City Council - Special Meeting

This meeting is now called to order. It is 5.02. Okay, so I will call the special joint meeting of the Milpitas City Council and the successor agency of September 1st 2026 to order. This meeting is being broadcast via Zoom. Members of the public are invited to speak on any item that is not on the agenda. The meeting is also available live translation in more than 60 languages through Wordly. Translation is accessible by phone, computer, and video displays. City staff, please verify the virtual participation is available and operating.

It is available and operating. Thank you, Mayor.

With that, we'll move to today's business. City Clerk Gazzetta, please take the role.

Vice Mayor Barbadio. Council Member Chua.

Aye.

Council Member Lamb.

Here.

Council Member Leigh Ann.

Here.

Mayor Montano.

And I am here. Thank you very much. So we are going to be going into a closed session. Do you still want me to call the special meeting? No, no.

Mayor, I believe we have the special meeting first and then closed session. Okay.

All right. So this special meeting, we will adopt a resolution of the Board of the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Milpitas confirming and designating officers of the Successor Agency. We'll have staff.

Madam Mayor and Council, we do. We have our Director of Finance, Koufessi Howell.

Good evening, Mayor Montano. Council Members Chua, Lian and Lam, Lou Scrofresi-Howe, Finance Director for the City of Mopedas. We have a four-year resolution that establishes the position, the official positions for the successor agency. This has not been done officially in the past, and so we're taking this opportunity To essentially bring this forward together with to you before we bring the our second item So there's not much to say about this except that this is effectively assigning particular positions. The mayor will serve as the The mayor will serve as the I'm sorry for not the mayor will serve executive the executive director will be the city manager and The assistant executive city director will be the assistant city manager. I will act as the treasurer CFO. This Mopeda city clerk will act as the secretary, and the city attorney will act as general counsel. And then the vice mayor and the mayor will have similar roles, analogous roles, sitting as the authority board. And so with no further ado, I'm going to give that back to council unless there are questions on these assignments. So effectively, we are reflecting the Mopedas organization, but you are now sitting as a separate governmental entity.

Okay. Thank you, Director Cofresi. Let's call for anyone from the public, anybody from the public that would like to speak on this item.

Mayor, how long do you want to have for public speakers?

The public?

How long for public speakers would you like to have?

Oh, how long? Let's have two minutes.

Thank you. We have no public speaker cards, but I do believe Mr. Montemayor would like to address the council.

Mayor, members of the city council, city staff, city management staff. Oh, I just glanced a while ago and glancing the... special meeting again. I believe they're related, one or two. And I think it's necessary, it's affordable, the 40 grand is what I saw featured. Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Montemayor. Is there anyone else from the public? If not, Suzanne, is there anyone on Zoom?

If anyone on Zoom would like to address the City Council on this item, please raise your hand. You may dial star six to raise your hand. If not, we have no additional public speakers, Mayor.

Okay, so any council members? We have Council Member Chua that would like to. Hold on, Mayor. Okay.

Thank you may are seeing there's no comment. I would like to adopt a resolution confirming and the sign designating city officials to serve as officers of the successor agency to the redevelopment agency of the city of milk eat us. Okay, the attorney. Do we do we have to wait.

No, it's not an ordinance. It's just a resolution. Okay.

Thank you.

Okay. Is there a second? We have customer in So it was motioned by Usman customer Chua and seconded by a customer man.

Hey, let's call for the vote Councilmember Chua aye councilmember lamb. All right counts member Leanne. Aye mayor, Montana

Thank you. Wasn't working there for a while. Okay. So now, actually, I'm going to have the assistant city manager go ahead and read the number two.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. The next item is to adopt a resolution for the sale and issuance of refunding bonds for the, excuse me, successor agency to the redevelopment agency. Finance Director Kofesi Howe will present the report now.

Once again, good afternoon. Now sitting as the authority board, I believe.

Yes.

Yes, you are sitting as the successor agency board at this point. And so, again, Lou Scafreschi-Howe, chief financial officer and treasurer. I have with me Jim Fabian, principal from Philman Rollup. And James, I am absolutely not going to say your last name, James, because I'll make a hash of it. So I'll let you please say it into the And if we could go back.

Good evening. James Warziniak from Jones Hall here again with you tonight. Thank you.

We also have with us virtually David Dozema from Kaiser Marston. And we also have Eileen Gallagher from Stiefel. And as we go through the presentation, we'll go through those individuals. We'll weigh in as needed.

Director Caprese-Howe, we only have David Dozema on the line. All right. Thank you. We can cover.

