City Council Meetings– San Gabriel City Council - Regular Meeting

All right. Welcome to the City Council regular meeting for San Gabriel. Today is Tuesday, June 2nd, 2026. The meeting is called to order at 6.31 p.m. Pledge of Allegiance will be led by Council Member Wu.

Thank you, Mayor. Please stand. Place your hands on your heart. Repeat after me. 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.

All right. Clerk, roll call, please.

Mayor Chan.

Here.

Vice Mayor Ding.

Here.

Council Member Herrera-Avila.

Present.

Council Member Menchaca? Here. Council Member Wu?

Here. All right. We will now have some announcements from our Chief City Clerk.

Tonight's meeting is live streamed on the city's online platforms. If you wish to address the city council during tonight's meeting, we request that you please complete a speaker's card and hand it to the clerk at this time. When speaking, please state your name for the record. Please note that interactions between the city council, city staff, and the public during meetings are subject to the city's rules of decorum.

Okay, now we move to approval of agenda order. Are there any objections to the agenda order? Seeing none, the agenda order is approved. Next item, please.

Presentations. LGBTQ Plus Pride Month. Mayor Chan will make the presentation. The full text of the proclamation is available on the city's website.

All right, thank you. Whereas city council and staff have committed to make San Gabriel an inclusive and welcoming community for all, including the LGBTQ plus community. And whereas all members of the San Gabriel community have the right to feel safe, not be discriminated against, and to live without the threat of harassment. And whereas the city of San Gabriel takes pride in the fact that we are a vibrant, diverse community and proudly joins other communities in striving to build a stronger, better state and nation for all residents. Now, therefore, I, Eric L. Chan, Mayor of the City of San Gabriel, on behalf of the City Council, do hereby proclaim June 2026 as LGBTQ Plus Pride Month in the City of San Gabriel and invite everyone to join in this special observance. Next item, please.

Public comment. This is the time set aside for members of the public to address the City Council on consent calendar items and on items of interest that are not on the agenda but are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the San Gabriel City Council. Mr. Mayor, I have no speaker cards.

No speaker cards? All right. And next item, please.

Consent calendar. All items listed under the consent calendar are considered routine and recommendations will be approved in one motion unless a member of the city council requests separate discussion.

All right. So would any of my colleagues like to pull an item for separate discussion?

No?

Okay. So I'll just move to approve the consent agenda.

I second. Okay. So we have a motion by Councilwoman Menchaca and a second by Councilman Herrera-Avila. So let us please vote.

Motion passes by a vote of 5-0.

All right. Next item, please.

Public hearing A, proposed citywide fee schedule for fiscal year 2026 to 2027.

I now open the public hearing. Assistant Finance Director Linda Tang will make the staff presentation. Hi, Linda.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Vice Mayor, and members of the City Council. My name is Linda Tang, Assistant Finance Director for the City. Tonight, we're presenting the proposed master fee schedule for fiscal year 2026-2027. Any approved update to the citywide fee schedule will be effective July 1st of 2026. This slide here provides basic explanation of some various revenue types that we have here in the city. The first category we have there at the top, the users and regulatory fee. Users fees are charged for the use of public service or programs. An example of that would be our various recreation programs. Regulatory fees, fees charged for regulatory activities such as inspections and building permits. when it needs to be done. Another category is fines and penalty, which is revenue for a condition of misdemeanors or municipal infractions. And the fines for these violations of municipal codes are set by the city council. And really the goal of these types of fees are to deter the behavior. Next revenue type is rent. There's fee used for the use of public property, such as the rental of the Mission Playhouse, our recreation center, as well as our parks area. And it is set at the discretion of the city. STORE TONIGHT, WE WILL BE CONSIDERING THESE THREE TYPES OF REVENUE AS THE REMAINING TWO TYPE THAT YOU SEE THERE FOR ASSESSMENT AND TAXES REQUIRED TO VOTE OF THE PEOPLE. SO WE WILL GO THROUGH THE THREE TYPES THAT I JUST MENTIONED. JUST A LITTLE QUICK BACKGROUND. OUR FORMAL FEES AND COST ALLOCATION STUDY WAS COMPLETED IN MARCH OF 2021, AND IT WAS EFFECTIVE THE FOLLOWING YEAR OF 2021-22. THE NEXT UPDATE THAT WE WILL BE MAKING PROBABLY WILL BE COMPLETED HOPEFULLY IN 2026, 2027 FISCAL YEAR. ALONG WITH THAT FIRST COMPLETION IN MARCH OF 2021, THE COUNCIL APPROVED A RESOLUTION TO ALLOW THE CITY TO INCREASE THE FEE EACH YEAR BY CONSUMER PRICE INDEX. THEREFORE, I'M HERE TODAY TO PRESENT TO YOU THE NEW PROPOSED FEES FOR FISCAL YEAR 26-27. The CPI or consumer price index that we use is from January of each year, and January of 2026, CPI was 3%. So you'll see that most of the fee that I'm proposing presenting to you today are increased by 3%, rounded by the nearest whole dollar, although there will be other adjustments, not just reflecting the 3%, but for the cost of service or market rates for rentals. With that, the estimated fiscal impact, we're estimating it to be about $250,000 for next fiscal year. On this slide here, you will see some fees are added to our master fee schedule for the first time in 26-27. Bingo permit. Let me first explain that it's certainly not a new fee. It is in our municipal code. However, for transparency, we want to make sure I bring this up that it will now be on our fee schedule because it was inadvertently omitted in the past. So the bingo permit amount, $50, that's the last known amount that was actually shown on our code. So we're not proposing to increase any. We're just using that fee. And then from there, it can maybe set by council resolution in the following years. So we're leaving that $50. The next item is the massage certificate of operation. This is a requirement also by the municipal code. We have been certainly providing the service for issuing the certificate of operation as our planning department and the finance department has to do multiple review of document that is stipulated in the code. However, we have never really charged a fee for that. Therefore, the massage certificate of operation fee that you're seeing proposed today at 143 is cost recovery between the two departments only. For after-school weekly fee, as well as the middle school youth support, definitely new fees are being added, proposed this year, to meet the needs of the community and to provide enhanced programs. For example, an after-school weekly proposing to increase more activities, such as the STEM program for students that are involved, as well as extended hours. Rather than ending at 5, it's proposed to end at 6. For the middle school youth program, the community services departments believe that to meet the needs of the community and also to enhance the program, they're proposing to even hire more professional coaches to run these programs for the students. So the fee that you should have seen there is $30 per week per child and there's also a sibling discount as you can see is being proposed for the after school and then the middle school youth program $75 per child per season and also for traction fuel per season fee. To the right, you'll see the park facility rentals. I would like to say this is not necessarily completely new because these areas have been available for rental in the past. So you'll see there that specifically note is for non-residents because previously we do have one rates. And these non-resident fee are basically $20 more than the current ones that we are having. So basically to incentivize, hopefully that our resident will make use of our facility more. So there's a fee there that this is really just proposing another category, resident, non-resident, which is available in other areas of the fee schedule as well for different rentals already. So for these, the parks area, it was non-existent, therefore we're proposing it now. New added fee for Mission Playhouse, facility rental for private non-ticketed weekends and weekday events. So previously, the performance area is not available. Therefore, this fees here is now proposed so that way it can be made available for the private rentals. So the event that utilizes the Mission Playhouse, there's no tickets sold, the event is not open to the public, so some example of that for rental is like for weddings, private fundraisers, activity. Then the rental access place is, again, I mentioned the performance spaces as well as the plaza and the lobby, where previous rental is only mainly in the front area and really the private party are not going on the performance stages. The third one to the bottom there, facility rental of any ancillary space hourly. It was not available in the past. It's proposed now that can be used for non-profit and community groups, non-ticketed or non-fee based activity. The ancillary space included includes the rehearsal hall, the lobby, the classroom, dressing rooms, and the fee proposed for that, $60 per hour, is by per space. So the spaces I just mentioned are separate. You can rent different area of the Mission Playhouse. Labor is not included, so this is just for rentals. Then, those were the new fees. These are existing fees that I just want to bring to your attention for transparency. Like I mentioned earlier that most of our fees were increased by CPI of 3%. The next few items that I am presenting to you is proposing to be more than CPI of 3%. So in this area you'll see here and as a part of fine inform this is a category of fines where increasing the fees for these violations would have greater impact on a community safety for both motorists and pedestrians per police department. So I included some fees that you see have it just been increased by current fee with CPI. You'll see if Second to the right, far right column, that would have been our fee, but our police department is proposing it to be recommending it at the higher amount because, again, these type of fees is meant to deter behavior. So you can see the different type of citation is noted there, parking more than 72 hours or parking commercial vehicles in residential district, no stopping zone, and there are remaining three, such as parking in disabled spaces. Next one is also existing fees, but these are fees for public property rentals. Again, just a reminder that these fees are set by the city. So the adult center recreation, we are proposing, or maybe I should make another note to you, is these fees are not increased every year. So a lot of our fees from the Mission Playhouse as well as community services, A lot of time when I provide the information to the department, they don't automatically say just go with CPI because they certainly do consider the market, consider the rental surrounding the area. So they don't necessarily increase every single year. So right here, you'll see, I mean, $25 CPI will be even under a dollar, but they're proposing it as some sample, $25 to $30 as certainly cost of an increase. So these are for rental of the adult center by civic organization, clubs for meetings, non-profit, some supervision fees that we have not increased in prior years, so catch up really. And as well as for non-profit rental indoor, outdoor area from 50 to 60. Some additional for private events. So same, really the same reasons as I mentioned. They did not increase it in prior year. But now it's proposing for the item that is shown above as well as in their report. The current fee, I DON'T PUT THE CPI BECAUSE AS I MENTIONED THEY ARE NOT NECESSARY BY CPI. THE RECOMMENDED AMOUNT AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE TABLE HERE TO THE FAR RIGHT IS THE PROPOSED FEES FOR OUR COMMUNITY SERVICES FOR THE RENTAL OF THE ADULT CENTER. For our fiscal impact, as I mentioned from the beginning, for fiscal year 26-27, with a 3% increase to the fees that are included in our attachment, we're estimating it will generate $250,000 to the general fund. After discussion, it is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution 26-15, updating the master fee schedule for fiscal year 26-27. And with that, I am available for questions, as well as our representative from the department, if you have any. Thank you.

Okay. Does any council member have factual questions for staff to clarify the report?

I do, Mayor. Okay.

Go ahead.

Thank you. I'll start with Rebecca. Can you come up? And I guess I'll just start as she's coming down here. I think we've talked about this earlier this year. We chose not to use some federal funding because it asked that we as a city require to ask about immigration status. So we as a council agreed we were going to find other funding sources. So I'm assuming this is it. This is the funding sources we had never charged before. And I guess my concern, you know, $30 per week per child and then 10% off with the sibling, which isn't much actually. And then the $75 per child from middle school, I mean, I completely understand that we have to recoup some of our costs, but that could be a real financial hardship for our family, especially since it's all of a sudden. And so my question is, are we going to, well, first of all, is that true? Is that why we are having to? do these one-time fees because of the federal funding. Or maybe there's other items there. But also, are there scholarships or fee waivers or some kind of sliding scale to assist these families who are really in need and low income? Is there something we can provide to support our families?

So good evening, Council. And thank you for the question. So you are correct. It was in December of last year where the CDBG Community Development Block Grant Fund report was brought forward to Council and at the time it was proposed and Council approved not moving forward with those funds for this program. While those funds did not cover by any means our entire cost for staffing or program fees, it did provide some amount toward those programs. And not only were they recommending the citizenship documentation, but they were also recommending that families would have to provide income reports to show what level of income they are bringing in. While parents right now for those programs and all of the schools that we have those programs at do have to provide a self-certification, they're basically able to check a box. They're not having to provide any documents, for example, showing their income level. So for those two reasons alone, not only was it what staff felt was invasive, to our residents but also pretty labor intensive for staff to have to review all of that and be kind of hounding people for those documents for them to participate in the program. So staff did propose or is proposing to charge a fee and did some surveying of surrounding cities as well as the other programs that are offered at the elementary schools. I understand our commission actually last night had a conversation about it as well, and I understand that there's some changes in what programs are being offered at the schools as well. So I agree that there may be some hesitation by families or some concern from families if they're either not getting information that they feel is adequate from the schools for the programs that are being offered. So if council is interested in it, we could propose an opportunity, have an opportunity for families to apply for a reduction in those fees. If we were to do that, staff would recommend that that's based on income, so we're serving those that really need it, as opposed to those that are just requesting it.

I'm sorry, why would Council have to approve that? I mean, we're approving the fee schedule, but shouldn't that already be part of the process? I mean, we actually have to approve for you to provide waivers or sign scale fees or some kind of assistance program?

It would be part of the fee, but since council is bringing it up, I guess I'll ask your opinion.

I'm just trying to make sure that our families are well taken care of, and so I would hate to have to hold this up for that. Sorry. Do we have to do that? Yeah.

I don't think we'd be holding it up.

councilman councilwoman menchaca we absolutely can move forward tonight if council gives us direction to create that program we would actually add it to the fee schedule I like all that stuff to be in black and white so it doesn't look like staff is giving discounts or loans or anything on an arbitrary basis you'll see As an example, in the fee schedule, we have employee discounts for rentals, and I like having that in there for everybody to see. So if whoever makes the motion tonight adds that to their motion that we have a scholarship or a fee reduction for low-income families.

Could we just call it assistance programs?

Perfect.

Mark, would somebody have to make the motion right now, and then we can move on with the discussion?

We're just at clarification right now. Right.

Okay.

Some form of a threshold would probably be useful for that. In other words.

Like what? What do you mean a threshold?

If the decision is to provide this assistance to a low-income family, I think it would be instructive for staff to know what that threshold is.

You mean what income level?

Right.

Okay. But we can't. Not tonight, but we would just say assistance programs for low income, can we just say that? Because we don't know what that level is.

Couple of options one the item could come back as an amendment to the fee schedule where you'd have an opportunity to potentially look at some Either county set or state set income levels.

Well, it's gonna have to come back anyway because the public hearing So for this topic, it should be for the next agenda, right? You just bring up the way we did discuss today is just talking about the public hearing so then right and We still can't discuss the level or something like that?

Yes, you're free to discuss or set any level. We are discussing the fee schedule. So even though this is a detail, it's still part of the agendized item. So you can do that. or you can instruct staff to bring the item back at the next meeting or another meeting with more detail and more opportunity to analyze it.

I guess I'm a little confused because it's a public hearing. It's got to come back again, no?

I think what you're thinking of is an ordinance where we have two meetings.

That's what I'm thinking of.

I would ask Rebecca if we have any other programs that this could mirror for income levels for families so that we could just follow that and not have to come back?

We do, so we utilize county guidelines for that, so county income levels. There we are. We have a Share a Dream scholarship program for families that are taking our recreation classes or paid programs, they can apply for that. So there would be some additional requirements that staff would be determining exactly what that is for the families that are applying for this. For example, they would likely need to come in person to apply as opposed to applying online for the after-school program just because there will be a little more labor-intensive assistance that will be needed and our Registration system is likely not going to be able to do that if someone's applying for the program online, for example. But we would likely look to use those guidelines because then we're not pulling ambiguous figures out of the air.

So we could say assistance programs following L.A. County guidelines?

Is that? Well, at what level? There is. There's still a level, okay. Low income, very low income, middle income. There are several.

Can I, the same topic, can I asking the council member Machanga, is it okay? I just want to, because of the add-on, the new fee, because of the CDBG fund, no more we can use it, right? Previously, we used the CDBG to provide this kind of service. Is that correct?

Correct.

So how can we determine they qualify? It's a no fee. Maybe it's a help for the Council Member Machamba at Takenbaugh. So likely what's... Okay, sorry. Is everybody, they can qualify, they don't need to pay fee or have, I mean the previous, the program.

Likely what we would recommend would be there would be some sort of a fee because what we've found is that families that don't have a fee, similar to you offer a free performance at the Mission Playhouse and 800 people reserve their spots only to have 400 show because when you haven't paid, you kind of don't have that tie to attend. So likely we would have some sort of a fee, it would just be a reduced fee.

