments are primarily general fund. So Right. This would this would help.

Yeah. Yeah.

Okay. So now this is the third add on sales tax option, which is the general add on 1% sales tax measure. So since this is a general measure, this can be used for any city general purposes. And the one thing, you know, I I wanna make sure and highlight, and it's important to note that the city's infrastructure fund ordinance number thirty two eighty four, this would still be applicable to the new sales tax generated if, in fact, we we didn't have an add on sales tax. And as far as that was the intent of the ordinance.

So so with the 1% example, 15,000,000 would be allocated to streets and infrastructure for this ordinance, and that's automatic. And then, approximately, the other 15,000,000 would be applied towards the city's general purposes. So as you can see on the chart, this helps again both adjust the city street issue as well as towards the city's operating fiscal position as well. So if you look at that first 1% add on column, the line graph actually represents the city's fund balance or or not fund balance, the operating surplus or even deficit. So with the one percent add on, we're looking at about a $5,000,000 surplus.

And then since this is a general this would be a general add on measure. This would require 50% plus one voter approval.

I don't know if anybody has any question on this because I don't know if you have any question on this particular slide. Because basically, if you do the the the the infrastructure fund ordinance, basically, does the same thing that if you were to go out to this, you know, for ballot measure and dedicate it. So you have an infrastructure fund ordinance here at the ordinance thirty two eighty four that basically says 50% above is all the base goes to streets and and infrastructure.

Is is there is there a copy of that ordinance number thirty two eighty four in the staff report?

We didn't include it, but we can certainly

I'd like to read it just for the hell just for the hell of it.

We'll provide it to you.

We we could definitely send it to the committee.

You didn't get that right. I said it's for the hell of it. Bad. No. Yeah.

I said, I mean, oh, yeah. I missed that. Okay.

Alright. You got it now? I mean, Eric. Alright. Okay. Bye, Skye. Alright.

But, yes, we'll definitely send it to

the media. Just like to read that. I mean, if if that is in fact the case, that 50% of the of the, you know, of a what do you call it? A general purpose sales tax would go to the to the infrastructure, and you need 50%. That kinda would be a lot easier, you know, to get to than it would be to get to 67.5 if your goal is you really wanna repair the streets. Right? I mean, that's kind of the goal here. At least that's kind of what I've been led to believe. It's like, hey. We we got we're tasked with the a job.

What are we gonna do to fix the Fullerton streets? That's what I thought and my purpose was here is that, like, how can we move forward to for the future generations so that they could drive on roads where their cars are not beat up at the end of the trip? I know people that tell me, oh, yeah. I had to get new alignment on my car because I came to visit you in Fullerton. You know?

Mhmm. Not that.

Anyways I think Jennifer had a question. Yeah.

Do you understand my question? I guess not a question. My statement is that if if that's the goal is to fix the streets, it would be easier to get there with a general purpose tax than it would be with a a dedicated tax. At least you know you're you're closer to the finish line with 50 plus 1% versus 67.5. Although, I truly believe that if there was a a ballot measure here in Fullerton and then people had the choice of paying that extra penny for their sales tax, I think we could get that threshold of 67.5% because so many people have the same concerns in Fullerton that I do.

I'm like, yeah. We'll pay the extra cent to get our roads repaired. Do we have a analysis of how many cities that did a general purpose fund or for a specific tax?

Yeah. We have this slide that shows

I think we did that earlier on. We did.

Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, we we we have on the slide deck, we do have a summary slide of of the sales tax measures in in total. Yes. But we do have additional data, that I believe we provided in

Yeah. I remember one of the

first presentations. I do remember that. So we could also provide that. You know, I'm sure they

have it somewhere.

But The the ordinance fund as

well. Yeah.

We can

Remember the it was it was it's an uphill battle to get that 67.5. I know that. Yeah. Absolutely. And those cities that get it, I think it's it's because the people really want it bad. Yeah. And that's why I believe that in Fulton, they would get it.

I think the committee member, Duong, raised her hand. Is that right?

Yes. I wanted to just say I agree with Tony. And then also with the 1% for the general, one, it's easier to achieve, and then two, of the importance of fixing our street and then also looking at just the fiscal sustainability for the city and the presentation that you've shown us so far that the city's operating in a deficit. So, really, like, in your chart shows, the 1% would be the one that would really hit all those points. That's just my comment.

Yeah. I was gonna say, actually, I think the primary purpose our purpose is to figure out a way to balance the budget. I mean, try to get to some kind of equilibrium. I mean, if we can do the streets at the same time, that would be nice. But isn't that really what we're looking at?

I agree. Yes. I agree.

Okay. Yeah. And I think I think probably what what you're saying, and I would probably say the same thing, is that I don't think people are gonna go for an increase in the tax if there's no mention of the streets. I mean Yeah.

