City Council - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

from City Council to order please.

Madam Clerk, roll call. Council Member Carr.

Here.

Council Member Pandoro. Here. Council Member Sandhu.

Here.

Council Member Tonneson.

Here.

Council Member Williams. Here. Vice Mayor Bertani. Here. And Mayor Moy.

I am here and our invocation tonight will be presented by youth pastor Elliot Urbina of Liberty Church. And that's how we know he's the youth pastor. Exactly.

And when the disruptor, everybody was comfortable. We're going to begin the meeting here with a prayer. And before that, I just want to share a scripture in the very first book of the Bible, Genesis, at the very first chapter, where it says in verse 3, Then God said, Let there be light. And there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good. And God divided the light from the darkness. Father, we thank you for bringing us to this meeting. We invite you. And we invite the light which reigns, Lord. From the very beginning, you created the light and you did it so that it would overtake darkness. And Lord, we ask that your light reigns, your light abides in this place, in this city, in this county. We ask that your light would be the one that guides us to make the right decisions for the people, Lord, so that WE CONTINUE IN THIS CITY TO BE A CITY THAT FEARS YOU, THAT FOLLOWS YOU, AND THAT IS GUIDED BY YOU, GOD. IN THE NAME OF THE MOST POWERFUL, WE PRAY, JESUS CHRIST, AMEN.

AMEN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND NOW IF OUR ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER WOULD PLEASE LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. All right. Now we're going to do council reports, and we'll start with Councilman Sandhu.

Thanks, Mayor. A quick one, in case you're not already tracking, the air show is this week, technically in my district, but it's not my air show, I suppose. It's over at Travis Air Force Base, so the Thunderbirds are going to come out, so if you're available Saturday, Sunday, please come out, come early. And I guess the biggest thing to keep track of, make sure to bring a real ID of some sort to get on base. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you. Madam Vice Mayor. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you, everyone, for coming out this evening. It is so good to see your faces here. It's always a better meeting when you're in these chambers. So thank you very much. I'm excited to hear what everyone has to say. So Madam Mayor, I'm going to bypass my report and just ask everyone to go to my website, pamburtani.com, especially the information hub. There you will find everything that's going on in this city And what I'm doing. Okay, so that's it. Thank you.

Thank you Councilwoman Pandora.

Thank you mayor. Good evening everyone As I mentioned at the last meeting and for those of the of you who may not be aware April is child abuse prevention month and as you walked up in the you might have seen the pinwheels that are planted on the grass and And so last week, Kasa, who I work for, I'm the outreach coordinator there, and you'll hear a little bit more about us a little bit later, Fairfield PD, the Children's Network, and the DA came together for the pinwheel event. And I wanted to thank my colleagues and the mayor for also coming out. We planted 341 pinwheels. Thank you. It was easier this year because it had rained, but the pinwheels stand for two different things. Pinwheel stands for the hope and the joy that a child deserves to experience during childhood, but also every pinwheel represented three children reflecting the 1,020 calls of abuse allegations in Fairfield. In the county, there were 1,020 calls of abuse allegations. I'm sorry, 3,446 unduplicated allegations in Solano County. And so for all of us here, it is up to us, right? The children are depending on us to be their voice. And as a member and staff of CASA, we have some amazing volunteers here who are also CASA members. It is up to us to say something, to see the signs. If we see anything, say something. To look out for our people. Child abuse doesn't know any boundaries. It happens all over the place. And so we currently do have, if you want the opportunity, I know Mayor, you spoke about being a foster parent. And so you don't have to be a foster parent or have any special expertise, but if you have a heart for that community and for that population, we have 20 plus youth on our waiting list. So these are children that have been removed from their home who are waiting for a special advocate to help them navigate the foster care system. And so either go to our website at casasolano.org or you can reach out to me because I am the I am the one you get to talk to first before you start your CASA journey. I also spoke at the Solano Family and Children's Services. They also held a pinwheel garden, and they also recognized the month of the military child. And secondly, I joined our seniors. I love hanging out with our seniors. They're the best people to hang out with, especially during lunchtime. So over at the ARC, they hold really fun lunches. And so this one was the spring one, and it was hosted by the Fairfield Community Services Foundation. So when they sponsor it, they sponsor the food, they cook the food, they serve the food. And so it was really great to see them out there serving food to our seniors. The next one that's coming up, mark your calendars for June 11th. It is their music and time show and luncheon where you get to see the amazing singing talent of our seniors in our community. So it's a fabulous event to go to to connect with seniors, but then also to see, you know, how talented they are in their singing capacities. It's really fun. And that is all, Mayor. Thank you so much.

Thank you. And Councilman Carr, please.

Yes, thank you, Mayor. And thank you all for coming out. It is nice to have a full house. Well, first off, the City of Fairfield is hosting the next Homeless Roundtable tomorrow at the Willow Hall. It's right over there. And if you register online at fairfield.cad.gov slash homeless, lunch will be provided for you. Also on May 6th is the Homeless Outreach Partnership event, HOPE. It will be at Liberty Church. If you're interested in tabling or providing resources or services at that event, please reach out to hsd at fairfield.ca.gov. Applications are also at the Fairfield website. Councilwoman Pandora-Meason on the JPA board, our next meeting is on May 20th. If you're not familiar with that, that's a community action partnership of Solano, Joint Powers Authority, CAP Solano or JPA. It focuses on providing direct client assistance to low income individuals and families. This includes financial support for housing, utility, and other essential needs to promote self-efficacy. The meeting also involves reporting and funding allocations and performance of the JPA and ensuring transparency and accountability in the delivery of services. Also, I think it's important that we pay attention to our homeless issue. I was doing some research today. Homeless counts are at a record high. Demand for homeless services is on the rise. And current resources are insufficient to meet demand. And on a personal and professional level, this issue is very important, not just to me, but to most of the people of Fairfield and the surrounding cities. We do not want to see our streets, parks, and public spaces taken over. And we can't just continue to think you can arrest our way out of this problem. You can ask the police. They'll tell you the same thing. I know firsthand. My day job is with the Solano Superior Court, California, as a treatment court case manager. And I work daily with people and agencies to help keep people off the streets. And in programs, school, jobs, and housing. Today I was contacted, I wrote a bill that has recently caught some traction on helping the gravely disabled people who can't now or most likely never will be able to take care of themselves. This will hopefully take advantage of the Prop 1 funding and get the people off the streets and the help that they need. Friday, April 10th, myself and Councilwoman Pandura were also asked to speak at Sam Yetto High School. The subject was on homelessness, and they wanted to clarify on the importance of programs like Vista Ridge and others. They wanted to hear about solutions. The decision went so well that we've been invited back and possibly talked to all the high schools. On the 13th, I was at attendance with Councilwoman Pandura at her pinwheel event. It was wonderful. And last Wednesday, we got a VIP tour of the new Goodwill at 1500 Oliver Road. To be honest, I was pushing for a Whole Foods over there, but their corporate office told me they're not interested in this area. However, the store was very nice. There was also the Blues, Brews, and Barbecues event downtown at the county lawn. Good music, good food, and it was a beautiful day. People appeared to be having a nice time. I saw Councilman Tonneson over there judging tables, tasting ribs, and ran into Councilwoman Panduro as well. And please, if you've got some time, go on over to the Octo Soccer Park. The weather's getting good, and we have a new park. You can walk around the whole field. It's about close to a mile, a little over a mile. And that's my report, Mayor. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilman Tonneson.

Well, you about covered it. That's all for me.

Councilwoman Williams, please. Thank you. Well, as the resident foodie, I'll start with the food as well. Blues and Cruz, I went too. And it was a wonderful showing, a wonderful event, very organized. I headed right over to the food trucks. And as a fellow business owner, I wanted to know, was this financially successful? Were they coming back? And so they were. They said they were profitable, they had sold out. One of the places only had hot dogs left. They really sold a lot. In fact, I was number 421 for my jerk chicken, which means they had 421 clients that day. So that was pretty amazing. In addition, I visited the cookie lady and found out that she is coming to Green Valley. So I remember when Aurora Apartments was being built, it was going to be a little cafe there with bakery items. I met the lady, the cookie lady, who, by the way, was sold out as well, and she said that she would be coming to Aurora Apartments, where the public could come, get coffee and danishes, and she'll be there, she thinks, in the summer. So that was pretty cool to make that connection. I also wanted to mention, also on the food list, that Solano Let me skip that one. The lunch mob that happened, the City of Fairfield Economic Development Lunch Mob. So they do a lunch mob every month. We go to different places. And this last week we went to Mona Hawaiian Barbecue. That's 1708 West Texas Street. Fairfield, and it was a very successful lunch mob. We filled the place. The food is delicious there. Please visit. And they literally pack your plates with so much food that I had food to go and eat for the next day. So delicious, and you get your money's worth. So finally, I wanted to mention the Housing for Solano Community Continuum of Care. It's called COC. And so they are a list of organizations that all serve the homeless community. I applied and became a part of that COC. And then next week, last week, I just got an email that said that they are opening for general membership. So I know there's a lot of people in the community that are very passionate about the homeless community and really understanding what is going on. So I saw a lot of people that were in the audience there at the COC. And so please do a Google search, look for it, Solano COC Housing First. And so that way you can see when it meets, so you can come and make your concerns known, awareness, and become more aware. And you can ask all types of questions and see what's going on surrounding homelessness and decreasing the numbers. And thank you. That is my report.

thank you councilwoman so um i am not going to report a lot on what i did i serve on 25 committees and subcommittees i would keep you here for the rest of the year telling you everything that i did as mayor but i do want to raise a couple of things. One thing, I just want to shout out to our staff. Last week we had 90 third graders come to this city and they came into these chambers And we had a mock city council meeting. They chose a mayor. Only one person was silly enough to put his hand up to be the mayor. And so I told them, you're very brave, and I need to talk to you later about never doing that again. And then we had our council members. It was very interesting. I gave them a subject, and that was, should you reduce the speed of cars around schools? And so that I thought would be a good one for them because they know about the issues around schools. And so they discussed it at length. And they aren't kidding. As people know, kids are really honest. And so they said some really neat things. And they voted to not decrease the speed around, because a parent got up as a public speaker and said, we have things to do. We cannot slow down around the schools. And so they're persuaded. I'm not sure if she promised them something afterwards, but I told them that's a no-no. So, you know, do what your heart says. But they were convinced. So anyway, that was wonderful. And not only did they do that, but staff, there was somebody from every department. They went to the fire department. They talked with our police and then all the others. And then our staff put together bags, goodie bags, for $90. you know young people and it was just it was fantastic really good um so i wanted to say we're in good hands now even people say they're our future there are now i mean you listen to them now and um i You always learn a lot, so I was blessed to have that. And the next thing that I want to tell you is more sad. We, yesterday, lost a hero in Fairfield. One of our canines, canine court, died suddenly. And he had cancer, and it wasn't known. And he had... He was 12 years old. He was a German Shepherd. And I met him when he first came to work here. I was a councilwoman then. I have pictures of us together. We both looked younger. He didn't have gray. I didn't have gray. It was pretty cool. But he is the only canine. And all of our canines are fine. They're great animals. I know all of them. K9 Court was actually my boyfriend. Yes, my husband knows. And so I'm heartbroken today. And he was the only one to get a Purple Heart because he was injured severely three times on the job. And he was stabbed twice and almost lost his life doing that. And the second time he was stabbed, the person who stabbed him also bit a chunk out of his face. But he did not let go of that suspect and our officers were able to subdue him and court had to go back to the hospital for more surgery. And he always just had a big heart. He had 51 apprehensions himself in his time. What was great about Cort was that some of them can be, they seem like they're scary. And you might not want to be around them if the handler's not there. Cort wasn't like that. He was really good around kids and everybody else. So tonight, I'm going to close this meeting in honor of court. And I also will be soon giving our honors or naming committee or two councilmen on it. I want to name the Allenwood Dog Park after court. And so I'll bring that back later. after the two councilmen Doug Carr and Manvir Sandhu go through the process and read what we have but I think it's fitting and I mean what better thing to do he loved running Usually after somebody but you know a dog park is is great. So I just want to give my condolences to his family He was retired for two years usually canines after they retire they don't live that long because they live to work and It it makes them sad breaks their hearts when their dads or moms leave for the day in a patrol car and leave them home and And Court, however, enjoyed his retirement, lounging by the pool, playing with the kids, and that kind of thing. So we're grateful that he had those two years with his family. So that's what we'll do. And then one other announcement. So tonight we had a presentation, but I'm going to remove that. And the reason for it. is a presentation on the appraisals of a hotel that's being turned into housing. for seriously mentally ill people. And so LaTan is not here, neither is our city manager, and it was not agendized properly. It should have been agendized so we could take public comment. So if you're here to comment on that, you can still come up and comment during public comment. But we won't be having the presentation until LaTan can come. And I will re-agendize it for another day so people can talk about it. But you're welcome to come tonight. We're all here to listen. And then one other thing. Well, we'll get to this. I am going to remove item K2 from the consent calendar and take it as the first item. and this is to name a fire, our new fire station, for our firefighter who died from on-the-job cancer that he got from his work, Chris Bell. So I want to do that in case anybody's here to speak on that. So that's my report. Mr., well, he's acting city manager. He and he has five other jobs too. But do you have a report tonight, sir?

Just one item mayor We are also pulling k3 If it if you approve we will come back in the future to present that item Okay All righty.

We'll do that

Okay, Madam Mayor point of clarification.

So just to be clear, the residents who are here to speak on speak on Vista Ridge, yes, can do so and should do so during public comment. Yes, ma'am. Okay. And then you're going to re agendize the presentation as a council action item.

Yes. So they can talk. Otherwise, you can't talk. The public can't speak, according to the city attorney, under presentations. And it was not agendized the way that I'd asked it to be.

Mayor?

Yes.

It would be an action item?

Well, we'd put it under, I don't know if we'd call it action item, but David and I will figure that out because there's no action to take. But, yeah, it needs to be presented. Yeah. So that's what we'll do. Thank you.

Anything else? Mr. City Attorney.

I have nothing to report. Thank you.

and madam clerk no report either thank you alright so now we're going to turn to presentations please madam clerk presentation one proclamation declaring National Poetry Month presented by Mayor Moy and our poet laureate Michael Wiley did you want him to read the poem first or you want to read the proclamation yes I'd like the poem first okay Michael oh there you are thank you Hi Michael.

Hello everybody. Good morning, or good evening, Mayor Moye, council members, members of the public. Thank you for having me, and I'm especially thankful for all of you for coming out for poetry today, that's amazing. Normally I try to get to the poem very quickly, but since this is National Poetry Month, I figured as Poet Laureate, I should probably have at least a few extra words to justify the title. I'd like to begin by saying that one of the powers of poems is that they ask something increasingly dear to us, which is time. A poem does not give itself to us all at once. It asks us to find meanings in degrees. If you are anything like some of my college students, you may not spend a great deal of time reading poetry. And what many of us know about poems may come mostly from what we encountered in school rather than the living, diverse landscape I think that poetry really is. I do want to say that poetry is not just a dusty sonnet in a textbook, not that there's anything wrong with the sonnets or textbooks. Poems are acts of exploration. They are acts of discovery. They help us recognize what matters most in ourselves and in one another, how we face fear, how we change, how we find our way, and of course, how we love. The poem I'll read to you tonight, I think, is about that power. It draws on Ariadne, who is a figure from Greek myth, who gives Theseus the thread that helps him enter the labyrinth and return. And I think it's okay for us to see a poem as a kind of labyrinth. I'll add as an aside, the difference between a labyrinth and a maze is a maze you get lost in, a labyrinth always steers you to its center. This poem will also reference Knossos, which is on the island of Crete. It's the ancient palace long associated with that story, and it's now where frescoes of figures vaulting over bulls still remain on the walls. And the title of the poem is Ariadne as Tour Guide. Every April, they remember me. Well, not exactly. It's the more tasteful version, you know, the one with sandals, good cheekbones, manageable sorrow. They ask for a map, preferably one that is color-coded, clear exits, estimated time to completion. I give them thread. They ask if it's symbolic. They ask if there's a QR code. I say yes, of course, but that won't help when your hand creases worn walls, when each deliberation fatally steers you centerward, when the animal panic learns the shape of your ribs. They ask after the monster as if it kept office hours, as if it were not already haunting their borrowed faces. The labyrinth was never punishment. Sometimes it was grief, sometimes appetite. The monster was never only a monster. And poems are just threads to follow that someone left behind. Once, on a wall at Knossos, they painted bodies airborne over the blue-backed bull. I think every good poem does this, palms finding purpose to clear obsidian-capped horns. So here, take a strand, tie it to your wrist, enter whatever you must. If your return changed, that's the point. Thank you. Okay, I will stay right here.

OK.

Thank you. That was beautiful, Michael. Thank you. So this is for National Poetry Month. It's the 30th anniversary. Whereas in 1996, the Academy of American Poets established the month of April as National Poetry Month, making 2026 the 30th anniversary. National Poetry Month seeks to highlight the extraordinary legacy and ongoing achievement of American poets, introducing Americans to the pleasures and the benefits of reading poetry, bringing poets and poetry to the public in creative and innovative ways, and making poetry a part of our children's education. whereas under the leadership and direction of the Academy of American Poets, National Poetry Month is now the largest literary celebration in the world. National Poetry Month provides an opportunity to celebrate the expressiveness, delight, and pure charm of poetry. It is a special occasion that reminds us of the integral role of poets and poetry in our cultures. Poetry helps us appreciate the world around us with one another. Do you think of one another? Can't spit it out today. Poetry is an essential part of the arts and humanities and affects every aspect of life in America today, including education, the economy, community pride, and development. Whereas poetry has produced some of the nation's leading creative artists and has inspired other artists in fields such as music, theater, film, dance, and the visual arts. Now, therefore, I, Catherine Cat Moy, Mayor of the City of Fairfield, do hereby proclaim April 2026 as National Poetry Month in the City of Fairfield. I call upon public officials, educators, librarians, and citizens of Fairfield to celebrate the cultural riches our community has to offer and to recognize the important role poetry plays in our lives and I'm going to present this to our poet laureate.

