City Council - Regular Meeting

Okay, it is 7 o'clock and I am calling to order the meeting of the San Leandro City Council. Today is Monday, April 20th, 2026. Would you please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance? 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. All so at this point in time, Madam Clerk, would you please take a role? Council member James Aguular,

present. Council member Victor Aguilar is absent. Council member Bolt, present. Council member Bowen, present. Council member Simon, present. Vice Mayor Viveros Walton, present. And Mayor Gonzalez,

present. The city of San Leo conducts early meetings to fulfill its mandate and discriminatory statements for conduct that would potentially violate the federal civil rights act of 1964 and or the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California Penal Code sections 403 or 415 are per se disruptive to a meeting and will not be tolerated. Please see the city council handbook and city council meeting rules of decorum for more information. Madame clerk, your announcement, please. If you would like to make a public comment during the meeting, you can do so in person or via Zoom. If you are present at the meeting, please complete a speaker card and submit it to the city clerk before the item is presented, then wait for public comment on that item to be called. If you wish to participate in public comment via Zoom, you can use the raise your hand tool when the item is called. During the public comment session, speakers will be invited to speak and will have a set time to share their comments. A countdown timer will appear for their convenience and when the time is up, the microphone will be muted. All raised hands outside of public comment will be lowered to avoid confusion. Once public comment is opened, hands may be raised to speak. There will be a 30 minute window for public comments, which will take place under item seven, public comments, as per the published agenda. After this time is up, the city council will proceed with the rest of the meeting's agenda. If you have not had the opportunity to speak during the initial 30 minute period, there will be another chance to do so after item 12 city council reports. In addition, today we do have some translation services uh both for Spanish and for Mandarin Cantonese if I am correct. Is that correct, Madame Clerk?

Thank you, Mayor. Yes, we do have translators available. Our interpreters today are Spanish and Cantonese. And Cantonese. And if I could please have the two translators come to the podium mic and make that announcement in Spanish and Cantonese. So, please approach the this mic right here. Thank you.

It appears my colleague, the Spanish interpreter, is on his way. uh he is negatively impact by a storm by the storm and so he is slightly uh late. Um let me uh switch gear to uh Cantonese. Thank you very much. Okay, at this point in time, we're going to move to item number three, which is a report on closed section closed session

action. taken. Thank you, Mayor Gonzalez. On item 3A, Tapia versus City of San Leandro, the council took action on the uh based on the following. By motion of council member Bowen, seconded by council member Simon uh with all members voting uh six eyes uh zero nos and one absent to issue a 998 offer on item uh 3A, Tapia versus City of San Leandro of between 70,000 and $80,000. Uh more information will be forthcoming regarding this um 998 offer. Thank you.

And then robust discussion on all items. Um at this point, recognition. So we have two recognitions today. We've got a proclamation to declare April 22nd as Earth Day. And we also have a mayoral award for kindness to Darby Curry and Jennifer Ramos. And so we will begin with that first. Please join me down front. doing well. Yeah. Okay.

So, let's put this down for a second and make sure that these come to you individually. And do I have a reading copy here? Okay.

So, let me just give a very short description. These young ladies as part of their community service projects, come over here to the middle so everybody can see you, you know. So, part of their activity was developing a community seed bank for the benefit of everyone in the community so that they could get access to seeds free of charge. This concept of giving back to the community with no recompense just because they cared. So for your kindness we have given you this award. Would you like to say a word or two? Certainly. You can say we had a great project or something like that. What do you think? There you go.

Um we had an amazing time building the seed library together. We had lots of donations from Evergreen Nursery. Um, I think my favorite part of our project was probably when some of our Girl Scouts helped us with picking sunflower seeds and getting donations and picking out seeds from the nursery. What was it called? Evergreen. Evergreen nursery. Um, yeah, that is excellent.

So, San Leo community, how do you feel about kindness? Someone's going to take a picture. this morning.

So, in the city of San Leandro, we obviously celebrate Earth Day regularly now for many years. And we've we've got uh Moren Forny, a former SLUSD instructor, teacher, rep, union rep. What else do we want to say about you? Rabler arouser, uh cross country coach, yeah, your kids,

all this kind of stuff. So, I'm going to let you hold that and we're going to we're going to read this and celebrate and then I'll give you the mic and let you talk about whatever you want to talk about. She came to mind especially because of her great work in bringing uh sun day to San Leandro. We celebrated in September sun day on guess what day? Sunday in September. So thank you for for having done that. But let's let's celebrate the earth here for a little bit. 56 years ago millions of Americans gathered across country as part of the Earth Day movement joined by a common belief that we should prioritize the planet's well-being. And whereas we saw the passage that year of landmark legislation like the Environmental Protection Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Clean Air Act, for those of you that don't remember, Lake Erie literally caught on fire. So, the world was in significant need of improvement to protect the environment. And whereas the global community continues to face challenges such as health and environmental issues, economic struggles, as well as food and water shortages. And whereas people, all people regardless of race, gender, income or geography should have the right to a healthy, sustainable environment with opportunities for economic growth and for prosperity. And whereas we we all are the caretakers of this planet and have the obligation to combat climate change and environmental degra degradation to preserve the earth's beauty and resources. And whereas it is necessary and proper to broaden and diversify this global movement to maximize success. Now therefore, I consol the third mayor of the city of San Leandro do hereby proclaim April 22nd, 2026 as Earth Day in the city of San Leandro and encourage all people in our city to support

efforts that address climate change and environmental degradation to champion green economy initiatives and to encourage others to undertake similar actions. Well, I accept this on behalf of many people that are in this room and also on behalf of Third Act, a nonprofit organization of elders of more than a 100,000 people. Um, San Leandro has been at this for a long time, a short list, and again, many people in this audience have been part of these successes and and benchmarks over time, was one of the first clean air cities, and we became that during the second Bush administration, I believe before 9/11. This city defeated an attempt to bring an oil train down the Capitol corridor and it was beaten back by this city as the first to say no along with our school districts and our unions. Um saving our our children from great hazards and dangers right through the middle of town. We adopted in San Leandro a social responsible socially responsible investment policy, a climate action plan, and that work has continued through Sunday 2025. and we thank you for your support of that. But for those of you who've done this work in the past, many of us have done this together, late hours, lots of emails, lots of meetings, and for those of you who have your loved ones, your little ones in your lap right now, for now and forever more, let's protect, conserve, and build a world for our children together. Thank you. Thank you.

At this point in time, we will move on to item number five, consent calendar. Would council members like to pull any items from the consent calendar? Council member James Aguular.

No, mayor. No polls. I would like to move to approve the consent calendar. Okay. First, hold on just a second, please. Excuse me for just a second. Okay, sorry for the confusion. Um, is there any item that someone would like to pull because I I would like to just briefly discuss 5A. So, I will have some questions on 5A. Um, let's see if we can avoid pulling it and just kind of uh initiate a discussion. Um, so there's nothing else. So, what I'm going to do at this point in time is I'm going to take public comment on this item to see if we've got any public comment on our consent calendar. Do we have any, Madame Clerk?

Mayor, we have not received any comment cards for the consent calendar. We do have one hand raised online. Okay. So, again, we are opening public comment in person. If you have any public comment on the consent calendar, now is the time to speak. Seeing none, we will close public comment in person. Move public comment open it online. Our first online speaker on the consent calendar is Douglas Spalding.

Good evening, council members. Happy rain day. I'm home sipping my apple juice before my surgical procedure tomorrow. Uh 5A caught my attention. There's a lot of big ticket items on this uh consent uh calendar. I I hope everyone did their due diligence, but I'm I'm wondering why are we paying three separate um firms uh for on call environmental uh evaluations. Uh which to my mind means we don't have something specific in mind. Um but it's like 500,000 each. That's $1.5 million. like why are we spending all this money on this? Maybe hire one firm for $500,000 if it's really that necessary, but again, what is it they're doing? Uh secondly, I noticed that there's a lot of vehicles that are being purchased here. I understand some of them are are very specialized uh what purposes, but the like the souped-up uh you know, pickup truck. I'm thinking like really do do can we not repair the old one? I mean, we're having inordinate financial difficulties as people are many places as I have in my own life. And one of the ways I cut back on expenses, I drive a used car and then I buy another used car and I repair it in between. Um, I just think we need to like take a little closer look at some of these things. Uh, I know something coming down the a vehicle coming down the pike that's going to need replacement is the um the command and control center for the police, but but actually they haven't had use of it for the last year and they've been using their backup. So, if the backup works good enough, why do we need to replace the the bigger batter uh you know um uh uh mobile home that they use for command? I I just think we have

to just say no sometimes. We have to tighten our belts a little bit here and there and then it'll make things better. Thank you, sir. Your time has elapsed. Mayor, that concludes our online comments.

Okay. At this point in time with the consent calendar, I will go ahead and pull item 5A. Uh and happy to receive a motion for approval of the consent calendar with the exception of 5A if council's open to that. Uh vice mayor Um, I don't want to pull the item, but um, I did want to um, thank the Rotary Club for their installation of the fitness court at Marina Park. Um, just wanted to pull that out as a as a thank you, but not necessarily pull it out of consent. So, thank you.

And for the benefit of the public, we will be hearing from Rotary in two weeks. Um, there's some exciting things happening. Um, Council Member Bowen. Yes, thank you. I had I just queued in to one second it because I think Council Member Jaguar had made the motion and then I also just wanted to give a shout to the Rotary Club and the fine gentleman sitting in the front here representing them. Excellent. So, I'm going to come back to Council Member James Aguular. Are you fine um amending your motion to approve the consent calendar without item 5A? Absolutely.

Okay. And the seconder I have is Council Member Bowen. I have a thumbs up and I will interpret that um as a second of the motion. Uh so at this point in time, seeing no further discussion, please vote on the motion on the on the floor. Council member Bolt, may we have your vote? I.

Thank you. All votes are in. The motion for the consent calendar except item 5A passes with six I's from council member Simon Bowen Aguilar James Aguular Mayor Gonzalez and Vice Mayor Viveros Walton with council member Victor Aguilar absent.

Okay. Okay. And it's certainly the case that on all the equipment that we have just purchased that we have delayed purchases of equipment for for a while and at some point you just have to replace things that that don't work. But we certainly appreciate the focus of city staff on uh having equipment that works and in some cases purchasing equipment to lower our overall cost so that we can do things inhouse. With respect to 5A, um I'd like to begin uh and I think it's Mr. Lee, is that correct? Uh that's going to come in and share with us a little bit. Uh the concerns that that I had expressed to city manager is really the authority less so uh having three consultants that doesn't bother me. Um, but the authority as written would be for up to 7.5 million of spend with no specific deliverable. So, it's just kind of open-ended. So, talk to us a little bit about that.

U, yeah, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Again, Wayan Lee, the city's planning manager. U the the contract amounts are the maximum amount uh per consultant per f per fiscal year. Uh the consultants would be used on an on call basis based on specific development projects. These be these consultants be would be used to support development applications where environmental review pursuant to the California environmental quality act is required. As council is aware, many many development projects come before you require analysis uh for compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and these consultants would um perform the very technical work. Um and they would be used on an as needed basis based on the development review that comes in. That isn't that doesn't require the city to spend 500,000 per consultant per year. It just provides the same flexibility to use these firms to do um to perform the work on as data basis paid for by the the applicants that um are submitting development proposals and would be not coming out of the city's general fund but instead be paid out of um um paid by the um paid by the applicants as part of their development application.