We we they tried it for was it 2020, or was it 2020 or 2018?

2020.

2020? 2020. Yeah. And it was the streets were not mentioned at all. It was, like, just general fund sales tax and 1%. And I think people were hoping that somehow that that guarantee of the streets we would get repaired would happen. And because it wasn't there, I think that's why the it's my opinion. The voters were skeptical about voting for that because they didn't know that was that infrastructure fund ordinance number thirty two eighty four in effect at that time in 2020? Does anybody know?

It was passed right before the election.

It was Yeah. I'll answer

it two ways. It was passed right before the election, but I'm not sure how well it was communicated to the public that was voting.

Yeah. I don't see

this at all. So Mhmm. Mean

I don't know. I wasn't here for 2020, but I'm a little familiar with it now because I did some homework on it. Look. I I do have the list that you provided in December of the cities, at least in 2024, that went before two thirds and and or at least special purpose taxes. Uh-huh. You know, I think looking at this, there was twelve and six of them passed. Couple of them, though, particularly commissure a in LA, didn't require two thirds. But it was successful when it was listed as successful because it was. But because it was an initiative, it didn't require two thirds. It required 50%.

Ultimately, the cities that are successful in passing two thirds, special tax tend to be very, very, very small. Like, the list, Virginia, Nevada City, Amador City. These are cities with tiny, tiny, tiny populations. I'm pretty convinced that two thirds special tax in this city won't. They don't think it's going to succeed.

I I I do support sales tax. I support a general purpose one. But but I I I think that if we would kick the can down the road and try to get a two thirds likely and just as historically, it's gonna fail, and then we're still gonna find ourselves, you know, in December 2026 and in worse shape. So, look, I I like the fact that the infrastructure fund kinda keeps the sales tax honest and and keeps 50% designated to a use that I think most people would agree is critical use for for for residents of Fullerton. But I think if we bind ourselves to two thirds, I think that we're making this mountain much, much harder than it needs to be.

So I would support a sales tax of 50%, but I don't think I could support one of that would be a special use.

Okay. With at one percent or half percent?

I would do one.

1%.

And I'm So Yeah.

Go ahead.

No. Only in that, again, looking at the uses or the the historically, whether a quarter or a half or one, they it doesn't seem to necessarily have a lot of bearing on why people vote yes or no. They just either like taxes or think a tax is appropriate or they don't. Yeah. But but I I think if we were to put a half cent tax and go through all the, you know, difficulty and and it's gonna be to pass a thing like that, and we still find ourselves in an operating deficit, and we can't go back to that well for a long time. I just don't see the purpose of it.

Okay. So the 50% of the general purpose if we if there was a general purpose, it would be 7 and a half million a year in the for the street infrastructure and 7 and a half million a year for the general fund. Is that is that correct? At at a

If it's a half cent.

If it's half cent.

I see the half cent.

Half cent. Correct.

Yeah.

Yeah. If it's 1.

And and currently, deficit is 8,000,000?

9.5.

It's $9.20 9.9.

9.45.

What would a point 75% mean and it'd be half of that, It'd be like

It'd be about eleven eleven.

Eleven eleven? Yeah. Point seven five. You know what? Look, you guys, myself, you know, I'm sure everybody in here, a penny, half a cent doesn't affect most of us here. Who it really affects are the people that are on fixed income and the poor the poor people. I mean, they're they're the ones who really get it. You know, they minimum wage workers, they're the ones that get they have to pay the same amount that we have to pay for the food, for the gas. You know, the people that are making over x amount of dollars a year, 100 whatever a year doesn't really affect us. And I I just you know, I I I don't like to see the poor people get stick more than I mean, they're already getting sticked right now by the federal government.

Freaking billionaire class are you know, they're not paying taxes and rest of the poor people are. And I just you know, I think that's not right to hurt the poor and let the rich go untouched. So that's why I'm very sensitive about taxes, especially sales tax. I mean, property tax, okay, some people can say, yeah, you can afford an extra thousand dollars a year on your property tax. But this is not a property. This is a sales tax.

Right.

And this the people get hurt most are the low income people. I I that's how I I see it as as a regressive tax. That's why I'm always hesitant on sales tax.

So another part because it sound like you might think a little bit on the half cent. I'm not I'm not I

might even think about three quarters. I'm just

And then I know that you are sort of the one, but I the other way you could go and you were asking about the deficit, but the other way you could go is say you need to combine it with certain reductions and maybe some limited reductions in the organization Yes. To get to your Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You could sort of combine the two. That would be another way you could go.

Yes. That's why I was kinda waiting till the end so we could talk about that. But I was gonna ask, you were bringing that up in my mind. Okay. Continue. I'm sorry. You had a a thought popped into my head, but let's continue. Sorry.

