January 21, 2026 Council Finance Committee/Investment Review Committee

Video

Transcript

[00:00:00] Unknown Speaker: Everything. Yep.

[00:00:05] Member Emily Ann Ramos: All right. I'm gonna call this meeting to order at 902. Um, Are we taking roll call? Remember Lucas Ramirez?

[00:00:18] Member Lucas Ramirez: Here.

[00:00:19] Member Emily Ann Ramos: Now you're Emily Anne Ramos here.

[00:00:21] Member Emily Ann Ramos: And vice mayor, Chris Clark. All right, we're gonna move on to item 3 minutes approval. Um, the recommendations to preview the council finance committee meetings of December to 2025 without modifications. The other comments. No comments. Do we have any public comment? Okay. All right. Ready for emotion?

[00:00:46] Unknown Speaker: Move to proof, I said.

[00:00:48] Unknown Speaker: Second.

[00:00:49] Member Emily Ann Ramos: We have our motion and a second. I take a roll call vote. Committing member of America?

[00:00:56] Member Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[00:00:57] Member Emily Ann Ramos: Maybe Ramos? Yes. Spice made or Clark?

[00:01:00] Member Chris Clark: Yes.

[00:01:01] Member Emily Ann Ramos: Nestle, thank you. So it's not, please. All right, item 4 oral communications from the public. Do we have enemy one online or in person to do oral oral communications from the published? For people, um, online for public, but no comments. Great. So we will move on to item 551, review a fiscal year 2024, 2025, single audit report. The recommendation is to receive and accept the city, single audit report for the fiscal year ending in June 30th, on H25, doing a presentation.

[00:01:37] and Services Director): Yes. Thank you, chair. Derek Grampon, your finance and administrative services director. This item is the annual single audit report, which is a review and audit of the city's federal financial assistance expenditures. Uh, we have our audit, our audit firm that performs our annual financial statement audit, uh, the Gowing Associates also perform the single audit as part of their engagement, and we have Ahmed Badawi from Badawi Associates online and will walk us through a quick presentation on the single audit report. Great, I bet.

[00:02:11] Associates): Good morning, and thank you, Derek, for the introduction. Let me share my screen. So this hopefully would be a very quick and easy presentation. But this, like Derek said, is a presentation of the 2005 single audit for the city of Mountain View. Uh, just want to make sure my slides. Oh, there we go. All right. So I'm going to start by letting you know the agenda for today. I'll give you a brief overview of our firm and the engagement team. Also a brief overview of the methodology we followed. A summary of the audit results of the single audit and provide you some of the required communications as your independent on it. Uh, as far as our firm and the engagement team. I know I've presented to you before. So I'm not going to spend a lot of time on that. But this is just a summary of our firm, as far as a number of years of experience. We're very focused firm, work mostly with governmental clients. We have about 44 city audits that we can perform every year, about 30 employees, and so far, 0 lawsuits. We just completed the peer review and received a clean opinion on a system of quality control. Also wanted to highlight to you the engagement team that was assigned to the city. So this is the composition of our engagement team. I am the engagement partner. We always have a quality control reviewer. We had an IT specialist, an audit senior, and 4 professional staff assigned to the audit. As far as the audit methodology, so this is really just focusing on the single audit, and it starts by receiving what we call the CFA, which is the schedule of expenditures of federal award. And this is a schedule that the city lists all the federal expenditures incurred during the fiscal year. We go through a risk assessment process to determine whether the city is a low risk OTT or not and also to select which programs would be tested. The selection is really governed by the federal rules, so we don't really get to exercise professional judgment as to which programs are selected free tests. Uh, we then perform uh, risk assessment on noncompliance. We test internal control over compliance, and we also test the compliance with the federal grants. And then finally, we prepare the single audit report and issue any opinions and findings that are if we have any. Uh summary of the audit results. Um, so as far as the auditor's report, we have issues that unmodified the report, that basically means it's a clean opinion. Uh, oddity risk. The city did qualify as a low risk oddity. Normally the city qualified as a lowrist RT, if it had single audit done in the last 2 years and had no findings, no material weaknesses on internal control, so the city met all those criteria and qualified as a low risk audity, which enabled us to justify testing less of the federal expenditures than we have to. Major programs tested. We tested 2 programs, the home investment partnership program and disaster grids. Uh, Total Federal Awards expanded by the city was about 27 million. The percentage of federal awards covered for testing was about 52%, so just over half of the federal expenditures were tested. Deficiencies in internet control. We had none noted. And non-compliance. We also had none noticed. As far as our required communications, as your independent auditor, Sorry, slightly keep popping for some reason, follows, right? Our responsibility is we need to provide an opinion on whether the city complied with the compliance requirements for each major program. Also provide an opinion on the CIFA, the schedule of expenditures of federal award, whether it's fairly stated in relation to the city's financial statements. Evaluate and test internal control over compliance, evaluate compliance with major program requirements, uh, and then finally communicate with the governing body. Management have responsibilities in this process. Management has to take responsibility for the completeness and accuracy of the CFA provided, to establish and maintain internal control over compliance, to make all records available to us, to establish antenna control, to prevent and detect fraud, inform us of all known and suspected fraud, comply with major program compliance requirements, and take corrective action on any audit finance. And that concluded my presentation. In summary, it was it was a clean, straightforward audit, and city had no issues or findings there. So thank you for allowing us the opportunity and I'm happy to answer any questions.

