City Council and Authorities Concurrent - Special Meeting

Good evening. I'd like to call the special meeting of the Santa Clair City Council Stadium Authority to order. Confirmation of a quorum. Assistant City Cler. confirming quorum. Mayor, thank you. We have one item in close session. Uh, city attorney.

Thank you, Madame Mayor. Yes. One item, uh, conference with labor negotiators with the city representatives as listed. The employee organizations under discussion are Santa Clara Firefighters, International Association of Firefighters, Local 1171, Unit One, and potentially unclassified fire management uh, unit number 9B. Uh, thank you. Do we have any members of the public that would like to speak on our close session item? I see no one in the audience here. Anyone online? Assistant city clerk? All right. Thank you. We're going to adjourn to close session. We'll be back at 6:00 for our special council meeting. Thank you.

Good evening everyone. Welcome to the Santa Clara City Council Stadium Authority joint meeting. Could you please stand for the pledge of allegiance and remain standing for our statement of values? 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.

As we gather, we humbly seek blessings upon this meeting. May we act with strength, courage, and will to perform our obligations and duties to our people with justice to all. Let us seek wisdom so that we may act in the best interest of our people, our neighbors, and our country. All of this we ask so we may serve our community with fairness and respect, putting their needs before all. Thank you. Please be seated. Roll call. City clerk. Council member Shahal, present. Council member Hardy, present. Council member Park,

Council Member Jane here, Council Member Cox here, Vice Mayor Gonzalez. I imagine they would they'll be coming out shortly. Um, and Mayor Gilmore. Yes, here.

I'd like to read the statement of behavioral standards. The city of Santa Clara has adopted a code of ethics and values and behavioral standards for public meetings to promote and maintain the highest levels of conduct. This includes mutual respect, robust discussion, and allowing city business to be done in an efficient and consistent manner. Please note that as a preciding officer, the mayor's direction in matters of process and decorum should be followed and that use of the gavl indicates all conversations must conclude and everyone in attendance should come to order and attention. Welcome and thank you for your participation. For those joining us this evening in the capacity of a registered lobbyist, we ask you to please identify yourself as such and disclose the clients and organizations that you represent. This is pursuant to city code section 2.155.110. Thank you.

Thank you. So, good afternoon and thank you all for your patience. We were late coming back out. Uh for today's meeting, the council is back in person and is conducting its meeting in a hybrid manner. The public is welcome to attend in person and the city continues to use a Zoom feature to allow participation from your home or office. Members of the public can still join via the link and or call into the Zoom meeting phone number shown on the screen. Now, if you would like to speak on an agenda item or during public presentations, please raise your hand on the Zoom application or press star 9 on your phone. Please only raise your hand while the item you're seeking to speak on is presented. Staff will enter your name or the last four digits of your phone number and I will call on you to speak. So now we'll move on to the council agenda. Uh reports of action taken in close session. City attorney.

Thank you, Madame Mayor. Council did meet in close session on item one, conference with labor negotiators. Um the council discussed uh the Santa Clara firefighters um local 1171 unit number one. However, the unclassified fire management unit number 9B was not discussed. Um in any event, there was no reportable action. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Thank you. Um public hearing, general business. All right, we're going to go to our first item, which is a study session on the proposed fiscal year 2026 27 municipal fee schedule. City Manager. Thank you, Council Javon Grogan, City Manager. Item two uh that is before you is the first in a series of our meetings this year related to the upcoming 2026 fiscal year budget. This item is a study session for your master fee schedule with a public hearing for adoption of the schedule scheduled for April 21st. It's important to note that this item focuses on the city's cost of service fees. These are fees that are charged to recover costs of time and materials spent for a specific service received by a user. This item does not include utility user rates. Those are presented to the city council and adopted separately. Also, this item does not include taxes as those are approved separately by voters. Director of finance Kin Lee will make some additional introductory comments and introduce our consultant tonight who will present the bulk of the presentation. Thank you.

Thank you. Welcome.

Thank you, Manager Grogan. Good evening, honorable mayor, city council Kenley, director of finance. Appreciate the opportunity to talk about municipal fees. This is the time of the calendar year where you'll see me I think over the next five uh council meetings to talk about budget items. And uh before I start and introduce our our consultant, I do want to recognize it's a very busy time in our our budget season. So our budget team led by Margaret McCann is here and the fee study uh largely led by Tess Wong with many of our uh departments and and our consultants. So just wanted to recognize their hard work during a a busy time. Uh historically Santa Clara completes a comprehensive uh cost study uh regarding municipal fees every two years and then in the off years uh we apply a cost of living adjustment. We have contracted with Clear Source Financial Consulting for the last five years. They've been before this council uh many times around this time of year. They are an established expert in this field. They serve as fee consultants for many municipalities within California. Uh the city's fee consultant, Terry Matson, uh president and principal consultant with Clear Source Financial, will lead us through tonight's study session and and results from the study. Uh his team performs a very in-depth uh review as as you'll see in the two attachments. One is the proposed fee schedule. The other is the actual cost of service fee performed by our consultant and a lot of details including the types of position classifications and their time study that work on every individual fee. uh city departments is uh were collaborated with their respective uh sections in the fee schedule and they're available also to answer any questions at the end and after the presentation by uh our consultant I'll close us out with presentations and we'll have question and answers. So with that turn it over

to Terry Matson. Thank you. Welcome.

Thank you mayor and members of the city council. Thank you for allowing me to speak with you this evening. I will do my best to avoid being long-winded. I know you already had uh several items to consider and you have others to consider. So, um I have about 12 slide presentation. The first uh section of the presentation is just an overview of Santa Clara policies and um just general um fundamentals of fee setting in California. The second portion of the slide deals specifically with Santa Clara and what the city council will be asked to consider at an upcoming uh city council meeting. So this evening's item is is simply a study session. Uh ne at the April 21st meeting, the city council will be asked to to formally adopt an updated fee schedule, but this gives you an opportunity to provide any feedback and then us an opportunity to um think through your feedback and address it for the upcoming meeting.

Excuse me. Can I mayor through the chair? Um, council member Park um has a procedural matter with regard to reconsideration. Can I um Can you what? Can can I ask um for We don't have reconsideration on the agenda, right? Where's the city attorney?

We don't have those on special meeting. So, where's the city attorney? I think he stepped out. You're going to ask for a procedural. We need to have him here.

I was infor I was informed that there's a member of the public that would ask that would like to ask for item four on the agenda to be continued. They can wait till item four comes up and ask for it to be continued because we don't have that on the agenda. Please stand by. I'm sorry about this. I apologize. City attorney, we have a procedural question. We don't have reconsiderations, continuences, and that because this is a special meeting and we have a member of the council that wants to do that. So,

um, okay. that usually not handled at at special meetings um in instead at the next um regular meeting, but I'll take a look at our reconsideration policy right now to see if it contemplates it. Is it to reconsider a item at the previous city? This is a continuence that I believe the public is going to ask for. And again, because we do not and this would be a point of order. This would be for something that is does not have You know, I'm sorry. So,

this does not have a procedural uh point. So, I think this would be a point of order, but this is asking from the public's perspective for a continuence of an item that was item number four. I believe the public members here to request that continuence as well. So, I'm sorry. So, it's not a reconsideration. It's a request to continue item number four to a future meeting. That's correct. Um well, you're you have that item um you know, agenda is in effect for for your purposes. So you could propose that it be continued yourself.

Understood. So I can propose that and I believe that I want to make sure that the public member that's the what the what the uh public member wants. And again, I think that for I mean, it's a procedural issue, but to not have we're in the middle of an item, city attorney. So, the only reason that we're in the middle of an item is there is no there is no point on the agenda for this. And I think that's an omission. But to make the public wait until the item comes up to ask for the continuence, I think is a disservice to the public. Madame Mayor, presiding officer manages kind of order of things. Um, I'm subject to Are you going to pull your item for continuence? It's your own item.

That's correct. So, would you want to propose that you continue your own item? I would ask I'm asking for you to have the Well, I'm asking if the public member wants to ask for the continuence. And if that's the case, then I will ask for the continuence. Yes, I'm getting affirmative, then I will ask to continue item four. Presiding officer, managing order of meeting go into um an hourong ridiculous discussion. Who is the member of the public that asked for the continuance? Sir, would you like to come forward?

Hi. Uh my name is No McDonald from uh Reclaiming Our Downtown. On March 10th, uh I requested an 030 asking the city to look into concerns with how the downtown RF um RFP process was being handled. Um, we expect it to be on the next regular meeting. Instead, it's uh on tonight's uh special meeting. Um, with how important this is to the community, we're um requesting that it's heard at the next uh regular meeting instead. So, you're asking the item that's on the agenda from council member Park be at a regular meeting. Yes. Uh item four on the agenda. Is there is there a motion for that

motion? I'm sorry. If I may clarify, madame mayor, um this item number four isn't a substantive discussion of this item. It's just for purposes of the council discussing whether or not to add it to a future agenda. So, if you were to continue this item, I assumed that we were can continue and then at a regular meeting, they would then discuss putting it on a future yet another meeting. So, that's what I thought council member Park wanted. Yeah. So, I'm a little confused. Um the only discussion okay that's agendaized and appropriate for tonight is whether or not to add this item to a future meeting for substantive discussion.

Then what I will do is I will inform the public member that what tonight we're going to do tonight is we're going to vote to agendaize it which is an extra step but this is what the process uh has become. So what we will do is you don't have to stay for this. We will go through this uh vote on whether or not we want to put this for discussion on a future agenda and then if we do do that then you would come back uh when we have discussion on that issue. Uh yes that sounds all right with me. Okay then what I'll do is I will stay my request for continuance and we will see this in regular order but thank you. I thought you understood your own item on the agenda.

Oh I I do but again I had Thank you, sir, for coming forward. Well, I'm going to say I think that is very rude, but it was my understanding that the public had a request and I want to engage the public's request, not understanding fully what the council member Park for that. So, we're going to move on and I'm sorry um for our presenter if you'd like to continue. Thank you. Thank you. Please continue. I apologize for the delay.

Thank you again. Um, so just by way of background, the city maintains a a consolidated schedule of what we would consider service-based fees. Um, and the city reviews this as part of your standard operating procedures. Every year as you um prepare during budget season, you review this fee schedule. And this is common amongst municipalities. uh you collect fees for service when you are providing a service to a specific individual or benefit rather than services that are provided to the broad community. Um why do cities like Santa Clara and your neighbors and other cities in California conduct periodic studies and update your schedule of fees from time to time? The number one reason is to comply with legal requirements. Um because these are fees and not taxes, we want to ensure we're compliance with the California Constitution and the California government code that sort of informs um the establishment of fees. And primarily what the government code and constitution identify is that we do not want to be in the profit making business. We can recover our cost of service, but we don't want to recover beyond that. And that um fees should be set uh proportional to effort. So something that has a more intensive effort would have a higher cost of service and likely a higher fee than something that's less intensive in effort. Um finally, when we recover our costs of service, it sort of by definition frees up our general fund resources to be used for other services of broad communitywide benefit. And when we recover our cost of service, we position Santa Clara to continue to meet the service level expectation of the community. So, as the finance director and the city manager mentioned, there is no examination of taxes, assessments, or utility rates as part of this item. It

is simply service-based fees. Most commonly, we think of those as like building planning, engineering fees. You also have parks and recreation fees, administrative fees for specialized license review, and so forth. The city council does have a cost recovery principle associated with the establishment of fees. And generally you target full cost recovery unless you see some specific benefit um to the public and in in your case you see specific benefit to the public primarily linked to parks and recreation services. So uh fee schedule is intensive in Santa Clara and other communities. In Santa Clara, you have about 1,200 fees for service. And the idea is that you're trying to build a schedule that contemplates the various services, the requests for service that you may encounter. Some of these may be infrequent, some of them may be relatively frequent. Um, what we do for the city council is try and u sort of uh group them into bundles so that you can make informed decisions. And what we would say is that if you looked at what is being proposed for city council consideration at the upcoming meeting, we would say that 95% of the fees in this schedule are proposed for very minor modification or to remain unchanged. Um so that is the the broad majority of fees and the reason for that is because Santa Clara does update these fees on an ongoing basis. So we typically don't see a lot of significant shifts from year to year. Where we do see shifting, we bring it to your attention so that you can think specifically about those items. So we would say the vast majority of fees um very minor changes proposed. And now we'll highlight sort of the the areas where we see more significant changes proposed. So there are 14 fees that are actually

proposed to increase by more than 10%. If we look through these fees, um four of them are in the building world. And what's happening in the building world is you actually have very small changes proposed. Maybe a fee um moves from $7 to $8 for minor very minor work. But when you move a fee from $7 to $8, it's actually more than a 10% change. So, it's simply an effect of rounding small numbers. On the planning side, um short-term rental permits, the city has more history with short-term rental permitting now, and so we've adjusted the fee to reflect your current cost of service. On the electric side, the utility informed us that there is a service provided um occasionally where they have to um relocate a wire from the pole and they thought through their cost of service, the typical cost of service. So we've recalibrated that fee to align to cost of service. Similar function on the public works side. Um as staff re uh thought through the consulting support they receive and the internal staff dedicated to certain reviews they've recalibrated or recommend for recalibration for fees. On the parks and recreation side there are three fees proposed for adjustment um beyond 10% but the council has already reviewed these. These were part of an RTC that came to you in December and it's linked to aquatic facility rentals and staff had outlined a multi-year adjustment that they'd already reviewed with the typical um organizations that request reservation of robotic facilities. So small changes but they result in beyond a 10%. There are eight fees that are proposed for a multi-year phase in. So when we when we work with staff and think through uh proposed fee adjustments, one of the things we do is think about the cost of service and occasionally staff says, "Hey, I've encountered new