So previously someone's already paid some fee or it's a no?

Not for this program, we've not had any fees.

So nobody paid the fee?

Right.

Okay, so how many kids they qualify?

We will have to look at that. And not everyone would be submitting it, so they would only be submitting it if they're requesting a reduction. Okay. If that makes sense.

Okay. All right.

Otherwise, they wouldn't have to submit anything. They just sign up their child and pay the $30 per week fee.

Okay.

Or the middle school program fees.

Okay. Okay. So maybe just use the CDBG. The CDBG, I remember they already have some poverty, the guideline to who will be qualified, for my understanding.

But that's at the federal level.

Right. Well, my understanding would be for Linda and Karen, because they've been more intimately involved with CDBG in the way we're utilizing that. We may need to look at that for future years, because I believe the hearing that you guys had yesterday in December of last year already determined how those fees were going to be used for this next year. So possibly in the future we could utilize some of the CDBG funds because those who are applying to get a reduced rate, potentially that fee could be used because they're already providing those documents that the federal government via LACTA is requiring.

But I think Vice Mayor Ding, you're asking to use the same guidelines

Yeah.

Income guidelines for CDBG. Is that what you're saying? Yes, yes, yes. And not necessarily using them. But you're saying we should use L.A. County guidelines versus CDBG guidelines.

And they might be one and the same because L.A. County is the one that L.A. County is kind of the go-between between the federal funds for CDBG. They come through L.A. County. Okay. So the guidelines are likely one and the same.

Okay, well, I have one more question, but maybe we can circle back afterwards. And my next question is actually for Chief Elizalde.

Good evening, Council.

Good evening. So on page four, no, not four, I'm sorry, page two, One, two, three. The first three, they doubled from the current amount. And when I see that, it feels a little arbitrary. It's page two. Oh, I'm sorry, not the presentation, but the agenda, page two. Yeah, it looks a little bit arbitrary, but, you know, just because it's so much more. So I'm just trying to understand the rationale. Is it due because we have, I think we have a new citation management, or is it operational costs, or they were too low before? and it doesn't defer behavior. I was just trying to understand why it doubled so much, and then you and I had had kind of a conversation, and I didn't have a chance to print the schedule, but I had also asked about neighboring cities, how that compared, and I was looking at my phone. I didn't have, I couldn't get to a computer, but just taking a quick glance, it looks like we're the highest In the neighboring cities, including Arcadia, Monterey Park, Temple City, in some of these areas, most of them look like we're really high. So, again, just trying to understand the methodology. I understand we're trying to defer behavior, but it just seems so high. I could be wrong.

So, Chief? No, not a problem, thank you for the question. What you're seeing here, at least in the first three, and referring to page two of the staff report, if I can ask Adam if he can go back to Linda's slides where it shows the police department and the parking fees. Okay, I think it was one more where it showed with CPI. That might have been the other one. I'm sorry. Okay, so what we did in evaluating what the increase would be, taking into account what we hear from the police department or what we hear from the community as their top concerns, that's one factor. Number two, also looking to keep the community safe and some of the violations that can truly impact the community. So the first one we'll talk about are parking citations for more than 72 hours. It's currently at $88 and the proposed fee is $170. It's approximately around an 86% increase in that. Now one of the common complaints that we do get from residents are abandoned cars being parked or cars being parked longer than 72 hours. Now it's not only the I guess if you're a neighbor, the displeasure of having some car parked out in front of your house for more than 72 hours, but also looking at what kind of hazard does that create for public safety if there's emergencies on that street? And we know that, again, allowing cars to park up to 72 hours and that penalty or that fine isn't significant enough to register with that vehicle owner in order to get them to move the car. The other one, before I move on, with regards to the 72-hour violations, just in some of our neighboring cities, so we are currently at $88 and the proposed is $170. So Alhambra, their current fee is $70. Monterey Park is $55. Arcadia, San Marino, and Monrovia do not have a fee. And Pasadena has a fee of $121. For the next category going down, and that's parking citations for commercial vehicles in residential districts. Again, more of a concern for safety personnel, first responders, trying to and having to navigate some of our smaller streets where we do have commercial vehicles parked. One of the things that I was thinking about when looking at this particular topic here, or this citation, was the Palisade fires and the Altadena fires. And there was reports that some of the emergency equipment responding to some of those neighboring areas during that disaster had trouble navigating those smaller streets. So that was one of the main factors in looking at with regards to the second topic going down, commercial vehicles parked in residential districts. That was something that I took into consideration. For commercial vehicles in residential areas in our neighboring cities, Alhambra is currently at $83, Monterey Park at $90, Arcadia at $246, San Marino at $27, Monrovia at $108, and Pasadena at $149. The third topic going down with regards to no stopping zones, this had to do with more of our pedestrian safety, especially on some of the busier streets and with all the traffic that is occurring, especially during the daytime hours and even the nighttime hours. And those are designated for no stopping either for traffic related hazards or perhaps they're on a blind corner. or there's some natural obstruction there where those areas have been deemed not safe for vehicles to stop. Or on top of that, they could be areas that are in front of commercial businesses and with the increase in multi-use properties going up in the city, that could be again a hazard for first responders going through there. So the no parking or the no stopping zones, just to share some more data with you, Alhambra's at $70, Monterey Park at 53, Arcadia at 75, San Marino at $27, Monrovia at $60, and Pasadena at $64. Now, the others, again, they mirror each other with regards to the community or the concerns and my staff's concerns for the community members, especially with the parking citations where vehicles are parking in bus loading zones. Also, especially in parking in fire lanes. Again, just referring back to... some of the multi-use units that we have going up that are currently up and are continuing to go up we want to make sure that those areas are kept clear should there be an emergency i'm sorry chief i was okay with the other ones it was just the first three so you're on a roll but but i i don't want to i just it was just the first three and you kind of confirmed that we're definitely the highest

for the first three. The second one, Arcadia, I think was a little higher than us. So I guess just my concern is are we having that severe of a problem that all the other cities seem to be able to keep it at even under 100, and we're going to 170 on all three of them. It's just a question. I respect what your decision making, your methodology, but I'm just bringing it up with council and with the public because it just seems so much higher. Unfortunately, my colleagues don't have that schedule, which I appreciate. But it's just so glaring. But if you think that that's our need, then, you know, council could, you know, those were my questions and I was just trying to understand. So that's how you came to those numbers.

Correct, and I could not speak, and I don't have the information on all the neighboring cities as to when they last updated their fee schedules. But again, I would remind council and the community listening, this is not for everybody in the community. This is only for the people who choose and elect to stop in these zones that are clearly marked. If they're not clearly marked, they have an appeal process that we can take a look at. And if the city is in the wrong or the proper posting is not placed, then we take a look at those appeals and more than often we make a decision in the favor of that driver. But again, these are about vehicles and vehicle drivers that are choosing to stop in these areas that are clearly marked. And with that, there should be a penalty, especially when it comes to community safety.

Okay, thank you. That's all I have, Mayor.

Anyone else? Anyone want to go next? Council Member Wu. Thank you, Mayor. Well, thank you, Linda, for the presentation. In the introduction of your staff report, it states that user fees and regulatory fees charged by the city may not exceed the estimated reasonable cost to provide the service or regulated the activity. So with that in mind, I wonder that in the process of adjustment is tied to see that increase of 3%. Does that mean the city's actual cost is way higher than the 3%?

Sorry. So let me just start by the base of it. As I mentioned, the reason why we bring back some backgrounds for you to know, the last time we have done a fee cost allocation study was from March of 2021, where our consultants takes into consideration of all the costs for all the activity that the city charges for. So from there, had we not have done CPI increases, definitely all of our expenditures and costs have gone higher each year, as you know from a CPI. So to be transparent and to certainly set a methodology that we can all follow, have it for council approved, but just go by CPI for the time being. Therefore, the fee study needs to kind of be done every five years with the most, it's basically industry recommendation, which is something that we'll be working on so that we can bring in a consultant and then review, yet again, all the costs associated with all of the activity that we're providing service over the counter, whereas permits, regulatory fees, users fees, as you mentioned there. to really reevaluate again, but that's done really once every five years, so we're just doing it by CPI. Are we exceeding that cost? I mean, we do have increased our expenditures over the year, not decreasing, but I don't want to say whether our cost is more than that. We're going to go with our CPI ability to increase.

So if during the five years that there is a gap that created through the CPI gaps compared with the actual expenditure.

Maybe, it may be.

Then we are not kept to increase the percentage, but it's more like a city is voluntarily to keep it like this level.

Correct. We're lacking an actual professional study that's put in place. The CPI is what a lot of standard that we use as far as rate increases goes. So yes, that's what we go by for our fee increase. Have we not done it, though? We'll be far behind.

Okay, got it.

Which is something that was done in the past. So in history, we don't increase our fee for many, many years until we have done that formal fee study. and move forward with CPI each year.

So there's still an opportunity for us to bring this to current?

That's correct. Once every five year, it's recommended for a formal fee study.

Got it. Thank you. The next one is about the bingo.

Yes.

Well, the fun thing is I understand you indicate it's not a new requirement and it already exists under the Municipal Code, Section 10. But previously, I mean, I'm just wondering, sometimes, regarding the basis for the proposed $50 fee amount, you know, in some community centers or even, you know, the senior centers, they have a lot of bingo activities. So the total price value may not be even more than $50. So what is the recommended amount determined?

So the fees, going back when we were trying to make sure we include this on our fee schedule, is we went to the ordinance that was way back in 1970s, in the 1970s. It was originally set in Ordinance 187 at $25. And a year after that, with also a fee adoption with Ordinance 197, it went to $50. This fee is meant to be a permit for We are in finance determining it to be like an annual fee, an annual permit and not like a per time. There is stipulation in the code on when you want to get this permit, what you need to follow. As far as the rule of the game, how much was the winning prices, who is it open up to? So since it's already an established fee, from the last known fee, we took that fee and put it on a fee schedule instead of proposing something else. And then from then on, the code currently reads that it is set by the city council. So now being on a fee schedule, it can be revised, reviewed, and reviewed. Is that by the city council?

So that the bingo is not considered as a permit. So it's not considered as a gamble.

Certainly, like I mentioned in the code, it is very clearly the amount that it cannot exceed. I think the only group of people that can apply are non-profit. Any proceeds are used for very specific non-charitable proceeds, for non-charitable things. It's not gambling where there's going to be big winners. There is a limit on what each game can be paid out as.

I see. So are we sending any notice to any senior center or anyone? I'm just curious because I just want to make sure that our committee will not be shocked when those elders, they were just having fun, but they potentially be considered as violation if they don't get a permit and they were subject to any penalties or any enforcement actions.

Finance, we under my staff have certainly talked about certainly if this is all said and done and is available on a fee schedule to notify some of the known vendors or known entity that have asked us question about the permit before. So they are clear and know that now is available and to stop by Finance for more information. That way we can give them all the guidelines. So yes, there is plan to certainly contact for sure the ones that we know.

Okay, got it. But thank you. That's all I have. Thank you, Mayor.

All right.

Anyone else? Vice Mayor Ding? It's the same question. It's for the Bingo, Council Member Wu. So right now, we have the... based on you told like how limited, so if they do the big bingo, they have to submit some application for their bingo game?

But not, we're not saying submit, per game. We are saying this is a permit for the entity that wants to organize this non-profit bingo game to get a permit so that it allows us to explain and provide them with all the guidelines available in our code. I want to say this is a chance to certainly have them apply so that we know exactly who is organizing all of these functions. Like I mentioned, the permit really is for the year, not a single per time that they would need to make that payment.

The question is they need to get a permit, but we don't charge any fee.

We don't have any other charge, no other fees.

So we give, but we issue the permit, it's an annual permit?

Correct.

Okay.

I mean, if they pay for the permit, we'll give them the permit, of course.

Okay. But right now, if they don't pay, how?

We have not issued any permit. Or had it been, it's been a long time, and I recall probably a while ago, there is a non-profit that applied for it that was not the $50 fee. So we wanna be sure that we're charging the right fee, the right permit fee.

So that's why we have done our research to go back and see. Previous year, so how many group of how many the non-profit organization it's applied?

It will just be one or two, mainly churches that we are told. The church? Ask about, yeah.

Okay.

Certainly seniors, program groups.

So actually, this is bringing out a fee. It's not just a fee. It's also we will need our city to regulate for the bingo. a game, something like that, from my understanding.

We will not be unsafe. We will provide all of the guidelines.

Because that's bringing another issue we're talking about like Airbnb, we don't have any like some they can do it. Technically, it's illegal right for the for the but we don't have anything came in force, but the the bingo game is this Currently is the same thing right so until the way we have that is a $50 fee That's all you we can enforce it or something like that. It's that's the purpose of

The purpose is certainly to allow them to organize and have these bingo, organized bingo games. Yeah, they allow them, but then that way we also clearly state our rules.

So we can enforce that too, just in case they're not in the church, maybe in the Smith's Park, have some group, like 30 people, they play on bingo, they should be applied the permit first, right?

Correct.

We're going to want to make sure we get the permit. So that we are aware of what's going on.

Okay. It's interesting. And the massage certification, so right now we don't have charge any operation the permit.

THERE ARE DIFFERENT CHARGES THAT RELATE TO OUR MASSAGE ORDINANCE. THE MASSAGE ORDINANCE HAS A LOT OF DIFFERENT REGULATIONS. NOT ONLY FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT BUT ALSO THE OPERATOR. CURRENTLY WE ALREADY HAVE SOME MASSAGE RELATED permit fee like the operator permits which requires to have at least a manager on site at all time. And they do pay a fee so that it will go through a background check by our police department. So when the code was adopted back in 2011, a number of fees were established and we have been implementing with no problem through the past few years. But also as we were reviewing, we're seeing that OTHER THAN OPERATOR PERMIT WHICH IS FOR AN INDIVIDUAL, THERE IS ALSO A PERMIT MENTIONED RIGHT HERE FOR THE MASSAGE CERTIFICATE OF OPERATION WHICH IS FOR THE FACILITY ESTABLISHMENT ITSELF. THIS IN THE CODE IS BASICALLY SAYING THE CITY IS ASKING FOR THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE A WHOLE LIST OF REQUIREMENTS SUCH AS FLOOR PLAN THAT IS DRAWN TO SCALE. HOURS OF OPERATIONS OR TRYING TO THINK OF ALL THE STUFF THAT THEY ARE REQUIRING BUT CERTAINLY THE MASSAGE ORDINANCE HAVE A LOT OF RULES that really before they even get to be approved, planning is going to review all of that as well as finance. I mean, mainly planning will be putting the time to review the plans that's provided and information provided because they also need to get a conditional use permit.

I was just going to mention that when we used to have, I think 60 was our highest number of massage parlors. Shortly thereafter, there are state laws. So it's not just us monitoring. the massage parlors, certifications. I mean, there is very extensive. It was laid out for us. So don't worry. Everything's being done correctly.

The question is...

So really it's like, yes, we do have fees in the past, but this is new simply because this was required by the code, but we never really charged a fee for that. So we charge a fee to have the background check, but then on the front end, we don't charge anything. So that's why this fee is cost recovery. And as I mentioned and put the department there for planning and planning zoning and really on the finance side to issue the certificate of operations once everything is approved. So we have been providing the service, but yes, we did not charge any fee for cost recovery.

Currently, they pay any business license fee? They still pay the business license fee for the operation.

Correct. So business license, I just want to say all business operating in the city are required to get a business license as well as being inspected by our inspector. That's general. Everybody going to have to pay for it depending on your business. But when there's special restrictions, special requirement for certain type of business, there's more work to be done than the normal inspection fee that we are charging already. So these, when they're for massage, as example one, as for a certain type of business, we have to do extra and a lot more work to make sure they're in compliance.

That's why they're more okay, so these compliance away annually check up to them for this I'm glad you asked a question.

This is one-time fee because once they provide us a floor plans And everything that is required on our list it is issue, so this is issue for the establishment It's not a location initial a that business thing charges if it's existing massage It's a normal just if

If you're using the massage operation, if you're new order after July 1st, they also need to pay one-time fee.