[00:07:12] Member Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. Does any member of the committee have any questions? Okay. Questions? No questions. All right. So this is a hybrid meeting allowing the public to comment in person and virtually. And instructions for addressing the committee virtually can be found on the agenda. Would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on this item? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom. In-person attendee should raise their hand to be called on. We will take in-person speakers first. Each speaker will have 3 minutes. I see no persons. We have questions virtually. Huh? No questions, Rachel. Oh okay. Um, thank you. I will bring the item back to committee for deliberation and action. Is there a motion and a 2nd to receive and accept the city's single audit report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2025.

[00:08:06] Unknown Speaker: Move. Say.

[00:08:08] Member Emily Ann Ramos: All in favor? Any opposed? Any extensions? Let's pass it unanimously. All right, we're moving on to 5.2? Thank you. Thank you. Thank

[00:08:22] Unknown Speaker: you very much.

[00:08:24] Member Emily Ann Ramos: You're welcome. All right, now we'll move on to 5.2 Party, next to study, and Park Impact Foods update. The community services director. John Marchant will make a brief remarks before the presentation by technology, Tepion Rice Evans, the Totonomic Lan Assistance.

[00:09:00] (Community Services Director): Good morning, committee. Community Services director. And You received our memo on this item and just a cap due to recent law updates, court decisions, and the most recent housing element. We are preparing a next study for the development of Parkland fees. Um, we've been working with economic and planning systems, also known as EPS, who have completed similar studies in the Bay Area. Um, So, We are working to complete details of the study and with us today is Patheon Rice Evans with, and with him virtually is Andrew Williams, also from EPS. And with that, alternate over to Tafion. Great.