legislative requirements or I'm um because of some of the the intensity of certain reviews. We're realizing staff expends more time than has been previously anticipated, but they say I I don't want to go to full cost recovery overnight. I propose a multi-year phase in these are the situations that you're uh seeing here. So there is uh staff is saying even though I I acknowledge that I'm not recovering my full cost of service, I would rather get there over time than ask the city council to make the adjustment sort of overnight. And so in these cases, the fee adjustment, any fee adjustment is capped at 20%. And what a 20% change looks like in terms of order of magnitude is turning a fee from $900 to $1,100. And and the areas where we see this happening are requests for um specialized uh special requests for off-site parking permits. Um some temporary use permit application reviews. This would not affect nonprofits that uh require temporary use permit review. architectural review when changes are submitted to approved projects. The city has to review EIR, supplemental ERS, and then fees associated with reviews linked to recent state housing legislation like SP9, SP 330 and notification to uh groups regarding proposed development. There are 12 new fees proposed and some of them are um you know proposed to be added for fee schedule clarity. That's an example of the first one. The electric utility occasionally has to review requests for easements and um they process this this review for easements and they simply recover time and materials. We just want to add it to the fee schedule for clarity. The

library uh uh reserves space, rents out space for reserved use. And occasionally they um supply a key or a badge as part of that rental. If that key or badge doesn't get returned, they need to replace it. So, um that's the proposed fee for replacement. Uh the cemetery occasionally receives requests for use of the cemetery facilities for non-memorial services. Maybe somebody has a family member um that was particularly important to them and they want to reserve it for a private space and so they wanted to acknowledge that as available via the fee schedule. Um, two new fees are proposed for requests for special specific parking um, at youth soccer park and Reed and Grant Park um, when there's stadium events and there's overflow parking. And so this would uh, build into the fee schedule the idea that if uh, if the city could accommodate it, there would be uh, parking available for rent because these are rents of city property. they are not subject to the same cost of service limitations as your regulatory fees. It's just set at the at the market rate. And then finally on the water side, the water utility reviewed the fee schedule and felt like there were some fees that were lacking when um certain uh individuals want to make temporary use of city hydrants for construction projects or they're requesting utility field marking um and and the marking request doesn't align to to what their original request was. And then finally um with the so linked to recycled water there is uh reporting that is required and if uh reporting doesn't re uh come to the city in a timely manner then staff has to follow up and pursue that that reporting. So those are the new fees proposed. There are 14 fees proposed to be deleted from the fee schedule. They're primarily

for areas where the fees are were determined to be duplicative. staff wasn't using this particular fee because they were already um capturing cost recovery via a separate fee or just services that the city no longer is able to provide. Uh for instance, in the park and recreation side, you had historically rented out certain um centers, but the Santa Clara Unified School District now um has full operation of that and so those centers are no longer available for rent by the city of Santa Clara. As mentioned, um, this item will come back to you for for public hearing and formal consideration of a resolution to adopt fees. If you do decide to move forward and adopt fees, they would be effective July 1, 2026. I'm now going to conclude my presentation and turn it back to the finance director to discuss an item administrative. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Matson, for the very uh detailed review. Uh I did want to read into the record a couple items that um during the final kind of uh production of of the document um we did catch a couple things. And so um working with our city attorney's office, I know um Mr. Matson talked about cost recovery fees. There are a handful of fees in the document that are based on uh rental access for facilities and those um do are not required by law to be uh cost recovery. They could be demand driven. And so I just wanted to make sure that point of clarification was was read into the record. And then um you might have heard in some headlines around a penny shortage. And so we we made an effort in this uh document to round our fees without having pennies. And caught a couple errors in in some cases in our public works fees where uh we did round to the dollar instead of the nickel. Um we will have some corrections next week. Those are where certain fees were reduced uh according to a construction cost index. And so we wanted to be a little bit more precise and and round to the nickel there. And and that was in an effort that to round our our fees to avoid this penny shortage that that we've had internally in the organization. So I wanted to make sure those points of clarification were included in the presentation. Thank you for the time. And uh that concludes staff's uh and our consultants presentation. and there's a staff both online and in in person to answer any questions you may have.

Uh, thank you very much. We'll start with our questions. Council member Hardy,

just your last comment really struck me because you were talking about a penny shortage. I was surprised. Are we dealing in cash? Because electronic that would not be a concern. Um, I liked that you had the large slide the slides that had some u not everyone went through and read the entire report like a lot of us did. And I like that the slides that you had showing some of the major changes. I'm wondering if that can be part of the public record when we go to the public over this. Um, and it's it's important for our public to understand that some of these costs are costs for inspection or andor staff having to follow up on things. I like that you put the percentage change along with the actual dollar amount and then had the the summary of that. That helped. I did make a little note that um underground utility electrical situations and cost hydrant. I I didn't realize we had rent a hydrant. That was really surprising to me when I went through that, but I I appreciate you explaining that that that was for possibly some construction because those are the things that had the largest increase and it would be tied to construction for the most part. So showing where those large or big changes were, I think is important for our public to understand that we're trying to keep the cost to them specifically down as much for someone, a resident who needs a service from the city, which is different than normal. Thank you.

Thank you, uh, Council Member Jane.

Yes. Thank you. Um, I was interested to see that there was a new fee for parking at the youth soccer park. I want to remind the public that on January 2nd, 2022, I created a 030. And the 030 states, I attended the 49ers game at Levi Stadium on January 2nd, 2022. I purchased my ticket with my own funds. I was given a tour of the stadium by Rahul Chanduk, vice president, VP of public affairs and strategic communications. Jaz John, senior manager of public affairs and strategic communications, Larry McNeel, Emily Matthews, Moon Javeed. One thing that I noticed with the youth soccer park was not being used and neither were the associated parking spots which are owned by the city of Santa Clara. It seems to me that each of the hundred or so parking spots is worth between $50 and $100 each per large event. I was told that the city would receive all of the revenue if those were parking spots were be made available on event days, including NFL events. This could amount to up to $10,000 per event in revenue for the city, which could be applied to arts programs or homeless services or public safety. I would like to have a discussion about how to make those spots available when there are no events at the youth soccer park. Soccer gets absolute priority overuse of that area. I realize that there may be some measure R issues in play here since the city cannot sell or lease land without a ballot measure. Perhaps the city could hire a parking parking management company to operate the city-owned lot on event days. So my question is in the report you're talking about charging

something like $10 to $250 per spot for the youth soccer park and the Reeden grant. Uh what are the anticipated uses for that money? That's bas. Thank you, Council Member Cox.

Thank you, Director Lee. Um, I know when municipal fees come up, there's always a lot of interest from the public that participate in youth sport fees. Uh, I understand that for every 10% we choose to subsidize, we risk cost recovery. I was wondering if there was any um solid number on the estimated annual impact to the general fund if we were to continue to try to subsidize those kind of fees more. The other thing I'd like to understand a little bit more about, we talked about this um this phase in over several years that's going to start taking place. I believe there are eight fees that are like that. I think in November we had uh talked about a fee deferral schedule for park fees for one of our um developers. Uh and I don't know at that point if we were looking at fee deferment um for park fees as uh something that this kind of complements. Um, perhaps that jogs anyone else's memory, but I would like to know if fee deferral is part of what we're going to be seeing as well, or if this phase in strategy to defer costs is what we're really looking at, if that makes sense. Thank you,

um, Vice Mayor Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Mayor, and thank you, uh, for the report. Um the only question I have really is more uh that to make sure that the fees that we're charging obviously you want to have full recovery as much as possible but making sure that we have the adequate resources to uh to implement the whatever we're charging them for. So given that Nordstrom service for whatever you know whether it's planning commission or something else that they're receiving the the best uh service and I haven't heard anything different but just kind of you know making sure that we implement that throughout the uh throughout the system.

Thank you. I have um a couple of comments and questions. First of all, I've received um a lot of feedback from our small businesses on the cost and expense of developing their businesses in Santa Clara. um and if they have a business here to remodel or expand their businesses. And so I've told them all that when the fee schedule comes forward, we'll look at where these costs are because some of them just seem so prohibitive and sort of, you know, against what our goal is to support our small businesses in the city. So I'm wondering if we can take a look at that. Um the cost for the field use for the kids. I know I'm always a proponent on letting our kids play for free. So, I want to take a look at that. And I'm surprised about the parking at the youth soccer park and Reed and Grant that again, I don't think any of the soccer organizations know about any of this. And so to put it in without any outreach, I think is is disingenuous to our community. Again, no transparency on anything like this. And I know council member Jane was with the 49ers at one of their football games. Maybe I think that was a that was a holiday weekend where the city closes the youth soccer park, but I know that they use it most times during during the NFL season. So I think that outreach needs to take place before putting and sneaking it into a a fee schedule. We should talk about it in the community first. So that's really disappointing. That was more of a comment. All right, that's it for the questions. Thank you, Ken. Let me know if you need more time. I can go to the public.

Maybe the public first and then All right. Very good. Um, do we have any members of the public that would like to speak on this? Brian, I see you're up.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, and city council. That was one of the things I was going to bring up too. So what she said and also I don't know if you can do this but I try I'm not very good at this and I have take my hats off to the folks that are able to handle all these numbers. um if there was some way to like make this simple and maybe even put it in a video format of some kind so that people a lot of people online especially in the comment sections I know we shouldn't go there and listen to those folks but they think this is a tax and it makes them mad at the city and that it's not it's these are people requesting specific information or specific services that are outside like you know if you're going to call 911 or if you need police services I don't think that's really clear and I just think just as member of the public that wants to understand this and wants to believe the best about of the city. Um that would be better. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Do we have any other member of the public? It's all staff here that would like to um speak on the issue. Do we have anyone online? All right. Sorry, Ken. I wanted to give you more time. Do you need more time? No problem. So, what I think um I'll answer a good handful. There may be a one or two that Let me ask you, Ken, is this coming back again? Yeah, so next Tuesday for adoption. I was going to suggest for adoption. Oh wow.

Yeah, I know it's it's a tight timeline for for budget deadlines. But um what I might suggest is we will have a summary of responses and in the ones that we can't um address tonight, we will definitely make sure that the full council has that information uh by next Tuesday. And then I think probably a team effort on some of this very specific fees around youth sport sports park and and um and uh we'll kind of go from there. So uh council member Hardy had a comment questions. Appreciate um you know we you know many of our fees are collected electronically. We we want to offer as as uh many options to the public to pay for their respective service fees. uh we noticed especially through the pandemic there there's a large constituent that pays by cash and that that they continue to do so. So uh in in regards to the penny shortage wanted to you know make simplify that for for those transactions. Um with regards to um some of the comments around the document we we do try and make it as transparent and readable to the public. We know there's over,200 fees here that we have to bring forward uh every year. So when when it comes to grouping of of of changes, we definitely will make that part of our report on Tuesday. Make that uh part of our public record. Um percentage changes where we can. Um and then breakout, you've heard some very specific fees with very specific services. We work with our departments and they identify, hey, when when we work with this customer on these topics, we don't have a fee. So every two years when our consultant interviews every department uh division uh they the departments are are the experts at the respective areas the activities and so they uh make suggestions on combining breaking out renaming fees for for very specific um areas as you mentioned underground utilities and hydrant services.

Council member Jane asked a question around um youth sports park parking and and we have had a model with regards to the youth sports park. I know on occasion it's been used for uh different activities. Uh at the end of every budget year we do reconcile any revenues generated at that facility. Uh we do return in in a scing fund. We know that there's maintenance with regards to uh lawn replacement and the turf out there that over in in the long run will require an investment. And so we've I believe there's a couple hundred,000 kind of in that sinking fund. So I imagine that along with that policy any dollars around um uh parking would would be uh returned back to that facility through that that fund. Um I don't know if manager has some additional comments around that. I I think there were a couple other questions uh connected to that. So I will elaborate. So it's important to note uh and I think the mayor uh um mentioned this that historically the youth soccer park was really only used for for youth events uh starting I think about two years ago really uh led by the mayor and former council member Kathy Watanabi uh really lobbyed and uh brought BFC uh to the city. And so BFC rents the youth soccer park. part of our uh arrangement there is that it cannot the any adult use cannot push off any youth use. And so we set up that syncing fund uh for those revenues to go uh into a fund to fund capital. Uh and so that really started a process where uh COAFA for example had an event at the stadium and they would like they wanted to practice there. the department made sure that it wasn't pushing off any youth events and they had a rental and so um we've also have had outreaches for both YS YSP and Read and Grant uh for bus parking for example at Read and Grant during during big events during the city. I think we currently have a $10 fee staff looked at it and said, "Hey, you know what? For the some of these major events or even just regular events where they they're

asking us um you know, do we have a place to park? The market would bear more than $10. it would be appropriate to to to have a sliding structure uh that uh provides for market-based rentals. And the exact same thing for YSP. I've been out there a number of times during not just NFL events for non-NFL events, the parking lot uh sits vacant. And so one of the things in talking to the department uh and in line with the model of utilizing the facility to obtain revenue to benefit uh repair and maintenance of the facility as long as we're not pushing off youth events you you know do you let a parking lot sit vacant uh and uh if there's the ability to obtain revenue to to benefit the facility and the youth uh continue to do that. And so that's the proposal. Uh that's why the fees are in here. Uh certainly we would continue the model of not pushing off any youth use. Um and uh it's a model that has a sliding scale so that if there's a major event uh and there's a market to charge more than $10 or even $100 for those spaces that are very close to the stadium, uh that's a way to leverage additional money. And as we know, one of our challenge challenges has been set aside setting aside money for our major capital facilities so when they need repair, there's a fund. We all know the story of the international uh swim center and so this is a facility that has a marketability uh to generate revenue that can uh fund a portion of its own maintenance and that's what this is intended for. I think it should have been, you know, at least noticed to the public that you're doing it instead of putting it just in a fee schedule. And I would ask the city attorney to look at this because we have measure R and what you're talking about is the commercial leasing of the parking lot year round. And I I don't know if that complies with our measure R where we specifically called out the youth soccer park.