So do we have a 100% cost recovery on this? We do. Okay. Any questions from council members? Okay. Seeing no questions, um I move that we adopt item 5A. Council member James Aguular. I'll second. Okay. So, we have a motion by Gonzalez, second by James Aguular. See further discussion. Please vote. Council member Bolt, may we have your vote, please? I

Thank you. All votes are in and the motion carries with six eyes and council member Victor Agular is absent. Thank you very much. At this point in time, we will go to city manager, city attorney reports if we have any. City manager.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good evening, council members and community members. Uh, I have one announcement for today. This Earth Day, April 22nd, starting at 10:00 a.m., join us for an eyeopening tour of the city's wastewater treatment plant. Learn about how the water from homes and businesses gets treated so that is safe to flow into the San Francisco Bay, as well as some of the sustainable practices that have been implemented and projected plans. Space is limited and registration is required. To register, please go to www.sanleandro.orgday tour. And mayor, that concludes my announcement.

Thank you. Definitely encourage members of the public to go. I've done the tour before and as there's some cool stuff that happens out there. You also probably saw a video that we put out regarding the wetland project, the the basin where we are helping reduce nitrogenation in the bay to keep everybody safer. So for public comment, we are now taking public comment on items that are not on our agenda but are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the city council. If we have anybody present to make a public comment on items not on the agenda, madame clerk, this would be the time.

Mayor, we have not received any comment cards uh regarding non-aggenda matters and we have one hand raised online. Okay. So, we have open public comment in person are now closing. We will now in turn open online public comment.

The first online speaker is Douglas Spalding. Uh thank you very much. I wanted to double back on the um the news emanating from San Leandro. Uh primarily the disturbing case of um the violation of Mr. Shaquille Coleman's civil rights uh wherein he was uh removed from the city of San Leandro and summarily dumped off in Oakland in December of 2024. and and I appreciated the mayor's clarifying remarks that, you know, it had been uh investigated and indeed violated uh not only our kind of moral sensibility but but department policy. Um, I wish that that um public statement had had or that that that that uh had been revealed much earlier than, you know, 18 months after the fact. And I and I and I wish that going forward we adopt some kind of um understanding if not policy that while these are personnel matters and we can't talk about specific people and whatnot you know as a city we need to acknowledge when when wrong has been done when harm has been done and and what we're doing to uh to ameliorate. Um, so, uh, now given that it was a personnel matter, I think it's, um, also quite disturbing that body camera footage was, uh, leaked to the media. And apparently the source of the story was a former longtime president of the uh, police officer association and current officer in the department, Michael Olivera. So, it's a personnel matter. I I I can't really rightly say or I can't rightly know, but I would sure hope that there's an investigation going on to how it is these leaks came

about, especially so long after the matter happened after there had been adjudication within department and by the independent police auditor. It just uh it's beyond my understanding how such a thing would happen. Thank you.

Thank you. Your time has elapsed. Mayor, there are no more raised hands online. So, we'll close public comment online and move forward with our agenda to our public hearings. At this point in time, we are on our first public hearing with respect to item 8A as listed in detail in the agenda. We do have today Assistant Community Development Director Avalon Schultz presenting on this item. And madame clerk, if you could put 15 minutes on our clock, and it looks like you already did. Thank you, Rotary. We'll see you soon.

All right. Is it working? All right. Good evening, council. Um, let me just get my presentation up. On we go. So, we're pleased tonight to present you with four related actions that will implement San Leandro's brand new rent program. This includes our fee structure, appropriating the budget for fiscal year 2027, authorizing a staffing plan, and aligning the rental registry filing deadline with the program launch. As a reminder, council adopted the rental registry ordinance back in April 2025, then later amended it in October 2025 to shift the registration deadline so that we could get the software ready. Uh the original point of the rental registry was to collect rent data to see if rent stabilization was necessary. Um but before we even launched the rent registry, the council decided in December 2025 uh to provide us direction on a rent stabilization program which was then later adopted in February 2026. And we have an effective date of January 1st, 2027 for the rent stabilization ordinance. That's context for tonight's actions. Um so these next two slides will look familiar. They are taken straight from the December 15th council work session on the rent program where council provided direction to us to establish an enhanced enforcement option for the rent program with up to six FTEES full-time equivalent staff. Council also directed staff to prepare for this to be a fully cost recovery program. The assumptions that were shared on December 15th for that cost recovery program included a one-time general fund loan of up to $2.2 million to get the program stood up, a tiered annual fee

structure of up to $175 and $300 per unit per year depending on whether it was partially regulated for rental registry only or fully regulated for rent stabilization. as well as a late penalty structure of up to 60 to 100% of the annual fee um including leans and special assessments to enforce. And um we also laid out assumptions for staffing and program costs. So that is a refresher for some and new information for for our newest council member, but this was direction provided back in December before the rent stabilization ordinance was adopted that led us to tonight's implementing steps. So everything shown here um in black font is a refresher just what we discussed back in December. The red highlights some new information for council's consideration. Um so tonight's actions would establish the program fees and late penalties. We now have a fee study from NBS, our consultant, to support the the recommended fees. We would be establishing the new special revenue fund. So this program's budget would live outside of the general fund. Um and we would be appropriating funds for fiscal year 2027 to cover a f a full year of operations. Um the program would have up to six FTEES although we should note only five are anticipated to be hired for fiscal year 2027. We'll get into those details later. And then the general fund loan details we're sharing um the interest rate proposed which is new 3.76% based on our portfolio return. And then another piece of new uh information and a request to council is that you consider aligning the program launch. So the entire rent program would launch in January of 2027. And we'll provide some uh recommendations on why uh staff recommends that. So the proposed rent program fee structure is based on the fee study by NBS to achieve the full

cost recovery for program operations as directed by council. um all rental registry units, which is approximately 9,500 units, would pay the 148 per unit per year. And this is the fiscal year 2027 rate shown. And then the rent stabilized units would also be subject to an additional $18 per unit per year fee for a combined fee of $256 for fiscal year 2027. Um, we are also proposing petition fees at $472 for a fair return petition and $236 for a rent decrease petition. And this should uh be noted that these are not full cost recovery fees for those petitions. They would be more expensive to process and the cost of that processing would come under the annual fee. Um but this does acknowledge the time to intake and process from an administrative standpoint those two applications. Um the fees that are presented are within the range of what we discussed in December and um I might have said oh yes December 2025 sorry um and then a tiered late penalty structure uh ranging from 25 to 50 to 100% would help to create escalating incentives for compliance and we are proposing a first cycle administrative waiver so staff can have discretion to address good faith efforts towards compliance. if um there's a property owner who was not in receipt of correspondence um and has done their best effort to comply in a timely manner. And so the total projected annual revenue for fiscal year 2027 is approximately $2.1 million. Uh the code does allow for a 50% pass through of the rent stabilization fee,

which is the second row of the table, the $18 fee. um 50% of that could be passed through to tenants per our ordinance. So the budget for the fiscal year 2027 program uh totals approximately $2.23 million and the largest line items are salaries and benefits at approximately 1.06 million. uh legal consulting and software account for uh the next significant categories. And we should note that the legal costs do include the costs of thirdparty hearing officers for petitions, not just for legal support of the program. So that's that's a um a bucket of of funds, not all going straight to one um entity. And then the $125,000 shown here, that's the budget for uh furniture and fixtures, is the one program cost in year one that's not directly recoverable through program fees, uh because there's an amortization process for that upfront investment. And so, um you will note that there is a gap between year one program revenue and program budget. That's essentially that $125,000. Um, when we were last discussing program budget, council asked, "Can't you find a place within city hall or city facilities to house this program? Why are you budgeting for lease payments?" You'll notice there is no lease payment line item. Um, we are working very hard to accommodate this program unit within city hall. Um, so that has been removed from the program budget. The general fund loan that is proposed, um, the details are shown on the right side of the slide. And as mentioned that 3.76% interest rate is based on uh the December 2025 portfolio investment return. So if the general fund were parking this money in a portfolio and earning interest, the program would be paying the equivalent interest that the general fund uh reserves could have been

earning um is the rationale that the finance team has used for this 3.76% proposed interest rate. And another note um is that 25% of the total budget or $550,000 a year will be coming back to the general fund or special revenue funds uh to cover indirect costs, internal service charges, and loan interest. The terms of the loan are set up so that um the new fund could pay it back in installments or in a lump sum when revenues are um equivalent so that it can be paid back. So this isn't this isn't necessarily set in quarterly or monthly repayments. Um there's a term of up to six years to pay it back depending on how aggressive or how slow program revenues are realized. Um as directed in December, this program would have the six FTEES that were discussed uh with five hired by the end of fiscal year 2027. Um and as council is aware, these are extremely hightouch programs with heavy volumes of calls and emails and inerson inquiries. Um our team has been meeting with peer cities who run these programs to really understand the the staffing needs and the day-to-day operational needs. Um and it's a very heavy touch program. Um so we are very happy to report that our first program hire is with us actually here tonight, Nicholas Draper. And so our management analyst 2 position has been filled and it's been a great relief just to have our first program staff here and ready. Um we have an accepted offer from our second uh position, the program specialist 2. They will be starting unfortunately not May 1st but miday. We've got a start date. Um and then the rest of the positions would be filled July 1 upon council authorization

um with the exception of the admin assistant 2 which would be joining January 27 halfway through the fiscal year. And then the last program specialist is um going going to be joining us in fiscal year 28. And through that time we'll also be really monitoring the necessary staffing levels. And so we definitely don't want to overstaff the program. So, we will we will continually be making sure we're running this operation as leanly as we can. Um, but we also are following council's direction to provide the full enforcement services and really have a robust program. Um, so we can support property owners and tenants and all of the activity that will come from that. And so at full staffing, it's anticipated the staffing and benefits would be about 1.3 million annually. So the new information that we're sharing with you tonight is about the rent stabilization alignment with the rental registry deadline. And so the blue square is it's different from the first timeline that I showed in that we're proposing January 2027 be the launch for both aspects of this program. The staffing is combined. Um there are a lot of costs to the program that are combined. And so, um, there's a lot of wisdom and we think in merging the launch so that the property owners and affected parties really understand what we're asking and have, uh, fewer, more consolidated touch points with the city. And so, um, the main reason that we're proposing January alignment, uh, comes down to data re relevance, business license alignment, and program readiness. And so the July 2026 date um made sense at the time, but that data that we would be collecting would predate the rent stabilization ordinance by six months, making it of limited value for enforcement. And um January, turns out, is also our annual business license renewal cycle. And so when property owners register with the city

to be a business operating in San Leandro, they pay their the renewal fee every January. And so we're anticipating there are going to be a large number of property owners who may not have business licenses and will also need to get a business license from the city. And January could be the month that they do their rental registry and their business license renewal. And then the program readiness while we are definitely on track to launch the software in July as is currently the deadline. um it doesn't leave a very long runway to train up land uh property owners and to really get out there and educate and make it an easy uh path to compliance. And so by providing that additional window from between when the software is ready to where we actually need people to register the additional six months would really be an engagement outreach training handholding time uh which we think could have great value to get as much compliance as possible at the start of the program. And so, um, you know, just comparing side by side the value of January versus July, our team felt, uh, we would be remiss not to bring up the opportunity tonight to say that we really do think January is preferred for data collection, alignment, administrative efficiency. And so, while it might sound like a delay, we really think this is of value and makes sense for the ongoing program that we're getting off the ground. And so, we are pleased to bring this set of implementation steps back to you tonight. Again, the new information is highlighted in red. Everything else is what was uh decided back at the end of last year when we were moving forward with the program design. And so, there's a resolution before you in an ordinance. The resolution would establish the fees, set up the program budget, appropriate uh funds, approve the positions, and authorize the general fund loan with the terms that were described. And then the ordinance as we just went over with the program launch alignment um that would actually amend the MUN code. And so I'm available, our team's available tonight for any questions. And then we also have NBS on the line if there are any

technical questions about the fee study. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. At this point in time, we will go to council members for clarifying questions. Council member Bowen. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you to the staff for working on this. um really appreciate um the explanation and the focus on making the general fund whole. Um can you clarify um what safeguards are in place so that in like the 3 to sixyear window that we have for the repayment that it does get repaid?

