City Council - Regular Meeting

Alright then. Good afternoon or good evening everyone, I guess. It's evening. I have no idea of time anymore. Just one day goes into the next. So I'd like to welcome you all to the Saratoga City Council meeting of 04/15/2026. And if you haven't gotten your taxes done yet, there's still a couple hours to send in that extension form. I'd like to call the meeting to order and advise everyone that this meeting will be recorded. And if you want to see yourself or you want to hear what went on that you missed, you fell asleep during part of our conversation, you can go to the city website tomorrow and access that. So I'd like you all to please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. And Britt, could you please do the roll call and that other administrative stuff you have to do?

Pursuant to Saratoga City Council's remote public participation policy, members of the public may participate in this meeting in person at the location listed on the agenda or via remote remote attendance using the Zoom information listed on the agenda. Public attendees participating by Zoom are automatically muted and are not viewable on camera. I will now call the roll. Council member Aftab?

Present.

Fitzsimmons? Present. Zhao?

Present.

Vice mayor Walia?

Present.

Mayor Page?

Present.

We have a quorum. The agenda was posted on April 9.

Thank you. We do have a report. We had a closed session this evening. And it was a closed session for a conference with legal counsel regarding the initiation of litigation. And there is no reportable action from that closed session. We also had a joint session with KSAR, our local radio television station. And John, I was wondering if you might come up and give us a brief summary of your updates and a couple of hints about where we're going.

Well, first off, thank each of you. And I also want to thank the city of Saratoga for making this locale such a wonderful, welcoming place for everything that we're doing. Our presentation tonight showed lots of video that we did supporting the city, both from the trip to Taipei, all the way to Saratoga Nights, which by the way, is going to be starting next month, again for the summer. And we plan to be there to help cover that. We're looking forward to another wonderful time working with students this coming fall, broadcasting and streaming live their varsity football games.

Anybody got any money that they want to send our way? We do need underwriters. We need underwriters. We need people from the city to help support some of the wonderful initiatives that I'm trying to work on. But we have accomplished a lot in this past year as a result of the support that the city council and the city staff have provided to us.

And we want to continue to expand that to getting more information about the city of Saratoga out into the hands of the populace. And we have videos on our website going back to 2009 that we have archived ever since YouTube became part of the landscape. And they're out there for anybody to go back and see what's happening. So thank you. Thank you, John.

And thanks for the great job that KSAR does for us. Any councilmember want to make any comments? Thank you, John. Appreciate it. And thanks so much for meeting with us.

All right. At this point it's time for oral communications on non agendized items. We invite any member of the public that's present here today to speak on any item that is not on tonight's agenda. You'll have up to three minutes. Typically the City Council cannot discuss or take any action on anything you say, but we may give some direction to staff. So Britt, can you please explain the public comment process and announce our first speaker?

If you would like to address the City Council on item that is not on the agenda and you're attending the meeting in person, now is the time to approach the podium. Mayor, I see no speakers.

I see no speakers. So we'll conclude our oral communications on non agendized items. And we will move to mayor announcements. So got a couple of announcements tonight. First is coffee with the mayor.

So as I've started doing last month, on the third Friday of each month, we're going to have coffee with the mayor where you can meet with me and share your ideas and thoughts and concerns. And hopefully not too much else, but anything else that you really want to discuss. So this week it's going be at Pete's Coffee, which is the Pete's Coffee at the corner of Prospect and Saratoga Sunnyvale Road. So welcome to come please from nine to ten and love to hear from you, hear your thoughts on what we're doing, what we're not doing, and your ideas on what we should be doing. So thank you very much for that.

Next up is Arbor Day. Please join Saratoga's Arbor Day ceremony on April 23 at 3PM at Wildwood Park, which is off of 4th Street behind Big Basin Way, as we celebrate the importance of trees and the environmental stewardship that we all try to uphold. The event will feature a ceremonial tree planting symbolizing our community's commitment to a greener future. Light refreshments will be provided. Families, students, and community members of all ages are encouraged to attend and take part in this meaningful celebration of Saratoga's natural beauty.

We hope to see you all there. Spring is here and it's time to get outside. Join the city's Parks and Rec Commission and our Youth Commission on Saturday, April 25 at 8AM to hike the Saratoga to the Skyline Trail. This moderately challenging 5.1 mile trail features a ten twenty six foot elevation gain and great panoramic views along the way. It'll take approximately two and a half hours to complete. Meet at the parking location at Quarry Park, I guess, And at 07:50 a. M. For an eight a. M. Departure.

Registration and the liability waiver are available on the Saratoga City website. Are there any council members who'd like to share any announcements? Seeing none, we will go forward. Our next item is a proclamation recognizing National Library Week. Will Sarah Lynn Otter please join us up here?

And counsel, if you wouldn't mind coming out. Alright. So as mayor of Saratoga, I'm proud to proclaim April the 2026 as National Library Week here in the city of Saratoga. National Library Week is a time to celebrate libraries and library workers for the many ways that they transform lives through access to information, technology, and the opportunities for community engagement. Here in Saratoga, our library has a long and meaningful history serving the community since joining the Santa Clara County Library District and at its current location since 1978.

Many of you may remember when we expanded it and basically doubled the size of our library. Today, it remains a vital resource offering multilingual collections, programs for all ages, book clubs, and technology access that support lifelong learning and connection. And if any of you have been to the kids room, I mean Eric, you do have to be only this tall to play, but there's some really neat stuff there. So you gotta check it out. So we're especially grateful for the dedicated library staff, the volunteers, and the partners who make these services possible. Their commitment ensures that our library continues to enrich lives and strengthen our community. On behalf of the entire city council, I'd like to present this proclamation to you, Sarah Lynn. And I know you'd probably like to say a couple of words.

No. Thank you very much. I'm very grateful to be able to work with a community that's so supportive, and the city's been very supportive. That's about it. Thank you. I'll go find a place to hang this in the library.

Perfect. Would any council members like to make a comment? Nobody? Okay. Well then it's photo time.

If there is any member of the public who'd like to make a comment on National Library Week, this would be a great time to come on down or raise your virtual hand. Seeing none, we'll move forward. First up is our, next up is our consent calendar. The consent calendar consists of items that are typically routine in nature. But any member of the council may pull an item and we will ask for public comments.

So if there's anybody who'd like to pull an item, come up or raise your virtual hand when Britt asks you to. Any council member like to pull an item? Seeing none. Britt, any hands or Nobody's racing to the stage. Don't You understand

would like to address the city council on the consent calendar. Now it's time to approach the podium or raise your virtual hand. There, I see no speakers.

All right. We'll close the public comment period and open it up to counsel.

I'll move to approve the consent calendar. Okay. And second. Yan.

Oh, sorry. That's okay.

Alright. Second.

Alright. We have a first and a second. All in favor please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Great. We've accomplished that task. Alright. Move to the next item.

Next up are public hearings. And so the first item is to conduct a public hearing to consider objections to the proposed abatement of hazardous weeds for properties listed on the 2026 Weed Abatement Program, Commencement report and the order abatement. Do we have a staff report? Oop. You might wanna push that button down there. Thank you. Alright.

Good evening, mayor Page, council members. My name is Nathan Sagastumi. I'm the code compliance officer here for the city of Saratoga. Accompanying me tonight is Garik Yolevsky. He is the Santa Clara County WIET abatement manager.

And before you tonight is a staff report regarding the 2026 WIET abatement program. As established by Saratoga Municipal Code Article seven-fifteen, the goal of this program is to mitigate fire hazards and protect our community by ensuring that seasonal vegetation is properly managed. Staff recommends that counsel conduct this public hearing to hear testimony or objections and to adopt the resolution ordering the abatement of weeds on the identified properties. The primary purpose of this program is fire safety, ensuring that weeds and rubbish do not create hazards for structures or neighboring properties. On March 4, this council initiated the process by declaring the properties listed in the commencement report a public nuisance.

It is important to note how this program functions for the long term safety of the city. Properties are typically added after a county inspector identifies a fire hazard that wasn't corrected by the property owner. Once a property is in the program, it remains there for three consecutive years of compliance. This ensures that long term maintenance habits are formed and our high fire risk areas remain clear year after year. The program is designed to be self sustaining.

If the county must clear the weeds, those costs are recovered via a special assessment on the owner's property tax bill. Currently, are in step three of the annual cycle. Following the council's declaration in March, city staff went a step beyond the legal requirements on April 7. We sent out a courtesy reminder letter to all non compliant owners to give them a final heads up before tonight's meeting. After tonight, county inspectors will perform final verification checks.

This is the deadline for compliance if we remain after April 30. The council, I mean, I'm sorry, the county will perform the clearing at the owner's expense. For transparency, we want to highlight the $20.26 fee schedule. Every property in this program is assessed a $296 inspection fee. However, the cost of noncompliance is significant.

If a work order is required, administration and noncompliant fees can exceed to $2,300 At the time of this report, staff has received three written objections, which are provided in the attachment D of your packet for your consideration, which also includes staff recommendation for those properties. Tonight's hearing represents the final opportunity for residents to object before the abatement order is finalized. Staff reports staff recommends the adoption of the resolution to ensure our community remains fire safe as we head into the summer months. At this time, Gerrick and I are available for any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you, Nate. Do we have any questions? Tina.

Thank you, Mayor. Nate, thank you for your work and for your staff report. Two questions for you. The first one is, if some property is removed from the list and the staff report lists out the inspection fee, as you pointed out as well, and a couple of other fees three other fees Would the property, if removed, would they still have to pay the inspection fee?

No, ma'am. So the only properties that do have to pay that inspection fee are the properties that you approved tonight.

Okay. Thank you. Second question. So there are three properties in the staff report that have sent written objections.

Yes.

Have you received anything else today? No. Okay. So these are the three. Yes. And what I'm reading here is the staff recommendation for property, number second, number third, which is Elvira Street and the Pierce Road, that the staff is recommending removal of the property, because the work has been completed. And these two places reached out to share some valid reasons why they were unable to meet the deadline.

Correct.

Okay. Thank you. And that's fine with me. The question is now for the first one, which is the Blue Hills Drive. They have met the requirement same time as number two and number three. The only difference is that they did not give a written notification of why they were unable to do. But they have met the requirement, same as the others. And yet the staff recommendation is unchanged. I would just like to understand that a little more, because on the face of it, all three properties have met the requirement.

So, for that Blue Hills property, the property owner did mention that they did receive those letters. They were aware, but they didn't meet that deadline that the county had for them. So they were aware of the notices. They received those. The other two, the thing that separates them is they were going through hardships. They were on vacation. And they didn't initially receive that letter because they were on vacation. But when they did come back, they reached out to me. They did everything they could to kind of get into compliance as soon as possible.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. That's all my questions.

Yan? Thank you, Mayor. So what was the deadline for the property owners to become compliant with our abatement program? And you mentioned that something about April 30. I wasn't sure. Is that the date they have to get their property being compliant?

So initially, the county went out, I believe late November, early December. They went out and identified 53 of those properties. When those properties were identified, they were given a two week deadline. If they didn't meet that two week deadline, then that's what put them on the commencement report. And the April 30 deadline, that is for if you approve the properties on the commencement report today. After April 30, county can go ahead and do the abatement work if the property owners haven't done it already.

So between now and April 30, can property owner get in compliance and be removed from the list?

