City Council - Regular Meeting

you you you . . .

Good evening Vacaville. It is Tuesday, August 11, 2026. It's 6.07 p.m. This is the regular City Council meeting scheduled in the City of Vacaville. We are in the Council Chambers. May I have a roll call?

Council Agency Authority Member Stockton? Ritchie? Here. Chapman? Here. Remo?

Here.

Wiley? Here. Vice Mayor, Vice Chair Silva?

Here.

Mayor, Chair Carley?

Here. With that, if you're able, we please rise for a moment of silence followed by the pledge. Vice Mayor Silva, will you lead us in the pledge?

Sure. Ready? Begin. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

All right. All right. We assembled for closed session at 5 o'clock. And we had two items that were legal related and there are Report outs for both of them. Items 1A, council provided direction to legal counsel to initiate litigation against major fire truck manufacturers for alleged elimination of competition, restricted supply, imposed excessive price increases, delayed deliveries, reduced quality, and forced exclusive use of proprietary replacement parts, causing substantial financial harm to public entities and threatening public safety. The vote was unanimous approval by the council with council member Stockton being absent. The second item is item 1B. Council provided direction to the city attorney to initiate litigation against federal defendants and related to seeking injunction, injunctive relief, protecting the city from certain grant funding agreement terms imposed by the federal government. In the cases in the city of Fresno et al versus Nome et al, the vote was unanimous with council member Stockton being absent. And with that, we will move on to item five. Any changes to tonight's agenda?

No changes. Okay.

With that, do I have a motion?

Motion to approve. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? All right. We'll move on to reports of the City Council. Any updates on any boards or commissions or committee meetings? Councilmember Wiley?

Just a couple of quick things. Several other council members were also there. The Junior Giants had their closing last week and everyone can kind of make a comment on it. But it was a wonderful program that the BACA PAL and the Junior Giants and the police force do for our people across So that's wonderful. And then also another thing that many people attended was the creative arts and many other vendors and groups providing backpacks and special things for the youth on last Saturday. And it was really great because there were like theater groups and music groups and sports groups and a lot of other things for kids to see how they can be involved. And I did ask a couple of the vendors, Do you have things for people of lower income that can participate in your program as well? Because if you're giving away free backpacks, not everyone can also pay for a lot of special extra activities. So they did say that they had some programs and depended on sponsors. And I know a lot of people are very generous. And then just the third thing, I've been on TRAFT, which is the Travis Regional Armed Forces Committee, basically since 20 when I've been on. And just this week, I am now on the Executive Board of TRAFT, and I will serve in that role as well.

Councilmember Fremont.

Yeah, I would just like to acknowledge real quick. I was able to attend the ribbon cutting ceremony for Kairos High School this last week and got to tour the classrooms and the new football field and just it's really nice to see our first new school built in Vacaville like this like in 30 years and just all of the effort from the volunteers and the staff there and so I just want to Salute on a job well done.

Yeah, it was a good event. It really was. A lot of members of the public and the community, so it's pretty neat to see that, especially in the neighborhood. We seem to hear that all the time. It's like, where's the schools in the neighborhood? So yeah, thank you. Vice Mayor Silva.

Just briefly, thanks for the folks trying to set me up to tap in from West Virginia. There's a national scout event every four years. They call it the National Jamboree. It's a pretty amazing event. Some very impressive youth throughout our nation and really the globe there because different youth from different bases that came in. But Part of that was really initiating the whole part of our initiative of bringing back home just different ways to support our youth, however that might be in whatever organization that would be. So kind of piggybacking off like the backpack giveaway, like for example, tonight there's one in another local school. where a lot of city departments are actually out there supporting. So I wanna give my appreciation for them supporting that. For families out there as we get back to school, we gotta watch out for the little kiddos and the old kiddos. Drop off is always probably the most stressful thing in my parental life. So just hopefully everybody's patient with each other and more loving understanding as everybody adjusts. So along those lines, different after school enrichment programs are available, if not through your schools, through the city, and if not through the city, through different private agent companies and your own local mom and pop shops. So check those out. Don't be afraid to ask for any support. Be able to access those. Another shout out to our Public Works and Parks and Rec Department and everybody else who was involved in getting Char Park opened up. I know it's not 100% opened up, but it's People made it 100% open up a couple months ago. But I really want to thank everybody for trying to make sure the job gets right done. So thank you.

Councilmember Chapman.

Thank you. I wanted to add on regarding to what Councilmember Wiley and Silva had stated about the backpack drive. It was great, aside from all the activities for the young people, parents and the children, they were out. I mean, oh boy, were they out. 1,700 backpacks were made available through donations. I just want to mention the school district, the city, local businesses, and the parents. Everyone was out there because of the children. Something was being provided to them. But I can see us needing to do more of that, more of working together, becoming unified, being all inclusive on the things that are very important. to the residents. And you know, you add that to the quality of life. It was just so great. It was really great to see it. Also, I went out to Pinadobe Park on Saturday, where they had the history, Japanese history. I'm going to call it a festive event. And it was outstanding. I even had my head nibbled on, which is for good luck, which is a blessing. I hadn't been to Pina Adobe to really spend time, but I spent hours out there and it was my second or third time in the past month. And it is a historical site and I did some research on Pina Adobe and hopefully we can, I will be talking to the city manager about our role with that being in Vacaville and with it being on the historical register. Registry. I also had an early I had an invitation to attend a rotary session where Mr. Fremont.

As a member.

As a member, yes. I am not an early morning person so to be up and there at 7.30 I need a pat on the back for that one.

A nibble on the head?

A nibble on the head, yes. However, the person invited me because at the last council meeting I made mention of Habitat for Humanities and the building, the groundbreaking that took place. Well, Habitat for Humanities was the guest speaker at the Rotary session, in which also our own Aaron Morris is the chairperson of this particular early morning Rotary. Yeah. But it was very nice, a very nice event. I enjoyed it. The people very kind and welcoming. But no, I won't be back unless I'm invited again. I just won't make it the habit. No, no way. And then the Junior Giants was mentioned. So anyway, I'm finished.

All right. Thank you. Yeah, absolutely. Just a couple things. I just want to make notice that we have a vacancy, if you weren't aware of it, on our Parks and Rec Commission. Rich Kelsey is going to step down. And so just so you know, that process will be moving forward to make a replacement there. So I'm working with staff on that. Just so you all know. The next thing is, is speaking of Pina Dobi, if you weren't aware of it, this Sunday is there's a America 250 Patriot marker dedication out there by the Daughters of the American Revolution. Yes. And that'll be at 10 a.m. dedication honoring our Spanish patriots beginning at 10, reception, fiesta to follow. So it's open to the public. Public's invited. The event is free. And then last is... my role on slum transportation authority one of the things that has been an ongoing struggle is what does you know what does the north end of the county look like and i've reported back to the council a few times on some of the work thank you to our our staff to make sure that what we ended up doing and the council approved purchasing the the not the full what you see solano express buses but the the smaller ones that still can be on a regular route and part of the things that we've seen is in as much as soltrans is the, we'll just call it the contractor. Solano Express is the route, but STA is the governing body over it all. And there's been some challenges over a period of time because of, you know, if we expect service, We control the money. We control the decision for the city and what was happening. And I'll leave the intent out of it. It's simply probably was about finances. It would be real easy if you cut these lines, do this, and just route the south end of the county into the Bay Area. Because that was the lion's share of the people using it. Well, myself and the mayor of Dixon said this doesn't work because the STA board is here to operate as a whole for what's in the interest of the county, not of the contractor deciding what's in the interest between how they're going to make ends meet. Thank you Brian and your team to work with us on the back end. I'm happy to report that it's officially open. There are two routes now that are consistent daily and the goal is if we want people to use transportation, especially in the high cost of gas, it's got to be reliable and it has to be timely. So people have to be able to rely on it if they're going to go to Davis or to Sacramento. So it's an easy one. Two routes. It's 30D and 30S. You can figure it out. D is Davis, S is Sacramento. So it's pretty simple. there is and I'll ask staff to make sure that we can publish this on our website or to route it so that we can make sure that people know about it. The goal is let's show at this end of the county that we're willing to actually say that this is important and the routes are very consistent now and the other thing that it really was a push by myself and and Mayor Byrd of Dixon, but because of our staff between the two cities to really advocate for Vacaville and Dixon in North County, which is fantastic because we got brand new buses. It was money that was earmarked for Soul Trans, but we said, no, if we're going to do this, we're going to need to reallocate this and find out a way to do it. This is exactly what we need because the stop now at UC Davis is at Memorial Union. This is where the students need to go, where it was going was not effective and we've known it. We've told them that for the last few years. So it's a real exciting change and I've got it up on my screen. You can't see it, but I'll make sure that we have this put out there because we want our kids and our students and our workers who are going to Davis and the Sacramento to start using this. And so it's an exciting thing. So anyway, that's all I have to report.