Yes. Um our model really looks at conservative estimates in terms of number of units we can count on coming in. um looking at all known costs that we can estimate. And I think the most important factor um that we wanted to disclose to council had to do with willingness to place special assessments annually when we do the lean list for accounts that have not paid. So that mechanism is very essential to recouping revenue that makes this program um not a burden to the general fund. Um so we've modeled and we have a conservative and more aggressive modeling and that's where the 3 to sixyear time frame came in.

Thank you. And then um in regards to a a burden I appreciate you know the effort that the council and staff have made towards um the rent registry because the more information that we have the more effective these programs can be. And so in terms of um outreach and support to all of the landlords in in San Leandro, but in particular our mom and pop landlord owners, like what is what is the plan to ensure that there is going to be um enough information and enough um time and support for everybody to be able to participate and not be burdened by um these additional fees, especially during these rather difficult economic times. Yes, the the proposed alignment for a January 2027 launch will provide I think much more time to work with the smaller property owners um to really help them understand the software and and walk them through uh the registration process which we think will be very valuable. And then in our budget both for you know this current fiscal year startup and for for fiscal year 2027 um we're accounting for translation and workshops and uh community CBOS that can help us spread the word and help um advise property owners. So I think engagement and outreach is critical to the success of this program. It's not something you can just flip a switch. You're going to really have to be there to to help people navigate. And then our team is also working on robust website content, flyers that are translated multiple languages, demonstrations so people can learn how to do it themselves and just looking at different ways to meet people where they're at.

I really appreciate um you bringing up language accessibility both on the forms on the website, but also obviously to engage with folks especially in in our city. Um this month is actually National Language Accessibility Month, so that's fantastic. uh you didn't mention there, but I think we've talked in the past about working with the different nonprofits we have in San Leandro that do really cater to language specific um residents in the in the community. So, encourage um that collaboration. Um the other thing that we've often talked about is um the launch of a new program and obviously you know we're thinking big picture we want to make this really successful but in terms of what metrics we have in place and KPIs like what are we actually going to be um measuring so that it's going to be successful so that when it comes back the year after launch we know like you know this is the best course and also the most effective way to be able to run this program.

Yeah. So I think um some of the key indicators are volume. So we we have the data on how many units exist that are that are rental units. And so um we can compare registration volumes against the known quantity of units. That's one indicator and how successful we've been in capturing who we need to capture into the program. Um and then I think because the registry is collecting data, the software provider that we're working with can provide reporting out on um various data that we're collecting on the market here. um we'll be able to track in in real time how um rents are uh what levels they're at and we can look and see how that compares um regionally and looking at um all of the other you know indicators that we were starting to look at when council was considering this program.

Um and then we can I'm looking to director layout if there's any other performance indicators that we're anticipating bringing back to council but we do have the notes from your direction uh during the adoption as well. I would just add also probably compliance rate over time as we've warned it will take some years but you know we have a plan to get it repaid but I think looking at the compliance level we've seen other cities gradually over time get to you know 100% or close to that so

great and then I just have one more question or do you want me to loop back okay um the last question was around the timeline I think it makes sense to align the launch for all of the you know the reasons you noted in the staff report and then in the presentation today. Um, and I'm really excited that we've have new folks hired and ready to start because I know that's one of the biggest um, uh, uh, factors that for in terms of, you know, a delay. What does this mean for looking at the other um, items we have on the list in terms of um, housing policy like the mobile home rent stabilization ordinance for example is going to be next on the list. And so if we move sort of the launch of the rent registry to the January of 2027, does that affect the staff work or starting to think about um the next item?

It wouldn't affect it beyond what was presented at the council retreat um because we are hiring a separate team to launch this program and work on this program. We still have our other staff that are focused on other housing issues. So, no additional delays besides what was already discussed uh would would be entailed based on this change tonight. The push will remain to get the software ready by July. It's just that outreach that the uh rent program team will be doing provides that additional runway. Thank you. Next, we'll go to Council Member Tamular.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Director Schultz, for your presentation. Um, and forgive me for my catchup questions because um, I have a couple with regard to staffing and capacity in specific. Um, what happens operationally if we underhire or we face any delays in recruitment? I I'll tackle that question first.

Yes, we've already had some delays in recruitment. Um, and so we do have within our roughly 30 FTE team in community development a great set of uh folks who can kind of pitch hit and get in there and help out. So that's what we've been doing in the meantime. Um, so we're feeling confident about the recruitments that we've outlined and these dates are adjusted uh based on some of the recruitment challenges that we faced early on. Um, so not too concerned there, but I think um we are able to supplement within our existing uh staff group um to the extent necessary, but it's not a long-term solution, but for a short period, we're we're willing to, you know, pull in where we need resources to get the program launched.

Okay, totally. Um, that makes sense. And I think that kind of answers my second question is is there flexibility to scale up and down depending on the demand of the program as we see it in 27.

Absolutely. And we've seen our uh peer cities do that as well. And I think that's why you're seeing our staggered hiring plan and we're not looking to have all six positions uh seated in the first fiscal year of the program to really understand operationally uh whether and you know how the sixth position is necessary. I think uh based on volume, based on revenue, we'll have a better sense. You know, something I I was remiss in not putting into the presentation that if I could share, we do anticipate doing another fee study before the end of fiscal year 2027 since this is the first year of the program. We want to make sure that the fees are based on actuals once we have actual data. And so just like the staffing can be scaled, we anticipate other expenses will need to be re-evaluated as well.

Okay, great. Thank you. And then my last question is more of a help for definition. Um because when I see the first slide or not the first slide, slide three that mentions um the idea of enhanced enforcement, what is enhanced enforcement actually look like? Because I that term is new to me. Very good question. Yes. So, when council was considering adopting a rent cap, some models look at putting it on the books but not really following through with collecting data or enforcing non-compliance. Some rules and regulations that are on the books could be civily enforced. For example, the city may not be taking an active enforcement role. Um, this program was directed to provide the eyes on the data to look at compliance to go out and get compliance. And so that requires more resources, more people to do that work.

Okay. Thank you. I appreciate um and I I mean I'd be remiss to say that this is I'm in full support. I I I think that this is a necessary step that we need to take to pro protect our renters. And so I appreciate the work that you've done. and I appreciate the work that everybody uh hands-on has done with what we've been presented today. Um so that's all my questions. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Coming back to or coming to Vice Mayor,

I just wanted to check if Council Member Dylan wanted to chat. No, he's not on the queue. Okay, then I'll take my time. It's just he's three hours ahead of us, so I wanted to be respectful of his time as well. Um, okay. So, I'm actually going to dig down on the budget on slide seven. Um, and first off, thank you uh uh to the housing team uh the community uh development team for getting us here today. Um, and welcome to the team, Mr. Draper. It's uh great to see a a face here to the FTE that's on our budget. So, welcome to the team. Um, so I'm going to dig into slide seven on the budget. Um, uh, so what is the difference? So what would be considered like operations on the, um, line item 63330 versus like indirect service costs? like I'm not quite understanding like what those budget lines mean in terms of actual like what would that work look like? Yes. So in an effort to simplify um some of the categories our line item object codes are combined. So, for you're asking about operations um the 5,000 to 6,000 series, we're talking about translation, transportation, training, subscriptions, postage and delivery, office supplies, forms, and business cards.

Okay. But translation is already on 5121. Thank you. Yeah. So, we pulled out translation. Um and the other ones I mentioned, I don't think we pulled those out to highlight specifically. Okay. So it's it's um expenses that are not a service um typically. And then um may I ask on um the loan interest? This is a fund from the general fund going to essentially the same organization. I don't quite know who to direct this question to. Mayor,

we'll start with city manager and she can allocate it. I'm specifically asking on is it a practice or a policy to when the city loans from the general fund to to run a program, is it a practice or a policy to have a loan interest payment?

Um, it depends on the program. We've done it both ways. It can be a general fund program, but this being a new program with a revenue base, normally that's in its own fund. Um, I'm trying to think off the top of my head of anything that's revenue based. Recreation is is also something that's in the general fund, but um, I think for this specific program, it is more fitting that it's outside of the general fund. Okay. And there are I believe that there are other programs where there are loans at an interest rate interfund loans. Okay? So, this is not unique to this one. It's it's a it's a policy and a practice.

Okay. It is a policy and a practice, but it's not all one way or the other. But the mayor's 100% correct. We do have, for example, we've done loans to the parking fund. We've done loans to the golf fund. That's just too off top of my head because I was talking about them the other day.

Thank you. Um, in terms of the So, now I'm going uh to the staffing plan on slide eight. Um so I see that the administrative assistant is in one FTE but on the FY active is 0.5 and FY27. So is one FTE but is 0.5 on the FY active fiscal year active column. Yes. So I could see the confusion there. Um the administrative assistant is going to be joining the program in fiscal year 2027. However, the budget reflects half a fiscal year for fiscal year 2027 because the start date is anticipated to be January 1, halfway through. Um the other positions um for fiscal year 2027 have a July 1 start date. So it's a full year budgeted for that position. So it's just to highlight the half year.

So to be clear that is not one admin uh position, one admin assistant position that is sharing their time between two programs. It is one full FTE dedicated to rent registry, rent stabilization, but it's only that it is build half because they're they're hired midway through the fiscal year. Yes. And they would be full the following fiscal year. Okay, I understand. Um, I will leave my questions there. I have more, but I'll come back. Council member Simon, please.

Uh, thank you for the presentation. I have a question on the interest that you will be um paying back to the general fund. If the city's portfolio performs better than the 3.76, do we have the ability to pay back at a at a higher rate? The proposal tonight is a fixed 3.76% rate, not a variable rate based on the performance. That's my question. Thank you.

If someone can check for council member Wol. Any hands? Okay. So, no hand online. So, I will proceed with a few questions of my own. um the 3.76% portfolio return. Did we consider um using a risk-free rate for a duration of six years? Like did we look at treasuries for six years out? I don't know who would know the answer to that. Is that finance? Okay, someone from finance. Did we look at uh using No one from finances here.

Okay. So, we're going to come down to deputy city manager. I mean to assistant city manager. My apologies. Thank you, mayor. Uh so at when when the finance department looked at this, they simply just looked at the rate of performance for the month of December 2026. Um so the answer to your question is no. They did not look at alternatives for bonds. Thank you. um rent registry costing $1.4 million. When we adopted the rent registry, I do not remember the cost being anywhere nearly uh as $1.4 million. Was it $1.4 million in the presentations back then?

No. Um I think when the rental registry ordinance was adopted without rent stabilization um the numbers were smaller in looking at the actual costs of running the combined program with the enforcement mechanism that we discussed in December. Um, we realized that the actual costs that were attributable to all units uh could be significantly higher um than what we originally um had budgeted. We budgeted a twoerson team um for just rental registry.

My recollection was approximately $500,000. I I think it was $650. Um but I think at the time um I think in the fall when the programs started to integrate together uh directionwise I think that's when we also message publicly that we would probably be evaluating them together for um

okay so I'll talk about that during my comments um the the um penalty for non-compliance and I think I'll come to legal counsel on this um legal legally. Is there something that limits the penalty that we can charge? So, we've got a fee structure just hypothetically of $200. Is there something that limits how big the penalty can be for not paying your fee? what we provided in the in the ordinance mayor is uh in line with our current fee structure and sorry penalty structure in the municipal code. So we wanted to make it consistent but there is uh growth if there is continued non-compliance that is slightly higher than other penalties within the missile code.