No. So the reason they're on the list is because they didn't meet that initial two week deadline. So having the public hearing today, approving the properties today after April 30, that's when the county can go out and do the abatement work.

Got it. Thank you.

Any other questions? Tina has another one.

Thank you. So I am not sure if this is the same property owner. But one of the letters that I am seeing attached, because it has been redacted, it is written by Helen Tsao. And she's saying she's not going to be here tonight. But they have gotten clearance that the property has been cleaned up. Can you shed some light on that?

Yes. So this afternoon I actually went out and visited all 20 of those properties. And that Blue Hills property, the one that Helen, I think her last name is Al, is the property owner. And yes, that property is cleared as of today.

So, both the questions I asked, it's essentially the same property? I didn't know the name. Yes. Okay. It's the same one. Okay. Thank you so much. I have a question for Leslie here. So when we because I would like to ask the questions at this stage rather than in discussion. Other two properties met the requirement.

The only difference is they explicitly said they were traveling. And this property owner has also met the requirement very much in time and is now traveling, but is not even here today and has given us advance notice of that. To me, it almost strikes me as, from a fairness perspective, that when the others are given staff is recommending, they should not be on the list. I hear the nuanced suggestion from staff to say no, this property should stay on the list. Can you help me understand why not? Or help me see how we can find a way if you wanted to

to remove them? So of the three properties that are on your staff report, two of the three did write in and state and had been in contact with Nathan and stated that they had hardships or they were out of town and they didn't receive it. The one that didn't just simply was not in compliance and Nathan did not hear from them. Now, to your point, they are now in compliance. So ultimately, what it comes down to is it just comes down to the precedent that the council wants to set moving forward. So they are in compliance. They ignored the letters. They were supposed to do it within the time frame that they were told. They did not reach out to explain to Nathan, is now in compliance, correct. But it just depends.

It becomes a judgment call for the counsel in terms of setting that precedent moving forward.

Thank you. I appreciate that. Thanks, Nathan.

Nate, I have a couple questions. One is, and I think you said that the original inspections were late November or December.

Yes, sir.

Is there a reason they didn't do those during the time that they're supposed to have all the brushes cut? I think the date is April 30 or May 1 through October 31 or something. So they did it after that. Why wouldn't they inspect during the times that you're supposed to have them cut?

Garrett can answer this question for you.

I figured.

Good evening, mayor, members of city council. My name is Gerrick Ioselevsky. I'm the program manager for the weed abatement program in the Consumer and Environmental Protection Agency. Great question, mayor. Why didn't we not do those inspections during our normal inspection time frame? Well, during that inspection time frame, we were still working out the contract with the city. The contract was not finalized and was not signed. Therefore, we did not know whether or not we should proceed with doing the inspections at that time. The contract was not signed until, I want to say, like October or even late October potentially. So, started scouting the city where we had two inspectors.

They completed inspections of all properties throughout the entire city of Saratoga. We did not start that until, I want to say it was like late October when we actually started doing those. Because that's after the contract was finally signed by all parties. So, it was outside of our normal timeframe. But we just had the uncertainty of whether or not the contract was going to be in place, and if we needed to use those resources there.

Okay. So the contract was signed in the October or something, ballpark. So your inspections, it just happened that the houses that are here were inspected later than they were at the end of the inspection list instead of the beginning? Because if it was beginning, it would have been within October, maybe. I'm trying to understand.

I trying to don't recall the exact date of when the contract was executed. But we did have a plan in place where we were going to go and start scouting out the entire city. But because of when the contract was executed, we decided to wait until that was finalized before we would actually start the work. I want to say that we did start doing the inspections in late October, early November. And then we ended up actually sending out the warning letter in early December.

Okay. And the inspection fee, I know that, so I think it says that they need to be in compliance by April 30. And so the inspection that will be done on April 30, is that the chargeable inspection?

That is the chargeable inspection. So no properties have been charged yet. Only the properties that are approved on the list tonight will be charged an inspection fee this season. And just to clarify, the April 30 deadline, that doesn't guarantee that we will be out at those properties on April 30. But that is the earliest that our team is able to begin inspections in the

city. Okay.

And we have until the October typically to complete those inspections.

Gotcha. Okay. All right. Thank you. Appreciate that.

No problem.

Nate, have one more question for you. So the, since the contract wasn't signed, was there any, I I don't know if it was even on the radar for you to go out and inspect any of these properties. Did any of that happen prior to the contract being signed and the county starting the inspection process?

History problem properties that I've been trying to kind of bring into compliance. Again, signing the contract with the weed abatement program kind of streamlines that just so that overgrown vegetation just doesn't linger and grow throughout the summer seasons. So I did give him about, like, I want to say five to like 10 properties before he even went out to do the inspections.

I see. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. All right. Any other questions?

Yeah. One more question. So you just mentioned that the deadline, actually, to bring all the properties in compliance is by April 30. So so, potentially, all these 20 properties, they have a chance to be compliant by April 30. So do we wanna give them a chance to be compliant? Because you have a deadline of April 30.

Maybe you could explain the letters and when they went out, and when inspections occurred along the way, and what the letter said in terms of timeframe that was required.

Sure. Well, answer that question, the letters were sent out in early December and we gave all the property owners until, I want to say December 18, to complete the corrective actions. And we do grant extensions. We did have several property owners reach out to request extensions as well. As for the April 30 deadline, each jurisdiction that we provide services to sets their own deadline. And what that deadline means is that property owners must be in compliance at that deadline. And after that deadline, that's when we start doing our regular inspections and charging fees for those inspections. Your question about can they be in compliance by April 30? Yes. I would absolutely hope that they are.

However, we do not start doing our inspections until then. And each jurisdiction needs to approve a list before that compliance deadline so that we can start doing those inspections after that deadline. So I don't know if that helps to answer the question, but it I think if I interpret your question correctly, you're asking can they come into compliance by that deadline and then be removed from the list by then? I don't believe so because tonight is when the city council approves that list for us to begin doing the inspections on.

I think our city manager has some insight in

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that, so tonight you approve the list. And once they're on this list, then they will remain on the list for three years. And they can still be, they can, still you'll approve the list and they can be in compliance by April 30, that just means then they won't have to pay for the county to abate their weeds. So, they're still going to be on the list and they'll be on the list for three years and pay for those annual inspection costs as of tonight. And they can still comply by not paying the county's abatement by doing it themselves, but they'll still remain on the list. Does that make sense?

So to remain on the list, what does that mean?

That means then they'll be on as of tonight, if you choose the various names on the list, they will remain on this list for three years to show that they need to remain in compliance. And every year they will be inspected and receive an inspection fee from the county. Now, if they don't abate their weeds, they will also be charged for additional services for the next three years.

Right. But I just another question. So have you inspected all these 20 properties before tonight so they are not in compliance? Because you sent out the letter so long ago. I mean, Nathan mentioned earlier, you say you inspect all 20 and only two are in compliance and 18 are not in compliance. Can you just I just want to make sure the list we approve, they're not in compliance. I don't want to approve the property that actually already in compliance.

Yeah. So after today

So after today, meaning that you inspected all these, did ride by inspection on all these properties today?

Correct. Yeah. After today

And the results of those inspections are?

Nine out of the 20 are in compliance. And that's after they received the notice. And based on what their required action was from the county, that's what I was looking at. And nine out of 20 are in compliance today.

But they're still on our list?

Yes.

Okay. I mean, since this is the first time we're doing this abatement, I mean, not first time, but, you know, we just started again with the county. And shall we remove this nine properties, since now they're in compliance?

That's totally up to the city council tonight. Whatever you recommend, that's what we'll do.

Okay. Thank you.

Tina.

Okay. So now I do have to ask this question. Nine of the 20, which ones are what am I missing here to I can see the three written in the staff report that we already talked about. And I see the list of the 20. And which ones are the nine? And how are they different from the other twenty minuteus nine, which is 11?

So based on the required action that the county first identified, that's what I was looking at. And when I went out today, nine of those have completed or removed that vegetation or those flammable materials and things like that.

So the 11 are still not in compliance?

Yes.

The nine are in compliance based on your drive by inspection today?

Yes.

And so out of those nine, three have written to us appealing.

Yes.

And the other six have just done the job. I don't mean to minimize by using the word just, except they did what they needed to do to comply. They did not send a separate request appealing, even though and I'm trying to connect the dots here even though there is a letter enclosed in the staff report in the agenda packet, which says earlier this month we sent a letter saying you have to appeal to us. So my goal is just so that at the end of this agenda item, when we make the final list, we are fair and consistent to all. And that's why I'm trying to ask you the nuanced question of what are the differences.

So they didn't appeal. Is that right? It very well could be

that they're in the audience tonight to do so.

Okay. So, Mayor, I'm going to say I don't want to be asking any more questions. I will stop in case I need to ask something based on the public comment. I'd appreciate your help on that.

Okay. I'm going ask one question. Nate, can you tell us the numbers of the nine properties that were in compliance when you did your drive by today?

Nine out of 20.

Can you tell us the numbers on the list? Oh, We can I'm note them.

I'm sorry. So it's number one, number two, number six, number 1314171820.

That's eight.

And number three.

Number three. Okay. 123613141718 and 20. Did I get that right?

Yes, sir.

Okay. All right. Questions okay, folks? All right. Thank you. Thanks very much both of you. Appreciate it. And now we'll open the public comment. Britt, would you please explain the public comment process and invite our first speaker.

If you would like to address the city council on this item and you have not submitted a speaker slip, now is the time to do so. If you're attending the meeting via Zoom, now is the time to raise your hand. The first speaker I have, I am not going to be able to pronounce your name. So we'll have you go first, and then we'll have Karen, followed by Matt.

Hello. Thank you, mayor and city council members. My name is Buvana and I am representing 20885 Wardle Road, Saratoga.

Let us find it a sec. Tell us again.

20885 Wardell Wardell.

Okay. 2085 Wardell. That's item number two.

Okay. Okay.

So I am a new owner of this property. I we've only got this property on March 24. And we've only got the last remainder this weekend to either appeal or, you know, do something about it. So I immediately called the number listed to in a couple of hours and spoke with Danny Robles. He was the weed inspector weed inspector. And so I checked with the owner, and he said he took care of the issue. I also checked with the gardener, who is also my current gardener, and he said that they took care of the issue. And I have the photos. I sent it to Danny. He said it looks good.

I also have it here. So since we have the same gardener, I intend to keep the property in compliance. So I am requesting you to please remove it from the list.

Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. So we'll talk. First we have public input and then we'll close the public comment and we'll talk. Okay. Thank you so much.

Okay. Karen?

Hi, Mayor.

Hi,

I'm Karen Wold and I live on Old Oak Way for about fifty four years with no problems with my property. I do cleanup every spring. However, in January, I received this message saying I was not compliant with safety standards. I called the county, and Danny came out on twofourtwenty six saying all seen from the street. Trees trimmed, any dry weeds. He mentioned another letter. I said, what letter? He said, well, there was a letter that I should have had that told me what I should do. After he left, I called the county And they claimed that they sent me a letter in November and then in December. I never got those.

I didn't get either one of them. The property was clean by February. I called the city. Nate came out on March 8 and took several pictures and later called me and said I had to come to this meeting. And there's nothing wrong with my property. If you need any pictures, I have photographs.