Can I ask your question?

Yes, absolutely.

About legislative body. From Cal cities, we have received information about wildfire where public entities are not able to claim There are actual laws against the, like PG&E against the energy company, and they're asking for us to support this. It seems like that is like a now, a now request.

yes so staff has already replied to League of California cities and we have provided our opposition we're submitting a coalition letter along with League of California cities so they're going to add our city's logo to that letter in opposition okay that was taken care of this morning thank you all right we're gonna go ahead and move on any reports of our from our city manager Chaudhary tonight Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and council members and community members. I would like, Mike, if you can play the video for Know Your Zone. Our fire department and our dispatch center, along with our PIO office, have put together an amazing video. In case of an emergency, you should know which zone your house is in, and then that will define your route and your evacuation center and all of those things. So let's play the video. It's about a four-minute video.

Do you smell smoke?

What's going on?

I'm scared. 911, what's the address of your emergency? Okay, do you see flames? Can you tell me how big the fire is? Is it threatening any homes? Okay, we'll send crews right away. Is there a fire? We need to prepare for an evacuation just like we practiced, okay? Both of you go get your gold bags. I'll go get mine and daddy's and the rest of the supplies, okay?

I called 9-1-1, they're on their way. We're gonna prepare for an evacuation.

All units, Engine 71 is at scene. We have a large vegetation fire, rapid rate of spread, multiple structures threatened. Start the second alarm. I'll be establishing gross point command.

Back wheel, Battalion 71 is on scene, assuming gross point command. Back wheel, gross point command. Start me a third alarm. We have potential for extended incident. At this point, I need evacuations to Grosse Pointe Lane and Spring Lane.

They're evacuating 2134. That's our zone. We have to go now.

Disasters can strike at any time. Wildfires, earthquakes, floods. Make sure to know your zone and sign up for Alert Solano so you will never miss the information that can save your family's lives.

Well done, whoever did that.

That's my update and the information will be posted on website within the next week or so. And then there will be links to access that information.

Thank you. Thank you very much. We have no presentations tonight. We do have four items on the consent calendar, 9A through 9D. Any member of the council or the public wishing to pull an item for discussion? Any member online wishing to pull this item? All right. So we have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? All right. We have two public hearings tonight, but before we get to that, we have business from the floor. So this is the opportunity for the public to address the council on anything that is within our jurisdiction that's not on the agenda. Please come forward. Good evening.

Good evening, Mayor Carley and members of the council. So during the last council meeting, I brought up some of the challenges in accessing, transparently accessing planning data for the city. And I had a phone call with the planning department two weeks prior to that meeting, and I asked how to find certain information, and it was brought to their attention at that time that the information currently on the city's planning site is outdated. And the website was last updated June of 2025. It says that it's updated quarterly. However, that is not the case. I brought that up again. two weeks ago's meeting. Disappointed to look at it today, and it still has the same outdated information on the city's website. So it's been brought to the planning department's attention. It's been brought to the council's attention, the city manager's attention. I, as a citizen, am wondering when that information is going to be updated to accurately reflect the current projects going on within the city. It is hard to stay informed when the information is not there and what is there is challenging to access. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you for that information.

My name is Amber Maneni. I apologize the last time I was here I spoke so fast I didn't get to introduce myself. So I've started Responsible Growth Vacaville and that's just to kind of keep people in the community informed about the pilot center. So if you were interested at all in what I'm posting you can see it on Instagram at Responsible Growth Vacaville. I would love for you to even comment if I have something or if you have something to add to that. Also, that's my email on Instagram, responsiblegrowthvacaville. So I have emailed each of you a list of questions. I've gotten a little bit more clarification about this process because I'm still learning. So I understand that you guys can't specifically speak on your position with the pilot center and that's completely understandable. But I'm hoping that there's maybe something that you guys can share with me, maybe inside or maybe even a reason as to or how much you can share, what you can say about it, what your experience is. Dr. Chapman, you just mentioned that you were at Pena Adobe and that just, that's wonderful to hear.

Sorry, that makes me a little emotional because I live there.

It's such a beautiful place. Gosh, I didn't know because I didn't grow up in Vacaville. It's a beautiful place. And I would like to invite all of you to the Lagoon Valley if you've never been. There's a visitor center there. I would meet you. Not at 7 in the morning either. I'm not a morning. But if you have to, I'll be there at 7 in the morning. If you come at 10.30 at night when I go for my walk, there are owls out there. We can do an evening walk. I can make it a community event. Somehow I'm representing 2,200 people in Vacaville right now with this opposition to the pilot center. So there are a lot of people who have questions, and I continue to let them know that I've reached out and I've asked for communication, but I haven't received it. And people are not... maybe as polite about it as I'm hoping to be. So I'm easy to talk to. If you are available, I would love to meet with you together individually. I don't know what the rules are, but if you could come down to Lagoon Valley, if you could see where this is planning to be, if we could talk about how that's going to impact the community, the new beautiful community, in addition to the beautiful agri-community that's there currently. It's hard to say this, but the homeowners in that area have an assessment, a special assessment that's approximately $8,000 a year more than the average Vacaville home. And we're hoping to grow that area to 1,100 homes. And that tax revenue for Vacaville is substantial. And with this travel center, I see that diminishing. And I think that's something to consider when we talk about the possibility of a travel center overgrowing that beautiful development and housing area and the revenue that could come from it. So I apologize. I wasn't prepared. I was at an HOA meeting before this that was supposed to talk about the pilot travel center. But when I saw I could make it, I wanted to come down here and reach out to you and invite you and tell you that you're all welcome to come down and I can take you for a walk and we can just look at the area. So thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

Okay, council members, time for your three-minute power nap. Okay. Last, as always, let's talk about how much California Forever is going to cost to taxpayers. We all know about the over $50 billion in direct taxpayer input. Well, Lo and behold, last Wednesday's paper all about California forever holds jobs hostage. Well, those of us who were paying attention already knew that. There are no jobs that are going to come down from heaven out of the California forever scheme. They're still pushing the shipyard fantasy. I won't go back down that rabbit hole. I've been trying to explain to you for a year why that was never going to happen. Told you so. They're talking in terms, oh, here was, what are these little gems? First of all, they're saying that, oh, by the way, you can't separate any of their job projects, the shipyard fantasy or the foundry fantasy, from the homes, which are the only thing that are gonna happen. But you can't separate them, it's a package. And this isn't written as an offer. It's not written as a compromise, it's a directive. Get it clear, you guys hop in bed with Mr. Stromach and his wallet, and you are sentencing the rest of Solano County to be his serfs, because he don't compromise, he directs. Okay, let's see, that's pretty much everything really, that's all there is to it. You get in bed with California forever, and you're gonna drag us all down. They don't compromise, they direct. Think about it. Thank you.

Allison, nearly 40 year resident of Vacaville. Ted, did you knock on my door? I think we're neighbors. And I'm just really, I hadn't planned to make any remarks, but I wanted to support Amber. She and I met recently, and I want to welcome her to Vacaville or to Lagoon Valley, to our side. If I were, you know, didn't have small children when Lagoon Valley was getting approved, I probably would have been on the ramparts, but it got through. And then I recently learned about this crazy, they call it the Cherry Glen Truck Stop. And it makes no sense at all. I'm a business advisor and a business owner, and it's clear to me that the brand Vacaville is about being a beautiful suburb in the Bay Area with open spaces, agriculture, and the entrance to, as you're going, say, up to Tahoe, you drive through Highway 80, you drive right through this beautiful space, you see the folks in Lagoon Valley and their beautiful new homes. And on the other side, you see beautiful open space. And this is our branding right here. Our branding as a city, as a community, is right there on our label. So this is a short-term solution, or a long-term solution, sorry. I was not prepared. Long-term solution to a short-term tax problem that will permanently harm our brand, harm our community, and I'll see what I can do. But anyway, thank you, Amber.