[00:09:46] (EPS): Thank you. Good morning. Um, council members. How many? Um, yeah, so, hyping my 7s, EPS, um, pizza, give you an overview of the, uh, technical analysis, we've done, um, to date. Can I get the next link, please? Um, So when we're doing updates to development impact fees or key programs, there's a technical analysis that's required to help establish the maximum allowable fee. Um, that is analysis that goes into your next study that is part of the requirements or the mitigation fee, other statutory requirements. So, It's really the 1st step in establishing and looking at your fee update is where do we stand, um, and what is the maximum allowable fee. There's kind of a 2nd component from that, which is, here's the maximum, but there's a whole set of policy issues and topics you may want to consider as you decide whether to implement the maximum 50 or not. What, what the technical analysis that I'm presenting to you today does is basically established that maximum. That's what I'm going to walk through. Excuse me here now. Um, next like this. Um, and yeah, please, please ask me questions or however, this should go as we, as we go. Um, so before jumping into some of the more, the kind of details on assumptions, tentacle work. I just wanted to kind of note a few underlying assumptions that drive the calculation of the maximum fee. So 1st of all, um, as we'll talk about some more, the city has a long-standing, uh, service standard of asking a 3 acres, uh, a 1000 residents from, well, in general, but also from new development, um, that service standard is, uh, becomes, because it ties, um, park need to number of residents, a number of residents generated, it becomes a very important kind of driver of the part fee calculation. Um, a 2nd a 2nd kind of presumption we've made is, um, that we should be exploring the possibility of charging pox fees on non-residential development. Your current program only charges it to housing. But for the purposes of this technical analysis, We have included it, so you can see what those maximum fees would look like on non-residential as well as residential. Um, and then the 3rd component is that we have, outside of the world of, um, you know, credits and dedications, which is kind of a, in some ways, a parallel conversation. For those developers who are paying the fees, the presumption is that the city would ask them to pay fees to both cover the cost of purchasing parkland, but also the cost of improving the park land. Um, so those are just some some basic tenets that, that are kind of drive through the analysis, the next slide, please. Um, so this is a little bit repetitive here, but basically again, just to, just to clarify, we can think of a park fee as having a 2 components of parkland component of park improvement component, we calculate each of those, um, in a similar manner, but distinctly, and then we put them together for the total fee. So again, here, we're choosing to include for all development types, parkland and improvement costs. I'll talk about a little bit in the 2nd in why we make the distinction between residential, subdivision and residential, another subdivision, but basically the idea here is that we want to cover all kinds of residential, whether it's subdivision or not, and all kinds of non-residential. Next slide, please. I think we might, do we, do we jump? Yeah, thank you. Um, so it's important to understand with park fees and it's actually 2 different statutes to provide, um, illegal, um, kind of guidance and permission for jurisdictions to establish park fees. One is the mitigation fee act, and one is the Quimby act. And so, there are, and different cities take different, uh, pathways in the way in which they kind of put these together to charge their fees. It is possible to charge all your fees based on the mitigation fee act. Um, but the Quimby Act, which many cities um, have had for a long time, and uh, in some ways, prefer parts of them because of the flexibility they provide, um, those are very specifically charged on residential subdivisions, and they involve the, um, the funding of hotland costs. So, the basic kind of setup that we've used here and the parkland fees are not different between Quinby Acts and Mitigation V Act, but in terms of the adoption and the way these things get established, um, they are slightly different. So just so you know, we have both a kind of combination of Quimby act and mitigation fi acts, statutes in play. Next life, please. Um, okay, so to the calculation. So how do we get to the maximum fee? There's really 3 key components, it's like a math equation. Um, the 1st one is a city service standard. What is our expectation of how many acres should, uh, new residents and new workers be um, providing um, to the city? Um, the 2nd then is we only need to understand. If our service standard tells us, um, acres tied to residents and workers, we need to tie that back into land use, so we need to have occupancy assumptions, so we understand how many people are living in each of these different kinds of units, so we can make a distinction between the fee, on different kinds of units, and similarly for non-residential development. We understand how many workers may be present or may occupy different scales of different types of non-residential development. And then finally, of course, it's just the cost. What is the cost of the city of uh, buying parkland and improving parkland to critical assumptions? So those are the key assumptions. I just going to run through the assumptions that drive the analysis here. Next slide, please? Um, excuse me. So, Again, the city has an adopted service standard of 3 because of a 1000 residents, and so that's what we're using as a barometer for what the city would like for new development going forward. Um, we also, because we're now exploring non-residential uh, development fees, we also need to, um, consider what the equivalent service standard is for workers. In general, it's accepted that uh, workers do not generate the same level of demand for parks as residents, but they will generate some demand. Um, again, you see out there when you look at the different jurisdictions, uh, you will see some that do not charge fees to non-residential development, you will see others that acknowledge the demand from workers and choose to charge uh, non-residential development, these fees. Um, so basically the question then becomes, what is the equivalency between a worker in your city and a resident in your city in terms of the amount of park use and demand that they have? Um, and so we've seen different, you know, different different efforts have been made to calculate that. Um, you'll see sometimes that, um, you know, we've seen kind of more aggressive numbers were, uh, workers are considered to be, you know, to have a kind of an equivalent to creative, um, 50%, 30% of a resident. Our preferences to be a bit more conservative. They're being some park surveys of other cities recently that have basically found that it takes about, in terms of like when you're, if you survey the users of your parks about 7.5 workers. It takes 7.5 workers to have kind of the equivalent use profile as one resident. So we use that kind of relationship to reduce the, uh, we, use that relationship to reduce the service standard on workers and that's what, that's what gets us from the 3 acres, uh, per 1000 residents down to the .4 acres per 1000 workers using that equivalent service standard. Um, next light, please. Uh, okay, so next is the OCMC assumptions, we need to understand. Um, 1st how many residents there are in this unit type. Um, a lot of the programs. Going back to the ways we just have a single family in a multifamily category. It's increasingly state law and other kind of. For other reasons, there's an increasing desire to make greater distinctions. So, units that generate fewer people and perhaps have smaller demand, an impact on parks, will have a smaller fee. Um, So here you can see we've broken out