Thank you. And your property is 2075 No. I'm sorry. 13571313570.

Old

Old Oak Oak Way. Perfect. Thank you. That's number 17 on our list. Thank you, Karen.

Next is Matt.

Thank you. City council members, fire safety is an important issue, and we take it very seriously, as we have for the past thirty eight years. Only now with this new county program in place is there suddenly an issue. There has never been an issue in the last thirty eight years with the fire department. We have more incentive to do this than the city or the county because we don't have fire insurance on this house.

So we are essentially wagering our house that we do the fire mitigation correctly. I request that you remove our property from the abatement list and that, in addition, you consider dropping the program entirely. Please consider the following. One, the county's inspection of the properties on the list was irrelevant. It was done during non fire season when there is absolutely no requirement to mitigate.

Two, the county's demand was unreasonable. First of all, they have no authority to demand mitigation during the non fire season. Second, they gave us less than ten days to comply in mid December, even though it took them over thirty days to mail us. By the way, they didn't put the correct address on our letter, so we got it much later. Three, nevertheless, we called them and indicated that we hired a contractor to do the work, but it couldn't be done until mid January.

Now, we didn't remove the weeds in December because that's a fool's errand to remove weeds when it's going to rain 10 inches in the next four months. These three reasons should be sufficient to remove not only our property, but all the properties that are on the list. The county just rushed this thing through in a time when there was no requirement for anyone to mitigate. But if that isn't enough and you're inclined not inclined to do that now, I have more. Number four, the county's inspection of our property was illegal.

We didn't give permission for the county to press trespass on our property. California Health and Safety Code sections fourteen thousand eight and seventy five through 14,922 allow inspection only if there's a warrant or if the property is declared a public nuisance and a public hearing is held. This is the public hearing, so they had no right to trespass until after this hearing. Five, this whole program was installed in the middle of the night. County inspections were done before the agreement with the city was signed and months before ordinance approval, further evidence that inspections on private property were illegal.

Sixth, the county program has no formal appeal process. It's based on one person's opinion, and in our case, over 70% of the issues identified were already in compliance. As a side note, I drove by three of the city council members' houses yesterday, and I found violations on all three of them. If you look next door in the city's orchard, you'll find that the orchard is out of compliance. In summary, I request that the city council not only remove my parcel at 20880 Wardell from this list, but that you reconsider the entire program in favor of the fire department's long standing effective program.

The new program is unlikely to improve fire safety by any measurable amount, if at all. We will have the property by April 30.

You,

As we have every year.

Thank you.

Next is Jen.

Dear council member and city mayor, my name is Jen. I live at Property 20570 Ashley Way, Saratoga. I received the letter first, but I asked my gardener to trim the trees a little bit. And then I received inspection letter on April 7. But that day is a work day, so I and I also didn't remember, so I was out of work.

So I don't have the opportunity to talk to any inspector on where am I what what's the violation? How do I, how do you say, get compliance? So so and then I received a letter asking me to come to this city council meeting. So I am not sure. I don't know today is a deadline.

Also, we don't know in advance that what's the consequence in violation. We I only know that there is, like, a three year list today at this meeting. So I think the council members should consider that, let the people know the consequence and give a grace period so that they can take the good action to get their weeds compliant. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Deanna.

Good evening, everybody. My name is Deanna Yang. I'm the daughter of the homeowner, Charlotte, for 13207 Paseo Prasada. So I was hearing about people mentioning Nate's name and receiving letters to comply within two weeks. I didn't get those letters. Or maybe it was because my mother's really sick and I'm actually taking care of her. That's my biggest priority and issue right now. And that I physically am unable to do a lot of yard work myself. But I tried my best. I sent in pictures to Gerrick today and he said that everything looked fine.

In the future I think I found someone to help me keep up with everything. So right now the thing is that I also didn't have, wasn't

aware that

I was supposed to appeal in writing. So I apologize for not doing that. So I'm here just in case. You know, I can still talk to you and let you know that we do object. We have been trying hard to become compliant. And we would appreciate being removed from the list. Let's see. I don't know if you received the pictures or if you actually need to. I was only able to make one copy because I don't know how much ink I had in my printer. So anything major that was mentioned to me, I've taken care of.

And of course, if you do your own yard, you realize as you do one thing, then you find another thing, you find another thing. So, I did a lot more than I think I was, you know, originally told to do just because there were certain things that bugged me that I had to do in the yard. And it's going to continue that I have to do other stuff because I see more projects that I want to complete. Now, let's see. And then some people have mentioned an inspection letter on April 7. I don't think I received it. I don't recall receiving it. I just anyway, I also checked my mail today too. And I don't know if it's that some notices are being received and some aren't, or they're being stolen from the mailboxes. I have no clue.

I'm just rambling, I guess, at this point. But I would really appreciate it if you would remove us from the list. For me, it is a major hardship taking care of my mother with a major health issue and, you know, every couple days wondering if I had to take her into the emergency room and trying to, you know, deal with the weeds and everything in between. But I appreciate it. Thank you very much for listening.

And I haven't decided if it's a good thing or not. I mean, I understand the purpose of it. But a lot of times for the laws, they'll say like, January 1, you know, a new law will come into effect for California. And then they'll do like a soft release in a way. They'll have police, you know, tag people and say, you know, you actually are very close to being in violation, whatever. But they'll give you, you know, X amount of

time, Thanks. A few

Thanks.

So your address was 13207 Paseo Prasada, right? Which is number six on the list. Thank you so much.

Okay, Mayor. That looks like the last of the in person speakers. So we'll go to remote. Glenda. Can you hear me? Yes. Go ahead.

Okay. I live in the Hillsides, and I just want to make a couple of comments about this program. I'm all for a program. I don't know if this one is is what I would how I would design it. But in the hillsides, this idea that you only need to take care of the 100 feet around your house, That doesn't work very well, because we have large properties.

And if a fire comes through here, it's not going to stop at that 100 foot perimeter around your house. So I think that needs to be taken into consideration. And you see that clearly when you drive down Pierce Road. Dead trees everywhere. Trees overhanging the road, touching trees on the other side of the road, dead brook, brush everywhere, dead limbs.

If these properties aren't taken care of, then we will not be able to evacuate. So that weed abatement program, I think that's a good idea. But we need the people in the hillsides to really look beyond that 100 feet around their house. Thank you.

Thank you, Glenda.

Okay. Next is an iPad.

Hello?

Yes. Go ahead.

Hello? Can you hear me?

Yes. Go ahead. Yes.

Hi. This is Wee Wangs, and this I'm the owner a dear council council member. And and my address is 12048 Park Ranch Road. And I met Nathan this April 7. I never got any, like, letters about the notice about the the weed abatement programs.

So so Nathan and Ray ring the bills in April 7 and gave me the letters about his public hearing. So I I never have any problems with the the the cleanup and the the weed. So the the gardeners clean up the weed every single, like, spring, and it's all spent, like, maybe three or four times and to clean up all the weeds every every spring. So why I I I just don't know. I have no ideas why they put my properties on the list.

So so I I I just wrote letters on April 7 and to respond to the visit of Nathan. And, yeah, I promised I'm going to, like, clean up all weeds in by April 30. So so I have no ideas. And would you they were removed in my product from list, and what the consequence for that. And if if I promise to clean up body like weeds in the by April 30. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Mayor, that looks like the last of the speakers.

Okay. So we'll close the public comment period and bring it back to counsel. Before

we There's one other

Oop, somebody

Maybe not.

Okay. Before we move to the rest of the, I know I normally don't go first. And I'm not meaning to usurp anybody. But when I was on the council before, we used the county's program. And actually some of the names on here are exactly the same names as I saw before. And some of the same people had issues. It's not up anymore. It's Trevor, if you want to try again, I'll let you in. Okay. Try and Britt, please. We'll open the public comment period if we can get it through.

Okay, Trevor.

Hello? Yep. Can you hear me now?

Yep. Go ahead.

Oh, hi. Thank you for taking my call. My name is Trevor Garrett. I'm calling on behalf of Garrett Farms. We're a parcel associated with 22651 Mount Eden Road.

I'd like to object to us being on this list of noncompliance. We've been trying to be compliant. We were pulling leaves along the road, Garrett Road, before the first of the year, and then they said we are noncompliant. And a guy from the county came out, and I think that there was actually some confusion about where our property lines were in this area. And there was also some confusion about what we actually needed to do to become compliant.

And he pointed to another place that was outside of the scope of the road that had some dead trees that we've actually cleaned up. We've spent hundreds of man hours cleaning up brush and taking down and I he just told me to come to this meeting. I wasn't aware that we needed to send in any kind of written response. I don't know. It's all it all seems kinda slapdash.

We've been managing this property for since the eighteen nineties, and I I find this to be very confusing about how to be compliant because we have tried several in several stages, we're trying to be compliant. But for some reason, we are not told what needs to happen because I feel like we've we're safe here. And I just, I feel this is really confusing and hard to manage. We are compliant. And I would like to be taken off the list.

Thank you, Trevor. Okay. We'll close the public comment period and bring it back. So as I was saying, this program has been in place for a long time with the county managing it. There was a period when they weren't either staffed correctly and COVID happened and other things that the city got away from the county's program.

And it was managed by county fire before they had a fire person who was responsible for it. But the city has used it for many years. One of the things we found in the last my last time on council is that the communications weren't always as clear as they need to be. I suspect they were written by lawyers, not by humans who would know how to explain what brush needs to be cut and how. Sorry Lord Richard. He's actually probably the most human lawyer I know. And I know quite a few, unfortunately. I'm sorry. I didn't mean that either. Sorry, I'm just getting deeper in it.

But, so what the city council had done at that time was to incorporate an extra letter or two. And we reworded the letters to make it clearer. I commend staff for sending the letter out as they did on April 7 so that there was another notice to the folks. And then Nate went out again today and did another inspection. So I'll I have an idea of what I want to do. But I want to hear from you guys. Some of you may have the same idea. So let's take it to counsel. But I just want you to know, we've been here before with many of the same voices in protest. And and the purpose of this thing is to make sure that people get noticed that they need to do something by a certain day.

And the sooner you do it, because you can't inspect everything on the same day. That just doesn't happen when you've got a county to deal with. So some of the things have to be done before. And and that's why they put deadlines in it so that they can manage that inspection process. And putting them on a list for three years brings attention to it for at least three years. And if they accommodate the the follow the directions and and abate the weeds, then they're off the list. Everything's cool. But then they don't have to worry about it. If we take them off the list, then they don't get those reminder notices and they may just get put on next year. That's something we can decide.

So I'll shut my mouth now and leave it to you guys. Anybody like to talk? Yeah.

I think the the weed abatement program is a is a great program. It's one of the, I would say, you know, wildfire prevention measures that the city can do and the county can do. And since this is the first time, maybe after COVID, I don't know how long ago when we stopped this program. And just from what I learned, the nine out of 20 properties are in compliant as of now. And I think we should give them, you know, even though they didn't, get in compliant in that time manner that it was, you know, sent out in November or December, but they get it done today.

So I feel like we need to give them, we should give them this grace period. And this is the first time to me we are doing this and I'm willing to to remove these nine properties from the list. And in the future, perhaps, like our mayor suggested, to be clear about what's the penalties on the letter when we send them, when they're not in compliance, when we send the inspection that you this is what you need to do. If you don't do that, that's the consequences that you have to face. So, now, I would like to see that I would suggest we remove these nine properties from the list.