Sure. So I think that's important to do, but it also you need to outreach to the community. You can't just do this on your own. put it in a report and have the council approve it next week. We have to have some outreach. I don't I can't emphasize that enough. Sure. Mayor, just to respond to that, uh, Measure R, uh, dictates a long-term lease. I did not say a long-term lease. Uh, this would not Well, you're talking year round. No, you said football games and other events. Yeah, but there's a difference between various leases throughout the year. I would like the city attorney to give us an opinion. Okay. Sure. Well, uh if if if you would, I'd like to continue articulating an answer uh to your question. Um and so

my question was to the city attorney. So if you if if uh you're not letting me continue, I'll turn it over to the city attorney, but I was responding to the questions. My my question was to the city attorney.

Yeah, thank you, Madame Mayor. Um we did look at that in connection with this. Um I don't have the language um in front of me now, but um measure R contemplates um dispositions or changes of use greater than 180 days. And so you're right, if it was truly year round, right, and it was used, you know, year round for that commercial purpose, um or even if it was for 181 days, that would violate measure R. Um the idea that it could be used sporadically um you know only for special events for that use in in my view isn't inconsistent with measure R. Measure R doesn't speak to that specifically. But it's those types of ancillary uses that actually has a measure R um being reviewed by the charter review committee for clarification of things like that. But I think measure R gets at that longer term disposition. I don't think this would qualify. Madam,

one of one of the things that many many people fought for was to keep that youth soccer park a youth soccer park. So the minute you start to take it and make it something else and start to commercialize it, it it changes and that's why I believe the community should be informed about this. Thank you. Go ahead, Ken.

Right. So, uh, Council Member Cox asked the question around the subsidy for parks and and I want to talk some numbers and before I do, I I do want to caveat that it is common practice in in municipalities to subsidize parks uh fees program services. Um, working with our consultant, um, our our parks uh cost recovery fees cover about 13% of the cost of the parks programs. and and and um I do want to remind uh the public that that the city council did approve a parks and recreation cost recovery policy about three or four years ago. there were some very sensitive uh topics I know mayor mentioned around uh nonprofits and and and uh uh kids uh fields and so I know that our parks and recreation department brought back separately through uh multiple items and working with those groups a very revised fee specific to those groups but we do have a cost recovery uh policy around parks and recreation activities uh 13% cost recovery as the subsidy of general fund dollars is roughly $26 million. It's it's um but but I do want to say that does include kind of the the park overall park access to the public because that does benefit the public. So that that does include some of the costs for for broader park park maintenance. Um and then there was the question around uh park I think it was park impact fee deferrals that is not included in this uh item before you. that would have to be a separate kind of discussion and and action. Um I also want to note um actions around the park impact packact fees. Those typically are brought back separately because there's a an appraisal that's done a a study and so we're working with our parks and recreation director to uh agendaize that portion of of the fees. And so that that those increases those changes are not

contemplated within your document here today. But when when talking about the phase in of fees, we have historically recommended multi-year phase in strategies in certain areas where the subsidy um uh to to kind of mitigate the impact of of the the the increase of these costs uh over time. We've had those phasins in our building and our our fire department as relates to developers. I I know that when we were working with our community community development department, they did recommend a phase in in certain areas and that's why we've continued that approach as we've done in the past for phase in to kind of mitigate that impact uh to to certain customers. Council member Gonzalez asked a question around resources to implement these fees and and uh that's part of why this item is before you today. Most of these fees are recommended to uh go into effect on July one. And so it does take our department some time to uh effectuate these fees to to to make sure that uh from a system standpoint that you know when these fees are collected automatically those are are changed. And then around our development fee areas um there is a law requiring a 60-day kind of notice period for our development fees. And so this is in uh alignment with that. So it does allow us roughly a two-month period to to implement uh changes to the fees. Mayor Gilmore, you you um asked and and pointed out that our small businesses uh are uh have commented about the cost of development services. Um I do want to work with our comm community development uh director to to have a a full comprehensive review of of the cost to our small businesses. We understand that uh for many of our development fees, especially when they're preliminary reviews or especially in our planning areas, we do as a city and by council

policy subsidize many of those fees. I can't tell you uh you know in terms of impact on small businesses versus large. So that's some of the information I'd love to bring back to you uh to the full council at a later time. Um and then um just taking a look I think I responded you know on field use for kids noted I I know that um Damon worked very closely with those very specific stakeholders. I know that um separately those fees were discussed as well as uh financial assistance through uh the various programs that that the parks and recreation department offer. Um so noted and and we'll um take any more kind of comment around that area. I think that's all the questions, but if I missed any, happy to.

Uh, Council Member Jane,

thank you. Um, I'm surprised that the mayor is so concerned about measure R when she knows well full well that when she asks for the BFC to practice at our fields that an adult team that there would seem to be no problem at that time. Uh, I'm going to reread my zero portions of my 030. You heard it already. While you're read, mayor, um I said I would like to have a discussion about how to make those spots available when there are no events at use soccer park. Soccer gets absolute priority. I realize there may be some measure or issues in play here since the city cannot sell or lease land without a ballot measure. So I had brought up those concerns back in 2022. they seem to have been addressed with the BFC issue. So, those are my comments. Thank you.

Uh, Council Member Chahal.

Thank you, Mayor. I also wanted to comment on council member Jane's proposal. what was the proposal and how it was brought forward and what were the condition he put in. Basically he's very right like uh he specifically mentioned anytime if the youth need to use the field they get the priority and they have a sort of veto power any event like say there's a concert there and each parking is going for $150 that doesn't mean that the parking lot will be used for somebody else. If there is a pres-scheduled youth activity there, it will be used by the youth that what he meant and he specifically meant that. So what he means is he's not curtailing and but I think the staff also means that we are not curtailing any youth activity none at all even if they are using on any particular day they have a priority they have a veto power to use that parking but if the parking lot is lying vacant and we can make whatever x amount of dollars and I would suggest that x amount of dollar capital money whatever we use it should be used only on on the soccer field. Let's let's mandate that also. If we city manager need any particular guidance from council on that I will be proposing that any amount you collect from these parking lots after no use by the youth please mandate that it will be used only for the soccer fields whether it's the reed park or whether it's the north side park. So I just wanted to state that the clarity it was very much clear that youth always get the priority on that. Thank you.

Um thank you and I think you all missed my point was I don't think I don't remember us ever having an agenda item in a discussion and a vote on this ever. The first I see it's in a fee schedule. So, in CA, unless I'm wrong, was there an agenda item where we discussed this and made a decision that we're going to charge for parking at Soccer Park and what the terms and conditions were? I think it was a 030 that was probably never acted on years ago. The point is we should have a discussion on it. We should let the community know instead of making the rules right now because we found it in the fee schedule. We should talk about it, but let the community know and discuss it and then make the decisions. If the money goes back into the soccer park, then the council should decide that, but not just here right now. I don't ever remember it, unless I'm wrong, I don't remember it being on the agenda for discussion and action. City manager.

Sure. Really, this is a continued implementation of our normal practice. What was on your agenda was establishing the capital fund for the W youth soccer park. And at that time, we did state that revenues from uh adult use at the youth soccer park and leasing out the facility would go into this fund. This is just one more avenue. Staff has effectively managed that so that youth events are not displaced. um BFC as well as Cona Cath and we regularly get inquiries. This is just providing an additional fee to leverage the parking lot. So certainly council can

was it was it noticed to the public that this is what we're doing or has it ever been noticed to the public that that's what we're doing? So staff has already been implementing commercial use of the use of the youth soccer park and depositing those funds into the youth soccer park capital fund. This is a continuation of that. I believe that staff has appropriately been delegated authority to to work with the soccer groups. There's currently no policy that says certainly council could develop policy that says every time and we should

and and as a member of council you're happy to make that motion but what I'm articulating is that staff has in prior instances that you support it and you're talking about BFC I'm talking about BFC and then that staff has has leased out the you soccer park to conquer as well. Um I think there was another you did that on your own. I don't think we ever approved that. And and when we brought the the establishment of the fee schedule for you. I know that there was a discussion around monies being deposited all revenue being deposited into that fund and so that we are continuing that practice. Mayor if you would like

I would just like to make it more transparent that that's what conc was all on you. You approved those contracts without the council. BFC was a different situation where they practiced but they gave us a list of benefits back to our youth um as as part of their payment to us. So that was different as did KNAF. What did Conac give? Uh revenue and there was equipment that they provided.

Yeah, but you did that contract without us and without the public knowing about it. My point is you're all missing the point. Put it on the agenda. Let's talk about it and come up with a policy for parking at you soccer park and read and grant without doing it this way. Notice the public simple. Okay. Anyways, anyone else? Uh, council member Jane, I think mayor, that was exactly the point of my 030 was to have a discussion about this back in your 030. What happened to it? It was killed by um basically the council. So um

how did we kill it? So uh the point of it is have we had any complaints uh city manager about any of these uses?

No staff currently has the delegated ability to lease city facilities. This is frankly no change in anything that we do on a on a normal basis. If the mayor would like to have additional policy around it and additional public input, certainly that that that that is her right to propose that. This is keeping with our normal practice and delegated authority. Uh I am not aware of any complaints with leasing out uh the youth soccer park over the last few years. Uh and I do know that staff regularly communicates with the soccer groups. They look at the schedule. They will decline any adult use if there isn't competing youth use. And I I do know that there were conversations around establishment of this fund and people were thankful that a fund was being established so that the youth soccer park would have a dedicated capital fund and there was money being deposited into that fund for for leveraging the facility. And so I mean I understand that the the the mayor is raising concerns and I she certainly her purview to do so but they're new to me um and they they haven't really come up to staff. I I don't believe the staff has the authority to lease out commercially lease out you Soccer Park without the city council approval.

I don't believe that. Madame Mayor, if I might um not on that point um but uh just reminding the context of this conversation. It is a study session right on the on the fees and Thank you for keeping me in line. Yeah. All right. Very good. Uh Council Member Jane. No. Okay. Done. All right. Study session over. Yes. Thank you very much, Ken. All right. Thank you. All right. Uh, next item, status report on 2026 major events, invoicing and reimbursements. Uh, city manager.

Thank you, council. Tonight, we're bringing forward a brief status update on the city's invoicing and reimbursement efforts related to the 2026 major events that is Super Bowl 60 and uh, FIFA men's World Cup. As you know, these events require significant coordination, upfront investment, and ongoing operational support across multiple departments and various outside agencies. To date, the city has invoiced approximately 1.57 million in eligible planning costs with roughly 944,000 reimbursed and the remaining balance largely tied uh to recently submitted invoices and documentation requirements that are currently under review. While the reimbursement process has been steady, there are still ongoing timing and process challenges that we will talk about tonight, particularly related to the FIFA funding sources uh that staff are actively working uh with our county partners and the host committee. Uh important to note really the good news is that between the money uh that the state has allocated and the approval of the federal funds there is over $50 million of costs that are eligible to the barrier host committee for uh FIFA cost. And so there are sufficient funds um in addition to the respons the responsibilities and commitments that the barrier host committee has uh aligned with the assignment and assumption agreement. Uh, and so with that, I will turn this presentation over to Assistant City Manager Liz Clots, who is managing the reimbursement and invoicing process, uh, to walk us through the details and answer questions from council and the public.

Thank you. Welcome.

Good morning, Mayor and Council. Um, so, as Javon gave me the introduction, we're going to be giving you an update on our invoicing and reimbursements for SPLX and, uh, FIFA World Cup. Um, as he also mentioned, both require significant coordination, planning, um, and operations with our city staff and partners. Um, this includes our police and fire services, emergency management, coordination, traffic management, training, and logistical support. Of these costs are eligible for reimbursement through the Bay Area Host Committee. The city has entered into various agreements with the host committee. Um and there they are reimbursement agreements. These include our um visiting um police uh public safety officer program agreement, our interim funding agreements while we were negotiating Super Bowl um LX, the legal event agreement, and then finally the assignment and assumption agreement for FIFA. So under these agreements, the host committee is contractually responsible for reimbursing for the city for all qualified event expenses. These include planning, staff, training, equipment, and event day operations. The Bay Area Host Committee may request documentation. Um they can dispute the costs, but they must pay all undisputed um amounts. With regards to the disputed costs, if it's over 50,000, th those disputes would be held in escrow and then resolved through meet and confer and arbitration. I can tell you right now, we aren't at that $50,000 level. So, we're not in an arbitration situation at this point. Um, I also want to highlight about the assignment and assumption agreement. There is a provision that requires the city to cooperate with the host committee in seeking and supporting federal, state, and regional funding to help offset the related event costs for um the World Cup. Um this cooperation includes supporting grant applications

um assisting in securing eligible funding and other resources. This requirement does not shift financial responsibility to the city. Under the agreement, the host committee still is responsible for all qualified event expenses, including any costs not recovered by the external funding sources. Um, now I'm going to have Ken kind of discuss and go over our invoicing and process timeline and kind of detail what the process is for us to to review these invoices. Thank you.