So that's what we have in the current municipal code. My question is is whether there if just suppose that this council wanted to say, "Hey, this is really important to us and so if you don't uh comply, we're going to charge you a $500 penalty as opposed to 25% of $200, which is $50 or $60, right? So that's a nominal fee. So suppose that we want to do $500 or $1,000 for non-compliance. Can we legally do that?" So then we have to we fall back on whether there are specific provisions in the government code that would apply to this penalty fee. We did not find anything that specific. Then we go back then to uh reasonleness arguments mayor and again going back to the reasonless we compared it against the other penalties within the code to keep within this reasonleness argument so that if there were to be a challenge remember that the fees themselves have to be Prop 26 compliant so that they have to recover the city's costs but not necessarily and cannot create a profit if you will uh over and above our costs. in compliance with Prop 26.

Okay. So, I'll offer comment on that separately. Scale up. So, I heard that we can scale up or scale down. My general experience thus far in government is that scaling down is it really a thing. So, I'm hoping that you could elaborate a little bit on that.

Yes. I mean transparently we are looking at a a staggered hiring date um for our FTEES for the programs to really understand that this the final position is necessary. So when I say it could be scaled down I think we're looking to ensure that we have the right program staffing that's sustainable based on the number of units based on the level of service. Um the program cannot easily be scaled down on a whim. Um just more attuning it to the actual units and the actual volume which will be knowable as the program launches. Um,

and my last question is at the air district when we're dealing with expansion into a new program, uh, we sometimes choose to use, uh, temporary workers, someone that's being hired for a three-year period of time or a 5year period of time. Is that something that we considered here as we were um, developing our our modeling?

We looked into it. We also, you know, we had a question about consultants and I think for a program like this that's very hightouch um and impactful to the community. We found that to get the quality of staff that would really do the program justice that the full-time positions made sense. Um which is what we're proposing. Um we've had experience with limited duration positions and um it can be hard to have the sustainability that you need to really see the impact. Thank you. Vice Mayor, please.

I'm going to dig in now on the program freeze which is our current slide. Um, so again with my goal of making the um, implicit explicit, I just wanted to kind of ask some clarifying questions that we've discussed before. So apologies if it's redundant to the team, but I I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page. Um, so, uh, when I'm looking at the fees per unit and the estimated units, I, um, and I'm going to kind of base it as I'm a property owner and I have, uh, I have two units. One unit that is not subject to rent to rent stabilization and one that is. Um so under that scenario um the total number of every rental unit in San Leandro regardless of whether it is subject to rent stabilization is under the 9500. Am I correct?

That's correct. Okay. And so I'm the property owner and one of my units is rent stabilized. Right. Right. So I have two, one is not, one is. So I'm looking at the 256 number, right? So my second unit would be at a 256. Correct. Correct.

Okay. So under what scenario then would the second row fall under? If if all units are have to be registered and are stabilized. Well, I'm sorry. Not all units are stabilized. Like single family homes are not, but um I guess I'm not quite understanding in what scenario the second column would be used. Like if I have a single family home that is it's an it's um it's used to get to the 256. So the 256 is the 148 plus the 108.

So we would to be more accurate say for your first unit that is not rentstabilized, you're paying $148. For the second unit that is rent stabilized, you're paying $148 and $108. You're paying two separate fees. They happen to total $256, but you're t you're paying fee one and fee two. And we're just showing you the added amount to make it easy.

Okay. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. Um, and also again, I know it's stated at the top, but for folks that are listening or may not be following um and are not seeing the screen, uh, 50% of the 108 is um maybe passed through the tenants or is it 50% of the 148 or 50% of 256? It's 50% of the 108 only for units that are rentstabilized. Correct.

Thank you. Um those are all my questions on program fees. I'm trying to group them so that they're not we're kind of going through themes. Um, I will since I have a little bit of time, I just wanted to say that I am supportive of the six-month timeline extension to align uh the program launch uh for both. Um I am and I'll save the rest for comments. I'll yield my time back to the chair. Just confirming that we do not have a hand from council member milk.

Okay. Since we've gone through our question phase, we're now going to move into opening our public hearing on this matter. The time is 20:8. 208. It is 8:08 and we are opening the public hearing. So, do we have members from the public who would like to address us as part of this hearing? Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, mayor. We have received I'm sorry if you could repeat that please.

Not sure if this is coming through. Uh we have received five comment cards from here in the room and we currently have three hands raised online.

Okay. So we will have technology come and join us in the chamber so we can address your microphone. And separate from that why don't we begin with the uh five people that would like to speak in person. The first three speakers are Jennifer Rizzo, Carol Heber, and Craig Williams. Great. Hi, my name is Jennifer Rizzo and I represent the California Apartment Association and San Leandro rental housing providers. We appreciate the city's goal of supporting housing stability. However, we have serious concerns about the cost, structure, and long-term consequences of the proposed rent stabilization program. To begin, I have a number of concerns with the NBS fee analysis for this program. First, to be clear, this is this was not a program or budget analysis. NBS states their main reason for the study was to establish fees and to ensure fee recovery. So, as fiscal stewards of the city of San Leandro, the council should be provided with a detailed analysis. Second, the proposed rental registry fees are significantly higher than originally presented. Um, in 2005, the um during the October 15th and the uh April meetings, the staff presentation stated the rental registry fees would not exceed $100 per unit, and the council approved the rent rent registry ordinance with that information from staff. Now, after the rent registry has been approved, the proposed fee has increased to $148 per unit along with a 256 per unit for the rentstabilized units. Third, I want to highlight that

the fee analysis study determines the maximum permissible fee at 100% recovery. It states the city can adopt fees at or below full cost recovery amount. And I urge you to consider perhaps lower fees. Fourth, the fee study recommends that fees increase annually by at least CPI. And I believe this is flawed. The city passed or the council passed rent control of 65% of CPI and this creates an imbalance with fees rising with inflation but rents increases increases being restricted below that level. So over time that gap grows and only way to manage that is through regular rent increases simply to cover the program fees. And um I'd like to also talk about the proposed budget. You look closely.

Thank you. Your time has elapsed. Our next three speakers are Carol Habbercross, Craig Williams, and David Stark. Mayor, staff. Okay. Good evening, city council, mayor, staff. Um, my name is Carol Habercas and I'm speaking. I am so happy that this has passed. We have been working on this for so long and you are helping so many members of the community. So I want to thank the city council and staff for all they've done and Tom Laauo. This has been a a while in the making. So this resol this resolution is a starting point and are the building blocks to support and implement our rent stabilization ordinance which has already been adopted on February 2nd, 2026. So, I think the start date to move to January 1st, 2027 to um align the program is a good idea. And I think I know the city is taking out a loan that will be repaid by the rent program fee revenues over time. The housing providers will be paying a fee to help pay for this. The renters will also be paying a fee, but the renters benefit from this because rent stabilization cannot go up more than 3% or 65% of CPI, whichever is lower and the rent registry will hold housing providers accountable for reporting their units. I think this is clearly the honest and accountable way to run their businesses. Alama and Berkeley already have these programs. I was a renter in Berkeley years ago and I was protected. I felt safe and it the landlord was honest and accountable due to the rent program that Berkeley implemented. So I look forward for this happening in San

Leandro where renters can have the same comfort and assurance that they will have protection and have peace of mind. Thank you.

Thank you. The next three speakers are Craig Williams, David Stark, and Mike Maguire. Hi, my name is Craig Williams. I'd like to thank the council for their work on this issue. You put a lot of time into this issue over many, many months. Um, one thing, uh, in terms of the fee, the petition, uh, to decrease rents, maybe we could do something with, uh, uh, uh, based on people's income. If it's limited income, uh, you know, we might be able to lower that fee. It would it would make sense to, to help out those tenants. I also have this idea for um, the positions that are available. You know, we have a problem with rent stabilization in that less than 5% of tenants are aware of this issue. And you know, thinking about this, you know, it's almost as though, you know, we talk about redlinining. This redlinining issue has come up recently. The apartment buildings in San Leandro, it's almost like they have a red line around them because the San Leandro Times does not go to any of the buildings. None of the tenants get the political news of their local community. The most important one of the most important issues that they face um is rent stabilization. And the suggestion and idea that I have is that you know maybe getting tenants a digital copy of San Leandro Times uh as part of this project. Also getting them the uh city managers uh newsletter uh would also be worthwhile and maybe also uh with some sort of uh page for for

tenants and even landlords to you know uh you know bring up news. Uh, but I wish you would consider that to have somebody as a communication person uh, as part of that staff. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, the next three speakers are David Stark, Mike Maguire, and Mark Janowitz.

Good evening. I'm David Stark representing the Bay East Association of Realtors, and I really appreciate the questions you're asking regarding the financial aspects of this program. Have a few more. Um, what are the ongoing costs of this program? Specifically, pension liabilities since it looks like staff is intent on hiring full-time employees. I'm curious as to the ongoing beyond the startup cost the staff. What if the program fees don't cover the ongoing costs? Will you be cutting other programs to cover the commitments you've made to this program? also what is the the current uh city budget deficit? So just a a few questions there that hopefully maybe staff can answer and then just a few observations that I think you and and residents and tenants should understand about these staff if I understand it correctly. These employees won't create a single new unit of rental housing. These employees will not preserve a single existing unit of rental housing. These employees will be implementing policies that have been documented to reduce the supply of rental housing. Now, I've been to this council chair many times and and one would think that the Bay East Association of Realtors is solely focused on rental housing policies. We are not. We are very concerned about the infrastructure of this community, about public safety, about library services, about other programs that make this a desirable place to live, a desirable place to become a homeowner. We are very concerned about the impact funding this program will have on all those other things that we're also concerned about. And one final question, how much does it cost to replace a

single unit of rental housing that could be lost? Thank you. The next three speak the next two speakers are Mike Maguire and Mark Janowitz.

Hi there. I applaud the council for following through on two years of staff work and passing the rent stabilization ordinance. Please don't render it meaningless by making it burdensome for either landlords or tenants to use it by charging excessive fees in addition to its more visible annual charge. Uh some of those fees are being considered tonight. Uh by the way uh as I look around San Leandro, I don't see landlords producing any new units of rental housing either. Uh developers do that. That's their job. uh most that'll happen is you have a marginal unit of rental housing being on the market or off the market, but it's not really a widespread phenomenon. Uh what we've gotten a chance to return to with the RSO is a stable lo local housing market where both landlords and tenants can economically plan intelligently for their future. We need to follow through with putting into a local ordinance a list of legitimate reasons for asking tenants to leave and limit evictions to those. This would tighten up the state law. Of course, landlords should help develop that list as they have wide experience as to what can go wrong in renting a property. Thank you.

Thank you. The last speaker is Mark Janowitz. Good evening, council, Mr. Merritt, staff. Thank you very much for all this hard work. Really quite comprehensive. Uh, a couple of comments that I want to focus on in my brief time. Uh, I it uh it's very troublesome to have a uh a fee of $238 for a a rent reduction petition. Uh, no other jurisdiction, certainly in the Bay Area, has that. City of Alama doesn't have it. Oakland doesn't charge for a petition. Berkeley doesn't charge petition. San Francisco doesn't charge for for a petition. Um so that's got to go. It will only um inhibit enforcement of uh broad public policy issues of maintenance of of well-maintained housing and in enforce in fact the fundamentals of the ordinance itself which is to stabilize rents. Um so that is a very bad uh policy from the broader issue of enforcement um and effectivity of this of this uh ordinance. uh without precedent in that certainly in the Bay Area, probably statewide that I'm aware of. Um there's no reason for that. I hate to say it, but at a minimum, if you're going to go there, you need to have some kind of fee waver reform so that persons of lower income can afford it. Um but without present in the Bay Area, there's no reason for us to have it. It's only a total of projected $6,600 anyway in the total cost of the budget. I want to also respond to the comment that uh this um staff and this bureaucracy and this ordinance does nothing to preserve uh a single unit of of affordable housing. It most certainly does at zero cost to the city over time. These rent stabilization ordinances create a stock of affordable rent controlled units at not a pennies cost to the city. It is efficient. It is cost-effective and it is sound public policy. That's what this bureaucracy, if you want to call it that, will do is enforce this ordinance so that a broad

range of housing becomes rent stabilized, protected hopefully by just cause and creates a stock of affordable housing over time. That's what this ordinance does. Thank you. Thank you, mayor. That concludes the cards here in the room. Let's continue our public hearing online, please. Our first online speaker is Douglas Spalding.