Our next presentation, Proclamation Declaring National Volunteer Appreciation Month, presented by Vice Mayor Pam Bertani to Executive Director of Court Appointed Special Advocates, Casa Solano, Erin Eckhart. Good evening. This is for you, and I shall read from it. You can stand right there.

National volunteer appreciation week, April 19th through the 25th, 2026. Whereas having begun in 2001 as a special court program and becoming an independent nonprofit in 2025 court appointed special advocates or CASA of Solano County has served children in our community's foster care system for more than two decades. And whereas CASA of Solano County recruits, trains, and supports volunteer advocates who serve abused and neglected children navigating the foster care system. In 2025, over 100 trained volunteers provided consistent one-on-one support to 108 young adults in Solano County's child welfare system, becoming a stable and caring presence in their lives of children who have experienced trauma and instability. And whereas these efforts resulted in a 53% reduction in the waiting lists of children in need of an advocate and a 56% increase in volunteer recruitment. Whereas in 2026, 84 children are currently receiving advocacy and 94 volunteers are actively serving with Casa of Solano County, anticipating continued growth and impact by year's end. And whereas CASA launched its Bridge Advocacy Program in late 2025 to ensure that no child is forgotten, addressing the critical gap during the initial waiting period when children first enter foster care. And whereas every single child referred to CASA of Solano County, regardless of waitlist status, received quarterly check-ins, birthday recognition, access to group social activities, use of the Casa store, and most importantly, the reassurance that they have not been forgotten, helping transform uncertainty into connection and into hope. Now therefore, Mayor Catherine Katmoy of the City of Fairfield hereby encourages all members of our community to support CASA of Solano County and to learn more about this remarkable organization dedicated to serving our most vulnerable youth. So congratulations on that.

Congratulations.

Thank you, Mayor Moy and Vice Mayor Bertani, council members. Good evening. I have the pleasure of serving as CASA of Solano County's Executive Director. I want to thank you for the proclamation recognizing Volunteer Appreciation Week and the work of CASA. It means a great deal to our organization and more importantly to the volunteers who give their time to the most vulnerable children in our community. Casa of Solano County recruits, trains, and supports volunteer court appointed special advocates, community members who are appointed by a judge and walk alongside children in foster care, advocate for their needs, and provide the kind of consistent presence that too many of these children have never had. Our volunteers are the heart of this work. They show up to court hearings, school meetings, foster homes. They make phone calls, write reports, build trust with children who have no reason to trust. They do this not for pay or recognition, but because they believe that every child deserves someone in their corner. The impact of that commitment is real. You just heard some numbers shared in the proclamation, so I'm going to say this. Shortly after I started working at CASA just over a year ago, I heard one of the CASA kids say to their advocate, you're the only one that's not paid to be here. And that really hit me. I've spent nearly 30 years in social work. I've always been paid to be in the room, and that's a privilege. I dedicate my life to this, but for that young person in that moment, that's what they needed, and that's what we provide. And our bridge advocacy program that we're very excited that we were able to launch in October ensures that every child is seen and heard while they're waiting for a long-term volunteer that can be matched. Because no child should ever wait for help alone. We are grateful to the city of Fairfield for honoring this work and for your continued partnership in keeping our children safe, seen, and supported. Thank you. You can come up.

Go down there too, Dorise.

Our next presentation, the City Key presentation to Jesse Branch for his service, presented by Mayor Moy.

Hi, Jesse. How are you? Good to see you. Good, good.

Are we gonna run the film first? I think, yeah, why don't we do that? Is that okay? We'll stand here and watch? Okay.

The mouse is doing something. There you go.

Hello, my name is Jesse Branch, a.k.a. Sergeant Major Branch, United States Marine Corps, retired.

You introduced yourself as Sergeant Major. What does it mean to you to be called Sergeant Major?

It means a lot to me because I feel that I came a long way being in the military and that title carries a lot of weight and it's recognized by practically everybody. I'd like to be called Sergeant Rage.

What made you choose the Marine Corps at age 17?

Well at 17 I was graduating from high school and as I mentioned before I lived in South Carolina which was basically a poverty state at that time this was in the 50s and I wanted to find a way that I could assist my family income and what really inspired me was I had an uncle that was in the Marine Corps in 1942 and he became the first black officer in the Marine Corps and talking to him He gave me some pointers, hearing about the Marine Corps, knowing that it was a brotherhood and everybody got along together. So that's what kind of inspired me. I had no fear of being, you know, like an outcast or coming from a poverty state.

So you served both in Korea and Vietnam?

Yes, I was in Korea. I was in the Battle of Polkchop Hill, which was near the end of the Korean War and it was really a frightening experience. I was wounded in Korea and I was able to rescue one of my fellow Marines that was severely wounded and moving him from the point of impact to a safety point was really good I didn't remember anything. Right after that, I just kind of blacked out. So it was an experience that I would probably never forget. During that time, when the war was over in Korea, for over a year, I would have nightmares about the fighting and the loss of lives, etc., So that was kind of a lasting thing for me. And I had to go through therapy to really get back to my normal self.

What is next for you?

I want to continue to be a part of the community that I live in. I wanted to continue to be a servant for the community. And what I mean by that is to serve others. I really think that my purpose here as an individual is to serve those that's in need. And there is a lot of need in the city of Fairfield. My goal is to try to assure especially the veterans that they have affordable place to live, be able to get a job, And those are one of the things that we're working on and I'm really proud to be a part of that.

Is there something that I didn't ask and it's important to you and you want people to know about?

In closing, I would like to say that it's important for people not to give up. It's important for them to get involved. If they see something, say something. The only way to make things better is to be together. Together we stand. Divided we fall.

So we have a proclamation, Sergeant Major, if you will, because today is Jesse Branch Day. Whereas Sergeant Major Jesse Branch, United States Marine Corps, retired, is a distinguished veteran and dedicated community leader whose life reflects a steadfast commitment to service, perseverance, and unity. Jesse Branch enlisted in the United States Marine Corps at the age of 17 in 1951, having grown up in Columbia, South Carolina during a time of poverty and segregation, and was one of only three black recruits among 40, demonstrating remarkable courage, resilience, and determination in the face of adversity. And inspired by his uncle, one of the first black officers in the Marine Corps, and guided by the ideals of brotherhood and shared purpose, he chose a path of honor and dedicated military service. Following his distinguished military career, Sergeant Major Branch has continued to serve his community with exceptional dedication, particularly in Fairfield, where his leadership and involvement have made a lasting impact. He was recognized as a 2018 Veteran of the Year for the 11th Assembly District, honored as Solano County Veteran of the Year, in 2019 and served with distinction as Grand Marshal of Fairfield's 2019 Veterans Day Parade. His civic contributions include serving as a planning commissioner, an eight-year term on the Fairfield Community Services Commission, advisory support to the Youth Commission, and advocacy for the Fairfield Adult Recreation Center, also known as the Senior Center. He currently serves as chairman of deacons at Bethel Community Church of Fairfield and served as house manager for the Fairfield Center for Creative Arts, further exemplifying his commitment to faith and community enrichment. His service to Solano Community College spans more than 30 years, including 24 years as a community services officer from 1990 to 2014, during which time he demonstrated unwavering dedication to campus safety and mentorship. and his leadership as president of the Solano Athletic Boosters for more than 12 years earned him the distinguished title of President Emeritus. In recognition of his outstanding contributions, he was inducted into the Solano College Hall of Fame in 1998 and awarded an Honorary Associate of Arts degree in May 2011. Now, therefore, I, Catherine Cat Moy, Mayor of the City of Fairfield, I do hereby proclaim April 21st, 2026 as Jesse Branch Day. and declare that we honor and celebrate Sergeant Major Jesse Branch for his exemplary service to the United States of America and for his unwavering dedication to the Fairfield community. I have loved Sergeant Major. branch for a long time, like we all have, and watched him and all the things that he did for Fairfield, never asking for recognition. But I was surprised when I asked whether he had received yet a key to the city. I know that former mayor, Harry T. Price, was a good friend of yours, and he loved you deeply. And so I know he's smiling down now as I present to you a key to the city. And we gave you some treats too. I know you've had jelly bellies before, but here you go, a little pack of things.

You know I have a sweet tooth, right?

Yeah. And do you have a few things you'd like to say?

Madam Mayor, Vice Mayor, members of City Council, and City Manager, I graciously accept the key to the city in the proclamation. It's not very much that I have to say everything that has already been said. I'm not a person to toot my own horn, so to speak. I'm glad to see that my whole contingent or part of my whole contingency of Marine Corps League is here supporting me tonight. I'm also glad to see that my church family, Bethel Community Church, is supporting me tonight. Last but not least, my family. Most of my family are not residents of Fairfield. They are across the nation. And what happened when they found out, my texts and my email were bombarded. So they are probably watching and saying, what is this guy doing? But I just want to thank everybody that's here. The fact is, I didn't do it alone. I want to thank all of you, especially the Marine Corps family, my family, and my church family for the continuous support that I receive on a daily basis. Thank you very much. Hello, my name is Jesse Branch. Shouldn't you be taking a picture with all of us? Shouldn't you be taking a picture with all of us?

Shouldn't you be taking a picture with all of us?

Shouldn't you be taking a picture with all of us? Shouldn't you be taking a picture with all of us? Shouldn't you be taking a picture with all of us? Thank you all. Right in here. Well, thank you, thank you.

I'll just be sitting here up front. Thank you. Got one more. Hold on. Come on, man. Come on.

Don't forget your treats.

Yeah, that's right. Thank you. All right.

And our next presentation is the youth air protectors presented by Willa Groover from Sustainable Solano. She's the resilient communities program manager. Hi. Maybe she's not here.

Sure, that's great.

Well, first of all, I'm not Willa.

Are you Dr. Bonnie Hamilton?

Yes, I'm Dr. Bonnie Hamilton. And first of all, I just want to say that it's a hard act to follow Sergeant Major Jesse Branch. Although I do feel it's old home week here. My father was in the Marine Corps and served in Iwo Jima during World War II. And actually, when he passed, he was a city councilman in the city of Santa Monica. But also, I was a CASA volunteer for four years, as Councilmember Panduro is aware. And I would encourage anyone here to consider volunteering. It's absolutely a wonderful experience, and it really gives back to the community and to the children that need. I want to first of all say thank you to Honorable Mayor Moy and council members, staff and good evening fellow citizens of Fairfield and thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak. I am a member of the board of Sustainable Solano, and Sustainable Solano has been working with this group of young youth air protectors from Armio High School for the past three months. Over the course of their program, the interns have assisted with our air quality community engagement in Fairfield and Suisun. They've learned about and discussed air quality issues affecting our cities and gathered community feedback, completed a tree installation project at City Church in Fairfield. They've also helped to gather feedback needed to plan a countywide air quality summit, which I hope you will join us for on October 17th at Sassoon, the Sassoon Joseph Nelson Center. Today, the youth ear protectors will be sharing their final projects with you. They each selected an area of Fairfield that they feel they have personal experience with, completed research and modeled infrastructure improvements they'd like to see that will improve the walkability of our city and the local air quality. I hope that their presentations will be both inspiring and informative to the council and to our citizens. And with that, I'm proud to introduce our Fairfield interns. We have Joshua Palo Ibrahim, Ian Sudaria, and Bryson Thompson. And first is Joshua.

So I think there are slides.

Yes, go ahead. I'm going to let y'all. I'm gonna let the young folks take this one.

Good evening, everyone. I hope everyone's doing all right, holding on, doing good. All right. So my project was the North Texas Street redesign. Being a local Fairfield-Tasun resident, I use the street every day to commute to school, work, golf practice. The list goes on. I use it for many functions. That's my personal experience with the street itself. So I did notice a couple things with it and I thought that with a little bit of research redesign would be really good to be implemented and hopefully it can be. So I'd like to start off with some issues with the street itself. As we all know, it's a really busy street. It has a lot of traffic. And being in Fairfield, we are by Travis Air Force Base, so it does have pretty poor air quality because of everything going on at Travis. So, yeah. um i'll get on to not great walkability and a little bit i want to save that for last so some things about the street is that at times it can be unsafe there has been some serious traffic incidents and accidents with pedestrians itself so yeah i think Going back to not great walkability, something that we learned through this internship is that the importance of walkability is basically how easy something is to walk. So, for example, sidewalks, if they're not too wide enough, people may be less drawn and attracted to walk on them because there isn't enough space. They may feel less safe on there. So, yeah, that's why I said those things are the issues so far. So some research that I conducted is that the best possible situation, I think, to improve it would be sidewalk expansion. So sidewalk expansion enhances accessibility and can provide more area for foot traffic, offering an environment that has more walkability while simultaneously ultimately improving slow traffic. These expansions like curb extensions or bull bouts reduce crossing distances for pedestrians, enhances visibility for both pedestrians and drivers, and alleviates congestion in general. So incorporating all of these methods together will help improve the safety of the street and the environment. Some things I highlighted from the sidewalk expansion is that it enhances walkability, improves traffic flow, increases accessibility, and some things that I would like to see is curb extensions and bulb outs, the implementation of those. It would create more room for all users, especially those with mobility aids, so creating more space ultimately on the sidewalk for those that do need those. Okay, so something similar that I found in my research is an example of this. This was from the Friends of the Urban Forest Initiative in San Francisco. This movement ultimately expands sidewalk capacity, and they do it by removing unused asphalt or concrete and replacing it with sidewalk gardens, actually. These sidewalk gardens are landscaped shallow depressions that are designed to capture, treat, and infiltrate stormwater runoff from in previous surfaces like parking lots and roofs. This design allows for rainwater to soak into the soil, reducing the strain on San Francisco's aging combined sewer system during heavy rains. That's what the research showed. I want to do something similar to this. Something that I saw on the streets is that there's not a lot of shade. Seeing all these students every day using the street, going to Fairfield High or Armio, there will be 90-degree-plus weather days where they're just walking the whole strip. And I just feel really bad because there isn't much shade, and they can get really hot out there. So that's one thing I wanted to implement. Okay, so for my redesign itself, you guys might have to bear with me. I'm not the greatest at technology. I'm more of a hands-on person. So what I did in this example here is I lengthened the sidewalk to nine feet and said I think it was around four feet. And I also implemented, if you see right beside the sidewalk, beside the red writing, is two feet of planters just to make a little division between the sidewalk and the bike lane. It's in red because it does go over the actual street limit width. It's an expansion of it, so that's my redesign. This is pretty poor too. I'm not the greatest at technology. In my design, I do want to implement tree growth in between the sidewalk once it's expanded just to create more shade and make it more walkable for the students and the community that does use it. In conclusion, if we were able to implement the possibility of sidewalk expansion, this opens the door to many more environmental benefits. North Texas is a very long street. There's the place at the end towards Paradise Valley where it's more suitable and more tailored for people walking it, and then there's more of the busy street side where it's more tailored towards cars. Overall, if we were to implement all of these, I think that the air quality would become a lot better because It would be more tailored towards active transport instead of just solely the use of cars, and I think it would be very beneficial to the community. Thank you.

Hello, everybody. My name is Ian. Which one? Oh. My project is the intersection of Travis Boulevard and Fairfield Ave. Some things I've observed on this road is that the sidewalks are very narrow and old, and they're like right next to the cars and stuff. You know, they're always going like 30, 40, sometimes like faster than that. I also see like bikers and stuff, they're always like either riding in the gutters right next to the cars, or they're like sharing the sidewalk with people. This is an overview of my location. This is my redesign. I added some bike lanes. I wanted to make the sidewalks bigger because the whole point is to make it more walkable and bikeable. How this relates to air quality is when you make it more safe to walk, people are going to walk more and people are going to drive less, which means cars will pollute less. Yeah, that's it.

Hello, my name is Bryson Thompson, and this is my Union Avenue safety and protected sidewalks presentation. So my research question is, do people really feel safe on Union Avenue? I say that because when I look through Union Avenue at the eyes of a student, When I look through the Union Avenue at the eyes of the student, it doesn't look that safe from a lot of different perspectives, simply because it has a lot of problems wrong with it, such as minimal lighting, not desirable bike lanes, and cars can be speeding at some times. Some context about Union Avenue is that it's a high-traffic corridor. Like I said before, there's fast-moving vehicles and limited bike lane protection. Also, there's gaps in safe walking areas, and it can be difficult to safely cross on some crosswalks. So some reasons why safety matters, obviously. is because higher vehicle speeds often increase crash severity mixed with traffic issues and risk for walkers and cyclists along with the lack of separation could also help reduce perceived safety. And what my research shows is that road separation improves safety outcomes over time. And that speed is a key factor and a pretty big reason on why crashes can be worse. And also that protected lanes also help reduce conflicts over time. And cities see more walking and biking after upgrades because they have a better reason to actually want to use the stuff they're given. So something that a protected walkway would look like would be physical barriers like curbs, billiards, or planters, or maybe even buffer zones between cars and bikes to really separate them to make sure that there's no really connection between them or middle connection so there's not any interaction. Also a protected bike lane, protected from traffic, would also lead to safer intersections and clear signals. in better lighting and visibility. So this is a case study on one of the first protected bike lanes in New York City. Because as you all know, it's a pretty big city, a lot of stuff going on. And they might not have a lot of space for bikes or walkable streets or something like that. But this physical separation from traffic added more like More reported reduction in injuries, which made it safer in that way. Alongside with increased bike use after installation, which kind of reiterates the idea that people want to use the stuff they're given if it's actually safe and useful. And this next one is pretty much the same thing, so I'll just let you guys read that. So my conclusion is that students are likely to feel unsafe on high traffic roads without separation, and also that protected walkways will improve safety and comfort. Design works best when it's continuous and well connected. Some surveys I did, the question was, do you think Union Avenue would benefit from better walkways or bike paths? And I surveyed 23 people, and I'll just let the data show for itself. And that most people would want it to be safer. And another thing is that most people don't traditionally feel safe on Union Avenue when walking or biking. So yeah. Response from surveys, we're really just talking about lights and how it's not always completely safe when you start and that cars like often move fast since it's a pretty long strip of, it's a pretty long street and cars tend to go fast on those types of streets. Some references I got was from the Federal Highway Administration and Highway Traffic Safety Administration and some other ones, such as the Department of Transportation and the Portland Bureau of Transportation Reports and some other ones. So this is what my vision or what I hope that Union Avenue could somehow, like, would look like in the future. As you can see, there's bike lanes, there's more lights, which would really hope that, no, which would really benefit the people that can't really see it all that well because it could definitely, like, fade it over some time. And the lights are definitely there to keep people safe when it's dark and when they can't fully see the bike lanes or they can't fully see where to stop, where to go. And yeah, that's my presentation.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. They were all excellent.