They will. I mean, we have been issuing, so I would say yes, it's new because for the one existing, we already, again, provided the service and gave them the certificate of operation without charge. So certainly when the new one coming in, this fee is now available because they will be reviewing the new plan, floor plan.

Okay, only new business.

Yes, so they'll be reviewing new floor plans and making sure they're complied to get the business license. So this is one time. So massage operator permit on the other side is repeating because depending on the CAMTC, which is a state license that these masseuses have to get, Okay. It's two years, once every two years. Then they would have to come in and pay for the fee for a background investigation. So this massage certificate operation, one time. The annual, or not so much, or every other year, or the individual permit when it's expired.

Okay, so even if they continue to have a massage business, it's like 10 years, 20 years, they just pay one time fee?

For this certificate of operation, correct.

Actually, I like this idea, but if we really want to do something, I feel maybe annual check, it's more better.

We do have certain annual check, but not this. Yeah, I mean, we have fire inspection, there's annual, there's certain safety, building safety, or fire inspection, we have them inspect annually. As far as occupancy, that's when there's a change of business, we do inspection. Okay. And yeah, this is for the way the layout of that establishment.

Okay, okay. The fee also is dedicated to the business owner, not for like a massage technician.

That is correct.

Okay. All right. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, my question.

All right. Mayor? Yes, I have a few questions. There's a little bit overlap, so I'll try to brush them off or cut them out if they are. So based on this question on this massage parlors, I've seen a trend specifically on las tunas. I saw one back-to-back-to-back-to-back And then I saw something on social media like an hour or two hours later, and I was like, wait, that was the street I was just looking at and driving by, and I did notice that, and now we have people on social media calling San Gabriel the massage capital of the world. I don't know how true that is, but I know Council Member Menchaca said,

Yeah, I don't Councilmember Menchaca mentions about 60 at some point I was before I was on council and it was a real big push to reduce them and there are specific Guidelines that they can't be back to back to back correct. So I'm surprised I we should definitely give Linda the address, but I remember can't be in front of schools It can't be There's a certain distance. I forget what the distance is, but we're down to what?

30 something. 30.

Interesting.

Then we had less than that. So certainly, I mean, at one point in time, yes, that business was mushrooming and booming in San Gabriel. But then when new requirements came in where they had to get CUP, conditional use permit and all that, And, yes, they can only be a certain distance before you can have another. By that time, I mean, there were establishments that were there before. So, you know, there was a time period where planning community developments had to go through and work with these businesses to get them in compliance. And some of them even have to relocate because it is in violation. So today, as we've gone by half of what we used to have, although what you're seeing maybe back to back may not exactly be classified as a massage establishment because there might be a cosmetology area that offer massage as well. So I want to say I believe our planning department is doing the due diligence and making sure the ones that are operating, they have their proper conditional use permit. Other businesses, like I said, some cosmetology related business, when they offer massage, they can offer like 20% of the business for massage. Understood. So there's like a way around. Kind of like around their little area of their service.

Right.

Not necessarily calling the whole entire business a massage parlor.

Got it. Got it. Okay.

So probably that's the reason why you may see, you know, it seems like back to back, but not exactly.

Right. This is on Las Tunas over here by the Bank of America or the Chase over there. But anyways, thank you for that. Question revolving the... the fees, like what are other cities doing? Are they implementing this particular fee or, I know this is a new fee and I'm totally on board with it, but what are other cities doing related to this operation fee? Do they have them in place?

Do you mean massage relating to massage or general fee?

The general fee, the massage certificate of operation fee.

To be honest with you, I do not look at other cities, but certainly the massage ordinance is something. I want to say the massage license is regulated by the state. CAMTC, they have to get licensed. PROPER LICENSE TO OFFER EVEN THE SERVICE. SO IT IS HEAVILY REGULATED. I CAN IMAGINE THAT OTHER CITIES DO NOT IMPLEMENT ANY CODE. THEY MUST BE IN ORDER TO HAVE THAT BUSINESS IN THE CITY.

WELL, THANK YOU FOR THAT. I'M GOING TO MOVE ON TO MY FOLLOWING QUESTIONS. FOR THE AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THAT. WE HAVE TO HAVE SOME KIND OF LOW INCOME PROGRAM OR ASSISTANCE PROGRAM. I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT COUNTY thresholds. Is there other thresholds that we can go by? Like San Gabriel, can we have our own personal threshold? Can we look at our community and say, okay, this percentage, we want to support the low income, this particular bracket, because what we're seeing in the county might not be applicable to what we see in San Gabriel, right? It's different thresholds, I feel.

Certainly when we were having our CDBG program, our community block grant program, it is low mod. Basically they have their low mod income guidelines that is followed. As far as other guidelines, I've seen many, many programs going by the same guidelines that we're looking at HUD, which is the CDBG program. If there's available other type of guidelines, I don't know. I don't have information on that.

That's okay. There's something to think about, right? Depending on if we see different, like a lot of when we implement these fees, we're probably going to see some people not coming back, right? I hope that we can really look at this when we start implementing whatever fees that we have. and just keeping track of those students somehow so that we can reengage that pocket of the community. I don't foresee it being a big pocket of the community, but just in case, I kind of want to make sure that we're looking at that impact so that we can see what the needs are and why is the reason or some kind of survey or like an exit survey or some follow-up to see if we can help them out. I think that would be something that I would strongly recommend. As far as the... THE REVENUE THAT WE WERE PUTTING INTO THIS, OR THE, NOT THE REVENUE, BUT THE MONEY, OR ACTUALLY, YEAH, THE REVENUE THAT WE WERE COLLECTING FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE MONEY THAT WE WERE INVESTING AS A CITY INTO THESE PROGRAMS, THE AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS, DID WE KNOW KIND OF HOW MUCH THAT WAS?

Well, the after-school program is actually a funding source from our supervisor's office. Not so much as strictly straight from the community block grant program. It was basically a pass-through. So after-school program was about $20,000 each year. And then for the middle school, which was another different program from CDBG where we call it Parks and Rec youth program, we normally get about 30,000 from CDBG because there is a maximum threshold that we can use for public service programs. So as Rebecca mentioned, it was in no mean covering all the costs. It was probably even Half is close. So now that we're losing that half, not using any of those federal funding, certainly all based on the city. When Rebecca kind of mentioned that we may, because we might ask participants in order to qualify for any waiver or discount help from our shared dream, we might be able to turn over to CDBG. I just want to clarify. I don't believe that works, because one, it's not something you can go do on a fly. For CDBG, they even have a planning done even more than half a year before the year even starts. And once you're in, you're pretty much in and required of all participants, not just a few that is qualifying, and that just doesn't make sense. So with our federal funding, even though we are saying that we are taking it out of these two programs, we can put it in somewhere else. And really it's just to, for these fees are presenting here is to continue providing that program because before we have basically help and now more than half the program is not available in funding.

Linda, thank you. Yeah. So, I mean, we're still charging. Depends where you look at what spectrum, right? For some people, this might not be that much money, but for some other people, it might be gas, you know, for the gas is so expensive right now. A hundred bucks. I mean, that's what I'm filling up right now. It's a lot of money, and we don't know where the economy is going to be. But the city is still infusing some money. Are we looking at infusing more money into these programs, or are we going to infuse the same amount that we were already infusing into these programs? Because I don't expect these fees to cover the whole, you know, it's not going to offset anything. or some portion, but are we looking at putting in more money as a city or what are we looking at as far as investing here in our youth?

So staff is proposing to maintain the programs as we currently have them, same level of staffing. So this would just be revenue that comes in. And so if some families are paying a reduced fee, it would just be less revenue that's coming in, which is why it's important, I think, for the council to understand, because those revenue dollars coming in will be lowered if we're essentially subsidizing for some students to attend.

Interesting. So I feel like we're starting to, well, for me personally, I'm starting to feel like we have to tighten up a little bit, right? Is there no other places where we can look for this money instead of charging our community if it's not gonna be that much?

I'm not aware of any. I mean, we're always on the lookout for any grant opportunities, for example, that come through. The challenge with grants is that typically it's kind of a one-time thing, and so we may get some source of funding, but it would not necessarily be an ongoing source, but we can continue looking for that for sure.

Thank you. Thank you, Rebecca. I think this is like the opportunity, and I have one more question for you, Rebecca. I think this is the reason why we need to really start diving. I know the city is. We have conversation with Mark and we set it out here in the dais before we really need an office or a person or a team that's dedicated to grant writing, lobbyists in Sacramento, and lobbyists in, dedicated lobbyists for us, not just a regular consultant that's looking at multiple cities for lobbying in Washington, D.C. too. I think that I've seen that for smaller cities, just I know I've said it before, but I just want to emphasize that. That's one of the reasons why it's important to have more people supporting us. I know it costs money, but I think the return, it's a big return on our investment. The last question here, revolving around the school programs, is about how many students, like a ballpark, are we serving right now through our programs?

So I believe each program, I apologize. This is kind of off the top of my head because staff manages this more closely than I do, but I believe it's about 45 at each elementary school that we host programs at, which is all of the elementary schools with the exception of Roosevelt Elementary because they have a program that their students attend that we weren't getting high numbers there, so we eliminated the program there.

Interesting, and this is only for, you bring up a good point, so this is only for elementaries. There's nothing for middle schools or high schools in the past or current?

So the middle school program is there on the fee schedule as well. The middle school program is more of a sports-based program. There is some homework assistance, but the after-school program at the elementary schools is more of an enrichment program, homework help. that sort of thing. Middle school is a little bit different because those students are then gearing up to be in high school in their future where they may want to participate in sports.

Thank you, Rebecca. And the last comment revolving this. I feel like we're reaching a point where we're really tightening up and I would like to see these programs expand and get with the times and see what's out there. I don't know, are we teaching about AI? I know these kids nowadays are really, really smart. And I've gone to some of the high school, well, the two high schools that we have here and they're teaching amazing, like how they have many amazing programs. And I've been to elementaries that have really intensive programs revolving AI and all that. Are we looking into expanding or what are we looking? I know we're facing like... Different challenge right now, but I mean what is the long-term? Scope on this I mean we're talking about revenue and we're trying to figure out where to get all this money And we're having to charge our community now Which I see and I can understand but how is that impacting like our plan like education expansion plan and modernization with with anything to do with with education I

So I think probably the closest we're getting to with that is going to be the STEAM programs. I don't think that AI is per se included in that. We have to remember that we are looking at part-time staff as well that are running these programs. So it's not that we've got professionals in there administering the programs. So we need to be reasonable, I guess, in our approach as well in terms of what we can provide.

Right. Interesting. Thank you. Thank you, Rebecca. The next question is going to be for Chief Elizalde. And I know that you went over the fee structure related to parking. I kind of want to touch a topic that has been top of social media world right now in the news. I mean, most of my social, most of my news, I get it through social media or like YouTube and all that right now. It's interesting how advanced we are. I know it's some stuff we can't believe. We got to double check and all that, cross-reference. But I've been seeing an increase in conversations related to e-bikes. ARE WE, WHAT ARE THESE, CAN YOU EDUCATE US OR EDUCATE ME? I MEAN, MY COLLEAGUES ARE PROBABLY EDUCATED ON THIS ALREADY, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO BE EDUCATED ON THIS. AND ARE WE LOOKING AT PARTICULAR PENALTIES? BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE GETTING HURT, PEOPLE ARE DYING. SO THAT'S THE SENTIMENT THAT I GET FROM ACROSS THE NATION RIGHT NOW. SO I KIND OF WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHERE WE'RE AT WITH THAT AND ANY POSSIBLE FEES THAT WE CAN IMPOSE.

So thank you for that concern. My staff and I have taken proactive measures earlier this year and late last year with trying to educate the community and we held a specific event over at Jefferson Elementary School and that was specifically for e-bikes and inviting the parents, school staff and the students and even to bring their bikes so that we could let the parents know what was appropriate what was not appropriate to buy. Since then, we have, I believe, done two separate campaigns in trying to educate our community as to the dangers of e-bikes. Again, what is legal, what are best practices for when we're riding them, and then also what is illegal. Unfortunately, they get classified as e-bikes. They are not e-bikes, and the ones that we continue to see on social media and in the news, those are power BATTERY-OPERATED MOTORCYCLES. SO THEY DON'T HAVE ANY PEDALING FUNCTION. SO AN E-BIKE TECHNICALLY HAS TO HAVE SOME CAPABILITY OF A PEDALING FUNCTION. BUT NEVERTHELESS, WE'RE TRYING TO EDUCATE AND TAKING STEPS TO DO THAT. I BELIEVE THERE WAS A SOCIAL MEDIA POST WITH OUR TRAFFIC OFFICER NICK. where he went over e-bikes. And I want to say that was less than two weeks ago, if not three weeks ago. So we're continuing to educate our community, educate the school. We have had conversations with the school board district and trying to get them to further collaborate with us so that we can have a program where Again, this is more so for the school district, but if they're going to allow certain e-bikes on campus to be parked by the students, that there has to be some training component and some form of registration with the school that the parents need to sign. And so the next step that we're looking at, just as an education piece, is to go to some of the schools and just do a routine visit and look at what kind of bikes are there and leave notice either with the school and or with that student if they can identify who the owner of that bike is, letting them know this is either appropriate or not appropriate, and also carrying out some safety guidelines as far as helmets and where they should be riding and when they can be riding.

Because at a certain, thank you, Chief, because at a certain speed, they become vehicles, right? Basically, like motorized vehicles, and they need, like, for motorized vehicles, like a motorcycle, like you mentioned, these are motorcycles at that point. You need to go through the proper process of going to a DMV and learning all the rules and regulations, and I... PLENTY OF TIMES I'VE SEEN MANY PEOPLE RIDING THESE MORTARIZED VEHICLES ON THE SIDEWALK AND THEN MANY OF THE RESIDENTS PARTICULARLY ON DEL MAR HAVE BEEN COMPLAINING OR COMPLAINED A COUPLE OF TIMES TO ME OR BROUGHT THESE ISSUES UP. Anything revolving, can you educate me on anything revolving enforcement and what we can do after or what are we doing right now for enforcement?

So we try to take proactive measures when we can enforce. And one of the conversations, not only with San Gabriel, but with a lot of agencies here in Southern California that are experiencing this uptick in e-bikes or illegal e-bikes, if you will. um we had a conversation at one of my uh talk of the towns i think it was around two months ago where somebody brought up uh e-bikes and uh what we were doing to try again to educate in what enforcement actions we were taking some of the dangers with e-bikes and not all but some people that ride them have zero disrespect or have zero respect for the law they'll try to outrun us. And I've had an officer who is currently just coming back on light duty where we had an e-bike situation where they were trying to stop this person on an illegal e-bike, basically a few of them taking over a street. And when this officer got out to try and engage, unfortunately he hurt himself and this is a long-term injury. So then the conversation becomes at what point do we take measures as to endanger the other community members? And some people would say, well, Chief, is that really worth it that you had two officers driving Code 3 with lights and sirens trying to catch somebody on an e-bike, and then you guys caused an accident less than a mile down the road? It's not to say that we're not going to take proactive measures, but we really have to be calculated in how we do these things. So I believe the education component is a big piece for any community, any law enforcement agency. But again, where we can, we will hold people accountable. That includes either the rider of the bike and or the parents. There's two stories I believe in the Channel 7 news site this evening talking about two different parents that have been held for charges of manslaughter because they allowed their children either to ride battery-operated motorcycles, if you will, causing accidents or severe injury or death. And so again, you are correct that it is a concern. rest assured we're trying to do everything that we can to keep the community safe, especially more so the community members that don't ride these bikes.

Excuse me. Thank you, Chief. Sure. And also for Councilman Herrera-Avila, I think we're starting to get off topic because we're talking about fees and then we're kind of getting into enforcement.

Yeah.

Right, so the enforcement part would be related to the fees. So that's kind of what I wanted to know. What are the fees right now? If we're enforcing, what are the fees for this? Thank you. And are those fees increasing?