right here is the agenda first of all again good evening the item this item asks the city council sitting as the successor agency board to authorize a refunding of the 2015 tax allocation refunding bonds the short version we can refinance about 37.4 million of outstanding bonds at today's rates and save roughly 1.35 million on a present value basis. Those savings do not go to the city alone. They are distributed to all 15 affected tax entities as additional property tax revenue. There is no cost to the general fund. Every cost of the transaction is paid from bond proceeds. And before we go into the numbers and the legal documents that you have had before you, I wanted to spend a few minutes on background because I know some of you are new to the council and as well new to the successor agency, so I wanted to provide you some background. The successor agency is unusual. The mechanics really, really matter. The agenda is before you. You'll see who's presenting it, but we're going to basically move on a little bit. I'm going to give you some background. on the entire, there will be four slides of the background and I will be showing you a 50-year timeline. This is the whole arc of the redevelopment agency to the successor agency. I'm going to hold it and talk about four dates. In 1976, the redevelopment agency was activated and drew Project Area 1A as NAPL. A redevelopment agency is a separate public agency a city could create under state law to rebuild an area it had found to be blighted. The redevelopment agency had its own boards, which here in Milpitas was the city council again, and its own source of money. Where that money came from is the next slide, and we'll get into that, but I want to continue on just a couple of these dates. In 2012, the state of California dissolved every redevelopment agency in California. Milpitas, like every other city with a redevelopment agency, took on the job of winding its agency down, That wind down NTC is the successor agency that is sitting today. that is sitting tonight. In 2015, the successor agency refinanced the bonds the old agencies issued in 2003. And those 2015 bonds are the subject of tonight's item. And in 2034, which is a big date for us, the final obligation will be paid. The county trust fund for this project area will close. And the property tax inside the boundary, which is project area number one, will be allocated in the ordinary way the property tax revenues are allocated. I want to say plainly what that last line means and does not mean. It's a question I would ask if I was sitting on the council and sitting as a board member. It does not mean that the increment in its entirety comes to the city. It means that the tax increment stops being increment. The full 1% on that assessed value of those properties that are in project area number one will go back into standard allocation and is divided amongst all the taxing entities in the usual proportions. the school, the county, the special districts, and the city. The city will receive its ordinary share, about 16%. The same share receives from property tax anywhere else in town. And that will be in 2034 after we dissolve the successor agency and it is fully wound down. What does change for the city is a little bit narrower. The money that today pays the bonds and the county land agreement is no longer spoken for, and I said before, the city will pick up at 16%. In the future, after 2034, that'll be roughly, on using today's figures and assessed value, it's about $1.8 million a year. All right. In orange is the item and the action that is in front of the board tonight, a second refinancing, this time of the 2015 bonds. As a point of information, those 2015 tax allocation refunding bonds were issued by the successor agency in the amount of $127,790,000 to retire the $145,990,000 then outstanding on the 2003 bonds. The 2003 tax and allocation bonds were the original bonds, and they were issued by the former Milpitas Redevelopment Agency in the amount of $200,000, once again, the pledge being the property value, the assessed values, property tax revenues for Redevelopment Project Area 1. The other remaining dates on these sides are some legislative and court steps that produced the dissolution and the finding of completion that followed it. The next couple of slides are going to fill in the middle, how tax increment works, why the program ended, and what Milpitas built inside the project area boundary. So this is a slide on how tax increment works. Redevelopment in one sentence. Again, a city identified an area found to be blighted, adopted a plan to rebuild it, and paid for that work out of the growth in property tax from inside that area. The state authorized it in 1945. The voters put the funding mechanism tax increment, which is a funding mechanism, into the Constitution in 1952. That mechanism is on the screen. And forgive me for giving you a little bit of history, but I think you need to know what this came from. The city drew a project boundary. The assessor recorded the taxable value inside it in that year. That is the base value, which represents the Navy brand at the bottom of this graphic. The incremental value is the green band. So for Milpitas back that Navy band, the value was just a little bit under $800 million at 799.7. That was the 1976 year value. It's fixed since the boundary has been drawn. It is shared once again by schools, the county and the city. And that's where we get our 16.3 cents from each dollar. The $11.1 billion, it's important to understand that that is the incremental value. So the overall total property value for that whole piece of redevelopment project area number one right now would be $11.8 million, of which the $11 billion is the incremental value. What the successor actually receives is tax revenues. Again, and this is going to sound repetitive, but I just want to make sure that you understand the difference between the separate entity, which is a successor agency, and the city of Milpitas. So 1% of that incremental value less the county's administrative costs for essentially administrating our property taxes, and the AB 1290 pass-through payments to the other taxing entities, which as I've said before a number of times, schools in the county and some special districts. Okay. If you've read the indenture, the tax revenues is a defined term in the indenture, and tax revenues is what's pledged to pay these bonds. In other words, that's what we have committed to, to pay any bonds outstanding. The assessed value itself is not pledged. So when you see coverage figures later in the presentation from Jim, they're measured against tax revenues, not against the $11 billion. That is the assessed value. I'm going to talk a little bit about why redevelopment ended. Cities use redevelopment heavily, especially after Prop 13, and it's worth having a clear understanding about why. After 1978, a city could no longer set its own property tax rate. When new development arrived, the city only received its share, the 1%, which again for Milpitas is 16.3 cents on the dollar. Inside a redevelopment project area, the agency captured the entire increase rather than a slice. That meant that within that project area, the city got 100% versus the 16.3%, and the redevelopment agency could borrow against it. That was a benefit, and that's why project areas spread across the state. By 2011, roughly 400 redevelopment agencies were taking about 12% of all property tax in California. and that created a significant challenge for the state of California. School districts are entitled to a minimum funding level, and when a district loses property tax, the state makes up the difference. Schools are the single largest claimant on the property tax dollar, so a large share of every increment dollar came back to the state as well. That's why the program ended in a state budget crisis rather than for any local reason. So in June 2011, on the prior slide, it was the legislature passing two bills. ABX-126 closed every development agency in the state. ABX-127 let an agency stay open if it made a payment to the state each year. That payment was not all of the increment. It was an amount calculated from the agency's own tax increment, and it went to schools to reduce what the state owed them. Remember, I've just said. that if the schools are short, the state has to make them up. City sued, of course. December in 2011, the California Supreme Court uphold the closure of all these redevelopment agencies, but struck down the option to stay open, which left the agencies no way out. They all closed as of February 1st, 2012, as across the state, and then the successor agencies came into play. The new information, no city can create a new redevelopment agency. The legislature has since authorized certain narrower tools to help the cities with its needs, to fund its needs. The enhanced infrastructure financing districts and community revitalization authorities, which can use tax increment, but only from the local agencies that agree to contribute and never from the schools. Second, the successor agency cannot borrow new money. So what you're talking about, the transaction, we are not asking for new money. That's not going to happen. It can only refinance what the old agency already owed and only where the refinancing saves money. That's the entire reason this item is before you. And third, the debts that survived, the ones that existed when the agencies closed on February 1, 2012. Each of them had to be recognized by the state as an enforceable obligation, and each has been listed and approved every year since. Nothing new can be added to that list. And I'm sorry this sounds like a lecture, but I'm really trying to help you understand why we got to where we are. So let's talk a little bit about project area itself. It was drawn in 1976 at 577 acres and subsequently expanded three times, reaching 2,230 acres as of today. Two things about those expansions. Each was added area came in with its own base year. So remember the first 577 acres came in at 1977. 76, I believe, and that was set in 1976. So the 799.7 million base back to that slide with the Navy band is a four areas added together. An expansion was not something a city could simply do. An amendment required findings, public hearings and amended plan. A 1996 amendment to the original plan was triggered pass through payments to the other taxing entities for the first three areas and Midtown, the Midtown area in Mopedas has been subject to them since it was added in 2003. The area today includes residential neighborhoods, downtown, the BART station area, and the large technology campuses. That diversity matters to the bond rating and to our investors. We will come back to it under risk factors. And so once I'm gonna reinforce again, the Milpitas Redevelopment Agency is legally separate from the city, but the city council runs it sitting as the board, as its board tonight, as that action, that first action, this evening did and assigned. The lecture's over, guys. All right, so we're going to get into three things to know about the successor agency. Again, separate entity. Second, it cannot do redevelopment. It can only pay off old debts, sell off old property, and refinance existing debt. Third, it is not in charge of itself. And there are two different boards involved. This body, which is a successor agency body that's the council sitting as the successor agency board, governs the successor agency for Moabitas. The oversight board at the Santa Clara County is run by the Santa Clara County for all cities and the school districts and the special districts in the county. Those members are appointed by the county and its duty runs to those taxing entities and their financial interest in this money, not to the city. What this board approves tonight goes to that county oversight board and then subsequently to the State Department of Finance. And then one point of history, since the name has changed, until 2018, each successor agency in the state had its own oversight board. Since July 2018, there has been a single countywide board, the Redevelopment Disillusioned Countywide Oversight Board of Santa Clara County, doing this for every former agency in the county. So tonight is the first of three approvals. So it's this board, the county board, and then the State Department of Finance. So this in summary is what the successor agency still owes. Somebody had to pay it and so each city was able to take on that job and Milpitas did through the successor agency. Effectively, what you're looking at is the entire what's called an enforceable obligation, the 2015 tax allocation refunding bonds, which is what's under discussion today, an agreement of purchase and sale that we have with County of Santa Clara for $22 million, and some administrative costs, which is an annual allowance that we're allowed every year and that's a recurring, occurring cost that we are allowed to charge and get reimbursed and it's an allowance that's approved every single year and it is slightly different every single year. It represents the amount of money that it takes the city to run the successor agency. So it's staffing costs. So it's everybody, many of us including the city attorney, some of the staff from finance and certainly the city manager's office. And then how does a successor agency get paid? I'm not going to beat this up too much more. But effectively what you're looking at is the June 30th, 2025 demonstration of the monies that we got for that year. So the tax increment, remember that's the tax increment on the $11 billion that we had on a prior slide. So it is a tax, property tax revenues from that assessed value. And that's $53.5 million, less the county administration because they manage property taxes for us, the collection of and the distribution. There are pass-through payments to taxing entities, once again, schools, schools, the county itself, and special districts. And then there are the enforceable obligations of the successor agency, which were on the prior slide. There is a residual that goes to all affected taxing agency, once again, our colleagues, all 15 of us together, of $29.3 million. And for the fiscal year that ended June 30th, 2025, the City of Milpitas General Fund share of that residual was $4.8 million, roughly. So lower debt service shrinks line three and grows line four by the same amount. So if we shrink the enforceable obligations of the successor agency today, which we would be able to do, or have the opportunity to do if the market favors us, If by shrinking that enforceable obligation, one of which is a 2015 refund of bonds, we will be able to increase the residual to all affected taxing entities and as such pass through additional monies to the city of Mopedas general fund. Okay, I'm going to talk a little bit about the 2015 bonds today. As I've already said, in 2015, they issued, we issued the successor agency again, issued $127.8 million of refunding bonds to refinance the tax allocation bonds issued in 2003, which were the 200 million. It's why the outstanding, that transaction achieved savings. It's why the outstanding balance has come down. to where it is, which is roughly around $37.4 million. The average coupon on that $37.4 million that's left on the balance of that as of September 1st is about 5%, which is well above where this credit prices today. Final maturity is about September 1st, 2032. If we did absolutely nothing, we'd have an additional six years of payment on this debt. The principal is front-loaded with just about $10 million maturing in September 2027. The front-loading is one reason the savings, while real or modest in absolute dollars, there's not a long tail of high coupon debt to deal with. The 2015 FIIs are callable at the successes option on any date of PAR with no prepayment penalty, so none of the savings is consumed by a call premium. And those 2015 FIIs were upgraded recently, somewhat recently, to AA, the underlying rating from S&P global ratings. And that's where we start from going into this transaction. The savings estimate assumes we will hold it. This is the first time you've seen this refunding. You haven't seen it before. And then finally, this is once again six features of the transaction. We will refund 100% all of the outstanding 2015 bonds. The sole purpose of this is debt service savings, no new money. There cannot be. We're not allowed to do so. The final maturity stays at six years, September 1st, 2032. We are not extending the term to manufacture savings. We can do it. The state does not permit here. The bonds are not subject to redemption prior to maturity, which helps pricing on a short structure like this. And this is a fairly short structure of six years. The sale is negotiated rather than competitive through Stifel, the long-term partner of the city of Milpitas. based on its working relationship with us and its experience with California tax allocation refundings. Underwriting is a professional service and the minicode and approval of the bond purchase agreement constitutes the required approval of that engagement. And then the security, once again, what is the underlying pledge is our property tax revenues from our project area number one. It's the ones, the taxes that are allocated to the successor agency net, again, of county administrative fees and AB 1290 pass-through payments. Looking at three slides back, that's line number three. For the savings analysis, the sale parameters, and the statutory estimates, I'll turn it over to Jim Fabian, principal at Fieldman. I apologize for the lecture. It was a lot of fun. It may not have been as fun for you, but I'm just hoping that I just wanted you to walk away with the real understanding of how we got from the redevelopment agency to the successor agency, and I'll be glad to share my notes after class. With that, I'll turn it over to Jim. We appreciate that.

Thank you.

Thanks, Luz. So I'm going to walk through the economics of the refunding. As we talked about previously, we're looking to, based upon market conditions as of August 11th, with a cushion built into those numbers, we were anticipating $1,352,000 in net present value savings. That's 3.62% net present value savings in a percentage basis. Your policies say 3% or higher in terms of net present value savings would be when you would refund outstanding debt. So we're above that 3% threshold. On a dollar basis, nominal dollar basis, not accounting for the future cost of funds, it's $1.473 million of total debt service savings. And as I mentioned, the conditions were as of August 11th with a 25 basis point cushion in there. Our threshold of savings is 3% or higher. Rates are volatile right now due to geopolitical events happening on a daily basis. And so if we're not able to hit a 3% or higher threshold, we would need to delay the refunding. On the next slide, the estimates that we assumed were based upon, as Luz mentioned, the AA rating that the current successor agency, Bonds, has. We did have a credit presentation with S&P. We're very confident of achieving the current rating or potentially looking to get an upgrade to AA plus. hearing about that probably sometime at the end of the month. We are looking to buy a reserve fund surety policy so we don't have to cash fund a debt service reserve fund, and the savings are net of the costs associated with the refunding. Potentially, a lower rating reduces savings, so that's why achieving the AA or AA plus is a really good thing for the successor agency. The surety also helps with the refunding economics versus using cash to fund the debt service reserve fund. The surety is provided by a AA bond insurer, AGM, or Build America Mutual, BAM. There's no obligation to post-cash if the provider would be downgraded in the future, which probably would not happen. On the next slide. Just talking about the savings, as Luz mentioned, we do have 15 effective taxing entities. Each entity gets their share based upon the percentage of property taxes that they receive. For example, Milpitas USD gets about $91,000 of annual savings, whereas the city gets about $40,000 on an annual basis for the general fund based upon its 16.3% of the property tax. The city will receive a one-time payment of $50,000 to cover all the administrative costs associated with the refunding. We will again share in proportion to each of the taxing entities share as we talked about so from now until the end of the bond issues that Percentage will stay the same the school district would get the 91,000 the city would get its $40,000 and then the other smaller entities would get their share There is no general fund cost to do this transaction all the costs are paid out of the transaction itself and And so no impact to the general fund associated with the refunding. On the next slide, I wanted to, in your packet tonight, you have good faith estimates that are required by the government code. We do have in, I'm sorry, I went one too many. I'm sorry. So we're on the limits of the resolution. Sorry about that. One more, please. Okay, so in the resolution, we have a $40 million maximum principal amount. That's to give us a little cushion. We don't think we're going to be near that. We think we're going to be about $36.5 million. The maximum underwriter's discount is 0.5%. We're going to be below that. Our maximum true interest cost is 4.25%. And as I mentioned, the minimum present value savings is 3%. So those are the bond parameters. We cannot exceed any of those. And so the final amounts, as I mentioned, are expected to be lower. We anticipate that we'll potentially do better in terms of that maximum true interest cost. And we anticipate to do about 3.6% net present value savings. We'll make sure that we meet each of these tests independently and also focus on that net present value savings or the transaction won't proceed. And then on the next slide, we are required under the government code to provide good faith estimates to the successor agency board members. As I mentioned, our principal amount that we're looking to issue is $36.455 million. Our estimated true interest cost is 3.15%. Cost associated with this transaction, which includes the staff time that I mentioned, the consultants, the underwriting expense, the surety costs are $589,000, and the proceeds are approximately $37.7 million. But the total payment, when you add in the interest that would be paid through 2032, are $41.5 million. And this is based upon, as I mentioned, the August 11 numbers. Actual results will be based upon when the bonds are sold in October. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Rozeniak.