Sorry. I know we're deliberating, but this this may this is another chart that may be visually help you as well. So on the chart, we kinda summarize all three options and, specifically, what these three options would contribute towards streets and infrastructure. So, again, the half percent, half cent dedicated only, that's 15,000,000 towards streets. The two sales tax measures, they're both half a cent, so that would, again, generate 15,000,000 towards streets.

And then the 1% add on general, that would generate the same amount of 15,000,000 towards streets. And this is on top of the already allocation we get from the infrastructure fund that is generated from our base property tax as well as the Bradley Burn sales tax. So that's that's at lowest is about 2 and a half million. That could increase as high as 3 or even higher. Okay. So so I I think, you know, we asked for some specific sales tax information.

We can

give you, you know, you know, more of a comprehensive list if if if that's what the committee want wants. But this is kind of a high level summary of, you know, the add on sales tax measures since 2018. Uh-huh. So, you know, I I think it's, you know, pretty evident that the general add on sales tax, it's more common. So since 2018, 273 measures have passed out of 339, so that's 81% success rate.

Same token, since 2018, the dedicated special purpose add on sales tax, you know, it's quite smaller, but 27 measures have passed out of 64, which is about 42% success rate.

But to be clear, and this is to my point, you know, does measure does measure a in Los Angeles, is that part of the 42% success rate?

What what year?

Was thousand twenty four.

It it

The reason I bring it up because, again, it it is a special use tax, but because it was a voter initiative, it didn't require two thirds. Oh. It's 50%. So this I I just you know, I don't you don't need give it to me. But because I think I'm wrong. We know the answer. But but

think saying that I think it does include it, doesn't it? Think we include it every year. Believe it does. Yeah.

From the reports that we gather the information from, it it kind of summarized it together. So I you know, if I were to Yeah. Guess, they would I I'm pretty sure it's included.

Anyway Voter initiative is when the voters go out and they get get get enough signatures to get it on the ballot.

That is correct.

Who the heck would have the gump to go out and do that?

LA labor. Wow. Think there's a question.

They don't AP. They pay AP. Yeah.

There oh, there's nobody raising it? Mhmm. Okay. Is this the last slide on sales tax?

Yes. So this is the last slide on sales tax. So, you know, I I know we've kind of discussed a lot of different options. You know, I I think, originally, I was you know, I wanted to take a more structured approach, but we could certainly, you know, vote as how the committee, you know, wishes to vote vote upon. So the first the first option the first vote is in concept, do we agree that add on sales tax sales tax measure is needed?

And then options two, three, and four reflect the options we covered in the prior slides. So I'll defer to the committee on how you want to proceed with this vote.

Okay. Before we go there, let me mister city manager brought up a point earlier about the combination of of reduction and listen. Oh, shoot. Hold on. Is that me?

No. Oh. Me.

Sometimes I have my alarm set, but the combination of little reduction here, a little added tax here where everybody, you know, everybody kind of it's a joint effort between the taxpayers and the city employees, and everybody's kinda working together to get to the end goal. I like that idea of everybody's kinda tightening their belt, Say the taxpayers are taking it, you know, like a good soldier is and marching forward and paying that and getting hit, but still going forward. Hopefully, they don't go down, but, you know, everybody kinda pulls their weight. I like that idea that you brought up, Eric. Question about sales tax.

Can we let's say we decided we wanted to do a sales tax and we wanted to do a general tax so we know we could get 50 plus 1%. But we wanted to do it for, like, one or two years to pump up our shore up our thing and to see how it goes in two years from now, the economy. You know what I mean? Can we do that, like, a a short term sales tax, or does it have to be, a long thirty year deal?

It it doesn't have to be a long third. You can actually put a I'm trying to think the term for

it.

A sunset. You can put a sunset on it. I'd probably not recommend a two year, but I'd recommend at least a five year or longer. But, yeah, you can put a sunset on it.

I'm just curious about where our economy is heading right now, folks, gentlemen and and ladies in the audience, Jennifer and Maureen. I yeah. I'm just really concerned about where we're heading. I I just see gloom. I've been in real estate business my whole life, and I've seen the cycle, and I see we're coming on a downward slope right now. And I'd hate to put a a thirty year deal, you know, in motion.

Yeah. You don't have to do a thirty year. You can do a sun you can do a sunset.

Okay. I I I would lean more towards a a short term deal that that we could bail out of if you know, because I I think a lot of oh, I don't think I know people that live in the Harbaugh. They go to the Fullerton Costco because they could save, like you know, their bill's like they go for, like, $2,000 of a they buy $2,000 of stuff at a time, 3,000. They could save, like, a $100, $50. They come to Fullerton instead of the La Habra Costco because our sales tax is

Right.