Thank you, Assistant City Manager Clots. Good evening, honorable mayor, city council, Kenley, Director of Finance. appreciate the opportunity um and uh and your patience here. I'm going to talk a little bit about the invoicing process and timeline and get into some very uh deep details about what staff does to kind of prepare some of these invoices and collect those costs and wanted to talk through uh the timeline. Sometimes we're asked why does it take so long to get reimbursed uh around our public safety costs related to stadium events and and really wanted to be transparent about what what that process takes. And so the first bullet here uh 45 to 75 days is our reconciliation and our pay processes. And so the first sub bullet here, you know, as a as an employee, a police officer works an event that's within our twoe pay period. So from the event date to when they're paid could be up to three weeks, right? So if they work an event early on in that twoe pay period, that pay period closes and then it takes one week for staff to process that pay period and for that subsequent employee to get paid. So that's the first kind of 3-week timeline from an event to to potentially when when that payment would be made. Uh separately, most most of these costs are allocated to uh police and fire. They are on a separate uh calendar schedule for FLSA or fair labor standard act overtime calculations. And so in order to calculate the the correct overtime for police and fire, uh the respective FLSA calendar period has to close. And so in this case, 28 days for police, 20 24 days for fire and that adds additional time for when we can even start kind of the calculation uh to fully understand what the actual costs are. Uh and even beyond that FLSA period, it does take some time to to kind of calculate that within our payroll division. Uh in in

all that includes additional collection and reconciliation of of all our payroll charges. I know that, you know, we've created many uh dozens of of specific pay codes and sometimes our our employees when they're filling out their time cards might not allocate the right specific charge code. There's a process to audit and correct those codes and that could take anywhere from a week or two uh working between finance staff and and our department staff. And then at the same time for for um any kind of uh special event that doesn't include third party agencies or CHP partners or county uh sheriffs um those invoices are also collected at at their respective timeline. So the sheriff's office might be short staffed and give us their invoice at any 30, 60, 90 days and and so that delays part of the process or adds to kind of the timing of of of collection of collection of of the information. Uh once all that information is collected, reconciled and compiled, uh we work with our our manager's office on um the additional documentmentation necessary uh for our specific uh barrier host uh committee events. Um this includes functional time descriptions and so there's an interaction with police, fire, and public works for traffic safety for your respective time cards every month. what did you work on and and what are description of those activities? Um the finance staff then works with our manager's office to create and and send an invoice to the barrier host committee. That's anywhere from a day to three days. Uh there is a a 7-day question and answer period if there's additional information requested by our barrier host committee. Um that adds to the timeline and then the barrier host committee has 30 days to pay upon kind of an agreed upon accepted invoice. And so that total process from start to finish can take anywhere from 90 to 100 days uh from the event data.

And on the next slide I'll talk about how does that compare with some of our other processes uh for revenue collection. And and before I get there want to note um you know in some instances it might be faster to to have a revenue collection process. In this case part of the reason why it takes 90 to 120 days is is we have very complicated pay process. I talked about our our FLSA pay periods. They're different for police and fire and and so some of that reconciliation and calculation of overtime in accordance with the law requires very detailed work by by a very small payroll uh division. Uh measure J compliance ensures that every penny uh spent uh uh in the general fund for public safety is reimbursed. And so there's a lot of uh subsequent journal entries and audits that happen internally to make sure that uh codes are are used correctly. And if they're not used correctly, there's corrections and there's journal vouchers to make those corrections. And and that's that third point, prior pay period adjustments. Sometimes it takes two, three pay periods for staff to catch those errors um and as a result of various audits and and so those corrections are made um over over a length of time. I I talked about thirdarty vendor invoices. In some cases, uh there are delays from our thirdparty agencies in collecting that. We do partner with police to expedite those where we can, where we need to. Uh in some cases, we will end up invoicing an estimate based on hours worked uh if we're waiting for some of those third party invoices. But the goal really is to ensure a full complete packet when charging very specific events. uh it's more inefficient to do the estimate, go back and and and reconcile against what was paid. Um so the goal here is a complete reconciliation before we send the invoice, but we do have times where uh because of those delays, we we are sending an estimated invoice uh and subsequently um reconciling it. uh

compared to some other processes, NFL events, non-NFL events, I know in my quarterly uh financial reports to the stadium authority board, there is there are tables that show, you know, out of the events that occurred, what are the public safety costs that occurred and how many how much uh has been reimbursed and sometimes I'm asked in those reports, why does it take so long? Similar process I outlined here today, the same 90 to 120 days uh uh needed to to fully reconcile those costs. Um when it comes to some other areas of revenue collection, sales tax, you know, we work with our state agencies or county or consultant to audit uh they do advance uh some of those quarterly payments uh 60 to 90 days in order to get uh the the uh advanced estimated payment for any month of any given year. And then trueups for sales tax occur 45 to 60 days after the quarter end. And so when you add kind of those two timelines uh together, you know, you you're in the, you know, uh anywhere from 90 to 100 uh days or so. Uh property tax also very complicated process with our county assessors uh uh division and and working with them on the assessment uh role and and working with our property tax consultant. we do get, you know, when an a property is assessed on a January 1st assessment date, we do receive cash coming in the door the following uh December, so about 12 months um uh with from that assessment date and then the following April, so very recently, property tax payments were due. We'll get that cash very shortly. So 16 months from that uh original assessment date. And then I did talk to Chief Torres uh this afternoon around FEMA firefighter grants or safer grants, a grant that was $13 million funded uh some key positions during uh our our pandemic. Um and so from the time it takes uh from an

employee to work to kind of finish those uh FLSA calculations there, submit those reimbursements, and this is a standard kind of reimbursement process that the the fire department has set up. Again, 90 days at the earliest, could be longer depending on timing of of those costs coming back. And so hopefully this these two slides give some very specific details as to the work and the the uh tasks that our finance department along with our city departments undertake in order to uh compile a bill especially for our um major events. And so with that, I'll turn it back to assist assistant city manager clots for the rest of the presentation. Thank you, Finance Finance Director Lee. So, as Ken was mentioning, it we're in the process of one reconciling the deployment cost from Super Bowl right now, and then we're also still working on planning for FIFA. So, there is a lot of invoicing and reconciliation happening within our our teams. And I'll kind of go into more detail about what what is happening um on those fronts. Um, as for Super Bowl um, LX invoice status, um, the invoices have been reimbursed promptly by the Bay Area Host Committee, 99% of them have been paid within 30 days. And right now there's only 18,000 that is outstanding and is that our direction because of the training. They have asked for um, backup information about the training um, that happened last fall. We're working through providing that backup documentation so they can understand what was the approved training and that it all um lined up with what we um agreed to. Um also outstanding on Super Bowl um is the November and December invoices. Those were submitted in March. They have 60 days to pay those invoices and so they're still within the time frame of reviewing. um we have they have asked for some um supporting information

on those invoices as well and we're providing those um in the interim but those are not outstanding invoices they are um within their time frame for reimbursement um for FIFA World Cup um through August 2025 they've actually processed those um invoices timely also within 30 days um 82% of those costs have been paid there is approximately 71,000 outstanding Um, from those invoices, um, there's 16,000 that's disputed right now. Those are disputed training costs. There's another 55,000 from a trip to Scotland in which the host committee has asked us to enter into a separate um, VSPO type agreement. Um, and so we're working through drafting that type of agreement for that reimbursement. Um, and so 11 invoices have been paid in full while three invoices are partially paid um, due to those specific issues I highlighted. um invoice status since um August, so September until present day. Um our reimbursement timing has been um an issue right now. The host committee um starting in October once we submitted um our subsequent invoices had had um um directed us to go to the county for reimbursement of the Caloes funding. As you might be aware, they have approximately 1.6 6 million in Cal US funding that we are to seek reimbursement from and they've you know we've been trying to work with the county in developing an agreement getting the right documentation to seek reimbursement on that funding. Um however we don't have an agreement yet and so for those invoices from September through December those haven't been um reimbursed yet. Um and um we have outlined our expectations to the host committee that they continue to reimburse the city under the terms of our existing assignment and assumption agreement um until we get reimbursement from the county or have an agreement in

place. Um I just wanted to give you a quick financial summary of um where we are and um so for planning costs for Super Bowl um we've invoiced $878,000. uh we've been reimbursed 611,000 the unreimbured 267 that's made up of those November and December invoices that they're were in process and then that training documentation that we need to provide to the host committee in the amount of $18,000 um for event deployment and this is where a lot of our staff resources are going right now um we've been gathering all costs associated with Super Bowl deployment period that started in January through um February 9th Um there are some qualified postevent expenses that we're also collecting. Um as you might be aware on January 12th um the host committee is required to provide an advanced payment. They paid $2.1 million to um support the deployment costs. Uh following the event, staff um developed the estimated deployment expenses based on all the all the information that we were able to collect from our thirdparty expenses, our staffing um and all our um vendor costs. And right now, the estimated deployment expense is $6 um 025 million. On April 7th, we sent we um well, under the agreement on or about April 1st, we're required to provide the primary event expense request. Um, and on April 7th, we sent that request over to the host committee, and that was in the amount of $3.8 million. And this amount is the estimated deployment expenses of the 6 million um subtracted by their advanced payment. We are in the process of compiling and verifying all remaining documentation. We are still collecting the remaining um outside agency invoices. Um, and we have

an obligation to uh provide a final payment request on or about May 1st. Right now, uh, for the FIFA World Cup financial summary, we've invoiced 688,000. We've been reimbursed 332,000. Um, the remaining um, unrebured amount is made up of the September through December invoices. and then the 71,000 which includes the um 16,000 of disputed training costs but also the 55,000 I'm sorry the slide didn't highlight that the 55,000 um separate agreement for the trip to Scotland. So that's what we're working through to get those reimbursed. So in summary, the city is finalizing reimbursement costs for Super Bowl LX. That's our priority over the next couple weeks. And we continue to support the Feeble World Cup with planning, coordination, and event deployment and getting reimbursements um agreements with the host committee and the county. Um the progress is ongoing and payments have been timely with the Bay Area host committee. It's, you know, we're the ones that need to invoice them. Um and the Super Bowl reimbursements are successionally complete and uh the FIFA reimbursements were in progress but they remain a little bit more complex with our partners with the with the third parties. Um and our next steps right now is we need to submit our final payment request um at the beginning of May and we're going to continue resolution with the FIFA invoicing and compliance items. And that's concludes my report. So

thank you Liz. Uh, Council Member Cox questions.

Thank you, Director Cox or CL. Sorry. So, I wanted to um understand a little bit more about the timeline right now. I think that uh first um during the interim agreement, we had a 60-day period where we had to get all uh costs submitted 60 days um from when the event occurred or the cost was transacted. I want to make sure we're not operating under those terms anymore. It looks like from the first slide we have uh a much longer period up to 90 days. I ask because by May 1st it says we should be actually finalizing and correcting invoices and as of today at least according to the dashboard we're only at about 14% of our total estimated cost of what's going to be five and a half million or something. Um, so I want to make sure that we're staying within that time frame. And again, there's no penalties if uh things are going long. I also wanted a little bit of clarification on the escrow fund. I believe at the beginning of the meeting, you said we were not near needing that escrow fund, but it looks to me like we do have 71,000 in disputes um about the fire and police training that occurred prior. It's my understanding that once a dispute uh was over 50,000 that money needed to be placed, but um so I'm hearing contradictory information and I'm wondering if that escrow account has been set up. Then the other interesting piece about that is um this documentation that they're requiring for uh training the 18,000 is not necessarily being disputed, but it certainly has delayed the payment beyond our timeline. So I'm wondering how we're viewing that. Um, I'm wondering if that is something that according to our LEA we should be getting paid for now out of what would be an escrow fund. Um, but I'm I must be missing something on that because it it doesn't sound like the escrow fund is set up. Uh, the grant thing has been interesting right now. I

did see that there was a lot of staff talk or a lot of mention in the staff report about the burden that was placing on you guys to do this. Um, and again, it has delayed payments uh beyond that. So, I'm wondering if our LA LEA is allowing that to happen. If we were to hold the letter of the law on that saying that we did not agree that we would have to wait for ourselves or others to get grant submission proposals in and approved before our payment structure took place. How do we enforce that? And then finally, I know that uh the Bay Area Host Committee uh as the city manager mentioned received a lot of uh federal income recently. Um, two questions about that. I'm wondering because they act as the entity now governing those funds, are we actually going to have to apply to the Bay Area Host Committee for grants to pay ourselves back or offset their costs? Um, and one more piece of that said if there was ample funding, the 124,000 that was pre July 2024 would be re uh repaid if they had federal funding. But I also believe that that said it was based on, you know, all the things that they had to pay for. So I'm trying to understand if we know where we fall in the line for that that funding that said would be paid back if they did get adequate federal funding.

Thank you. Any other questions?

No other questions from the council. Okay. Um, I have a few questions and I apologize to the public, but I did send this to the city attorney and city manager two weeks ago for uh responses and I haven't gotten a response. So, I'm going to ask some of these questions now. So, can you uh please confirm whether the league agreement uh permits the Bay Area Host Committee to delay payment based on third-party funding? And have any of the invoices exceeded the contractual payment deadlines? If so, has the city notified the Bay Area Host Committee or the 49ers uh Stadium Company LLC regarding their payment obligations? And under what circumstances will the city enforce Stadco as the backs stop provision? Um, and you talked about the county going to the county for the OES funds. Are the county or other external funds intended to supplement or replace the Bay Area host committee reimbursements? You know, one of one of a big question I had is I know we are to cooperate and help to get outside funding, but I was of the understanding that's not a requirement or doesn't relieve the Bay Area Host Committee for paying our costs once they're submitted. Um, so I looked into the money that has been build to the stadium authority and I think it was over a million dollars in up in up till 2023. So I want to know how much in total has been build to the stadium authority for Super Bowl and World Cup and

because I know that this stadium authority board never approved those expenditures. So, how much is was build and under what authority were they was the money expended and you talked about the final Super Bowl invoice is due by May 1st and I think you had the amount of money there um I think it's over 6 million total. So, you have our reimbursements about 800,000 or something like that to the city. Where are these missing millions? And did the city already pay all these outside entities? Meaning like did the CHP bill come in and did we pay them and are we floating all those costs um and waiting to be reimbursed? uh because although you have said there's 2 million available there and you know more billing it's not accessible to us. It's there it's available but not accessible. So how is that working with the millions that were are we floating those millions? Um, and you said I think 99% of the Super Bowl costs were paid, but I think was that up to eight in August of last year.