the, the residential categories into single family, uh, single family detached and attached, um, with distinct persons, per average persons per unit. And then multifamily units. You can see, uh, we have a broad range there in terms of a studio is estimated on average to have about one. 117 residence versus a 3 bedroom of 2.53 residence. So these numbers become, again, another important piece. Of the puzzle. Um, the the approach here, or the data sources, a primarily this is the US census information, US census kind of, you know, brings together information on housing units population. So from that we can derive the average 2.74 and 2.59 persons per unit. On the multifamily side, the city is recently conducted, the East Wisman next study, where they went through a similar kind of approach, exploring, um, using census data to explore the variation in number of persons per unit. And so you'll see there that we have to be consistent with that recent city study. We have adopted that same set of ratios in terms of persons per unit. Um, next line, please. Um, so we also need to kind of in the same way we need to understand and think about, um, how many workers are generated per, uh, we use here a, a, a, a metric of per 1000 square feet of new non-residential development, just to kind of create, again, the goal, the goal here is to, to, to measure demand, but also to create differences between the different kinds of land uses. And so, um, hey, you'll see on the right how, um, based on the city's, uh, kind of standard planning assumptions about how many workers fit into a 1000 square feet, um, you can see, you can see on the right there that we can derive how many workers you'd expect in a 1000 square feet. So it goes from, you know, a high of over 3 workers in an office R&D, 1000 square feet down to about 0.63 in a hotel building. So you see that differentiation that also converts into the, um, into the fees. Next slide, please. Okay, so. The 3rd piece of the, of the equation is the Purika costs, um, and these, these numbers obviously very important because they drive, well, like, like the other assumptions, they drive our calculations. Um, Again, we got, we're gonna use this, we're using, um, the same park land cost on the same park, improvement costs, um, for all, you know, equivalently and similarly for all different land use types. Uh, you can see there, we have a parkland cost of about $7.80000 per acre, and an improvement cost of $340000 per acre. So when put together, you kind of have an obligation of about or a cost of about $11.2 million per acre as the total cost. The 7 point, uh, the city has for a long term work with an appraiser, um, who evaluates the value of land, and so that number, that $780000 comes from, um, their latest study. Um, the $340000000 number comes from, um, a collection of information we've received from C staff in terms of relatively recent park improvement projects. on the next slide. We kind of show that detail. So here you can see, um, you know, 7 parks that were built by the city, you can see their budget in kind of normal dollar terms. We did some inflationary adjustments to account for the, the timing of them. And overall, you can see kind of on the right-hand column, how we have a range of cost, a Puerto Rico cost of about $2.10000 up to $6.64, $6.6 million. So we basically put that together, take an average, and say, we think on average, when we think about the future parks, uh, and the improvement cost that will go with them. It going to be about $3.40000000 per acre will be the overall cost. And so that's the cost that gets consolidated into the land cost. Next slide, please. Um, okay, so here, just trying to, gonna try to illustrate how the kind of, how all those factors work together to bring us to a fee. Uh, and here I'm gonna focus on, um, multifamily development. So, the current, you'll see in the kind of, Beyond the formulas, the current fee, uh, we're looking at, the current fee is done on a density basis, so it's done, one of the fee categories is 26 plus units, which is effectively most likely to be a multifamily unit. So we're comparing their, um, the fee, the existing fee and fee calculation on an existing unit to, uh, calculations, uh, new maximum calculations on a multifamily studio, in a multifamily 3 bedroom unit. And if we just go down, the, the table, um, starting with the current fee, you can see that, there's the 3 acres with 1000 residents, that's, that's actually being maintained, so that's not changing. Uh, persons per household, you can see next, which you can see there is variation there, uh, based on our desire to differentiate between different kinds of, must say, family development. When we bring the service standard, the person's house altogether, we then translate that into, okay, how many acres per unit would be your obligation under the service standard. Uh, we then apply the costs, the cost side, uh, to derive a final um, cost per unit or fee amount. Um, you'll notice there that under the current program under multifamily, the, the land cost has actually had a higher, um, a higher Pareka cost of about $11.30000 per acre. Um, but had, but included no um, specified costs for improvements. Under the new system as you move to the right, you'll see that we have a, we actually have both, but our land cost is lower, so we have about a $7.80000000 per acre, in improvements in an overall cost of $11.200000 per acre. When does that leave us? Well, in case, in terms of these 3 land uses, we have up here. We can see that the current city number, It's actually a low end number for the current city number is $67,800 per unit. So that's the, the current fee that if I was building an apartment building in the city that I came in, that would be the basis of the charge, the fee that I would pay. Um, you can see to the right there that if I came in now with a studio unit, I would pay $39,000 per unit, so less, but if I came in with a 3 bedroom unit, I'd pay $85,000 per unit so more. Um, so what, so what, basically the, you know, these are all driven again by that set of assumptions. Next life, please. So to bring it all together, um, after some, uh, yeah, after a lot of numbers. On the left hand side there, you can see your current fee schedule. So this is the current free schedule. You've got the low and high for your, for your different land use types. Um, and then to the right there under maximum fees, you can see, uh, including the land and the improvements components what the new maximum fees would look like. And then on the far right, we've shown the percentage differences in terms of whether they go up or down relative to the current level. So you can see there that depending on whether you compare to the lower the high, the single family attached fee, for example, would the maximum new fee would actually push the single family attached fee up by between 28 and 39%. On the other hand, on the multi-family side of things, There's more variations. So the, the fear on studio multi-family would go down between 42 and 48%. The one bedroom would go down also substantially, by 32 to 39%, but the 3 bedroom fee would go up. Um, so that's again, those are the maximum fees as calculated based on these assumptions for residential. Next slide, please. Um, and then, I think finally, the, the, we also need to calculate a fee for the non-residential development, and here, we follow a similar process. We have our 4 land use categories. We know the number of workers per 1000 square feet. We've established a service standard at .4 acres. Um, uh, per 1000 workers, so we can figure out the acres per 1000 square feet, the cost per 1000 square feet, and, you know, as is often the norm, translate that into a fee per square foot of development. So that would be, you can see ranging the maximum fee from $14 per square foot for office development, office R&D down to $2.83 per square foot for hotel motel development, at the maximum level. Of next slack piece. So, what do you, John? All