7.75. So, I mean, that's kind of a good thing for Fullerton to kinda be a low sales tax base city, but we wanna fix our streets. So that's kinda brings me back to the dedicated tax for the for the street. But then I think, well, we're general fund is is need needs shoring up. So kinda go back to the general tags with the dedicated street on there, you know, dedicated dedicate there's 32 was that 3248 ordinance?

30 yeah. '30 two '84.

'30 two '84? I don't know. Eric, can you provide some guidance to people who are on the fence that like to see cuts here and give here and give there, give and a take?

Well, I can

I I have some comments before Eric answers?

Oh, yes. Then I also have researched your two questions from earlier tonight.

Oh, can I have those? Thank you. Thank you.

So, Eric, if you can speak a little bit about I know how, we're trying to be equitable and have the city, take on some of the burden by cutting costs and then also exploring the tax measure. But, really, from year to year, as you have presented before, the rising cost, the percentage, the obligations is only gonna increase. So even if you can temporarily cut costs one year, that's not sustainable over five, ten years from now. Isn't that correct?

Well, I I would say that if you cut costs, yeah, you'll probably have, at some point, if not immediately, some form of service level impacts. What those would be, I couldn't tell you. It depends on what you how much you cut.

And then for the cities that do have sunsets on the tax measures that they've passed, even if it was, like, five years from now, ten years from now, what happens is the city would have to just go back and try to get voters to vote on the sales tax again. Right?

That that is correct. And there are cities that have done sunsets, then they, the the most or the one that I can think of of, would be Westminster where they did a sunset, and then they had to go back and and ask the voters again. Mhmm. And I'm and I guess La Habra did too. I think La Habra's was a sunset too.

Thank you.

Yeah. I have I have a question. Not not to be too contentious, but it it it kinda surprised me when the, ambulance, item came up on the agenda because it it obviously will impact the city. But even beyond that, I I guess my question is knowing a year ago, at least, that there was a shortfall in process, I guess you could say. In in private enterprise, normally, a business would say, okay.

We're gonna have to we're gonna have to be very cautious with our money, so we're going to have a a hiring freeze. We're going to have a pay freeze. No no pay increases until we figure out what we're doing. And it seems to me like everything is just continuing on as as usual, business as usual. And I know it's partly because as a government, you know that you can always probably get money somehow from the taxpayers. But was there any discussion of that? And and I don't remember it being discussed in the council meeting that, you know, we're gonna kinda keep things under control until we figure out what what direction we're going with the sales tax or you know?

So so I can address that. Probably hasn't been discussed as much at the city council, but I can address it. I think those are legitimate questions that you're asking.

Mhmm.

Obviously, everyone's asking legitimate questions, but but, I agree with you that we, couldn't just continue going forward, and going into deficit. We are in deficit, but going for further and further. Mhmm. So, this year, we have a $9,500,000 deficit, that's, projected, but I have actually put instructions out to department directors to try to find savings in different areas to try to lower that so at the end of the year, we will experience less of a deficit. Mhmm.

And we have done some of those things. We've done little things where some positions have been held. For instance, in my office, I've had a position that's been held for a year and a half that's in my office. So that that's a small thing. I'm not saying that's a big thing, but, you know, that's the savings of probably 80 to 100,000 a year that that's in my office when you count benefits and everything. Then the second thing, we went into the IT. We contract out on IT. Mhmm. We've actually done two things to reduce cost with IT, which was probably somewhere in the 150 to $250,000 a year. Mhmm.

But those are they're a little more stealth, so you wouldn't necessarily have heard them in the public necessarily. But I've been going through on an operational by operational basis because that's my job as a manager to try to figure out how to balance the how to do as much I can to help in trying to create what I call and and I don't mean this I mean this positively. I call them stealth cuts. Where can you do stealth cuts that help us reduce that that deficit, but at the same time isn't obvious and isn't seen by the public? Because I call them stealth cuts because the public doesn't see that you have, fewer maintenance people in the parks.

The public doesn't see that you have fewer police officers on the street. We're able to do it. And so we're doing that. And part of our we're we're doing two things going forward as this committee is, working. We are we have our budget, which obviously we're working on at the same time simultaneously to you looking at the broader vision going forward.

And so in that budget, we're going to actually be proposing that we do what I call, flexible, freezes in the organization over the coming up in the next year. And so I have a projected number of dollars, and I can't remember what what it is off the top, that we're gonna be presenting at May 13, but we are looking at doing a, proposing or I'm proposing a, what I call, flexible freeze. Because I'm not about just whatever's open right now, let's freeze it because you just never have control of what positions are open. But as positions come open during the year, that we will evaluate position by position, and departments are responsible to freeze them. It's not a lot.

It's probably gonna be two and a half to 3% savings in personnel if if it's effective. So I'm not I'm not saying it's gonna be a solve all, but we are doing little things like that too to answer your question.

K.

Don't know if that's helpful to or if I don't know if that addresses your question or not.