I really want to commend these students. These presentations are amazing. I mean, really, this is like scientific methodology. This is the scientific method that you just showed us. So thank you for being amazing. What grade are you in?

Well, Josh is a senior. Bryce is a freshman. And Ian, I believe, is a sophomore.

And I think that they should all apply to work for the city of Fairfield, California.

Thank you all.

So now we'll move on to public comments, Madam Clerk, and we will keep them to two minutes each, please.

Okay, persons wishing to address the City Council on subjects not on the agenda but within the jurisdiction of the Council may do so at this time. The Council cannot discuss or take action on matters not on the agenda for this meeting, but Council members may briefly respond to statements made or questions raised by the public, ask for clarification from staff, refer the matter to staff, Request staff to report back to the council at a subsequent meeting or place the matter on a future agenda. If you're online to speak on an agenda item, please use the raise your hand feature or press star nine on your phone. And this evening speakers are limited to two minutes per item as determined by the mayor. And our first speaker is EJ Johnson.

Good evening, mayor, vice mayor, and council members. I'm EJ with another update from the downtown theater. This weekend, don't miss House of Floyd, an incredible Pink Floyd tribute delivering full concert experience, iconic music, stunning lights, lasers, and that impressive atmospheric sound that fills the whole venue. We are also excited to welcome Solano Winds and Voenna back in the first weekend of May. MST's Children's Theatre will perform Into the Woods Junior from May 15th through the 17th. we've got a highly anticipated Missouri Street Theater 2026 to 2027 season announcement. School of Rock kicks things off in July, followed by Sweeney Todd in September, Rocky Horror, of course, in October, Disney's Frozen in December, and Come From Away in March 2027. Behind the scenes, we're investing in the next generation of technicians. We hosted a hands-on lighting in front of house master class this week where new designers got to learn and train with a live Stone Temple Pilots tribute band on stage. And if you missed it last weekend, Flock of Sea Girls absolutely brought the house down with a full 1980s throwback party. And finally, a sincere thank you to our mayor, council members, and council staff for your continued support for the downtown theater. We truly appreciate the partnership and look forward to everything ahead. Thank you so much. Have a great evening.

Thank you.

Next is Ryan Massano to be followed by Sue Campbell.

Good evening, one and all. It's been really nice listening to this. Do I actually get three minutes? That would be fantastic.

Two minutes.

Okay.

I did want to say, first of all, that the presentations are fantastic, but two things. Number one, if the public could speak first, that would be great. I would have stayed and listened to it all, but, you know, if the public, because a lot of the people, they come like maybe once every five years, whereas some of us come like all the time, or we intend to, and so I think it's important that we all listen to each other. Secondly, if three minutes is pretty important, but I came To speak about a lot of things, I don't have time to talk about everything, but since I don't have time to talk about everything, I have my own website. It's masanonews.com, which there's at least 1,000 books, which are not in any libraries really in America, and I just got done going through all 48 states, so I know. So these books, if you are on social media, then you're missing out on a large part of the picture. And... Yeah, it's a lot of deception, so there's not even, I had three minutes prepared, but this is dramatically altered by comments, but I'll be back next time, and thank you everyone for joining me.

Thank you. Next is Sue Campbell to be followed by Carol Haddock.

Where's the microphone?

Not that I need one, but it'll just, it's yeah, it's built. Does everyone hear me?

It is for that man who just stood there, that Sergeant major that I'm a principal person. Do you know why? Because he gave me freedom to stand up here and say what I know to be truth. And I have to tell you that that was one thing you guys really got right. I was really into that. And one of the things I'm maddest about with Vista Ridge, in fact, I'm absolutely infuriated about it, is the fact that you've been telling people veterans will be moving in there and they will not. That's step one. They will not, Scott. They will not, Doug. We know they will not. We have the paperwork. But most of what we have from the last time we were here is that the city of Fairfield has bought this moss rid behemoth of a building and put over a $19 million mortgage on it. That's what you've done to the city. And you can't look me in the eye and say you haven't, because we now have appraisal figures which show us that this building is no more going to be worth $7 million at the most, $650,000 in land value. Where's the rest of the money? I mean this from the bottom of my heart. That man gave me the right to stand here and ask you that question. Where's that other money going? Now here's the news. Not only did you do that to the city of Fairfield, but we will be in it for 55 years. Do you know what the interest on that loan alone is going to be? Millions. Why are you doing this to our kids? Why are you doing this to our community? And don't look at me like I'm some dumb-ass woman, because I really do study this. I'm a real estate investor. I'm shocked at these figures. It's criminal. And I want as much time as all these people had to tell us about how wonderful Fairfield is and all these tra-la-la things that are going on, where we're frankly going down the hole.

Your time is up, Sue.

Well, I need to say one more thing. May I? Catherine, you all had five to six minutes to talk about all these beautiful things.

I know. You can come back. You can write to us.

I came in here brokenhearted, but now I'm just mad.

Next is Carol Haddock.

Good evening. I'm representing the Citizens Against Vista Ridge, as I have been for many months here. And we're here to ask you to reconsider the vote of November 18th, given the new information that has come to light, including the appraisals that we have. Our group has posted a petition online, which you all received, and we expected to have a presentation tonight. We're very disappointed that you pulled it, And I find it amazing that Latana Jones is always absent when there's a Vista Ridge thing on the agenda. And it's his knee hurts or his family's sick.

Sorry, his mother's in hospice.

Well, I'm sorry, but that's just somebody else would be here in his stead. Because we have to, we cannot postpone this. We are demanding that the city of Fairfield conduct independent audits into the $12 million purchase price of the Sure State Hotel and the $14 million build plan provided by Danco in 2025. I asked Latana Jones for this in October of 2025 and the city manager was copied. They replied, this was not necessary, we do not need oversight. Well, the contract with Danco and HCD states that Fairfield City is the oversight Where is the oversight? And you posted that contract on the November 18th agenda. Um, so this is all new news, conflicting appraisals of the property. January 25 says $12 million, as is. Comps from El Cerrito and Castro Valley hotels, those are more expensive cities. No mention of state of disrepair of the Fairfield Hotel. And now we have a new appraisal saying it's worth $7.2 million and only insured value of $5 million. Where's the difference? Whose pocket has it? Why spend $26 million on a project? Why would anyone on this council? No one would invest $1 of your own money into this. What a boondoggle. Council was not informed of what the value of was. You weren't given enough information to make the vote. And we demand that you reconsider your vote. Your time is up. And the time is up. And I could see here for five more minutes.

say we could come back there where you just told me I could come back I have a few more things I'd like to say at the next meeting yeah well we are all in right now well you did this to our city please please your you already spoke please

responding could you speak to that so

Obviously, council has the discretion to make comments to public comments, but not to respond directly because it's not been agendized for discussion. You can instruct staff to take further action. You can respond generally. However, this case is a different situation. We currently have active litigation where Ms. Haddock is a named plaintiff against the city of San Mateo. or city of Fairfield, excuse me. So as your attorney, I do not advise that you respond to any comments made by Ms. Haddock or anyone that she claims to represent. She claims to be representing citizens against Vista Ridge. So it's my advice as the attorney for the city of Fairfield that you do not respond to any of the comments made because there is active litigation we have a demur hearing set in july we have a meet and confer with miss haddock's attorney next week or maybe even tomorrow so it is my strong advice that you do not respond to any of the comments made since we don't know who miss haddock is representing i will not respond to her because under rules of professional conduct 4.2 i am not allowed to respond or communicate with a represented plaintiff she has an attorney and I must speak with her attorney or have consent to speak to her. So I will not be responding to anything raised on this matter under the rules of professional conduct. Regarding the timing, it is in the mayor's and the council's sound discretion on the amount of time to set for public comment. You've set it at two minutes, and you can have it at two minutes.

The question about it being advertised as three minutes, does it say under that that the mayor can, depending on?

It says speakers are limited to three minutes per item as determined by the mayor.

Okay, so we'll continue with two minutes.

I'll state again, Madam Mayor, it is in your sound discretion to set the time limits for public comments. And I will also state for the mayor that under the rules of decorum for city council, you have the right to demand a certain amount of decorum and respect in this chamber. You are the presider. And if people are not giving you and the rest of the council the due respect that you deserve, you can ask them to leave the chambers.

Thank you, how many cards do we have left madam clerk? Just four so I am going to go ahead and put it back to three minutes and allow those who spoke all ready to come up and Get another minute Thank you, Madam Clerk.

So just regarding Vista Ridge or? Any of them. EJ Johnson already left, but she finished her comment. Ryan Masano, then he gets one more minute. Is he still here? He left. OK. Sue Campbell, then.

Okay, thank you, Madam Mayor. It was advertised as three minutes, and so we were prepared for three minutes. I appreciate that.

Yeah, we'll change the agenda so it says that the mayor will set it.

The thing that I'm concerned with here is that U.S. Attorney Bill Asseli has stated since October that Project Homekey has wasted billions of taxpayer dollars. And last month doubled down on this. Said that the SoCal fraud was just the tip of the iceberg. The White House has named J.D. Vance as head of the fraud investigations in several states. In California, they are going after Project Homekey and Hospice Medicare Fund. The federal government has already cut permanent supportive housing funding from 87% to 30%. Now they are saying that California, they may cut it entirely. We have no idea if funds will be available for this 55-year contract. And I suspect they won't. And guess what? Hugh and I as property managers have seen these conversions all over the state being boarded up. And people are now being arrested in Southern California for being involved in this kind of a fraudulent thing. It's the truth that came from a reliable source. I'm just saying that we need to be seriously careful about what we're doing. Thank you, mayor.

Carol Haddock.

Thank you, mayor. And I understand what the attorney is saying and I've been told the same thing. So he's, he's correct. Um, but what we want to say is, you know, we want an audit. conducted and determine if the purchase price of the hotel was fair, the build price is fair, the after build price valuation is accurate, and confirm the funding for the vouchers and services for 55 years. Only then should progress continue on this project. If the taxpayer money is found to be wasted for profit of homeless business companies, then consider a better use of the property, like commercial and upper scale residential. you know there's 300 beds at shelter solano or shelter whatever inc that you know less than what 20 or filled why are we doing this we need to take our city back and we need to stop all forward projects on vista ridge now before more money goes down the drain you can't take it back when it's in a carpenter's pocket and that carpenter raised a hammer and he earned it but right now it's an escrow and you can examine this and find out if you made a bad deal thank you

June Johnson would like to speak on this same matter.

As we know, the money that we are spending on this sisterage project is deeply concerning, and there are many, many, many citizens that are against this project. And now we are listening to the city attorney speaking about the legal fees that are going to be involved with this project. This is deeply concerning. Why are we doing this?

Okay, next we have Surya Desari.

And he has three minutes.

Being a military child is not about the privileges. It's about the honor and responsibilities we have. It can be hard to move often and lose friends, but it's not a final goodbye. It's just to see you later. You have a chance to start over and make new friends. We give and receive, and that's why I'm happy to call myself a military child. Thank you Mayor Moy and everybody for this opportunity.

Thank you.

Next, Ashton Taylor.

Hey, before he starts, both of these are fourth graders. They are mom and dad, one of them active duty, Travis Air Force Base. This is the month of the military child, and I happen to have the honor of being the board president of Travis Unified School District, and both of these young men volunteered to come here and talk to you. You all ready? Thank you.

Go ahead. Sorry, but I am fifth grade. I will be reading a poem about how it feels to be a military child. My title, The Good and Sad Part of Being a Military Child by Ashton Taylor III. As a military kid, I feel happy most of the time, but sometimes I feel sad too. I feel happy because I get to travel to different places around the world with my family. I also get to meet new friends wherever we move, which is really fun. Sometimes I feel sad because when we move, I have to leave friends behind. I know how that feels because I've had to move from Washington State to New Jersey and then to California. It is hard to say goodbye to friends you care about. I also feel sad when my parents have to deploy. My mom has deployed twice, and my dad used to be a loadmaster, so he would leave about twice a month. One cool thing is that when my parents come home, they usually bring me and my brother, me, my brother and I, cool gifts from the places they went. That always makes us happy and helps us feel better. Lastly, to all the military kids out there, it is okay to feel sad when you move or when your parents are gone. It is important to remember that time goes by faster when you stay busy. That is what my parents tell us. they keep my brother and I busy with different activities when they're gone. So stay busy, talk to your parents as much as you can, and remember that time will fly, you got this. And thank you Mayor Moy for having us today.

You know, I feel badly that we didn't do a resolution or something for the month of the military child. Could I take a picture with you two? Would you come up here? Just to honor all of you.

Thank you.

You guys are awesome. You're amazing.

Can you look at me, please? Thank you.

They both go to Travis Elementary.

Travis Elementary? Yeah. Oh, look. Look. Oh, up here. They've got goods for you. Scott's the candy man. Right on. Thank you, Council.

That was awesome.

Thank you. What a great job. And thank you, Matthew, for bringing them in.

Next is Nora Dizon to be followed by David Thacker.

Thank you.

Good evening. Good evening. Since the matter has been pulled, I had planned to say some different things. Instead, I'm just going to say thank you, Mayor Moy, for putting it on the agenda, being willing to bring it back again, and allow us to have our say. And thank you also to the Vice Mayor and Manveer for voting against that. And I hope there's going to be a miracle and that one of you will change your mind soon. But anyway, thank you very much.

Thank you, Nora. Next is David Thacker to be followed by Patrick Williams.

The city council and public depend on honest and factual information from city staff. It is crucial for the council and public to receive factual and truthful information upon which we can make decisions about government processes, not deceptive half truths. Unfortunately, this isn't what's happening. City representatives have for many years either made serious errors or lied to all of us regarding property assessments. That fact is evident in the recent published decision of the California Court of Appeal, Thacker v. City of Fairfield, where it ruled Fairfield demanded illegal assessments from property owners. A city spokesman has advised county departments that only Rolling Hills owners are to receive refunds according to a superior court decision. What makes her information a deceitful half-truth meant to mislead refund seekers is she neglects to include information regarding the published appellate court decision which clarified the California Constitution statewide, not just Rolling Hills or Fairfield. That appellate court ruled the city has been demanding illegal assessments from Fairfield property owners. I expect to hear more misinformation tonight this evening from city spokespersons. One particular spokesperson continues a campaign of misinforming Fairfield property owners, the council, and also the county assessor, county council, county auditor, and tax collector, all of which have passed the half-truth misinformation to taxpayers. This must stop. If you would like more information, my email address to which you can send any question or concern is fairfieldblight, fairfieldblight is one word, at outlook.com. In addition, I need your help. If the city fails to refund multiple years of illegal assessments, we will need one property owner from each affected city LLMD to serve as a plaintiff in individual lawsuits. There will be no cost to you. If you are interested in being a plaintiff demanding refunds, please email me at fairfieldblightatoutlook.com. Thank you.

Next is Patrick Williams.

All right, I'm good to speak. How you doing, Kay Patrice? Not even looking at me. All right. So my question to everyone that lives here, does Kay Patrice belong in office? She currently holds... elected office while operating and maintaining a board of networks, businesses, nonprofits, and has sat on quite a few different boards. She's involved in the homeless industrial complex. She's also been funded by the same people that are behind California Forever, such as the Napa Solano Building and Construction Trades Coalition. And then she decides to put her nose in Sassoon's business, backing the city council and the mayor against the people that they're supposed to be listening to in favor of big interest, of interest. She's got ties to Lori Wilson in Sacramento, who was in Sassoon that sold us out and has passed multiple bills that California Forever is going to use against us, against the people that are supposed to be representing us. We could look at her different political actions and her selective alignment in regional governance matters as well. She publicly supports the mayor and city council of Sassoon City against the people. And at the same time is going against Kat Moy, who is standing up against California Forever. I'm sorry, I don't think that's a coincidence. I don't, yeah, seriously, dead serious. Look at her ties. She's tied in with all of these people. She's tied in with all these people. She's got the homeless industrial thing going on. It's all tax victim funded. I'm sorry, we don't choose to pay taxes. Taxation is theft. You're a part of the problem. And I actually think that she needs to be audited because I think there's something going on. Thank you.

No hands raised on line. No more speaker cards. Did anyone else wish to speak? No? OK.

I do. Point of privilege, I mean, we're not going to have the presentation this evening of the appraisal.

Right.

I just want to say that I am really disturbed by this appraisal. Because we did not as a City Council have this document before us when we voted for Vista Ridge in November and it passed by four to three vote. That's not fair. This is a material document or at least it should be to this City Council's determination on the propriety of Vista Ridge. This appraisal speaks for itself. I am not an appraisal expert. but I can read. And what this appraisal says is amazing. And we need the two main people from the staff who orchestrated this deal, meaning the city manager, David Gassaway, and LaTan Jones, they need to be present and accounted for in these chambers when we talk about this moving forward. Because I'm very concerned because these material facts were not before this city council in November. This thing is dated in February, 2026. And some of the highlights are this market value, 620,000 bucks. perspective value when fully built out and stabilized, 7.2 million. But we paid 12 million for this property, what?

Hear, hear. Did you hear that? Hear, hear.