Invoices. Sorry. Invoices. Was that 99% of the invoices were were paid

up until August of 2025? Like a long time ago. So, um, it looks like the invoices were dealt with up until October of last year. So, all the costs going from October forward still have to come in until the Super Bowl. I know our city was working almost full-time on Super Bowl in January and February and even in December and before that. So, does the city get reimbursed for all the it appears we're financing the Super Bowl? So, the financing costs, the interests, interests, the opportunity costs, all those costs, how are they dealt with or are they not dealt with at all? And um so that's those are my questions on uh on Super Bowl and on FIFA. Um, that's a different agreement. Uh, under the FIFA agreement, is the is the reimbursement to the city a contractual obligation of our existing contract, our assignment and assumption agreement, or are we being required to apply for a grant from the Bay Area Host Committee to receive our payment? And I think that's a really important question um is how we're getting paid back. And uh is there anything that requires the city to apply for a grant in order to be reimbursed? Um, and does the agreement allow the Bay Area Host Committee to delay any payments to the city while waiting for their county, state, or federal grant? I mean, I read

today that they they're getting the grant. I don't know if they actually have the grant and have the money at hand, but does our agreement allow for any delays just because they they may or may not have the money in hand? Uh, do we know what is the total estimated costs of the World Cup activities? I know other cities have announced their costs, but we never have. I heard it's 50 million, but I don't know what what is the total cost going to be and what is our exposure for that? And uh, I think those are my questions for now. I think council member Cox asked about the escrow accounts and do we have any open? You said we don't, but I think in one of the instance we have over 70,000 in dispute of FIFA costs. That's it. Council member Gonzalez.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just a question. I forgot when uh when it was that they uh deposit their $2.1 million into our account. Was that in December, I want to say, or January.

Okay. If you have that date. And um I know sometimes we not we but sometimes folks use uh or arbitrage um monies that they have to pay back eventually or or or use eventually. So I don't know if we if we've incurred any interest in the month and a half or month or weeks that we had it. Um and the other question I had was uh thank you for the report. is fairly fairly uh insightful as far as the timelines and understanding that you know there's still um time for for things to get paid out. We're not in any there's not a lot of money that's really you know it's not we're not going to mediation or anything like that currently. Um do you foresee us going there? And if so, you know, are we trying to get ahead of that so that we can get reimbursed sooner rather than later? Thank you. And I think those are the question uh Council Council member Cox, I

I apologize for giving you a second step, but um that brings up a good point. Uh if we do um have to go back for items they contest. I understand that we cannot um bill that staff time towards the Super Bowl or the FIFA costs. So I'm wondering how we categorize that in terms of stadium authority expenses. Um, yeah. Thank you. Would you like us to go to the public? We have a public member. In case there's more questions. Thank you. Um, we'll go to the public now. Brian, please come forward.

I can take a little longer if she needs more time. Just kidding. um from a first of all why we did this. I remember speaking at this that we were sharing a dream you know that's what this was all about and it's directed mainly towards our kids I think and that's what the soccer plan is or the soccer field and all that and our is FIFA the Bay Area host committee making sure that young people have access to the soccer players that I mean when I spoke with them over here that was what I asked about and that's one thing but it uh Just a little story. It took me seven years to get, you know, um, two late payments from my credit cards off because they were 60 um, 60 days overdue and 120 days and 6 months. I know it's different kind of financing. Like I said, I'm not really good at that. Maybe educating us. That's one of the reasons I came tonight. That's a long time to get payment and I maybe I'm not seeing something there. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else online? City clerk. No.

Okay, time's up. That was short. You do you want me to start, John? Yeah. Okay. Um I think first I want to get clarity on the escrow. I think the 71,000 I kind I did confuse folks on that one slide. So there are $16,000 in dispute on training costs. there's 55,000 on a training that went to the Scotland where we need to actually execute a separate agreement for. So that's not in dispute. We we're in agreement that we're going to be executing a separate agreement. So right now we're at 16,000 um for FIFA in dispute on training that we need to actually meet with them and talk about where we are on that dispute and we haven't had that meeting yet with our legal counsel, but we we will be um on Super Bowl LX. There's about 18,000 where that we we haven't been reimbured. that's on the training cost that we need to actually provide that backup information. So, those are kind of the outstanding costs on those invoices right now. Um I think the question about first was on timeline. Um there's they have 60 days to reimburse us under the terms of the agreement. Um I'm not sure Glenn, can you clarify how quickly we need to invoice them? I think we

I'm sorry. I don't I don't have the League of N agreement in in front of me here, but um the I I think the point I would make uh about that is that

um any failure of us to invoice them within the time required by the agreement doesn't prevent us from still getting reimbursed, you know, for those monies. It's just a contemplated kind of submittal and response timeline. So when we submit those amounts, they have a certain period of time in which to object or not to finalize the invoice and then once the invoice is agreed and finalized, then there's a certain amount of time beyond that for them to pay it. So I'm sorry I'm forgetting the the submittal time where obviously ideally we're doing it, you know, as as soon as our invoice um is is ready. Uh finance director described how it takes us some time to to put that together. Yeah. Um and then the the question on the county, um are we required to wait for payment from the county? Um that's I think that's another assignment assumption term.

Yeah, I can speak to that for both the um the Super Bowl agreement and the assignment and assumption agreement. Um and the answer's the answer is no. Um we don't have to wait to receive um monies from the from the county. um our our and the reimbursement of our funds is not contingent on on our receiving um any monies from any outside party. The thing that we've been sorting through is this general cooperation, you know, provision where we're supposed to um to the extent uh there's a um monies that are being provided from an outside um source um you know work to kind of facilitate the receipt of those monies. But none of that cooperation um um provision requires us to wait and we're supposed to be um and we've communicated that um you know being reimbursed you know in the interim while any such reimbursement kind of negotiation um is is pending. So um that's a discussion we're having you know right now with them. There is a provision, mayor and council, um that um does um indicate that if there is monies that have been allocated and are committed to um the reimbursement of our qualified costs, which arguably these OES monies from the county have been, we're we're to meet and confer with the barrier host committee to determine if if if their obligation to reimburse reimburse us does get offset by that but that's subject to our approval as to whether or not that works that way or not.

Does that affect our timeline? Um it need when we submit an invoice to get paid. It need not affect our timeline. Yes. So there is a an aspect of of some of these you know conditions for these different funding sources that are different than what our obligations are with respect to the barrier host committee that we're trying to be cooperative and sort out. But mayor the answer is under our agreement we're still entitled to get reimbursement in the end and entitled to get reimbursement pending that I think we've been

on our timeline right. Yeah, we Yeah, but I you know I think we've not been in theory as aggressive as we could have been in order to try to work these things out. U there's also been I think has been pointed out and then I'll turn it over to the city manager. Um for us in with all that's going on and the and the the challenge of assembling kind of the information uh there has been some delay in our getting the invoices um to them. So, a couple of them were submitted, you know, a few months later, you know, than ideally they would have been. One for some additional costs only was submitted to them a few weeks ago. So they've got those now and you know we're at a point where while um discussions are pending with the county we are saying to them hey we're going to we'll work with you to talk with the county but in the meantime we need to you know we need to be reimbursed and if we get monies from the county you know that will be assigned to you if it's for those same monies. So sorry um city manager you might have wanted to say something similar as that but um over to you.

I agree with all of that. I I also just want to articulate that a complicating factor in all of this is the criteria for reimbursement in all three groups. Right? What we all hoped was that there would be sufficient state andor federal money to fully cover all of Santa Clara's costs. The good news is that that turned out to be a reality. One of the challenging components of that and and I will pause and actually say the city supported that process, right? I helped to lobby uh in DC. I think um letters were sent in support of federal grants and so the good news is that that money came through. One of the complicating factors of that is in our assignment and assumption agreements negotiations with the host committee, we agreed to a certain reimbursement and accounting practice. Now that there's state money administered by the county, there is a different reimbursement and accounting practices to seek reimbursement through the county's process. And for the federal government that will be administered by the host committee, there's a different accounting um and invoicing practice to be reimbursed with the federal money. And so one of the things that we're doing is taking some time to sort it all out. A key point in that and a point that may be beneficial to the city is that recall and I think council member Cox mentioned that there were those pre-agreement unreimburseable costs that the assignment and assumption said should there be sufficient state and federal dollars to be reimbursed, we could be reimbursed. We're sitting here with sufficient dollars. And one of the things we're navigating through is those unreimbured costs appear to be reimbursible from the state pot but not the federal pot. And so we want to go into this uh fully knowing that so that we can reserve some of those state monies for those unreimburable costs and utilize the federal monies for the for

the for for the if possible for the qualified event costs. And so know that we're navigating all of that and understanding the requirements and the grants came through. Every grant has unique requirements. Uh but also I totally agree with um the city attorney that none of that uh offsets the commitments in the in the assignment and assumption agreement for us to be paid. Uh and so we have communicated to that. Uh but working uh diligently and uh trying to work cooperatively, we also want to make sure that we're not um creating further complications for later reimbursement of expenses. Right. Uh because one of the requests of the host committee is for costs that they have already been that they have already paid us to be reimbursed. Right? And so we're determining okay is that reimburseed from the state pot that's administered by the county or is that reimbured from the federal pot and what are those unique guidelines so that we can also reserve money for our unreimburseable costs from the the state money reim uh administered by the county. I say all that to say that it is very complex, but we are dofully working through it. Full stop.

All right. And I think um there are just a few questions um between yours and Glenn's responses. Uh there was a question about whether we've informed noticed our backs stop with the 49ers. Um right now we don't I I don't see a need to since we're still working through the cost. We see there's a funding source for these reimbursements. So it's not that they've said we are not going to receive dollars. So, at this point, we have not had any type of notice sent out under the agreement. Um, and then there was a question about money um um the the the stadium authority costs and um how much has been built to SPL um X by our stadium authority staffing. And so, I'll have um Ken respond to that.

Thank you. For both Super Bowl and World Cup.

Yeah, thank you for the question, mayor. Um so uh as uh we have a tracking mechanism. So the total for stadium authority costs uh incurred is 1.4 million. Uh $430,000 of that it was for FIFA World Cup. 990,000 of that was for uh the Super Bowl. Those were funded out of our stadium authority uh general and administrative cost line item. that's in accordance with uh uh the agreements in terms of for any specific employee working on uh these events that are already budgeted in the stadium authority. We've we've allocated for example my time, part of Javon's time, part of Glenn's time to the stadium authority as uh the executive director, city manager mentioned. You know, to the extent we can find other revenue sources uh through the state county kind of grant that aren't reimbursed by Barry Hose such as uh these um we would pursue any and all options there about $1.4 million with the breakdown that that that I did provide. But I do want to talk on

and before you go any further, I want to follow up on that. I didn't see it in our budget from last year or this year. You said it was in the which part of the budget?

Yeah, thank you for the clarifying question. So, in uh the stadium authority budget for all of stadium authority staff, there's a line item called general administrative cost funds roughly 9 FTE equivalent from about 40 positions. uh we have had savings uh year-over-year over time and so that savings has absorbed kind of this added cost. The $1.4 million I want to provide the time frame was since May of 2023. So a couple fiscal years in there. So uh within those fiscal years that that general and administrative line item has has funded and covered uh those costs. And it looks like city manager you

Well, and I just want to because I know that the the costs for the your costs and city manager and city attorney are all like 20% of their salaries and stuff, but I'm asking for what's above and beyond that for these particular events. Yeah. and where the authority was to charge for those events because I I understand what we normally do and how 20% or whatever percentage of your time but this is above and beyond that are directly related to these events and why were they build how were they build and why are we not asking for reimbursement for those city manager

sure let me take a portion of that so that 20% you're referring referring to is actually a budgetary estimate of the amount of time any particular administrative position would would spend on the stadium authority. However, that is a budgetary allocation as in all of our FTE allocations their budget. What actually happens is we are bound to record the specific amount of time that we spend on our on a given day on our time sheet and both of us do that and and and I know other staff do that and so some years it's 15% some years it's 22% and it does fluctuate. Uh I do think part of those costs that uh total a little bit over a million dollars, if you recall, we had this conversation as we were going through the assignment and assumption agreement discussions and the league of agreement discussions account for our time to negotiate the agreements. It actually accounts for our time right now sitting here having policy setting conversations and updates to you through the negotiations. Those were not qualified event expenses, right? uh for for uh the events this year nor Super Bowl um 50 nor the College Bowl playoffs, right? Those are looked at as general administrative and overhead costs of owning a stadium, which is why we allocate general overhead and staff time to the stadium um management budget. And so those costs are not tagged to be reimbursed through through these agreements. So, we never had that discussion that all those costs were and I think it was some public safety costs as well. I'll have to look at the email that you sent me. Um, oh, here it is.

The stadium authority has also re This is from a memo that you sent me in uh April. The stadium authority has also reimbursed the city for staff time and travel related public safety costs for Super Bowl 60 or 59 and 58 as staff informed the city council and the public in 2024 and 25. The Bay Area Host Committee LLC has agreed to cover a portion of the training costs, but the public safety costs were then build to the stadium authority. So, so public safety costs were build to them as well.

So, that is totally different from general administrative and overhead costs. Um, I think what you're referring to, and I I don't have that in front of me, you're referring to VPSO, so visiting public safety officer training costs. Uh, that is a program the NFL runs for any future host city. You have the ability to go to two prior Super Bowls. so that you understand um I understand all that what what a Super Bowl is and what's entailed. And so as a part of the VPSO program,

the Santa Clara Police Department was allocated a certain amount of money from the host committee to attend uh uh and a part of that it is um both personnel that will be on on on the front lines as well as management personnel that can attend. Um there were allocated a certain amount of money. The uh Santa Clara Police Department wanted to send additional staff because they thought it would be beneficial. It was above the amount that the host committee uh would pay for and so those costs were build to the stadium author to the stadium authority um not to the host committee. So my question is a fundamental one is that when we um passed those guiding principles that said everything uh pre-event during the event and postevent would be out for reimbursement from the Bay Area host committee. What did that mean? What did that mean to you city manager when we said all costs related to these events in our guiding principles to be reimbursed?