So if we are enforcing penalties, those are through the vehicle code. The police department does not set those fines or fees. Those are set at either a state level, a county level, or through the courts.

Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Herrera-Avila. I guess it's my turn, unless... And I promise to be pretty quick. Yeah, I'll be real quick. I think most of my other questions have been asked and answered by my colleagues. Linda, welcome back. Quick clarification. I think you've mentioned it before, but just so I understand, back to the bingo issue. But it'll be quick. So what you're saying is that that $50 fee is per year?

Correct.

So it's an annual fee? Yes. And so it's not per time? Okay. And then you said it's administered through the finance department. So whatever entity wants to... run a bingo game would do the application through your department?

That is correct.

Okay, yeah, because it's just kind of a coincidence. I did get this question just a couple days ago. I think I have friends at the Elks Club who asked me about what is the process for that, so now I can tell them. Now, and that fee is for only if you're going to, if that organization is going to make money on it, right?

It's only for a nonprofit organization. It is meant to be the organization, the organizer is a nonprofit organization.

Right, and that they make money.

It can make proceeds for charitable causes.

Okay. But so, because my side question, I guess, is I also know another local restaurant that may want to do the bingo game, but not to make money, just as a fun restaurant thing. And they'll just give up knickknacks as prizes. So they would not need bingo?

So certainly, as mentioned, because they're non-profit, as far as the code goes, it's meant to be permitting to non-profit organizations. That's what finance is going to be looking for when they come in and apply is to supply that proof.

Right. But if they're just doing a bingo game, meaning giving out bingo cards and just playing, so no money changing hands, they don't need to pay that. Is that correct?

You're putting me on the spot. I assume it's just a day thing for just, I don't know, for the business to do something.

It's just the activity for, you know, like some restaurants have a little trivia game, you know, like that, where they don't charge for anything. They'll just, you know, they'll give, sorry, yeah, okay, thanks, Martin. Yeah, go ahead, please.

I THINK THE CODE IS LIMITED TO NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS CONDUCTING THOSE KIND OF ORGANIZED GAMES.

THEN THAT ANSWERS. THANK YOU. On your presentation, slide number five, just regarding the Mission Playhouse, just a general question on that. Just to remind me, at the Playhouse and the Playhouse parking lot, is parking free on days that don't have an event?

It is a public parking on days that are no event being held. So when there's a show, when there's an event being booked, it is not free. It is $15 per entry. Otherwise, at daytime when there's no event going on, it is definitely a public parking.

Oh, free parking. Okay, great. Thank you. Just any clarification. Thank you. Mayor, I have a question.

Go ahead. Councilman Herr Avila. So for Bingo, what about Lotteria? I'm kidding. That was a joke. Related to the grapevine, before in the past, I know that it was not permitted to have jumpers there, but I have seen jumpers there. I kind of want to know if that has been looked at to maybe include that part of the package or include a fee related if somebody wants to have jumpers, because I think those are missed opportunities.

Thank you for bringing that up. I was not aware that there are jumpers and I believe that's in our policy that they're not supposed to have jumpers. So we will look into that.

I have pictures. But no, I mean, is there a reason why we wouldn't include that? I mean, is it maybe safety, insurance? I know that if you rent the facility, you're...

You have to provide insurance anyways. I know in the parks we do not allow it because we do not have huge park areas. And so you're looking at public areas. Again, I'd have to look in the rental guide that we have for the grapevine as to whether or not that's allowed.

Yeah, I know that from before it wasn't allowed. So if we can just consider that, I think that would be, I mean, it's a, I understand in the parks, we have limited space already. But in the grapevine and the courtyard of the grapevine, I mean, they're running it out already and it's a pretty big space. I think if anybody wanted to to have a jumper for their birthday party or whatever. I think it should be something that, since they're already insured, I think that's, maybe we want to include like a fee for that, I don't know. But I would like to get.

Yeah, I don't think, typically our crowd is the type, is the crowd that's wanting to have jumpers. That being said, if you've seen them there, then obviously it is, I'm just saying typically the grapevine is rented for, adult parties or more of a quinceanera type as opposed to younger.

And maybe this is why baby showers or birthday parties for toddlers are not that common there then maybe. I don't know. If we would allow that, I think we would probably maybe get more people interested. So I think that's something to be considered.

We can take a look at that in the policy.

Thank you.

Mayor, I have one quick question, I promise.

All right.

Linda, first of all, I just want to say how impressed I am. You were able to just shoot out some numbers really quickly, and so kudos to you. I caught that. But real quick, Council Member Wu had talked about CPI, and I hate to bring this up, but last meeting we talked about a trash CPI. Is there a municipality CPI that we should be using? From that conversation, you know, CPIs are, they run the gamut, and sometimes it's not pertinent to our business model or the business that we're doing here. Is there a municipality CPI that we should be using?

I'm not aware of a municipality one, although I do know the CPI. I know there's a lot of different kinds of CPIs. Exactly. So which one are we using? So... Less than 1%, yes. Okay. So included in the attachment for you is also attachment K. We are using the consumer price index for all urban consumers in Los Angeles, Long Beach, Anaheim. Trying to be in our area.

Okay. Well, at least it's our area, kind of.

Yeah.

I guess I don't have a San Gabriel Valley CPI.

So we're very consistent. We use the same one from year to year. Okay.

Great. Thank you. That was all.

All right, so my colleagues are satisfied with this portion? Okay. One more question. Okay.

For the chief, okay. For the 72-hour citation, we just give to them the citation, the way to like tow in the car? Because I know that another city, they do the, like if they park on a street more than 72 hours, not just the citation, also they tow the car.

So we do take proactive measures in towing a vehicle, but the first step is to issue a citation for the 72-hour violation. And then if the car is not moved either by the time the parking units come back, there can be further enforcement in removing the car.

So normally take how long if they parking over there? Maybe one month, even you give to them the citation. I'M SORRY, SIR. IF EVEN THEY PARKING ON THE STREET, YOU GIVE THE CITATION, the driver or owner, they don't beware, and they're still parking on the street, maybe, for example, it's already one month. So it's tow the car or just still keep like that?

I would think that if we had a vehicle parked on a residential street in violation of 72 hours, when those parking units go back, they're not just going to keep putting additional tickets on the car. They're going to take a proactive measure and either tow the car... just hypothetically on the fourth or fifth day or if neighbors are calling saying this car still has not moved. So the only cars that we will not cite for 72 hours is if we have or with regards to overnight parking if somebody has a handicap placard we make exemptions for that. But every other car within the community especially on residential streets has to be moved within the 72 hours.

Okay. So My question interesting, if you issue the citations, how long there will be wait for your tow in the car? Four to five days. Four to five days. So we have to wait the 72 hours for- Another 72 hours.

No, I'm sorry. So they get the violation for the 72 hours. Most likely the following day, if not 48 hours after that, the car would be towed. But more than likely within 24 hours of that 72 hour period, the car is going to be towed.

I feel that's reasonable. Otherwise the citation doesn't mean anything. Okay. Thank you, Chief. You're welcome. And one more question for Rebecca. For the Mission Playhouse, you have for the private event, no ticket. And then you have facility rental. So for currently facility rental, we have charge their fee or like a glass room, dress room.

Sorry, for the facility rental, do we charge a fee currently?

Yeah, for the just individual.

For the ancillary space, yes. So those are considered the ancillary spaces. So the classroom, the lobby, the closet.

We already have some fee charge there.

We do. We are trying to bring this in line with what our current need is in terms of events that come to us. And so, for example, we have that need with the weddings that come to have an event and trying to make the fees kind of line up with that sort of event versus a regular renter that's coming in to have a show or a two-day show, that sort of thing, if that makes sense. Okay.

Okay, so currently if they just rent like a classroom or rehearsal hall or something, how much will we charge? I tried to find out. I didn't see it.

I do not have those fees off the top of my head.

Maybe that's a Linda question.

I don't know that Linda has them on the top of her head.

Okay.

So actually, currently we charge them fee, but this fee is not based on CPI. We want to jump the fee amount.

I think we're trying to align the packages, if you will, with what we are currently seeing customers wanting, and so we're not overcharging, for example, what we have, because we do have fees that are put in place for different packages.

CURRENTLY WE DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC LINE ITEM FOR THESE ANCILLARY SPACES SO THEY WOULD HAVE A NORMAL RENTAL AGREEMENT BUT THESE WERE ASKED BECAUSE THEY ARE SMALLER AREAS. THAT IS REALLY FOR A NONPROFIT COMMUNITY GROUP MAY NOT NEED A rental of the playhouse to hold the event. So these are to meet the needs of the really a group that you know been asking for the spaces available. That's why there's this fee that's newly set.

So actually, this is a brand new fee we want to charge.

Yes, this is fee.

Okay, okay. So this fee, if they rent like a whole facility, the $3,000, that's include all the room, right? So you don't need to pay additional if they want to use the classroom.

For that facility rental, yes, the private and non-ticketed. That's different than a regular renter coming in that's having an event that's either open to the community, whether it's paid or not paid. So that is a, I'm going to have my wedding at the Mission Playhouse, and it's not open to the community, but I want to have my special event there, my... you know, child's quinceanera event or whatever that ends up being. So that is different than the typical rental fee for the playhouse.

All right. Thank you. That's it. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Vice Mayor Ding.

All right. Now, are all my colleagues satisfied that we're moving from, we've gotten everything from this portion? Okay, okay, very good. Then, Chief City Clerk, do we have any public comment?

I have no speaker cards, Mayor.

No speaker cards? Okay. All right. I now close the public hearing, and now it's time for council discussion. Let's get it on.

I know the song you're referring to. Well, I think we've had quite a few discussion already. I wanted just to move forward with the staff recommendation to adopt resolution number 26-15, updating the master fee schedule for fiscal year 2026-2027 with one amendment, and I think that's the one that I'm not sure if we came to a conclusion, but I have here with the amendment to provide financial assistance programs using LA County guidelines. But I know, Martin, you want dollar amounts. This is the best I can do with my recommendation.

I think that it will be helpful for staff to have a definitive threshold, if you will. A dollar threshold. It doesn't have to be a dollar, but they do change.

Well, but I'm saying LA County guidelines and you shook your head.

They have low income. They have very low income. They have middle level income. There are various levels of- All income levels?

I mean, because it depends, right? Mark, help.

I would just ask, Martin, if we made a motion, as Councilwoman Menchaca mentioned, with rates to be brought back, would we have to do the full public hearing for the fees, or can we just bring back a discussion item for what those levels are, put it on a consent calendar? That is correct. It would only be the latter. Okay.

Okay.

So we'll bring that back if council wants to have a program rather than create it on the fly, we can put that small portion on a future agenda, either a consent calendar or an open session item to come up with those levels.

Okay, so then, I'm sorry, so I move to, I'm recommending that we approve this fee schedule with rates to be brought back for the assistance programs for community services.

And the rates will be set as they are proposed if the council votes on those. Any type of a discount or an assistant program would be brought back to the council for a determination.

Okay, that's my motion.

Okay, can I add on one for the bingo one because that's for the non-profit organization? So maybe the short notice for them. Is it possible we can put these fee is really we actually, this fee may be postponed one year. Education them to...

But it's only $50. I mean, are you trying to...

I just want to help a non-profit organization.

For the whole year, $50. I think it's very reasonable. Right?

Is it $50 for the whole year? The whole year. And maybe I can repeat again. It is actually in our code. We just never put it in a fee schedule. So this is transparency to bring it and put it on the fee schedule. So really it's already existing. So we will certainly try it. We will have staff reach out to organization that we have heard from in the past.

Okay. Mayor, do you want me to repeat it? Already second. I'm good.

I'm waiting for a second. I second.

Good. All right. We have a motion by Councilwoman Menchaca and a second by Councilman Herrera-Avila. And let's go to the vote. Motion passes by a vote of 5-0. Okay. Thank you. Next item, please.

Adoption of the fiscal year 2026 to 27 operating budget capital improvement program and appropriations limit.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, VICE MAYOR, MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL.

SORRY, WILL, I'M A LITTLE LAGGING. I NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, FINANCE DIRECTOR, I USED TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS. We'll make the staff presentation.

Sorry. Thank you, Mayor. Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, members of the City Council. It's my pleasure to present at this public hearing the proposed operating budget capital improvement program and appropriations limit for the fiscal year 2026-27. To begin the presentation, I'd just like to provide an overview of the process that we've taken to come to this point to present the budget at this public hearing for possible adoption. So our first public meeting was on February 3rd, 2026 when we had a public budget kickoff of the meeting where we discussed the budget process with the city council and took input from the public as well as the city council what they would like to see in the budget. From there, we had internal meetings with the city manager, the finance budget team, and departmental leadership, where we took direction from the council. We put the budgets together. We did our best to come up with a budget that addresses the priorities of the council. And then we presented it at the second public budget meeting at a study session on April 26, 2026, where we provided the details of the spending plan for fiscal year 26-27. After the public budget study session, there were individual meetings with each city council member, with city manager and finance budget team, where we continued to discuss the budget. Questions were asked, comments were made regarding the budget. From there, we had a third informal public budget meeting where we had a community budget meeting at the Blossom Market Hall upstairs meeting room on May 14th, where we presented the city's financial information as well as the budget. And then that brings us here tonight at this public hearing for consideration of adoption of our fiscal year 26-27 budget. There's been one change since our study session on April 26. There's been $3.6 million that have been added to the Capital Improvement Program for our city's annual streets program, and that's the only change that has been made to the budget since April 22nd. Moving on to provide an overview of our fiscal year 26, 27,000, 27 budget. So our all funds proposed budget citywide, we have a total proposed spending plan of $96,222,000. That includes our general fund, our 22 special revenue funds, and our three internal service funds broken down by expenditure type. That's 87 million for our operating expenditures and 9.1 million of new funding for our capital improvement program. Moving on to our general fund, this is the primary operating fund of the city. So we have total revenues of 59.2 million, which is an increase of 1.5 million. Total expenditures of 59.9 million, increase of 3.1 million. Our expenditures exceed our revenues by $635,000 and our budget will be balanced for fiscal year 26-27 with the use of a small portion of our reserves. less than 1%, $635,000. Some of the major drivers of the increases in the revenues includes our licensing permits, specifically our billing permits, and on the expenditure side, we had increases in our personnel costs related to negotiated salary adjustments from last year and an increase this year. There is a vacancy savings of 3% as we discussed during the study session. Our revenue makeup, our largest revenue category is our taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, utility user taxes, which makes up 63% of our general fund revenue. And then the second largest portion, second largest category is our transfers in from the retirement fund to pay for our CalPERS pension cost, which makes up 19% of our general fund revenue. Those two categories combined make up about 82% of our general fund revenues. On the expenditure side, personnel being a service organization makes up the largest portion of our general fund expenditures, making up 77%. Personnel includes salaries, benefits, insurance, so on and so forth. And there's been, we had the increase in personnel due to negotiated salary adjustments. Contractual, it is an election year, so we'll be contracting with the county for election services. And we had an increase in our general liability insurance that is reflected in the internal, the IAS internal service allocations of $442,000. Some of our expenditure highlights are one of our city's highest priorities is public safety. So under public safety, we have 73 police positions with 54 sworn officers. 37 fire positions with 34 sworn officers. Animal control services contracted out at $608,000. Parking enforcement contracted at $375,000. Crossing guard services, 215,000. We have city prosecution services, 155,000. On capital investment, we have funded for this upcoming fiscal year three new police vehicles at 180, one rescue ambulance, paramedic certifications for our fire personnel. We have a fire service day and a national night out. Other expenditure highlights for 26-27. So we have our community events. So we have a budget of, a direct cost budget. So this doesn't include the personnel. This is just the direct cost to put those events on of $277,000. Here is a highlight of, um, our events and pretty much we have a community event for every major event, uh, throughout the year independence day, um, lunar new year, dumplings and beer, our weekly farmer's market, summer concerts and movies, Turkey trout veterans day, Cinco de Mayo. Dia de los Muertos, holiday tree lighting, Memorial Day. Moving on from there, some of the other expenditure highlights is we have $59,000 for mental health services. We have a robust Dial-a-Ride program, a Ride SG program, $927,000. Support from the general fund to our Mission Playhouse, $843,000. We've added youth day camp programming of $135,000. We have an internal citywide information AI project of $39,000 and the new bleachers at Vincent Lugo Park for $50,000. Citywide staffing. So total full-time budgeted employees is 205 employees. That's no change from the prior year. So there's no new funded positions for fiscal year 26, 27. Public safety makes up the largest portion of our personnel as we are in the service business as a city. Capital improvement program. So total funding for the fiscal year 26, 27 is total new funding is 9.4 million. This is for 10 new projects. The majority of our funded projects relate to our streets and our intersection improvements in streets make up the lion's share of our capital improvement program funding. uh... appropriations limit so on an annual basis cities are required to uh... adopted approach appropriation limit and do a calculation to determine that they are under that appropriations limit so uh... The appropriations limit is the amount of tax revenue that states and local governments can budget per year. So the amount that we can budget, the maximum, our appropriation limit for fiscal year 26-27 is $60.8 million. That's the maximum amount of tax revenue that we can budget. And so our appropriations that are subject to the limit is only $35.9 million. So we're significantly below the appropriations limit by $25 million. So no concern there. But we're required to do it on an annual basis. So in summary, for fiscal year 2027, we have $92.62 million in all funds citywide expenditures across 26 funds. Our general fund expenditures are projected to exceed revenues by approximately $635,000. Our general fund reserves exceed our contingency reserve target of 25%. We have 21.1 million in reserves, which is about 35.3% of general fund expenditures. And there's 9.4 million in new CIP funding for fiscal year 26-27. Staff's recommendation, the City Council conduct the public hearing for the proposed fiscal year 26-27 operating budget, capital improvement program budget appropriations limit, receive public comment and testimony, and adopt the following resolutions. The resolution adopting the fiscal year 26-27 operating budget, the 26-27 capital improvement program budget, and the 26-27 appropriations limit. So that concludes the presentation. We can take any questions you may have.