[00:27:11] (Community Services Director): right. So within the staff report, we've asked 4 questions for your consideration. In addition, just want to touch on the 3 acres per 1000, the Tifion brought up, which is has been our historic number. And then through the Parks and Rec strategic plan. We did look at our overall number and we look at the reduction of the school sites. We looked at the reduction of publicly accessible area within Shoreline Park. Um, and we came up with, um, we're currently offering 4.74 acres. Um, per thousand. Um, and so, However, we are not meeting that 3 acres per 1000 goal within each of our planning areas, only 2 of the 10 are currently meeting that. And so that's another reason we were looking at keeping the 3 acres per 1000 compared to, um, raising it up or even even lowering it is because we are currently meeting that 3 but not at the at the, uh, planning level, the planning area level. And um, this is, you know, early in the process. We wanted to get in front of you to see how some of the, um, Metrics are being looked at, how the maximum fee is being provided. and an opportunity to get your input on the process to date. And so with that, the questions are, does the committee support the staff's recommendation to maintain the existing parkland dedication loofy requirement, um, under both the Quimby uh, Quimby Act as well as the Mitigation Fee Act? Does the committee support the recommendation to apply Park and Recreation Impact fees to non-residential development in addition to the residential? And then does the committee support maintaining the current park service level that I had just mentioned of 3 acres per thousand? And then uh, do you have any additional input or direction to guide our next steps of the next study. And with that will turn it, as the end of our presentation, we have city attorney, Jennifer Logue, um, and some other heavy hitters in the room, Christian Murdoch, uh, community development director, and then, uh, Jennifer Ing, the public works director, and we're here to answer questions that you may have. Thank you. All