Sure. Good question. It actually reminds me of a very similar question you asked uh several months ago. So those guiding principles and I do believe I drafted the first version of those guiding principles were actually guiding principles for negotiations, right? So that staff would have the council's guiding principles as we launched negotiations. We had check-ins during the during the negotiation process and we were able to arrive at an agreement. Did we achieve every goal that the city council strove for? No, it was a negotiation. And there was give and take and and we had that discussion. We actually had the discussion about uh administrative costs uh at the host committee. I believe actually the CEO of the host committee uh was here at the dis and said you know I'm just not able to pay for costs that were incurred before we had an agreement and your costs for your staff and your attorneys to help negotiate the agreement. What I'm willing to pay for are uh legitimate um qualified event expenses. And so we had that discussion. your guiding principles. We're just at guiding principles and we brought forward a recommended agreement that the majority of the board approved.

All right, I get it.

I think there were also a couple questions or comments around um interest costs, financing, opportunity costs uh by a couple uh council members. I do want to talk about um you know with regards to the invoicing timeline you know I mentioned 90 to 120 days and and as as we do for other non NFL events and NFL events yes the city general fund does float uh the cash uh with regards to that that's not uh different from those other types of events it's it's typical of reimbursement grants agreements for example the safer grant that I mentioned in the couple slides the city does front those and as a as a reimbursement, get get reimbursements back. Um, when the city did receive the $2.1 million early in January, I think it was council member Gonzalez that mentioned, hey, did we earn interest on that? Absolutely. We earn interest on every dollar we receive from a cash perspective. It's pulled. Um, we do provide an investment report, you know, on those returns. Um, so from the time that we incurred the the we received that uh advanced payment to the time when uh staff would have been paid uh against that, you know, during the Super Bowl event, I talked about that 3-week payroll uh incurring to to when uh they they get paid. uh there would have been some interest earned and then uh subsequently when when the city's spent more than what we've been reimbursed and there's a time period where we're not uh acrewing interest and and and we are floating that cash and that is not diss similar to some other um practices that we've have in in in the city.

Um can council member Jane has a question your lights on? Um, I wanted to ask staff, you know, there's uh preparatory costs for pretty much anything. If we were to bid out paving a street and we got three bids and the people put time into preparing those bids, do we pay the losers any of their time that they spent in preparing those bids? And the analogy is, you know, we spent a lot of time preparing for this. Uh even before we won the bid, we spent time on this. It seems to me that we can't expect to be repaid for some of the costs in preparing, but more fundamentally, if all of those costs come out of the stadium authority budget, there's is there a violation of Measure J? That's my question.

I'll turn to the city attorney for the violation of Measure J. I know the answer, but I I think it's best to come from the city attorney. Yeah. Um, no, the stadium when the costs are incurred in connection with steady operations if the stadium authority pays them, it's not a violation of measure J.

And with regard to your example about a RFP, no, we do not pay for that those costs. I'll also say for any event at the stadium, NFL or non NFL event, there's a certain amount of executive administrative time that goes into that. We don't build to that event, right? when when when there's a concert um there's engagement that happens uh with me with um Ken and the finance department some costs are covered in our general administrative overhead charges on invoices but we own the facility and there's some management time involved in all of the activities there which is why we build management to the general uh management and over and uh management and administrative cost line item in the stadium authority budget And we budget for that those costs those costs do not come from the general fund. It is normal management and oversight.

One could say that when you build the stadium authority for so much and continue to build the stadium authority those are expenses. Expenses at the end of the day are going to reduce the net income to the general fund which you can see from this year's stadium authority budget. When you look at the out outlying years there's a problem. So, keep billing the stadium authority. It's going to be less money to the general fund. Could you say that's a violation of measure J? I don't know. It's uh it's a thought. Go ahead. Go ahead, Ken.

The other um comment I wanted to make, I know there were some comments around the escrow account. We are ready to establish that at at any direction. I know that that assistant city manager Clots mentioned about that threshold. We we know that escrow accounts are available almost through any bank. we we can establish one with our bank. I think working with the barrier host committee to find a a third party that we both agree to, we can move very quickly once uh directed to do so. So, just wanted to provide that that clarification. I'll turn it back over to assistant city manager class. Thank you.

I think there's just a few more outlier questions. I'm just going to walk through what I still had. Um, Council Member Gonzalez asked, um, do I do we foresee going into mediation? Um, at this point, I would say no. I think we would advise the city council ahead of any mediation or arbitration, you know, or I leave that to the city attorney, but we would definitely advise you ahead of any anything that's leading up to that type of action. Um, we also had a question, I think, from U. Mayor um, regarding the estimated costs for World Cup. We actually just updated that. It's in the assignment assumption agreement. I think it was um a little over $11 million that was in the actual agreement. We recently sent updated costs for about 11.5 million for this the deployment costs um around or deployment and planning costs, sorry. Um around um the city costs.

That's the city cost. What about all the other outside costs where money flows through our general fund? Um, that's what I'm interested in because it's the amount of money that we're going to to to carry for all the costs. So, the the the total FIFA costs uh have been estimated at uh just over $11 million. That includes all of city and outside agency cost. Um, as has been stated, uh the city expends cost and then we're reimbursed. That is true for uh city direct costs and outside agency cost if those invoices are paid prior to reimbursement.

So each World Cup game will only cost a million8. Is that what you're saying? For for all the costs. So if you're if you want to average out all of the costs uh for that uh the I think your your math is right. I'm I'm I'm

You said 11 million divided by six. I just want to clarify that includes the planning costs that have been going on for the past year. It includes equipment. It also includes training. So there's costs in there. So it's it's actually closer to 1.2 1.4 depending on the days. Um and so but we are evaluating that with PD depending on um you know what safety issues we're addressing. And so those costs are constantly being updated and we have to you know if there's a a huge differential we do need to let the host committee know um if that budget changes ahead of the event. What what was FIFA going to pay us to rent the stadium? Is it like 12 million or 13 million? Something like that. Do you remember what that was

that we assigned over to the Bay Area Host? No, the rent amount was very low. Yeah, I I I'm not remembering the exact term. We talked about that when you approved the the agreement. And I'm wondering if our costs are so low and they're only 11 million, we should have just kept the money and not had to go through all these very honorous reimbursement agreements. Mayor, that that amount came with all sorts of other costs that we are not responsible for that we would not have wanted to undertake. Yeah. And we made sure that all of those

um obligations were um assigned were were not assigned to us. And in fact, if you recall, um, um, explicitly got FIFA to sign a waiver and release agreement of any of those costs, um, that are being borne by the barrier host committee.

Well, if if our costs are millionated at the most per game, then we're the lowest of any of the venues for World Cup games. So, that's good. All right. Very good. I will say it's important to remember that the city's cost is public safety. The costs that you may hear reported in the media are the larger costs that the host committee bears to put on the event. That does not include uh transportation costs that may be paid to VTA. That that does not include uh safety at all the other events tied the elaborate field improvement cost to the stadium cost. Yeah.

What's going to flow through our general fund in terms of bills? 11 million. The 11 million. That's right, Mayor. And that's those larger numbers that you're hearing are the total costs that those uh um agencies are bearing under different relationships they might have with FIFA. Very good.

I think there may be one more question. And I think really around the grant agreements, whether we're required to submit one at this point, we've submitted documents to help support receiving those FEMA funds. We haven't applied. We haven't submitted an application for those a formal application for those grants. I think we're still working through finding out what it will require of us to receive the the dollars from that specific grant program. Why would we submit a grant when we have a contract that says how we're to be reimbursed? Want to take it?

Yeah, I will. And then you can add that's a great question, Madame Mayor, and that's one of the things we're trying to sort out. What we've made clear all along is um and the barrier host committee understands this is that our agreement is with them and that the um our um obligation to provide you know information on the terms we negotiated is the understanding that we reached and they're obligated to reimburse us. What we would do in cooperation with them is evaluate what sources of of money that they're looking to might require and uh um if we can facilitate that, provide some additional information in order to facilitate that. So, we're sorting through does that mean we're going to actual enter into any kind of um direct relationship with the county oes or with FEMA or not as part of the evaluation? But always with the understanding that if we don't get reimbursement from those sources, ultimately the barrier host committee is responsible for reimbursing us all the money that we're entitled to under our agreement with them.

So the way you made it sound now is that we're going to apply for these and wait and if we don't get reimbursed why are we not enforcing our contract? That's not what that's what I heard. Yeah, that's that's not what I meant to say, ma madameir. Um and it's um again one of the things that we're sorting out what we've communicated is pending reimbursement under any of these agreements whether it might be monies that would be paid to us or them barriia host committee is responsible for keeping us current on our incurred costs that we've build to them and that are due. And so you you're you're right, mayor. I'm not suggesting that we've agreed um to wait for funding from any third party source.

Thank you. That might be something that gets sorted. Again, if you remember that one provision I referred to, if there's some certainty of receipt, um we have the reasonable discretion in order to conclude that, okay, we know we're going to get these monies, Barry Host committee, you don't need to reimburse us. but we've not agreed to do that yet because we haven't found terms that are certain enough for us to agree to. Thank you. Um, Council Member Park.

So, this just kind of reminds me about what business is. I mean, business is not actually about money. I mean, we often use money to keep track of what we think business is, but business is really about a relationship. And that's why in retail, we we elect to spend more at Bob's grocery store instead of going online because we know Bob. We trust Bob. We like Bob. If we have a problem, Bob takes care of us. Why? We decide to go to restaurants because we know that Victor, I've known him. He's worked at this restaurant for 10 years. He knows my favorite seat. And he knows that when things are busy, he can wave me to the back and I know exactly where to go. He also knows that I don't want ice in my water. But if we don't have these relationships, then all we care about is costs. If we're looking at how, you know, money flows through our general fund, if we're looking at putting, you know, the people in our contract, uh, making them responsible for all our reimbursements without looking at the relationship that the relationships that we build with the organizations that are ultimately helping the city, helping us, bringing events, bringing money, bringing, you know, people to our area and hopefully to our our businesses, our hotels, uh our restaurants, our places of interest like Great America, um then I I don't think we really understand what business is like. At the end of the day, if you don't have the relationship, and this is what's killing retail today, if you don't have the relationship, if you don't know who your local drugstore owner is, who your local toy store owner is, who your tailor is, who your doctor is, or if you don't have these relationships, then all you care about is cost. and then you'll go on places like Amazon. But I feel especially with the type of city that Santa Clara is that in all these things and I really appreciate the

executive staff for in a roundabout way telling us that the business of FIFA, the business of Super Bowl, the process of putting on mega events is not just about numbers and money, but it's about the relationships that we put in place with Bay Area Host Committee because I guarantee you this year is not the only year that we're going to be dealing with the Bay Area host committee. I hope that we have a long and fruitful relationship with the Bay Area host committee because what I'm hoping that we put in place here and which is why you know they are they are by contract going to reimburse us but holy cow in a partnership we are going to do as much as we can to lighten their load. I think that's what we're saying. Um, and I would really like to, you know, again, appreciate staff for all the work that they've done, appreciate everyone that's working on this process to say thank you to the Bay Area Host Committee for bringing these events to our city because we could do fund all the money ourselves and we can worry about the costs, but without these partners helping us. You know, in a lot of ways, we are floating money, but we're floating money for much bigger return. And that return is not just reimbursements back to our general fund. That's a zero sum. That's a zero game. What we are looking for is a great relationship with a partner that will bring future mega events to our city and hopefully the next years will be ready for that. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Cox.

Thanks. I So, I think that ending on the grant thing um for my questions will be appropriate because uh it does sound like the city staff has engaged in these conversations with the Bay Area Host Committee to just address that per the LEA um we are not bound to wait for their securing of grant funds or even our application of grant funds um being secured uh to bypass our payment timeline is what I'm hearing. I'm wondering if those conversations have been wellreceived and I I think that that's poignant because um you know we're dealing with like the small amount right now and the big amount I think is going to be presented before us in May uh May 1st. Um, and so I I think that this sets a precedent for us and it does make me concerned if we don't address this and just set it right because I think good business partners adhere to their agreements. And so um I I want to make sure that especially because they will be the fiscal agent. I totally understand, you know, working in grants myself that if they receive this federal money as the fiscal agents, they may have to force us to apply for grants, which is a laborious process and it kind of is counterintuitive because we're asking for money that we ultimately are getting back. I get that. What I want to make sure though is that if this is a model that we're setting where we're saying, okay, we can delay payments while grants are being pursued, which is not in line with our LEA, we address that so that for this $5 million and then a much bigger bill later, we are also not waiting uh against our agreements. So, I just want to know that this has been addressed and it's been successful.

I just want I want to clarify. So, the League of Entertainment for Super Bowl, that's not being funded from any of these grant funds. The grant funding we're talking about is just for FIFA. So the Callowas, FEMA, those are all uh uh FIFA related um funding sources. So the reimbursement will be coming from the host committee for Super Bowl. We would expect reimbursement from the host committee upon, you know, the the final payment invoice once we, you know, we submit that and and vet that through. There's been no there's been no request that we find additional grant funding for for Super Bowl at this point. Not that I'm aware of. that

I also want to note that part of the conversation that we're having with the host committee is as we go through these other practices or or processes there may be additional administrative costs and making sure that we're covered for that right because we do not want additional costs uh burden to the stadium authority and because of measure J measure J uh the general fund cannot bear bear those costs. I also want to step a little bit on the balcony and I know in Santa Clara sometimes we get bogged down uh with things but if our conversation right now is on timing and process of reimbursement we're already far ahead and much better off than other entity than than other cities. When we went and toured uh New Orleans, New Orleans officials told us that the city allocated $10 million of general fund money to help put on the Super Bowl, right? Many cities are envious of Santa Clara because of Measure J. And so I know we're having very intense conversations about the timing and process for reimbursement, but we are very much more advantaged. uh and frankly uh other cities envy our position because uh even some of the cities on the west coast have spent significant general fund money to host and put on these games to receive a similar benefit that we're receiving. Um and we have measure J and we're talking about the timing and process of reimbursement. Thank you.