Yes, thank you very much. James Wozniak at Jones Hall, serving as bond counsel and disclosure counsel to the successor agency on this proposed refinancing. Next slide, please. I'm going to give you a little overview. I think the finance director did a wonderful job kind of giving you the overview of the legal framework in which the successor agency operates and in which we, the success agency board, should they choose to approve the refinancing, all the steps that would go through that. On the left hand side, you see the various references to the health and safety code. That's the provisions pursuant to which refundings can be accomplished for savings, as has been mentioned, and the requirement to go to the oversight board. So again, should the successor agency board approve tonight, we would then go to the oversight board for their approval and then on to the State Department of Finance. Again, the idea being want to make sure the taxing entities are protected and the savings are reaching the affected taxing entities, one of whom is the City of Milpitas, but there's the school districts, the county, and others. The government code reference there is the CDAC certification. We will make certain filings with the state investment advisory commission. They track all local agency debt in the state. So that's one of the legal requirements. And again, on the right-hand side, the various sequence of approvals that we've gone through, and the reference to the debt management policy, just to say that everything we're talking about tonight is compliant with the successor agency slash city's existing debt management policies, which were adopted back in 2017. So in the packet before you tonight, there are a lot of documents. Obviously the main document is the resolution. That would be the document pursuant to which the success agency board grants the authority to city staff and success agency staff, I should say, and all of us consultants to continue moving forward with the process, the various approvals that we just went over. But also there's attachments to the resolution that are in the packet, which are identified here on the screen. And essentially, these are all the documents that would be approved by the success agency board in connection with the approval of the bond financing. These are approved as to form. Meaning there's a few blanks, there's a few minor provisions that would be filled in closer to the time of pricing the bonds and closing the bonds. For one, the interest rates and final maturity schedule, as we just heard from Mr. Fabian, the marketplace is volatile right now. we would only proceed to final pricing and closing should we meet those parameters set forth in the resolution. And at that time, the final details of the interest rate, the maturity schedule would be locked in. So again, those are all blank in these form documents before you tonight. But the high level material information concerning the transaction, concerning the successor agency, concerning risk factors, which we'll talk about on a future slide here. Those are all in these documents. So more specifically, the preliminary official statement is the document pursuant to which the bonds would be marketed, offered to the investors, potential investors in the bonds. So everything about the successor agency, the redevelopment agency, the project area, assessed values, tax increment, tax revenues generated from the project area, describing the bonds, the source of repayment. That's what's in the preliminary official statement. And as we talked about at a prior meeting of the Successor Agency Board, that's the responsibility of the Successor Agency Board to make sure that all the material information concerning the agency of which uh the board is aware here it is on this slide you know again making sure everything in the preliminary official statement of which the board is aware that may be relevant to an investor is disclosed and if if there's questions if there's something the board might be aware of or think they might want to include you know it would be appropriate to talk to successor agency slash city staff about that But if we go back to the prior slide, that's the preliminary official statement. Attachment C is the indenture of trust. That's the legal document pursuant to which the bonds would be issued. The bond purchase agreement is the agreement pursuant to which the successor agency would sell the bonds to the bond underwriter, Stifel, who was referenced earlier. They resell on to ultimate investors. The refunding instructions, basically, tell the prior trustee the 2015 bonds trustee to refund those prior bonds with the new bond proceeds continuing disclosure certificate is an obligation of successor agency to provide ongoing information to the bond investors just like has been done with the 15 bonds if the 2026 bonds are issued the investors in those bonds will want to receive audited financial statements certain tabular information concerning the tax revenues of the successor agency and finally the debt service savings analysis Mr. Fabian already went over this essentially showing the potential savings we're at 3.62 percent potential savings right now nothing would be finalized until you know the time of pricing but at this moment there are those potential savings and that's shown in the analysis I think we went over this again, just highlighting the board's role in approving these documents, including the preliminary official statement, which does and must contain all material information concerning the bonds. And if there's any questions, you know, we're happy to answer them.

Thank you very much for your presentation. So I'd like to ask for public speakers, any public, anyone from the public.

I have no public speaker cards, Mayor.

OK, we have no Zoom speakers, so now moving on to council discussion or asking questions of the.

Chair, I'm not quite sure what to call you. Chair Montano, if I could ask your indulgence, this is just the schedule. We've got the recommendation. All of this is there. This is recommended action. This is what we're asking you to do, to adopt the resolution. But I do want to recognize some other members of the financing team. who supported us through this transaction and me personally and got us to where we are today, Anshu Reardon and Dan Shaw-Fieldman, David Farma and Matthew Cooney at Jones Hall, Jackson Weldon and Carly Walther Porino of Stiefel, Vanessa Legband of Stradling, Alice Vorek and Trudy Shaw of the City Finance Department, our own city attorney's office, both Christian Curtis and Christopher Kreech, who have approved the transaction documents as to form, the ones that were just discussed, those six pieces of information. Last, but certainly not least, I want to especially acknowledge, she's going to hate me, but I'm going to do it anyway, Julia H. Cooper, former San Jose CFO, my former boss. It's fascinating that she continues to want to work with me, but I've got to say something. Without her deep knowledge and wisdom and the professionalism of this entire team, we would not be here tonight. I'm going to leave this up here so you can look at the recommended action, and we, of course, welcome any questions at your pleasure.

Okay, thank you. Okay, so console. Any questions we have consular land.

Thank you, Mayor. Looking at this, it says authorized issuing and sales not to exceed $40 million. I think I saw maybe four sizes. Before this slide, something about $41 million. Here. There. One more.

Is this this?

No, the last one. Next slide. 20. I think it's this one.

It says 40 million on it.

20. Slide 20. There's a slide that says 41 million? Yes. There. So the total payment amount

If I could address that question. Yes. So that is the total payment amount. So that includes the principal amount of the bonds that will be repaid plus the interest that will be repaid. So between now and 2032 when the bonds mature, you're not only going to be paying principal, you'll have interest on those bonds and the total payment for that timeframe is the $41,494,000.

One other question I have. You said there's 15 taxing entities total. And I heard you mention Milpitas School District. Can you share what other that's within this 15 taxing entities?

I'm not sure I have in front of me the debt service savings report. But that in your staff report, there's an attachment to the resolution that has the debt service savings report that lists every single one of those entities and the percentage of the property tax they receive and the dollar amount of savings that they will receive due to the refunding.

Yeah, we also actually provided in our budget book on an annual basis and so so I can provide you can certainly provide you that slide. But is it is a large number include special districts, the county itself and of course the school district to catch the biggest share. Don't worry, I'll go back to it.

Okay, sorry about that.

That's all I have thanks to him. Okay, thank you to anyone else has a question.

Okay, I do have just one clarifying question. So since the school district gains a huge part of their substantial revenue, do they play any part in any of the decision making or is it just are we the lead agency to this, you know, in terms of the administrator?

The successor agency board, us, is the administrator for this particular debt because it belongs to the Mopedas Redevelopment Agency, so it is ours.

So even though they get a piece of the pie, if you will, they don't have anything to do with it. Okay.

It's a good thing to bring up at future discussions. It's your pleasure.

All right.

Thank you much. And one thing to remember is that we have a potential approval tonight by the successor agency then we go to the county oversight board for their approval and then up to sacramento to the department of finance for their approval too so we have two more approvals before we can sell the bonds okay all right thank you is your okay anyone any last question anyone else we have a customer lynn has one more yes so what if it doesn't get you know adopted or passed tonight what happens Well, from the standpoint of timing, so we, as Luz had put up our schedule there for approval, we are scheduled, the county has an oversight board meeting on September 25th, and that's their regular county oversight board meeting, so we're The reason we're here tonight is to meet the timing of getting on that agenda for their approval on September the 25th. If we were to not get approval tonight, it would potentially put us in a situation needing to have more of a special board meeting by the oversight board meeting. And then the Department of Finance approval would be delayed. And then we would be more subject to the volatility of the bond market that might put the savings into jeopardy or have an impact to the savings. So it would definitely have an impact on the timing of moving forward and getting the transaction completed and locking in the savings for the successor agency.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you for that. And we have Councilmember Lamb.

Can you explain to me again the lower left expand three time from 1979, 4.83 to 6.91, 2003? How do you expand?

I'm not sure I understand the term. Right. So remember, at that point in time, redevelopment agencies were active. legal entities within the state of california that had the ability to recognize blighted portions of their community and so what happened was the original project area was established based upon conditions of blight the the city staff back in these years of 79 82 and 03 looked at other areas within the community that met the definition of blight and went through the legal process to expand the boundaries of the project area And that was a very legally defined process that had to be used, environmental review done, approval to be able to expand the project area and to increase that acreage by the defined amounts there. And the successor agency at that time did that three times to expand the boundaries to increase the amount of the project area that was considered blighted and needed to have the increment to improve the conditions in those areas but that no longer exists because redevelopment agencies have have been ruled illegal under the Constitution and no longer exists but that was what used to happen okay thanks yeah

Okay, yeah, I just wanted to follow up on that. I was on the city council back in 2012 when the redevelopment, I think Governor Brown decided to, you know, just get rid of it. And the reason why, which wasn't mentioned, that there was a lot of abuse from cities, because when Congress passed that, it was a redevelopment agency, it was supposed to be for blighted areas. But What happened is a lot of cities were designating redevelopment agency sites, even though they weren't blinded. But the bottom line is he got rid of it. But he should have gotten rid of it in a gradual, gradually, and he did. He just kind of cold turkey, and that was when it really hurt a lot of cities. But anyway, I was there at the time when that happened. All right, so we have Council Member Chua wants to make a comment.