Okay, and then we're gonna, pay overall about $26 million for a property that when it's fully built out is worth $7.2 million. That cannot make sense. Absolutely. That cannot make sense. Oh, and by the way, somebody did mention, guess how much it's going to be insured for? $5 million. What? No, no, no. I'm just saying, this is me. I'm speaking as a city council member. I'm saying that I am very concerned, and if I really want to be truthful, I'm actually furious that this came out. I mean, what are we doing? I'm furious. I'm furious. And I'm embarrassed. I'm embarrassed. Because when my, our constituents say, wait a second, what? I don't know. I don't know. And this document was not even produced for tonight for the presentation, this appraisal. It is a public document, and you can view it in its entirety at my website in the info hub. I'm just telling you now. So I don't even know what the protocol is, but I recommend that this city council reconsider the November vote based on the production of new material information regarding this project. And that wasn't rhetorical, Madam Mayor. I'm actually requesting, this is a material document, and it should be. And if it's not, then that's a whole other question. But this should be a material document to our vote on this project. It was not before us in November, and it hasn't been produced officially in any agenda packet. And that's not right, you guys. Come on, really.

Mr. City Attorney, I am going to re-agendize this, but I need to speak with you, I guess, offline to see if we can legally reconsider this. And it sounds like hundreds of people have signed this document as well, asking for it.

I mean, and Madam Mayor, I just want to be very clear that I'm saying that this is a material document. this is a factual document that was not before the City Council in November of 2025 when we voted for this project that is a material misrepresentation of facts in my opinion and I so I madam mayor you and I will talk with the city attorney actually madam mayor yes

I find myself in a very awkward position. Okay. Me too.

All right, let him speak, please.

May I speak?

Yes, please.

Okay. I take my duties and responsibilities as an attorney very seriously. I take my ethical duties to represent my client to the best of their abilities very seriously. I am the assigned city attorney for the city of Fairfield in municipal corporation. I've been appointed by a majority of the city council. I do not represent any individual council member. Right. I represent this body as a municipal corporation. And I've been very clear to this council that that is my role and I take that responsibility very seriously. Yes. Under Rule 4.2 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer is strictly prohibited from communicating directly or indirectly about the subject of representation with a person the lawyer knows is represented by another lawyer in the matter unless they have the consent of the other lawyer. In this matter, there is a pending lawsuit in the Solano County Superior Court, Quincy Tan v. Carol Haddock v. the City of Fairfield. Attached to that summons and complaint were declarations by Vice Mayor Bertani and you, Mayor Moy, in support of the motion brought in that matter. Last week, I talked to both of you over the phone and confirmed that at that point, you were not represented by Michael Chairhorse, the attorney, and did not intend to be. But given the fact that the Vice Mayor has just taken a point of privilege, and spoken frankly about her position as an individual but also a council member. I'm going to exercise my discretion as a city attorney and I'm going to take the role of each council member. My question to you, that I need an honest answer on the record, is do you intend to become involved in the matter of Tan v. Haddock v. City of Fairfield or in any other litigation against the City of Fairfield and Municipal Corporation in active litigation with another attorney? Because if the answer is yes, I'm ethically bound to have no communication with you without consent of your attorney. So I'm going to go down the roll. The question is, do you intend to be represented by another attorney and to bring action against the city of Fairfield? Council Member Carr.

No.

Council Member Pandoro?

No.

Council Member Sandu? No. Council Member Tonneson? No. Council Member Williams?

No.

Vice Mayor Bertani?

I reiterate, no.

Mayor Moy?

No.

Okay. Thank you for that clarification. If at any point in time any member of this council decides it is in their best interest as an individual or as a member of the council to join in litigation against the City of Fairfield as a municipal corporation or to have independent representation, please notify me immediately so I can follow my ethical duties as an attorney to not communicate with anybody who is represented by an attorney. So I apologize if that was awkward, but I have an absolute duty to clarify what I can and cannot speak to this body about. It is very unusual to be in this situation. I did not enjoy that. But I thank you for allowing me to fulfill my ethical obligations.

Absolutely. So again, I will speak to you later another day about what we can and cannot do as far as an agenda item. But I will bring it back.

Mayor, I was told by Councilmember Tonneson that Rick Johnson is online and has been trying to speak.

Oh.

And I wasn't aware of that because it's not indicating the hand is raised, but I did ask Jake to bring him online.

Is that okay? Thank you, yes. Go ahead, Rick.

Good evening. Sorry to take so long. The queue is very slow process. Are you able to hear me okay?

Yes.

Good evening. I am in the city of Santa Clara. I'm in North Carolina right now visiting family members. I wish I was there with you very quickly so I can get through. The $12 million appraisal used in the original paperwork and presented to the city council needs to be reviewed. And this is where Councilman Tonneson can have a real good lever of information. The comparables used were located in a much greater market of demand and that the market in the Bay Area is significantly different than the market here in Fairfield. That also the property was never listed for sale so the the market itself was not able to respond to it and in the appraisal industry and i am a residential appraiser the market helps define the market value which is what is always thought and in the case of this property not having been listed for sale we don't know what the 12 million dollar price is whether it's market value or just a negotiated between the buyer and seller which doesn't in and of itself mean it's not a market value but the lack of market response makes it difficult for the validity of that number to be identified as a market response so a review would should have been done on that particular appraisal separately the new appraisal as they will be discussing brings into consideration that the value of the property will be significantly less than the amount owed. So the city will be upside down for approximately 20 years. During that time, if the project goes sideways, the city will be on the hook for that money. And that's where the presentation tonight would have clarified that, but will be done later. In the case of the Geological Hazard Abatement District, the council exercised financial decision-making to be conservative and not issue a refund to the residents there. I disagree with the decision, but you definitely demonstrated a financial conservative appointment by not issuing that money. please use the same kind of conservative financial outlook by looking at the deal in which the city will be upside down for 20 years, that millions of dollars are going to be at risk. So please use the same kind of conservative thinking financially that was used in the geological hazard abatement district in which the city council voted at the direction of the city council that it was risky and you voted not to give the money back to the people that were overcharged. I disagreed with that, but you were fiscally conservative. Please be fiscally conservative for the city now. Thank you so much. I apologize for the delay in this transition. Your time is up, Rick.

Thank you.

Mayor, can I ask Rick a question?

Yes, sure.

Rick, can you still hear me? It's Scott.

Did he hang up? All right, thank you. Anybody else, Madam Clerk?

No.

Come up here, please.

What is your name, ma'am, so I can feel?

My name is Susan Engle, E-N-G-L-E. I'm a resident of Fairfield for 40-some years now. And I want to let you know that when we're on the Zoom, And we want to make a comment. We don't always, the feature doesn't show up. So we want to put that on record to please make sure that, like the gentleman that just spoke, there was a delay in getting him on. So please make sure that the ability for us to ask questions is available for us.

Thank you so much.

Thanks for letting us know.

All right. So now we are going to turn to the consent calendar.

All matters listed on the consent calendar are to be approved with one motion unless a member of the City Council or the public requests that separate action be taken on a specific item. And item K-2, you moved it to new business, correct?

Yes.

And then item K-3 is being continued to a future date? For a future date, yes. Future council meeting, okay. So you'll be voting on everything but K-2 and K-3?

Is there anything else, council, that you want to remove or make a statement on? All right, I'll entertain a motion.

Sorry, Madam Mayor, do you want to ask if anyone wants to pull?

Oh, any public comment on the consent calendar? I don't have any speaker cards. Thank you.

Oh, I wanted to speak on K2, but we're moving it to. I pulled that so we could. We're moving it to new business, so then you can speak. Thanks.

All right. I'll entertain a motion then.

So moved. Second.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye.

Sorry, I didn't catch. Was it? Thank you.

Thank you. All right. That passed unanimously. So now we'll go to. I guess we're going to go to the public hearings. We should do K2 first, before the public hearing, since we pulled it from there.

So if you could read that, please. Yes. Item K2, amended action approving city facility naming to honor Chris Bell, former firefighter. And our presenter is Ms. Rich Llewellyn. Is that correct?

That is correct, thank you.

Sorry, I didn't have it on my template.

The magic button's under there for the tall guys.

That's as high as it goes.

You're too tall.

Okay. Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council. My name's Rich Llewellyn. I'm a Deputy Fire Chief for the Fairfield Fire Department. I'm honored to be here to represent the department as you consider naming New Fire Station 36 in memory of Chris Bell. Chris served the city of Fairfield for more than 20 years, first becoming associated on May 29th of 2003, which also happened to be his 18th birthday. He served as a employee, both in reserve and full-time capacity, until his retirement due to job-related cancer in November, November 11th of 2024. Though I never had the privilege of working directly with Chris, there are many in the room who did, and I know there's many on the council who knew Chris as well, and by all accounts, he served the city with dedication and honor, and from what I hear, a unique sense of humor. So as you consider this question, I'm here and able to answer any thoughts you might have.

Thank you. Are there any questions? No? All right. Anybody from the public wish to speak? Come on up.

Hi.

Hello. Mike Rudolph, president of FPFA. I just want to speak real quick. Thanks for pulling that. First, I want to say thanks for considering this. Just to give you a piece of background, we've all talked about TRIS. You guys are well aware of TRIS by now. Chris's last bidded fire engine was Engine 36, and he never got to work on it. And now we're building a Station 36, and it warms my heart to think that we're going to name it after someone, and everybody can find their own personal meaning in it. Mine that I'll share, and people can choose to use it if they wish, is when I look at it, it's a... Enjoy today and be present, because tomorrow isn't promised, and that's what I'll carry with me and remember whenever I see that plaque on the side of that building. And I think, especially in our line of work, that we think of those type of things, but that can apply to all of us in this room. So I'll just leave you guys with that. Thanks for the consideration.

Thank you so much. Are there any other public comments? Anybody else? OK. Anybody online? No. All right. I'll bring it back. Any comments here? No? I would like to thank Councilman Sandhu and Councilman Carr for considering this as a committee and then bringing it back here today. So thank you. And I will entertain a motion then

I'll make a motion. Second.

All right. All in favor? Aye. And that was unanimous. So thank you. And 36 will be named after Chris Bell. Thank you. And thank you, Chief. All right, now we're going to move on to public hearings, please.

Public hearing L1, resolutions 2026-65 and 2026-66, North Texas Street Business Improvement District, resolution 2026-65, levying an assessment for calendar year 2026 for the North Texas Street Business Improvement District, and resolution 2026-66, approving an agreement with the North Texas Street Business Association for the calendar year 2026, operation and administration of the North Texas Street Business Improvement District. And our presenter is Dave Zellers, our Director of Community and Economic Development.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. I'll be brief. As you may recall, two weeks ago, I came before you and you voted on two items that night. First was to accept the advisory report and the proposed budget from the North Texas Street Business Association. And the second item was declaring the action that is before you tonight to levy the assessment for the district. THE ANTICIPATED TOTAL ASSESSMENT FOR 2026 IS $58,000. THIS IS UNCHANGED FROM THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT STRUCTURE IN THE YEAR 2000. AND THE PERIOD OF COLLECTION SPANS THE SAME AS THE CALENDAR YEAR, NOT THE FISCAL YEAR. uh... the resolution uh... would approve the operating administration crew with the business association uh... disagreement allows the assessments to be utilized by the business association and as uh... you learned last time two weeks ago uh... some of the things that they are working on uh... uh... so shared by lisa bonington is here again and i did well for The Chamber administers the Business Association, some signature events for the district, some new marketing and other things, and they continue to be an excellent partner to us as the city as we market the North Texas grant program that you all approved earlier this year. And I can share that so far we have approved one new grant of the five applications we received thus far. and so hometown car wash will be getting some money from that program soon otherwise that's all i have for you for tonight all right are there any public speakers on this i don't have any speaker cards for l1 did anyone wish to speak on l1

Thank you. I should have opened the public hearing. Here we go. Ding, ding. OK. Now, any public comments? Sounds like no. Nobody online?

No.

All right, I'm going to close the public hearing and bring it back for council discussion, questions, anything? Colleagues? No? No, ma'am. I'll entertain a motion then.

So moved.

So moved.

Second.

OK, all in favor? Aye. Aye. And that was unanimous.

Thank you, council.

Thank you.

And we're gonna move on now to new business. Thank you. New business M1, discussion and direction regarding the future state of landscaping and lighting maintenance districts and assessment refunds. And our presenter is our city attorney, David Lim.

Okay, honorable mayor, members of the city council, thank you. I'm earning my city attorney chops today, I'll tell you that. I do feel compelled, unfortunately, I have another legal thing I need to share with all of you. So I had a legal disclaimer at the top of this agenda report that on March 17th, 2026, the content of this staff report was presented to the city council in a closed session meeting to present confidential attorney-client communications to the Council as the duly elected representatives of the City of Fairfield and Municipal Corporation. The Council at that time waived the attorney-client privilege, which is your right as clients on this matter, and asked that this information be presented in an open meeting in the interest of public transparency. To the degree this staff report provides legal analysis and legal opinion to you, my clients, the city of Fairfield, this staff report does not purport to give legal advice to any other person or entity other than the city of Fairfield. a municipal corporation. Members of the public should not rely on this report as legal advice. Any member of the public who has questions or concerns about the legal opinions expressed in this report should consult their own attorney. The City Attorney of Fairfield represents the City of Fairfield, a municipal corporation solely. Another issue that was raised is Mr. Thacker had a chance to speak at public comment today. At that time, he turned to the audience and invited and indicated that he was looking for someone to join in a lawsuit against the city of Fairfield pending what you decide today. It's my job as your attorney to let you know that you do have a right to go into closed session anytime there's been a threat of litigation. Mr. Thacker's declaration is clearly a threat of litigation to bring further litigation depending on the actions of his counsel. So I'm bound by my ethical duty to inform you that you have a right to take all matters under consideration in a closed session. Does anybody wish to make a motion to go back into closed session? You've already waived it once, so I don't need you to reaffirm it, but does anyone want to make a motion to go to closed session? Okay, seeing none, I'm going to assume that you've been so advised.

Councilman Tonneson. If we did it, would we do that now?

Well, yeah, I'm about to talk about it and give you advice, and you have a threat of litigation out there. So as your attorney, I need to tell you, if you want to go into closed session, it's your right as a council to do that.

And as your city attorney, are you recommending?

Well, I didn't recommend that we talk about this in open session to begin with, but it's your right to waive.

Hey, I got a question.

It was a great answer.

Yes, Councilman Carr. This closed session, I just want to make sure that I heard you right. It would have to be now. It couldn't be put on to a later date.

So. It can be whenever you want it to be. But I think Mr. Thacker was very general. Basically, what I heard him say is, you know, I'm looking for someone to sue the city because they're not doing the right thing. I have no idea what you're all going to decide tonight. Right. So you could decide.

No. Excuse me, Mr. Thacker.

He's talking about me and what I said. I didn't say that.

I have not. Mr. Thacker. Mr. Thacker, please.

Mr. Thacker. Mr. Thacker, you're out of order. You're out of order. Thank you.

There is no threat from David Thacker on litigation at this time.

Well, now I'm really leaning towards closed session.

I'd like to go to a closed session.

Do you want to make a motion to do that? Does somebody, I mean, I need to know. We'll have to vote on it.

Well, I'm not a lawyer. I just know there is a lot of, I believe that our city attorney is very good at his job, and I'm going to follow his lead. I heard a threat from Mr. Thackeray turn to the audience. I heard it myself. I think that we should go to a closed session to be better educated on this.

Is that a motion?

My motion.

I will second that with a friendly amendment or request is that after closed session, could we come back into open? Do whatever you want. It's your privilege. Something like that, because now I'm nervous. So I'll second that.

All right. We're going to do a roll call. Oh, sorry.

Clarification or information. It's a question on motion. If one member of the body wishes to go to closed session, do we still require a majority vote on that?

Sorry, say that one more time.

If one member of the body wishes to go to closed session, do we still need to vote on it to not go into it?

I would say yes, because again, I represent the whole body, not any individual. So I would need a majority of you to say you want to go into closed session. Otherwise, the majority, I assume, say they don't want to go into closed session.

Thank you. Do we want to discuss it before? I mean, are you guys not wanting to do it?

Madam Vice Mayor?

I had a cough drop in my mouth. I think that we should hear from our residents, for God's sake. I mean, they're here. It's been agendized. They have comments. I mean, maybe we can just hear what they have to say first, and then if you feel like you need to go into closed session, do that. But I think it really is an affront to our residents, the people who pay the bills in this place, that we do this to them they're ready to speak they have thought about whatever they want to say I say we can at least listen to them since they do you know we do report to them so I would say we listen to them and then consider whether closed session is appropriate or even necessary that's my opinion

I have a question on that. Can we take public comment and then still decide to go into closed session after?

Again, this is completely at your discretion. And I want to be clear. I have a duty to tell you this. I'm not taking a position one way or the other. But I would lose my bar card or be subject to discipline if I don't tell my client what their legal rights are. Your legal right is to go into closed session and hear this in an attorney-client privilege setting. You can waive it. You can hear it for, you can go into closed session, ask me some questions, come back out, take public comment, talk about it in public. I mean, I don't mean to be flip, but I am just the attorney, and I have a duty to follow the law, and I have to tell you what the law is because I'm a good attorney. So I'm just telling you what you can do, but you can do whatever you want.

Yes, Councilman Sandu.

If Councilman Carr would be interested in maybe pulling back his motion temporarily... HEARING PUBLIC COMMENT AND THEN REINTRODUCING IT FOR US TO VOTE ON IT. I'D BE CURIOUS ABOUT THAT. OKAY. SO THE MOTION STANDS.

OKAY.

SO WE'LL TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE, PLEASE. OKAY. COUNCILMEMBER CARR.

CLOSED SESSION.

COUNCILMEMBER PANDURO. YES. COUNCILMEMBER SANDHU.

YES.

COUNCILMEMBER TONNISEN.

YES.

Council Member Williams.

Awkward, but I have a question. Sure. Can I exit before I vote? Because I just want to have clarity. So if we go to closed session now, we can't hear the comments. we would be stepping away for a period of time?