Yeah, thank you. All right, anyone online? I see no one online. I'm gonna go ahead and close business from the floor, and we'll move on to our first public hearing, 11A.

Yes, this is an amended and restated resolution of the city council authorizing the city to join the statewide community infrastructure program, authorizing the California statewide communities development authority to accept applications from property owners, conduct special assessment proceedings and levy assessments and special taxes and to form assessment districts and community facilities districts within the territory of the city of Vacaville. embodying a joint community facilities agreement, setting forth the terms and conditions of community facilities district financing, approving form of acquisition agreement for use when applicable, and authorizing related actions. And tonight, Ken Matsumiya, Director of Finance, is here to give you a presentation.

Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Vice Mayor, members of the Council. I know that's a very long title. Just to summarize, tonight's item is for Council to consider approving amended and restated resolution that would allow the community facilities district option, or CFD option, to the current SCIP program that Council approved back in 2018. So just some background on the SCIP program. So this is a financing program that's offered through the California Statewide Communities Development Authority, or CSCDA, which allows developers to finance the cost of public improvements and development impact fees. And so public improvements would be things such as roadways, sewer and water infrastructure that needs to be built in order for that development to occur. As mentioned for Vacaville, we are already a member of the SCIP program. This was approved back in 2018, but at the time, the only financing option that was available through the program was the assessment district option. In 2020, SCIP kind of expanded their program to include the CFD option, but in order for the city to take part in that, it does require us to update our resolution, which is tonight's item. And so projects that have used SCIP since we joined back in 2018 under the assessment district option are Farmstead, Foxboro, Knowles, the villages at Vanden Meadows, and then most recently Vanden Gate submitted an application. So we have four that have used the financing and a fifth application for Vanden Gate that's been received recently. CSCDA has asked the city to update its resolution just to update it to the current program offerings and then separately developers have also requested over the years and more recently for us to consider adding the CFD option to skip as well. So just the differences on the assessment district versus the CFD option. So under the current assessment district option, it is a lot more limited on how the assessments or the taxes could be levied on the property. And so under the assessment district, it needs to meet a specific benefit test. And so each property must receive a proportional benefit. And so kind of where that limit comes into play is that if you have a development that has multiple types of housing in it, let's say homes that are smaller, maybe 1,500 or 1,600 square feet, and homes that maybe are over 3,000 in that same development, under the SCIP program and the assessment district option that we have, all those homes would have to would have to pay the same skip levy under the assessment district option. There is no ability to vary or change those rates based off of the size of the homes. And so you can see the limiter there with the option that we currently offer. With the CFD option, it's a lot more flexible. And so kind of one of the bigger things being with the taxes that that can be levied based off a house size square footage. And so that is something that would be allowable under the CFDs. Also, if you have a larger development, there's also the ability to have improvement areas or kind of phasing of the project. And so although it wasn't done through SCIP, we've done the CFD internally, but Lagoon Valley is an example with a large project like that. this can be built over a number of years. There's phasing that's involved. A CFD option is just, it's more flexible to accommodate things such as that. Whether we do the CFD internally or if it's sent through the skip option or skip program, it would still follow the CFD policy that was approved by council back in December of 2025. And so the total tax burden, so if you include the Prop 13, kind of 1% tax, any sort of school bonds, the skip program, it can't exceed 1.8%. 0% of the estimated home sales price and the annual increase as well cannot be higher than 2% every year. And then under both options, it would still be fully administered by CSCDA and there would be no risk to the city for any sort of bond repayment. And so just really briefly how SCIP financing works. So regardless of the option, whether we keep with the current assessment district option or include the CFD option, CSCDA forms and administers the districts. Only the participating properties are taxed and assessed. And so this is not something that would apply to the entire city. It would just be those developments that an application is submitted and approved by the city. The bond proceeds from SCIP are used for either reimbursing or prepaying development impact fees. It can be used to reimburse the cost of the completed public improvements that are accepted by the city. And then the city retains the authority to approve any of the fees that are being considered and also acceptance of the improvements prior to reimbursement. And for local agency requirements, we must be a member of CSCDA, which we are. We have to hold a public hearing and adopt a SCIP resolution, or in this case, the updated resolution. And then once it's in place, staff reviews and approves developer applications before any projects approved to join SCIP. And so the recommendation this evening is to hold a public hearing, adopt the amended and restated skip resolution, approve the standard acquisition agreement, authorize staff to complete the related actions required by law. And with that, be happy to take any questions.

Yeah, thank you for the presentation. I initially don't see any lights here. I do know that we had this discussion in the past. The only question that I have is in your communication with the group, we have not been utilizing it here, but in your understanding, is it being actively used elsewhere?

The SCIP program?

SCIP, yes, but the CFD version of it.

Yes. Actual SCIP program, I think it's over 100 agencies that are participating statewide. I don't have the exact number for the CFD option, but it is used throughout the state.

And for clarification, because we do understand the CFD program here, this would be a choice either or, no matter what. It can't go above the limit, but the infrastructure seems to be sometimes what gets really expensive, and so this becomes an alternative.

to that and if i understand it correctly then it would ultimately have a sunset date in other words it gets paid off it's not in perpetuity correct so for the infrastructures that's what this program would be for it wouldn't be for any sort of maintenance or ongoing services this would be specifically for the one-time cost of building the infrastructure or paying the development impact fees and then it would sunset when the bonds are paid off so in 30 years all right councilmember wiley

So on this program, it's a CFD to help pay the infrastructure. And then that's separate from the CFD that we may or may not impose for public safety or something else as well.

That's correct. This would just be for infrastructure. If there was a services CFD or if there were school bonds or any sort of other assessment, all of that would have to fit within the 1.80%. And so that's the ultimate limiter. You can't go above that under our policy. And so if there was a services CFD for the development, that would reduce the amount that could be financed through this infrastructure program because 1.80% is the cap.

Okay, so that was my other question from that slide. So 1.8% is the total for everything, they can't go above. So if the skip program says, well, we're gonna do like 1.5, then that would limit the city, then we would not be able to have but 0.3. So who gets to determine how that is 1.8 is gonna be?

I'm not sure if I understand the question, like who determines the breakdown of the 1.8%?

So if you said the total is going to be 1.8, and then if the city wants to have a high one for public safety, and then they might say, well, that's not enough for us. So how is that negotiated? That's why I wanted to see if it was the total, or they would have 1.8, and we could have whatever, whatever.

No, it's 1.80% in total. And then what would happen is that they would look at what the existing kind of assessments are on that property already. And so that 1.80%, 1% is already taken by Prop 13. Like every home that's bought on your property tax bill, you'll see kind of that 1% line. So automatically that 1% is taken off. they would check kind of the county roles to see if there's any school bonds, if there was a services CFD on the property, all of that would be factored in. And so by the time they get to kind of how much is under the 1.80%, they would look at the county role. If there's like 1.4%, let's say just already on the property, then there's only 0.4% that could fit under that. And so the developer may ultimately have, you know, millions of dollars in public improvement costs that they need to build. they wouldn't be able to get funded for that or reimburse for that entire amount because there's only capacity for that 0.4%. Does that answer your question?

Yes, yes. And I guess the one good thing about the 1.8% is then the smaller home can pay a lesser amount than the bigger home and that was the advantage of this as well, correct?

Yes, that's the advantage of it. And then when you go through something like the SCIP program, because they issue bonds three times during a year, you see a lot of developments, especially if they're smaller ones where it might not make sense to issue a bond because it's a very small development. When they do it through the SCIP program because other cities are taking part It's an ability to also allow smaller developments that might not have been feasible without financing, but then also are so small that they can't issue bonds. It also helps with those developments as well.

So it is kind of interesting though, if it's an infrastructure, isn't the infrastructure about the same per unit, regardless of the size of the house? If you're putting in water and you're putting in all the pipes and all the infrastructure, isn't that about the same? That's not really a lot less for a small house versus a big house, is it? The infrastructure part.

Yeah, I can't speak to that part of it. I think what the CFD option does is it gives the city flexibility. And so from like a policy standpoint, if it's council's policy or direction that on a smaller home, that we do want a smaller CFD on those smaller homes. And on the larger ones, you know, We don't mind if there's a higher CFD kind of load on those. That's a policy decision that's allowed under the CFD. We don't have that ability to make that decision if there isn't CFD. If it was just the assessment district option, essentially everybody has to be taxed the same.