Thank you, Mayor. Ms. Ursada, can you please put up slide 28? Is there a 28? Forgive me is a 28 is is there. I think that this this one thank you ma'am I think this is I just want to piggyback on council member lands question this is these are the consequences if we don't adopt tonight. And that includes foregoing the $1.4 million. We would forego these savings. Yes. And $240 million by the city and no upsetting benefit identified.

Yes, ma'am.

I just want to point that out. That said, I would like to move to adopt the resolution as recommended by staff. I'm not going to read the whole thing.

Okay, I'll second that. If we can have the Staff, read the...

If the motion is just a recommended action, we don't need to read it out loud.

Okay. All right. Well, we need to call for the vote now.

Council Member Chua? Aye. Council Member Lam? Aye. Council Member Leigh Ann?

Aye.

Mayor Montano? Aye.

Okay. Thank you.

Unanimously. All right. Thank you very much, and we really enjoyed your presentation. It was very informative. I'll pass out notes later. Thank you. All right. So now we are going to adjourn to closed session. Thank you, everyone.

Mayor, we actually have closed session scheduled at 6, so I think we need a five-minute recess, and then we can take public comment on closed session.

Okay, we're going to adjourn for recess. Thank you, everyone. okay it is six o'clock and so before we adjourn to closed session city attorney curtis please brief the public on the closed session items for today thank you mayor there's one item on for closed session today it's on the agenda as conference with legal counsel anticipated litigation

Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to government code section 54956.9 facts and circumstances related to potential exposure, written threat of litigation dated May 19th, 2026 and related matters. That being said, the anticipated matter was actually filed yesterday. And so in the interest of full disclosure and Brown Act compliance, I will note that that is now discussing pending litigation, which is Timber Soma MCLP and Soma Capital Partners versus the city of Milpitas. It's Santa Clara County Superior Court case number 26CB502228.

Okay, thank you very much. So with that, we are adjourning to closed session. And we still need to call for public comment. Okay, public comment.

I have no public speaker cards.

Is there anyone from the public that would like to ask any questions or comments on this closed session item? If not, we are going to close for adjournment. Oh, never mind. We have one person. We have Mr. Montemayor.

Again, the mayor, members of the city council, system, city manager and stuff. Yeah, that was with big figures. All I saw is that we don't want to waste those savings, probably. It's a big seven digits. And it's nothing costing the general fund. So I think that's the good part. And of course, nothing is insured, but I believe it's being handled appropriately and safely. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. And with that, we are going to close. We are going to close session. Thank you. I'm adjourned. okay it is now what time is it 7 14 7 15 so we will come back to order and now we will call the regular joint meeting of the milpita city council and housing authority of september 1st 2026 to order so let's everyone rise for the pledge of allegiance would any one of you want to lead Well, okay, how do I? Okay, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, everyone. You may be seated. So now we will have the invocation, and tonight we have the pleasure of having Councilmember Chua do the invocation for tonight.

Thank you, Mayor.

Let us take a moment to reflect. We are grateful for the opportunity to serve our community. And for the residents who interested us with this responsibility. May we approach tonight's meeting with wisdom, respect, patience and an open mind. May our discussions be thoughtful, our decisions fair and our actions guided by the best interests of the entire community. May we remember that despite our differences, we share a common goal to make our community better. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you very much. That was very sweet. Okay, so now we are going to do presentations, and they will include Women's Equality Day Proclamation, National Suicide Prevention Week Proclamation, and National Preparedness Month Proclamation. So let's all go down to the podium. Welcome, everyone. It's great to see all of you here. So we will first start off with the Women's Equality Day, and this will be accepted by Noreen Kenohi. So today we commemorate Women's Equality Day, a day that honors the ratification of the 19th Amendment and the ongoing struggle for gender equality. Women continue to face many challenges in achieving the true, true equality. But together, we can break barriers and ensure that every woman has the opportunity to thrive. So join me, Mayor Carmen Montano, and the Milpitas City Council in proclaiming August 26, 2026 as Women's Equality Day in the City of Milpitas. So we can have Noreen come on up here. Hi, Noreen. So it's that Noreen I knew. OK, here you go. So we're going to take a picture first, and then you're going to say a few words, OK?

In the middle. OK. I didn't write much, so bear with me. I'm very excited and honored to accept this award. As much as many of you guys may know, I run a nonprofit dance organization. And part of that is doing a lot of free outreach to all the children in the community, free of cost. And with that being said, as far as empowerment goes, I do believe every woman and every child, especially girls, deserve to feel seen, heard, valued, and empowered. Through dance, we create spaces that build confidence, connection, and self-expression. And I want to thank you to the city council and for Mayor Carman for recognizing the importance of equality and for allowing me and also my organization, Noreen's Dance Collaborative, to be part of the work in our community. So thank you for this meaningful recognition.

So yeah, Noreen also has another, it's a group that she empowers a lot of young students and they have little performances and it really gives them a sense of accomplishment, gives them confidence. Thank you for doing that for the kids. Thank you. So the next one is National Suicide Prevention Awareness Month. And this will be accepted by Audrey and Edwina. It's called the Swag Club. So each September we join communities across the nation to raise awareness about suicide prevention, to reduce stigma and offer hope. This year's message, changing the narrative on suicide. focuses on shifting from a culture of silence to one of openness, empathy, and support. Help exists, healing is possible, and no one has to face this alone. So join me, Mayor Carmen Montano, and the Milpitas City Council in recognizing September 2026 as National Suicide Prevention Awareness Month. So come on up, Audrey and Edwida, go to the swag club.

Okay, just take a picture first, and then you guys are gonna say something. You girls better. Okay.

Hi, I'm Audrey. Hi, my name is Edwina and we are so honored to be receiving this proclamation tonight. Thank you Mayor and City Council for this opportunity. We are happy to be recognized for our work as Hopefuls and SWAG members at MHS. Youth are severely underrepresented in Milpitas Hope and other suicide prevention spaces, so we are glad to be able to represent them. We also joined SWAG to help spread the impact to people our age. SWAG stands for the Student Wellness Advisory Group at Milpitas High. We make posts to spread awareness online since most students live on the internet now. We have also hosted activities to support student well-being. We joined because we could see how much mental health was affecting the people around us and how much stigma was still behind the topic. That is why we really felt like doing something to help break the stigma.

And another part of what made us want to do this is hearing a really devastating story that one of my teachers told me. Last year, one of my teachers told our class the story of one of her classmates when they were in high school. She told us that he was a really fun person and everyone loved him. Once, when they were sophomores, he asked her what her favorite ice cream flavor was, and then he remembered that for a really long time. So months later, when she was having a really bad day, he actually hopped the fence and left school campus just to buy her her favorite ice cream to cheer her up. And that was the kind of guy he was. He was really sweet and funny. She told us that sometimes he would say things like, I want to kill myself, but everyone would think he's joking. No one would ever take him seriously because he was always joking. And because he hid it so well, nobody was prepared for the day their senior year when he actually did take his own life. And because of heartbreaking stories like these, this is why we want to do what we can to help prevent more people in the future from committing suicide. We really appreciate everyone who is here tonight and especially all the members of Hope. Thank you.

Okay, the next one is National Preparedness Month. And this will be accepted by Fire Chief Schoonover and or his representative, and I think it's probably going to be... Charlotte. So preparedness saves lives. Each September, we remind our community of the importance of being ready for disasters, whether natural or man-made. This year's theme, Americans, stand ready. It is a reminder that each of us can make a difference by taking proactive steps before a disaster strikes and encouraging loved ones to do the same. Preparedness is everyone's responsibility, and disasters and emergencies can happen at any time, anywhere, and sometimes without warning. So join me, Mayor Carmen Montano, and the Milpita City Council in recognizing September 2026 as National Preparedness Month. And we have a proclamation here for you. And you can both say something.

Let's take a picture.

Good evening, everyone. This year's theme, as Councilmember, Council Mayor Montano stated, Americans stand ready. The theme reflects a spirit of unity, resilience, and resourcefulness that make our country strong. Americans stand ready to uphold our patriotic duty, ready to protect our families and loved ones, and ready to protect our communities. And on that note, I'd like to make a quick reminder to the residents of Milpitas, currently we'll be hosting our CERT, the Community Emergency Response Team Training in September, September 26th and 27th and October 3rd will be the final day. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you both, thank you.

Thank you both. Okay.

And I just want to say that we really appreciate you. It's so true. We need to be prepared. So tonight we will be closing our meeting in honor of the victims of Nepal. So you just never know what might happen. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. So we are going to do a report out from our closed session. So our city attorney, Christopher. Christopher. Christian. I always get mixed up. Christian. Christian Curtis.

Thank you, Mayor. So the city council met in closed session to consider item A. There was no reportable action at this time.

Okay. Thank you very much. So now moving on to public forum. Now let's move on to public forum. Members of the public are invited to speak on any item that is not on the agenda. So public comment may be provided both live and via Zoom. Public forum may be limited to two minutes. And we will call for any speaker cards.

Yes, I have several speaker cards, Mayor. First is going to be Karin and Karimjit, followed by Voltaire Montemayor, and then Robert. OK, come on up. Please come up to the podium.

So welcome. Good evening, Mayor, council members. I'm a resident of Miller Peters. I'm renting a place, and I'm here to bring up an extraordinary high bill for water. We got it at my house while it was unoccupied. We tried to work it with the water department, but we didn't really get to a resolution. It's upwards of $3,000, and we are...

Wait, what? Your water bill is $3,000, you said?

Yes, so our house was unoccupied from March through May, and we got a tag on the door. And when we got the tag, I'm just coming to check back again, just to kind of do a round around the house. And with the tag, we got to know there was a leak. And it was fixed within two days, but the bill had racked up to 3,000. So we went back and forth with the city. But we were put on a plan, a series of payments. But it wasn't excessive use or anything. It was leakage. So we are at a difficult place right now.

So I would recommend that we speak to which department?

We will get your information, sir, and we'll have our public works department reach out to you and see what we can do. All right, perfecto.