All right. Thank you, Director Cajolacula. And it was a great presentation. Does any council member have a factual question for the staff to clarify the report?

I do. Mayor. Council Member Wu. Thank you. Well thank you Will for your presentation. So on your staff report number page four, the staff projects the license and permits revenue is about 3.6 million for the fiscal year 2026 to 2027. So was this projection based on the city's current fee schedule or does it already include in the new city wide fee schedule we just approved? under the item 5A tonight.

Thank you, Council Member Wu. Good question. The increases in the fee schedule, for the most part, are baked into the increases that are included in the proposed 26-27 budget.

So that is already implemented?

Yes, that's correct. Okay. In the projection.

Thank you for your confidence in us. Well, and the second question that you proposed, this report proposed 9.1 million capital improvement program, including more than, I would say, including the intersection improvement and also the surveying thing. of this road that is more than $8.4 million on the street. So making that, this is the largest categories of the CIP of this year's budgets. So I believe it's really worthwhile investment because road condition reflects the quality of life in the city of San Gabriel. So once the street improvement projects are completed, what is the PCI does the staff anticipate the city will achieve or maintain? Is this due 85, the PCI?

That's a good question, Council Member Wu. I don't think I could really answer that one.

Thank you, David.

Cavalry is coming. We do care about the PCI, yes. Yeah, thank you. So Michael Sled, Public Works Director. The PCI, yeah, will stay about 85. Most of those projects are intersection improvements, so it's not going to be an extensive amount of renovations of different street surfaces. PCI depends on the whole space of the city's streets, which is about 80 miles and however many thousand square feet. So doing the intersections while at an improved traffic, it's not going to really impact heavily the overall PCI other than the annual streets program, which is going to renovate those locations. But I think the total for that, when I looked, was about two linear miles for the year. So the PCI will stay about the same.

Stay about the same. And for the intersections construction, that is making the street wider. Is that correct?

Yeah, and some of it's adding turnpockets and things like that so that people are less queued up in traffic and adding various features that are just intended to help traffic flow better through the intersections.

Do we put the flock cameras or the cameras, the sensors, in the same category?

Well, flock cameras versus flock cameras are more for security stuff. We do have the The city cameras that we're installing right now, as far as intersection improvements, it's adding video detection and things like that. But they're separate from the flock cameras, which are more tracking license plates and people who are traveling through the city and being able to communicate with PD about people who are here.

I see. So if those are, are those equipments and devices, they are also in the same pot of this? They're not in that pot.

They're actually being installed right now. So that's, those are, that three million in the annual streets program, that's just for resurfacing and then those intersection improvements are for more for widening and changing the flow of the traffic, rather than adding the signal stuff. The signal stuff, in theory, should already be good, at least to where we can modify it once those further improvements are installed.

Are we anticipating that we'll be collaborating with all the fiber optics that are undergrounded already, so we can just get better traffic conditions down the road? Yes. Okay, great. That's all I have. Thank you so much, Mayor.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COUNCILMEMBER HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? CLARIFYING QUESTIONS? OH, OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL CONTINUE THIS. WE'LL CALL A SHORT 10-MINUTE RECESS. IS THAT ALL RIGHT? A HEALTH BREAK? Five minutes? Is this good enough? Yeah. Good. Ten minutes. All right.

All right. Are we waiting for Adam?

Okay. All right, now I reconvene the meeting at 8.31 p.m. All right, and let's continue from where we left off. Do any of the other council members still have questions for the staff?

Yes, Mayor Chen, I have two questions.

Carry on.

One is related to park improvements, and the other one is related to PD. So we'll start with park improvement. How much is allocated for that? I saw the numbers, but I want to understand... One aspect of it, I know that the playground, there's two kids' playgrounds in Smith Park. One of them is fairly new, and the other one is, I will argue, almost falling apart. I saw some of the repairs. Is there any monies allocated to that, or is there any plan for that in the near future?

Thank you, Councilmember Herrera-Avila. In the fiscal year 26-27 budget, as far as like one-time capital improvement projects, we have funding for the bleachers at Vincent Lugo Park.

But as far as the playground, maybe Michael's got it.

I don't believe there's any new funding for it. I know there is a grant opportunity potentially, but it does require a match to replace that. Part of what in Rebecca could actually speak about this more than than I could she's she's the sort of the expert on it But one of the thing we actually had a meeting on it last week And discussing the potential of being able to roll it into a larger grant application that would be for the park overall that would include the pool renovations and things like that to where hopefully we'd maybe be able to get the funds to Meet that match and or if we get the funds to do it we could we could be willing to put that money in to do the improvements. Because right now the grant covers, basically it covers half of all equipment, but it doesn't cover certain types of equipment and it doesn't cover other parts of the improvements of the labor and things. So right now it would be about 500 something thousand dollars to implement that project and about 100,000 of it would be covered by the grant. And so we're trying to find the difference to cover the rest of that essentially.

Thank you for that. I know that I was just there recently and I saw some temporary repairs that look a little interesting. I know our public works or whoever is in charge, maybe maintenance is trying to keep it alive for the last couple of years or months. But is there any other approach that we're envisioning for this? I know I've seen it in the past that there's sponsors. I think the other playground got a sponsor, and I think that there's a plaque on this one from an organization that I'm not familiar with on the older one. Yeah.

There are grants that we're applying to. There's nothing specific where we have funds we're receiving yet. We're open and looking for any opportunities. We meet, we actually have a person or a group that looks at grants and we review things with them weekly. It's either weekly or biweekly. So we're exploring all the different opportunities that are out there to potentially fund

Yeah, thank you. I just wanted to highlight that portion, you know, youth, the kids, they deserve, like, a good playground, not something that's falling apart. I mean, that's still, you know, usable, but I think an upgrade there would be significant, you know, so thank you for that. Next question, we'll keep it brief, is going for, it's going to be for PD, so if we can have the chief, our... come up for clarification i just want to understand like the three vehicles that we're allocating 180k i want to understand are we getting new vehicles uh i thought we were getting like i thought we had like a new program that pilot that we're getting that that we have already purchased other vehicles through like a rental agency i think that's probably more more effective i think that way we can continue to get newer vehicles so um i want to understand where we're Where are we getting these numbers and what are the process? Are we planning to buy it outright, these three vehicles? Or are we going to still rent three vehicles? Or what are we planning and envisioning for this?

So the money noted up there for the $180,000, so we belong to, we are in a lease with Enterprise. So we are... no longer looking at buying out vehicles. We find that that's just not cost efficient for the agency. And so with that, that will allocate monies to replace three either administration cars or where we're at right now, detective cars. So I believe as of right now, and there might be two at the shops being prepared, Most of our black and white fleet has already been replaced. The three cars proposed are for either admin and detectives that, again, were at a point where they needed to be replaced, but we are still in a lease program.

And I'm sure it costs a certain amount of money to rent, and then we have to update them or upgrade them with the newest gadgets and all that, right? I mean, what is the cost that we're looking at for these particular vehicles each?

I couldn't give you a breakdown as to specifically the add-ons, if you will, or the accessories of the vehicles, depending on if it is a patrol black and white and or an admin car or a detective car. I would... speak and i can get back to you on that i would speak with my captain tomorrow morning he's in charge of the lease program and it started it so he has the finite details as to which cars are next due up in line to be replaced but i can get back to you on that

Yeah, because these, the 180, I mean, I'm learning really fast that city money is not like managing my own house, right? It's a lot of money, right? I'm talking about some projects cost, for the generator that we replaced last time, it's a million dollars, basically. I think it was like a million dollars or something like that, right? But then I look at 180,000 for three vehicles, that sounds about right for me. maybe for two vehicles, but then if we're renting it out, I kind of wanted to understand that portion of it. So we are renting them out, right? Well, we're in a lease, not a month-to-month rent.

And what happens with the lease program that we're in is that the company, Enterprise, they track the vehicles, the mileage, and the buyback program. So they are in contact with us to say, hey, you're a Ford Explorer, number one. With so many miles, now is the opportune time to sell it back to get equity and use that equity to purchase another car. So we're on top of that. Again, I can see where the $180,000 for three cars looks absorbent. But again, if you go out to any car dealership, you're going to be paying significantly more for three cars.

Well, Chief, thank you. I'm very much in support of the enterprise strategy. LEASE PROGRAM, BECAUSE I DO AGREE, AND I'VE SEEN OTHER CITIES, THEY'VE TOLD ME ABOUT HOW IT'S ACTUALLY A BENEFIT FOR THE CITY. AND THEN WE GET NEW VEHICLES, WHICH IS BENEFICIAL. CORRECT. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHIEF.

NOT A PROBLEM.

ANY OTHER COLLEAGUES HAVE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS? NO? I SEE NONE. ALL RIGHT. THEN CHIEF CITY CLERK, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ISSUE?

Mr. Mayor, I have no speaker cards.

Okay, thank you. Then I now close the public hearing. Now it's time for our council discussion. Who would like to begin?

I just have one comment, Mayor.

Go ahead.

Just regarding the opportunity that we gave residents to look at the budget and speak with Mark and Will, I KNOW WE DIDN'T HAVE A GREAT RESPONSE AGAIN, BUT I JUST WANTED TO APPLAUD YOUR EFFORT. YOU HAD IT AT BLOSSOM MARKET, AND AGAIN, THE TURNOUT WAS LOW. I WAS JUST GOING TO SUGGEST, AGAIN, I THINK I SAID THIS LAST YEAR, MAYBE A RAFFLE OPPORTUNITY, FREE TICKETS TO THE DUMPLIN AND BEER OR SOMETHING TO BRING IN MORE PEOPLE, BUT I JUST HATE FOR YOU TO BE THERE AND JUST HAVE, I THINK, WHAT, THREE PEOPLE SHOW UP, AND SO MAYBE THERE'S better minds out there, but I just wish there was more, because we do get the questions as council members, and I always say, well, go to the budget meeting, and that's just not exciting, I guess. But anyway, if you can just continue. But I do appreciate that you picked a different location, and there's a lot of great social media out there. It just doesn't bring people in. Will people do bingo next time? Yeah, do bingo.

That's right.

Make sure they pay their $50 fee. Yeah, $50 fee. Well, we'll waive the fee for you.

How's that, Mark? But anyway, that was all. I just wanted to recognize your efforts.

But otherwise, I'm ready to move forward and approve.

Okay. So I guess I'm looking for a motion. Unless, Councilman Wu. Do we have a motion already?

Well, I'm willing to do it, but if you have more to say.

Sure, I would like to motion to approve the project.

I'll second. Okay. Okay. So, okay, go ahead. Go ahead and vote.

All right, then let's take the vote. Motion passes by a vote of 5-0. All right, thank you. Next item, please.

Adoption of resolution number 26-23 vacating an unused sidewalk area along the frontage 261 South Mission Drive and reserving a parkway drain easement All right now once again, I now open the public hearing Public Works director sled will make the staff presentation.

I

All right. Thank you for having me here. I think this is my first time officially presenting to y'all, which I've been looking forward to for weeks.

Good evening, Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Council.

Thank you for the opportunity to present to you tonight on the proposed vacation of a portion of the right-of-way easement identified as Parcel A along the frontage of the property at 261 South Mission Drive while reserving a utility easement. As you can see here, Parcel A is a roughly rectangular area that extends along the frontage of 261 South Mission Drive. It varies from roughly 9 to 14 feet wide, is approximately 2,240 square feet in total area, and is separated from the street itself by a public sidewalk and landscaped parkway. which will remain as part of the right-of-way easement. Private improvements within Parcel A were first approved by City Council in 1996. As far as I can tell, I haven't seen anything predating that anyways. With some approved modifications and changes of ownership and occupancy since then, and currently include a trellis, stairs, ramps, landscaping, and a patio enclosed by brick columns and wrought iron fencing. The proposed vacation of Parcelet would formally remove the unused sidewalk area from the right-of-way easement while preserving an approximately three foot wide utility easement for the city to maintain and repair the drain that is located there. In this image, you can see the widest central portion of Parcel A with its boundary behind what will remain as public sidewalk along with the approximate area that retained utility easement highlighted in green. Based on staff's assessment, the area is unnecessary for present or prospective public use and thus meets the requirements of the state streets and highways code for city council to adopt a resolution vacating it while maintaining the utility easement. The remaining public sidewalk area exceeds ADA width requirements, and is further separated from the street itself by a six-foot-wide parkway containing grass, shrubs, mature palm trees, and antique-style streetlights. There is also no prospective need or desire to widen the street at this location based on the city's planning efforts for the Mission District. In addition to meeting the basic requirement of being unnecessary, the dimensions, orientation, and location of the site make it generally unsuitable for alternative public use, and it lacks potential value for alternative private development. Beyond this, vacating the area will also benefit the city by reducing its exposure and liability relating to it, clarify potential future questions about ownership and responsibility, and reduce the need for potential future administrative work related to it. So in conclusion, staff recommends that the city council conduct a public hearing and consider all public comments regarding this matter. And in the event that city council finds that parcel A is unnecessary for present or prospective public use, that they adopt resolution number 26-23, vacating an unused sidewalk area along the frontage of 261 South Mission Drive, subject to the reservation of a parkway drain easement to preserve the city's right to access, maintain, repair, replace, and operate the city-owned drainage facility located within the vacated area. Thank you. That concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions. We also have Dave Gutierrez here tonight representing the 261 Mission District Project, if you have questions about that.

All right. Thank you, Director Sled. Great report. Thank you. Now, does any of my council member colleagues have factual questions to clarify the report?

I do.

Councilwoman Ventura.

I would like to ask Dave Gutierrez. There's no one else in this room that knows this building more than him. He was former planning commissioner, former council member, and now I don't know what your title is. But anyway.

Grand Poobah.

Yeah, Grand Poobah. But you've seen this property. And four or five different versions, restaurants and now the karaoke. So you know this property. And you've been very patient. And so I want to give you an opportunity to talk about this proposal. And that was all. Please come up.