Yeah. I think it does, except I probably would go a little further in terms of the if if there really is a dire situation, especially if something's gonna be put in the ballot, that something more dramatic might be helpful. I mean, if the city were to announce that there was a a hiring freeze or a pay freeze, especially, because that that's that's where the expenses really is in the in the Correct. You know. And if you can't if you if you can't cut that, if you can't figure out a way to trim that back somehow, it's just gonna continue to grow.

And even if we put at a at a 1% now or for whatever purposes, You know? If, you know, five years probably need another one because the pay will keep going up and the and the pension obligations will continue to increase. You know? So

So yeah. So I if you want, I could address that and and the other two items from earlier if you want me to real quick before you start talking. So on that, I mean, that's I I see this as a flexible committee. Mhmm. So if you, as a committee, would say we wanna have operational savings combined with possibly looking at sales tax, you could even say that you wanna go further. You suggest that city council go further, like

Mhmm.

Looking at salaries, looking at looking at personnel, and and doing more freezes. You could you could suggest that if you want, or you could be more generic and say

Mhmm.

Just look at operational costs and things you can do to reduce. That would be my recommendation if you wanna go that direction, if you wanna do that combined direction. Switching over to the other two questions, one was on the ambulance, and the ambulance was projected by the fire department to be about $3,200,000 in savings over the first five years. So that wouldn't be this year. That'd be next year because it takes about a year to get it operational.

3,200,000.0 over Yeah.

That was their projection. Yeah. And then they have projections per year, but their overall for the first five years was 3.2.

That breakdown per year? I guess I could do the math.

Well, they they projected it was gonna go from 400,000 to 890,000 per year over a ten year period. But in the first five years, they were projecting 3.2. So it was gonna escalate up is what their projection was. Again, that it it all depends on what those salaries and how if they you know, where the salaries are per year plus your assumptions of what you're paying on an hourly contract per year.

I can read the the five year amounts if you want. I pulled I I I found the supplemental item. In '26, they're saying there'll be an annual savings of 400,000. In '27, it will be 638,000. In '28, it would be 668,000. 2029, 691,000. And in 2030, 718,000.

And that's probably about three point that's probably equals about the 3.2.

Yeah. Yeah.

Were those projections done by the city?

They were done by the fire department. Fire department. Yeah.

I see. Yeah.

They were done by the analysts in the fire department

Yeah.

Based on their research of what other cities have done. And there most cities that have gone to an ambulance have seen this savings. So but I think we have to see how it works, in the first couple years to know. Mhmm. Then the second question on the business improvement district, I might be able to give you answers on that. So, I did some quick research while I was there just to go back and look. So, one, I think you are correct. I think it is 51. I thought it was 51% had to approve it, but I think you are correct. It's 51% go ahead behind.

But in looking at it, one thing it says that is ineligible is security. Municipal services such as security and sanitation are listed as eligible things that you can do in a bid. It has to be voted on and put together, and the business have to do it. The other thing it does say is that it's the BID may assess a business improvement district may assess properties based on the level of benefits. So you have to demonstrate so we would have to do a study to demonstrate the level of benefit and who benefits from whatever it is.

If it's security, sanitation, whether it's something else they want. I've done sanitation in other cities, but they they would have to show who benefits and security is an eligible I item to look at. The other thing, it has it has a five year sunset. You have to vote on it every five years, minimum. You can actually set it for lower time. And then it actually gives an example that if and so this might answer your security. It doesn't talk about security. It talks about tourism. But it's the same theme. It's the same general issue.

And on tourism, it says if you're doing a, special improvement district to promote tourism, to create a fund to promote tourism, that it has to be you have to assess it based on what businesses benefit. And if a business is not a tourism business, it does not get charged for that tourism fee. So I think in a general way, when you look at all that Yeah. It probably answers your question to what what we could do.

Yeah. Very

good. Yeah. So I don't know if that's helpful or not.

Yeah. That's very yeah.

That's

good. Applicable, I think. Yeah.

So I know we throw out a couple options as with regards to kind of the add on sales tax. I know the add on general sales tax, I believe, was recommended by or at least or brought up by two committee members. And then committee member, you brought up the add on sales tax measure in combination with the expenditure reductions, which is not listed, but certainly an option. Those appear to be the top two contenders, so to speak. Would would the community be ready to vote on these?

Well, I think they're two separate things. I mean, I I sort of understand that sales tax, we've obviously done a lot of conversations on. I I think we should vote on that. I think the dirty measures, I think are as a general premise, I think, is is is a fine recommendation, but I couldn't vote on it until I saw what exactly it was that we were asking, which services we were expecting to cut. You know, I I think it's a general principle that, you know, taxpayers should not have to put the entire problem.

So I could support a thing like that, but but I I probably would prefer not to combine it with sales tax, which is this particular proposal that we've discussed.