And I'll just let you know that happened to me. I mean, not 3,000. my water bills. And you know what it was all that time? It was a toilet leak. We had a toilet leak, too.

But I appreciate everyone. Thank you so much.

All right. Well, we'll have staff reach out to you. You can give them your number and so forth.

OK. Thank you. Next, we have Voltaire Montemayor, followed by Robert.

Welcome, Mr. Montemayor, again.

Again to the mayor, city council members, the assistant city manager and staff. This is just to thank everybody. Yeah, this is good that we have the consent calendar and one motion will be benefited for a waiver of the rental of the park that we had, thanks to Renee and PRC and her department. And also, yeah, you just need to present the entity papers. You have to have insurance. It's seven digits, but it's just the papers. And then this is, having permit is to avoid like first come, first serve basis. Sometimes it's not good to have this problem hustling. when it's already taken by some people in part A or part B. So, yeah, thank you. Also, yeah, women, see all my wife, nurse, mother-in-law, mother and mother, those who know they're good. And of course the ladies in front, yeah, you have the equality. You are doing good. Then the prevention one, we need psychology facing those when we psych somebody and he's going to see or he's going to do something not good, then we need to step forward. And now the preparedness month. Yeah, we have the weather. the flooding, earthquake, we should be prepared. And also, I was with drill, a cert drill. They're good. I was there. And it's a good program. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else?

The final card was Robert.

Hi, Robert Burrell. He is the Milpitas Monster author.

Mr. Milpitas here. Welcome to September. Moving down, it's time to go back to school and good luck with all your studies. I was a teacher for a number of years, 35 years, Milpitas Unified School District. And I can go back to 57 years when I was hired to be the baseball coach at San Miguel High School. And I was proud to do that, and suddenly I started hearing all these jokes about Milpitas. And I thought, what? What is all this humor I'm hearing about Milpitas? And it's nobody's fault except the Golden Gate Bridge froze wind down this way, and very often the odor from the bay, the oyster farms, or the landfill or whatever. So that was a problem for some time. And I thought, if I ever found a way to get back to that, that just seemed like it would be not something I'd like to make it right. So in a class I was teaching, a commercial art class, we found a title for the annual Halloween project. And in that time, we found this title that just woke everybody up. And so the Milpitas Monster. And suddenly that wouldn't go away. And we went ahead and made a short study of that and did a short film. And then pretty soon the whole area, the whole community became very interested in that. In particular, I had help with George Loughborough, And we just lost George recently, and what a wonderful person he was. I don't think I could ever find a better friend than George Loughborough. But when he saw the... the poster that we had, and I asked him, do you think you could print this for us? And he had a big smile on his face. He said, I know what I'm going to do. I'm going to print that monster movie on pink cardboard. I've got all this pink cardboard I don't know what to do with. And that combination put a smile on people's faces. It's already two minutes up. Anyway, I've got a flyer we need to pass out. It's a folder. It has been passed out to them. Okay, then I've just got a pin to give everybody because on the 30th of October, it's time for the annual 50th anniversary of the Milpitas Monster screening.

Where will it be at?

At the Century, the Great Mall, Milpitas Great Mall, Century Theaters.

Okay, great. This is wonderful. Thank you for being here and sharing this with us. And if you guys haven't seen it, I really encourage everyone to go see it because it's our Milpitas history. Bob Livengood, former Mayor Bob Livengood is in it. Former Mayor Bill Weisgerber. Many of these people in the, see the black and white pictures? They're all in it. But I really encourage you.

Yeah, it's wonderful. Thank you for coming out. We went viral before the internet.

We'll be there. Thank you. And now we have Rob Means. Okay, welcome.

Good evening, council members, particularly the ones that are running for reelection. I'm Rob Means. I'm representing tonight the East Valley Democratic Club. Again, we offered to you the opportunity to fill out a questionnaire and send that back to us so that we can post it online and let the community know where you stand on a whole variety of issues and policy decisions. And I've got one on its way, and I just wanted to remind you. In fact, I emailed, I think, all of you a copy of the questionnaire. If you haven't received it, please reach out to me so that you're not left behind when we start posting these. Thank you.

Okay, is there anyone else?

I have no additional speaker cards and we have no speakers on Zoom.

Okay, so no one from the public and no one on Zoom, okay. All right, so we will move on. I'll close this public hearing in that public forum and then we'll move on to the announcements of conflict of interest and campaign contributions with our city attorney.

Thank you, Mayor. At this time, I would ask the Mayor and each City Council member whether he or she has any financial or personal conflict of interest related to any of the items on tonight's agenda.

Council Member Chua? None. Council Member Lamb? None. Council Member Lamb? None. Mayor Montano? None.

I would also now ask the mayor and the members of the Milpitas City Council to please disclose any campaign contributions of $100 or more received within the last 12 months from any of the parties entering into contracts with the city on tonight's agenda or contributions received from the development project applicant for development projects on tonight's agenda.

Council Member Chula? None. Council Member Lamb? None. Council Member Lehan? None. Mayor Montano? None.

I would ask that the record reflect no reported conflicts.

Okay, thank you very much. Okay, so now going to the Milpitas City Council Code of Conduct. Does anyone want to recite it? I see Council Member Light is on. Council Member Leigh Ann, is the light is on? Did you want to recite it? Okay, I will go ahead and recite it then. Okay, so we have a Milpitas City Code of Conduct. Be respectful and courteous. Words, tone, and body language do matter. Model civility. Avoid surprises, praise publicly and criticize privately. Focus on the issue, not the person. Use electronic devices appropriately while on the council dais. Disclose conflicts of interest and affiliations related to agenda items. Separate governing from campaigning. The council speaks with one voice after making policy on issues. Respect the line between policy and administration. Council will hold one another accountable to comply with this code of conduct. Okay, so now moving on to the approval of the agenda. Does anyone have any changes? We have City Assistant City Manager.

Yes, Mayor Montano. Tonight, staff is requesting an amendment to item 22. Council Member Lamb has requested to purchase a ticket for the KTSF 50th anniversary banquet at an estimated expense of $200. The city attorney has advised that this will require council authorization. It is requested that the council add this request item 22 by finding one that the need for action come to the council's attention after agenda publication and to immediate action is needed because the event occurs before the next council meeting.

okay thank you for that so do we need like a motion okay so is there a motion to accept that accept this request we have council member we have council member chua who has moved it and is there a second we have council member lamb who has second also seconded so now we will call for the vote council member chua aye council member lamb aye council member lian aye mayor montano aye

Okay, thank you. All right. So now, Mayor, we still need to take approval of the agenda as well. Mayor, we still have to take approval of the agenda as well.

Yeah.

No, and I haven't done the consent yet.

Yeah, so. Okay, so now we will go ahead and call for the vote for the approval of the agenda. And didn't we already do that?

That was to add, so it would be approval as amended.

Oh, as amended. Okay, I get it. Because we have this new item for Vice Mayor. Okay, so now I'll call for the motion to approve the agenda.

So moved.

Moved by Council Member Chua. Is there a second? It was seconded by Council Member Lien. And now let's call for the vote to approve the agenda.

Council Member Chua. Aye. Council Member Lam.

Aye.

Council Member Lien. Aye. Mayor Montano.

Aye. Okay. So now we're moving on to the consent calendar. Are there any changes? Any staff?

Staff has no changes or comments.

Okay, anyone from the council? Okay, we'll call for public comment. Is there anyone from the public that would like to make any comments on the consent calendar? Seeing none, I will ask the council for a motion and a second to accept the consent calendar.

I'd like to proceed 11. Councilmember Lien, did you say something? Yes, C11. I'd like to pull that.

Which one?

C11. C11.

Okay. C11 will be pulled by Councilmember Lien. And we have Councilmember Chua.

I'd like to pull C9, please.

And C9 is pulled. Is there anyone else? Okay, so we have C-9 and C-11 that will be pulled. Is there a motion to accept the rest?

I motion to accept the consent item except for C-9 and C-11.

So there was a motion to move forward with accepting the consent calendars except for C-11 and C-9. Is there a second?

Second.

Is it seconded by Council Member Chua? And now let's call for the vote. Council Member Chua.

I can't remember them.

All right I'm from Berlin I bear Montana and I am and I thank you and since we want since we pull those 2 it was recommended to me that we go ahead and instead of waiting till we do after the public hearings and the and the other announced at public hearings and to just go ahead and do it right after the consent. So I'm going to go ahead and ask to go ahead and whoever pulled the item to go ahead and discuss it. So whoever pulled C9, go ahead and tell us why you pulled it and we will take a vote on it, discuss it. So C9, who was that? That was you. Okay, Council Member Chua.

Thank you, Mayor. I would like to ask staff to briefly explain the process on how the selection process of the grant, meaning how many, what were the criteria, how many applied, how many were qualified, And how did we end up with the winner? So briefly, please.

Thank you, Madam Councilwoman Chua. We do have the founder and CEO from HouseKeys, who is the organization that is making this recommendation. So we'll let Julia speak to that in detail and answer any questions you might have.

OK. Thank you, Mayor and Council. House Keys is the program administrator for the City of Milpitas program. Every opportunity that's listed for sale goes through a lottery process. There's about 2,000 applicants that have signed up that are program applicants for the City of Milpitas' homeownership program. They get invited to enter that drawing. For this particular property, 139 people did. enter the drawing for that property. A lottery is held. City staff witnessed the lottery. It's held online. The results are also sent out to the people that enter. It's anonymous, so they can't see the names, but they all know that their application ID is there. The city does have a local preference. So the local preferences are ranked by points based on living in the city, working in the city, being a member of the school district as well. And so when the lottery is held, everyone is assigned a randomized number. And then the priority determines who goes first. So the random number is the tiebreaker. So if I live in a city, you live in a city, the random number that was generated is the tiebreaker. Once everybody that receives a preference is given an opportunity to apply, then everyone that doesn't have a preference also is given an opportunity to apply as well. So even if you enter the drawing and you don't have a preference, you still have the ability to get the home. You're just going to go with the folks with the preference first, and then you go with everyone else.

What happens after that?