Great. Thank you very much. Honorable Mayor, members of the council, staff, you're absolutely correct with your suggestion of me having some back knowledge of this property. I can actually take it back to when I was very young and it was a very famous Mexican restaurant there by the name of Panchitos that was regionally known. So you're correct, I've seen transition of this ownership several times. to the current state of where we now are enjoying the up and coming popularity of the karaoke use there at the location. This actually This topic came about as a result of some of the new uses that were intended to be on the forecast for this karaoke restaurant where they were going to be considering the outside patio area for patron use. It was then realized that it was a joint venture between ownership of the city as well as the property owners. I applaud the wisdom of your city manager, Mark Lazaretto, who through many meetings with myself tried to brainstorm what the best opportunity to address ongoing relationship with the city for the use of that particular piece of property. And encroachment permits were always a viable tool to be considered, but certainly it did not limit the potential liability of the city. having the ownership of the ground beneath that area. So thank goodness Mr. Lazzaretto suggested that we look at the opportunity of potentially having the city vacate that particular parcel, which would eliminate potential as outlined in the staff report for future issues related to city. And the owner of the property, the Eng family, agreed that they would like to assume that particular parcel, and it also will provide the opportunity for the current leasee, Divine Karaoke, to be able to enjoy that outside area under the direct lease relationship with the ownership.

So that was actually kind of my question, is the fact that you've seen it in so many different versions, and there was never a need to do this before, not until now with the karaoke place, because the other, even Panchitos didn't have a need to have that outdoor patio area?

Well, it's interesting you say that. There were many uses of public area by Panchito's back in the 50s. I could tell you when we used to have parades coming down Mission back in the 50s and 60s. In case you're doing the math, I was only three years old. They were parties out on the street, and you're correct. It didn't seem like it was the considerations related to liability were not present back then as if they evolved from Panchito's to the Brave Bull to Mission 261, and then certainly the construction of that new area to the north of the original Panchito's restaurant. which is now the grand ballroom known to the Brave Bull as well as Mission 261 and Divine. It was an opportunity for the current Lee C to consider that outside area as an opportunity for their patrons to enjoy nice summer nights and certainly within the vision of the Mission District specific plan, which would encourage that type of entertainment and opportunity. So that's where all of these considerations came about.

I knew you were the right person to ask that question. Thank you so much, David. That's all I have, Mayor.

Okay, thank you. Anyone else?

Councilman Herrera-Avila? Yes, thank you. And I don't know who can answer this question. But I have noticed that this particular site, and I don't know who it belongs to, has like some plaques and of sort. Is that accurate? Do they have like historic value plaques on the property that we're looking to vacate?

if you know better than me.

You're absolutely correct with your observation. There were a couple of plaques, notably the first plaque noting the first location of City Hall at that location. All of the tenant improvement work that was done to accommodate the new lessee of Divine Karaoke was done so with the intent of preserving all of those plaques. Even the tiles that were put, done, painted and placed by students 20 years ago were moved to create the opportunity to address the requirements of ADA for ingress and egress of the patrons were relocated but kept on site. So there was a lot of consideration when these tenant improvements were made to preserve those particular elements.

My concern will be preserving those plaques and if we vacate that, I mean we're vacating, Is that correct, Mark? If we vacated and we have plaques that we consider historic there or that have been mementos from the city, I mean, we're basically releasing those plaques to the property owner? Or can we put something in this agreement where... where we can ask for those plaques to be returned to the city or repurposed or anything like that? How can we preserve those mementos?

And thank you for changing the terminology, Councilmember. Nothing was ever, it was determined that there was nothing of any historic value. I think that's really important to know because certainly I would have been very concerned about that myself. These plaques, these mementos remain within the area now that is being vacated, but basically as they were placed, they were only relocated to accommodate the ingress and egress related to ADA. They weren't destroyed. They have been maintained, and that was part of the agreement that the landowner, the leasee, had with the city to try to maintain to the best ability those mementos that really have a significance to that location. Interesting.

Has the Historic Commission been in this? I think this would have been a good one for the Historic Commission to get involved. Have they been...

Involved in this too to look at this the Planning Department Public Works prior to Michaels coming over to Public Works did take an inventory and and a look at all of the items that were being relocated and Determined that there were no there was no historical significance so the historic Commission was not and I think this would have been a good one for for them to get involved and look at I

Thank you, Councilman Herrera-Avila. There was nothing in our code that required that to happen. There wasn't any way as part of the entitlement process to put it in front of the Historic Commission, but it was clear in our discussions with Council a few weeks ago at the Commission interviews that Council wants more of that beefed up, so to speak, with the Historic Resources Commission. So in the future, we could strengthen the rules to require this kind of a project to go forward to the commission. But the short answer is no, it did not go forward to the commission.

I totally understand. Totally understand. I mean, I like what you guys are doing with the project here, bringing more, basically more revenue to a community. For a long while, I also thought that that was already theirs. So I'm glad that we were able to discover this. My only concern will be those mementos, right? If we could preserve it. And I'm sure that the owner, I hope owner understands that by relocating that, you know, you're respecting our community too. You're part of our community and that you're preserving that. It's to me, it feels mementos that are POSSIBLY HISTORIC OR SHARING OUR HISTORY, DEPENDING ON HOW YOU WANT TO DEFINE HISTORIC. but that's just something that i wanted to bring up because i think it's very important not to get rid of those particular things that that are there like there's some beautiful paintings on these like i think there's a painting of san gabriel or something or some sort like uh... nine but they vary in size but nine by nine twelve by twelve uh... tiles that have painted been painted by some of the uh... students local schools

and fired and killed in place there. So you're correct. And it was of importance to me as well. And certainly I'm proud to have been a part of this project. But to protect the integrity of those items as they were moved around.

Well, I appreciate that you shined the light on that, that they didn't just toss these things regardless of how they felt about it. I feel like maybe they appreciate it, and I appreciate that. Thank you. You're very welcome.

Okay. Any colleagues have any clarifying questions? No.

Then I... May I? Thank you. Well, first of all, I think I just want to know how does the city define its ownership interest in this portion of the public right-of-way?

Essentially, it's a right-of-way easement like any other street. It's not an existing parcel, for instance. We couldn't just go and sell this parcel as a thing. It's part of that right-of-way easement currently.

So this is public right of way. This is nothing to do with the easement from the previous, not returning this, but we are gifted this to the property. So that we call it a vacancy.

Is that right? Martin might be able to answer that better than me legally.

More than likely the parcels that align the street dedicated the easement to form the street than the original design and plan. So in fact, we are, by abandoning the unnecessary or unused right-of-way, we're returning it back to that parcel that it came from originally, most likely.

Yeah, for most locations, that's true. I don't know for a fact that it is for here, but typically most places, their parcels are there, and then the easement for a right-of-way was put through it. There's other locations like that in the city that you'll see that go through areas. And this one, since it's abandoning essentially what is an unused part of the right-of-way, technically under the state code, in theory, I think we could have done a summary vacation of this because it is just excess right-of-way. There's no plans to vacate it. But in an effort to be transparent to the public and stuff, we didn't want to just do that. So we went ahead and did the public hearing.

I see. Well, because I tried to pull that data from the title company, I don't really see that from the plat map, but I did find that from the assessor's parcels map. So my understanding is that publicly owned property that used for public purpose generally is tax exempt, so we don't have to pay property tax for that. However, if our the publicly owned property is leased to any private sector, let's say a restaurant or commercial purpose, it may be subject to a private taxation. Is that correct?

We're not leasing it to them, correct? I mean, we would be vacating it, so it would be in theory. But yes, then if it becomes part of their parcel, it could in theory be subject to taxation.

But the current position is our parcel or our lands, which is the right, you know, that is our public street is now being used by the private sector. It's already existing there. Yes. So they're occupying without, is it like a non-confirming use status? Can I say it that way?

Maybe. I mean, the city authorized it. Council approved the improvements there back in 1996 originally. And there's been changes in ownership of that site. But even in 2003, when I think when Mission 261 came in, for instance, they renewed that same agreement to allow them to do improvements there. So they're not unauthorized improvements. There's issues with whether they're authorized now based on the transitions between ownership possibly and the use, but otherwise they were approved previously by council, if that makes sense.

Well, this is very unique situation. I never seen that before. So that's why I, if you don't mind, I ask for a little bit more because it sounds to me like this is a land that we allow them to use that approved by the formal city council. But now, since they have been using that for a long time, so now we decided to, in order to eliminate the potential risk or liabilities, now we decided to vacate the property and allow them to own the property as a whole parcel. Is that correct? Yes, that portion. Yeah, because that portion does not belong to them. Now we would like to give that parcel to them. Even that is like 2,240 square feet total. So we give that to them so they can make that become their own property. Yes, their own liability. Their own liability. So for that current situation, if that is a liability issue, that time I'm just curious because that city requires a property owner usually. If we are the owner of that land, we should have the tenants or whoever occupying that property. They should buy the liability insurance and with the policy that covers the city to avoid any lawsuit. Have we been doing that?

I'd have to pull up the old agreements, but I do believe, I mean, they're executed agreements that were approved by the city, and they do have language in them indemnifying certain aspects of it, yes.

I see. Okay. Well, so the city has, like, ever been assessed to any property tax application associated to this area?

It's right away now, so not as far as I know.

I see. And have city, just curious, I mean, that may not be having any market value, but I know that, you know, the city, you know, have we evaluate what is the fair market value of that area, that proposed provocation? Public market? Public, the market value.

I don't think it would have any market value to anybody other than the property owner that's right there. in theory and even then it's not something that's the enhancements that are there are essentially the extent of what could be done there so right now they've been approved to use that area for those improvements as it is the city can't really improve it because any significant improvement we made there would basically cut off access to their facility beyond the fact that its dimensions make it limited in the first place so there's not a lot of public benefit unless I mean, there's just not. If the city had some reason why it wanted to widen the street, perhaps, or if it was a narrower thing to where it was only 10 feet wide to where if we were going to have to reduce it beyond that to where it would cause, like most streets in front of people's houses, they're going to have about a 10-foot right-of-way easement. They may not realize it. A lot of them landscape it and do all kinds of stuff in it, but it exists. We wouldn't want to vacate those because there's all kinds of infrastructure that is related to that, whereas this one... because of how deep it is, it doesn't really have a use. But we are retaining that one easement for the drain because that does have a benefit and it needs to be maintained.

For the public, right? Yeah. So who proposed that? Is the city proposed to the owner saying, let's give it to you, or the owner proposed to us saying, can you give it to us?

I'll answer that, Councilman Wu, only because Michael was not with the city when that happened. I'll take the blame for that. But your question a few moments ago about the liability and the insurance is what got us thinking about proposing this. We obviously had agreements and could have new agreements that have requirements for indemnification and also for insurance, and we've done that in the past. But when we started looking at the improvements that were done as part of the project, we were getting down to the level of worrying about the kind of tile that they had installed in the public right-of-way. and whether that might be too slippery for somebody who was out there if it was wet or in the rain or if they had been drinking because that's an area that's allowed under the CUP to have alcohol. And when we started talking about getting into that level of concern, Even though we could get the insurances and the indemnification, as you know from being on the council as long as you have, we get sued for anything and everything. And while we can tender that to the property owner and the insurance company, it's always going to come back on us. So I felt like it would solve two problems, one of which would be the liability and the other was the maintenance. Prior to the restaurant opening, there was a landscape area that was under our right-of-way. that we started to have a little bit of a discussion with the property owner over putting plants in that area, because that's on our right of way. And so again, when we started getting into the nitty gritty of how we do all that, it just seemed like a better option to relinquish that area, saving the sidewalk and everything else for the city, but relinquishing that area and all of the negatives that come with that to the property owner. So my over-analyzed answer to your very short question, the city proposed it to the property owner. We had them pay all the expenses of the engineering and getting the agreements and all of that done. but it was our proposal.

I see. Well, thank you. The reason I ask that is because usually with CD, we always treat everyone the same. So once we approve that, we definitely will be look up if any other same property in the district, in our Mission District, may have the same issue. But when I checked the map, it was surprised me because most of the parcel, they're pre-complete. But for some reason, only the Mission Drive, there are several of the property that had the same issue, even including our City Hall, that our corner is actually taking a corner spot that is not, is outside our boundary. So According to the assessor's portals map, Are we going to notify those property that seems they also have those kind of liability issues to us? So we have to doing one by one. For example, that's a Luna 343 Mission Drive. That one is like a very significant. They have a big portion of the area that is outside their property line, which means that that occupies, but that is our property. right, the Luna restaurant. So that one, I mean, when I see that, oh, we actually not only one, but also 327, we have 323, we have 315, even 311 and the 309. So that means this area is very special because the property line is not really outgraced. That could be the assessor's problem or that could be our problem. I mean, so how we deal with that, if we approve today for this particular property owner, are we obligated to contact those property owners saying that we need to give you that, you know, even that is like smaller portion. It's not too obvious, but are we having the same liability just like this?

I would look to Martin to answer whether this creates a precedent or not that we would have to, but we could do a research project of the properties in the Mission District. And for example, I don't know what the situation is, but as an example, if Tony's Patisserie or whatever that's called now, Thank you, Moo Moo Cafe. It used to be the old California pizza pasta place. If for some reason we found that part of the right-of-way extends beyond that brick wall that's in front or the demising wall and it's part of that patio, we would look to do a similar transaction because again, it doesn't serve any purpose for anybody else and it could be creating not only a liability but other maintenance requirements on the city. So I don't know whether we'd be required to do that on a parcel-by-parcel basis, but we certainly could look at that in the future.

Thank you. I think the South Mission Drive has a lot of this kind of property that is not really to algorithm. The last question I have is about this property was built in 1930. So that being said, maybe four more years, close to three and a half years, there will be 100 years. Do we have any kind of regulation that will stop people from renovating them? Or actually, they should keep outside the same, but they can just do something inside, which is a very interesting one right now as a karaoke. Okay.

We do, and it was very frustrating for the property owner at times for this project because they want to maintain the building, they want to keep it in all of its glory, but they also were wanting to modernize it a little bit. So there are some, when I say frustrations, for example, they put modern material on one of the overhangs, one of the areas that used to have the old clay barrel Spanish tile, and we are requiring them to put the appropriate tile back. If somebody wanted to demolish that property, it could take a full environmental impact report for something like that because of the age of the building and because it was the city hall for the city, but even before all of the other things that Mr. Gutierrez explained that the uses were. So if somebody was proposing to demolish it or do major exterior renovations, there would be a much stricter process. And there would be, for example, a 1980s home that somebody was wanting to remodel. So no guarantees, but there are protections in the current CEQA. And then being in a specific plan area, there are some other protections as well.

I see. Okay. I think that's all I have. Thank you so much, Mark. Thank you, David. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you, Councilman Wu.

Vice Mayor Ding. Thank you, Mayor. So first of all, I just want to see this. 30 years ago, how the council member make a decision is to keep the displacement. So what's the reason? So that time, I try to respect to them too, right? So maybe they have another consideration. So... Is there any way we can have the answer?

There was nothing in the minutes that we saw as far as it. I think it's probably just, not to suck up to Mark as my boss, but I think it's probably just a certain aspect of being creative and thinking about things in a different way. Sometimes a really simple solution might be something that people don't consider. And I think Mark could speak better to that than me. But there was no records about why they did it. OK.

Maybe also not just 30 years, 1996, maybe before that, right? If any, like we cannot find any record.

We can't, and there have been improvements since that time where the street was narrowed. It used to have lanes, two lanes, one parking lane that was parallel to the sidewalk and another drive lane that went through. So there were improvements since that time that made the street smaller rather than bigger. One of the things that Michael and I talked about was Would there ever be a need for the city to widen the street in that area? And that would be something that if we did that, maybe giving up this area would cause problems in the future. But I cannot see us wanting to go back and remove those improvements because what you'd basically be doing is turning that area back into sidewalk and you'd be taking out all of the front of that property. then turning the existing sidewalk into street or plaza or something like that and so it would take a much bigger project and if that happens down the road we would be looking at more than just this property we'd be looking at other properties as well. So short answer we couldn't find any reason why it was not done but we also don't know why the building just sits on its own pad without any parking or anything else.

Yeah, yeah.