Okay. Thanks. Anybody else? Tina?

So firstly, it's really good to hear from the residents who have come here expressing their concerns today. Thank you for taking the time to come here or to speak online. It is a very important program. We have to be very, very mindful about how we keep properties with minimum risk reduced risk, is the way to put it. As you heard one of the residents even pointed out, is that going far enough? And these are are these specifically in the wild land urban interface area? Okay. I just wanted to confirm that before I said that. So city manager is confirming all of these properties here on no? Because the Paseo Prasada is the one

They don't these do not prescribe to the WUI or anything else. It's people that have weeds that don't meet the city code or the

county code.

So it could be all across the city.

Okay. Thank you. That's what I was wondering. Okay. So Nate himself said nine of the 20 properties are in compliance today. And you don't need to cover.

I did miscount. If you can add number 15, Elvira. So it would be 10 out of 20. Sorry about that.

Oh, Elvira? Okay. Okay, yeah, that's also in your staff room. Okay. So 10 of the 20.

To me, the 10 that are already in compliance, I think it's a good idea for us in terms of fairness to remove them from the list tonight. I do understand that bringing this process forward yet again after a gap of a few years, and hearing the residents explain their interpretations or not receiving letters or the language could have been clearer, that gives us room to consider how to make improvements moving forward. So now I'm talking of the 10 that Nate has not mentioned, the 10 that are not in compliance. The 10 that are in compliance, I totally support removing them off the list. The question to my mind comes, there is one person who spoke here tonight who said he only received the letter when Nathan rang the doorbell and they are trying to be compliant.

I think there was someone who said that. The question in my mind is somebody who says, I just received the letter and we are working towards compliance and we promise to do it by the thirtieth. Those are the areas that I would like if staff has any recommendation on that, though the one who mentioned, Nate already says they are in compliance. That was number three. Is there anyone here that is not on NATE's list except Matt Cristiano? Is there anyone else? Those are the areas that I would like to hear more from my colleagues or staff.

Any recommendations? Okay. That's

fine.

Okay. Anybody else? Bilal?

I can jump in. I'll echo a bit of what's been said. I am in favor of us having a bit more of a grace period because it's the first time we're bringing it back after a while. I imagine the reason why we one question I have is the April 30 date, is that the annual date going forward? Is that the annual date Yes. Nathan? Right? Okay. Yeah. Which I think my only reaction to that is I get a it depends on when the rain's ending.

Right? And it seems like there is rain in April sometimes, but not as much as there has been, but there very well could be. And there could be a lot of weak growth. And so that's just a consideration for future years. So open minded on that. I do agree that I think if you're in compliance as of today, we should recognize that, especially those 10 properties. Like, you you did the work. I do think comms communications in general is hard. But at the same time, like, there is a limit for sending sending you something in the mail. Like, not checking your mail is also not an excuse in my view because especially when you've sent multiple letters directly from the city of Saratoga, like, at a certain point we have no choice but to there's no other way we can get ahold of you.

Right? And so I do think it is reasonable to expect residents to check the mail, and especially after sending several notices expecting that. But I'm also very open minded because some of you have more experience with this than I am, but open to supporting those that, the 10 of the 20, basically supporting those to not be added to the list for tonight.

Okay. Thank you. Cookie?

Thanks. So I'm in agreement with most of what has been said. I do think that this year we should give leniency, especially since we're just starting to get up again. There was that gap. I do think it feels like people felt like they were blindsided. And that's just not something I feel comfortable with. I think we need to improve our, possibly improve the process and improve the way we're communicating our process. No matter what we do, no matter what it is, there's always going to be people that say, I never got the letter, right? So we can skywrite it and people will still say, I didn't know. We can have banners in the street that say, this is the deadline.

And everyone uses the major roads, but they still don't see it. So there is responsibility in terms of the residents. But anyway, so I think for tonight I would be okay to take the 10 who are in compliance off of the list. And I do think that we need to improve, I don't know if it's outreach, or I think there needs to be discussion on that.

Thanks.

Thank you. I agree. I think that especially because this is the first year back with the county program, and because of the later start that they had, I think it's appropriate that the 10 that are in compliance as of today are taken off the list. However, the people that are on the list, please make sure that city staff has your correct mailing address, phone numbers, contact information. Because if it happens again, you're gonna get a letter.

And if you say that you don't get the letter, you're gonna get put on the list. So make sure that we got communications the correct way. The other thing that I'd like to say is that because of the late start in the inspections and all the other stuff that we didn't get a chance to review, I would like to suggest that the protests that we had from 12048 Parker Ranch, from the Garrett property, and for Cristiano, for Matt, that those properties be given until the April 28 to complete the abatement. Otherwise, they get put on the list. And several of these people have been on the list before, many many times.

So if that work can get done by the twenty eighth, then I say we take them off. They get they get taken off the list. And I hope that the county can accommodate that. I think that it's, you know, it gives a couple of days leeway for inspections to occur. Which Nate would be the one who did that. There would be no cost at that point for an inspection fee. And they could be left off if the work is done by then. If they choose not to do the work, they're on the list. And there's no questions asked. I would also like to ask that staff bring back, I don't want to create a study session or necessarily have a counsel item, but we might be able to discuss it in a short period of time.

If you can show us the letters that the county sent out and the time frames that they go out. When if we could get a kind of a timeline line of when things happen and the letters that go out. So that the council could add a little bit of human flavor to it. Non county human flavor. I think that would be important. It's what we did the last time. And it really, to me, it really helped the program. We got a lot less protests and a lot more people met the needs when they when they needed to. So that would be my suggestion. And back to you all.

Is there a motion? Go ahead. I'll move to, here give me, if someone else wants to make a motion, go for it. Gotta read it in my notes just to make sure I get this right.

All right. I, I want to try it. Okay. So to remove properties number one, two, six, thirteen, fourteen, seventeen, eighteen, twenty, and 15 from the list. And and three? Was 3Nate, 3 was also? Okay. 12345678910. Okay. Good. Thank you. And then so those are removed from the list for this time. Number nine, which is the Garrett property. And number 11, which is Cristiano property. I guess there's is there any other one that was we had a protest that I guess not.

I guess it was just those two. They have until the twenty eighth to complete the weed abatement. And then they would be removed for this time. That make sense?

Can I second?

Okay. Did I miss anything? Okay. And was there any other action in the staff report that we have to do?

No, think it's a good one.

Okay. Go ahead. So we have a motion and a second on that one. This would be an amendment or a second?

No amendment. I would just request that when you bring back the language for counsel to look at. When I'm reading the letter on the sent on the April 7, had the same thought. I have not seen the prior letters. But a couple of residents here who are in compliance are saying they were not sure that they had to send something in writing versus showing up in person. And that was my question about the Blue Hills as well, as I discussed with you on Monday, Leslie. Some people may not realize that they have to send something in writing. The others may be more familiar with that process, that that would work. Somebody may say, yes, got the letter. But I was working on it.

And they may not know they have to do this. So just tweaking that language would

be So when we review it, we'll

have a But chance to modify I would like staff to, Richard has

Well, I'll just say that the notices that we sent, I'm pretty sure, did not, legally you do not have to give something in writing. I think it's more helpful to the counsel if you do. But as a legal matter, it is fine for somebody to show up tonight or Zoom in tonight and say it. And they are entitled to the same consideration as anybody who puts something in writing.

I agree. I'm totally I'm fine with just thinking some residents may I'm trying to respond to a couple of residents who expressed confusion about the process that when they read the letter. Whatever solution we can come up with. That's my only So

that's when we review them again, we'll have a chance to fix that all.

And just for clarification, too, the prior letters that went out went out from the county. So the city did not have anything or any say in the communication that did go out. It was only the courtesy letter that we did provide on April 7. So what we could do, though, is work with the county to look at those letters to make sure that they are clear and concise and transparent about what the process is moving forward. Wonderful.

And I do appreciate the courtesy letter sent earlier this month. Thank you.

Okay. So we've got a motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No opposed, no abstentions. Thank you. It's never perfect folks, but we try. All right.

Next public hearing is our resolution amending the city's fee schedule effective 07/01/2026. May we have a staff report?

Yes. Thank you, mayor. Council members, Ryan Hinchman. I am the administrative services director. The fee schedule is a comprehensive list of fees charged by the city and is brought before the council each year for review and then adoption.

The schedule was reviewed previously by the finance advisory committee at both the March and April committee meetings prior to bringing it to council tonight. Fee changes align with our fiscal year. So the proposed fee changes that you'll see in Attachment C would go into effect July year And align with our budget decisions and our long term financial planning, which we'll talk to later. The changes proposed are really to keep pace with the market, as well as our internal costs. We also want to make fees more efficient and transparent to the public.

And so, regular annual updates help ensure that applicants and users, such as developers, event organizers, and utility companies pay their fair share of the costs for the activities they impose, rather than rely excessively on citywide tax revenues. So, the changes this year were relatively minor, primarily in community development. They're outlining the staff report, but I wanted to highlight a few for the council. We have a new fee for the below market rate administration. This is a new program that was put into place, approved by council in April 2025, and sets requirements for affordable housing and developments.

In the planning section, we alphabetized the fees. This really was to help both the public as well as administration for ease of use, fingering down and finding fees quickly. There was cleanup with fee names, again, just to make them more easy to understand. We are recommending removing facility rental fees. LGS administers our facility rentals. They have a website and really have the best input for those fees. So what we're proposing is to remove those fees from our fee schedule with a link to the LGS website. One more new fee was the stormwater compliance fee. This is a fee for on-site inspections for stormwater. It's a new fee.

And finally, user fees received sort of this general 3% increase to continue our goals of cost recovery. So Finance Committee provided feedback and direction on the fee schedule at their two meetings. And in addition, the committee also recommended the fee schedule be approved by counsel. And that concludes my report.

Thank you. Do we have any questions? Yeah.

Thank you, mayor. Thank you so much for the presentation, Ryan. Just one quick question. So on the summary, you talk about below market rate and administration fees. So basically, the new fee was take know, the the the cost application submitted between January 5 and to December 2027. So right now, we are April. Just curious. I mean, this is our incentive to ask people to build, you know, below market rate housing. And how how many people have applied and and and how many fees have we waived?

I wouldn't have that information offhand. It's something we can look to and bring back.

Okay. I'm just curious, you know, this is an incentive. People using that incentive? That effective? So just kind of curious.

Thank you.

Good question.

Any other questions? Okay. Thank you, Ryan. So at this point we'll open the public communications, or the public comment period. Britt, all yours.

If you would like to address the City Council on this item, you're attending the meeting in person, now is the time to approach the podium. If you're attending via Zoom, now is the time to raise your hand. Mayor, I see no speakers.

Okay. So we will close the public comment period and bring it back to counsel.

I'm ready to make a motion if no Okay. Comments are shall we do that? Okay. So I move to adopt the resolution amending the city's fee schedule effective 07/01/2026, to implement the proposed fee changes.

And do we have a second?

Second.

I have a second from Tina. All in favor or any discussion? No? All in favor please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Nobody and no abstentions. So motion passes five-zero. Thank you. Next up is general business item number 3.1. This is our community event grant program policy. So do we have a staff report?