After that, there's a deadline for applicants to submit supporting documentation that proves that they both meet the preference and the eligibility requirements. Those that do submit by the deadline go through a review process with our staff. Our staff contacts them, gives them the remaining items that are needed beyond the minimum items. Once they go through that initial review, that's called processing. Those that provide the minimum items go into what's called underwriting. So that's a deeper dive. You get all the required items and then you can issue an approval or denial. If anyone is denied, they're given a formal ability to appeal. Any appeal is reviewed by the house key staff, but we also will have, we have weekly meetings with city staff where we'll talk about appeals as well.

So out of the 139, how many came back?

Out of the 139, less than 30 submitted the minimum documents. And we ended up selecting one buyer out of the folks.

Out of the 30?

Yes. And that's based on order.

yeah what was the did you do ranking is that how yeah so everyone all 139

When you look at the 139 in total, there was a first group that entered, let's call it 50 people. So over that, those first 50 folks that entered, they were ranked. But the drawing is left open just in case the 50 people that were ranked did not provide the minimum documentation or they got denied or they decided not to move forward. So in total, 139 people entered, but there was a much smaller number of people that entered initially by the deadline and were ranked. So sometimes we're not able to get the buyer out of the first 50 or 30 people that show up to go through the ranking. So we leave what's called a drawing open. So people are signing up as backup buyers and that's how you got the number from a smaller number of maybe 50 or so that were ranked 139 that were the full backup buyers.

So out of, out of the 30, um, that were qualified that were on the higher tier, um, How was that one selected? Was it, did you do a raffle of the 30 or just, or how was that then?

Everyone that would have entered by that initial deadline, they received the ranking that was witnessed by staff. So as they go into that process, let's say it's one through 30 that enters that ranking by the deadline. Then they go through a process of being select or being underwritten based on the minimum documents provided. And so based on that number, that's how we ended up with the final buyer. So if you entered after that ranking took place with the staff, you were a backup buyer. So essentially, this was one of those cases where the backup buyer was the one selected. Mainly, the main challenge with this property was that there was a lawsuit between the previous owners and the builder. So if you needed a first mortgage to apply, even if you won the lottery, if you weren't able to buy the home without needing a mortgage, then you weren't going to be able to move forward.

Okay, sounds good. My last question is, was the winner from Mo Pitas?

No, the winner was a resident of Santa Clara.

Why is that?

Out of how many? 30. Yeah, 30 were ranked. 139 totally entered.

How many out of the 30, how many from Milpitas?

I'd have to come back to you with the information about the Milpitas residents. Right now we have 912 Milpitas residents in the system.

I understand. Yeah. I'm curious about 30. And why wasn't the winner is from not not from a penis, in spite of the fact that you gave up reference points to no penis residents.

Yes, I can definitely provide the information about the 30, but it is important to understand that people that enter, if they do live in Milpitas and they are given a preference and they are ranked higher, 1 through 30, if they don't produce the minimum documents and get approved, then they're not going to move forward. So something in that first 30 batch that was ranked, they either canceled, they either were denied, or did not provide the minimum documents by the deadline.

Can you provide the council an info memo on how many of the 30, even the 139, how many were from El Piras?

Yes, we can file, we can provide that.

Thank you. Thank you for coming this evening.

No problem.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. I just want to just, that's okay. You can sit down. I just wanted to make a comment that I really wish you guys would, you know, because we have two 100% affordable housing, but the county is the one that chooses who gets to live in those homes. I wish you guys would have been the ones to select it because, yeah, that, We really want to prioritize our Milpitas residents, but it is what it is.

Anyway, thanks.

Okay, anyone else? We have two lights on. Did you guys just forget to turn them off? Okay.

All right.

So we now, as I mentioned before, we used to wait until after the meeting, after the other, for example, public hearings, but now we're going to... I'm sorry, Mayor.

Council Member Leanne also wants to address this.

Yeah, we're going to call for the vote, but I'm just explaining to the audience why we're going to go directly to the consent items instead of having to wait until the end. So since you've already explained, now we're going to ask for a motion and a second. So move speech. Okay, so it was moved by Council Member Chua, and is there a second? And seconded by Council Member Lehan. So let's call for the vote.

Council Member Chua. Aye. Council Member Lamb.

Aye.

Council Member Lehan. Aye.

Mayor Montano. And I am an aye. Thank you for that. So now we're moving on to C-11, which was pulled by Council Member Lehan. Yes.

I think... So I read in the report it says this is sole source procurement. Why is it sole source and not a competitive bid? Is this question for Daniel?

I do further information. First of all, thank you for the question. Our sole source is defined by the muni code. And in this case, with what we call OEM or original equipment manufacturers, in this case, it was a developer, we had no choice. And certain software and certain products that is that is we absolutely have no choice that no one else services them or provides a supporting services.

okay that you don't have a choice and i can understand this one you have a choice um the total not to exceed figure differ by one dollar between the recommendation and on the fiscal and I don't know which one is the correct one. Is it 831.464 or 831.463 in the fiscal impact? It should be $831.464. That's rounded up. So apologies for not having that same value.

But it is 464. 464.

So maybe we can change the number in the fiscal impact so that we are voting and approving the right amount. So thank you so much.

Thank you. We will do that. Council Member, the recommendation itself is actually correct.

Yes.

So the recommendation, which is the action you will take, and what you will move is actually the correct number, which is the 831-461-4. And we once again apologize for the error.

No, no, no. Thank you, though.

Thank you for that. Is there a motion and a second? So it was motioned by Council Member Lien. Is there a second? Second. And seconded by Council Member Chua. Let's call for the vote.

Council Member Chua.

Aye.

Council Member Lam. Aye. Council Member Lien. Aye. Mayor Montana. Aye. Thank you. So now moving on to public hearings. Assistant City Manager.

23, item 23.

My apologies, ma'am. The next item is amending the schedule of user and regulatory fees adopted by resolution number 9516 to update 161 fees and establish six new fees effective November the 2nd, 2026. Our finance director, Ms. Kofessy-Howe, will present the report.

Good evening, Mayor Montano, Council Members Chuelian and Lamb. We have before you, this is a public hearing. And on the second and final part of the FY26-27 User and Regulatory Fee Study, the request before you this evening is to update 161 fees and establish six new fees effective November 2nd, 2026. I have with me this evening Terry Madsen from Clear Source Financial Consulting, who led the citywide effort in determining these fees. And also with me is Alice Vorek, who manages the fees on an ongoing basis. So I'm not sure that I have control of the presentation. Ah, there we go. This is the agenda. It's very brief. We'll talk a little bit about the council action, the fee study, and an effective date. Terry Mazdin will go through, and then a subsequent recommendation, but this will be remarkably brief and succinct. This is how we originally started back in April 21st, 2026. We took 668 fees, line items. There was a public hearing. The council directed us to bifurcate that, come back June 2nd. And we did so, and you took Resolution 9516 and adopted 500 of those fees. And effectively, those fees were held back, and the June 2nd action was if the proposed, what was held back was if the proposed increase exceeded 10% or exceeded $10, and those are the fees that you will see this evening. The other fees continued on, and I'll move on to the next slide. This is the action that we did earlier in June. You adopted 500 fees. 48 fees that you adopted back then were proposed to decrease. 326 fees were unchanged. You're increasing by no more than 10% of $10. 91 fees that vary based on project criteria. and 35 structural modifications to the schedule. We deferred the 161 fees for a variety, for effectively 88 of those fees were proposed to increase by 10% as we had presented you back in April. 73 fees were proposed to increase by more than $10, while within the 10%. On those fees that were the 161 fees, the FY25-26 rates remained the same, and they remained in operation and continue to do so until now, and it's important to point out that the difference between those fees and the cost of the levels of service are absorbed by the general fund or the respective enterprise funds. And then we also brought some new fees forward at that time in April. We brought about seven fees, and we are actually just dropping one of those fees today, and we will essentially go through a little bit of that in more detail later. So, clear source study, which was, of course, led by Terry Madison, examined these fees. Of the 168 fees held back in June, 167 are recommended for action this evening across nine fee-scheduled sections. The sections reflect either departments and or offices, and as I've already said, one proposed new fee is not carried forward, and staff is recommending that that be not passed. So I will turn it now over to Terry Madsen, who will go through the fee study and its findings in detail.