So, uh Council Member Jal. Thank you, mayor. So, I'm assuming all the questions are over, right? Yeah. I just want to make some comments on that. Uh, first of all, I want to thank our staff, city attorney, city manager and the staff which has come up with a diligent agreements with the Buer area host committee. I know it took longer than expected, but I think they covered all the bases and uh that's the result of the reimbursement we are getting and the timeline we are showing right now 99.3% of the reimbursement has been paid what were build basically invoiced in timely fashion so uh as a partner like we could not have held u FIFA the city would not have been able to hold the FIFA we would not have been able to hold um Super Bowl as a city entity or a stadium authority entity so we have to depend on outside agencies which is in this case is a Bay Area host committee which has cooperated to a large large extent with our city staff to come up with those diligent agreements and uh I think they are proving to be right. we are getting the reimbursement what we um supposed to get basically yeah there are issues with the 18,000 training and other thing those are minor and I hope when we are able to sort out those bigger reimbursement those are minor and they will be sorted out down the line so I agree with council member park that these are the uh relationship which we need to build with these outside agencies which bring so much economic activity we are only talking about our city reimbursement about 11 million for the FIFA but uh

think of the economic activities trying to bring to our small businesses our hotels our and how much to u transit oriented tax we will getting from our hotels. So if you incorporate that that is a secondary like clearing funding coming to the city of Santa Clara whether to the residents whether to our general fund indirectly so we all have to assume that these are the and that's why the stadium was here I don't I didn't support measure J because of all the time consumption and all the nuisance which we are trying to sort all of those but uh I think with all the economic impact and all the contracts we signed, we are in a very good shape. I thank all the staff for bringing this report back to us. Thank you and thank you um assistant city manager and finance director Lee. Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Hardy. Just want to tell staff thank you for keeping us up to date and I'd like to make a motion to note and file the report. I don't think we need to. It's just That's on there. Oh, it does. Recommendation. Oh, note and file study second. Okay. All right. Uh, motion by council member Hardy. Who seconded it? Oh, council member Gonzalez. Vice Mayor Gonzalez. Vice Mayor Gonzalez. All right. Who cares? Brother.

All right. Um, all right. I just want to say that both uh the agreements for Super Bowl and FIFA uh World Club Cup cup um were approved with the clear understanding that we would be fully reimbursed for all of our costs. And I think it's important to clarify because I I've heard some comments on the council that having funds available is not the same as having funds accessible because uh the contract that this council majority approved has us going through an honorous reimbursement process uh to get the money back. I like what they did in Foxboro. At least what they offered was uh they offered repayment on their costs within 48 hours. Ours is going to be 48 times whatever. Um but because at the end of the day, and I understand all the relationships, but it's our responsibility uh to report to the residents of Santa Clara and it's all important for transparency and our fiduciary responsibility with Measure J. So, we're not doing this because we are trying to be hard. Um, we are doing this because we have a responsibility, a legal responsibility to make sure that our money is reimbursed. So, we have contracts in place to protect the city. We just need to enforce them and not deviate from them or make them discretionary because they're not. So, just enforce the contract. And I think that the city staff strongly recommended these contracts and the council majority supported them. So you should all be

concerned about this that we get our our costs repaid. And so I'm also suggesting that um I asked for this to be on the agenda for the last several weeks. I think it needs to come back to the agenda after our May 1 deadline so we continue to keep the community informed. It won't have to take as long as it does right now, but we need a continuous um uh uh transparent uh you know uh process to show our community because certainly the dashboard was never updated very much. So that wasn't helpful. And I think we need we need to do that because what happens with Super Bowl is really going to inform what's going to happen with World Cup and how we're being how we're going to be reimbured because the big costs haven't hit yet. It's the big cost, the millions of millions that we're billing for now that are going to determine, you know, how cooperative our partners are. Uh, Council Member Park.

Yeah. I I mean I hear this and I hear again the concerns uh from council member Cox and the concerns about our contracts and concerns about all these different things. I did note that um city manager said that you know there are costs associated with having a stadium in our city for the simp simple fact that we are managing a stadium that are our costs to bear. Uh, we heard council member Jane talking about cost to prepare bids and things that are not refundable, are not reimburseable. And I think that we need to understand this. I think that it's really easy when we know very little about running the stadium. We know very little about how other stadiums are are run, about costs from other places to simply demand the money uh and ignore all the other issues that it that comes with, you know, the actual work of managing the stadium. And I can't help but think about the quote that says, if you like your partners, if you like your customers, work with them. Give them a solution. give them something that um you know makes the relationship last longer because as I said business is all about the relationship. money is or one way to keep score, but the relationship if you don't have it at the end, there's no there's no additional money either. But if you don't like your customer, if you don't like your partners, just enforce the contracts, just do what's legally required. Uh, and I hear this all the time. This is something that we do in startup companies. This is something that we do every place. And I would like to hope that in the future, especially with the partners that we have, that we will work together to find a solution.

Thank you.

Thank you. Uh we have a motion and a second, city clerk. Please register your vote. And that passes unanimously. Thank you. The next item is action on a council written request council policy 030 submitted by council member Park to place an agenda item at a f future council meeting to discuss downtown RFP RFQ. I will be recusing myself and asking Vice Mayor Gonzalez to come over since um my office in the Franklin Mall is downtown. So, Vice Mayor Gonzalez, if you would please do me the honor of taking over.

Thank you. I also was not called on, but I I will need to recuse myself as well for um my employment with Santa Clara University and the fact that it owns property in the downtown area. All right. So, we're going to move on to item number four. Uh, action on council written requests the council apology 030 which was submitted by council member park to place an agenda item on a future council meeting to discuss downtown RFP RFQ. Council member Park.

Yeah. I just wanted to state that I I've been looking at the uh agenda materials and I cannot read the 030 request. If for some reason it looks like the document is uh corrupted or something something is happening right, but I don't think that matters. I've got the actual request. So I'm just going to read the request which is an action on adjustment reorganization of the downtown RFP RFQ selection committee and hiring of consultants or consultants to support the RFP RFQ process. And the reason that I bring this forward is that the changes to the O30 process requires that the public have a sponsor just to request that it be considered to be put on the agenda and then a majority vote to actually put it for consideration uh put it onto an agenda. And that's what I'm asking.

Is that a motion? Well, it's not a motion. If somebody else wants me, that's the reason I brought it here. I could make a motion. I make a motion to to put this on a future agenda. Second,

council member, council member Hardy.

Thank you. I just to the maker of the motion, I want to understand because I did read this. Um I know that staff is in the middle of an RFP request. It's almost redundant. Sorry about that. And I want to understand also if you're trying to make a certain time frame for this because I'm trying to reconcile where staff is with this item and what's what residents are asking for. They may not understand or be aware of the time frame of what staff is working on. So, I want to understand both from staff and from the maker of the motion, where are we really at on this? And is this is this an appro do we have to put a specific time frame on it or is this just a general request?

So, I'm going to defer to the city manager, but my understanding is there is work being done by by staff. There are some items um that are are have been done. some time limits have been exceeded and therefore there would have to be another potentially another RFP RFQ for consultants. This is again this is why um you know having the applicant here would have been you know very helpful. Uh I am putting this forward because I don't think that the applicant should have to go through council to put an item on for discussion on the agenda. But my understanding is they have talked they are working with or have talked to city staff. city staff had an RFQ RFP process for consultants. That process closed. The um that the uh what the residents wanted was was not there. They worked with the city manager to try to get some changes. Those changes were not possible and therefore necessitate an 030 request.

Thank you for that. So before we take other comments or questions, I'm going to have the city managers just address us, which might mitigate some of the problem. Actually, I think that's a better way to do discussions, answers, and questions and answers on council. But sure, city manager. Sure. Thank you, uh, Chair Gonzalez, members of the council. I think it's important to back up a little bit before we go forward. And um with the city attorney's leeway, what I'm going to articulate is just information about what is occurring to help you determine whether you want to agendaize the 030. Important to note when and if I might just interrupt you for framing purposes. Totally.

Um I have talked with the city manager. The the his framing and the context in which you're making this decision is appropriate under the 030 policy. One of the valid considerate the considerations that go into deciding whether or not to agendaize an item um as indicated in the staff report is is the item within in the city's jurisdiction. Is it being addressed in some other way? In other words, per member parks, you know, request what's actually going on for purposes of evaluating whether or not you want to agend agendaize an item to potentially evaluate and change what's going on. So at least providing that context is is an appropriate frame of reference for you on the 030. I might intervene and stop you if you start deliberating on the pros and cons of doing it one way or the other because that's the substant conversation that would need to wait when if in fact the item gets agendaized. So excuse me. I just wanted to frame that.

Sure. So, backing up a little bit, when we talk about downtown RFPs, there there really two RFP processes uh that are that are being mentioned and I think that council member Park mentioned. One is a RFP process uh and it may turn out to be an RFQ process, but it's a request for proposals or qualifications to seek a developer to develop the roughly 4.83 contiguous acres that the city owns on blocks A and B. So staff working with two members of the community, Adam Thompson and Rob Mayor, who also serve on the city's downtown community task force, have been working over several months to develop the RFP and and that's a process that's ongoing. What I what I understand, Council Member Park's R um RFP that he's referencing is a separate RFP that the city put out that has a connection to the downtown. Let me articulate what that was. staff released a request for proposal for planning and housing consultants. It was a request to essentially develop a bench in multiple disciplines for planning and housing consultants that may not work that would work on many if u many studies and activities uh that the city is is undergoing. So, it wasn't specific to the downtown, but the uh job um uh categories and the services we were looking for were broad. Economic consultants, planning consultants, people that had form-based code experience, people that could help with our with our our bicycle plans and things like that. And it was meant to have a competitive process where we could have a qualified bench of consultants. a project comes up, we pull someone from the bench and we don't have to do a uh detailed request for proposal process that that can take 3 to six months to complete.

There was a recent uh process that was again going to be multiple discip multiple disciplines and used by multiple departments. Uh members of the downtown community task force were informed of that RFP process. Um they were uh informed of that process after uh the recruitment um for the RFP had been out for a couple weeks. Uh they were informed, hey, if um if you have people that you want or you think should work with the city, let the city know, right? I'm I'm sorry, let them know, have them apply to the competitive process, right? Um and if you would like the city to send them uh a email to say FYI, we have this competitive solicitation, that's totally appropriate. We do that. In fact, when we released that RFP, I think we had a list of over I think I saw 50 potential consultants that staff emailed directly as well as putting it on various websites to say, "Hey, the city of Santa Clair are looking for these services." As it turned out, um that RFP was set to close on April 6th. Uh members of the community reached out uh actually to me uh on a Thursday before the Monday. Um, I saw that Thursday post 5:00. I reached out to staff. Unfortunately, Friday uh was a city holiday. Uh, the RFP closed that Monday at 3:00. Um, by the time staff uh tried to extend it, unfortunately, the RFP wasn't extended and it closed and I think we have over 30 people that have applied. Uh but there are some consultants that members of the community wanted uh that have specific downtown and formbbased code experience that did not have time to apply. We know that um and and so what we've said is that we can undertake a new RFP process that is very specific to the downtown and services that we would be looking at for the downtown. That is totally an appropriate uh thing to do.

And so staff already has direction to do that. Um, and so I what I understand the council member 030 to be is essentially a 030 to talk about that and potentially provide direction on doing a unique RFP process because this the the prior one closed. What I'll say is that we're already committed to doing that. Um, and I I'm not sure who communicated uh to the council member to have the 030. may not be the same people that staff has been communicating to, but uh I know that we are already committed to doing a specific RFP uh for the downtown.

All right. Thank you for that. We have uh Council Member Shahal. No. Okay. Council member Park, I believe that council member Jane had a comment. I didn't know. I want to defer to him. Yeah, it was already answered.

It was okay. So I I hear what you're saying and I'm what the city manager is saying and I do believe that the people I've been talking the people plural that I have been talking to are the same as the ones that you have talked to. Uh city manager and I full disclosure had a discussion about the 030 prior to this. And the request was oh these are the people I'm talking to. I should probably also uh touch base with them and see if the RFP is still required. This was um over a week ago and the end result was uh with several discussions with the with the community that they wanted a very general RFP RFQ request 030 to go through and that's what I am presenting here. I think that um the city manager has offered several possibilities for what the RFQ what we could do, but with none of the applicant none of the the people in the public here, I would actually like to vote on this and and hear what they what they would have to say in discussion. Uh because I think that it warrants um hearing what what they've been asking for the last several weeks, if not months. So my I would make a motion to to uh agendaize this put this on a future agenda. I'm not going to set a time. I would like to have a some some time within the next 30 days. I don't know what the what the um what's reasonable. If there's anybody online I you know that could talk to this that would be nice too. But otherwise, my my motion is to agendaize put this on a future agenda for discussion and um uh within 30 days.

And Mr. Vice Mayor, you should go to the public before that you proceed much further on this.

So we we we had a motion in a second already minus 30 days. I don't know if that is amanable for second. Yeah, we we still have uh some hands up. We're going to go to the public first before we go to the council members. So, uh we have Brian Derby. Please come up to the mic. Thank you. Um this is just also in general. This uh 030 really is very unique in Santa Clara. Not a lot of city council let you do this as a member of the public to actually approach and you give public presentations and you also allow us to ask for reconsideration. So I appreciate that. Um Mr. Jane uh representative council person Jane had a a good point. His o his 030 seemed to fall off and he was asking some really good questions. if there's some way to keep track of these so that the process it this is a very powerful tool to be used and I'd like to see his put forward too because that was some good questions he had about parking and stuff. Thank you.

Thank you. Council member Jane Vice Mayor there's a speaker online. I'm sorry to go to the speaker online. Edward, can you hear me?