And the ones listed happen to be mostly in District 6, the Abandoned Gate and Foxboro Knolls and the Abandoned Villages. Is that just because there's more building going on there versus elsewhere? Or why is it more in the south part of town?

It would be based off, so the developer has to submit an application for it, and so I would say that's probably where the development was occurring. Those particular developers submitted an application to use the program, and so that's kind of how the process works, is based off a developer application.

And if we do approve this tonight, would they be able to have the assessment district and the CFD, they'll have both options available to them, or?

Yes, going forward, yes.

All right, so those are a few of my questions.

Council Member Freeman.

Yeah, Ken, if you could just remind me that the issuance, sale, delivery, and administration of these obligations are at no cost to the city, right? to the general fund?

That's correct. There is no cost to the city. And then the other part, too, is that because the SCIP program has staff that takes care of this, this would also be something that staff's not having to see from beginning to end other than reviewing the applications and having input and making sure it follows city policy. Fantastic. Thank you.

All right. I'm going to go ahead and open it up to the public and hold this public hearing. Anyone wishing to come forward?

Good evening. My name is Alicia Minion. Back in 2018, I also spoke publicly about the SCIP program and the downsides of the SCIP program. The downside of the SCIP program is not disclosed in the staff report. I think what's really important for the public and for you to acknowledge is that the SCIP program is being peddled by the League of California Cities and CSAC. And the reason why they do this is because they have a financial incentive. They're biased, they have a financial interest. If you look at the CACDA audit report for June 30th, 2025, in fiscal year 2025, CSAC and Cal Cities was paid $7,229,236. They split it. They get millions every year to recommend this program. The bonds that are issued, they're publicly available. You can look at it on the MSRB website. They're typically non-rated bonds, so you're not going to get the terms as if the city had issued these bonds. So you have no control over the timing, the structure, and the terms of these bonds. And CSCDA and its financing team, which tends to be the same group of people, they issue these bonds. They get paid very well, okay, in cost of issuance. And then essentially what those bond proceeds do is the developers, their liability, Everything they're on the hook for when they bring a development to Vacaville and impact our city with its roads, its schools, they get to pass that liability onto the taxpayer, onto the homeowner. So when you talk about a policy perspective, this is fundamentally unfair and it's a bad practice. Because while it might be 1.8% cap at the time of the issuance, You still have school bonds. Schools always need money. You actually are going to negatively impact the possibility of schools being able to pass a bond because the people that are paying the skip bond is not going to want to pay for more bonds. naturally. So I think I've never been a proponent of this program. I never will. And then you brought up a good point, Councilman Wiley, as, oh, can there be assessments? Sure. The city is a member of CMFA and who knows how many other conduit issuers. And you could just layer and just burden the homeowners of Vacaville, the new homeowners, with a ton of debt. And these are typically people who buy homes here. They're starter homes or they're people that are trying to retire. And so I think that I would urge you to vote no. I think adding the CFD program, enough's enough. The developers need to pay their way. Okay? Thank you.

Did any of you understand that? I certainly didn't. All I know is that this sort of thing is really, really complicated and really, really expensive. And it's probably not a good idea to make a decision on this right away. Because there's a whole lot to this that's not being explained up front. And the fact that a corporate... The people pushing this are making money out of it, and taxpayers are going to be burned is just one more thing. Thank you.

Anyone online wishing to speak? No? Okay. We'll go ahead and bring this back to the council for any further discussion or vote. I think if there's any clarification, I know, because there's a lot of... There's a lot of... you know, information that was presented and I know that this has been complicated that you may be able to shed some light on.

Sure, just as far as the payments, when the bonds are issued, whether we do that internally at the city, or if you do it through the SCIP program, or as the first speaker mentioned, there is another program through CMFA called the BOLD program as well. There are appraisers that are involved in this. There's bond underwriters that are involved in this in order to issue bonds. PROCESSES ARE GOING TO GO TOWARDS PAYING FOR THOSE COSTS. TOWARDS PAYING FOR THOSE COSTS. THE ULTIMATE COST TO THE THE ULTIMATE COST TO THE HOMEOWNER, THAT'S CAP BY THE HOMEOWNER, THAT'S CAP BY THE 1.80%. 1.80%. IF IT'S COUNCIL'S DIRECTION TO IF IT'S COUNCIL'S DIRECTION TO REDUCE THAT AMOUNT, IT REDUCE THAT AMOUNT, IT WOULDN'T BE ADDRESSED THROUGH WOULDN'T BE ADDRESSED THROUGH THE SKIP PROGRAM. THE SKIP PROGRAM. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN WHEN WE DID THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN WHEN WE DID THE CFD POLICY BACK IN THE CFD POLICY BACK IN DECEMBER 2025. DECEMBER 2025. WE SET THE POLICY ALREADY And so that's where that comes from. And so as far as the capacity going forward if a school's decided to issue bonds, so the 1.80%, that's looked at at the time that the home is sold. What's the sales price of the home? It doesn't kind of prevent a school from the future or anybody if their school wants to be passed. It's not something that has to be kind of tested every single year where you look at the 1.80%. What happens on an annual basis going forward is that 2% cap. And so the skip levy portion of it can only go up by 2% every single year. if the school wanted to, you know, school bonds, it can proceed and do that. It's not limited by the 1.80% cap, because that is only looked at initially at the time that the bonds are issued. And, you know, kind of going forward, it's the 2%. increase and so I'm not sure if there was another question that I think there was a question about kind of the ratings and bond ratings that affecting interest rates and so for Lagoon Valley that was an unrated you know bond. For SCIP, their rating is a triple B bond that they're pushing out there. And so that does impact interest rates. But another way to look at it would be one of the pushes for infrastructure financing is that if you look at mortgage rates right now, I think the average 30-year mortgage is around 6.7%. If a developer or builder were to build and push those costs into the home sales price, that's something that the homeowner is having to finance at 6.7% over 30 years. By putting these costs and kind of financing it, like through, whether it's the city that does it or a SCIP program, those interest rates are a lot lower because they're tax-exempt bonds. And so with SCIP, I think their most recent offering was around 5.04% was the interest rate. And so by financing those costs through SCIP rather than doing it through a mortgage, I mean, that difference could be huge. And so just the difference in an interest rate of 5.04%, 4% versus 6.7% over 30 years, that's over $200,000. And so that is one of the advantages of the program is that, you know, if developers, you know, kind of have those costs built to this financing rather than to the sales price, it is kind of cheaper because of us being able to issue or skipping able to issue bonds at a much lower interest rate. Council Member Fremont.

Am I correct in my assumption that this removes the financial burden from the city of Vacaville when we're looking at, say, a development east of Leisure Town and all the infrastructure that's associated with that, that the developers are responsible for, but does it relieve the city of Vacaville of its financial obligations. So we're not held responsible for those bonds. I know that. But does it lighten the burden for the city?

Yeah, I wouldn't say it lightens the burden for the city. I think it helps with project feasibility is kind of what you hear. And so I think an example would be if you look at 700 Park on Main. that project went forward because there was CFD financing available. If it wasn't for that, you know, from everything that we've been told, that project, you know, that land site stayed vacant. There was nothing that occurred with it. And so I wouldn't say that it releases or, you know, helps with our burden, but I think what it does is help with project feasibility.

I do read in here, and I couldn't find it as I was thumbing through this, but that they can charge up to... 12% on these bonds, all the way up to 20% on these bonds. Am I stating that incorrectly?

Yeah, I'm not sure about that portion of it. I mean, the interest rates are going to be based off of the market and what investors are willing to, at that time, just like interest rates. But for the tax that gets paid by the property owner, that can't go up by more than 2% a year. Councilmember Wiley.

So I just wanted to ask again about the impact of the city because you said they're taking care of most of it so our city staff doesn't have to look at all of that. So when I was looking at the at the information, there's really a pretty lengthy contract that has a lot of different sections. And so one of them said if the city couldn't finish one certain part of the project, then developer or the private entity would take over, but then they would have to pay the prevailing wage because the city would have had to pay that. This was in section 16. So I just wondered who would be checking all these things that they're doing, all the things spelled out in the contract to make sure that they are doing everything that they need to do.