Thank you. Yeah, you know, this reminds me of that famous poem of, you know, what do teachers make? You should look it up on Google, but but what will these employees do? What will they say? They will save renters in San Leandro from having to move out of town, from having to be stressed every damn month with whether they can make the rent or not. I am so appreciative to the city for for for doing all this work and it certainly seems like a like a long distance rate uh uh race. Uh I do support the fees. Um no note that the fees are can be passed through and and certainly will be passed through to tenants. Um but they're going to hit differently for tenants than they will for landlords. a tenant struggling from month to month is going to have a hard time absorbing, you know, a hundred more than $100. Uh, is it possible that, uh, it can be paid month by month back to the back to the landlord? I think that's something that should be maybe structured in. Um, I do want to say that, uh, the fee for the petitions, uh, I'm just going to speak from the tenant side. Uh to me that's a recipe for recreating our rent review board that we have now that never hears any cases. Uh it's going to deter people from from making valid petitions that they where they need help. And as the previous speaker noted, it's really a minor part of the budget. Um St. Leanders deserves a worldclass uh housing stabilization program. Uh it certainly feels like we have a worldclass team like Pujo running alongside the the uh the tour to France with with extra bicycles and champagne ready to go. So, you know, I I'm I'm sure we'll get a lot of bang for the six FTEEs. Uh I'm thinking maybe we won't need that sixth one. Uh but the

alignment doesn't make common sense to me. We need the six months in order to find out what we have. Thank you, sir. Your time has Our next speaker is Amanda Chang.

Hi, good evening council members. My name is Amanda Chang and I'm a staff member at Urban Habitat. Um, I'm very supportive of the rent stabilization ordinance and really applaud the city for all this thoughtful work that's been put into it. But I would like to share some concerns uh with the proposed rent program fees. First, um, we're concerned the ordinance allows half the rent program fee to be passed on to tenants. Um, but the reason the city passed the rent stabilization ordinance in the first place was to protect tenants from rent increases they can't afford. And so adding new annual fees on top of the rent goes against the policy goals of the ordinance. And so I recommend the staff look into the city of Selenus and perhaps drafting alternative language um, in the ordinance and amending it to remove this provision. Selenas's uh rent stabilization ordinance, for example, states that a landlord may not recover any portion of the rent program fee or any associated late penalties from tenants. Um, secondly, I also urge that you not impose any fee on tenants to initiate the rent uh decrease petition. Um, a fee of $236 is just egregious. um charging tenants any fee to file a petition creates a significant cost barrier um for challenging legal rent hikes. You know, like imagine you got robbed and then in order to uh you know, file a police report, you had to pay a $236 fees to recoup any money that got stolen from you. It's just um really prohibitive um and would make enforcement of this ordinance really difficult. Um and then you know these tenant protections are meant to be consumer protections to make sure that the product people are purchasing in this case housing is of good quality at a fair price. Um and you know people say that they're providing housing but I want to remind you that it is a product and if people do not want to be in this business they're always able to sell it to someone who is uh you know maybe just

wanting to live there themselves. So again, uh, please take a look at the the fee program and I hope you make Thank you. The next speaker is Alro Ramos. Can you hear me? Yes.

All right. I just wanted to add that uh, you know, today is a rainy day and what I was taught in my family was uh, to prepare for when rainy days come. And I think that, you know, you you do your best and you um you try to come prepared. You try to prepare for when when that day comes. And um water is very appreciated. I know we have drought um but you know, it's always best to be prepared for um the surprise, the unpredictable. And so I think we have allowed too much instability from inequality. Housing is a perfect example of that. Um, these rules help governments to get the situation under control and I think there is a price to to getting money to getting rent money and uh and then the tax exemptions and tax cuts. Um, I mean there are benefit cuts that are leaving deadly budget shortfall shortfalls for household budgets and especially the burden will fall on the renters the heaviest. governments are in a position to step in and stabilize housing not just uh I think for to benefit everybody and comment. Thank you. The next online speaker is the phone number ending in the digits 941. If you have the phone number ending in the digits 941, you may now unmute yourself.

So, hi. Can you hear me now? This is Jenny Madson. Yes, we can hear you.

Okay, good. I don't know how to do this phone thing and my phone's not working very well. But of course, I would have to call in tonight because I have I want to thank Miss Vveros Walton for getting such a clear clarification of what the pass through of the rent registry fee is for tenants because the presentation was not clear. I heard Avalon say something about $50, but I think that's what I heard is that 50% of $100, $108 can be passed on to the tenant for fully stabilized units. Thank you for that because I was totally enraged when I saw this. I still find the $236 fee for doing a rent reduction hearing to be it's just not fair and it I won't be able to afford it and I'm doing better than most people. But this is it's it needs to be reconsidered. And I don't know what NBS based this on. But nobody else charges money for this. Five $15 if you want to make some sure somebody's serious about it. That I think I can sell to tenants. But Tom knows. You all know I do so much outreach for this city with the half of the population that is tenants that you got to give me something to work with. Don't make it egregious. Don't make it designed to basically anger every tenant in town because that is what I've had to deal with all weekend long trying to talk to people about this. I beg you to think through this before you institute the fees that NBS said.

Thank you. I can be done now. Thank you, mayor. That concludes our online raised hands as well.

It is 8:30 and I'm closing the public hearing. At this point in time, we will come back to council members for discussion of both our uh of of our resolution. So, we will begin with nobody wants to speak. Vice Mayor, we'll start with you. Um, okay. So, just um a couple of comments that um I want to kind of contextualize our conversation tonight. So, um at the direction of the finance committee and ultimately at the vote of the city council, the 2.2 million that was the kind of higher end of the estimate is already included in the city budget. So, at the direction of our council, um it's built in already and baked into our um our current budget. Um and so, um I just wanted to kind of uh make that clear um for both for both programs. also to kind of contextualize because I think um for some of for some of the folks who are kind of looking at this purely from uh the number of staff and the 2.1 million we are looking at 16,000 units that need to be tracked and uh also 9500 of those are uh I'm sorry 6,500 of those would be rent stabilized. And so we are looking at a total number of 16,000 units. Um and at a really conservative um revenue of a twobedroom

onebath rent uh apartment in San Leandro which is about 1,800$1850 a month. We're looking at an annual um an annual uh income of about 29.6 million. uh a month. So, we're looking at a pro at a a a team of six people running a $2 million budget to essentially oversee 16,000 units at $355 million a year. So when I think about and contextualize um and these are just rough numbers um and so when I contextualize and I look at the budget the staffing plan and the budget um although it's a large number we just want to make sure that um that it is adequately staffed and adequately resourced to ensure that the program is implemented to the fidelity of the intention of this council. With that being said, um I do want to uh I I have a couple of thoughts regarding the fair return petition increase and the petition for rent decrease. I think the estimated number of annual petitions here would be uh 20 for a rent increase petition uh petition and about 24 for a rent decrease petition. You know, it's 9,000 plus or let's just round up. So, it's 10,000 plus 6, so 16,000. Um, and I'm I'm thinking about whether we could uh put a moratorum on both of them. I don't feel comfortable doing on just one end, but putting a one-year moratorum to actually see what this looks like on the first year of

implementation and see um how many petitions we have. I know that it's, you know, um it's uh uh it's the first year, so we run the risk of a lot of petitions coming before the city as staff and the community and property owners and renters all kind of understand what this means in their day-to-day lives. But I just I'm I'm struggling with that with those fees, particularly for the rent decrease. Um, and I'm just wondering if there's um, uh, and I think, uh, council member Bowen uh, talked about this a little bit, um, around having some sort of, um, deferment of fees if you are low income. Um, so if you qualify for the PG&E care program or if you're uh we don't we wouldn't verify income, but if they come ready with some sort of income verified program that um that we can uh verify, you know, like a PG& care program or something like that u for both landlords or property owners and uh tenants um so that we could kind of figure out and see if that's something that uh could be possible. Um, so anyway, just to kind of close my comments, I just wanted to contextualize a little bit about stepping away from the 6 FTE 2.1 million and really contextualize just the number of units and the annual amount of revenue um that we're looking at which um I I just wanted to uh provide that context again making the um implicit explicit. Thank you.

Okay, seeing no other comment, I'll offer my comments at this time. Um, let's start with the rent registry. I I am I'm very frustrated. I proposed rent registry and I was told that it was going to cost about $650,000. And now I come into this room and it says 1.3 $1.4 $4 million. To me, that's not acceptable. The rent registry costs what the rent registry costs. If rent stabilization and the the ornaments that get hung on the tree because of rent stabilization make that whole process more expensive, so be it. But it has, you know, it was very clear what we agreed to in terms of what the budget was. And so I think it has nothing to do with the registration process. And so I'm not happy to see that the fee basically double uh when we come in here for rent registry because I just view that as a cost allocation game. Portfolio return. Portfolio return. We're tying up the city's money for somewhere probably an expected value of five to six years. If you invest today as of this morning in a T-bell rate um you will pay approximately 3.9% interest or you will get a 3.9% return. Uh it's 3.85 for a 5year T bill. 7 years it's 4.05 something like that. And so a more appropriate rate of interest is not what happened in a very specific month. It's really uh the commitment that you are holding to tie up that money and to be very direct that's the government US government best possible lending rate possible u and that to me is the bare minimum uh realistically it's it should be probably at least four a little bit

over four but 3.76 is simply too low it doesn't doesn't make economic sense um when I look at the penalty if we really want to drive compliance we cannot threaten people with a $50 penalty. $50 penalties mean nothing. Uh so I I just I have no idea. And that's hence the question to legal counsel. If there's no legal restriction, it strikes me that the legal penalty for non-compliance should be at least $500 or $1,000. Something that's material that encourages people to actually comply with what we've laid out. We could spend easily $200,000 advertising every single week in the Sanander Times and the Daily Review in Chinese, Spanish, and English. We could buy uh social media ads, Facebook, and the like, and spend a lot of money and say, "You had no reason not to know." I believe that if we really want to drive compliance, we can drive compliance. and that it's unreasonable to expect that business people will not see information in one of the various media. We can hit WeChat groups. We can we can if we really want to communicate with people in the city of San Leandro, we could we could send a mail a letter on the back of a bureau to every single house and let people know this property is under rent control and we could do it for just a few hundred,000. And so I'm very concerned that we have a compliance expectation that's low when in the modern era information can be gotten to people. Um there are companies that specialize in sending information to parcel owners and so every single owner even if it's a

homeowner could receive a letter in the city of San Leandro. there's only like 25,000 parcels in the city and so we could just send it to everybody and people could throw away the letter and it would be cheaper um than perhaps some other methods but so I think we need to go and drive compliance and I don't think that the current penalty structure uh emphasizes that significantly. I am concerned about scaling up, scaling back. Um I think that once you create uh government infrastructure, it's very hard to scale it back. So I I I don't really see that happening. I am concerned about um the passing on of these fees to tenants. So I would propose that none of the fee gets passed on to tenants. Um just keep it simple. the amount of money at issue is is really inconsequential. Um, big picture, my my biggest frustration, I'll just, you know, keep pushing this. The whole point of the rent registry program was to make sure that we could collect market data. There is market data that says in the city of Oakland, rents are down over the last 2 to 3 years for studios, one-bedroom apartments. I don't know about two-bedroom apartments. If that's happening in Oakland, I find it surprising that it's not also happening in the city of San Leandro, but we haven't let the rent registry data play out. Now, we're delaying further collecting that data. and and that's very frustrating to me, especially since we're telling the public that it's now at twice the cost. Uh so with that being said, I think everyone has spoken and I'd be happy to take a motion.