And that was all done as part of the purchase of the parking lot. But you essentially have, we could do something, whatever we want with that parking lot, and you've got a building that's got no associated parking. So there are things that were done over the years that we don't have an explanation for at this time.

Yeah, like you mentioned, the parking lot. The property is only just a building. Back to the building, they have the park on the right. We know that the public parking. Also, behind the building, the parking lot, from my understanding, a couple years ago, bring up, it's belong to the city, too.

That's right, and when you bring up the park and ride, just to give you an idea of how we're talking about liability and concern, The area next to the side of this building where the handicap spaces are in the park and ride, the city owns that walkway because that is our accessible route to go from the parking lot up to the street. So there are still areas that we own that are essentially, when you look at the building, look like part of their property. So we're not fixing all the problems with this, But as you said, the area behind is the alley where there's parking. That is still owned by the city. So it's essentially just the footprint of the building. And if council approves this action, this new parcel A, that would be part of that building as well.

So currently the contract, all the contract, like they have the liability insurance covered at this easement? And how about the maintenance? They do it, or the city still? Who maintain this easement?

They're required to maintain it, but that's...

They're required. They're required, yes.

Okay.

So, actually, okay. So another question that Council Member will bring up, if returned, if not returned, it's not, cannot use it. If we... how we move this easement for the current property. So I think the county should be do the reassessment too, right? Assessment for the property tax too. Because they are land value too, right?

That's the other benefit to the city, which we haven't really talked about, but yes. So this property, if council approves this action tonight, that will be attached to the property. The new 2,200 square feet parcel would be attached, and they would be reassessed. It would probably be a very small amount because it's just the land value, but that will go on the tax rolls, and they will pay taxes on that, whereas now they do not pay any taxes on that. Okay.

All right, that's one thing for the city to get more property tax. But another question, it's I think, like I think some council members already mentioned, if assessor value increase, but also the property value increase too, right? Is that correct?

Yes. If I understood your question correctly, if the assessed value increases, the property value increases? Yeah. Yes, their property might be getting infinitesimally more value, but it's getting that tax value as well. But they have use of the property now without our doing what they're doing and we're not charging them or they haven't been charged ever for the use of that.

Okay.

So I just want to see, maybe public can know that this is a question to understand it. So, well, okay. It's right now, from my understanding, maybe just for the city, it's like release the liability you're talking about, right? And hopefully we can get more property tax. Okay.

$15 to cover the bingo. Yeah, there you go.

So this property tax, is it... Well, it's already included next year budget. Just kidding. Okay. All right. That's it. My question. Thank you.

If you don't mind, one more question. Councilman Wu? If we will be approving this tonight, when the title will be officially transferred, is that like all the title fees and I don't believe that escrow will be involved to this, but is there any like escrow title will be involved to this? I don't want to call this transaction because there is no money involved and there's any financial impact because there's no, we don't really consider that as like a value to the city. The land is not really, we're not using that land no matter what. So we are vacating that. But any fees that will be responsible by the city,

The transaction will probably finalize when the resolution is recorded, assuming that the council takes affirmative action on this. And it's just simply when the city formally abandons. We don't own the property. We have a right of way on the property. All we're doing or asking the council to approve is to simply abandon the portion of right of way that is not being used anymore. by the city and has no future use for the city. We're not giving anybody a piece of property. We're simply abandoning a right of way that the city has in that area. And I can just assure the council that this type of an arrangement as it exists now is very ripe for a liability problem. And it's not something you can solve with insurance because no matter what, the city is going to be involved in it. And whether it's maintenance, whether somebody falls, whether it's damage occurs, the weather or other issues, having that dual ownership or dual control area that the city doesn't need. There's no reason this has no value that we could resell or do anything with. It simply is an area that is liable and created. When the city manager and I started talking about this and trying to figure out how to resolve this, this was a really good opportunity, I think, for the city to step out of a situation that is just waiting for something not positive to happen. So I don't know if that helps, but I think that's the driving force behind this being brought to you today.

Well, thank you. I mean, I just want to make sure. Yeah, I think the city, of course, we have bond of rights, so that's why we are able to, you know, like give it out or we can sell it, we can do. But I understand your point. So I think that just want to make sure that from now on until the day that officially the title is transferred that we are fully protected. So that being said, because there is already a business ongoing, just want to make sure that they do have a good coverage. You know, anything happens there, It just happened there. It's just like Vegas. So just not, I mean, we want to make sure that we are doing this for, not for any individual, but for the good deeds for the city. But we also need to protect ourselves. So this is a move that we are trying to avoid any further risk that will be taken in on our shoulder. So that's my point. Thank you. Yeah.

Council Member Herrera-Avila.

Yeah, this is gonna be a first, but I'm gonna compliment Council Member Wu because now, like you complimented me last time for trash and being not an expert, but having a little bit more knowledge, you kind of shine the light with your expertise in real estate and land, so thank you for that. I really appreciate that because it has me thinking now and the wheels are spinning. I feel like in the way that the contract is written here or this proposition, we are gifting it. Is that correct? Or who can answer that?

We are abandoning a right-of-way that has basically no use for the city. That is why this is before you, for the determination. that this piece of right-of-way is giving up rights.

I understand that part, but I feel like we're giving them the right-of-way, and I feel like this belongs. So do we know for a fact that that does not belong to us? I mean, why would we? I'm kind of confused because I felt like it was a gift to them, and that's how I felt like it was presented to me first, but now I'm hearing the right-of-way portion of it, And I understand the concerns, too, with Councilmember Wu. But I just want to make sure that this is accurate. Like right away, I mean, I'm kind of confused by that.

I don't know what portion. Let me see if I can maybe address your concern. Public right-of-ways can only be used for, generally speaking, for a public purpose.

But that's a public right-of-way. We're allowing the public the right-of-way to use that portion. It's like the right-of-way for an alley. We're allowing them to use that alley. It belongs to the city. And for my understanding is that, let's just say we have on Angelino, we have an alley there that kind of ends and there's a couple properties there. If the... If the owners get, they unite and they want to have the alley because it's not really serving any purpose, they could technically, I mean, in some jurisdictions, I think I'm pretty sure that they can talk to the city and then that can be given to them and then depending on signatures on the surrounding people that are affected by that, they can possibly buy it from the city. an alley with the right of way. Is that the same situation that we're facing right now? Or that we're...

I'm not certain what you're describing in the second example, but going back to the item that we were here before you with, It's a public right-of-way. It can be used either for a public purpose or it needs to be abandoned. The city is not in a position to sell it, to put it to private use. You either use it for a public purpose or you abandon it. And if you abandon it, it returns back usually to the adjoining property.

So technically, we don't have to abandon it, right?

We can just keep it like that. Yeah, it can continue to be a public right of way and continue to be the responsibility of the city in the event anything occurs there that is liability creating.

Because when we're saying we're giving somebody the right of way and then we're talking about possibly expanding the street, then that just tells me that that belongs to us. Like, right, that we're giving them the permission to use that right away. We're giving them the right, it's a right away, so we're giving them the opportunity to just use that space.

The opportunity to use that space was given to them by prior councils.

Right.

Under an agreement. Right.

No, absolutely. I'm all for that. I understand that. But then when I, I'm a little confused in the way that it's getting presented now, because my understanding was it was a gift. And then we talked about that this particular portion of the property here that we're giving them the right of way to use for public purpose. Whatever reason we wanted to build a structure to three-story structure parking lot in that parking lot right there and we needed to do like a Little turn or we needed to expand the street a little bit. I don't know if that would be enough space, but We wouldn't have to get permission from them. I guess if it's an agreement we would just have to go through some process to let them know that hey, we're taking our property back and Or how else will we expand that street?

Once you abandon the right-of-way, then you would need to reacquire it. No, no, no.

I understand that part. I understand that part. But we're not at that point yet. I'm not asking that question yet. Right now, we haven't abandoned this area. And if we wanted to create a street here... what will be the process? Right now, as it stands, what will be the process? Right now, we haven't given up any of this property, and I agree, and I strongly think that this property belongs to us, or else we wouldn't be having this kind of conversation.

Currently, the property has been allowed to be used, the public right-of-way has been allowed to be used to the BUSINESS OWNER.

SO WE'RE ALLOWING THEM TO USE IT.

CORRECT? PRIOR CITY COUNCILS HAVE ENTERED TO AGREEMENTS THAT PERMIT THEM TO ENCROACH INTO THE UNUSED PORTION OF THE PUBLIC RIDEAWAY.

THAT BELONGS TO THE CITY.

It's the city public right of way, yes.

Right, so it's our property. So we're gifting it to them. We're deciding right now to gift it to them. We can easily also sell it to them and then use the money for whatever purposes. Right now, I'm understanding that there's a liability concern. Who created this liability with the slippery floor?

I use the slippery floor as an example just to talk about the concerns that we have out there. But with whatever the flooring is, you're still going to have people sitting in the public right of way and crossing over that area. And we could do insurances, which we have in the past. We can make sure they maintain it. But ultimately, if something happens there, we are going to get sued as part of that. And that's part of being a city. We get sued all the time. We have sidewalks. We have streets. So that shouldn't be your only concern. thought about this, but this just seemed to me to be extra liability because of the use that happens in that front area. And the question about if we wanted to do the street now and widen the street, we would have to provide a sidewalk. So if we pushed the sidewalk back, we would have to then decide to take it through their front area. which would be that all of the patio area and underneath the trellis. That's what that used to be for. It would be the sidewalk going up and down the street. So we would have to make that decision. I would look to Martin as to whether we'd have to buy that back from them or pay them some value for using our encroachment agreement because that could be a taking of some sort of their...

Since there is an existing agreement which allows them... that portion of it for use and in reliance on that, they've built out that area. If the city would now come and ask for them to remove all that or propose to remove it, we would probably end up in at least a situation we'd have to pay for it or institute a legal action to get it resolved in the court.

So I understand that part. But if we wanted to do like a bike lane there, it will fit. At that point, we will have to try to buy that back, which I don't think is gonna be the case.

I don't know how much width we would need depending on what class by claim would be used and what the rest of the area, but whatever use that the city would contemplate, which would encroach on the area that's already been contractually provided for the property owner to use.

Last time I'm going to ask this. Who owns that property? that piece of property. They own it right now and we just have, is that accurate or a fact?

City owns the public right of way over that land. But they own the land property. They own it already. I don't know the answer to that, depending on how the original deeds were drafted, whether the property goes through the center of the street or if it stops at the edge. Different cities, different subdivisions do it differently. But if the property goes all the way through the middle of the street, and the public right-of-way is over it, then they own the property, own the public right-of-way. If the property ends at some boundary and then the street begins or sidewalk begins from there, then we own the property and have a public right-of-way over it. So those are the two possible scenarios. And I don't know which one it is in this particular instance. In either way, city has the ability to use that property for public purpose, for public right-of-way.

So right now we don't know who owns it. I just want to be clear. Like, I just want, that's just factual. We don't know who owns it. If we don't know who owns this, then I don't think we should be proceeding without all the facts. We don't know. You're saying we don't know who owns this.

What I said is I don't know which of those two scenarios is in place here right now.

All right, I yield that. For that particular question, I would like to just add some comments on that. If you go to the assessor's portal, the map that will be showing you, if you click, for example, the parking lot, the park and ride parking lot, you can see that it's called government-owned property. So the tax is exempt. So if you click anything else, if that will be on the street, you don't see anything because it doesn't belong to anyone. It doesn't belong to the city. But city, it's not ownership there. This is more like the right for people to use. So that is not owned by the city. City doesn't own that as a property. But I will assume that city has a right to make the arrangement just like a zoning, rezoning. So that is more, that is the reason that I think that we will have a conversation here because only the cities, the council can decide that how we zone the place. So I believe you know, from my perspective, this is the place is not belongs to the city, but city just has the right to decide that how that parcel should go. That is my question. That is my feeling.

I agree with everything Councilman Wu said, and when we talk about ownership of streets, that really only comes into play if we're looking to sell an entire street or abandon a street. If we go back and do the records and find how that was established, it would be established in one of two ways. When the parcels were created, The easement will be given to the city for the right-of-way, and we would build the street through that easement. Or sometimes the city could own it in fee, which means we actually own the underlying property. As Councilman Wu said, most of the time in the assessor's maps, you can see that. But if we were looking to actually sell or abandon the whole street... we would want to do that research. You can't just give part of a street to one property owner if that wasn't part of an existing easement. That would have to be something that would have to be sold by the city. In this case, since we're abandoning the easement, we can do that without having to worry about who that original ownership is from. But if we were looking at abandoning a street, for example, we would be looking at a different research project right now.

Well, thank you. You know, I'm not expert when it comes to land use. I'm glad we have somebody that is. Council Member Wu, I really appreciate that. I mean, you're on it. So thank you for that. Martin, I appreciate that. I'm just really confused with this whole thing, and I appreciate that clarity.

Okay. Sorry, just talking about Eastman, who owned it. I think Eastman, that's for my insurance. Okay. Okay. So usually you can see the front house or the back house. Then you have the back house have used the driveway. This driveway for the front house, it's already easement because you have to allow the back house to have the driving the car in and out, right? So from my understanding, The driveway, it's belong to the front house. So for this situation, is this easement, it's belong to the property owner or no? It's already the, that's my question.

So in your example right now, the city is owning the easement. So the residents are able to use that to access the rest of the city.

Mm-hm.

In this case, we're saying that one small portion of the easement doesn't need to be used for public purposes anymore. So in your example, if let's say the driveway was too wide, you could narrow that driveway and not have the back house to have use of that whole driveway because they don't need that whole driveway. And so they give it or give up that easement for whatever reason. In this case, we're not needing as wide of an easement for that street as is in the records. And so we're saying we need less of that easement.

But still back to the question, it's who really owns this easement?

The city owns the easement. We have the right to that property.

Okay. The current right-of-way. If I could offer an analogy, we have neighborhoods in this city, for instance, where there's utility easements that run through the back of their yards along the center wall. We have that easement. If we no longer needed that, some of them are sewers, some of them, the power line people have them. If we were to vacate that because we no longer used it, we would still just vacate it back to them. It would not be something that we could sell to them, sell their property back to them to get out of that. I don't know if that analogy helps relate to this at all or not.

It's a little bit confusing to me. Like I say, the front house, it's on the easement. Just for my scenario.

If you don't mind, let me chip in a little. Welcome to Real Estate 101 here. I would like to tell you this is an easement, a cubanant. For example, everyone who will provide a an easement that will allow other tenants or other property owners to go through there, use it as a driveway. That is called the servient tenement. So that means they will be offering or they are contributing the land in their lots for other people to use to access to their property. But some people, they may leave all the way back there close to the trash can. nobody really using their lot. So they do have, they call it a dominant, dominant, uh, attendant. So that will be, uh, like they're not contributing any of his or her lot for other people to use. So, uh, when, when you're talking about, uh, that condo medium or townhouse, it's like a equally, like people just equally share their property rights for everyone to use. So that is called easement. But for this particular case, I would say that it's not even, because we are not actually, we don't call the owner of the property, but we are just by the zoning. While we are zoning that we have designed, this is a street that is a place for the C1 zoning or R1 zoning. So that will be just the zoning things. But we, as a city, that we actually have the right to decide with zoning that we want to designate that area. So with that, we have the power to decide if we want to just give it to a certain purpose or we just, you know, maybe as chief, just take that property back for other public purpose use. So I hope that will help.

Thank you.

Okay, do any of my colleagues have any other further clarifying questions for the report? We're pretty confident that we understand the staff report.

So we're just, so what we're relinquishing, we're keeping the sidewalk as it is, right? Like, right, Mark? Where we're relinquishing is that deck area that's already built out and that ramp area. Is that accurate?

That is accurate. So it's pretty much everything behind the wall that is in front of their property. I'm looking in the staff report for, there's a good picture. So if you look at page two of the staff report, there's an aerial photograph. that shows kind of approximately where it is and it covers the area that's under the wood trellis as well as where the ramps are in the front on the north side of the property and as you go south, it's the area that's behind their wall that has tables and chairs and that kind of thing. To answer your question, we're keeping all of the sidewalk as well as that green area that's between the sidewalk and the street. So they're already using the area?