So in order for the reimbursement to be released to developer, that information would be passed to the city and then the city staff would have to review it. And so what this helps as far as staff time is that we don't have to ENGAGE WITH ALL THE CONSULTANTS FROM THE VERY GET-GO, PUT OUT AN RFP TO GET CONSULTANTS OR BOND COUNSEL INVOLVED IN THIS. BUT AS FAR AS THE REIMBURSEMENT, WE WOULD STILL HAVE TO REVIEW THAT INFORMATION. AND PREVAILING WAGE WOULD APPLY. I'M NOT SURE IF THE QUESTION HAD TO DO WITH PREVAILING WAGE AND WHETHER THAT WOULD APPLY OR NOT. BUT PREVAILING WAGE WOULD APPLY TO THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND THOSE COSTS THAT ARE GOING TO BE REIMBURSED BY THE BONDS. IT WOULDN'T APPLY TO KIND OF THE HOMES BEING BUILT OR THE PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION PORTION OF IT.

And so there was another section that said, you know, the city will be directed to, you know, inform all the developers that they have this option. So it sounded to me kind of like we would be pushing it and I don't really think that that would be something that we would need to push. You said the park asked for it and they're doing it because of that, but I didn't want to feel that we would be compelled to, but it says the city shall be directed to, you know, make this available to the developers.

Yeah, so we've had the SCIP program since 2018. We don't do any open advertisement of it or pushing it. It's another financing tool that's out there if the developers seek to use it. But this is not something that we're pushing or letting every single developer know that, hey, this is a program that's out there for you to use. And so it has been on an application basis where developers will reach out and see if they can use the SCIP program. But it's not something that we've been pushing, no.

OK, thanks.

I don't normally do this, but for some clarification, I'm going to ask you to step forward again. So in case we got the question wrong, because it's very complicated, I'm going to give you just two minutes.

I appreciate the additional time. Okay, number one, the homes sell at market value, so you don't know what the price is going to be. When the bonds are issued by any of these conduit issuers, a lot of times they're issued at a premium, above market rates, which, and so back in 2018 when I looked at this, there was like a selling point like, oh, the bond's going to be issued at a lower rate than the cost of a mortgage. At that time it actually was not true. the bonds the interest rates were higher and they're also higher because sometimes they get issued at a premium because the premium generates additional upfront cash above the principal amount of the bond and that premium gets used for different things like to pay cost of issuance or to generate additional cash to do whatever who knows what's what's going on okay because I don't think there's any adequate oversight over this you know I I don't know. But what I'm telling you is you cannot rely on the argument that the bond terms are better than a mortgage and somehow that the home buyer will benefit. You don't know what the price of the home is going to sell at. It sells at market, period. period. So I think that's really important. Number two, the fact that the city is being told, hey, don't worry. You don't have to pay this back. That's when you should be even more concerned that there's a product that's being made available that sometimes is structured where there's literally no incentive to pay it back because no one's on the hook for paying it back. And so you have to look at what are really the terms. of the payback, you should be concerned that you're not actually on the hook for this, and you never will be. Also, the 1.8% cap, what my point was saying, I didn't say that schools couldn't issue a bond. What I was saying is the homeowner will likely not vote for a general obligation bond when the schools need one because the taxes will be so high. So unless somebody here in the city staff has done some kind of study to look at the terms of the bonds that have already been issued and compare it to mortgage rates, I don't think, I mean, that's another reason. Do not vote on this at that time. You need that data. Thank you.

I appreciate that.

All right. I know some of it's trying to understand with some clarity because as I understand it, we already have CFDs, we have service CFDs, we have the SCIP program with similar terms. It's just being managed outside versus inside. Many times what we do know is we use CFDs heavily in the city of Vacaville for services, police and fire. We explored, I think more recently, Lagoon Valley has a combination of different funding sources because of the need for infrastructure. I understand where the 1.8% has a cap and it really, from what I can understand, correct me if I'm wrong, When a developer is looking at all that's on the table, here's the land, you know, here is any assessments that's on it, here's the infrastructure that's needed. It's like trying to look at all your options. How do I make all this work? Because many times we'll hear this needs to pencil out. And it is going to sell. We know homes sell at market rate. They're going to sell what the market's going to bear. But at the end of the day, we recently had a very good example of a project that almost died after its third time. The only way it was ever going to happen was because of flexibility. And I believe that staff adequately showed that it allowed for the flexibility on a smaller project, smaller scale, not some master agreement, which we would probably handle the CFD anyway. These seems to be, You seem to have smaller projects associated with it, but we've allowed it to be outside of just a downtown. So can you, I mean, can you shed some, maybe some more insight of understanding of, from staff's perspective, what's the upside? Let's just simplify. What's the upside and is there a downside? There's a lot there, I know, but it's trying to, I can see, I mean, this is a public hearing. I realize there was really only one person who tried to advocate for the reasons against it. It's just helping to understand why would this, where would a downside be to this?

Yeah, I can't think of a downside to adding this option. The city is already part of the skip program. This is something that was joined back in 2018. And as mentioned, there's already been four projects that have done it. There was a comment on sort of the selling point as far as like, well, the city won't be responsible for it. That's not a selling point for us because even if the city were to issue bonds, you know, like Lagoon Valley, it's the same thing. If there were going to be challenges with Lagoon Valley bonds, that is not something that would come out of the city's general fund. And so whether it's the city that issues the CFDs or if it's through the skip program, that doesn't make a difference as far as the impact on the general fund. The biggest... YOU SEE THESE INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING THROUGHOUT THE STATE BECAUSE OF THE COST OF BUILDING HOMES AND HOW SLOW IT'S BEEN WITH THE INTEREST RATES. SO WE'VE SEEN A LOT MORE OF THESE APPLICATIONS. I MEAN, WHAT THESE INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAMS ALLOW IS THE PROJECT FEASIBILITY. 700 PARK ON MAN, I USED THAT EXAMPLE EARLIER, BUT I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY THE MOST RECENT EXAMPLE THAT WE HAVE OF A piece of property that just essentially sat vacant for a long period of time that nobody wanted to move forward with. When there was the ability to use CFD financing for it, we now have a project that's out there. And as I mentioned earlier, when you have these smaller projects that don't have the ability because they're too small to issue bonds on their own because they're a smaller development, having a program like skip where they can pull their their project or their bond issuance with a bunch of other cities you know it allows them access kind of to this type of finance and that they wouldn't have if the city just you know did a smaller issuance on their own but i'd say like the biggest you know positive of this is going to be for project feasibility as far as the downside from using skip versus city we haven't noticed anything on that part and we've gone through these skip finances with four other projects

Great, thank you. Council Member Ritchie. Thank you. I'll try to make sure I listen, not repeat stuff. There's a lot of great comments by the Mayor and Ted. I was trying to piggyback off. One thing, I saw Alicia Mania, listen to her. I thought, why does it read this, the cap rate? I didn't see that. So I guess that was a question I had myself. The cap rate on the bonds, what is the difference between a city-issued bond and a private-issued bond? Do we have cap rates? If it starts out at prop 13, 1%, there's 80 basis points. And let's say there's like 10 or 20% for schools, there's only 30% left over. But after that is issued, without a 2% per year, without having a max cap, that can get pretty crazy. So if a developer can back in that fee and say, hey, well, I'm going to use this program and it'll take five years or 11 years to build it, they can already forecast, we'll take a loss in the first few years, but knowing this would be really expensive and they'll recover later. I can see that being a problem because the later the project goes, the more expensive it is per house. to cover the bond fees, if I'm correct. There has to be a cap. I mean, is there a cap when municipalities issue bonds where it won't go, it won't exceed 11% or 7% because that can break somebody and then no schools are built, no parks are done and because no one can afford to, everybody has to know everything because the costs are paying. I didn't see anything about that directive. I understand the BOLD program is why Sumner Park is here, but I'm pretty sure the BOLD program had a cap. So I didn't see that. So that's kind of made me kind of worry.

So this is the same criteria as the BOLD program. So even under the BOLD program, it was the 1.80% maximum tax, total tax rate in the beginning, with that levy not going up by 2% per year.

But wasn't the BOLD, didn't the BOLD have a cap? The start rate's one thing, but it could not exceed a certain percent.

NO, IT WOULD BE THE 2% MAX PER YEAR, AND THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE REPAYMENT OF THE BONDS. THE CITY COULD DECIDE ON A POLICY LEVEL THAT WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE AN INCREASE OF 2%, AND IF THAT WERE THE CASE AND THAT'S THE DIRECTION TO SKIP, THEN WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS THAT THE SIZE OF THE BONDS THAT COULD BE ISSUED TO REIMBURSE FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS OR THE FEES that would be just a down. I mean, what the 2% increase does is it allows kind of the bond issuance for the reimbursement to be larger. If you weren't to have an escalator and you wanted to remove the 2% and have that basically be flat over the entire life, then what would happen is on the bond issuance, that would be sized down to accommodate the fact that the debt payment isn't going to go up every single year.