We do, Mayor Page. Howdy. Good evening, Mayor Page, Vice Mayor Wallya, and council members. My name is Jocelyn, and I'm your city administrative analyst here in the city manager's office. Tonight, staff is bringing forward proposed amendments to the community event and street closure program policy community event grant policy, sorry about that, with the recommended action to adopt the updated policy.

As a brief overview, the Community Event Grant Program was created to support community led events that promote civic engagement, community identity, and economic vitality. Their program includes two components, the secured funding for occurring established events and the competitive funding for new emerging events. Following the most recent grant cycles and council discussions, several areas were identified where additional clarity was needed, particularly around eligibility, allowable funding uses, and transparency. At the March 4 meeting, council directed staff to return with an updated policy language to address those items. Based on that direction, staff recommendation is focused on three main goals: Provide clear guidance to applicants, ensure consistency and fairness on how funding decisions are made, increase transparency and accountability in how public funds are used.

Ultimately, these updates are intended the program easier to administer while supporting high quality community focused events. I'll briefly walk you through key changes reflected in Attachment B. Eligibility nonprofit and for profit. One of the main areas council discussion was eligibility. The updated policy clarifies that nonprofits and for profits may both be considered. Eligibility will be evaluated on a case by case basis. Approval for a for profit does not establish precedent. All events must demonstrate a clear public benefit and aligns with city values. This gives council flexibility while still maintaining the intent of the program. Next up, fundraising sponsorship and ticket sales.

The policy also clarifies allowable revenue sources. Fundraising and sponsorships are permitted as long as funds support the event. Ticket sales are not permitted to ensure events remain free and accessible to the public. This maintains accessibility while still allowing organizers to supplement funding. Use of grant funds.

To strengthen accountability, the policy now clearly states grant funds cannot be used to pay the organizer, their staff, or affiliated business. Funds must be used strictly for event related costs to ensure public funds are used solely for community benefit. Additional clarifications. A few additional updates include requiring justification letters for larger funding requests, reinforcing that events must remain free and open to the public, clarifying application and reimbursement requirements, and then lastly, reporting and transparency. In response to council feedback, staff is proposing enhanced reporting.

Each year staff will return with a summary that includes a high level breakdown of expenditures by event and total program spending. This provides better visibility into how funds are being used. Overall, the proposed updates are to clarify how eligibility is determined, reinforce that events must provide a public benefit, ensure funding is used appropriately, and improve transparency for counsel and the public. That concludes my staff report. I am open to any questions. Excellent. Thank you.

Any questions? Nobody has a question? I have a question.

I'm okay with that.

Actually I don't really have a question. I have a comment. So I'll wait. It's more of a discussion item. But I'm going to ask it as a question because that might inspire other questions. So we don't have anything in here about repeat events and things like that. So I know that in the past we have taken events that seem to be recurring and have a broad interest. And so a lot of people come to it. And we eventually move them to secured funding. That seems to have been the pattern.

But we've gotten some requests for the, you know, the one time thing or whatever, the request, the thing that they've got to go through, from like churches that have events. Other churches don't do it. Some do. So I'm curious if you think that we, I don't want to say you think, because it's not about you. I don't want to put you on the spot. Was there any consideration of those kind of events? Like if it's a, I mean certainly a church is typically a nonprofit. There are some for profit, but not in Saratoga that I know of. But those kind of things that, you know, that we know that they bring a lot of people. They're a fundraiser for the organization.

Should there, or have you seen any consideration in anything that

you looked at regarding that kind

of event? And especially if it's

a recurring thing every year?

Leslie, you

take that away.

Sure. We didn't discuss that. And I'm wondering if, you know, if you're asking if they'd recurring every year after year, do we at some point kind of move them into the secure thing? Or my thought, too, is in the community event, the competitive program part of this, it's up to the counsel's discretion year after year to approve this. So even though you do it one year doesn't mean you need to do it the following year.

So if you're concerned maybe one year there's an event that's maybe a benefit to the community, but maybe it's not the event that you thought it was going to be, then that following year, if they come back to ask for it, again, it's a competitive grant, which is why they're not moved into that secured. So every year gives you the discretion to make that decision. Does that answer your question?

Yeah. And do you think that it might be wise of us to put in like a recommendation? If, for example, we thought that, you know, there was somebody who had a great big food fest. And the first year was the first year they started. So they asked for a competitive grant. They were granted it. It had wide reach. The next year they came back and asked for it, but we know they're going to get 8,000 people. So really the council has a choice to make. But it seems like, oh my gosh, this is a good thing, so we should do it. Would it be appropriate to put a recommendation that says, hey, you know, maybe we'll help you get started, but don't expect it every year? Or is it just because it's competitive grant we should just assume that they understand that?

Well, think that that's something that could be modified. We're going to be going out with the application process. So that's something that could be just put in the application itself that says if you've been given a grant in the years past, this doesn't guarantee that you'll be qualified for this year's. And every year it's a competitive program. And we receive multiple requests. And we only have a certain amount of dollars. And so it's up to the council's discretion as to how they want to lay that money out.

Okay. Well, thanks. I just wanted to ask the question so it was some food for thought for later. Thank you very much. Anybody? Okay. So now we'll open up the public comment period. Britt, take it away.

If you would like to address the City Council on this item and you're attending the meeting in person, now is the time to approach the podium. You're attending via Zoom, now is the time to raise your hand. Mayor, I see no speakers.

All right. So we'll close the public comment period and bring it back to counsel.

Well, I can provide some quick feedback. I really appreciate this draft. I think it's a great step forward and incorporates everything that we had discussed previously, especially around sort of capturing some of the nonprofit or for profit language, but then also giving counsel the room if there is an event that is serving the community that we do want to fund it. So I'm supportive of the policies drafted. And as the city manager mentioned, just maybe including some language around the nature of those things in the application itself so that folks are aware of it. Because I do think grants inherently are competitive. That's my take on it. So I'll move to approve the staff recommendation.

Excellent. And we have a second?

I second.

Okay. Do we have any discussion? Okay. No discussion. All in favor please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Seeing none it passes. Oh, yes.

Who's the second? Was the second I wanted to confirm. You.

Carries five-zero. Thank you. All right. Next up is general business item number 3.2, extension of a memorandum of understanding regarding conditional tolling and withdrawal of the Chester Allendale Builders Remedy Project application number, etcetera, etcetera. And we have a staff report.

Good evening, Mayor Page, Vice Mayor Wallia, members of the City Council. Ladies and gentlemen of Saratoga, my name is Brian Swanson. I serve as the community development director for the beautiful city of Saratoga. Staff is seeking authorization from the city council this evening to extend the MOU, which is the memorandum of understanding between the city and Vineyard one, the applicant. Staff and the applicant are presently working together to prepare the 64 unit project for city council consideration.

Several ancillary documents are required, including a subdivision improvement agreement and arrangements to ensure that the affordability of the designed units within the project are met. The applicant has proposed extending the MOU timeline to provide that the Builders Remedy Project must be withdrawn if the city grants final approval of the 64 unit project by 05/06/2026. Under the MOU, including the proposed extension, the city retains all the discretion it has today. It does not mandate that the city approve either project or consider the 64 unit project on the stated timeline. Meeting the timeline and approving the smaller project would provide certainty that the applicant will no longer pursue the Builders' Remedy Project.

The proposed extension also clarifies that the MOU and extension may be recorded in the county records. If the property is sold between the recordation and the MOU's date for the builder's project builder's remedy project withdrawal, the new owner would be on notice of its obligation under the MOU. That concludes the staff presentation. I'm here to answer any questions. And thanks to Richard and his team, and Cindy as always for all your support.

Thank you, Brian. Any questions? Yes, below.

I had one question. Yeah. This is an extension of the deadline essentially as part of the MOU. That's correct. But this item will still come back in front of council for final approval. Is that accurate?

Yeah. For sure. It will come to the next city council meeting. So the next city council meeting will be the final map. Okay. In addition to the final cancellation of the Williamson Act. Alright. Thank you. Okay.

Any other questions? Tina?

Tina just to say it for the record. Once it comes back by May 6, then the ninety day starts there.

That's correct. So approval on May 6, the ninety days then kicks in.

Yeah. Just wanted to say it for the public.

Yeah. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Okay. Any other questions? Thank you, Brian. I'll now open up the public comment period. And Britt, if you wouldn't mind helping me explain this.

If you would like to address the city council on this item and you have not submitted speaker slip, now is the time to do so. If you are attending via Zoom, now is the time to raise your hand. I have one speaker slip. Sachneel.

Mayor, council members, good evening. Sasanil Patel from City Connect Partners. I just want to take a quick minute just to tell you that, a great, appreciation and gratitude for all of the city staff members, including city attorney and even the city consultants. To be able to get to where we are today from September is a huge lift. And this extra couple weeks that we're requesting is just to, you know, cross our T's and dot our I's, and we're almost there. So, we're excited to bring this to counsel on the next hearing. With that, I'll turn it back over to you.

Thank you.

Mayor, I see no other speakers.

Okay. Thank you. I will close the public comment period and bring it back to the council. Hi. Tina, go ahead.

I'd like to move staff recommendation, which is to authorize the city manager to sign the amendment to extend the Memorandum of Understanding regarding conditional tolling and withdrawal of Chester Allendale Builders Remedy Project.

Okay. Do I hear a second?

I second.

Cookie seconds. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No abstentions. Motion carries, five-zero. All right. Let's go to general business item 3.3 for 500. Thank you for getting that. This item is the implementation of actions required by and related to SB seven zero seven. Britt, are you exhausted yet?

Not quite.

You're gonna be after this stuff.

Mayor Page, Vice Mayor Wally, and City Council members, this item before you is largely here to basically to document compliance for SB seven zero seven as well as to adopt a few policies and to approve the process for receiving and resolving requests for reasonable accommodations. As you know, SB seven zero seven was enacted in 2025. And we are required to bring a policy before you to have you approve the oh my gosh. Regarding disruption of telephonic or internet service disruptions which may occur during meetings. So that policy before you is City Council Policy nine.

Additionally, we are required or the City Council is required to enhance public engagement, which you'll see in your staff report, including arranging space for interpreters. We are required to have the city council make reasonable efforts for outreach to certain groups who do not traditionally attend city council meetings. We are already in compliance for reasonable accommodations for our agendas. So we do not have to make any changes there. Our webpage already has most of the requirements in SB seven zero seven.

What we'll be doing is just putting everything on one page. So we'll just kind of rearrange what we're already doing. We will be doing some conforming changes pursuant to SB seven zero seven, which is what City Council Policy 10 does. SB seven zero seven required that the city council and commissioners be provided a copy of the Brown Act. And we did that in December.

And then new council members when they are elected will also be provided a copy of the Brown Act. And when new commissioners are sworn in, they are being provided a copy of the Brown Act after they are sworn in. So with that, if you have any questions, I'm happy to try to answer those questions. I did work very, very closely with the city attorney. We've been working on this for the past six, seven months since this was enacted and signed by the governor back in, my goodness, June. We thought we were gonna get past this, we weren't.

It's been going since October. Learned about it in June, and it became real in October. Yes.

All right. Any questions of staff? Don't tell me you guys memorized this letter.