You can go into closed session and then come back out of closed session and decide that you want to have the discussion. And for that matter, the agenda report has already been published, so there's no taking that back. But just in terms of talking about anything else, you can do that. But you can come back. Everyone will come. I'm assuming if you call for closed session, we'll clear these chambers. They can wait, and then they can come back in, and you can proceed as if you never went into closed session.

I don't like that.

No. So we could hear the presentation. We could hear comments, but not deliberate. Go upstairs, deliberate, ask questions, and then come back.

You could do that, yes.

But that's not part of your motion. Your motion is we leave now. So would you amend your, do you have to amend your motion to state how I just laid it out, or no? I don't think so.

I don't think so.

Oh, okay.

If that's what you want to do, I think it's pretty clear. What I'm hearing is you would like me to make the presentation, myself and Ms. Lewis to make the presentation, take public comments, maybe even ask me some questions, but then when it comes time to making a decision, you want to go into closed session.

Yes. That's fine. Yes. That's what I would like to do.

But the original motion didn't say that. So what do we need to do now since he's willing to change?

I would just restart the vote. I've heard Council Member Carr saying he doesn't need to remake the motion. His motion was to go into closed session. He seemed to assent to Council Member Williams' procedure. So I think if you just restart the vote, I think myself and staff are clear on what you all want to do.

Yes, just to be clear, my motion is I need more information and I need it in a closed session for my lawyer due to what's happened. If the body wants to hear the motions and all that, I'm okay with that. I'm just not going to be responding without speaking to you in a closed session.

Okay, so we have You're up, Councilwoman.

You want to vote?

Yeah, I said yes.

Oh, yes. OK. And Vice Mayor Bertani?

No to closed session.

And Mayor Moy? A no to closed session. OK, so that was 5-2-2.

Yes, so that carries the motion. So we'll go forward. It's just, again, guidance from you. Doug, since you made the motion, we're going to go ahead and have the presentation. We're going to hear from everybody and then go into closed session. OK. Got it?

Yeah. OK.

Get it good. All right.

Thank you very much. And I apologize for the inconvenience, but I just got to do my job. All right. Honorable Mayor, members of the City Council, this is a discussion on LLMD items. This is in response to the case of Thacker versus City of Fairfield, a California Court of Appeal ruling overturning a ruling by the trial court. ruling that assessments levity in landscape and lighting maintenance district LLMD number seven, Rolling Hills violated Article 13, subsection D of the California Constitution, more colloquially known as Prop 218. The court ruled that the rates were increased beyond the 1996 rates in effect upon the Prop 218 effective date. My job here, along with Ms. Lewis and Mr. Mishra from the Public Works Department, is to present where we stand and where that ruling places all the other LLMDs. Where'd the mayor go? Should I wait? Is there a speaker in there? Okay, I'm gonna keep going. No.

Is this your slide?

Yeah. Okay. So I will not show this. So let me tell you kind of where we are, and it's kind of highlighted in the staff report, so I'm not going to read the staff report in verbatim. But I want to kind of highlight the key points that this council needs to consider and that staff is seeking direction on and that I think also members of the public are seeking direction on. So... The Thacker case was very narrow in that it ruled on LLMD number 7. Mr. Thacker, as a resident of LLMD number 7, Rolling Hills, brought his claim as a taxpayer of LLMD number 7. The appellate court ruled that LLMD number 7 was in violation of Prop 218. There was a stipulated judgment that I listed on page two of my staff report that the court ordered the city to refund the full fiscal year of 2025-2026 levied pursuant to a resolution in 2025 to all Rolling Hills property owners within 180 days of judgment. So that's one year of assessments. It ordered a refund of $1,800 to Mr. Thacker, which represents four years of assessments paid to him as the primary plaintiff. The city also paid a refund of $1,800 to 10 other named property owners because they had filed a claim along with Mr. Thacker at the time that he first submitted his claim. And rather than have them litigate the matter, we agreed to pay them because their claim was deemed timely at the same time Mr. Thacker submitted his claim. That was paid within 90 days of judgment. The court also ordered the city to refrain from levying an assessment in LLMD number seven, that exceeds the assessment amounts in effect prior to the Prop 218 effective date unless that assessment complies with the California Constitution or Prop 218. Now, a couple things that I want to clarify that I've seen in reading concerns from the public and filing their claims. This kind of minor ones and then some bigger ones. So the minor one is some people have said, well, refund checks have begun to be issued by the city. And the order from the court says, well, the county is supposed to pay it. We have an agreement with Mr. Thacker's attorney. The way that the assessments were collected is people paid for the assessments on their county property tax rolls. The county then gathers that money and sends it to the city because it's the city's money, right? It's LLMD. So the money went to the city. So the pot of money for these refunds was already sitting with the city of Fairfield. So the refunds are coming on checks that say city of Fairfield because our county department has the money. But in essence, and Mr. Thacker's attorney and I went through it, because the county collected it, they said, well, we're not going to refund it, then rebuild the city back for money we gave to you. It was easier just to pay the money out of the pot of money that's already sitting in the city of Fairfield's finance department. So that's the first concern that people raised. People were like, why isn't the check coming from the county? Because if you all recall, money is assessed yearly. SOME OF IT ACTUALLY HAS ALREADY BEEN USED FOR LANDSCAPING PURPOSES, AND SO SOME OF THAT MONEY IS COMING OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND, BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS THE MONEY IS WITH THE CITY. NOW, THE BIGGER ISSUE, AND THIS IS THE ONE THAT I THINK EVERYONE IS HERE FOR, UNLESS YOU'RE AN LLMD NUMBER SEVEN, AND THAT IS AT THE TOP OF PAGE THREE, POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON OTHER LLMDs. NOW, I'M GOING TO ask for your patience because I'm going to explain the legal impact of the ruling versus the practical impact of the ruling. Okay, so the Court of Appeal ruling in Thacker led to questions from residents regarding the impact of the ruling on other LLMDs. And on March 17th, we met in closed session. I explained this to you, but I'm going to explain it again. And you waived the attorney-client privilege. So the second paragraph of page 3A wrote legal posture of other LLMDs based on the Thacker ruling. The Thacker ruling in the Court of Appeal is a narrow decision legally. Legally, and I'm gonna get to the real world common sense part of it in a minute So don't everyone freak out when I talk about the legal thing the legal opinion Is that there was no ruling or determination made on the other LLM DS in the city. It was solely for LLM D number seven therefore legally there is no legal basis that requires the city to take any action on any other LLM D of the city based on the Thacker rule and Because the decision said for LLMV number 7, you were out of compliance with Prop 218, and you've got to refund the money based on our judgment. However, now we go to the common sense ruling. Before everyone starts yelling at me, we've got to use common sense. Part of my job as an attorney is not just to look at things legally in a vacuum, but look at things realistically. there are five LLMDs below that are in a similar posture to LLMD number seven. And that is because back in 1991, okay, a long time ago, a number of these LLMDs were formed, and then when Prop 218 came along in around 1996, those LLMDs were never reformed or a vote was never taken post-Prop 218, and so, while legally the Court of Appeal ruling has no binding effect on those LLMDs, as your attorney, I do not recommend that we wait for these five LLMDs to bring another lawsuit, much as what Mr. Thacker said when he said, I need somebody who's going to challenge these on these five. He didn't say these five. But when he said, this is what I want to challenge on. Now, the five additional LLMDs that are in the same posture as Rolling Hills number seven is number three, Waterman Heights, which was formed in 1986. Number six, Peppertree Drive, which was formed in 1987. Number eight, Kolob, which was formed in 1989. Number 12, the Downtown Business District, which was formed in 1991. And number 13, which was formed in 1990. It is my legal opinion, of which you waived the attorney-client privilege. I'm sorry, I'm so paranoid I have to say that because I'm not used to talking to my clients in like an open meeting. It is my opinion that if we were to face a challenge from any individual, In those five LLMDs, we would probably have the same result as the result that Mr. Thacker achieved from the Court of Appeal, because those courts will look at the Court of Appeal opinion in Mr. Thacker's case and say, same fact pattern, same type of assessment districts, all formed prior to 2018. I don't see how it's different. So I don't recommend that we wait to litigate those now the question is going to be that we're going to talk about in a minute is what action does the city want to take i'm going to be very honest that's a policy decision mr mishra miss lewis may have something to say about that because that is a policy decision i just tell you what the law is and what my recommendations now just to clarify the history in 2023 the city went back to the voters in an attempt to increase the LLMD rates for all of the above LLMDs, number 3, 6, 7, 8, 12, and 13. And the voters in those LLMDs rejected the rate increase that would bring those LLMDs into compliance with Prop 218. So those are still sitting as pre-Prop 218 assessment districts and are subject potentially to the ruling in Thacker. That's why I say those five are in the same position as number seven. This is going to be important because I'm going to talk about the remaining LLMDs for those people who are not from 3, 6, 8, 12, or 13. Now, the reason... that the council, that most of you were on in 2023, went back to the voters is because, as you all recall, the assessment rates for all the districts were so low that effective landscaping and lighting maintenance was not taking place. And the landscaping was overgrown. It was not sustainable. So the idea was to raise the assessment rates to allow residents to have better landscaping services. At that time, or just before that vote in 2023, the city council, through the general fund, made a loan to a number of these LLMDs to pay for improved and increased landscaping services. What is important to remember as you make the policy decision, and I won't delve too much into this because it's policy, but it does affect your legal decision on it, This is not money, the money that was loaned and the money that has been collected, even for these five districts, three, six, eight, 12, or 13, was already insufficient to provide landscape services to those neighborhoods. And money was lent out of the general fund to some of those districts. Meaning, if and when homeowners from these districts sign up for a refund, it's my opinion, legally, that they would be entitled to it. But the money's not just sitting in a pot. That money was used for, I don't know, lawn mowing, leaf blowing, tree trimming. The money is gone. And the law says that that money will come from the general fund. So the general fund will take the hit on the refund. Again, I'm not saying whether that's good or bad. That's just the facts of the matter. Services have already been rendered with the money collected. So the question isn't really about services. The question is if taxpayers decide, I want my money and I'm entitled to my money back, that's their right. But it's separate from services. Because then if they say, well, then I also want services, well, You don't get it because you got your money back. And we delved into the general fund, and I think Mr. Mishra will talk about the impact of those refunds on the general fund and general services to the city. Now, there are two... So that's as close as I'll get to policy discussion. Now, there are two LLMDs. Is everyone okay so far? Okay. All right. There are two LLMDs, partially... Councilman Thomason had a question.

Just quick. Your... You've gone over it, but the services were rendered for the money that was given back. Maybe it's signed. You know what? I'll let you finish your question.

Yeah, I'll let Mr. Mishra and Ms. Lewis answer that because I don't. I'm not out there doing the landscaping. I don't monitor the landscapers. So going back to what I was talking about. So there's two LLMDs that are partially affected by the Thacker ruling. Because remember I talked about the 2023 assessment vote? So two. districts did form new LLMDs post Prop 218. They were LLMD number one, Gateway, and LLMD number 11, Paradise Valley North. And those basically went away and became new LLMDs. So LLMD number one, Gateway, is now called LLMD 2023-1. LLMD number 11, Paradise Valley North, is now called LLMD 2023-11. Because the voters approved those new assessments pursuant to a proper and valid Prop 218 vote in 2023, for everything from 2023 now to present, those homeowners are not entitled to a refund. So if they apply for a refund, my recommendation is we say, sorry, you formed a new LLMD, it was a proper rate increase approved by the voters, you do not get a refund. However, if you do your math, you know that there is a four-year statute of limitations on a request for a refund, meaning a person can request a refund under law for up to four years prior. They have to file a claim, and the city has to deny the claim, and then they can bring a lawsuit. So if a member of LLMD 2023-1 or 2023-11 filed a claim, and you all see where I'm going, right? 2026 minus four is 2022, right? So everything from 2023 forward, we're gonna say, no, thank you, you passed Prop 218, Assessment District, you're not entitled to a refund. But if somebody in one of those two districts says, I want a refund for 2022, they are still within the four-year statute of limitations, and my recommendation would be similar to what i'm recommending with the other five llmds that for that one year 2022 uh llmd number one and eleven have the same exposure from the thacker ruling that those five districts had i want to make sure you all get that because i want to thank chris lewis she she was the one who pointed that out as we were kind of going through all these llmds that that one has a little sliver of exposure still can you repeat that last part again please

Just the 1 in 5 part.

You mean 1 in 11? Yes, that part. OK. So 1 in 11 in 20. And your question is actually valid because you were, I think, the only one not on the council when that happened. So that's a fair question. In 2023, city went back out to the voters with a new Prop 218 for all of these districts. OK? 3, 6, 8, 12, and 11 said no. They did not pass. So they are still under the pre-218 assessments. LLMD 1 and 11 passed their assessment votes in 2023. So they formed two new LLMDs, 2023-1 and 2023-11. So all assessments from 2023 to now are valid Prop 218 assessments and not subject to the Thacker ruling, because the Thacker ruling says any assessment made pre-Prop 218 is not valid, right? But in 2022, They hadn't passed the new assessment, so those assessments were still pre-Prop 218. And under the law, a taxpayer can make a claim for up to four years back. In the fifth year, statute of limitations runs, you do not get to make a claim. It's got to be within four years. So if somebody in LLMD number 1 or 11 made a claim for their 2022 assessments, it is in the same posture as the Thacker ruling because those assessments were pre-218. Make sense? Okay. Okay. Almost there. Almost there. Now, LLMD is not affected by the Thacker ruling, okay? Because remember, again, and I know I sound like a broken record, but I want to just reiterate. The Thacker ruling basically said that all assessments pre-218 are invalid, right? and it was narrow to only LLMD number seven, but as I'm telling you, legally that's what it says, common sense wise, I'm highlighting the LLMDs that are in the same posture as LLMD number seven. Now, there are Eight LLMDs that are not subject to the Thacker ruling, in our opinion, and that is because they either passed a new assessment or were formed after 1996, meaning they went through the 218 process. Let me say that again. These eight... either re-up their assessments post-2018 or formed after 2018. So anything formed after 1996 or that did a reassessment after 1996 is not subject to the Thacker ruling, in our opinion. They are number five, Smith Ranch, aka Rancho Solano. They approved a rate increase on May 18th, 1999. Number 10, Southbrook. They approved a rate increase on May 18th, 1999. I also want to give a big shout out again to Chris Lewis because she did the heavy lifting and tracking down these resolutions. I know we keep an archive of them, but the search functions for microfiche in 1999 was not great so she did a lot of work to kind of track these down and then we had to verify them look at the vote look at the minutes you know we didn't take it for granted so Chris gets all the the credit for that okay so number five Smith Ranch aka Rancho Solano number 10 Southbrook both were approved in May 18th 1999 LLMD number 14 Woodlake formed in 2001. LLMD number 15, Gold Ridge, formed in 2001. Number 16, Creekside, formed in 2003. Number 17, Chadbourne Beck Cordelia, formed in 2003. Number 18, Gold Ridge Park, formed in 2008. Number 19, Corporate Commons, formed in 2010. And then the aforementioned 2023-1 Gateway and 2023-11 Paradise Valley formed in 2023. For those 10 LLMDs, the Thacker decision, in our opinion, does not affect them because any claim that they... Violated Prop 218 would not be true because we just show them the date of passage, and we've reviewed the resolutions and reports, and they were properly executed Prop 218 votes. Vice Mayor.

Thank you. I have a point of clarification for Rancho for the LLMD number five.

Yes.

So this is based on information I just received like this week about Rancho because I asked about this and I was told that in 1999 Rancho approved a Prop 218 ballot. Okay, so that's 1999. But in 1996, California adopted a Prop 218, the protocol for Prop 218 in 1996. Yes. 96, 97, the Rancho assessment was $197.32.

Yes.

97-98, the Rancho assessment was raised to $246.14 without a Proposition 218 procedure. Yes. So wouldn't Rancho Solano residents be entitled to a refund for that increase?

Four-year statute of limitations. So they can make a claim for up to the last four years. So 1997, they're going to get thrown out of court.

In your opinion?

Statute of limitations are fairly common. So yes, I think we'd be very successful if someone wanted to make that claim.

Okay. Okay.