I understand the escalator. I understand the annual cap. But is there any cities that have a cap? The max cap cannot exceed 12% over the life of the bond. So let's say the amortization of the bond is, hey, let's take 20 years to pay this back. If it's 2% on year two to year 18, do the math. You're in the 20s. Is there a point where it's capped? If it's a 25 year amortization, it cannot exceed 15%. If the bond's issued for 20 years and year two to year 20, you have times two, you have a long time to cure a lot of interest. And they can forecast that. So that's my question. Any cities, have they done, if it's a 20-year amortization to pay back this bond, you will not exceed 15%, you will not exceed 12%, or else you will see, by simple math, a 20, 25, 28% interest rate on that portion of the tax bill.

So no, I can't speak to any cities that have a certain cap. It doesn't mean that they aren't out there. And like I mentioned, if it's council's desire to not have the debt the increase of two percent of a year that is direction we can give there are cities that might say that it's only going to increase for for 10 years or 15 years or 20 years but i don't know if i've seen one where it's essentially like well it's not going to go up by more than 20 over 20 years or anything of that nature but You know, there are cities that, you know, you could have the escalator only for a period of time. There's, you know, others where there is no escalator and it stays flat. So that's more of a policy decision on that. And what would happen is that, you know, based off of, you know, whether there's an escalator or not, that the bond sizing would be smaller because there's less funds to pay for.

Could we approve it or decide it and approve the escalator later or cap later or is it all inclusive now?

So as far as joining the CFD, so joining the CFD option, you don't, they're gonna defer to the city on kind of what the city wants to do as far as its criteria. And so if it's, we wanna join the CFD option, but we want more time to think about the, the escalator that would be an option but we would need to know that before we get any applications okay that's the challenge there is that if uh if it is the desire of the council to not have the escalator and that's the direction then essentially you know we've joined the program but we can't take any applications on it until i have direction on that i'm gonna i'm gonna turn to the city manager if you had some comments

Yeah, so there's a government code 53531 that there's a statutory ceiling on the general framework not to exceed 12%. So there is already a law about that. And as far as it comes for today's direction, we're asking council to allow us to join the program with the state. not necessarily approving any developer applications. So when, as Ken mentioned, as the developers are looking to do projects, each individual project will have its own application. It will have its own rates. And Ken, feel free to correct if I say anything incorrectly, but that's my understanding of where we stand today.

Yeah, that's helpful. I mean, because it's important to know that, again, it's a tool. We keep talking about incentives. We keep trying to figure out how to make funds and who's paying for it and is there risk and liability to the city. But at the end of the day, we have understood that CFDs are a function of both service and infrastructure. And knowing that we've gone through this process and it is at 1.8%, I think it's important to recognize the importance of creating project feasibility and flexibility. Recognize the importance of creating project feasibility and flexibility. And every project's going to be different. But that clarity, it's good to know that there is a cap. But also that there's, you know, every project's going to look different. And this is just one tool. whether it's used or it's not we know that it's been used at least four times and in every case you know these projects come before the city council so part of this this isn't just the end all we're approving it as a carte blanche it's it's just a tool that allows a developer or development to access their options when they're looking at all the costs and all the figures and decide is this something they want to apply for and then they have to apply for it so do i have that correct

You can continue if you'd like. So thank you, City Manager. That California code clarified exactly what, because that gives a line of sight. It's like transparency. There's a truth in lending. There's documents. We've been in front of you guys for years talking about developers. When people go up, make the big decision in life, they go to a housing development, and there's all these disclosures. What's going to happen? What's this? What's that? Is there going to be a sound of a train? Is there a pool? Is there a clubhouse? They need to know that 10.2% is available under california state law allow for this portion of your bill to increase it's not saying it will but it can if it starts at 1.8 10.2 is the difference that this portion could come so if you buy a house at 820 thousand dollars this could increase over the life of your home home by 921 dollars more a year like those that kind of clarification is all i'm asking If we knew there was a cap, somebody would make the educated decision to know, hey, I'm getting in now, but there could be this cost over the next 5, 7, 10, 15 years. So thank you. Vice Mayor Civil.

So I remember when this first came up, approved it, and I know there's like similar comments and concerns from the public that I think are similarly echoed now. The way I saw it then and kind of where I'm still leaning now is like it's an option, still something we have to prove. But personally, I'd like more time for staff and for me just to investigate on the unclear impact that it would take for us to support schools and what role our school districts would have within this process. For me, that's an important thing that I'm using my vote to represent those who put me here, or all of us here. And then number two, really further understand in what ways are, I still, I personally feel that it's incumbent upon our local government in these instances to protect our home buyers, our residents. And I just wanna make sure I understand what role we're playing in protecting our residents, both in what they're promised, and we continue to hear about false promises of new schools, or not true mechanisms to go about paying that. And then number two, just how dead burden they come, both on the affordability side and two, just being able to maintain it. So that's kind of where I'm at. I'm looking for more time to just evaluate those two topics.

I think we've effectively had the discussion on here and held the public hearing and I do appreciate some of the the sentiments affordability is always going to usually be a supply side and and You know homes are more expensive. I heard a statistic the other day that the the average age of homebuyers in the United States is 36 in California is 47 When homes are expensive and they're unavailable, the prices go up. So affordability is complicated. I think we've debated this a lot over the last several years on some of these items. As of right now, I'm not convinced there is a downside. I think it is a financing tool for infrastructure. Whether someone even if it's, you know, we could, one could argue you're paying, you're going to pay what the market will bear. But what we see is in projects that don't actually start and part of what we have tried to commit to is how do you incentivize? a development to occur whether it's in the new growth area or even in South Town has been part of a project for a long time now and so it's development doesn't happen overnight but knowing that there's caps in the percentages and knowing that this structure is something that's been accepted around the state. We're not the only city. We've already had it adopted. It's not that I'm not concerned about the impact on schools. I think at the time that a development is going to occur, what typically happens is the developers need certainty, right? They need to know what they can do and try to figure out how they're actually going to finance a multi-million dollar project, depending upon the size of the project. So, I mean, I'm in favor of making sure that those tools are available and I don't think that this harms our schools in the sense that there is a structure for the school funding. We can have a separate discussion on whether or not the need for ongoing bonds for repair and maintenance that we have a larger structural challenge with funding and financing for schools. But I think that those are other conversations we have and we have major developments anyway. We've talked many times about saying, well, if it's large enough project, build the school. We used to provide the land, but we realized schools don't get built. So some of this are in the development agreements. So I'm in favor of this. I'm always going to be concerned on whether or not schools are available and are going to be built. And I think that becomes part of when we enter into development agreements with the developers. But as far as the tool itself, I am in support of it. And Council Member Wiley?

I'll just mention this since you said South Town. I have heard from some of the people in Foxborough Knowles, which is a relatively new subdivision, is like, oh my gosh, you wouldn't believe our property taxes. So when you are buying a house and they say, well, this is this and this is this, you don't always see exactly what the impact is until you see it all listed together. And so it is a major impact on things. So I, too, don't want to really place a burden on the people who are trying to buy a house. The other thing is, just clarify this. This is a public hearing, but does this not take a first reading and a second reading? Yes, it does. So this is the first reading and it will be again? Can I interject? No, because it's not an ordinance.

Oh, that's right.

It didn't mention that, so I wondered about that.

Actually, it does mention in here that there won't be a second reading. I'm sorry.

Okay. And so if it's approved, It will be an option for developers, but before any development agreement would be approved, the council would come back to making a decision on the project, correct?

And I think in that vein, it's because a project that comes before us will always be what is the burden on the development and what is already existing and what CFDs would be necessary if it's for public safety and if it's ongoing service.

So I just wanted to clarify on the application process. For developers that apply for it, that does not come back to council. And so under our bold pilot program, any application would come back to council with skip. That's not something the skip program requires. If it's something that council would like to add, that's something, again, a policy direction of how we want to handle that.

Interesting point. From staff's perspective, if we have a policy for one, would there be an upside downside for having an aligned policy?