[00:29:22] Member Emily Ann Ramos: right. Back to me, man, right? Okay. Does any member of the committee have any questions? Let's go. Council member Ramirez.

[00:29:31] Member Lucas Ramirez: Yes, thank you for the presentation. I have several clarifying questions and then ones that may take a little bit more time. Um, so, uh, just to clarify, the Quimby act provides flexibility in allowing for dedication of land. Um, but it wasn't clear if, uh, for mitigation fee act subject properties. Dedication would be permitted. So how, how are, what, would dedication continue to be, uh, acceptable for, uh, projects without a subdivision? Okay,

[00:30:07] (EPS): so yeah, I mean, I think that the, um, the city would develop, and I think you already have some, some language around this, but I think part of what the larger conversation here is to, is to develop specific, um, crediting, dedication to crediting policies, um, for the mitigation fee, the Quimby act is, is creates a kind of clearer and specific system, um, and I think for the, um, Mitigation fee acts. Um, I think we just have, you have to kind of lay out, you know, what it is, what kind of land you would accept, how it works, but that's very much part of the, I think that might be part 2 of the exercise, but it's definitely, um, is part of this overall exercise is to, to kind of nail that down so that everybody knows, right? You can pay the fee and or you can do this and get these discounts to

[00:30:56] Member Lucas Ramirez: your fee. So the intent is through some policy will have like an alternative mitigation program to allow for dedication or focus or something. And

[00:31:06] Jennifer Logue (City Attorney): I think you should think of it this way. Think of the Quimby, starting with land dedication as the 1st step and paying a fee as an alternative, whereas under mitigation fiat, it's typically fees, but it's not that the city couldn't accept land in lieu of payment of a fee. Okay. That's

[00:31:22] Member Lucas Ramirez: helpful. Thank you. Um, and then, um, We learned through the gray star in El Camino and Castro project that a commercial subdivision, the, the residential units were not mapped, but there was a commercial mapping that, that triggered the Quimby Act. So they withdrew their map. So how are we treating projects without a residential map, but with a commercial subdivision? I think you could collect

[00:31:48] Jennifer Logue (City Attorney): the fee. I mean, the adoption of the next study and adoption of the mitigation fiat would make it easier, and you could just charge the fee under the mitigation fee act, and collect the fee that way and avoid sort of the complicated conversations that we had leading up to the, um, that project. Um, and so the goal of having both would allow us to, I mean, one of the questions in the discussion was, have you adopted a nexus study, because I think it was intuitive to the attorneys that we were working with, that if we had a nexus study, we could legally charge a fee under the mitigation fee act. So that's why we're trying to keep the fees totally aligned, whether you calculated under Quimby or you calculated under a mitigation fee act, you're going to get the identical fee, right? But depending on the type of development that is going up, whether there's a map or not a map, you might choose how you impose a fee, but we've got, we will eventually have an ordinance that allows collection under both methods. Functionally equivalent. functionally equivalent.

[00:32:49] Member Lucas Ramirez: Very helpful. Thank you. I got a, uh, I guess public comment that said that, um, adoption of a capital improvement plan would be required. If we use the mitigation fee act. Is that true? And do we have, what would that be for us?

[00:33:04] Jennifer Logue (City Attorney): So adoption of a capital improvement plan is required. Did you want to, we, we adopt a capital improvement plan, but do you want to add to that?

[00:33:13] (EPS): Yeah, I mean, the way that we often do it. So, yeah, the recent state law has made it clear that, you know, when you when you adopt a mitigation fee act fee, uh, you need to have a capital improvement plan within it. Um, the way we've dealt with this with other cities is you is, we established the fee and we basically articulate broadly the kinds of, um, improvements that will occur. So in this case, it would be, you know, kind of we're going to put the amount of land, you know, obviously, it probably depends on, uh, we need growth projections, right? presumptions about growth, projection to understand how much money we're going to get in, but the general idea is like we'll be buying, We'll be buying park land, we'll be doing these kinds of improvements, like a kind of general synopsis of the kind of capital improvements that will, um, be being done, and I think that as part of the process, when you, if you adopt an extra study, you know, and accept certain fees, you also adopt that capital improvement program. Um, Obviously, it's a broader level and is fed by, um, the more details, capital improvement programs that, you know, kind of, that the cities do, right, on a kind of frequent basis.