Thank you, Mayor and members of the City Council, for allowing me to speak with you this evening. I know this is a topic that you've thought about several times over the past months, and so I will again be brief. I'm sure you're familiar with the topics and concepts, but just for reorientation purposes and for any interested members of the community that are curious about the topic of fees, I wanted to provide some broad overview. Primarily, we think of like a city's revenue streams as typically coming from tax dollars, but cities also recover costs in other forms. They might have assessments or fees, fines, things like that. What we're dealing with is what we would call user and regulatory fees. And the difference between taxes and user and regulatory fees, one of the ways we think about it is As a community, most frequently we see the city council making choices to use tax dollars to fund services that provide broad community-wide benefit. They benefit the community as a whole. We most commonly think of this as like public safety, police, fire, park maintenance, public works maintenance, and so forth. And then when we see a specific receiver of service, we frequently have a direct cost recovery so that we can free up our tax dollars to provide those broad general services. The services that we examine, the most common of those services would be like permit processing, plan reviews, construction inspections, and so forth. If you request reserved use of a specific city space, that would also be what we call a user fee. To confirm for the council, this study does not examine or does not propose to modify any taxes, any assessments, any utility rates, any development impact fees. So as citizens and residents, we most commonly think about taxes, assessments, utility rates, They are not proposed as part of this action. In terms of managing your user and regulatory fees, the city thinks about this as part of its normal annual operating process. So each year the council reviews what we call the user and regulatory fee schedule. And every three to five years, it performs a study like this, a comprehensive fee study to understand what are the costs to Milpitas of performing these fee related services. Historically, you have adopted fees based on that cost of service. And then in the interim years, you apply just annual inflationary adjustments to those fees so that you don't go long periods of time in between fee recalibration. When we think about cost of service, what we're saying is there is a service being performed or provided by Milpitas. That service is performed and it's linked to labor. So wages, benefits, service supplies that we use in order to provide these outward facing services to the community. And so that's how we think about what is the cost of service. The California Constitution and the California Government Code also help us understand what What is the cost of service? How do we calculate the cost of service? How do we reasonably allocate those costs to the receiver of service? And so the fees proposed for your consideration this evening, they are intended to comply with the California constitution and the California government code. The finance director mentioned that there's 167 fees for consideration. We can break them out into sort of three pools. There's fees that are proposed to increase by more than 10%, fees that are proposed to increase by less than 10%, but more than $10, and then these six new fees. And so we'll talk through sort of each of these groups just briefly. What I want to point out to you here is if you think about the 167 fees for city council consideration, what you're going to notice as a council is the vast majority of these fees are for regulatory functions. And why this matters to Milpitas is the state of California has mandated that Milpitas enforce the regulations of the California Building Code, the California Fire Code. You're obligated to enforce your municipal code that informs zoning. You're obligated to enforce the Subdivision Map Act and housing law that states direct. But when California mandated that, it also offered cities the mechanism to recover the costs of that regulation so that you could make a choice whether you want to use your tax dollars for other purposes. So you'll see that 90% of these fees that are proposed for consideration this evening are for what we would consider regulatory activities. These are regulatory activities that are required to be performed either by the California building code, fire code, or municipal code. When we think about the fees that are proposed to increase by more than 10%, one of the things we want to draw your attention to is 10% can show itself multiple ways. So in many cases, there's 88 fees in this group, but in many cases, what you're going to see is a fee is proposed to increase by more than 10%. But the fee might be changing from $3 to $4 or something like that, and that represents more than a 10% change. For example, there's a copy fee. We're proposing to modify the copy fee from 10 cents a page to 15 cents a page. That represents a 50% increase, and so that was pushed by the city council to this future meeting to this evening's meeting for consideration but it represents really a 5% change so we want to bring your attention to that and and that is what we see consistently in these larger than 10% changes is the majority of them are linked to small fees There are some cases where we do see significantly higher than 10% changes. And we would say to ourselves, this is not a small change. This is not 10 cents becoming 15 cents. And so we've identified some of those for city council consideration. And just to acknowledge, you know, your schedule has hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of fees in it. like other cities in California because you're trying to contemplate the various scenarios that come through your door. We met with staff. Staff has thought through significantly the typical level of effort required to correspond to these different service requests. And so these proposed fees are linked to current staff services based on current state legislation and so forth. And we did examine these particular fee categories that sort of stood out as, you know, these are significant increases. We compared them to the region. And what we found is that in these instances, if you looked at Milpitas' fees today, you are at the low end of the region. And so if you moved yourself to the proposed fees, you would not move Milpitas to the upper end of the region. You would move Milpitas in line with the region. So for any of the hundreds of fees in your schedule, you might find a scenario where Milpitas is at the upper end of the spectrum. You might find another one where Milpitas is at the low end of the spectrum. You may find many where you're in the mid range. But for these particular ones where we say, hey man, this feels like a significant change, what we did notice was you are just moving yourself into the realm of where other agencies are already at. And a lot of these, they collect time and materials billing and so forth. um i'm gonna keep moving these are fees that are proposed to increase by more than ten dollars so that was another sort of city council direction what you said is i'd like more time to consider any change in excess of ten dollars and this could include changes like one percent So if a fee is $1,000 today and the fee becomes $1,020 tomorrow, that exceeded a $10 change, but it might be a 1% change. So we felt like... The majority of these fees, what we were seeing was this is just aligning yourself to the cost of service as it relates today. And it was typically the ones you were deferring were just larger dollar amounts where even if you have a small change in the fee, a small percentage change, it works out to more than $10. But to be consistent with the rest of your council direction, because the council did provide direction in terms of cost recovery policy in the prior meeting where you said, I'd like to reduce when it's appropriate to reduce. I'd like to leave unchanged where it's appropriate to leave unchanged. This would just align to that where we're aligning fees to cost of service. Again, the vast majority of these fees in this group are regulatory fees. Finally, the six new fees. These are six new fees and so they do not exist as of this moment. They are services you provide But there is no existing fee for service. It's not like you're changing a number from $20 to $30. You're saying, I have no fee today, but I would like to have a fee tomorrow. And this is based on staff feedback, based on what they're seeing coming through the door and the demands for services. And you can see they're linked to very specific uses. So what's happening is occasionally they have requests to rent out the community center and so forth. And the community center rental comes with this base level of equipment included in the rental. They're having more and more requests for podium use. And so they're saying, if you would like to rent our podium, you can do that. We'll make it available to you for rent. We'll deliver it if you need it to be delivered. Otherwise you can pick it up. Same thing. We have other, um, spaces in Milpitas that we rent out. They're identifying other rentable spaces like the deck side party area, The bounce house permit, this is, you know, anyone can go and make use of Milpitas parks. You want to go read a book, you want to go down the slides, you want to go play baseball. Anyone can make use of Milpitas parks, have a birthday party and so forth. There is no charge for that. But if you say, I want to bring an inflatable bounce house, uh, you know, an apparatus and inflatable apparatus into our parks, we want to make sure you're doing it appropriately. You have insurance, you understand the rules and so forth. So this is linked to processing of that bounce house permit, ensuring you understand that, um, the way Milpitas wants this to happen versus just everyone makes the rules for themselves and this is consistent with what we would see in other communities there's an after-school program drop-in fee this is not for people that are just normally registered this is a drop-in participation only and I think it might apply to non-residents and then as more and more people use credit card payments. We're seeing more sort of like non-sufficient transactions or requests for refund, like I can't process this payment, and so this is a credit card chargeback fee. It's essentially intended to just offset the city's costs that you might incur from your credit card processing vendor. So there's one fee that's not recommended to be carried forward. The finance director mentioned that it's linked to an insurance for when contractors come and provide city services. So occasionally you have contract service support in the rec world where they say, I'll teach a Lego building class, I'll teach a yoga class or whatever. Those contractors are required to provide certain insurance. There was a proposed fee for this particular insurance but it's no longer necessary, and so we didn't include it in the proposed fees for City Council consideration. If the council decided to move forward with the proposed recommendation, because there are what we call development related fees in this schedule, we would want at least 60 days from the date of adoption before the fees go into effect. The first Monday after 60 days is November 2nd. So the fee schedule is proposed to be effective November 2nd. The fiscal impact of this recommendation is about $85,000 annually. Again, the idea here is simply to recalibrate costs to align fees to costs of service. And because you proactively manage this and, and adjust on an ongoing basis, we don't see a significant fiscal impact, but we just want to follow our consistent policy patterns. Um, because these would be effective, you know, a few months into the fiscal year, the initial year fiscal impact would be less than 85,000, but in total, your fee adjustments would equal about 300,000 a year. in annual fiscal impact. And the key here is to remember this is to offset costs Milpitas already incurs. This is not expanded service level offerings. This is saying we know we have costs and we're choosing whether to recover them from the receiver of service or not.

And that is going to lead us to our recommended action here, which is on the left. and summarized and what will happen if we do not adopt it today. We also have in the audience, besides Terry Mazdin, I do want to extend some thank you to his team who are also very supportive in developing this cost study and working with citywide. We also have in the audience and are available virtually, our department heads and or their respective staff who can respond to particular questions. So with that, Mayor, thank you. And we give back the floor for any questions. It's your pleasure.

OK, great. Thank you for the presentation. And now I'm going to open it up for the public hearing on this item. Anyone from the public?

I have no public speaker cards, Mayor.

Anyone from the floor? We have Mr. Montemayor.

Mayor, members of the city council. This is city manager and stuff. I mentioned the words like meticulous than what I have experienced. I'm experiencing. Rather than like in the church and facilities, we go for coordinator only. We go to maintenance. I'm one of the assistants of those. But this is big one. We're talking of 500, 161 more, then six, and then total of 168. Forget that part for now. I don't understand the part. I think it's 168. But anyway, yeah, some overheads are hard to explain. Some of whatever that you could... include in the usage and the space i think uh at least they mentioned that they're charging below below what is the government coders so uh for me uh they're fair thank you okay thank you very much so now i will close the public hearing and move on to council discussion questions council members

We have Council Member Lin. Yes, so this is for Renee.

If you could provide the question, but if Director Laurinson would head on up here to the podium, thank you.

I just want to give her a hard time.

Pleasure to be here then.

Just kidding. So if one person rents the park for a day and they pay, let's say, $300 for the rental of the park and the bounce house is going to be separate? That's correct.

Okay.

Well, when you say the park is free and the bounce house is going to be $60 to $100, that's not true.

The open space in the park is free to the public. If you want to reserve a space for a picnic area, a field, something where it's exclusively used for you, your party, your event, then you do have to pay a fee. We have a large volume of picnic rentals and upwards of 75 to 80% of those picnic rentals, everybody wants a bounce house. And so we need to, in some way, make sure that we have insurance from the party that we understand who is bringing in the bounce house that we have a designated area for the bounce house. Otherwise, it's you know, bounce houses gone wild out out in the park system. And that's that's not very safe. So we do need to increase our level of oversight over those requests. And a permit process does allow that to happen.

Okay.

The rentals for picnic areas, for example, are for the day. So they have a daily rate of anywhere between 64 for the small parks and up to 300 for the very large parks where you can fit 300 people in a picnic area. So it's for the day. Most people are out there 6, 8, 12 hours a day. And so the bounce house would be for the day as well. So it would go together.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So this is for Luz. Why are we removing SAM, the insurance fee? Or is that for you?

I can take that one. Because it's not actually a fee under Prop 26. The essence of what was being captured there was not that we are offering a service to someone. There was some miscommunication and some thought that we were essentially selling insurance to the vendor. And we don't do that. What the fee was intended to capture is that there are some vendors that don't have insurance and normally getting their insurance and us being added to their insurance is part of what we pay for. So the way that really you would tackle that is just by paying the vendor a little bit less in that contract. And because it's part of the negotiated contract, it doesn't have to be done via hearing process.

Okay. And did we, you know, legally require notice given to our community members?

Yes. Notice of all these fees were published twice. And it is on, hang on a second, page, we had a first publication of the hearing notice on August 21st. We published again on the 28th, and everything was posted by the date necessary. So yes, we go through a regular publishing schedule for all these fees.