Vice Mayor,

so just to um so there's a couple of things that I took notes on. Um, there are the Hold on. Um, I was checking on the presentation for rent registry. Um, but now I'm back on today's presentation. Um, okay. So, there were a couple of kind of sticking points that folks mentioned. One of them, Mayor, you mentioned the um the the fee pass the 50% uh that the ordinance allows for 50% of the fee to be passed to the property to the uh renter. Um are you proposing to amend the

I I see no reason why that should be passed along to renters. So I would be happy if that got taken out. So to do I'm I'm supportive of that. I'm just kind of wondering what the vehicle for that would be. Does that mean we need to bring back

We'll come to legal counsel on that. So, as we've done in the past, vice mayor, um if it's the council direction to not enforce, but leave that in the ordinance, then the direction would be the motion would be not to enforce it for a certain amount of time. And that would be one option that this council hasn't done in the past. Um it's certainly a possibility or like you said a moratorum on enforcement essentially has happened before. So then the vehicle just to be clear uh the the vehicle to do that would be to do a moratorum on the I guess what I'm what I'm struggling with is that what we're talking today is the fee

but the ordinance talks about it it allows for 50% of the of the uh of the fee to be passed to the tenant. So in my head that's revising the ordinance, not the fee. So I'm just struggling to kind of So let me So I'm going to like try to frame it. Let's start with under the Brown Act. Can we today uh discuss andor pro we we clearly discuss as we have but can we provide guidance on the topic of the fee pass through to tenants or would that have to come at another meeting?

You can certainly have that discussion and you can provide guidance. Yes. But that would be with respect to amending the RSO.

That is correct. Certainly though, if the direction from the council and you took part of the a motion or action is that the language would exist, but would the council direct staff not to enforce or do you actually want to change the language in the ordinance which would then require it to come back? So, my concern here would be that um I I know Council Member Bolt is listening to us, but we don't have our our full counsel tonight. Um and I would be hesitant to bring back uh to to just even direct staff to bring it back without the discussion of the full board. Um, but I I'll just leave that there because it just sounds like it's a can of worms that we're I'm not necessarily ready to open tonight, at least not with all the my colleagues present. Um the other thing uh that I had suggested and it's um I I don't know how uh tenable it is to my colleagues is to have a one-year moratorum on the petition for rent decrease and the petition for rent increase. Um I think the estimate there is 20 a year for a petition for to increase the rent and about 24 to decrease the rent. Um or we could just eliminate the fee.

Yeah, I think vice mayor that to simplify I think your second option would probably you know keep it more simple to eliminate. We wouldn't necessarily have to put a moratorium for the for the first year on the fees if that's the council's direction. Okay. I'm sorry I am not clear. So if you can just repeat what he is agreeing to. Um, so my original um proposal was to have a one-year moratorum on the rent increase and rent decrease petitions to just kind of see what it's like. That's what I have in my notes. Um, on the fee itself, not to eliminate the fee, but just to have a moratorum on the fee until we charging the fee for

the fee. And that's what we have agreement on. Not from the not from the council but that's when you said I your first option would be the better option. I was confused between the first and the second option but all that matters to me as a chair is that that is what you're proposing. Yes. Thank you.

But but that's okay. We'll just come back to what's being proposed is this. What else? Um, and then, uh, council member Bowen said something that I did not take a note on, and you were specifically, um, there was a component to it around, um, uh, provision or some fee related to exempting folks that were low income, and I believe it was property owners who were low-inccome, but I don't want to speak for the council member, but I know she brought something up like that, and I did not take that note. Um, that's all I have. So, if there's consensus, I'm happy to make a motion. After that, we'll come to Council Bowen.

Thank you, mayor. Um, I have some questions around whether it's a moratorium or not a fee on fear of return increase petition or petition to rent decrease. Um, because there's still an estimated cost and the whole point of this too is to make the general fund whole. And so, what would happen to those costs incurred if we do not charge a fee for it? Um with permission to speak, please do.

I would suggest that for this first year, the fee model looked at um a conservative smaller number of petitions. So it's a very nominal amount of revenue. Um so I think we're proposing fees for adoption and inclusion in the master fee schedule. Um, if the council so chooses to direct to only adopt certain of these fees and not adopt others, the fee study can still be accepted. And in the next fiscal year fee update, we'll have data to provide and more information. Um, so I think the easiest approach would be to not adopt any fees for petition. They're free and included in the normal annual fee, which is what most cities do. Um and then we can provide that data in terms of the processing costs and the revenue opportunities. But because it's such a small amount um in this fee model, that 15,000 is relatively negligible in the in the big picture. Um and so it's not at risk of hurting the general fund um for this first program year. We can go in with more information next program year.

Okay. I I appreciate that. Um and again, you know, it's really because um while we we want this program to be effective and for um to actually meet the goals that we have for it, but I want to make sure that we actually have the funding for it. And while you're right, $15,000 is a small amount relative to the 2.123 or 2,123,4 we've also just spent the last month and a half, two months on top of the last I don't know how long talking about very small amounts for lots of programs that are really impactful. I just want to be really um mindful of what we um uh are trying to do just because that does affect many other things. Um and and I just want to remind us what we we as a council decided we were going to do going forward in terms of fiscal responsibility. But I really appreciate the um uh the commitment to come back with the real numbers and the information so that we can make a more informed decision about it going forward and and once we get the more detailed information.

Okay. Council member Sam, please.

Uh yeah, I I support the concept of eliminating the fees to the renters. Um particularly the potention for rent decrease. the public commenter, one of the public commenters making the response or the comment. Um, if you're if you're being harmed, it's really hard to pay more money to correct that harm. So, I really see this. So, Rich, just to confirm, if we are to remove the freeze for the renters, this has to come back for to start over essentially where we are started tonight. No, what I'm hearing staff suggesting is that it would not be in the fee schedule. That would be brought back at a later time.

Yeah, the petition fees could just not be adopted tonight. That's simple. Just don't adopt them and they won't exist. But the pass through I think is a separate matter that I heard was maybe up for a future agenda item to officially amend the ordinance to not have the pass through for the normal annual fee, but we'll take direction on that. So is that clear? Could you restate that? So sir, there's two come back twice.

No, no, no. Uh once again the pass through that was just discussed that's in the ordinance and so we would have to come back and have a I think the suggestion from vice mayor is to have a more wholesome discussion but the other fees that would be going into the fee schedule you can just not you can just take them out of the fee schedule and they would not be uh instituted or or put into place because they would not exist within the adopt opted fee schedule that's before you. Okay. And the other fees, just to confirm the other fees, those are in the ordinance themselves. That would require a different action.

Okay. So, to be clear, when you say other fees, you mean the pass through of the fee to the tenant. Is that what you mean? 50% pass through or what do you mean by the expression other fees? Rich just said other fee. So, I just wanted to confirm what you mean by other fees.

Well, in the context of what we're presenting tonight, all the other fees, assuming that they're still in the fee schedule, would be approved. You can take a fee out from there if you wish. That's what I think that the staff would be fine with that. And that would be legally acceptable. So, for example, there's a $100 $18 fee for a unit that's subject to the ordinance, the rent stabilization ordinance. That's a fee that's in there. That's And then there's a $148 for all rent registry. Those are part of a fee schedule. And what we what we have I think talked about is possibly instead of having a moratorum on the rent decrease petition or the uh what was the other one? Rent decrease petition or the fair return petition that those fees would go to zero. Instead of doing a moratorium of some kind, you just take that 472, you scratch it out. You take the 236, you scratch it out, you make them zero.

Okay? So those two go to zero and the other three we're saying pass that, take that away from the renter, but that has to come back. That's correct.

Okay. Okay. I support that. Um, the other comment I want to make is the rate of return. I would agree that's a pretty that's not the best rate of return that we've shown at 3.76. I would agree with the mayor. We could get a better return through treasuries. Can we increase that interest rate that we pay ourselves back? So, I'll start with that as a legal question. So can we change that number tonight? Yes. Okay. And then I'll come next to Miss uh Schultz.

Um the modeling for the payback period was based on this interest rate. So if the rate increases, the payback term may also need to increase. Um we have not modeled the specific interest rate you're mentioning. Um but the interest the collective interest due would increase if the rate increases and so we would just um you would don't feel as confident about the exact six-year term.

Correct. So somewhere if the interest is higher that's collected somewhere that has to come either through increased fees or through a longer term for repayment. The interest was also an input to the budget. So the interest in the program budget that's a line item is based on this percentage. Um is what we were just saying. Anything else council member? No other comments. Okay. So I'm going to come to James Council member James Aguular next.

Thank you mayor. Just two comments I guess for council regarding my positioning. So I'll make it quick. Um I'm in support of the vice mayor's proposal for a moratorum on the increase and decrease petitions. Um, and then mayor, I am also in support of your propos proposal to have a discussion I at a later point because I think the vice mayor made a good point about having more counsel here um on that 50% because I do very much agree with you. None of that fee should be passed down to tenants period. And so I'd like us to have further flesh out of that conversation um in in revisiting the ordinance at some point, but that that's where I'll kind of keep it for now.

And then Council Member Bolt, I think you have your hand up online.

Thank you, Mayor. Yes. Um I'll start with the easy ones. Um the decrease and increase. I'm I'm fine with what has been suggested already. I do have a question though about the pass through. If that is and I guess this would be to council. If the pass through has to be in there, could we change the number and not make it 50%. And could we make it so that we can move forward with this? Let's make it $5. So I think this is this is a legal question. I will confirm with city attorney but the uh ordinance is not on the agenda today. So that is that uh pass through percentage whether it's as a percentage or a dollar amount is captured in the ordinance itself. So we can't we can't uh change that today. But out of this may come direction to staff to address um a concern that we have. Have I summarized that correctly, city attorney?

You have summarized it correctly that the language of that proposed language is not before the council today and it and and and putting that aside does not affect how we can vote today. We can still vote on whatever we're going to vote on today.

Okay. So, I I um support us not allowing passthroughs and having us talk about this at a different time or agendaize it so we can redis this, but could this be answered tonight? What does that do to the timeline? Okay. So, I'm going to come to uh Assistant Director Schultz. You

know, I it sounds like there's been consensus about the January launch and providing that additional time to launch the program, which makes the fee question a bit less time-sensitive. Um, so we've heard some feedback about the interest rate and some concerns about the pass through option. Um, if the council wants to move the ordinance to change the registry timeline, perhaps we could come back to another meeting and bring um some refresh information for you along with an agendaized ordinance change um for consideration that might make it a bit smoother. There's no pressure to adopt the fees tonight, especially if we're launching in January. So, if I'm hearing your feedback on what you've heard thus far correctly, it would be perfectly fine for us to say yes, you have permission to delay the launch of rent registry. Other elements like what exactly do we charge? Uh could be delayed and it wouldn't stress staff.

That's correct. Okay. But what you really want for us absolutely is can we delay the the launch? Um that's correct. And I I think one caveat is that we would like the you know we would like the budget authorization and we would like the FTE authorization so we can get to recruitment and launch right away that would be great. Um the specific fees are less timesensitive. Um so if there's a way to keep us moving on staffing that would be ideal. Um, and we know the direction is to provide a cost recovery program.