Questions. Yeah. You, Mayor. So, I know we have talked to this in the past. So, I what exactly what's different from what we're doing now? I I thought that we're we been doing what it is.

Largely, we are already in compliance. Right. Because we are already offering two way audiovisual and audio Zoom compliance or Zoom oh, my gosh, remote compliance or remote participation. There are other agencies who are not offering that. And so this actually requires them to start doing that in July. So we are already in compliance. Okay.

So it's really not because what I read is, was like, okay, we have been doing all this.

We also will have to start offering captioning. Closed captioning. Well, we have to turn that on. And that actually is a very minute part of SB seven zero seven. We also have a translation requirement into Chinese simplified.

There are other agencies who have no translation requirements. That is what the public posting board policy is. And that is basically so that we will not have any issues with other people who might want to translate our agendas into other languages. I want to make sure that we don't have any outside organizations who might get angry if we try to take something down. If they post something other than an agenda on the board, I want to make sure that we've got coverage I take down a flyer that they've got on that board.

Got it. So just two minor things that we are not doing right Correct. Because it's Okay. Just have want to confirm with you. All right. Thank you.

Any other questions? Britt, I was wondering if you might summarize the disruption policy.

The disruption policy states that we have to do everything we can to bring the internet back up if it goes down. So we have to What it states we have to do is try to What we're going to be doing is making phone calls, trying to contact our Internet provider. We're going to be flipping switches, making trying to get it to come back up. What we can do is we can actually call a closed session. If we have a reason to go into closed session, we can actually go well, we can't call a closed session.

But if we have closed session already on our agenda and we were going to go into closed session at the end of the meeting, we can actually go into closed session at that time. But we have to wait an hour before we can do anything. Once we've waited the hour, we can either adjourn the meeting and not take any more action, or we can actually come back into our meeting after waiting the hour and say we have to make our statements saying we've done exactly what we've done to try to bring the Internet back up. I don't know what we're going to do to make AT and T bring the Internet back up, if that's our provider. I don't know who our provider is.

But we will make our statements that were required that Saratoga City Council has made good faith efforts to restore telephonic or Internet service in accordance with our policy. And then we can go on with our meeting. We can adjourn the meeting. And then at that point we can finish the items on our agenda.

And do we have like for example a troubleshooting flow chart so that if that happens there's a series of steps that can be followed relatively quickly?

That's something that I'll be working with IT so that they can tell us exactly what the best things that they think will be. Okay. Because that's something that will be their wheelhouse for me.

Absolutely.

And we have until July 1 to

Put that all together. Right.

And

And you talked about we had to wait an hour.

Yes.

So when you said we could go to closed session, we could go to closed session during that hour.

Yes, correct. We just are required to wait

an An hour before we would close the meeting.

Right. Or adjourn

the meeting.

And I just want to, it is implicit in the law in what we've written, but not explicit. I'll just say here, we can only go to closed session if it's on

the agenda. If it's on

the long as it's on the agenda. So like I said, we can't just

No, we can't just call.

As long as it's on, as long as it's agendized.

Right. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Now we're all going to memorize this and be ready to go. We've got until July 1. We've got time. All right. So we'll open up the public comment period and invite anyone who wants to speak on this item to either come forward or Britt will look for your raised hand in the virtual world.

If you would like to address the City Council on this item, you're attending via Zoom. Now is the time to raise your hand. Mayor, I see no speakers.

All right. So we'll close the public comment period and bring it back to counsel. Yes, yeah.

All right. I'm ready to make a motion. All right. I'll move to approve staff's recommendation.

I second that with just a remark that it's good Saratoga has been ahead of the curve. Yes, Sacramento is asking us to do a few more things. And I just won't comment on the others. But I've already seconded the motion.

Okay. I'd just like to clarify one thing. That was the recommended actions, plural, right? Because there's a bunch of them.

Yes. Recommended actions of one to five.

Perfect. Right. So any discussion? Okay. All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Nobody's opposed. And there are no abstentions. So it passes five-zero. Excellent. Thank you. Next up is council assignments. Oh, I'm sorry. Oh my gosh. Forgot. You know, I was thinking I need a break. And now I know why. I think we might want to take seven minutes before we come back to this. Okay, well, you're ahead of us. Thanks.

All right, so we're going take about a seven minute break. We'll be back at quarter up. Alright. It's time to readjourn. I mean to reopen, reconvene our meeting.

God, I'm do I do I sound like I wanna leave? Or I don't I don't really wanna leave. I just just don't wanna talk about budget. I'm so tired of contracts and budgets.

It's your passion, mayor.

Oh, love it. Yeah, it's true. I'm just dying to get started again. Ryan, why don't you take us through the introduction to the, or the preview, I'm sorry, of the budget.

Sure. Thank you. So tonight I am presenting the preliminary fiscal year twenty twenty six-twenty seven budget. I want to emphasize that these numbers are preliminary. Typically, we bring these to counsel in May. This year with some of the budget challenges we've been having, we thought it was important to bring this as soon as possible to counsel. So there will be some ongoing refinements to this budget, but we wanted to, again, just step right into it. And, of course, the clicker doesn't work. That's fine. Something's gonna work.

So this is agenda of the key topics we're going to cover. We'll start with our fiscal challenge, which we started discussing back in January with the sheriff's contract. Number two is the proposed balancing plan, which I'll walk through in more detail. We'll walk through our five year forecast and the impact to our reserves, the money we have available that will be eroded with the proposed impact. And finally, we'll get to the important topic, is the policy choices ahead.

As I walk through the presentation, I want to focus on a question. Given our long term revenues are not keeping pace with our costs, which city priorities are the most important for us to protect as our budget grows tighter? So keep that in mind, please, as I walk through these numbers and these details. That's really the core question that we're trying to address here. So this is just a recap of all the work we've done with the budget timeline.

Starting with January, our council retreat, we've had our CIP prioritization study session. We break these out into components so that we can really look at the budget in detail. Tonight, this is the preliminary budget for the general fund, our primary operating fund. The financial policies were also on the agenda. And we discussed our fee updates. The key takeaway from this presentation is in this graph. All the numbers, all the assumptions really roll up into these four lines. So we've shown this in the past, and it's something we're going to continue to look at to guide our financial decisions. The green line is our revenues for our general fund. These have been very strong the last two years with development activity and high interest rates.

We are cautious that that will continue in the future. The red line is our total expense, if you will. It's our operating costs as well as our capital costs. Again, I'll walk through all the assumptions. But the red line in future years is growing higher than the green line. Right? Something that we've talked about in the past. What's new and added here and really demonstrates the impact of the changes is the blue line. These are our fund balance reserves, the monies we have stored for rainy day funds, if you will. These have been averaging around $13,000,000 a year the past several years.

And you can see that money eroding to keep pace with our cost increases in the future. So this is a bleak financial picture. So budget overview, public safety. The sheriff recently proposed a $3,000,000 increase to the contract effective July. Recently, on April 13, we've received some refinements that have slightly reduced this number, but the magnitude is still very large, right?

It's closer to $2,600,000 with the refinements. Let's put a pin on that because the magnitude of this increase is still very substantial. In order to mitigate that cost increase, we've reduced costs in three key areas. The first was the capital reduction. We reduced our capital program to really our priority projects, significantly constrained funding to the city's infrastructure and assets.

We reduced our pension payment. So the city again has proactively made early payments towards our pension liability to help reduce future costs. We put that on pause. And finally, we've made some operating reductions. We've reduced our operating costs by about $700,000 That was primarily in contract services. We reduced training for staff as well as meeting costs. Those reductions were partially offset by some increases. This is an election year. There's about $100,000 cost for the election. Utility costs continue to rise, particularly water.

And we have a traffic impact fee study that I'll walk through in a little bit more detail. So those increases netted us about $400,000 in savings. Looking first at the capital deferrals. So this graph shows our general fund contributions to capital over the years. In our post recession years, you can see these were very light.

We barely had money to contribute to our streets, to our parks, to keep our infrastructure, which we will bring future items to the council to talk about our asset life cycle. But the infrastructure and assets the city has under management, depending on the valuation, it's between 100,000,000 and $200,000,000 So significant assets, all of our facilities, and we are barely maintaining them in the early 2010s. We slowly were able to step that up as funding increased. And you can see over the last several years, we've averaged close to $3,500,000 in general fund contributions to capital. The proposed budget is significantly constrained.

We're about $1,500,000 from the general fund, really for our priority projects. We have two new small projects. The key takeaway from this slide is that deferring funding for our capital assets just increases future costs. This is no different than if you had a car or a home and you put out repairs and you let it kind of deteriorate over time. All right?

That home is going to deteriorate. So what this really shows here is that we're returning to sort of our pre or excuse me, our post recession funding. It's also worth pointing out here that rising material costs and cost to complete these projects has increased significantly. So this graph doesn't include any inflation, any material costs. We're really constrained with this budget.

This really isn't a long term solution, deferring capital. Reduced pension payment. This slide really shows that we earn a return on the money that we set aside and pay down our pension liability. It's around, off the top of my head, it's north of $10,000,000 probably closer to 11,000,012 million dollars So we have reduced our discretionary additional payment. We will make the required minimum contribution, which will be about $1,000,000 for this next fiscal year.

Again, not a long term solution. This just increases our future costs and the amount we end up paying towards this liability. Operating reductions, the biggest is contract services. So we reduced our budget landscaping, repairs, fuel reduction. We shifted landscaping budget to L and Ls where appropriate to make sure that it placed correctly.

Our tree maintenance, we've reduced by $150,000 We now have a new tree maintenance plan in place so that we can accurately maintain the city's trees. And what this 150 ks savings did is essentially just move out our maintenance cycle from a seven to an eight year cycle. Over time, we will be reducing the amount of staff over time. Total over time has been about 150,000 years. So this is a pretty significant reduction to that over time.

And finally, we've reduced training and meetings for staff. All of these come with tradeoffs and sacrifices to the city. But you can see the total reduction here of about 710,000. Some increases I mentioned that offset the hard work we did to reduce and balance our budget. We had some cost pressures, utilities. Waters continue to increase. It's difficult to maintain. We've right sized the areas where we can to reduce water usage, but the cost of water just continues to increase. We have an election I mentioned. You can see the estimated cost there from the county.

And finally, our traffic impact fee. It is a new $90,000 cost, but it is characterized as an investment because the hope based on what Farrant and Pierce thinks we could charge given our current development, the hope is that it will bring 2,000,000 to $3,000,000 in the next few years. But the timing of that is all subject to development activity and outside of our control. We all know that the city contracts out large majority of its services. We operate a very lean mean operation.

In terms of areas for potential reductions, the community development department operates on a cost recovery model. So it's funded by user fees. Reductions there really don't help solve our budget challenges. The second bullet here really calls out some of the key areas that we outsource with contract services, sheriff, legal, recreation and maintenance, reductions to those areas. The good news is contracted amount, they're flexible in that we can reduce them, but they directly impact service levels by reducing those contract services.

So a lot of our costs are frankly outside of our control, right? Pension, safety contract, insurance, which good news, by way, the insurance, which has been increasing dramatically the last several years, it just finally flattened out this year. There was some upside this year. Long term budget solutions require changing service priorities and accepting broader community impacts. We've talked about this before.