Thank you. Thank you for that. So I'm going to ask, can you go to slide 14, put that one up? So first of all, thank you, staff, for your presentation. You mentioned that 90% of these fees are regulated, the state is regulating their... So in essence, really, it's unfunded mandates. When you think about it, I mean, the state is telling you you need to have these regulatory activities, but yet, you know, we have to pay for it. And we do it by cost recovery. So if we don't have that cost recovery then does that money come out of the general fund oh okay and then we are trying to increase our general fund so we can reduce our structural deficit so um yeah i i guess i just have a couple the only ones that i'm concerned about is the bounce house permit and i think that council member lynn had mentioned that one um yeah i just i you know because when i see families out there in the park with the bouncers You know, most of them, you know, what I've seen is that, you know, with the families with kids and most of them are, they don't take their kids out to a bouncing area or the most cost effective thing for them to do is rent a bouncer. So to have that permit, I'm not sure what is that permit covering? It's from 60 slash 100. What do you mean by that?

Thank you, Mayor, for the question. So that is a daily cost, $60 for residents and $100 for non-residents. Oh, for non-residents.

Okay, that's what that is. Okay. And so that $60, it covers insurance?

It's to cover the staff costs to process, get the insurance from them, make sure we have the information that we need, make sure that they are very aware of the rules, consequences if they don't follow the rules. So there's quite a bit of staff time back and forth when it comes to picnic rentals in general. So this does add a layer of administration that we do want to cover our costs for.

Okay, so is there any additional cost for them to have a bouncer there, or is this just it?

It would just be this from us.

Yeah. Okay. So, so when they rent the space at the park, that's, that's one fee. Right. And then it'll be an additional fee for the bounce.

If they want the bouncer.

Yeah. Right.

Yeah.

Um, yeah, I, I just, you know, cause a lot of, you know, you're talking about kids, families and, and I hate to see them having to pay more.

Yeah.

Um, so I, I, yeah, I just, um, kind of struggling with that one. Um, The after-school program drop-in, and again, because it involves kids, and you're saying $15 for residents and $40 for non-residents.

We've listed a range. This is specifically for the after-school, after the bell program. So we've heard a lot from residents where they may not need after the bell every day, nine months out of the year, but there could be those times where They normally have grandparents carrying in the home, but they go on their own vacations or they leave and so they need us for two weeks or three weeks. So this creates an opportunity for them to have access to the programs that are affordable. It's $15 a day right now because that's currently what the program costs per day for people that are enrolled for the whole school year. We put a range in there to account for increases incrementally throughout the years, as well as a non-resident fee, which usually they pay for programs anywhere between $20 and $30 more than residents.

Yeah, that one I'm okay. But I still, yeah, because I could see that one, it just dropped in. But the bounce house permit, I still, for me, and, you know, the other council members saw that vote, but that one I would like to see that one reduced. from $60 to $20, even though we don't have a cost recovery, it's because it's worth it for them to, kids to have fun, you know, and some parents can't afford it, so.

Mayor, if I may ask for clarity, there are two layers of fees, the $60 for the Mopedas residents, which is a priority three, And the $100 of the priority 5, which are non-residents. Which of those fees, just for clarity, would you like us to reduce?

I would like to see $20 for the bounce and then $50 for the non-resident. Thank you for the direction. Thank you. So any questions from the council members? We have Council Member Chua.

Thank you, Mayor. I too, to be I like to remove that bounce house permit fee totally. I mean, if you look at all these fees, really the estimated annual revenue is $85,000. So even the rental of the podium, that's, I mean, they're renting the community, center already the or the civic plaza yeah they're why why why charge them so i don't see i i the two that stood out for me are the bounce house permit i don't like that and the after school program drop in 15 i mean i'll take that off i mean those two The credit card charge back fee, I think that's reasonable. So that's, that's my take on this.

Thank you, Mayor.

Can you repeat that again? I would like to remove the fees for the bounce house permit, and the after school program drop in the new ones to new ones.

Mayor, if I may ask for clarification, my understanding is that currently the only mechanism for the drop-in participation would be for someone to pay the full fee as though they were participating for the year. Do I have that right?

That's correct. This would eliminate the opportunity for families to have their children drop into after the bell if they need care.

You could potentially just if you don't take the action as presented, you could potentially otherwise direct essentially that be allowed for zero dollars and be subsidized. But the default, if you just take it off the list, would be that they would have to pay for the full year.

Okay. Yes. So the first one, the former. 15 drop-in?

The drop-in is not necessarily for households that are underserved. This is just for in general. If we do have a family that qualifies for MAP, then the MAP fees could cover those drop-in fees. This is just this fee is intended to create better access to the after the bell families who do not need the full nine months of after school care but find themselves in situations where they need it for two weeks, three days, just create create more access to the program.

Okay.

But if they if they do need help, then we have the map program to assist them with the fees.

Okay. Sounds good. So they'll bounce house. That's, that's the only thing then.

With the mayor's permission, I'd like to just restate what we're understanding, and you all are going to correct me if I need to be corrected. Councilmember Chua has asked that the bounce fee house permit fees be removed completely, both for residents and non-residents, and then for the after-school program to be limited to $15, and so that remains. Is that a correct interpretation?

Yes. Thank you I don't think I like mayor and customer and I see them and they love that bounce house and I don't want them to an extra $60 for that one. For non residents so you might charge the or non residents that you can charge the $60. But zero for residents. Oh, forget it. That's how I see it. Councilmember Lam? Councilmember Lam.

So we have Councilmember Lam has a.

Another proposal? Sure. I agree with Council Member Chua for the rental of a community center. If they rent, the community center is going to be how much?

So if they rent the community center, I guess about community center rental fees. So for residents, it's $200 per hour. $200 per hour.

Yeah, I think for that fee, we should throw in the podium. Yeah, $25. And then for the Barnes House, I would agree with Mayor, $20 for resident and $50 for non-resident. If the residents is part of the MAP program, we can waive the $20.

We don't utilize MAP for facility rentals. utilize it for no I mean it's not rental it's a once house permit map is set up not to cover facility related activities it's for records for programs I see

Well, if some low-income family want to spend the money on Barnes House, $20 is not much. Perhaps we could waive that if they are low-income families.

We could look at updating the map policy to include some and put some provisions in there if that's what the policy wants city staff to do we could come back with something like that if that's the direction this evening. Right.

If they are on map residents perhaps they have extra $20 to fill in to cover the permits. And then for after school I agree with your proposal $15 for residents and $40 for non-residents. And also if they are low income MAP programs participants, we can waive that.

We do cover up to 75% of costs for MAP tier one customers who are very low income and then up to 50% for tier two, which is low income families. So they do get quite a bit of a discount with that program.

Yeah, yeah, I agree with that.

That's it. Okay. So I'm going to change mine. Before I had mentioned, what, 50 for the bounce? No. I had recommended some kind of fee for the bounce house. But Council Member Chua had just said, well, just don't have them pay. Is that what you're saying? Yeah, I think the bounce house, and then the $25, yeah, since they're already renting the center, that should be included with the rental. But everything else is the same, except for those two. Take that, yeah, include the 25 with the... Don't even bother charging for the podium because that should be included with the rental. And then the bounce permit, don't even bother with that either. Except, what did you resident to? Even the residents? Non-residents? Because I think they should pay because they're not.

Non-residents should pay.

Yeah, non-residents should pay. And you had said 100 or 50?

You mentioned 60. 60.

60, okay, 50.

Okay. Okay.

So anyone else?

So if you know what you want to make that motion because customer mature Before we make the motion could we just make sure that we've captured all of the recommendations from the council so what I have is no fee on bounce houses for residents and then $60 for bounce house for residents Incorporate the podium rental into the community center rental cost and then

uh keep the after-school activity charge fifteen dollars but with the map service so move perfect sorry i just i want to ask for a little bit of clarification on the podium because i think there's actually two podium fees one involves delivery of the fee or delivery of the podium by city staff yeah both of them they're together so remove both of those fees yes please

We currently don't deliver podiums to other city sites. So with what I'm hearing this evening is it should be incorporated in the site rental. If the site they're renting does not have a podium, then they will not, we will not deliver one. So that's okay. Just want to make sure. Yes. Okay.

Thank you.

so um i think the major at the motion was there a second mayor with all due respect if if we could just restate it one more time to be very very clear especially on this last one what i have is to to approve uh the recommended action with the modification that the bounce house fee shall be uh changed to zero dollars for residents sixty dollars for non-residents. The podium fees, both of the podium fees shall be removed entirely from the fee schedule and the expectation is there will be no podium delivery.

So moved.

Second.

Okay, let's call for the vote.

I'm sorry, Mayor, who made the second on that?

Second.

Thank you. Calling for the vote, Council Member Chua. Aye. Council Member Lam.

Aye.

Council Member Lien. Aye. Mayor Montano?

Aye. Okay, that was good.

Thank you, Council.

Mayor, I have other questions.

Well, we already closed it.

No, this is for the fee only, right? I have question on other fees.

Well, we're done. We're done. We're done. It's closed. It's closed So now I'm moving out to announcements of future agenda items City manager. Do you have a city assistant city manager? You have any announcements? I have no announcements at this time here and with cuts members We have consumer Chua

Based on the feedback on C9 tonight, I would like to ask the city attorney on how can we legally modify or have a policy to enhance the, when we do some raffle of city property, to give preferences to Milpitas residents first. If there's nobody really truly qualified, then we can look at other applicants. Is there a way we can,

legally do that i i actually think from what i understood um the the huskies represented to say that is what happened in this case um i'm happy to follow them uh follow up with them and then um uh give you an update about that if that's if i'm understanding correctly but the way he described it it sounded like the only milpitas residents that would have qualified were not able to submit the paperwork, not able to obtain the appropriate loans or financing to move forward. And then that is the situation which they then moved on to a non-resident.

Can we make sure of that?

Yeah.

Because we seldom have properties to raffle off. And we really want to have, like the mayor said, we really want to give it to more paid as residents.

I am happy to reach out to him and to verify that my understanding is correct. I don't like to jump in with questions for witnesses when it's a council item. But I'm happy to do that and then update you.

Yes, please. Okay, is that it?

Thank you. Does anyone else have a question? Okay. So we want to have a moment of silence in memory of the victims of the apocalyptic flood. This was, I've never seen this in my whole life. And this is the whole, from my understanding, is that the whole face of that mountain, the glacier just collapsed and it just came down on the whole village and villages. So a moment of silence for the victims of the flood.

Okay, thank you everyone.

So this meeting is adjourned.