That sound

Yeah. I agree with the chairman.

Yeah. Look. I I think unless anyone wants to take a shot at this, but I I would be comfortable making a proposal for a 1% general sales tax measure. My reasons are that we do not have like, I don't think that we can bring sales tax to the Fortune voters for likely ten years. It is just not a thing that it is appropriate to be bringing them back every two years or four years or six years.

So I would prefer that we ask for not just what we need today or tomorrow or in 2026, but what we're going to need in 2036, which we only can know to a certain degree. But but I I think that we have to at least put a future council in the position where they are not forming a committee like this to try to figure out, you know, how we're gonna tighten our belts because we ask for a little less than what we respectfully. And I I know that you made the point and I appreciate it about looking out for because you're right. It's a regressive tax. I would a 100% agree, and I I appreciate your sensitivity towards working men and women.

And I obviously work with men and work with women, and so I I I share that. But if we were to do 7.75, ultimately, leave on a $100 worth of groceries, the difference between point 751%, about 25¢, which is not that significant. And ultimately, anyone who's ever gotten a flat tire or ruin their alignment driving down Fullerton Roads, think, would be more than happy to pay 25¢ more on a $100 worth of groceries than have to suffer mechanic bills. So I think we should ask for what we need. And even though I acknowledge the aggressiveness of a sales tax, I I think it's serves low income folks as well as as higher income folks as well.

I'll second the 1%.

Go ahead. Take a vote. Alright. Sorry. Motion

and then the second call the roll. You wanna call?

Can I we have?

Yeah. So I'm gonna, call a formal vote for, just an add on sales tax measure first, just an initial one. Okay. Derek Smith? Yes. Jennifer Duong?

Yes. Just

for clarification, this isn't for a person. No. Just in general, I add on sales tax. Tony? No. Jack Dean?

The way I'm understanding it, probably no. I'm I really feel is the streets have to be included. I mean, there has to be something there for for the streets.

So It is included with the ordinance, though. Right?

Yeah. It is. But the Per the ordinance,

thirty two eighty four is included in that. Right? 1%?

That's correct.

50% of an add on would go dedicated to the streets of 1%. So 50% of that would

Oh, okay.

Okay. Yeah. Just to clarify, with the 1% general purpose sales tax, the infrastructure ordinance Mhmm. 3284 comes into play. Mhmm. So it's it will be embedded in there. And and 50% of the proceeds from that will be dedicated to the streets. So

what what might be a better approach because that's a two two, so that failed. So what might be a better approach is if you're looking at doing recommending anything, maybe talking about what you would recommend to see if there's three people that even support any of these or not. Or you could always go I'm I'm not trying to push it, but I'm also just trying to recognize the discussion that I'm I'm hearing. If you wanna do something where you combine it with it's only recommended if there's cuts or some type of organizational cuts that go with it, you can do that as part of the motion too.

I'd I like to make a motion that we that we vote for a dedicated street add ons a dedicated street add on sales tax measure as well as a dedicated public safety add on tax sale. I say let the voters decide if they wanna increase the public safety in Fullerton and and and and the roads repair the roads, that would be a 1%, you know, across the board. And those people would have to get out there and vote for it, and it would be you know, it would be again, it's a regressive tax, but the people that are that are getting you know, the poor people, vote too. So if they don't want it, that'll go down if they want it. If they want more public safety and better roads, I say let the people vote for that.

I so I support I would make a recommendation for item number three, and I hope maybe if anybody wants to second that, I appreciate it. But if not, I understand.

Well, I I I will second it, but I I would, again, like to ask whether we perhaps might not wait till we have the full committee. I'm concerned that that four votes on this. I think we should have everybody here when we're voting

on Well, let's see how it goes on that one. We've got four now. So let's see where that lands.

Okay. I'm a take a formal vote then on that item.

Yeah. The the issue the the question with yours is I'm not sure you're gonna meet again before we go on May 13. That's the only concern I'm down.

Yeah.

Well, that's why I was hoping we could arrive on a date. Yeah. A real date.

I don't know if Bill's be able to make it anyways next time. Really? I was hoping he'd be. Yeah. I didn't I thought he you had mentioned he said he was coming. Right? Anyways Yeah. You wanna go call the roll?

Yeah.

Okay. What are we voting on? Just to make sure.

Number three? Number item three Yeah. On your slide.

Okay.

Okay.

Derek Smith? No. Jennifer Duong? No. Tony Boushala?

Yes.

Jack

Dean? Yeah. I like that one.

Yes. Thank you. Yeah.

Okay. There we go.

Good luck. Yeah. Tag goes to the runner. Alright. Well, I guess we'll have to wait for Bill Brown to show up. Right? If we want

I mean I mean, you could do a I mean, because you are an ad hoc committee, so there is a I I don't know if you really wanna do this, but you could say the committee is split and two people support this, and then two people support the general sales tech. You can do that. I mean, I'm not saying that's the best alternative, but that might be one alternative you could do. Yeah.