We've talked about service level changes and reductions. What has changed is the immediacy and the magnitude of the financial challenges that we have. Looking at some future considerations, areas we could potentially reduce, community support grants, community event grants, city events, these are all important areas. We struggle to find volunteers, right, to help with these areas more and more. These make big impacts in our communities.

But these are discretionary funds in a sense that we could consider potentially reducing. All of these things considered, at $3.37 ks, I mean, it's maybe 10% of the proposed sheriff increase, right? So again, the magnitude of this sheriff increase is putting us in a very difficult position to balance the budget going forward.

This is

a detailed table of expenditures for next fiscal year. What it shows is, how we ended 2025, in the first column. And you can see the last column is, the proposed 2027 budget. I highlighted the public safety contract services because of the significant increase. This was an area of challenge before the significant increase.

Our contract services, public safety and our contract services together were growing at around 10% a year, right? Our revenues, our property taxes don't grow at 10%. So we identified this early as a challenge, but this is a big steep uptick in those costs. This graph just shows the combined contract services with a little more detail and calling out specifically the big increase in the sheriff. Looking at our revenues, we are forecasting about a 4% increase next year that we've included in the budget.

Slightly conservative given what we've seen, but given the last two quarters of property tax, it's looking like it's around 4%. The county is signaling a $1,400,000 excess eREF component of our property tax. And they're also assuming a 20% risk that we don't even receive that. So what we've done is we've budgeted 1,100,000 of excess eREF in the budget. Uses of money and property.

This really is interest revenue. We've talked about in the past. Interest rates are declining slowly, but they're unpredictable in the future. And we've been actively spending on our ARPA funds, which is good news in the sense that we need to use the funds, but, the interest that we have been earning on those funds is going away. And finally, our other taxes, primarily sales tax, TOT, are projected to be flat. They have been for, frankly, the last two decades. Looking at the revenues in more detail. I highlighted here, the primary focus is charges for service. This has been an area, that's been strong the last two years with development activity. I'm moderately conservative in my 2027 budget.

You can see I've budgeted 6,800,000 I'm hoping for $7,500,000 this year. So there is potential upside in this budget, particularly in the charges for service. The other areas, I think, are frankly closer to what we budgeted in the past, not conservative. Moving on to the forecast assumptions. So the budget really is our foundation for projecting out what we think will happen over the next several years.

As we look to the future, I put some assumptions in there to paint a picture and show the impact of decisions that we will need to make. So a key assumption for the forecast is that our annual capital contributions return to $3,500,000 This allows us to continue to maintain city infrastructure. I've also assumed that our operating reductions that we've identified continue in the future. So the cost cutting, the training, reduction in contract services, those all continue. And finally, we've assumed the sheriff proposed increase goes into effect.

And they've signaled a 5% annual increase after the initial $3,000,000 bump in 2027. It's worth pointing out the current sheriff proposal stipulates the actual cost will be passed on to cities. So the cost stability that we've had in the past with our budget is no longer the case. So if the sheriff incurs massive, say, legal settlement costs, those will be passed on to us. So this 5% could potentially be worse.

I'm also forecasting property tax growth, our largest revenue source, at about 5%. And other contract services continue to grow as they have in the past at 10%. Key takeaway from this slide, which I've really tried to highlight, is with all of these assumptions, which are very realistic, our reserves would be exhausted in about three years. This table is detailed but shows our fund balances, which we've started to talk about because of the impact and the deterioration that will happen here. So starting on the left with the type, these are accounting terminology for your most restricted reserves going to your least restricted.

Committed are binding reserves, the hillside stability. We have a million dollars. We set it away as a rainy day fund for all the hillside challenges that we have. It is very restricted in its use. The assigned, the second grouping here, the assigned fund balances are also for very particular uses but can be reassigned by counsel with a bit more flexibility. These really go to our capital program. And finally, the unassigned. These are reserves that have a declared purpose but really can be used to help balance the operating budget. So you can see that we've built over time. We've maintained about $14,000,000 in these total reserves.

That's what we can use to help offset these the $3,000,000 increase. This takes us back to the key takeaway slide. It's the same chart showing the red line outpacing the green line and the deterioration of our fund balance. So in summary, the balance the budget is balanced. We will be dipping potentially into reserves to help meet the cost needs for next year.

Unless there's significant changes and there have to be material changes, our reserves will be depleted in about three years. You can see that long term stability require more than just service cuts. As we think about reducing the budget, the magnitude of budget reductions we would have to make to meet a $3,000,000 cost increase would be significant. And that concludes my presentation. I am available for any

questions. Questions? I'll give you a chance to absorb that before you ask any questions.

I'll jump in with a question. Okay. Ron, one thing you mentioned was the looking at the capital, you know, in terms of that was, around 1.718 for a couple of years, and now it's gone up to $3.03 to four. Give us a sense of how that's evolved. Right? Like, I imagine is that things getting more expensive? Is it our infrastructure is getting older and more expensive to maintain in general? Help give us and the public a sense of why they see that number increase so much and why it stays there.

Sure. So it'd be a combination of factors, including the material increases. I think the biggest driver for that change is really the prioritization of the roads. So we went through a period where we put very little funding into our roads. That deteriorated, some of which deteriorated to a point where they're more expensive to bring back.

But really, it's, I think, a strategic prioritization to put money towards our biggest asset, our roads. I mean, are valued at something like $60,000,000 They can hit we've all seen the graph they can hit a point where they deteriorate very quickly. So we've been I can't recall our PCI, our pavement condition index offhand. Sorry, what was it? 6464. So we're on the lower end, and we've really been trying to maintain that number, which has caused the increased cost.

Yes, Ian.

Thank you, Mayor. I have a question that's on your presentation, Page 14. You budget about 1,100,000 excess ERAP. And I remember at one time when we talk about if, you know, there's a 20% of the risk that we have to give back to the county. And I remember there was a clause that is gonna be rolled back to just to the previous year or is gonna roll back to wherever the excess eRAF we received? How how much of damage if it does, you know, company does decide to collect that?

Yeah. So the the risk would be not only would we not receive this, the current year, ERAP, which they're estimating at 1.4, it would be a portion of the previous year as well.

Just previous one year, not the years before. Okay. Just roll back one year. Yeah. Okay. So that's not going to I was like worried if they talk about it, gonna roll back to all the years that we received.

A low scenario for the city would be excess eRAF goes away, the economy hits a recession,

and the

sheriff increase all go into play. Those factors will put the city in a very tight financial position. It's a plausible outcome.

Right. So, do you have a, the worst scenario, let's say, you know, if this goes away and, you know, mean, there's gonna be some kind of a cost, right?

Sure.

If they're gonna come pass down to our city, what would be the worst case scenario?

MR.

Sure. So when I put together the five year forecast, consider that my baseline scenario. I think my low scenario, my worst case scenario, would be what I laid out, which would be a recession, which is very plausible, right? It's looming. We all read the headlines.

It would be the state essentially clawing back our ERAP funds, which are significant, dollars 1,400,000. In the event of a recession, our charges for services drop by 25%. Significant. Around $2,000,000 So that's a 3,500,000 hit. And I have the sheriff's increase, that's another 3,000,000 So we're talking a $6,000,000 reduction on a $35,000,000 budget that would be material. That would be my

Worst worst case scenario. Okay. So our $14,000,000 reserve maybe just last us two years. Yeah. Thank you.

Anybody else?

This is the moment of silence.

Okay. I have a question,

Ryan. Say

for some instance, say the sheriff's increase wasn't 3,000,000, but it was only 2,000,000 this year and we made up the difference next year. As the Finance and Administration Director, your presentation to the next finance committee would show what changes.

So what that would show would be a slight change in the

Yeah, it's like, it would be a, you know, we'd have a, say, 1,600,000 more to play with, more to use or reserve.

Sure. So what you'd see would be a reduction in our expense line by roughly a million dollars. You'd see an increase in our unassigned fund balance line. So there would be a scenario that would be slightly better. And we gain maybe a year. Yeah. That's what I thought.

Thank you. All right. No more questions? I'll open the public comment period. So Britt?

If you would like to address the City Council on this item and you're attending via Zoom, now is the time to raise your hand. Mayor, I see no hands raised.

All right. We'll close the public comment period and bring it back to counsel for any discussion. Really this was just to receive the report and think on it.

I smell smoke so I know we're all thinking.

Anybody want to move to just receive the report and we'll just move on. Bilal, you want say something?

I'll jump in. I shared a bunch of these comments with the finance committee, but these are slightly different comments, but I'll just share a bit of my reactions just to sort of touch on sort of the macro element of it, what are our policy options, what are some of the real challenges we're facing, and then what are options? And thank you for thoughtfully laying it out. This has been a really intense period over the last six or seven months as we try and process the impact of the sheriff's contract, price increases, while at the same time, we've been talking about a potential hit like this for a couple of years just because of our structural deficit and the fact that our expenses have been increasing the way that they have. On a macro level, there is an interesting article in the national press today about a city in Massachusetts that was trying to increase their property taxes because of their sort of reduced just to try and cover, right, whether it's schools, roads.

A lot of the conversations that we're having, it felt very similar. That measure failed. But it's also something a lot of our neighboring cities are considering right now in terms of actual revenue measures to help fund whether it's public safety, the roads, or whatever it might be. So on the one hand, it's comforting that it's not just us, but it also lets you know that we have a real problem. And it's a real macro challenge that not just us, but a lot of cities and municipalities are facing, especially after a couple of years of lots of one time federal and state funds that, you know, it takes a few years sometimes to feel the trickle down effects of some of those federal changes, and so we're in the midst of that.

You know, I'm not going to prognosticate on if there's going to be a recession or not. It's a seventeen year bull market, but we kind of have to we can't not think about it. Right? We have to take it seriously as an option. From a policy perspective, one thing that might have gotten missed in our financial policies that we amended tonight was we are recommending changing our working capital policy when it comes to the reserves to increase that by a million to $2,000,000 with the idea being that as things are getting more expensive, our, you know, literally as our outbound expenses have to increase, we need to have more capital available to pay ongoing expenses.

And so that's an important part of it, but just something for us that we considered and really appreciate of the work that the team is doing on that. There are other things that we could consider that we haven't talked about before. I want to be really careful about this, but we do have a number of assets that we do own across the city, different properties and whatnot. I'm not in favor of one time asset sales to fund ongoing budget deficits, though. Perhaps we should maybe that's something to put a pin in for later on, but like for us to develop a policy around these assets that we hold, some of them we probably will never sell because there's an easement of some kind that serves a purpose, But other ones I think are important.

In terms of the challenges, right, in chatting with our staff, even finding the $700,000 of savings was exceptionally challenging. And I really want to give a lot of kudos to every single member of our staff here because we know everyone's been asked to say, hey, where can we find pennies underneath the couches and really find everything that we can to possibly help plug this gap. And even with that, it doesn't feel like it's anywhere near sufficient. And we're not it's one thing to talk about a recession. One thing that we're not even talking about is a major climate event of some kind, right, which you know, could easily cut through a lot of reserves and become very expensive.

We all experienced that about three years ago in 2023 and something that could easily impact us again. The other thing that I just want to call out is that our reserves for now, for the next fiscal year, we'll go down about what we'd use 1.5 to $2,000,000 but our usage of those reserves would essentially double because of how expensive these are. So what are our options? I think we have no choice but to face this head on. I think every option has to be on the table, whether it's service level reductions.