I mean, right, I'm your attorney, so I'm giving you my best legal advice. I have never seen somebody reach back and say the statute of limitations, we're going to waive the statute of limitations. The reason the statute of limitations exists, and you can read the case law, and there's plenty of case law on point, it says it's to give both plaintiffs and defendants' certainty. You don't want people litigating things forever. So at a certain point by operational law, the law puts limits on how far back you can go. The more serious something is, the longer the limit, right? Like murder has no statute of limitations. Somebody kills another human being, you can prosecute them forever. Taxes, it's four years. It just is because they don't want cities like Fairfield to have to relitigate things, you know, for years and years. And, you know, part of the exercise that Ms. Lewis and I went through is kind of testament to that. I mean, microfiche was hard to look through. And I want to be clear to the Vice Mayor that I'm not being flippant. I knew that you made the inquiry to us about number five. So we looked very hard and I'm your attorney. I read word for word what was passed in 1999 and it did pass in 1999. There's a resolution, there's findings, everything looks to be legally proper. Now, again, You know, I want to clarify what you said, like, well, are you sure? I'm never sure about litigation, right? Okay. Other questions? Um, now this is kind of where I'm going to get into the policy matters. So I'm going to be very brief on this and then I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Mishra and Ms. Lewis. So there are options for the future state of the LLMDs 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 13 based on the Thackeray ruling. I'm limiting myself to the discussion and I advise the council to limit their discussions to these eight LLMDs because those are the ones that are pre-Prop 218 and therefore while legally not subject to the Thacker decision, common sense wise says that they have a high likelihood of exposure. I keep saying that because I need to make a point that I know is not going to be popular with people here, but this is the truism. Because there is no legal obligation under the Thacker opinion, it gives you, the policymakers, leeway in what you want to do. OK? Let me say that again. My job as your lawyer is to give you what you legally can or can't do and advise on what I think makes sense, what doesn't make sense. But in terms of policy, you have leeway to do what you want to do. I said this to the counsel in closed session. You've waived the privilege, so I will say it to you again. This may be a case where what I'm about to tell you legally... may not be palatable to you politically or policy-wise. That's not my duty. My duty is to give you sound legal advice. What you do with that advice is completely up to you. So I need to make sure the room understands this, and you as a council, more importantly, understand it. I'm going to tell you things out here, and you've waived the privilege, so I'm going to be very honest with you. I don't stand for reelection. So I got to give you, my job is when you hire me as a lawyer, you tell me, I give you the legal advice, good or bad. And people can jeer me and make fun of me and say, oh, he's a charlatan. It doesn't matter to me. I give you what you deserve as my client. Okay, so let's be clear. I'm going to give you some options. Some people are going to gasp, maybe. But I got to give them to you, and then you decide what you want to do with it. Okay, so here we are. So we got these LLMDs. I've already stated that even though legally the Thacker ruling only applies to LLMD number 7, it is highly likely that 1, 3, 6, 8, 11, 12, and 13 are in a similar posture and that if we were to take any of those districts in a lawsuit up to the trial court, they would cite the Thacker ruling and we'd have a very similar, if not exactly similar, result to LLMD number 7. But again, that's not a given, because we don't know, for example, who would bring the claim, who would bring the lawsuit. So nothing is guaranteed good or bad in litigation. But again, my best assessment is that it would not be advisable to take any of those districts to court if we were to be sued. you know because there's no clear legal ruling like there's nothing from the court that says thou shalt do this there was no ruling for example saying that you must also issue refunds to these districts right there's no ruling absent a court ruling that would enforce that okay so option number one And this is something we've done in connection with staff. These aren't my legal opinions. I am not going to give you a legal opinion. I'm just going to lay them out here. Option number one is to preserve and maintain. I guess I am going to give you a legal opinion. I take that back. Option number one is to preserve and maintain, and we're on the second, third to last page. Preserve and maintain LLMDs number 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 13. But if you do that, you have to make four key decisions. The first decision, if you maintain, is what amount, if any, will you refund to the LLMD property owners? So you would maintain it, but would you issue a refund to LLMD property owners to blunt them making claims on a possible lawsuit? And if you issue refunds, how or what would you refund? Your choices are A, full assessments for the four prior years. In none of these examples, I'm not going to advise more than four years because of the statute of limitations. But you could do full assessments for the four years. You could do... FOUR YEARS COLLECTED FULL ASSESSMENTS FOR THE FOUR YEARS WHEN REQUESTED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. THIS IS LEGALLY SOUND ADVICE. POLITICALLY, YOU MAY NOT WANT TO DO IT. In order to receive a refund, the resident must first file a claim with the city. It's called the Government Claims Act. So before you bring a lawsuit, you must file a claim with the city. And so you must say, I'm asking for a refund of four years for these dates because this LLMD was improper. And the city would review it, and if they think that there's merit to the request, then they would refund the money. My point is, is that... Before a person can sue the city, they have to file this claim, meaning the city has no or little legal liability if you require the homeowners to first file a claim and then process it. Remember, my job is to give you your legal guidance, not policy, right? Policy, whether or not that's palatable, is in entirely different situations, okay? Yes? Yes?

Point of clarification, did you say that these LLMDs would need, by government code, would need to file a request for a refund in order to receive one? Or they need to file a request for a refund in order to file a lawsuit?

Both. I'm giving you your options. You're the policy makers. You'll decide what you want to do. So number one, if you maintain these LLMDs. Then you need to decide, do you want to issue refunds? And I'm going down through the list. And I apologize, because it is very confusing. So if you just say, we want to refund everybody for all four years, right? You can do that. And then Mr. Mishra will talk about the financial impact of that.

Without them filing a claim for refund.

Without them filing a claim, right? That's your right as a council. You just say, we're just going to refund everybody. We're going to nip this in the bud and make sure we don't get any claims or lawsuits. We're just going to refund everyone their four years. And no one can sue us, right? Two is full assessments for the four years prior, but require a homeowner to file a claim. And my point to that was under the Government Claims Act, a resident may not sue a municipal government until they file a claim. So we have a buffer that if they file a claim, then you say, okay, well, they filed a claim, and we'll just refund it, right? Now, let's talk about the elephant in the room. Politically, we have a lot of angry people saying, well, you're making us do extra work. Maybe, my job is to give you the legal choices, okay? Third option is a full assessments collected for 2025, 2026 only. And that goes without saying that then you might get requests for refunds for the prior three years. where the statute of limitations still holds. So it's kind of like B, but you give them one year in the hopes that they think that's enough and they don't ask for the other three years. Four is the difference between the 1996 rates and the current rates for the four prior years. So you would basically say whatever the amount was over the last four years, we subtract that by the amount of the rates in 1996 pre-Prop 218 and refund that difference. I don't advise that one. Because, again, I said the Thacker ruling does not apply to these districts, but the Thacker ruling said any money collected post Prop 218 is invalid. And I read that. in the most cautious way possible to read that to say that any amounts collected after 1996 are invalid. There's an argument that you could say, well, it's just the amount that was set in 1996. I don't read Thacker that way. then that's for your safety as my client. I would rather read it that that ruling says anything you've collected since then is not valid. And so if you give just the difference, I think a court has a high likelihood of saying even the amount collected in 1996 was invalid because you did not go through a 218 procedure. Fifth option is the difference between the 96 rates and current rates for fiscal year 2025-2026 only. Or the last option is no refunds and make people file claims. Now, this is again if you want to preserve and maintain the LLMDs. And I want to highlight again that there's a tension here between the request by people for refunds and the request for people for landscaping. Right, I don't think the two are mutually they're not in simpatico with each other, right? Because if people want refunds, then they're not going to get any benefit of landscaping. So just kind of keep that in mind as a policy decision, not my decision. Choice number two, or second decision if you decide to preserve these LLMDs, is you need to determine the source of funds that will be used to issue these refunds. Okay, because remember what I talked about, the money didn't just sit. Every year the assessments were collected, it went to pay for landscaping. So it paid for landscape workers, it paid for leaf blowing, lawn cutting, essentially. So there's no funds, and you already know that these districts, because of the 2023 vote, were low. They weren't funding to the level they needed to, and that's why they were given a loan from the general fund. So if you decide to issue refunds, you gotta figure out where it's coming from, okay? So the choices are that you fund LLMD funds only, and when you run out of money from the LLMD fund, then you can't give any more refunds. I'll tell you why I don't think that's a legally, I don't think you can hold that position legally. Two is LLMD funds plus general fund loan. So the general fund loan, general fund loans money to the LLMD on the hope that at some point the residents decide to form a new LLMD and then you could get the money back if that happens. But again, if they don't form a new LLMD, you're probably going to pay money out of the general fund and never get that money back. three uh is llmd funds plus a general fund contribution so not alone you're just going to say we're just going to write it off we're going to take a hit from the general fund and we're going to pay that funds and mr mishra will opine on the policy ramifications to city resources if that happens the last option is to just fund it from the general fund solely to answer the question that people ask is are general funds at risk or open to these refunds and the short answer is yes um the llmds are not what are called standalone districts so they weren't formed with their own board or mou they were formed as districts to allow services to residents but they still fall under the ambit of the city council and therefore they are subject to general fund money okay um I would be remiss to say that if somebody outside an LLMD said that general funds were being used for a purpose not in their district, I don't think that holds much water. Because general funds are used for a lot of services that don't individually benefit people. The best example, for example, is the pool, right? At Allenwood. Not everybody swims at the pool. So if somebody can't say, well, I don't swim, so I don't think my tax money and general fund money should be used to fund the pool. GENERAL FUND IS FOR THE GENERAL BENEFIT OF THE CITY, SO THESE FUNDS COULD BE USED FOR THAT. IF YOU MAINTAIN THE LLMD, THE THIRD DECISION IS THE AMOUNT THE CITY WILL LEVY IN FUTURE FISCAL YEARS. ONE OPTION IS TO FUND THE 1996 ASSESSMENT RATE IN EFFECT PRIOR TO PROP 218. SO GO BACK TO WHAT YOU HAD PRE-PROP 218 AND ASSESS THAT AMOUNT. recall that I just told you that based on the Thacker ruling, my conservative ruling of Thacker says that anything collected post-218 without a proper assessment vote is illegal. And I think that would happen. So if we were challenged, even if we went back to the 1996 assessment and somebody challenged us, I think a court might rule that those assessments are improper. Now, I want to be very clear that Mr. Gassaway, the city manager, and I disagree on this. As a policy matter, he thinks that it does not, that that's not what Thacker says, and that he would recommend, and I think, are you going to talk about that? OK, so Mr. Mishra is going to talk about that. But that is a difference. My job as your lawyer is to steer you to the safest shore. My reading of Thacker is that's a risk that I would not advise my client to take. Your decision, okay? But I do want to highlight, because Mr. Gasway is not here, and I told him, you know, I feel he's a very smart, very good city manager. We don't disagree often, but we disagree on this point, okay? If you do zero, no levy, that's the safest option, because then you're not assessing money from anybody. Right? There's no refund for anybody to ask because you're not collecting money. You're just saying, you know what? We're not doing these LLMDs. We're not collecting any money in future years. If you do that, the fourth thing you need to figure out is the level of services to be provided in future fiscal years and the source of funding. And I'll go through this quickly. So you could, and this was the debate that you all had back in 2023 when you made the loan, that you could do a service reduction and fund only with available assessment revenue and regular general benefit contributions. Second, you could do reduced services funded with general fund only. Third, you could do services maintained at current levels and funded with available assessment revenue, regular general benefit contributions, and supplemental general fund contributions. Or four, you could fund with services maintained at current levels and funded only with regular and supplemental general fund contributions. My advice is... And this is not a dig at mr. Thacker. It's a reality. He has been You know pounding this drum since before I became your city attorney, right? We have records of him talking to our city attorney Greg step on a sitch He felt that the assessments were improper the Court of Appeal has borne out his opinion I Will say that the opinion was not unexpected from our legal team. The rulings of courts over the last 15 to 20 years has generally steadily been moving in the direction of protecting taxpayers under 218 guidelines. Meaning that steadily the march has been by courts of appeal in the Supreme Court to say we're going to protect taxpayers. Okay, so this ruling is not, you know, I mean, don't disrespect Mr. Tucker. He had every right to bring his lawsuit. He fought. He had a good attorney. He won, right? Tip your hat, move on. But again, it was not unexpected. And now I forgot my point. My point is, oh, my point is, the hard reality for this council is that this happened on your watch. But really... I feel like councils probably as far back as 20 years ago, if not earlier, should have seen the way the trends were going with Prop 218. And if homeowners were not willing to increase the assessments, they should have just left it where it was and not raised it or just disbanded the LLMDs. But I realize politically that is a very hard thing to do. I'm not trying to cast aspersions on your fellow former city council members. But quite frankly, these things should have been killed back in 1996 when 218 passed until residents did the proper vote. And you were the ones left holding the bag. To finish, your second option, which I kind of am leading up to with that little speech, is dissolve LLMDs 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 13 to prevent future claims. That is the safest, cleanest legal option. It removes all risk to the city. You may still get some claims for the past four years of refunds, but there will be no future claims moving forward. Okay? You'll have to decide if and how you're going to give refunds to the past four years, whether you do them all at once or whether you wait for people to make claims. But basically, you know, it's like cauterizing a wound. You don't let the thing fester. You just put in there. And that's why I'm saying the decision here, the policy decision about tax assessments is separate, in my opinion, legally from maintaining landscaping. I don't think the legal exposure is now too great to try to finagle and say, well, let's do something and finagle with the assessments and still give people the landscaping that they clamored for. Anybody who comes in here and says, I want a refund and I want landscaping is not being realistic. They're either not being truthful about saying that they're not going to Sue us for a refund, um, or they're not willing to, you know, or they, they want you to pay out of the general fund. And that's, again, that's up to you, but the two are not in sympathy in, in synchronicity with one another.

Well, I don't think I understand that because, because why couldn't the option be like what I'm looking at right here? under option one is that we give the refunds that we are we pay the refunds out and then moving forward we have assessment but those set assessments for services are are don't exceed the rate that was Are you serious? No, I'm just kidding. You just blew my train of thought. So, okay, so the refunds, that's one issue. But then moving forward for the LLMDs that have not gone through the Prop 218 process, instead of abandoning them, why not just assess them at the pre-Prop 218 rate? Wouldn't that protect us from, wouldn't that diminish the prospect of litigation in those assessments?

It would diminish it, but it wouldn't fully extinguish it.

But what would be the court of appeal? We're doing an assessment pre-Prop 218. It won't be what it should be because those LLMDs haven't gone through 218, but at least couldn't that money be used, even though it's not as much, but It's something to put towards continued services in those LLMDs that have not yet gone through Prop 218.

So let me reiterate.

You follow?

Yes. This is exactly what I said. Mr. Gassaway agrees with you. I think Mr. Mishra may agree with you. I'm not sure what he's going to say. That is one of the options, and I think if Mr. Gassaway were here, he would say that. He said, let's just go back to Prop 218 levels.

To pre-Prop 218 levels.

Pre-Prop 218 levels, right. and i disagree with him and that like i said we agree on most things we talk things through we're a team in this one we've respectfully agreed to disagree and again i i hate to keep saying mr thacker's name because i'm not trying to pick on him but he you know it's his lawsuit if you do that Again, my conservative reading of the Thacker Court of Appeal decision is that there is exposure there that a court may read that decision and say anything that you assessed pre-trial or after 1996 is invalid because it did not go through a 218 process. And if they do that, then you have exposure. Now, you're right, it'll be less.

But is that what the case says, though?

That's what I think it says. I don't want to look at Mr. Thackeray because I'm not trying to.

And I'm not a Prop 218 lawyer either, but I read the case, too. And I looked at the decision to say any increase in assessment after 1996, which is when Prop 218 was adopted, is an increase that needs to go through a Prop 218 process. And it's almost 9 o'clock as well. But what I'm saying is that as long as the assessment is at the pre-Prop 218 rate, IT'S NOT AN INCREASE BECAUSE IT'S AN INCREASE WHEN PROP 218 IS ADOPTED IN CALIFORNIA AND MOVING FORWARD FROM 1996.

THAT WOULD CERTAINLY BE OUR ARGUMENT IF WE WENT BACK TO COURT ON THIS. SO, AGAIN, I WANT TO BE CLEAR. THIS IS A POLICY DECISION. THE COUNCIL, YOU DON'T NEED TO CONVINCE ME. RIGHT? I'M JUST TRYING TO TALK IT OUT.

I'M JUST ASKING QUESTIONS.

I'M NOT TRYING TO ARGUE WITH YOU. You're the policy man. This is why you all sit in the big fancy chairs. You have to make this decision. I'm just saying that as your attorney, I have to be honest with you. I would make that argument, obviously. And now, unfortunately, everyone in this room knows I would make that argument. And their attorneys are going to say, no, it doesn't. Um, I've looked not only at the decision, but during the pendency of the case, I looked at the law. I looked at the California constitution and I told you that for the last 20 years, courts have been steadily moving to protect taxpayers. I would make that argument for the city because I'm a lawyer and I'm a good lawyer. I cannot tell you that I am confident that they would agree with what you're saying and what I would say on your behalf. Now I could be wrong. And I would be happy to be wrong. It would be great if you could come to me in 10 years and be like, you are 100% wrong, David. My job here as your attorney, though, is to limit your risk, is to send this body to the safest shore. And I cannot, in good conscience, based on what I've seen in the cases I've read, tell you, yeah, roll the dice on that. Let's see what happens. Now, again, that is not my recommendation only. Mr. Mishra is going to tell you something different. The only decision that really matters is the seven of you. So if you disagree and say, no, let's do it. Okay.

And while we're talking through it, I just want to say that at the same time that I understand your job is to inform, you know, you're our lawyer. You're the city's council lawyer. But, I mean, look at the, I mean, so the benefit is that, okay, we eliminate the risk. But we do that and at the same time abandon our LLMDs. What does that mean for this city?

And remember what I told you at the beginning, that this is one of those rare cases where my legal opinion may be completely at odds with what you need to do politically.

And I understand that, and I'm not challenging you at all, because I know you already know this, but I just want to just help to keep our residents here engaged in what the real bottom line is here, right? Because it is getting late, and this is not an intuitive decision. subject to discuss like this but i mean if if we're looking at completely eliminating the risk from future litigation for llmds we're talking about abandoning llmds meaning rolling hills and the other llmds forget your landscaping it's not coming from the city well probably maybe i don't know it's not going to be free well let me clarify that my what i'm saying is that the current llmds

right, would need to be expunged. If they want to bring a new Prop 218 process and pass a new one, they can. But basically what's happening here is we've now reached an inflection point on this, where we have a balancing, right? And again, I mean no disrespect to Mr. Thacker, but he brought the case. You have Mr. Thacker who is saying and has people who support him who say these assessments are illegal. And you weigh that versus your constituents who say we want landscaping. They don't, at the current rate, at the current way these LLMDs are organized, those don't mesh. So you, the council is in a hard place, as your lawyer, I'm telling you, I feel like you're in a hard place. Because on the one hand, if you keep the LLMDs and try to keep them on resuscitation, even a little bit, Mr. Thacker and somebody might challenge it and you might lose. If you disband the LLMDs, then you take care of the assessment tax issue, but then you have a bunch of people who don't have landscaping who are angry. You're kind of in a weird place.

Councilman Sandu has a question. Yes.

Thank you, Mayor. In 2023, when council gave a loan to the LLMDs, was it structured as a loan or as a transfer of money?

It was a loan. And I'll let Ms. I'll let Ms. Lewis speak more, but basically it was a loan that said when a new LLMD is formed, then the amount of assessment will cover repayment of the loan. And obviously in 2023, those assessments were not formed.

So as of now, that loan has not been repaid? No. Given the status of the case- the city entitled to ask for a refund on the loan given the fact that any money that went into it sounds like needs to be refunded to the citizens the city the money the city loaned is that money also that shouldn't have been loaned either given the status of the conclusion of the case so your question was does the city have a position to ask for repayment of a loan in the same fashion the residents do the money the city loaned to these lmds What I did not also in question.