Yes, please speak. Yeah, just uh want to mention u that uh you know downtown area u and uh I know earlier you guys had talked about u um you know great America and uh small business uh and uh the funding uh that um uh you've been talking about in regards to um uh the funding that Measure J uh would not allow uh for expenses to be paid. Uh is there any update with the related project and prologus uh uh that owns the property of great America? Is there any future development that could help fund uh some of these expenses for the city? U uh I know uh Miss Grizzle's been talking about the downtown and how we're losing a lot of money because we don't have a downtown yet and uh this future uptown keeps on getting delayed. I was just wondering if there's any u update uh with related prologus if there's going to be any uh businesses coming up in the future that could help uh fund a lot of these expenses that are that are coming about for the city. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your question and uh yeah, not on not on the subject uh but the council heard the the questions and interests. Yeah.

All right. So, we're going to go to council member Jane. Thank you. Um, I want a clarification on the 030 process. Uh, it seems to me that a council member or a member of the public with council member sponsorship would submit a 030. And as you heard, my 030 from 2022 was pretty specific. Let's study the option of selling parking spots or you know charging for parking at YSP when there's no youth youth events there. But, you know, the the process as I see it is you submit a 030 that puts um the item on a future council agenda, but the city staff have to create a report to be able to take action at that second meeting. If you have a request that is so broad, what are we expecting staff to do in the interim uh for us to take action at that second meeting if we were to approve 030? I don't I don't see that staff has direction as to what they want to actually bring forward to us. Um, Vice Mayor, um, the, uh, if you look at the 030 policy, which I don't have right in front of me, though, it it it it it very explicitly contemplates when a request is submitted, that the council member um, is supposed to engage with the city manager um, andor the city attorney as appropriate in order to kind of evaluate the the appropriateness, you

know, of the item. And at that time um um if there's a um a a desire or need to maybe narrow the item or put it in, you know, in in in a more specific context or or include more realistic timing, right, in light of competing priorities. That's the that's the point where the council member proposing to submit the 030 can evaluate that and then modify their request so that the 030 is more focused. And so that's this that's the step that's intended to be built in. A 030 request is made. There's an engagement with staff. Staff provides, you know, preliminary feedback that the 030, you know, potentially gets shaped in order to be, you know, more clear and realistic. But the council member doesn't have to shape it. The council member can submit it in the form that they want to submit it. And then it goes on the agenda in this case done properly, right? Being listed explicitly so everybody knows that this this particular thing is being proposed under this part of the agenda. and you discussed, right, whether or not there's a an appropriate basis um considering those a few things that you can consider to add it to a future agenda. Um and that's when the substantive discussion, you know, occurs either shaped based on, you know, interactions with city manager or city attorney in order to address potentially some of the things that you talked about or not. City council member can propose it as they see fit. the city council member also as part of the process and and I think it sounds like this was the case in in um in member Park's you know proposal tonight field a request from the public and evaluate that and translate that into their own request. Right? That's the origin of it.

It could be presented in public presentations. It could be presented via an email. It could be presented as a result of a conversation on the street. That's what the sponsorship, you know, of the the public, you know, communication is. Um, it goes to a council member. The only thing that was really substantive, there's a few things changed, but the thing that the that the 030 policy used to contemplate was a was a member of the public being able to themselves just put an item on the agenda without any sponsorship of a city council member. So I I maybe answered more of the question than you asked or I missed the question entirely. You missed the question. Okay. Try me again.

My question is when we put something on the agenda, there's typically a report to council and what I'm saying is staff's our first vote commit staff to go do research, create a report to council that we can then take action at that second meeting. And I don't see if a request is too broad or not specific enough. How does staff know what to work on? Sure. Let me take that one. Since I answered the wrong question, I think it's fair.

Council member Jane, I think you are right in general. However, the 030 process does not require staff to draft a very detailed report. Right. There may be a 030 where council just wants to have a discussion uh an in-depth discuss discussion about a topic and then after that in-depth discussion there may be d direction to staff. Um with that I do have a recommendation of potentially how to proceed through this item through this item if uh through the chair I can make that recommendation. Certainly not opposed to having a update to the city council on where we are with down implementation of the downtown uh precise plan and all the RFPs. Uh the 030 is I think in broad strokes to talk about where we are with downtown and various facets and the council member asked for that to be scheduled within the next 30 days. When I look at your business calendar in the next 30 days, it's really April 21st next week. Uh, and then May 5th, uh, and even if I go out to the May 19th meeting, your business calendar is so impacted, we may need special meetings just to get the work done that's currently on your your tickler file. Additionally, one of the things we are already attempting to schedule during roughly this the next 30 to 45 days is a up a study session or a retreat with the city council to update you on where we are with your existing council priorities. One of your existing council priorities is implement uh furtherance of development downtown. If history is any guide, members of the downtown task force in the community will come to that meeting uh to talk about downtown. Staff

will pro will present an update on where we are with downtown. And so my recommendation would be we have this discussion which is essentially an update and questions around where we are with downtown at that retreat when the city manager's office gives an update on where we are with that strategic initiative which is furtherance of the specific plan downtown. It's in roughly the same 30 to 45day time frame. Thank you. Council member Jane, are you done with your questions or comments? Yes. Okay. Council member Hardy,

thank you. Um, that somewhat answers my question because when I read the 030 request, it's it was very specific. said with some sort of re a future council agenda timely with some sort of response within 30 days action and on adjustment slash reorganization of the downtown RFP RFQ selection committee and hiring of consultant or consultants to support this process. So, I'm worried that us having a discussion will maybe slow down this process andor get in the way of what staff is doing right now. That was my concern when I read this. So, I like the idea of having the discussion at where we are in our priority. Am I correct that this could derail what we're already doing as far as our RFP or would just be an ancillary conversation when we already have impacted schedules and I want to make certain we don't slow this down. Thank you.

Don't go. City attorney is advising me not to go too deep. Yeah, because you're you're kind of getting into the substance of the question, right? The the the answer is if depending upon what you did when this item comes back if it's contrary to what been going on already, the answer could be yes. But really, that's the substantive discussion if you're proposing to change direction. And then if you wanted to add briefly, staff does not intend to slow down the process. Uh and we um um will continue to work on it on implementation. I we recognize how important redevelopment of the downtown is. Thank you, Councilman Shaw.

Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Uh keeping in view um comments from city manager that they're anticipating some feedback update on this one. uh anyway within the next 30 to 45 days I would request that uh instead of uh putting 30 days bring it back within 30 days I would request the motion maker let's do it 90 days and uh if we don't get that information if we get that information within that 30 to 45 days as city manager is mentioning then I'll request council member park and city manager to talk about it whether we want to bring it back or not But as of now, let's uh put 90 days u um calendar on that so that we can bring it back in 90 days instead of 30 days. Is that okay, maker of the motion?

I mean, that's okay. But I think that what we're discussing is very different from what the request was. I mean when you tell us that it's just an update when it's it's this is I mean the 030 process the ability that uh public member has talked about was to allow the public to bring an item forward without council having to you know put all the work in in advance. It was to have the discussion. uh the 030 was created to allow discussion on a topic perhaps without an action predetermined in advance. Um and you know if we're going to do if if there's work for a report I mean again maybe the report is is comes out of the discussion that we have but we can't have substantive discussion here and as a result asking for staff to come up with the report for the next meeting whether it's 30 days 60 days or 90 days doesn't make a lot of sense. What does make sense to me is, you know, to allow the public to request something to be discussed, not have it, you know, have a gatekeeper either with a sponsor or with a majority of of a majority vote to put it on an agenda for discussion and talk about the request. I mean I heard what Hardy said that was she read the larger the larger the longer um 030 request but that's why when it a lot of discussion we said well let's let's make it general because the basic things that they wanted were action on adjustment or reorganization of the downtown RF RFQ selection committee that's not just a an update on what's happening in downtown and hiring of consultant consultants to support the RFP RFQ process which is not just an update on downtown. It's not just a discussion about an update on downtown. And it does start with action. And as the city manager has talked

about, which I I don't think we should be discussing here, is we have a a process. We had a process that the city manager had told the people working on downtown that u you know that we could hire a consultant under. that process ended and as a result there was a idea for a second another process another RFQ another RFP um specifically for as the city manager talked about earlier a consultant for downtown give the people who requested um consultants that have consultants ready to apply give them the opportunity to to have those applicants apply. That is very different from a simple update on where we are with downtown. If we want to have a report, I think that, you know, rather than have council members or sponsors go through the entire process of of creating basically the report ourselves, I I think that the direction would be to go to staff uh based on this action on adjustment reorganization of downtown RFP RFQ selection committee and hiring of consultant consultants to support the RFP RFQ process and work with them on what they would like to bring forward and perhaps talk to them about what their applicant and presentation would be.

But simply to say to to you know distill this as an update on where we are with downtown I think is unfair to the people who brought this forward through the chair. I understand that but I have already committed to working on a RFP specific to downtown. Um, I understand that there are certain consultants that members of the community want and what we have said to them is great, we just need a competitive process because we can't hire who you want us to hire. And so, unfortunately, um, that couldn't occur through the broad RFP process. We can do a specific RFP process for downtown looking at specific services relative to the downtown precise plan. So if that's a request, it's already been committed to uh and staff will work on that. And so if there's a desire to talk about specific consultants, I actually think that that would not be advisable and that should be done through the competitive process. So with that, I'm not sure the the reason for the 030 meeting a agreed. I think that the meeting this came down to there were a lot of promises, a lot of back and forth being had and those promises kind of ended up at nothing. And at some point the discussion was having a discussion in public would would at least memorialize any commitments that were being made. It would memorialize uh the discussions that were being had would make real uh commitments that are being made on either side. And it was for the discussion of what kinds of of things do does the committee want? ensure that the the RFP that's put out for consultants

would be would would have the requirements that downtown the people supporting downtown uh would want in a consultant there. Um I mean there was also this uh concept of discussion

for the makeup of the selection committee but these are these are very different and when you say these are already being contemplated these are already being done I don't think they are I think that having a discussion having a an an agenda item where people can talk about what they want and maybe come up with a with an agreement that is far more than what the city manager is suggesting is already being So, we have your motion on a second. The seconder didn't seem like he's in consensus as far as a 30-day. I'm I'm okay with 90 days. Are you Are you good with the 30 days or you're not good with the 30 days? No, he's okay with that. I'm okay with 90 days.

He's okay with 90 days. The only reason councilman Park I mentioned 90 days because the people who approached you have already approached city manager and I think they're in a sync right now to whatever objective they want to and and my I'm not talking subjective but I'm just talking whatever objective this 030 will provide and that's why I'm saying 90day would be a better if we can happen sooner I think city manager can bring it sooner but because of all the updates at sector they're saying I that's I am saying let's put 90 days. Okay. In the past we've said 60 days but understood. Okay. So I we can just add future consuming bring it back within 90 days.

Attorney. Yeah. Um I'm I was ready to intervene but I think I'm good if you're going to go to the to now to the motion. Yeah. I think we have a a few council members still here. So, council member Tuds Jane. Yeah. You know, I've been involved in a lot of bidding processes through NCPA and VTA, and we have to be very careful about not violating laws in bidding. We could get sued by people that lose the bids. If we stack the selection committee with people that have a relationship with one of the applicants,

Mr. Chair, I I think we're getting into the substance of the issue. I I This is just about bringing this back. I'm cautioning us for avoiding lawsuits if we're not careful about how we do this. Thank you. Your lawyer agrees, but that's kind of the substance of debating whether or not the process should be changed or modified. So, I don't want that deliberated on tonight,

but I understand the the the concern. The city manager, sorry. Well, I totally concur with that with that concern. Um, but I'm I'm not going to talk about it anymore as as as per the city attorney, but but there there are certainly risks to having people that are talking to specific consultants uh help uh design the RFP process. And so, while we want public input, I I do think we need to think long and hard about that process. Oh, council party.

Um, I'm gonna say I don't feel like I can support this motion because I do I have the same concerns that council member Jane had and because I care so much about the downtown and seeing that happen. I think this is the wrong way of going about it and I think we need to uh let the process go forward with staff and they will give us a report when we're done. And we did hear that we would hear about it in our um when the council meets to hear how our guidelines and and goals are going and I think that would be a better place.

Thank you.

Again, I think this is one of the failings of the 030 process as it's been changed. Not going to go into that because I think that we've agendaized this for governance and ethics. But this was simply a vote to allow the people who are supporting the downtown to discuss their concerns and their desires. It was not and we I've heard this um I've heard this from them that this is a competitive process. uh they are not going to say they are not going to prescribe who to hire but they want to make sure that the ideas that that they had they wanted to make sure those are in the RFP RFQ process the selection committee um there were concerns that there were the people that were putting the consultant the RFPs in that

so we're concerned about getting into getting into the substance of it this is why we want to have the discussion that We want to let them have the discussion. Like I'm not going to have this discussion, but I think that we should vote to allow them to have the discussion to decide at this point to that to decide at this point that that their discussion is not relevant, not not required. I think that's premature and I think this is the problem with the 030 process. Thank you. So we're going to have our final council member here. Yes.

Council Shah. I know the only reason I'm not sure why we are assuming that they're asking for a consultant of their own. It only came because we started discussion on it. There's no way on 030 mentioned that this discussion will lead to exactly that's not the point like we have to go what the wording of the 030 is not to discuss about any subject. If resident brought forward let's talk at that time. If at that time resident say oh we want this we can always say no you cannot have this. So there's no question of like we got into the substance of it and now that substance became oh I will not vote for that because of that substance. That's not fair. We are assuming the substance of that.

So we're not assuming the substance. We have the motion and the second. So we're going to we're going to vote on this motion. A second for the 030. So, if we can bring that up,

Mayor Gonzalez, would you like to cast your vote? Oh, I guess I got to do that. Sorry. All right. So, that motion we we're a body of seven, correct? Yeah, the motion fails. You needed four affirmative votes.

Okay. All right. So, with that, that is uh the uh complete agenda that we had tonight. So we'll journ here at 9:31 time.