I would be fine with it.

I'm not

pushing I'm just giving you alternatives.

Yes.

So And, Eric, correct me if I'm wrong. Even if it's a general sales tax, when you when we if if if they were agree and you do the actual language on the measure, you could still indicate, like, public safety infrastructure these purposes are are are for that when you when you advertise the the measure?

I I

I I wanna get too far into that because the language is really technical and and Mhmm. You for a general sales tax, you have to be very careful about putting specific things on it. So I I would I would wanna lean on an expert before I would say that that we could or couldn't do that.

Yeah. And I I would also be concerned that the word infrastructure I mean, we all have a pretty good understanding of what it covers, but I don't think the average person really does.

Right. And and and it is a broad term and different people have a different meaning to it. Yeah. Yeah.

Well, that's I think if you if we had a ballot measure that specifically talking about streets, Fullerton Street, Repair Street. Yes. Mhmm. Public safety. Yes. I could see people going for that. Like, you know, so I and if they don't, then they you know, just to keep the streets the way they are and keep public safety the way it is. I mean, at some point, we're gonna have to cut back on public safety because that's to correct the budget, we gotta cut here and cut there. And so at some point, people will say, okay. We'll pay a little extra for more safety.

So we have two people that support that number three.

Mhmm. And

then I don't know if you wanna do that, and then we could see if we could set up another meeting and come back beforehand, and we could try to do that. Or if you wanna have to support that and to support whatever the other two support, I I'm I'm fine either way. So Yeah. And then we could try to come back before that so you could, as a committee, have another vote.

I mean, I don't wanna speak for Bill, but I'm going to

Really?

I don't think he would be that keen on putting forward a public safety sales tax measure. I think he'd probably vote no on that. He might vote yes on the streets, but Yeah.

No. Just for knowing. Yeah.

Comments he made.

With that?

Yeah. Comments that I heard. Yeah. I don't know him. But

Yeah. From the comments he made. And I I'd let let him speak for himself, but I don't know if you wanna just go forward with the two two and let the council decide or if you wanna try to get another meeting. I'm game if you want to. And but I don't know if Bill will show up. I mean, I thought he was gonna be here today. Yeah.

I I don't think I can make another meeting before the thirteenth date.

Okay. So

do you wanna have a vote on something else too so that you can at least have or to support this and to support something? I'm not sure what the other two you twos what you support. So

I don't I support?

Yeah. I'm not gonna speak for you because there wasn't a motion on it. So

What is is May 13 the only study session on the budget?

That's the main one before the yeah. Before we go.

There won't be any other ones to

There haven't been in the past. There's been one in the past.

Okay. I guess I'm thinking back years ago. It seems like they used to have, like, three or four of them before They would Yeah.

Kinda drag on before the final vote. Yeah. Okay. This is the last vote.

The three years I've been here, we've had one.

Okay. Because the council really has up until, what is it, maybe May 2026 before they make a decision to get something on the ballot.

Oh, for this? Yeah. For this. Oh, we you this doesn't have to be connected to the budget, but

Right.

But you can.

Yeah. And I don't think probably, we won't be.

Right? Yeah. No. I mean, you could continue and have another vote on it, but we could at least say this is where the committee is at the May 13 meeting. That's always a possibility. And you could continue to have the meetings and have the meeting have another one after May 13. That's always a possibility.

If

whatever That that's a good point. That's always a

possibility too. Yeah. Whatever anybody wants to do, I'm supportive of helping out with it.

Yeah. I I I my I I'm fine with the split because we clearly are split. I don't necessarily see the need to have another meeting.

So split, I just wanted to make it clear Yeah. Where the other two of you are on the split.

Where I am at the split?

Yeah. Because right now, all we have is those a two two on number three. Well, That's all we have on the record

right now.

I see. Because when we voted on number well, then I will make a formal motion for, you know, for option four, which is 1% Okay. Yeah.

That would be good. Yeah. That way we just get it on

the record. Yeah. So I would like to a

motion you were going for one.

No. I think the way that it was called, we we did Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Okay. So I'll make a formal motion that we have a 1% general add on sales tax measure.

I second.

Okay. Take a formal vote for item four.

Go on 10.

Derek Smith?

No one knows who how's it gonna go.

Yes. Jennifer Wong? Yes. Tony Boushala? No. Jack Dean?

No. Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Because that way we can just have it on the record when you just do that.

Can you hear me? Uh-huh. Said yes? Yes.

Oh, I thought she said it. Okay. Okay. But here is her not good. So

we have we do have the two options?

Yeah. We'll just take it and just say to support this option, to support this option.

Yeah. Yeah. At least it's narrow narrowing it down a little bit. Yeah. To yes.