I think it's only as far as meeting the timing of when SCIP issues bonds. And so when SCIP, they issue bonds three times a year. That calendar is provided in advance. And so I think it would just be more of the developer making sure to submit an application well in advance of when those bonds are issued. And then it would have to come to council. So I think that's the only thing, would be the amount of time. But I guess it would just be incumbent on the developer to make sure they submit their application well in advance of the bond issuance. Councilmember Chabot.

Thank you. So this is slightly different from the last time that a skip request came before the council. We had developers that land probably wouldn't develop if they didn't have this alternative funding. source so then the last word pretty much was with the council for us because we really offered we said okay let's offer this to this developer so this is totally different now this is something that's going to be available that the developers know is available to them they uh when they come in and start the process they can have this as their uh part of their um proposal going forward.

So I think you're referring to the BOLD program. So for 700 Park on Main, we had skip at that time. Yes. But there was remediation work that had to be done on the 700 Park on Main site in order for that project to move forward. It mentioned there's a difference between assessment districts and CFDs also in the fees that are allowed to be reimbursed. And so remediation costs would be one of those items under the assessment district. And skip wouldn't have been, it wasn't allowed. and so for that reason they had asked if the city would entertain using the bold program it's something the developer use of other jurisdiction and so the bold program as well doesn't require council to prove the application that's something the council added as part of the pilot program and so it's the same thing with the skip program when the skip program was approved back in 2018 there was no direction that every application come to council prior to it moving forward but if it's this council's direction to do that that's something again the skip program doesn't require but if as a policy direction you want to do, I just need to know that direction.

Gotcha. I have one other question. There's been mention of the school district schools. Do you and the or have you and the business manager for the school district ever had an opportunity to sit down and talk about their needs when it comes to

fees development fees and how it's tied in i can answer that question i would like to invite our community and economic development director aaron morris we do have a process in place and the school district is involved in our development process very early on but she can provide the details

Thank you, Mayor Crowley, members of council. The city regularly meets and discusses development with the school district. They're actually embedded in our weekly project review committee meeting and they receive all development applications, comment on them, and we have a lot of dialogue. As a recent example, we are currently in dialogue with them about the East of Leisure Town specific plan and really collaborating in an open manner with their leadership and their management team to really figure out what is the best school solution for that specific plan. There's more work to do. In fact, we have another meeting scheduled for next week. But I would say that the discussion of what a developer can contribute to a school, in addition to the mandatory school fees, and then what that leaves to contribute toward other things and the need to figure out what we're trying to accomplish together, that is very much at the heart of the dialogue that we're having with particularly Vacaville Unified leadership at this time.

I appreciate hearing that because it hasn't always been that way. So thank you very much. Thank you. All right.

Yeah, thank you for that update. It is interesting since, you know, we already have a process in place that brings one policy or one of them back to us. I mean, I'm looking, now would be a time for somebody to entertain a motion.

I'd like to make a motion to approve.

We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? No. Okay. So we've got one opposed. Any abstentions?

I didn't vote because I wanted to add a call for a friendly amendment to say could we amend that to include that the council would be able to look at the project just as a pilot project like we did with the other.

We can pause for a minute because I didn't see your light. So please explain that again.

So, I mean, the motion put forth was just to pass it. But then as, you know, a finance director said, if the city council so desired, we could do like we did before to make sort of a pilot program and see the first few to see how they're going.

So what you're saying, the way we did the other one, it was the requirement to bring it back to council.

Yes. Yes. Just so, you know, maybe the first couple and see how it goes. So that was what I wanted to be included. But then we jumped into that. So. But I would need a second for that amendment, so I don't know.

Well, procedure of two, so go ahead.

No, I guess if that amendment's going to go, and I just wanted clarity on if that's just for the CFD option or if it's just for the skip program in general. I think that's just the clarification.

My intention was just for the CFD program because we've had the other one already going since 2018. So I just wanted, since we're adding this, and there are some questions about it, just to add that.

So I have a follow-up question. Are we requesting maybe one or two pilot projects, or are we bringing every single project? So that's how we can then submit to the state.

Well, why don't you clarify, based upon the previous one, that's what we did is we were looking to pilot something so that we would understand a good process and then streamline.

Okay. I believe for this one, the request came in from the Harvest Ridge project, so that might be our pilot, but I can't explain it.

Yes, Harvest Ridge is the project that recently requested it. There's some other projects that have requested that we add the CFD option as well. With the BOLD program that we have in place, one of the reasons why we made it a pilot program is because we wanted to limit it to the downtown specific plan area, to development that was under five acres, that was infill project. And so that's another reason why the BOLD program was a pilot program, because we had never used it previously. And then we also wanted to put those additional restrictions on location, whereas with the SCIP program, this would be citywide. It wouldn't be limited to a certain area.

So I mean, that was the motion. But as far as the council's perspective, if we did a pilot, we've got one application, but no others at the moment.

But he said more were interested. I don't think we have an application right now, do we?

No, we don't have an application for Harvest Ridge yet. I think they're waiting.

So why don't we just do it this way and just say, can we move this? Because it's already passed, but even... It didn't pass.

You probably should have had a roll call because I didn't vote either.

Okay, well I asked for no's then. But we can fix this. But we can fix this. So can we do a pilot program for a period of time?

Sure, do we have thoughts on what a period of time is like five years, three years?

I would suggest, I mean a three-year pilot program because we can assess the number of applications and how it works.

Okay, this is just for clarity. We're accepting the CFD option. Any applications that come in would just come to council prior to approval.

That's right. For a period of three years. And that way we can manage it like a project or a pilot for a number of years and determine if this is a worthwhile project tool or not. So that would be a way to do it if we can agree to that, that it puts a sunset of 36 months and it has to come back to the council. So it's a pilot.

And so 36, I mean, three years was fine with me too. And I didn't vote on the last one either. So I don't know if it did pass or didn't pass since we only have six people here.

So with that, Council Member Fremont, since you made the motion, if you're okay with that and maybe just word it that way, it's a three-year pilot that directs the CFD to come back to council. Is that okay? All right. So now we're going to get the clarification. All right. How would you like to handle this to make sure that it follows the process?

So we had a motion, a second, and a vote that's taken. Silence equals. Yes. Yes. So you had a motion, a second, a vote that passed. At this point, if you guys want to adjust what you just voted on. We can do that. someone could ask to have it reconsidered. You can make those adjustments. That way the resolution can also be adjusted and then you can take a vote by roll call or, you know, however you want to proceed with the vote. And then that way we'll have a cleaner record for what the council actually intended to do this evening.

Well, Council Member Wiley, since you asked for it to be reconsidered, do you want to make the motion to have it reconsidered? adjusted justice so we have to reconsider process is a motion to reconsider the council votes on we have to bring it back for us the decision and then you go back to the item all right yes i make a motion to reconsider the item that we just voted on so we have a motion a second let's make this clean we'll do a roll call and councilmember freeman yeah i just had a question i mean what

What kind of burden does this put onto the city as far as for going through this process for all the applications coming in over the next three years versus perhaps making it over the next couple of projects and using that instead of putting a time on it, which would encumber perhaps projects going forward. I mean, what kind of burden does this put onto our planning, our city?

Yeah, it would be preparing the staff reports, and like I mentioned, just meeting the calendar. I think that's gonna be the biggest thing, is that when the developer turns in the application, just really being mindful of when the SCIP team is gonna issue bonds. I think that would be the biggest thing. We have the assessment district option right now. It is a bit, I would say from staff's perspective, it is a bit confusing how, why the assessment district option THOSE APPLICATIONS WOULDN'T HAVE TO GO TO COUNCIL BUT THE CFD OPTION WOULD HAVE TO GO TO COUNCIL WHEN THEY'RE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME PROGRAM. I THINK THAT'S THE PIECE THAT DOESN'T MAKE A TON OF SENSE FROM STAFF'S, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IF YOU'RE GOING TO ALLOW ONE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT OPTION TO GO WITHOUT THOSE APPLICATIONS GOING TO COUNCIL BUT YOU WANT THIS ONE TO GO TO COUNCIL, I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DIFFERENCE WOULD BE.

Yeah, and with that being said, that's why I would like to just see, I understand what you're saying, three years, but maybe we can use heritage as a guide for us on this. Harvest. Harvest, excuse me, harvest. Use that as a benchmark for us to go through the process one time. And if we're all in agreement with it, then instead of encumbering everything and adding burden onto staff, going forward, I mean, I was okay with it the way that it was.