[00:34:24] Unknown Speaker: Is it going to be tied into the parks and recreation strategy or is it a different document?

[00:34:30] Jennifer Logue (City Attorney): It's different.

[00:34:30] Member Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Um, for it to seeing that. Um, uh, what is the difference? If I'm hoping this is easy, uh, in value, um, the, the, the ranges, if you were to compare fees calculated based on square footage, uh, with the fees that staff is recommending based on bedroom counts. Very divergently different or they kind of ballpark very simple.

[00:35:00] (EPS): I mean, yeah, they they come out. Pretty similar. what you will, um, What you'll find is that the. The, you know, so the number of persons, for example, in a studio is less than the number of persons in a 2 bedroom, right? So you create that. But the, The actual kind of, It's not a perfect relationship, right? It's not a linear relationship. So you will have slight differences, um, because a unit under under the per square foot approach. A unit is twice as big will play twice the fee. But when you use the bedroom approach, it's a little bit more tight to how many people you actually expect to be in there, which isn't always perfectly linear. Um, so we could, we could certainly calculate it. Um, you know, we would, we would need to just kind of need to determine the average size of these different units, but then it's very, we have all the data to calculate it so you could see them both side by side. I don't I haven't done that at this point, but one could, you could do that readily. And then, you know, kind of look at the most.

[00:36:02] Unknown Speaker: Okay, I have some comments about that later. Okay. Um, do you, do we have, um, the, uh, So thank you for breaking out Park improvement costs based on the most recent projects. Do we have something comparable for land values across the city, right? If you purchase a property in one part of the city, it might be closer to 12000000 an acre, and another part of the city might be closer to 6 million. Do we have something that shows sort of the distribution of land values across the city? That would be something we can work get, yes. I think that would be helpful. Um, and then, um, 2 more and then I'll give us others a chance. Are we planning to do a financial feasibility analysis to supplement this work? When the council reviews it? Um,

[00:36:56] (EPS): so we, the city stuff, we know, it's done lower work, uh, through the R 3 uh, program on, uh, feasibility analysis. So, um, I think the initial ideas we had was to, those were based, those analyses were done around the existing Hawks V level. Um, and so to the extent that we have, as we hone in on, on particular parks fees, I believe it would be then possible to look through the lens of those analyses, to ask, you know, what difference does it make if any, to the results? About analysis? Um, so it's going to be tied to the, to the R3 work, as I understand it, and then, um, we also, we, we, we can and, and, and, you know, I need to work a little bit more with stuff when it's looked at the, uh, townhome feasibility side as well. Um, ourselves and so can provide some feedback on that. Of course, the, the impact on, on the feasibility is, is, um, will, will depend, obviously, on the cost change, which depends on whether the fees go up or down or what happens to them. Um, so we'd have to pause some different scenarios on feed change in order to, you know, be able to kind of articulate what the feasibility impact. So sound.

[00:38:11] Unknown Speaker: I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like we're, we're not doing, we, I think we've done, you were around when we did the East Wisbon precise plan adoption. There was a feasibility analysis for the community benefit fees thing, right, to show what was, we, we, we could charge 20, you know, uh, dollars a square foot, but I think we had ended up adopting 5 for residential because anything above that impeded financial feasibility to the point where nothing would get built.

[00:38:37] (EPS): Well, we assumed it would. We don't know that, for sure, but... not all that's been built. Same with the commercial Lincoln's

[00:38:44] Unknown Speaker: pay for affordable housing back in the day.

[00:38:46] Unknown Speaker: Right. So, but it sounds like we're not planning to do a separate financial feasibility now.

[00:38:51] (EPS): I think we're trying to build on prior city work related to the R3 feasibility work to like some of those answers, but we're not doing ground up.

[00:39:02] Unknown Speaker: Um, I have some comments about that too. And then our last question is, um, just to clarify, this, We'll continue to only apply to net new units, right? So if you bulldoze a 100 unit, apartment complex and you build 100 units, you would pay $0 in fees.

[00:39:20] (EPS): Yeah, I mean, that's a, that's something you just have to be clear about in your ordinance and your regular, but, but you, you absolutely can't do that.