Okay. So, what what I'd like to do is to just kind of try to facilitate an outcome here and then Vice Mayor, can you keep me honest and make sure that we're all kind of on the same page. So, what I am going to propose is that we postpone the the some final decision on the precise fees. Uh but you do have I think broad consensus around um what fees uh how how to adjust the fees particularly on the two petitions taking those to zero for the time being um unless someone specifically wants moratorium instead of zero in the first pass. I don't want

Okay. So, we we'll come back to any further discussion on this, but uh that's what I'm going to lay out is what I think is our starting point uh that you'll get the most votes on. And then the second thing is with respect to the interest rate that goes into the fee calculation. Is that correct or that impacts your budgetary authority? It is a it is a line in the program budget and it does then pass into the fee calculation.

Okay. So, what I'm going to suggest um just as a starting point for uh any final refinement is that that you get that this council give you budgetary authority that you have requested thus far and that you come back with modeling on what a more um I'll call matched interest rate would be to match the term of the uh indebtedness not what our historical return is on 2-year T bills or something like that. But if we're going to tie up money for 5 years, 6 years, 7 years, what's an appropriate rate of return for for that to cover term risk? And that you're also being given direction to accelerate, not to accelerate, to slow down implementation of rent registry. And the last one being that the council is giving you direction to uh what was the last one giving you direction? Oh, on the rent stabilization ordinance 50% pass through to bring that back to us. So those are the the four things. So now I want to come back to my council colleagues and see try to build consensus and feel free to express any concerns that you might have. Uh council marotus Walton or vice mayor please. I I just wanted to uh tease apart a little bit around the decision point on um the the two petition fees. Um so I'm I'm going to ask a question and then I'll have a comment after that. Do other cities have a petition fee both for fair return and rent decrease? It's commonly included under the

program. So most cities surveyed just have the annual fee. So again, the So now I'm going to ask to kind of tease out that decision point. Why not fold that into the fee as opposed to having a separate fee for both petitions increase and decrease? The upside of having a fee is that it can decrease unnecessary applications and people are really truly invested and ready to come prepared. Um, but there is not an issue with folding it into the base fee. That's the common model. Um, and we've heard a lot of feedback from the community and council tonight and would support that determination. Okay. Um, thank you for that. Um, because I I think it feels to me a little bit actually I I won't add commentary to that. Um, so I I I I do want to approve the I I don't want to get rid of the fee per se because that's what it costs, right? because you have an independent I mean the the model or the the the program uh that y'all have kind of mapped out for us today is that there's an independent um person who will evaluate these claims and make a decision. Right.

The program budget includes legal and third party hearing officer costs. The line item for the petitions basically would just cover administrative intake. It does not cover the cost of hearing the petitions. So those were not full petition costs anyways,

right? Because that Okay, I I I understand. Um I would want to eliminate those two fees. I think that that's what I'm leaning towards and just fold it into the the program fee. It feels a little bit like nickel and dimming. I I think if that's the fee to run the program, it should include um the full cost of the program. Um and then just putting myself in the shoes of property owners. I I I really don't want to delay this much further. I think folks are doing some financial projection and implementation kind of thinking through what this would look like for different types of property owners. Um and I think there is also you know renters want to know what the what is 2027 going to look like in terms of um the actual implementation of these two programs. So I the only thing that I you know just based on our discussion the only thing that uh may need to come back would be the the 50% pass through of the fee. But I I'm I'm just wondering like what is the possible delta that it could be between the uh matched interest versus the 3.76 and is it I'm just wondering like what the delta and I know we don't have the modeling so we don't really know. Um I'm just wondering if the juice is worth the squeeze in terms of waiting and bringing this back when we're already pushing this program six months out. And and I think that there's just um there's a little bit of um you know it's a new program and when things are new people just get a little bit edgy and I I just

I think as the soonest we have clarity from this council to give direction I I think it puts everyone at at ease. That is the universe that we are we will be dealing with. It provides clarity and direction to everyone both property owners and renters and city staff. So, I I just um I think we're almost there. Uh we're just kind of, you know, I I think the main sticking point is the um the two petition fees, but I mean, I guess if if we want to if if there's consensus that we want to delay this for another meeting or at a future date, I I just I just really don't want to delay this even further.

What I'm going to do is I'm going to make a motion. I'm going to make a motion that we give budgetary authority for the amount requested by staff and that we give them the reprieve that they've requested on the implementation of the rent registry program that the other issues for which staff has said that there is not urgency we just we bring those back as staff sees appropriate in a few weeks a few months whatever um can I get a second on that motion second okay so I've got two seconds I did happen to hear council Bolt first Uh, so I will give him the second. With that, is there further discussion? Seeing none, please vote.

Council member Bolt. Hi. Thank you. All votes are in and the motion carries with six yes votes and council member Victor Agular being absent. Okay, at this point in time it is 9:09 and we will take a 10-minute break. We stand in recess.

How are you?

Good. Oh. Okay, it is 9:19 and we are back in session. As promised, we're moving to our second public hearing, item 8B. And we do have human resources manager Tiffany Johnston here to present. Johnston and I am the human resources manager in compliance with AB 2561. Tonight I will be presenting on the city's vacancies, recruitment and retention efforts. Today's presentation will begin with a brief overview of AB 2561, a breakdown of the city's vacancy rates, and finally, what the city is doing to address recruitment and retention efforts. This is a reminder of why we're conducting this public hearing today. AB261 was enacted in 2025 with a legislative intent to foster transparency within the public employment landscape. The law requires all public employers, including the city, to openly disclose information about current vacancies, recruitment strategies, and retention efforts. It also has a special caveat that if any bargaining group's vacancy rate reaches

or exceeds 20%, they have the right to request further details. This information must be presented at a public hearing before the governing board each fiscal year prior to the adoption of the annual budget. There are various reasons the city experiences vacancies. Vacancies can occur if a new position is approved and is waiting to be filled. There are two vacancies because of this reason. Another possibility for a vacancy happens when an employee transfers or promotes within the agency. Promotions and transfers allow for staff to move up, which is positive for both employees and the organization. Over 10 FTE vacancies are due to promotions or transfers. The most common reason for a vacancy, however, is voluntary separation. Natural turnover can be because of resignations and retirements, which account for over 50% of the total vacancies. Employees do leave for other opportunities, perhaps with a different agency, leaving for private sector employment, finding a position closer to home, perhaps moving out of state, or due to another personal reason. Finally, a vacancy can occur due to an involuntary separation, which is usually when an employee does not successfully pass probation. There are 8.9 FTE vacancies due to this. As of March 30th, 2026, the city has 48.5 full-time equivalent positions vacant. This includes all budgeted positions except non-rep part-time positions such as interns or seasonal recreation staff. This is a breakdown by bargaining group of the number of vacancies. Overall, the city's current vacancy rate is 11.6%. For reference, last year we presented a

vacancy rate of 14.7%. There are 48.5 vacancies out of a total 419.7 budgeted FTE. The San Leandro Police Officers Association has 19 vacancies amongst police officers and sergeants. I will present more information on police positions in a separate slide. The San Leandro Police Management Association has one vacancy amongst police lieutenants, police captains, and assistant police chief. We have one vacancy in this group. In the San Leandro Management Organization, there are two vacancies. Our largest employee group is the San Leandro City Employees Association and has 25.5 vacancies. Among confidential HR, city clerk, and the city manager's office support staff, there is one vacancy. Finally, we are fully staffed at our non-represented executive level. This slide shows the breakdown of vacancies by department. The police department has the highest number of vacancies. Police officer and public safety dispatchers remain hard to fill positions. Last year, the human resources department had the highest vacancy rate and now we have zero, which just highlights how positions eb and flow. This is a breakdown by bargaining group of those hired in calendar year 2025. We completed 87 recruitments which yielded 74 hires and seven promotions. Staff is continually finding ways to streamline the recruitment process to make it more efficient while maintaining a focus on the candidate experience. On average, it takes 12 to 14 weeks from recruitment to hire.

In order to reach those candidates, the city employs several ways to connect, including social media, local job boards, professional associations, as well as targeted advertisements. We have placed a high priority on employee recognition, which is critical to retention and morale. Thus, we have developed and/or refined opportunities for recognition, which include employee of the quarter and employee of the year awards and other appreciation events. Work life balance is a key priority for both candidates and employees alike. So offering telework options, alternative 980 work schedules, and generous paid time off are a few ways we satisfy this need. Recruiting for police officers remains highly competitive. The police officers association has a vacancy rate of 23.2% which equates to 19 out of 82 positions vacant. All agencies are competing against each other to select and retain qualified candidates. We prioritize this recruitment by dedicating an HR analyst to partner with the police department's professional standards and training unit to focus on these recruitments to ensure daily screening of applications and weekly opportunities to interview. Often recruiters will go to a testing facility that offers the necessary tests for police officers and do outreach there, which we found to be a successful way to connect with potential candidates. We advertise widely both online and in person at recruiting events and test sites. In 2025, we received nearly 400 applications for police officer and interviewed over a 100 candidates. We successfully hired 13 officers. Of the eight separations, five were resignations, two moved out of state,

and three went to different agencies, one retired, and two were released. To summarize some of the key takeaways, the city actively recruits to fill vacant positions. The city proactively addresses vacancies using a multiaceted approach. We also prioritize employee engagement and other retention initiatives. This concludes my presentation on vacancies, recruitment, and retention efforts. Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation. At this point in time, we'll take council member questions. Checking to see if Council Member Bolt has a question. Seeing none, what I'm going to do at this point in time is I'm going to go to our public hearing and you you can rest for a little bit. We're going to open our public hearing. It is 9:28. Mayor, we have not received any comment cards from here in the room, but we do have one hand raised online. Please proceed online.

Our online speaker is Douglas Spalding. Uh, good evening, council. Um,

um, mayor, the speaker has dropped off the call and there are no other hands raised online. Completely dropped off the Zoom platform. Yes. So, what I'm going to do is I am going to give that speaker the courtesy of approximately 30 seconds to get back on because perhaps he inadvertently hit a an exit or something like that. And we do have just a few minutes. So, we'll give them the courtesy. And while we do that, seeing as we do not have any questions and we still leaving the public hearing open, I will just remind council members that uh when we come back after I close the public hearing, I'll come to you for any discussion, further questions or I will entertain a motion at that point in time. So have we have we seen Mr. Spalding rejoin the platform? Mayor, he has not rejoined the call. No.

Okay. So, at this point in time, I'm going to close the public hearing. The time right now is 9:30. Coming back coming back to council members for discussion or a motion to adopt the resolution. Vice Mayor, please. Making a motion to adopt the resolution. Um to adopt the resolution. Thank you. At this point, Council Member James Aguular. Mayor, I'll second the vice mayor's motion. Okay, got a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion?

Okay. So, just to be clear, there is there is not a resolution to accept the report. Okay. Well, my apologies. That's what my agenda says. So, let's not stress about it. But we have had our hearing. We've heard. Thank you for the report on all the fine work that you are doing to make sure there was a statement that I was supposed to read and I'll take the opportunity now to read that statement. Um so in accordance with the legislation and thank you for advising us of this. Bargaining groups were also given the opportunity to make a presentation before us today during the public hearing. However, no bargaining group has indicated interest in making a presentation at this hearing and so that's why we proceeded at in the course that we proceeded. Uh but know that they do have that right and they do have that opportunity. Council member Simon, I come to you next.

Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. I have a question regarding the police vacancy and I understand it's difficult to recruit and it's difficult to fill those positions but I'm just curious um have we looked at outside contracts how those impact our police vacancy for example the mental health response unit in the budget process we've reduced the budget to that program yet The mental health response unit supports the police. So, is that making it more difficult for us to fill our positions if we're reducing outside services that could help them?