It's already basically in full use? Yes. Right. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Do any of my colleagues have more questions for clarifying the report?

Okay.

Seeing none. Chief City Clerk, do we have any public comment?

I have no speaker cards.

Okay. Thank you. All right, now I now close the public hearing. It's now time for council discussion. Let's get it on.

I would like to just make a motion to accept the staff recommendation.

All right, motion by Councilwoman Menchaca. Do I have a second?

I'll second.

Seconded by Councilman Herrera-Avila. All right. Are we ready to go to the vote?

Motion passes by a vote of 5-0.

All right. Thank you. Next item, please.

We have no continued business this evening. Our next item is new business item A, policy for technology disruption during city council meetings. And I will present this report for you. So Mr. Mayor and city council members, at the last council meeting, the city attorney gave you a detailed presentation on recent changes to the Brown Act pursuant to Senate Bill 707. And the city council authorized the purchase and installation of an audio-visual platform for two-way remote public access during council meetings pursuant to the bill. An additional requirement of the bill is the adoption of a policy which addresses disruption of this technology during meetings. and outlines the procedures which will be taken in the case of a disruption. In a nutshell, open session would be recessed and staff would attempt to restore functionality for up to an hour. If it cannot be restored, the City Council would make a decision whether to continue the meeting by adopting a finding that good faith efforts have been made or adjourn the meeting. The proposed policy ensures transparency, public participation, and continuity of government during technology disruptions and fulfills this requirement of the Brown Act. That concludes my report, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

All right. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Does any council member have factual questions to clarify the report? All right. Seeing none, Chief City Clerk, do we have any public comment?

I have no speaker cards.

Okay, thank you. It's now time for council discussion.

Let's get it on. I want to make a motion to approve it.

What, already? I second it, already.

Come on. All right, so motion made by Vice Mayor Ding, seconded by Councilwoman Menchaca. And let's please go to the vote then.

Motion passes by a vote of 5-0.

All right. Thank you. Next item, please.

Dumpling and Beer Festival 2025 Recap and Hiring an Event Operator. Economic Development Manager Karen Ko will make the staff presentation.

Good evening, honorable mayor and members of the city council. The item before you tonight will cover the recap of last year's Dumpling and Beer Fest and the planning efforts behind the festival's continued success and a little bit about our proposed operator. Our operator MPD Events is also here this evening to answer any questions. The Dumpling and Beer Festival began in 2015 as a way to highlight San Gabriel's culinary experience and draw visitors to the Mission District. Since then, it has grown into a beloved community event that celebrates diversity and culture through food and drink, drawing between five to 7,000 attendees each year. The event is free to attend and features live entertainment, a wide variety of food options that can be purchased directly from participating food vendors, and a dedicated kids activity area. And of course, the event features a beer garden with entry available to guests 21 and over for a separate admission fee. The 2025 Dumpling and Beer Fest marked the event's 10-year anniversary and was a tremendous success for the city and the community. Last year's festival saw significant growth, featuring 13 breweries and 25 food vendors compared to just five breweries and a rented tap truck in 2024. Similar to prior years, the beer garden expanded onto Santa Anita Street to improve circulation and accommodate larger crowds. Due to popular requests, we also offer designated driver wristbands to allow non-drinking guests to accompany their friends and family inside the beer garden. To celebrate the milestone anniversary, staff completed a comprehensive rebrand that modernized the festival while honoring San Gabriel's cultural identity and longstanding traditions. Design elements incorporated recognizable city landmarks and themes, including the mission in Great Vine Arbor, as you can see on the screen. Additional enhancements included new branded merchandise including mini tote bags and koozies, and an updated sponsorship package with expanded benefits, a community art contest in partnership with Asian Youth Center, and attendee giveaways and raffles to enhance the overall experience. This city also continued its partnership with Asian Youth Center to assist with alcohol licensing and community engagement efforts. Financially, the festival secured $24,000 in sponsorship, an increase of $20,500 over 2024, with the support from organizations such as 99 Ranch Market, Ontario International Airport, Din Tai Fung, Newport Seafood Restaurant, the San Gabriel Kiwanis Club, and more. Lastly, the festival continued its tradition of strong community participation through booths and outreach from local organizations, including the San Gabriel Police Department Community Engagement Team, Asian Youth Center, US Army, and more. The festival is a major city-wide effort led by the Economic Development Division team with planning beginning as early as spring. It involves year-round coordination across multiple departments to manage marketing, vendor recruitment, procurement of entertainment equipment, and event layout. Staff work to balance the needs of the community, vendors, and the city personnel to ensure a smooth and successful event. The Community Development Department plays a key role, especially on the day of the event, helping managing vendor setup, managing traffic, supporting ticket sales, and assisting with cleanup. Other departments also contribute, such as Mission Playhouse helping us with the stage setup, community services supporting equipment setup, beer garden check-in, and kids' activities. Public Safety handled emergency planning and event security, Public Works managed signage, road closures, and equipment logistics. PIO promotes the event through city media, as well as taking footages of the event throughout the night. Staff also work closely with LA County Public Health to meet health and safety requirements. As you can see, this is all hands on deck with staff. As the event continues to grow, flexibility remains essential. Staff regularly adjust layouts, documentations, and staffing plans to accommodate the evolving needs of the festival and its attendees. In 2015 and 2017, the Community Development Department hired Collaboration Creative Marketing, also known as KCM, to assist with food vendor coordination, brewery management, and beer tasting operations for the Dumpling Beer Festival. KCM was selected based on their successful work with the city's Lunar New Year Festival. At that time, the annual cost was about $11,500. By 2019, the proposed cost increased to 21,500. Due to the growing size and complexity of the event, the city ultimately did not move forward with the contract. Since 2017, City staff have independently managed festival operations. However, with attendance consistently reaching 5,000 to 7,000 annually, staff revisited the need for an event operator to assist with logistics and event coordination. City Council agreed and directed staff to move forward with hiring an operator in recognition of the significant effort required to produce an event of this scale. In 2015, Community Development Department issued a request for proposals for an event operator. Four proposals were received with costs ranging from approximately $45,000 to over $89,000, all exceeding the city's existing $30,000 event budget. Due to the timing, staff did not move forward with hiring an operator last year. Recognizing the increasing operational demands of the festival, City Council directed staff to continue exploring options for hiring an operator. Recently, staff revised the RFP to focus on identifying a turnkey operator capable of independently managing the festival with minimal city staffing and limited city funding, similar to the partnership with World Journal for the Lantern Festival. Three proposals were ultimately received and they were interviewed. Proposals were evaluated based on operator qualifications, project understanding, and financial proposal. After review, MPD events received the highest overall rating. To provide your brief background on MPD Events, they are a full-service event production company with more than 15 years of experience producing large-scale cultural and community events. Their proposal stood out because they are willing to assume primary responsibility for event planning, production, staffing, operations, and financial risk. while requiring only limited in-kind support from the city. Based on the proposal, interview, and updated scope of work, staff recommends awarding MPD events as the operator for the 2026 Dumpling and Beer Festival. Staff recommends that city council receive and file last year's event recap and review and approve the professional services agreement with MPD events and authorize the city manager to execute the agreement. This concludes my presentation. I am happy to answer any question. And as mentioned, I have MPD events CEO Matt D'Amiglio present tonight to answer any questions.

All right, thank you, Ms. Ko. Does any council member have factual questions for the staff to clarify this report?

I do, Mayor.

Councilwoman Menchaca.

Okay, thank you. First of all, I just want to say that I'm pleased that you took the suggestion of hiring an operator. I think I was the one who made it, but it doesn't matter. Just glad you're doing it because I think, you know, people don't realize, you say five to 7,000, but that's just within four hours. And so it has just continued to grow. And I know people have asked for us to do it a whole weekend. So I can only imagine that would be a phenomenal undertaking. These two are definitely very enthusiastic about that. And so my first question is about them. Did you run this by the committee, which I believe consists of Council Member Herrera-Avila and...

and Mayor Chan. Council Member Menchaca, so we did not present the RFP to the Dumpling and Beer Fest committee for review and input prior to presenting this forward. The primary objective of the RFP would be at a minimum to identify a qualified operator that would be able to deliver the events and maintain a traditional scope, quality and operations of the Dumpling and Beer Festival. As part of the procurement process, staff focused on establishing requirements that would ensure continuity of the event and successful execution.

So if we approve this, then you will be consulting with the committee?

Yes.

Okay. Because we do put some effort. I know as the former mayor, we do put an effort in trying to have council members on there to help. to smooth the process, hopefully not delay it in any way. Okay, my second question is, I would like to have the operators actually speak since they've been here, it's almost 10 o'clock, and maybe just give a very brief introduction of, well, there's only one of you, I thought there was two. Oh, the other one. Oh, no, he's over there. Okay. Well, you can both speak or just won't speak. But just briefly, you know, what your experience is. I know you've already been interviewed, but, you know, we haven't met you. But if you can just briefly share what kind of events you've done in the past. How did you even get to know our city? Because I think you had mentioned and spoke to briefly that you actually do international events also?

Yes.

Okay.

Honorable Mayor, Council Members, thank you for having me. My name is Matthew D'Amelio, and I am the president of MPD Events. We've been in business for over 15 years. We do events, as you mentioned, throughout Southern California for the last 11 years here, but also all over the world. So like recently, we did a trip to Marrakesh and operated a three-day retreat.

I've been there.

incredibly gorgeous. Yes, it is. But comes with its complications and challenges. And I think that's how we have found ways to thrive. You know, we also just did a retreat to Bangkok as well. We did a CEO retreat and we've done We've actually done work in and around the San Gabriel Valley area, Pasadena, San Marino, and we've worked a lot with business leaders in the area through an organization called the Young Presidents Organization. So we have a lot of really great relationships that we've been developing over more than a decade throughout the area and throughout Los Angeles.

Have you done something like Dumplings and Beer? Is there any other event that's similar?

Similarly, yeah. We just did something called YPO Fest, and it was the first of its kind. It was a music festival where we actually brought in many different food vendors that were all part of the YPO group. We had a wellness center. We had three huge artists perform, Aloe Blacc, Donovan Frankenrider, and a few really well-known musical acts. So again, it was just a great challenge to take on first of its kind, and we are already in planning for it for next year. So this type of opportunity, we're really thrilled to be considered. to be part of it because we want to continue to maintain the importance that the city has with the involvement of making this a success in which it has been for the last 10 years, but also to help with the operational side, which is what we're many experts about, I guess you could say.

Since we've been doing it for 10 years, it's always like, what can we do better, or kind of taking it to the next level, and I think having a group like yourselves with that experience would be very valuable. I was just kind of curious, since you are quite involved with this type of work, it sounds like, I know when Blossom Market opened up, before they even opened up to the public, what they did is they brought in influencers, and they did everything that needed to be done to kind of get people excited. And I'm just wondering, I'm sure you've worked with influencers. I don't know how we would do it with dumplings and beer because, like I said, it's four hours and that's it. I guess you can get previous videos or things like that. But you deal with influencers? You deal with social media, I'm assuming?

Definitely. And we would use it for all the pre-marketing. We were even talking about you could send like a – influencer pack to them prior to arriving you could have them show up maybe there's like a 30 minute preview that they get pre-access to they show their hat they're on their way and they're already kind of like helping us pre-advertise the event lots of um social media adverts that we can create, lots of Instagramable moments that I think is possible. But I mean, and also through Karen and the team, they also have a great marketing strategy already, which has made this such a success. So we're not gonna reinvent the wheel here, we're just gonna continue to build upon the success in which the city has created.

Great, yeah, unfortunately you had mentioned you had never attended a Dumplings and Beer, but that's okay. There's plenty of videos out there. But anyway, well, I have a few more questions for Karen, but I'm sure council will, my colleagues will ask you some questions, so don't go far. I wanted to ask you, Karen, we've invested 30,000 in the past, but if we hire an operator, ARE WE STILL PLANNING TO SPEND THE $30,000 OR ARE WE JUST PROVIDING IN-KIND SUPPORT, WHICH MEANS STAFF TIME AND OTHER KIND OF RESOURCES?

HISTORICALLY, WE'VE INVESTED ABOUT $30,000. DO WE ANTICIPATE UTILIZING ALL THE $30,000? I DON'T KNOW, BUT THE GOAL IS TO PRIMARILY JUST USE IN-KIND SUPPORT. THE OPERATOR DOES UNDERSTAND THAT.

THE OPERATOR IS WILLING TO PURSUE ALL THE SPONSORSHIP OPPORTUNITIES. CITY WILL NOT BE DOING THAT THIS TIME? or are you gonna work collaboratively? How's the sponsorship?

We work collaboratively, but we'll definitely share our contacts that we've procured from previous years. Okay. I'm sure Matt has, having experience with developing sponsorship packages, he can probably create something that would make it beneficial for our past sponsors if they are looking to participate and be a sponsor again.

So I'm just kind of looking at it from a financial perspective, you know, what the motivation is for MPD since you're not really charging like the other vendor would. already had like this price point plus everything else. So I know the ticket sales, you know, you would rely on that to generate some profit plus, you know, everything else that you're going to be doing. I'm just trying to understand the financial incentive, you know, YOU SELL TICKETS, YOU MAKE MONEY. YOU DON'T SELL TICKETS, YOU DON'T MAKE MONEY. IS IT THAT SIMPLE?

OTHER REVENUES INCLUDE VENDOR PARTICIPATION AS WELL AS SPONSORSHIPS. I BELIEVE SPONSORSHIPS WILL TAKE A HUGE CHUNK OF ASSISTING THEM FINANCIALLY. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT?

That's actually a really great question, because with a lot of the other events that we work on, we do have an extensive portfolio of bringing on sponsors. So a lot of experience in really immersive, experiential events. So for our sponsors, we want them to We want to build a relationship with them. We want them to come back year over year. So the plan essentially is to bring sponsorships in a meaningful way that can cover the costs of creating this event and also cover our costs for producing it. So we would want to increase the sponsorships, but more so not like... a million logos all over the place more in a meaningful way which is experiential for everybody attending we want people to make a memory of coming to dumpling and beer fest and come back next year again yeah i the sponsorship has always been kind of challenge challenging because we don't have you know that many like large businesses i mean we have some vendors we have our local clubs but

It would be great if we can expand that net, and that's one of the things that is appealing to me, is that we can expand it, and even though, of course, the sponsorship would benefit you, but then they would be more aware of San Gabriel, and maybe they might be, they may want to donate for other events, like we have our Fourth of July event that could really use some help, or even our holiday event. EVENT COULD ALSO BE A BENEFIT. IF YOU SELL MERCH, WHERE ARE THE PROCEEDS GOING? TO THE CITY OR TO YOU? LAST YEAR WE HAD LOTS OF STUFF.

I THINK IF WE MOVE FORWARD WE WOULD ESTABLISH ALL OF THOSE ASPECTS. I GUESS IT DEPENDS WHO IS BUYING THE MERCH, WHO IS PAYING TO HAVE IT SOLD, AND THEN how that is gonna work out. If the city wants to have some sort of skin in the game, maybe there's a rev share, we can probably figure it out.

Yeah, cuz anytime you use the city logo, then we do need to be involved with that. But if you're the producer and we're just trying to stay back and provide the basics, the public safety, the public works. I'm just kinda curious, cuz we started the merch, I think last year was the first year. And I know people wanted more. And so since you do these events on a regular basis, I'm sure there's things that we're not even thinking of. But it really generates interest when you have merch. Merch is fun. I mean, people want City of San Gabriel merch, and we don't do that. But we should, I think. But anyway, and I think that's all I have. But thank you so much. I am very excited to see where this goes. you know, thank you for your interest. Thank you. Gil.

Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman Menchaca. And I think I'll dovetail on that because both Councilwoman Menchaca and I are both, we're both accountants. So we think about the same, we think the same way, the financials and how it, how the numbers all work out. And so I guess my question for Ms. Coe is in the past where we have, produced this whole thing in-house and we sold sponsorships, the city basically made the revenue, right?

Correct.

So the sponsorship money went to the city.