I think there's a misunderstanding. Let me remind and Miss Lewis could speak up. The money that goes in that is collected for the LMDs doesn't just sit there, right? It gets used to perform landscape services. So there's no there there to refund. So what you're talking about, is basically saying, can we, and I don't know if this is what you're saying, but this is the reality, you would have to say, well, we're going to assess homeowners to repay the loan. It's the same problem that you have with 218, right? You'd be assessing them to repay a loan. It would still be subject to a challenge under Thacker's decision saying, you know, this is a, it didn't go through the 218 process. Basically, to put it bluntly, the argument is going to be so sad, too bad, you shouldn't have loaned the money in the first place. I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Mishra, because I think he has, do you want to make your presentation?

Are you done?

Pretty much. Okay, thank you.

I have just four slides, and I'll just go over it pretty quickly. I mean, a lot of this has already been discussed, but I just want to, you know, have a few facts, what we do here at Public Works with LLMD so that, you know, have a better perspective of all this. So to begin, it is just important to establish the several key facts that apply to all the LLMDs in our city. These districts collected assessments from property owners with the express purpose of providing specific local benefits. I want to emphasize that these services, which includes landscaping, street lighting, general maintenance, were fully delivered to these neighborhoods. FURTHERMORE, EVERY DOLLAR COLLECTED THROUGH THESE ASSESSMENTS WERE FULLY EXPENDED WITHIN THE RESPECTIVE DISTRICTS WHERE IT WAS RAISED. THE CITY PUBLISHES THE DETAILS OF THESE FEES COLLECTED AND HOW IT IS SPENT FOR EACH LLMD ON THE CITY WEBSITE. THE BUDGETS ACTUALLY GET AUDITED BY OUR INDEPENDENT AUDITOR AS PART OF THE OVERALL CITY AUDIT. LANDSCAPE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE MEMBERS WHO HAVE BEEN ENGAGED WITH THE STAFF OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS ALSO HAVE INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE OF THESE MATTERS. SO LOOKING AT OUR CURRENT STANDING, THE DISTRICTS HAVE VERY MINIMAL REMAINING BALANCES. The current balances are not adequate to fund any potential reforms. At this time, the maintenance services are continuing, but only at the level supported by the available funding currently on hand. It is also worth noting that some of these districts have historically required and received loans from the general funds to maintain their operations. SO, OKAY, THIS BRINGS US TO ANOTHER CORE FISCAL AND EQUITY CONSIDERATION WHICH OUR CITY ATTORNEY JUST BRIEFLY PONDERED ON. AND BECAUSE OF THE ASSESSMENT FUNDS ALREADY BEEN SPENT ON THE DISTRICT SERVICES, ANY REFERENCE ISSUED NOW WOULD REQUIRE, LIKELY REQUIRE THE USE OF GENERAL FUND DOLLARS, AS YOU KNOW. The general fund is the primary engine for our city's essential services, including public safety, road maintenance, our parks and community programs. From an equity standpoint, it must be noted that a refund would benefit relatively a small number of residents, which we estimate around 5,250 parcels, which is equivalent to about 16,300 people who have already received the services they paid for. But the financial burden of those reforms would be shared by the broader community, which is about roughly 108,000 residents. Okay. Finally, we must take a broad look at the broader policy implications. The residents and districts have already received the full benefit of the landscaping and lighting services. Issuing reforms would create a significant fiscal impact on an already constrained general fund. Additionally, it will create a INCONSISTENCY WITH ALL OTHER LRMT DISTRICTS THAT SUCCESSFULLY MOVED THROUGH THE PROPOSITION 218 PROCESS TO APPROVE RATE INCREASES. THOSE TAXPAYERS ARE MEETING THEIR CURRENT OBLIGATIONS AND WOULD BE EFFECTIVELY SUBSIDIZING REFUNDS TO OTHER So that's my total presentation. I know this is a very complex and difficult decision for council. I just wanted to put this perspective for the council so that it is discussed properly. Thank you.

Are there any questions? We'll go to them first. Is there anything else as far as presentations? No, that's all.

Then we'll go ahead and take the comments now from the public. Sure. The first speaker is Corey Coles, to be followed by Craig Gillespie.

Sorry.

Thank you for the opportunity to talk.

So then we'll have Craig Gillespie to be followed by Nora Dizon.

Yeah. I am currently on a committee that's working towards passing an LLMD for number 13. I think all of us have benefited by the landscaping and I think a whole lot more residents would be more upset with having the landscaping really go away. I would actually agree with what Pam was suggesting. Go back to a We're in the process of trying to pass a new one for us, but going back to the 96 level, and if you are wanting to ensure that you are not getting lawsuits, if somebody requests a refund, then refund them. But I think the majority of us as residents are not going to want a refund when we know that we really want more landscaping. In fact, we're wanting more than what the city was paying for rather than less. So that I think you'd balance the legal issue by giving a refund if you were wanting to until they passed a new LLND. But in the meantime, go back to the 96 assessment.

Thank you. Next is Nora Desson to be followed by David Thacker.

All right, thank you for the explanation. I did not understand the situation quite that way. I am now amending. I think people should get their refunds. I hope that applications are not required. I did not realize that it would have to be for full amount, not just a partial. But that being said, I think that, I hope that we're not gonna try to destroy our LLMDs. So I don't know what your decision's gonna be, but I understand the explanation on the legal. We also don't want our city to go bankrupt either. So you guys have a very tough decision to make here. It's definitely not what I thought. Thanks for your effort.

Next is David Thacker to be followed by Carol Haddock.

In the city manager's agenda report for tonight's meeting, there are 10 LLMD the city is recommending no refund, including Rancho Solano Smith Ranch. Fairfield and every city throughout California must comply with California Constitution Proposition 218. Here are the facts about Rancho Solano LLMD assessments. Voters in 1999 approved an LLMD assessment of $350. The city then immediately assessed each residential parcel for $365. Residential parcels in Rancho are now assessed at $740 based on CPI increases of inflated assessments. That is illegal. Proposition 218 requires an engineer's report to be approved by the city before LLMD assessment can be made. The engineer's report must separate special benefits from general benefits.

Only special benefits are assessable.

No engineer's report containing that requirement was approved or completed. That makes any assessment of any amount illegal in Smith Ranch. All property is subject to LLMD assessments. In Rancho Solano, all property is subject to LLMD assessments. In Rancho Solano, commercial school and city property is not assessed. The city resolution following the vote of property owners illegally assessed only homeowners. beagle wilson school tutor time child care in shape fitness rancho slano golf course the village care home are not assessed that means rancho owners have been illegally assessed for the property of others that is illegal there is no severability clause in the city's resolutions and even if there were it would most likely not be enforceable Partial refunds of less than the total assessment is not allowed. Any one of the above reasons are enough to void the entire city resolution forming or maintaining the Smith Ranch LLMD. Rancho Solano property owners are due full four-year refunds. The other nine districts, which the city states do not get refunds, are under review and results will be announced when each LLMD investigation is completed by me. If you own property in any Fairfield LLMD and would like to participate as a plaintiff, you can email me at fairfieldblight, one word, at outlook.com, and I'll get back to you as time allows. I'm out of time. Thank you.

Next is Carol Haddock.

Wow, how do you follow that? And I lived in Rolling Hills for like 21 years and was assessed $250 a year each year. And I guess it was 196, and there was 996 homes. I was on the Rolling Hills Landscape Committee, and I was part of working with Chris for years, for like the last five years, and Sanjay. on trying to find a solution and we saw what didn't work in 2023 with the prop 218 and and we really worked with and found and interviewed at length and and in depth the engineering companies and chose one on the rfp and the rfq committee and we found one that does have 218s that do go through and they explain to the communities they have the communication they have the information available We know we can pass these two 18s and we need them. I'm going to say to dissolve the LLMDs, because it takes about 18 months to even do one of these and get the communication out there, do the engineer's report, the cost of the engineer's report, everything. I could go on for hours and these guys could go on for days. But you really need to have these two 18s. I say leave the LLMDs as they are. Go back if you can. I'm agreeing with the city manager. And go back to the 1996 assessment, it's not enough money. And we really have to communicate with the citizens. Do we really want to take the money out of the LMDs to pay ourselves back? Well, that's taking it out of my bank account, putting it in my pocket, and then I have to put it back in the bank account. So to me, that's just a waste of time and money to have the county or the city give me a check and me go back to the city and county and give them the check back. So I just want more landscaping. I think everyone I've talked to in Green Valley, Rolling Hills, they want more landscaping. I agree with David Thacker. I'm on the Golf Advisory Board, as we all know. Yeah, the golf courses did not pay, but now Paradise Valley, the golf course pays. The schools did not pay. You know, I got into it with the last school board about that, and the schools will vote to pay in those couple of districts. So it needs to be fixed. It took 30 years to find out what was wrong with it. I think if we're honest with the citizens of Fairfield, we say, look, we don't want to hurt ourselves and hurt our property values. It's going to be more to hurt your property value than to go and give yourself the refund. And see what they want to do. And I'd put a poll out there. It's not that bad. It's online. Find out. Just explain to them what it is. See what they want to do. But I think you keep the districts. You go back to 1996. and you really go out and do the 218s correctly. Thank you.

Let me ask you a point of clarification, Carol. So are you, did I hear you say you recommend dissolving the LLM? Oh no, do not dissolve them. Okay, because I thought that's what you said.

No, no, you do not dissolve them because then you have no landscaping and your property values go to and you don't have water and you don't have any lawn mowing at all.

Yeah, I know. So what you're saying is keep the LLMDs, forget the refunds, and let's get through 218.

Well, I don't know if you can forget the refunds. I think you need to find out the least you can do. I mean, if you need to have people. I mean, I don't care if I get $200 back. I mean, they mowed my landscaping. So find out. Understood.

Thanks. Did anyone else wish to speak? Okay.

David, I'd like to ask you. No, no, no, sir.

You have to speak up there. What's your name?

Hugh Campbell. David, it was a very good summary. I really appreciate that. And for all of us, I just have two questions, okay, on the refunds. Am I right? If you don't ask for a refund, you don't receive a refund, right? Right. So if you're a resident in LLMD number 12, if you don't file for a refund, you don't get a refund, right?

I'm sorry. I'm looking at the mayor because I'm only allowed to answer if she gives me permission. Do you want me to answer? Yes. OK. It's up to them. So under the Government Claims Act.

Yeah, I'm saying John and Mary Smith are in LLMD 12. I'm just picking at LLMD, right? Right. If they think they need a refund, if they don't file, they don't get a refund.

Well, that's what they're here to decide tonight. Because you're correct. Under the law, if they do nothing, somebody has to file a claim asking for a refund, and the city has to determine whether it's a valid claim or not. And they either refund the money or they don't. If they don't, then, of course, the next action is the resident could bring a lawsuit. What the council is trying to decide tonight, which staff needs direction on, is Do they require the residents go through the claim process, or are they just going to issue refunds without the claim process?

So for the city council, a little risk analysis, right? I'm just making up these numbers. LLMD 12, I don't know why I'm using 12, has 3,000 residents. If only six ever file for a refund, and we've got to pay them $1,000 each, $6,000 in the letter, pay them the $6,000, let's go on. Point number two is if the residents of LMD number 12 say, we were all paying $100 per home. Again, I'm just making up these numbers, but to make a point, we're all paying $100 per home, right? We look out our window, and we know that that's not working. We all know that, right? I mean, the landscaping is not good. So we in LLMB 12 have formed a group committee. We're all working together. We've got landscaping firms coming in to give us our thoughts, give us opinion. And we think we need to take it from $100 up to 150, and in the second year, 175, and in the third year, 200, and then tie it to CPI, let's say 3% a year. And with that money, we've had experts come in, we can redo the landscaping in LLV-12, right? And we're going to put it to a vote. We're going to do it right. So let's say in 2027, we put it to a vote.

You only have three seconds. Talk fast.

OK. We put it to a vote. And it passes. It passes. A majority of the residents in LMB 12 say, makes sense. You're right. It's terrible out there. Your time's up. We approve it, right? Does that new quote, LLMD, then, Does that negate all of this other stuff under the old LLMDs?

Can I answer the question? Yes. Okay. No. So even if you formed a new LLMD today, people would still have four years to claim a refund for the previous years.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Yes. Please come up. And what is your name, sir?

My name's John Oliver. John Oliver. Hi, John. I live in LLMD number seven, and I've been talking to Pam and Catherine. David, first question for you, please. You said there was two main groups. You said there was people that were part of the Thacker case. Then you said there was the people in all of the other LLMDs. What about somebody like me who's in LLMD number seven, who has turned in all of his paperwork by hand to both the city and the county, Yet, I'm not part of the Thacker case, and I'm not part of one of the other LMDs. How are you addressing me?

So, Paulette, may I answer? Yes. So, can I just answer questions? Yes, yeah, you don't have to ask me. I want to be mindful of the program.

I'll stop you, and I want you to stop.

I apologize. I wasn't clear. When I addressed the options for the other LLMDs, number seven was included, and it wasn't clear in my presentation.

That is also— You said Thacker or other LLMDs. Yeah. So I'm not part of Thacker.

No, you're part of Thacker.

No, but you said you were talking about ten people. I'm not part of his case.

No, you're not. So legally, the judgment from the court was— It encompasses me also. Yeah.

Thank you.

Yeah.

On your deck, you said something about, oh, if there's only 16,000 people in this area and we're going to charge this much, but then it's getting spread out across 118,000 people. It seems like you're saying eminent domain to me. Like, okay, the Rose people kind of have to do, we have to just kind of suck it up. because it's for the good of the other people. But didn't we talk about things like swimming pools that even though I don't use a public swimming pool, I still have to pay for it even though I don't use it because it's for the good of the people?

Oh, yes. Go ahead.

So here it is very different from, because the LLMDs are specific to localities. It's not a general public, that's why when you pay from the general funds, general funds actually collect tax from everybody. That's the reason.

So from a bigger, but from a bigger perspective though, I took that line to say, well, People in LMD number seven are a small percentage compared to everybody else would have to pay for it. So are you just saying that we should just kind of suck it up and deal with it?

No, no, no. That's not what I'm saying.

Thank you for clarifying that. I want the LLMDs. Let me put that on the record. And I'm willing to pay my share of the LLMDs. I do believe the city owes us some form of repercussion, goodwill, whatever you want to call it. There needs to be something done. Doug, my final question is to you. Why are you so immediately ready to take this closed session? Why don't you want to talk to us? Thank you. Thank you for clarifying that. I don't think any of us are expecting the city to pay us every dollar back and make everything perfect. Okay. I think what we're looking for is some respect and some acknowledgement that there has been a problem. You're trying to show good faith. and work with you.

Thank you.

And Madam Mayor, may I make a comment? So every attorney works very hard with their clients to teach them about attorney-client privilege. And it is axiomatic as a lawyer that it is always better to talk to your client in confidence rather than open public meeting. So I know Council Member Carr and the rest of the council members can take care of themselves. But I just want to state for the record that no lawyer will ever say it is a good idea to give attorney client information in public. And so when Council Member Carr says, well, my attorney says, I should speak in confidence. I'm happy because that's my job as attorney to teach them that. I don't think he should be tasked for that. Think of all of you, if you had an attorney and your attorney said, I think we ought to talk privately, would you be like, no, let's go to the mall and just talk in front of the food court? You wouldn't do it. And I'll be very honest. I've basically today just shared the entire city's strategy of how we would defend the analyze and do these, and it's their right to waive it, but no attorney will ever tell you, oh boy, Lim did a good job there. I mean, good thing he did that. No. So I just want to be clear. Any client should be like, well, if my attorney tells me we should talk in private, I think that's... I feel proud that I've been a good lawyer, and I taught them that. So I just want to make that comment. Thank you.

What's your name?

Shonda Avery.

Avery, OK.

I'm LMD7. I want to say thank you, David. You did a good job. You did a good job. You gave us a lot of information. I did not plan on speaking. I never speak at these things, but I feel compelled to come up here and say that I think we're in this situation because I felt that you all were disrespectful to all of us. I feel like when the vote happened years ago, it's because we all felt disrespected. I think that's why a lot of the LMDs voted it down, because when it was happening, nobody was willing to take responsibility that the city messed up. That's it, the city messed up. And I kept saying, is it any point they gonna take responsibility? And I never heard that y'all messed up. And so that's why we're in this mess. So no, do we wanna get rid of our services? Absolutely not. I wanna pay my share, but I also know that lawsuits happen for a reason. Lawsuits help accountability. I'm saddened that we are here at this place, but I'm afraid that if we do not insist upon our money coming back that the city will not learn the lesson that it needs to learn and humility because I think that's how we got here. I feel I did file my claim to get my money back, not because I need my money back or that I want my money back. In fact, I hope you charge us more so we can get more services and you can have what you gave me all back. But I feel like you have to pay it back as a point of respect because you did something wrong and you should have to pay because if I did something wrong, I would have to pay.

Excuse me, ma'am. I wanted to clarify one thing you said. Can you clarify how much you said to pay back?

How much I said to pay back? I filed my claim for all the years that you charged me, that you should not have charged me. I filed it for all of that. Whatever it is that you overcharge me, you should have to give me all that money back. Because if I had done it in reverse, the city of Fairfield and the county of Solano would not hesitate. And penalties and fees and all kinds of other stuff after that, I would have to pay you all in a heartbeat. So I don't even understand why there's a question on the table. Because if it was reversed, it wouldn't be up for discussion.

Thank you.

What's your name, ma'am?

Felicia Dixon-Adams.

I'm sorry, Felicia?

Dixon-Adams.

Dixon-Adams. Thank you.