You all supported doing some type of add on sales tax major. It was just different elements of what you supported. Yeah. So there was unanimous on that.

On one though, did we not?

You did a vote on one, but the the purpose of one made you all a little confused because I think it was sort of a stage thing.

I see.

Do number one and then which one of the three was that or not. So But what what So I decided to try to one. Unconfuse you on this issue.

Does that make sense?

It was two two.

Oh, no. One or four are basically the

same, aren't they? So Which one?

One and four are kinda the same.

One was just in general. So I I think it may confuse you.

Concept. You wanted to No. Know No. Approve of the concept and then go on to two, three, and four. Yeah.

Yeah. Think it's just the streets, and three was the streets and then public safety.

So we so we have two that support three, two that support four.

Right? So just to be clear. Yeah. I don't think number one, just the concept that did you record a vote?

Would not report. I would say I don't think I think there was confusion on what number one was. Yeah. I think it was an invalid Yeah.

What did you record?

Yeah. I I I think it was confusing. That was the confusion.

So I think we need to revert that one.

I think we should just void number one and just say two supported three and two supported four. Right.

Yes. Conquer with it?

Yes. Yeah. One Yeah. One is not actually an option.

I mean,

it's not a it's Right. Exactly. Nothing. Think they are there.

I think we create create confusion in it. So Yeah. Two supported number three. Two supported number four.

Right. Yeah.

That's why I got up because I could tell that there was crying confusion.

So And then also like to continue looking at the bid.

Okay. Because So I think that should go in there too.

You know, that's some savings for the general fund. Right. Because here, this none of this is general fund stuff. Although the public safety, we wouldn't be spending so much out of the general fund on public safety if if measure let's say, call it let's call it measure b. Let's call a streets let's call streets s. Streets s. And and public safety

p. P.

P. There you go.

Take s and p.

S and p. The s and p.

There you go.

Yeah. So people can go s. They can go p. They can go s and p. Yeah. They can go p and not s, but at least it gives them the option if it gets on the ballot. Okay. And We might change that. If the council votes for a general sales tax, that'll get on the ballot and only need 50%.

Okay. No. This is helpful for them to start the dialogue. Yeah.

And so maybe you were addressing it. I I zoned out, but back to the very, very beginning of the meeting when we we agreed on a TOT increase option.

Mhmm. That was only if if if I remember right. You didn't want it competing against the other You didn't.

But I think that it says, but after sales tax ballot measure is explored first

Yeah. We've explored it.

Right? Yeah. So what is our is our recommendation then to go forward with the TOT?

Oh, I think the TOT at 10%, we we we talked about that at the prior meeting. I think we all agreed on a TOT at 10. Right? Okay. So that's gonna be a couple 100,000 a year increase to the general fund. Yeah. And then maybe you know, and if the if the bid goes forward and there's another 400, and then if we there was some other savings of the fire department, another 400, there's a million.

Yeah.

If if we did a little tightening of the belt with the, you know, the what do you call it?

The So why don't we do we put it together, a summary, and send it out and make sure all four were were good with it.

I brought it up just because I would like the caveat.

We'll see. This is what our understanding is from the meeting and send it out. And if anyone disagrees, then we will

come back

to to

another meeting. And,

Eric, I think you might have stepped out, but they did take a vote on the the bid.

Yeah. That

it's just so One one Mhmm. Last thing that I don't wanna alarm anybody, but I just kinda curious of what if the worst case scenario I always think of the worst case scenario. My brother will always tell me. If you always think of the worst case scenario, I'm like, hey. I'm the guy that always thinks of let's what's the worst thing that that could happen? Let's say that voters don't vote S and P or they don't vote a sales tax. And even if it was a general fund and it was it it got on the ballot, and it doesn't go forward. And we don't have the money to keep things floating and pay make our payroll.

What

happens if a city or municipality files for bankruptcy? Like, what's the what happens after that? Is there, like does every does, like, people start jumping out the windows? Or or do you are you able to, like you know how people when they file for bankruptcy, they get, like, this big grace period, and they get relieved of all this debt, and then you kinda could start over. What happens when a municipality and that's don't

maybe I'm maybe you have some answers on that, but I I know there are municipalities that file bankruptcy. Yeah. Like, what's the worst thing? Like,

if that I would

suggest that as an option.

Do we get us to start over from square one and wipe out all the prior debt? I mean, that might be a way to go. Yeah.

Do you I don't know if you have an answer to it, but I

Generally, though. I mean

I I don't think it's a great option to look at.

I know.

It would not be my What are the What are the downfalls?

Like, what are

the The downfalls is the city could go into a receivership. Yes. The state, you know, takes over and, you know, every You would cut you would cut services

to Are

there other other cities in Orange County or around that have done this?

Not at Orange. First.