Good evening, Mayor Council. Um, Angela Aver, police chief. Um, no, that is not impacting our ability to recruit and retain personnel. Um it is having those um alternative resources for our police officers is great because it frees them up to do other public safety initiatives, right? To focus on those things. Um our issue is not necessarily recruitment, it's retention. And so we are so far behind in trying to not only hire for people that have retired, but also hire for people that have left to go to other agencies, have left the profession altogether. So we're also trying to fill our vacancies while backfilling for people who have left the organization or who didn't pass probation or or whatever. There's a myriad of reasons why. Um we have, you know, a lot of interest in people that want to work here in San Leandro, which is great. Um it's just that the process takes so long, the background process, right? Um sometimes people get hired by other police departments before we can um pick them up. And so we have interest. That's not the the issue, I think. Um, we also have explored maybe hiring um outside recruitment firms to assist in our efforts, but as you can imagine, those firms are very expensive. Um, I think the best recruiters are the people in this room. The best recruiters are police officers and our staff. Um, I personally personally have recruited at least 5 to 10 people. I mean, whether I'm in uniform or not, I'm always passing out my business card because I believe, you know, that I need to practice what I preach, right? I really want to fill these vacancies. I want our police department to be fully staffed and I know that we can get there. It's just very difficult and it's not unique to San Leandro.

Thank you. So, it's interesting because your mic I thought your mic was on. Do you have it? There you go. Thank you. You are complete, correct?

Thank you. Um, okay. So, I think we are done with this item and we will proceed to our next item on the agenda. Very quickly, item number nine, presentations. There are no presentations scheduled or action items uh to be addressed. So, that's item number 10. So, we'll move to item number 11, council requests to schedule agenda items. And I believe, city manager, that we do have one item today. Is that correct? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yes, we received one item from council member Simon.

Council member Simon, I will come to you.

Yes, I have one item. Um, this item is to remove the two items of interest. the investigation reports from 2024 and 2025 and associated documents from the city's public records online website. This item, if approved by council, will not, excuse me, will not impact staff's progress on other high priority projects. Per the council handbook and past practice of these type of non-impact items, this item shall be added to the May 4th, 2026 council meeting or next available meeting. Is there any council? Are there any council members uh with questions on this? Council member Bowen.

Thank you, Mayor. Uh just for administrative clarification, is this an urgent referral or is this just a referral to be considered in the next year since we just went through our um retreat? So, I'll come to Council Member Simon to address that.

My apologies. Please proceed. Okay. Uh no, it is not an urgent referral. However, it is an item as I have stated previously. It does not impact staff's progress on other high priority work and by past practice what has been done on council on several items. It can come before the council if it does not impact staff progress. Therefore, I've consulted with city attorney and city manager. Um, this item can be added to May 4th or next available meeting. Can I please

for clarification then um I am concerned that um that rationale for why we can add something to an agenda um could be problematic. I would also then um entertain the notion of doing a referral myself to for example keep the um discipline um investigations and relevant information that is of interest to the public permanently on there as a um uh testament to our city's commitment to our own integrity and discipline policy. Um, so I am certainly not supportive of that. I'm afraid of of the precedent that this sort of referral process um is setting. I also believe that this item um was potentially brought up at a last meeting and was referred to rules. And so I'm again really concerned about the roundabout ways that council member Simon is again trying to bring this up. So, one thing that I'm going to be a little bit sensitive to here is that this is not an agenda item. So, I think that we can ask some clarifying questions such as whether it's an urgent referral. Uh, but I do want to be sensitive about extended discussions on this item. I'm going to come next to Vice Mayor.

Thank you. And, um, what's the goal of removing it? What is your your goal in of removing the the uh two disciplinary actions from the items of interest?

I Yeah, I would have to go back to stating we shouldn't be discussing this at this time. We can discuss this when it's on the agenda. Was that not included in the item to the city manager? This was So that's a question the city manager. This was filed by the deadline today. So city manager, if you could address the vice mayor's question.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. U Madame Vice Mayor, I will just state what was provided to me and this is all I received. Uh the request was to remove the two items of interest investigation reports from 2024 and 2025 and associated documents from the city's public records online website. This item, if approved by council, will not impact staff progress on other high priority projects. Per the council handbook and past practices of these types of non-impact items, this item shall be added to the May 4th, 2026 council meeting or next available meeting. That was all I received on this item.

I understand. Um, I'm not supportive of putting it on the May 4th agenda. Um, I think it's not urgent. Um, it wasn't stated in the email to the city manager and to the clerk the goal of why you want it removed or the why. Um, so I'm not I'm not supportive.

Are there the council members that would like to ask questions on this item? So, I I have a deacto motion from council member Simon to place this on the May 4th agenda. Is there a second? Just to clarify, this this doesn't require a vote. There's other items from past practice that that don't come before item 11. they just are put on. There's there's several that you've put on. I've put on one and this is past practice. So, this doesn't require a vote to be put onto the agenda.

So, let's ask the city attorney to confirm that. So, before we go there, because you have told the chair that the chair has put something on the next meeting, what are you referring to? P I say past practice. No, but you said you you looked at me and you said you. So, are you saying that I as mayor have said I want something on the next agenda and I got it on the next agenda?

My understanding is that you've added items so have I to the council agenda that did not require that did not impact staff's progress on other high priority projects. So, they were added. So, I'm asking you, what did the mayor add to the agenda that did not impact staff time and that was not discussed with the council? I believe there was the AVA energy came forward that wasn't approved by the council to be added, which was fine. Did you look at the priority session data from a year ago?

There is another one as well. I'd have to refresh my memory. Um but there is another one.

Okay. Um this is a request to put something on a specific date. Our standard practice would be to take it to the work session. We just completed our priority session and we said none of the requested items would be handled this year. And so now you're asking for an exception to a council decision. So that's why I'm saying this requires a motion to to circumvent the will of the council. council has clearly stated uh whenever that was in January or February that we would not be proceeding with any of these referrals. You had already made this referral. Just to to clarify or to confirm if it does not require does not impact staff progress it can be brought to the agenda. It can be brought to u added to an agenda. it can be brought to the council because the council has already decided what the council will do this year from the priority session. And so you're asking to change what council has voted on.

And so since we voted Well, but we voted you presented this at the priority session and we voted to to to do away with all the referrals. We voted as a body. And so now you're asking to sidestep what council has already given as direction. And so that's why I'm asking for a motion in a second because you're asking to change what council has voted on. I'd have to go back and see what was at the prior session. I don't recall that. However, I would like to ask the city attorney's opinion on the matter.

And what is the question? What is you're seeking his opinion to his answer to what question? The question is per the rules per the handbook. If it's not if it does not impact staff progress, can the item be added to the May 4th agenda or next available meeting? That is my question to the city attorney.

Okay, city attorney, please. So the the C Thank Thank you. Thank you, mayor. Uh the council handbook doesn't address that specifically. What I'm going to to the points to the mayor's point is that under the Brown Act, which is supreme to the handbook, California Government Code section 54954.2 to A3 is that what we're doing right now is that the uh a member of the legislative body or the body itself subject to rules or procedures of its own may provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information request staff to report back to the body at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter or take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. So that's what the Brown Act provides. It is a council choice then direct staff to take action. You can take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. So I'm that's what the mayor is attempting to do. So may I go to uh vice mayor at this point in time or would you like to continue

the past practice? That's what I'd like to better understand. Um, besides the AA energy, I understood there was another item. I don't have it in front of me that you have brought and it was a valid item. That means fine to bring forward. If it doesn't impact staff, I got it. Um, so I think it's it would be fair that if you've done it, I think others should be allowed to do it. If it's not impacting staff, so I would ask that we if it requires some time to figure that out, then I can do some research and figure that out. But I think we should be fair. I agree. We should be fair. Coming to vice mayor.

Thank you. I wanted to highlight page 16 of our city council member handbook which talks about requests for future agenda items and urgent referrals. So I just wanted to highlight that in addition to the Brown Act where we do have to have a vote of the majority or even a second. Um the process that we outlined for ourselves is to have email the city manager and it would be added to the city council priority list and then added to the planning retreat which is what was done and then we all voted to not add any more agenda items. There is however an urgent clause right? So if there is an urgent matter that shall be prioritized it needs a twothirds majority vote. So, it needs a vote of five of us on the on um five members of the council. Um I don't think that this qualifies as an urgent item. Um and we already voted to not add any more items to our council priority list for this year. Um so I think both the Brown Act and our council handbook outlines the process um to follow. Bolt.

Okay. So, at this point in time, I'm not hearing a second on a motion. So, I will I will interpret that unless my parliamentarian says otherwise that the motion has died requesting to place that on a future agenda of May 4th. Parliamentarian, do you disagree? No, I do not disagree. I agree. Okay. Uh so with that having no further items there are there city council reports or calendars or announcements at this point in time beginning with vice mayor.

Just wanted to announce to the public that um I will um very sadly be missing the mayor state of the city on the on the 28th. Um I will be um traveling for work and I am um unable to attend but really do encourage and I'm sure the mayor will have uh an has sent out an invitation along with the chamber of commerce and the city's uh social media outlets about our state of the city on the 28th. Uh best of luck, mayor, and um I'm sorry that I'm not able to be there. Um and then um those are that's that's just my only absence in terms of a council event.

Thank you, council member uh James Aguular. Thank you, mayor. I just wanted to uplift really quick the scholarship foundation dinner last Thursday. Really good time and appreciate you, Mayor Gonzalez, for the work that you put in and city attorney uh Pura. Thank you for what you did as well. Uh it was overall just a lovely event. Great to see good people break bread with folks and have a good time. Uh, and I'm looking forward to the state of the city on the 28th. Um, excited to uh, again see some people, hear from you, mayor, and um, I'm just looking forward to being there on the 28th. Uh, that's all I have for this evening. Thank you.

Thank you. Just checking online for Council Member Bolt.

No hands. So, I will wrap up very quickly on my end. uh grateful for the city of San Leandro uh working with uh Trani and the Boys and Girls Club to uh provide some mentoring to the Europe interns. We as a city have taken dozens of Europe interns over the last I guess 3 years. uh it's been a highly successful program and grateful for the partnership with Europe and we had uh one of our own employees uh who joined me on the panel to talk about her wonderful experience here at the city of San Leandro and offer mentoring advice uh to some folks. Uh also uh just highlighting that scholarship foundation was such a such a beautiful event and very grateful for that. Uh, also want to celebrate um a Royo High School, a Royo High School key club. I think council member Aguilar, you might have a connection there. Um, their key club. Uh, I had an opportunity to speak at the Key Club gala on Sunday and Royal High School Key Club was recognized as the club of the year. We've got a number of San Leandra students who attend Key Club and who are uh just worthy of celebration for all the great all the great work that Key Club does uh in the city of San Leandro. Um the only uh other announcement that I will offer is Arbor Day. We have Arbor Day on the on this coming Friday at 10:00 a.m. And we've got flyers up. Check social media for the Wereken Park Department. uh we'll be doing tree planting and it's a great opportunity to continue demonstrating our commitment to the environment. So with that it is 9:51 and we are adjourned.

Oh, Council Member Bowen, you snuck in there. What is this? What is this? What's going on here? You're next. I was just going to add um since you brought up the Key Club and as a as a former Key Clubber um Kowanas in San Leandro who supports our Key Club is having their community mixer at Fieldworks this Thursday from 5 to 8:00. And so this is for anybody who's interested in Kowanas and the work that they do um to just come and meet the the group. And it's a I mean it's Field Works. It's going to be fun and it's a great group of people. Excellent. Okay. So, it is 9:52 and we are returned.