Thank you for this time. I wasn't going to speak. This is my 20th year here in plant out of the Bay Area. And I did file a claim. And I did go over to the county. I went between the county and the city. I think I spoke with this young lady here. And so I turned in my copy to the city. And so I guess my question is, what now? I am in District 7. I am in Rolling Hills. And so my question is, what now? I was not a part of the original 18. I probably wasn't aware of that until I was aware. And then I quickly went out and did my due diligence, I think is legal. So my question is, as a homeowner, my concern is that I don't want to see my property taxes increase every year 3%, 3%. I'm retired. I have a fixed income. And I think that that could be terrible for a lot of individuals like myself. We don't have the ability to go out and get an extra job and keep up with the increases. We don't want to see our mortgages go up and up and up. And that was my concern. And that is why I voted against it. That is the main reason. I don't want to see my mortgage continue to rise. So my concern is to whomever can answer it, whether it be the city, the county, the attorney, city manager, what can the others expect? Like the young lady before me, I want to continue the services. I've noticed the difference between 2006 when I moved here and to now. You know, I do notice a great difference. I do want my property value to maintain, but the same thing, it won't do me any good if I'm run out of my home because I can't afford to keep paying the increases with the property taxes that my mortgage continues to go up and up and up. And that is my concern. So if anyone can answer it, that would be great.

Right now, there can't be an increase because it would have to go to a vote, a 218 vote, to change that. So there are no more increases, but you're not going to get any better service than what you're seeing right now as it stands. Were you asking also about your refund?

If there's a refund. I mean, I... You know, I've been around. Yes. So I know how it works. You know, you may take out a lot, but I certainly don't get back what was taken out. You know, there's fees assessed. People come to some sort of agreement. So it has to come to some sort of resolution as to what can we give these individuals back. And I'm only asking this because I am in districts. I am in seven. So I do fall in that category because I am in Rolling Hills.

All right. So Mr. City Attorney. Hello.

Sorry.

Hi. I know it's getting late. I'm sorry.

These are the decisions that the city council needs to make tonight. So am I hearing you say.

We were not told to put a certain amount. All we were told to do was just to copy the years. I only included the past four years and list them according to the claim. I did file a claim. I just want to make that clear. I did file a claim March 8th.

So, Madam Mayor, I think this will be instructive to Ms. Dixon-Adams. So, the city has retained all the claims, and the city clerk has logged them. And as the Vice Mayor said, that's why we're here tonight. We need direction on what you would like us to do with all these claims.

And I do want to keep the maintenance. I do appreciate it still has fallen down. I mean, I live directly in front of Meadow Glen Park, and it's...

park is okay but the trees and all that that you know going up hillborn is just horrible it's horrible and um it does make a difference thank you thank you david for your presentation susan engel vngle i have a question we have all these llmds but we all pay different fees but we should be getting what why aren't we all paying the same amount and getting the same level of service?

I'm sorry, could you ask that question again?

The LLMDs, they're in different sections of Fairfield. Yes. Okay, as we mentioned, 7 and 5 and 12 and 1 and all those numbers, right?

Sure.

Are they paying the same amount of money and getting the same level of service? And if not, why not?

No. The rates were set by each district. So back in 19, well back in 1991 when a lot of these were formed, rates were set depending on, for a lot of these neighborhoods as they were formed, what the amount was thought necessary to do landscape lighting and maintenance. every district sets their rate and without going into too much detail, you need an engineer's report, you need to study. You can't assess more than is necessary to do the maintenance. You can't make a profit or sit on it. So every engineer's report is gonna be different for every neighborhood and that's why the assessment is gonna be different. Does that make sense?

Is the service level the same though?

No, the service level is going to be commensurate with whatever the engineer's report said you need for that level of maintenance.

And where are these reports located?

Engineering, everything's public record. Some of them are really old, so we couldn't find them online.

Yeah, the older records, we don't have it, but the recent records for the last few years, the engineer's records are available online.

They're online.

Yes.

Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you. Yes.

Question for the city attorney. The price that people pay per house is set by square foot. Is that correct?

I'm going to turn to the resident expert, Ms. Lewis.

Say it again? The price people pay into the L&D per house, the total of the L&D broken down per house is set by lot or square footage. Is that correct?

Not necessarily. It depends. A portion of the fee maybe actually takes the square feet of house into account, but not necessarily. It doesn't mean that that's the only matrix. There are other matrix into it, and it makes the total rate.

Thank you.

Okay, so for me, I think it comes down to two things. Do the right thing and rebuild the trust. There's been a lot of trust that's been lost through this process over the last couple of years that we have been dealing with this. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. So yeah, we can. get away with doing things differently. I just don't think we should. I think you need to rebuild the trust in the community. We need to refund the whatever is due, simplify the process. There are many residents in Rolling Hills, and I can only speak for Rolling Hills, that are elderly. They don't have computers. They're frustrated with the process. I have to file with the county. I have to file with the city. But you go to the county, and the county says, I don't know why you're here. This information is so readily available, we could easily send the information to the city and not waste our time with all this work, the city's time with all this work. It's very simple, it's data that's easily available. I think, and believe me, I want this landscaping to be better. I am willing to pay more, but I think we need to do the right thing first. We need to refund the money, then we need to start a new 218 process. The message is there, as you and I, Pam, have talked about. When people see how bad it's getting and it's showing, I think people will be more inclined if we do the right thing and we fix this mess that has been created that people have been trying to get fixed for quite some time. That's my advice.

Did anyone else wish to speak? Okay, and then I do notice one hand is raised online, so we'll take this gentleman first. What's your name, sir?

John Monroe.

John Monroe?

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you. I live in the Rolling Hills District. I've been living there since 2002. The only thing I want to say, I think transparency is not a bad word, and what you actually sort of alluded to is the runaround you got when you tried to make claims. I actually... When I called the county, it was very simple. They sent a check about a week later. When I called, and they told me, the city owes you the rest of the money. So I called a city office and said, call Department of Public Works. Here's a number. Call them. A lady called me back, and it was a huge runaround, and it just wasn't sitting right with me. So I called back again, same number. I think it was a different person. I'm not sure. She said, we were instructed by the city attorney not to give any information. And I thought, that's the only reason I'm here today, because I thought, what are they hiding? And the city attorney himself was more concerned about your political career than anything else. And obviously trying to put the fear of God into you because it worked for Carr. He wanted to lock up and just go and close sessions right away. All he had to do was tell you that you don't have to answer questions from the public if you know that when you have public comment. And you could have listened to us first and then run in the back room and do whatever you want to do back there. And that's all I just want to say. I think transparency, especially with the city attorney's office, is horrible. A little bit more of that, that would work. Thank you. And the minutiae that you threw around here all day, give me a break. Thank you.

Jake, can you bring the person that's online on the phone? Please, thanks. Zoom guests, go ahead.

Good evening again. It's almost 1 a.m. here in North Carolina, so I'll be very brief. I don't want to repeat everything the last four people just said, but it is all exactly what I was going to say. Take responsibility. The city was the property manager for each of these LLMDs. The city is responsible to follow the law. The city did not follow the law, and they charged incorrectly. They need to take accountability and responsibility and pay for the shortage however you decide to identify the refunds but it needs to come out of general fund because as you've heard there's no money in the lmds and the people who made the decisions and they're not there now those folks are all gone chris did a great job in identifying the problem but the effort made to try and correct it by running nine 218 campaigns at one time should never have occurred so that didn't help the credibility of the city We took on a project that was almost doomed from the beginning. You have an opportunity now as a city council to identify what will help the future of the city, what will help the resale value of our homes, what will demonstrate that the city council is here for the citizens. These are the underlying decisions you're about to make. This is a very complicated topic. I was very surprised it was being taken on with a regular agenda. This is something obviously has taken all night and should have been given that much time almost by itself. So I apologize for repeating myself, but this is something that gives you the opportunity as the city council to demonstrate how does the city resolve a problem? How does it take personal responsibility for mistakes that prior people, they aren't here now, made? You have the opportunity to do right going forward. And my recommendation is to make that admonishment to everybody, be very clear, and to go ahead and give the money back from general fund, demonstrate that new 218s, like Dr. Gillespie's talking about, they're ready to go. But if they don't trust their city, they're done. Any new district would be done. I'm working with Waterman Heights. They've been waiting for information from public works directors that we have yet to hear. What's wrong with their district? They don't know yet because they haven't gotten the communication. So please listen to what people are saying and general fund, look at the future, take responsibility. I appreciate your time. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak?

All right, we're gonna bring it back to the City Council. Yes, Councilman Sandhu.

I have a question for the City Attorney. Yes. I'll just ask it now. In the ruling from the case, did the judge explicitly state in what form a refund must be given?

Yes, for the lawsuit brought by Mr. Thacker, there was what's called a stipulated judgment entered where the city was ordered to make certain payments. And if you look on the agenda report on page two, under discussion, FOURTH PARAGRAPH, IT SAID ON FEBRUARY 6, 2026, A FINAL STIPULATED JUDGMENT WAS ISSUED BY THE COURT IN WHICH THE CITY WAS ORDERED TO, AND THEN IT LISTS FOUR ORDERS FROM THE COURT OF THE AMOUNT THAT WAS TO BE PAID. THAT IS THE AMOUNT FROM THAT CASE THAT WE WERE ORDERED TO PAY. BUT EVERYTHING ELSE, THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC ORDER.

WHAT I'M CURIOUS ABOUT, AND THE ANSWER IS LIKELY NO, BUT I'M JUST BRAINSTORMING HERE. WHAT IF WE DID NOT CHARGE FOR THE NUMBER OF YEARS IT TOOK FOR THEM TO KEEP THAT MONEY? IN THIS INSTANCE, I ASSUME IT'S FOUR YEARS WORTH OF LLMD ASSESSMENT. WHAT IF THEY WERE NOT CHARGED FOR FOUR YEARS IN THE FUTURE, HENCE KEEPING THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY AND IN EFFECT EARNING A REFUND BY THE LACK OF THE CITY CHARGING FOR FOUR YEARS? WOULD THAT MEET THE INTENT OF THE JUDGMENT?

YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but I'm not sure I understand what you're proposing. But I'm not the one you need to convince. It's the seven of you that get to decide that. But yeah, and I don't mean to be flippant. I'm not saying, like, do whatever you want. I mean, literally, you can do whatever you want.

Councilman Carr.

Just a point of clarification, beating around the bush a lot. The total refund, Chris might have that. The total refund, if we do, let's say what some of the constituents were saying right now, the total refund, pay it out, do it, what is that number?

$5 million if you go back four years.

$5 million, and that would come from the general fund? Yes. How much do we get a year in the general fund?

I'm sorry?

How much do we are allocated in the general fund annually?

Towards the LLMDs?

Oh, period. Don't we get like $393 million a year?

Oh, I'm sorry. I'd have to defer to the city. Right in there.

So to completely, all the money, to completely pay back this, it would cost close to $6 million, and that would be two years of the entire general fund. Is that correct?

No, our general fund is around $150 to $55 million, but we have an $11 to $12 million ongoing deficit in the general fund, so we are already in the minus in the general fund.

Okay, so we're $11 million in the hole, and if we pay them completely back, that's going to... severely put us into a further hole, a deficit.

Is that correct? So it depends. We have a bucket of reserves. Those reserves have been planned to keep operations at the level like police and fire operations at the level they are while we look for a measure P or other measures to get revenue. our projections show that without this issue we would run out of money in four years to four and a half years so if we were to do anything like this it would bring that to maybe three years three and a half years so we're we have some tough decisions to make and uh i i just wanted to make sure that everybody understood those numbers we're talking people seem to want more

and the refunds, and it doesn't look like that's physically, it's even impossible. There's a trade-off, right?

Excuse me. I'm sorry. Miss, if you want to talk, you need to come up to the mic?

Sure.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor Moy, for inviting me up. I appreciate that. What's your name? Just to speak on your point, you said I'm sorry, I wasn't making a point. Reclaiming my time. So you said that if we were to, if you guys were to pay back, we'd be in more of a deficit. But what you just stated is we are already in what, 11, what was the number?

11 million.

11 million deficit. So it's possible, right? We got into an $11 million deficit. It's possible. Whether it's the right thing to do or not, you're putting that over doing what's right. Just know that.

That's not what I'm doing at all.

It is. No, it's not. You made it clear that it would put us more in a deficit. You wanted everybody to know that.

Correct.

Overdoing what's right to righting a wrong.

That is not my intention. My intention is purely... to understand exactly what the numbers are and where this will be. For everybody to understand that we're in an $11 deficit, and it's going to cost us a lot of money if we pay this completely back, and it's going to hurt the city of Fairfield immensely.

Thank you for supporting my claim. That's exactly what I just stated. You care more about that than doing what is right. Thank you. That's my time.

What was your name, ma'am?

Casey Wagner.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I did want to add that the $5 million figure, that's just to pay back for the last four years. And then each year, the city collects about $1 million, about $1.2 million each year in these districts. So that's another consideration that the council would have to deliberate on. If we're going to continue services, that's another million dollars each year, plus CPI in some of these districts.

Thank you. Oh, Councilwoman Williams.

Thank you. Chris, I think this question is for you. So I'm really familiar with number 13. And so that task force has been working very hard to get on track to have another vote. there's been a lot of advocacy there's been a lot of education there's been a lot of work a lot of groundwork done so I'm gonna ask two different questions because I don't know which other of the districts are as close to to possibly passing this 218 vote so I'm going to ask you in two sections so for for those that are close what are the implications to to closing the LLMDs still having well let me back up so what I already the level of services have decreased like we see declining landscape it looks bad and I do believe it's impacting property values or will be and I don't want it to go lower so I Backing up and then now forward, for those that are close to a 218, how does these decisions impact an LLMD that may pass soon in the next six months or whenever?

I don't think I can answer that question because it is subjective. On the one hand, you might get property owners who might be frustrated with how it's looking. You've heard the comments made tonight. Some folks have mentioned a lack of trust, accountability and responsibility. But on the other hand, it might also encourage people Um, because they're going to continue to see the degradation of landscaping in their areas. And they're going to say, Hey, you know, we're going to do something about it. Exactly what the group. And I'm pointing over here because the groups over here, um, uh, green Valley community landscape group has done. They've noticed the degradation of landscaping in their own communities and they've rallied. They've come together, they've started to work together and push towards that vote. So to say how people will react to even further reduction of landscaping, I don't think I can necessarily speak to that. I can also say that we're talking about an existing district and a brand new district. In any case, no matter what decision is made tonight, any community can move forward with forming a new district under the Proposition 218 regulations.

And for those that, the other four, 3, 6, 8, and 12, have there been that same type of advocacy around landscaping?

Not to the extent that we've seen in District 13, and I will even throw in District 7. I know that they have a strong neighborhood network in Rolling Hills. However, from what I understand, that district, pending these decisions, pending what's happening with the recent lawsuit, I understand that efforts in that district have been on pause pending council's decisions. And Waterman Highlands, I know there's been... discussions, but I think those discussions have been limited to private neighborhood gatherings, nothing directly with the city, except maybe through the Landscape Oversight Committee, as one of the public speakers, Rick Johnson, mentioned a little bit ago, that there's been some information requested about the district generally. I have not heard anything as to whether or not they're prepared to move forward with the Proposition 218 process.

Got it. And for the dollars that are in the LLMD, these five LMDs right now, if we refund, are we gutting that budget completely out of there? And then the difference we're pulling from general funds?

That's part of the decisions before you tonight We could see services immediately and whatever whatever is in the budgets right now, which I can tell you in each district It's not a lot anyway And whatever is in fund balance a lot of it is the general fund loan that you all provided a couple years ago So I mean essentially I think that the refunds essentially are coming from the general fund regardless it's just a matter if you want us to collect what we were going to collect already this year. You guys would refund out of the and provide whatever services we can with those funds and then issue a refund through the general fund. So it's kind of a wash. It's like in and out.

So when you say C services that have already reduced.

Yes.

These districts are going to look a mess. OK, I just need a few more minutes to think. Councilman Tonneson.

So I guess we're deliberating this in front of everyone, which I'm fine with. It's just, how much in loans do we have out?

It's about $700,000. Initially, it was about $1 million.

About $700,000?

Yeah, remaining. Yeah, maybe $600,000 if they've made their payments this year.

I am looking at, we've got to pay for the sins of the past. I mean, there were mistakes made that we're now this council's responsible for. I think we form, there's enough committees, there's enough people out there that are familiar with this now. We form a strong committee. where citizens form a strong 218 committee, maybe combine services to where maybe people are working on three or four districts because they're going to need to raise funds to get literature. Do the best to pass 218s. I think maybe follow Kay's lead that they're getting a lot of action out in District 13, North Cordelia, whatever district that is. Then we passed the 218s. We pulled back the money that we loaned them. This sucks. This whole decision sucks. But I'm with, we've got to do the right thing. Doing the right thing is not a hard decision. Financially, it's a

decision yeah um we brought it up and i know majority of five wanted to go into closed session about something does that still need to happen are you guys still looking for direction from

I'm going to bypass that. I wanted to go to closed session to ask a legal question to our lawyer, but it basically has been answered, so I'm okay with not.

And the rest of you?

You're okay? We're already discussing it. You know, I'm okay now, too, to be honest. You know, we have allowed the community to really see a closed session. Yes. Everything that we talked about in closed session, like, literally has been laid out here. That's correct. And I see the exposure in it, David. But the clarity in which you explain this could only come from you, really. And now it is. public record, it is clear. It is clear what the decision is, depending on, you know, and so no matter what we decide, I feel like the community has this sense of education and awareness. And we saw that during that first 218 votes, like on next door, I saw like the brilliance in the community where they were learning, learning, educating, and you just laid it out so beautifully. So I'm glad we did bring it to, you know, I see the exposure for us, but I'm still glad that, you know, we brought it here, that decision, so that it is clear. For those that didn't learn here, they can now look online and see the decision-making process. So anyway, that's all to say thank you.

Okay. So we're all good. I just wanted to make sure, because there had been a vote, so I want to make sure we're okay. And Councilman Sandhu.

I have a question for the assistant city manager, the city attorney. How much did we spend on the Thacker case to defend it? How much did the city spend on the Thacker case?

I don't know. I'd have to go back through my notes and find our billing. I don't have it off the top of my head.

Okay. It wasn't cheap.