I just have a follow up question, maybe more for Ken. We don't control the bond capacity of the developers because when they are applying for this program, they will be working with their bond council and their bond valuation. So we don't get involved in that process if we sign up for this contract with state.

That's correct. We don't control the, it's all going to be based off of, I know this gets into the details, but things such as value to lean. So how much, you know, what's the value of the land that's out there versus the debt that's out there. And then things such as what we mentioned, whether the the annual levy's gonna go up by 2% or not by 2%, but we don't, and even when we issue CFDs ourselves, we don't say, well, we wanna issue bonds for $20 million. All of that's based off of what's called the credit criteria, so how much value's out there to support it. It's not something where either we or the developer can say, issue bonds for this amount, and that's how it's done. It's all based off of the value, the lien, and the other evaluation that the bond underwriters do.

Yeah, it's tied with the infrastructure, it's tied with the project, so it's not something they can use it as a cash cow where they say, oh, I need a $20 million bond and I'm going to invest and the rest goes in my pocket. It doesn't work that way. It has to be tied with the infrastructure that they're putting in with the value of the land and other things.

That's my concern. I just don't want to encumber the process.

Yeah, and actually if you look at the comparison, this option is better for the homeowners compared to the assessment district because in this one, the CFD value, if you look at the 1.80% cap, then the smaller homes are paying less versus the larger homes, versus in the assessment district that was already approved by the council in 2018, you give an exact same number to every home, so the smaller homes actually end up paying more percentage in their property tax towards the assessment district CFD compared to this one. So if you do the comparison from the dollar perspective, in this one, the smaller homes would pay less compared to the larger homes in comparison with the option that the council has already adopted with the assessment district. So we just need traction from how you want us to proceed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, it passed.

And now we're going from there to... Well, the point is, is it passed for clarification. Does the council, is there a majority in the council? And that's what the vote is. So there's six of us. And so it has passed. But the motion that council member Wiley offered was seconded. Yes. So that's where we're at right now. So this is a motion to bring this back for a further discussion for a potential amendment because it's already passed. Does that make sense? Am I correct on that?

And we can discuss the amendment further after we pass this vote to discuss it, right? So this is not saying that three years is in for sure. Well, no.

You're just opening up to reconsider it.

Right. Right, and so then if we wanted to adjust the three-year, we could adjust it then, because we're just now talking, I mean, based on Fremau's- So what's on the table right now is- Is just to reconsider.

So this motion has passed. So what we have is we have effectively passed this 11A. So what you're asking for is reconsideration of our decision.

Yes. I have a follow-up question. So what if there's no application in three years?

Well, if we approve this, then we can discuss that and then that question will come up. But we might not even discuss it if we don't get four votes because we need to have four votes to pass it.

So there's a motion and a second. Let's do a roll call. This is to reconsider.

Before, just a point of clarification, Mike, I don't know. Maybe it helps. Is this some, the council can reconsider this as an option at any time in the future? Right, so three years, five years, 10 years? i believe so um city attorney that's a question can the council reconsider right in the future for three or five years i'm i'm sorry can you restate your question in other words let's hypothetically let's say something hey this this isn't working out as we originally intended five ten years ago so speaking five ten years ahead can the council reconsider pulling this as a tool at that time

So I think council, it wouldn't be a reconsideration of this decision because you can only do that at tonight's meeting. So it would be asking staff to bring back, provide more information. If some circumstance has changed, then we would have to evaluate that at that time, whether or not it was legally appropriate to.

Thank you. Okay, so we have a motion and a second. This is for reconsideration only. Roll call.

Council Member Ritchie?

No.

Council Member Chapman?

Yes.

Council Member Freemouth?

No.

Council Member Wiley? Yes. Vice Mayor Silva?

Yes.

Mayor Carley?

No. Well, that... It doesn't pass. So it's in effect right now, but to your point, in the future it's like anything else. If a program is ineffective, not working, it needs to be reconsideration. A future council can bring this item or any other project item back. So I don't think that that changes it. So we'll go ahead and move on to the next item.

This is an introduction of an ordinance of the City Council introducing amendments to Title V, Chapters 5.04 through 5.36 of the Vacaville Municipal Code relating to business licenses. And tonight we have Assistant Finance Director Shelby Millerin, Assistant City Attorney Nancy Ashton, and Finance Supervisor Heather Cornelison giving the presentation.

Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and members of City Council. Tonight, we are presenting the first reading of an ordinance to update Title V of the Vacaville Municipal Code, which governs the city's business license tax. And this was a collaborative effort between city attorney's office and finance. And I'll pass it over to Heather to start the presentation.

Thanks, Shelby. So going into the presentation, so the introduction on these ordinance and the changes that we made. So this was focusing on sections five, four through 36 of the municipal code. And this was the city's business license tax requirements. And it surrounds a lot of the specific business regulations that apply here in the city. So tonight's action is the introduction and first reading of an ordinance that brings that title current. after nearly 50 years without a comprehensive review. So the changes focus on updating outdated references, it kind of clarifies administrative procedures, it improves the application and appeals process, and it makes technical corrections throughout the ordinance. So the intent is a code that's much clearer for the public, for businesses, it's easier to administer, and it's consistent with the way that the city operates today. So going through some of the purpose and what has changed. So the purpose of this update is really straightforward. It's to bring Title V into alignment with current law and current administrative practice. So because these provisions have not had any kind of review since 1977, it was really important for us to reference these terms and update the code to make them recent and relevant. So part of the review, we updated agency names. There were some agency names that were outdated. We made some statutory references. We also updated terminology throughout the title and we corrected a lot of outdated internal cross references. This points the ordinance in the right direction and it also cites the municipal code correctly. We also clarified several procedures related to the business license tax applications, administration and appeals. Overall, these changes provide a clear direction for staff and the business community itself and helps create a more consistent process for administering the program. I also want to emphasize to council that we, this is not only technical updates in nature for the ordinance. So there's no existing tax structure changes. Everything remains in place. There's no rate changes, no changes to existing fees or exemptions. So with that, I'll walk you into some of the more specific updates to the ordinance. So some key improvements that we worked on is in the areas of definitions and terminology. So there was prior language that relied on some outdated agency references. We've updated that to reflect the current agency, its corresponding citation. Importantly, this section preserves existing methodology. So counting employees or employee count for business license tax That calculation itself does not change at all. We simply modernize the references and terminology used throughout Title V. The next area is in the business license application process. So here the prior language had been clarified in three respects. The review timelines, the deemed approval procedures, and the way applications kind of move through the process for business license applicants. This results in a more defined path for the applicants and a more consistent framework for staff. And finally, we made a series of code reference corrections. So over the years, amendments to other parts of the municipal code left Title V with some internal references pointing in the wrong directions or citing some old areas, may have been removed, renumbered or just outdated. So those legacy cross-references have been repaired so the ordinance once again kind of aligns itself and the current enforcement and appeal provisions are all intact. So these changes are really about the administrative clarity of the process in the ordinance. They make sure the code reflects how the program is actually administered day to day. And then just to add on to this does not change any of the city's existing authority. It simply clarifies and refines the procedures that are carried out in the process. Next slide. So on to administrative review and appeals. So this was one area we focused on in particular. This is kind of around the administrative review and appeals process found in sections 520, 60, and 70. The existing ordinance already provided for a review and appeals, but several of the procedural steps and timelines were never really clearly defined. They were a little obscure. So in practice, that left both the businesses and staff without a consistent picture. of how the matter would move through each stage. So the proposed language adds structure to that process. It has defined timeframes for hearings, determinations, written decisions at each level of review. So it makes it much more clearer. The result is a more predictable process. Businesses will have a clearer understanding of what to expect and when, and staff will have a consistent process to follow. These changes address the procedural gaps in the current code so that the authority already in place is exercised in a more transparent and predictable manner. And with that, I'll turn it over to Nancy, who will walk the council through the remainder of the ordinance updates.

Good evening. So the next set of substantive edits that we made to this ordinance is in the exemption section under Chapter 516, which basically governs who's exempt and who's not exempt from a business license tax. Before walking through the specifics, I want to emphasize that none of the updates that we are currently making affect who will be exempt moving forward.

Anybody who was previously exempt will continue being exempt with this update.

With that, however, I do want to emphasize that in this chapter we corrected numbering issues, internal references, and improved just readability of the existing provisions. These changes make the chapter just easier to navigate both for the public and staff. So within the exemption section, I want to highlight two kind of separate provisions that we updated the language on.