There's a real tradeoff on capital because that is a strategic priority. But like you mentioned at the very beginning of this, Ryan, like what are our priorities? Right? And what is the service we want to deliver to the city? We have obligations, pensions.

We do have to manage our infrastructure. But I do think that every option has to be on the table. One thing that we've talked about service level reductions. That may even potentially mean layoffs at some point Just because you have to think about staff reductions or not filling open positions, I think every option has to be on the table, especially in a world where we aren't seeing any revenue coming unless we choose to pursue some kind of revenue measure. But there's just very serious things we have to think about here and that's not something I say lightly.

I think we should look at alternatives to the sheriff's contract with the county but don't really have a choice going into the next year. And yeah, I think we're just in a really tough position overall. But I think that's why we're elected is to make these hard decisions. We have a limited number of property tax dollars that come in, as well as sales tax revenue and other things across the city that we have to adjudicate and figure out how are we going to spend that money in consultation with our residents, our community, our staff, and we have some tough conversations ahead.

Thank you. Anybody else? Yan?

Well, thank you Ryan for the presentation. Thank you for the great work and help us balance the budget, you know, even under this challenging conditions. So I'm just looking at the, you know, five year forecast even with the most, you know, optimistic assumptions that our reserve will be depleted in about three years. So I think it's we we really need to start, you know, the process on a more comprehensive of a multiyear strategy. I think we need to let our community know, you know, some service, you know, I mean, we have to talk about service priorities and some service level will be getting, you know, get reduced and get their input and just make sure that our community is clear about some of the trade offs ahead in the future years.

Yeah. I just think it's gonna be, you know, we we we need to start looking at now. We can't wait three years later. So there's something that I'm looking, you know, to my colleagues here and what we can do together and come up with some kind of strategy. And I would think we need to, you know, inform our residents, and we need to get their inputs as well.

Thank you. Anybody else?

Tina? Not much more to add. I will say thank you, Ryan. You have kept us posted. The last two or three months since the 2026, have been pretty busy and a difficult situation to look at from this perspective. I have been attending the Finance Committee meetings understanding this very carefully. Sometimes repetition helps. In this case, repetition just helps see how very, very difficult the situation is. And I'm not saying it lightly. It's just a very grim picture.

I agree with what my colleagues have said. Every option will need to be on the table. We don't have a choice, essentially. And, yes, we have to inform the community. We have been sharing. I know I certainly have been talking with the residents when they approach me for anything. I bring up the fact, have you heard about this? This is what the city is dealing with. Or they ask me, what's going on? What's the council busy with?

We are all doing that. And I believe as some of the decisions are going to be made in the next four to six to eight weeks, especially with the sheriff's contract, We will have a little more specific situation presented in terms of dollars. But not very different, as you have presented to us tonight. We know the challenges very clearly laid out by you this evening. And thank you for bringing this in front of the council here tonight.

And I am just looking at the last slide here. You're saying very simply, but very correctly, the long term balance of our budget will require a combination of expenditure control, policy choices, and revenue strategies. There is no two ways about it. If the revenue is limited, then something has to go. We have to have a balanced budget. So nothing earth shattering. It is just a very difficult situation. Thank you.

Cookie? Doctor.

Just briefly. Thank you, Ryan, for your clarity. I understand the gravity of the situation. And I know we need to move forward deliberately. I think we're going to find a way forward. We need to find a way forward. And I think we can do it. I don't know how. We've got to do it.

Thank you. And I'd just like to, first of all, thanks. I've seen this a number of times now. We've all discussed it at length in various retreats and study sessions and planning sessions. I just want to remind the folks that are watching this. Saratoga has very minimal sources of revenue. We have property taxes. We have about a million dollars of sales tax revenue. And that doesn't change very much, whether it's a good year or a bad year. But on the property taxes are the main source of revenue.

And to give you a perspective on that, if somebody were to buy a brand new $3,000,000 house today in Saratoga, they'd pay about $32,000 a year in property taxes. Of that $32,000 Saratoga gets $1,800 And keep in mind that the neighbor down the street who has the same exact house as that one, but bought it twenty five years ago, is paying $3,200 a year. So the city's getting $180 a year in property taxes to run the city. That's take care of the roads, for law enforcement, pay for staff, pay for all the things that the state keeps making us do. So just want everybody to keep that in mind, that those are our sources of revenue.

And you know, when we talk about a revenue action, that could be a property tax. It could be a parcel tax. There's multiple ways to do it. And just want everybody to know that that appears to be where we're heading. Because there's no magic bullet in revenue that's coming our way. So at least I don't see that train of cash anywhere. So if somebody knows where it is, please let us know. We appreciate it. So thank you. And we'll take it on to our next assignments, our next item, which is counsel assignments. Bilal.

I have one item to report on, the Interfaith Ministerial Association. We've been having our monthly meetings. Last year there is an Interfaith Day of Understanding, and so there will be another set of those this year. By the next council meeting I should have a final date. Right now it is tentatively scheduled for May 17, tentatively. May 17, I believe, in the afternoon. But I need to finalize that.

Okay. Thanks. Ian?

Okay. I have attended two board meetings. The first one is West Valley Sanitation District Board meeting. The board has appointed vice chair, Dan Furtado and myself, to form an ad hoc committee to, work with, the district manager, on developing, the next year's performing goals for him. So that's something that I'll be working on with our my vice chair.

Talking about bad news, I'm sorry to be the barrier for the bad news. I attended the Santa Clara Valley Water District Water Commission meeting. And in that meeting, basically, the Valley Water has proposed and water rate increase. Basically, they proposed a 9.1% increase from FY '27 through FY 307.4% increase thereafter. So, yeah, basically, when how do you interpret that?

I actually ask a staff, I want to really understand what does that mean, you know? So, basically, that's what that's their estimate that, basically, if you have a monthly bill for the average three to four person household would increase by $5 and 63 per month beginning July 2026. But that's just for per person. And this is not for three to four person, that's per person per month. So, you know, you multiply it by if you have a four and that's per it just I mean, they don't give me a real number, but I'm trying to gonna dig deep and figure out exactly for my family bill, let's say, you know, if you pay, you know, randomly $200 bills, what does that mean?

What's it going to be? Because they're talking about, you know, it's by usage, by person. You know, they don't really give you exactly the impact on their increase. So I'm going to find out. Hopefully, I'll report back next time.

The good news about that is that two years ago, it was 12% every year. We got it down to 10, well, point nine.

See what happens when I get on They the reduce to 9.1.

I got it down to yeah. We got it down two points. You got it down another one. That's good. That's what it takes. We have to keep telling them that. And the only thing that it does do is it increases the time that new infrastructure gets put in place. So it becomes a difficult task. Okay. Cookie.

Nothing new.

Okay. Tina?

I attended two meetings, April 9, Cities Association of Santa Clara County, the Legislative Action Committee. We discussed about seven or eight bills and recommended supporting three bills, which the board approved that night. And I'll give that report in a moment. So the Cities Association Board of Directors met again April 9. Two things to report there.

The Board priority the first priority this year for the Board has been to focus on the emergency preparedness response and recovery. And this was the first meeting we had there. We focused on a countywide approach with guest speakers Dana Reed, the County Office of Emergency Management Director, as well as the Deputy Director Tom Chin. They came and presented. We had a very robust discussion with focus on understanding for the council members and mayors of all the 15 cities about the awareness and how all of this ties into each city's approach, which will be handled at the next meeting.

The second thing that we discussed at the Board were the bills, as recommended that evening by the Legislative Action Committee. And there are three bills that the Board decided to send letters of support to Sacramento. I want to mention these three bills. Interestingly, they are very relevant to some of the things that Jan just mentioned and some of the other things that we have discussed this evening. So I am going to be very brief.

So the first one is AB1761, which is a data transparency bill. It is coming from a rate payer perspective requesting CPUC to ask the investor owned utilities regarding the electricity bill that we are all paying. So for example, in Saratoga we pay for electricity through Silicon Valley Clean Energy, but there is a big line item there that we are paying PG and E for contracts they signed a long time ago expecting us to be their customers. It's complicated to explain, but very simple. We are paying money for something that we are not getting anything for.

So the board was happy to support this, including cities that are not using PG and E. The second bill is SB1159, which is artificial intelligence, transparency and governance. This is essentially saying there should be a difference in the public comments, whether they are generated through AI versus a real human person. Some of the challenges that I think Britt would be interested if this bill becomes lower or any version of this bill. It again seemed to resonate with all the cities and people were happy to support this.

The last bill that we decided to support is AB2517, which is about CAL FIRE designation of fire hazard severity zone maps. This has been supported by CAL Cities as well under their public safety discussion and priority this year. This bill asks for process improvements, a more fair and transparent process giving more advanced notice to the cities, the residents, so that there is a longer and more meaningful comment period. Something we just went through last February 2025. Those are the three bills the board has supported. And we are in the process of sending letters of support to Sacramento. That's all I have to report. Thank you.

Thank you. And I attended the Silicon Valley Clean Energy Board meeting. And we had a couple of items. One was the board provided input on the integrated decarbonization roadmap, which was to update the original 2018 strategy. Discussed the SBCE programs, there's $138,000,000 allocated to help people to electrify their homes and other things.

With, I think it's, what was it, dollars 12,800,000 set aside. No, might be $23,000,000 set aside for low income. And then last year, last February, SBCE bought a building. And they are beginning the complete interior build out of that building. That started in March. And they're planning a, I think July move in date. Something like that. So that's all I have to report. So we'll go to council items. Does anybody have a city council item?

Okay, I have one. And I didn't talk to anybody, so I'm hoping somebody will support it. At my mayor's time at the West Valley College Farmers Market, I had several people come up to me. We've had several people come here. And they've asked about putting a revenue measure on for public safety.

So knowing that we had just heard the preview of what we've got to deal with, I would like to ask our city manager to put together a of a guideline and a recommendation of what the city might do. And I'm not talking about a revenue measure. I'm talking about becoming a charter city limited to the ability to put a transfer tax on the sale of property. Portola Valley is looking at this. Many other cities are looking at it.

It's not huge. It doesn't generate zillions of dollars. But it is a way to minimize the expense of a charter city and realize the kind of gain that you might need to, especially for public safety. So if that might be something that could be done, and if there's anybody who would like to add anything to that study, that would be cool too. But that's what my ask is. If anybody will second that, I'd appreciate it.

I can second it. And do you intentionally want to exclude any conversation around a revenue generating measure? Or would you be open to a more comprehensive conversation about all of our options?

I think that would be fine. Just didn't want to be the one that proposed it.

All right.

I can second that.

Okay. So we have two things in there. And anything else that you can. Tree. Grow a a money tree. Yeah, let's grow the money tree. The city does take donations, contributions, they're widely accepted. Okay. Any council communications? Any lack of communications? Alright. Do we have a city manager's report?

Nothing to report.

Okay. And how about a city attorney's report?

Nothing to report.

Okay. How about oral communications on non agendized items from our remote attendees?

If you would like to address the city council on an item not on the agenda and you're attending the meeting via Zoom, now is the time to raise your hand. Mayor, I see no hands raised.

In which case I'll close the oral communication on nonagenitized items for our remote attendees. And I'll adjourn the meeting. Thank you.