[00:39:27] Unknown Speaker: How does that is that true for the commercial square footage as well? So a change in use? Would not trigger a new park fee? It would simply be you are, you know, you tear down, I don't know, 8000 square feet of commercial space and you build 10,000. You would pay a park fee based on the, That delta, the 2000 So,

[00:39:49] Jennifer Logue (City Attorney): The answer is, yes, we can do all of those things. Those are the things that will be in the ordinance. Those are not things that we are thinking about necessarily with regard to the nexus fee study. To the extent that our ordinance already provides, you know, only imposes the fee on net new. It's not that we would recommend changing the ordinance, but these are discussions that we can have when we bring the ordinance to implement the fees that would be supported by this nexus fee study. So yes, we could do net new only. We could do the same thing for commercial. We don't have anything in our ordinances addressing commercial because this is a new path forward. So these are things that we can do, but that's a discussion for, and definitely feedback we should get today as we're thinking about drafting the ordinance, right? But yes, we could adopt all of those types of elements in the ordinance on how we impose the fee and what we impose it on. So that type of feedback's very helpful for us as we, as we move forward in it, in drafting the ordinance.

[00:40:51] Unknown Speaker: Just to clarify, legally. We also could subject replacement units to a park theme. Oh,

[00:40:58] Jennifer Logue (City Attorney): I'm not saying that. I would need to. I would need to look into that. But what I'm saying is, the items that you're bringing up are things that would be in the ordinance implementing the fee that is supported by the Nexus fee studies. So that type of feedback, you know, if, if, and yes, of course, our ordinance would be legal. So to the extent that we couldn't do it on replacement, I would ensure that it wasn't in there, it's just not something we had necessarily thought about in detail. in the aspects of the nexus study. But would be part of the ordinance.

[00:41:28] Unknown Speaker: Okay, thank you. I got some others, but I'll give it a break.

[00:41:32] Member Emily Ann Ramos: Okay. Uh, thanks, Mary Clark. you have any questions?

[00:41:36] Unknown Speaker: I think just 2 in the. And the nexus studies, they've done since, um, since sheets, which you know, it's fairly recent. I'm just curious if there have been any, um, surprises in the courts in terms of like, oh, that nexus study, that whole, um, that logic that you used or, um, you know, if there's a word, you are, or has it been pretty south, where folks are just accepting, as long as you've done a reasonable study, most people are challenging it.

[00:42:08] (EPS): I can I'm having a... You can start and then I can follow up. Yeah, so, yeah, so we, um, Right, so we follow, like, right, she's created a lot of anxiety and got a lot of press, um, and appropriately so. Um, and so there was a lot of debate amongst us practitioners, and obviously we're talking to our lawyer friends about what extent we think it will make a difference. I do think that the, um, I mean, it's probably going to get it wrong, but the, it was reminded right to the California superior court, who looked and said, we think what happened to El Dorado County was actually okay. Um, So that, I think, will lead a little bit of pressure and concern. Um, it did. What is definitely true is that we need to, you know, it kind of, I think, re-emphasized and again, a, Jennifer can save me if I'm getting this wrong, but it re-emphasized the importance of, um, making sure that our mitigation fee acts, you know, few work and nexus finds for a system where some of the Nolan Dolan Supreme Court cases, that was kind of one of the issue. Um, and I think it also just raises, like, like other legislation just raises, um, you know, increasingly, as it raises the bar, but means like, you know, that's do a, do a thorough job and, and those eyes cross those. create those connections very clearly. Um, and, and the final, the final piece of advice that I was, Um, that I, that I, that I received, but I, again, 30 to Jennifer on this is just did in that, at least in that case, in some of the cases where cities don't have an appeals process. Um, you can more, you can, you know, more accelerate yourself into a, um, into a contentious situation. So I think I've seen some cities since then see, okay, we'll have a thing where the developer can appeal to the city manager or the mayor or community development director to at least create a pathway for conversation, not straight into philosophy, but. So

[00:44:03] Jennifer Logue (City Attorney): I'll just follow up on that. Um, that was everything that you said was correct. Um, sheets did create a lot of anxiety. It did get remanded and the fees got upheld. Finding that there was sufficient data to support the fees that were imposed in that case, which, in a sense, um, was good news for that jurisdiction, but also does reiterate. It's about dotting eyes and crossing T's. It's ensuring that you have the backup data to support the amount of fees that you are imposing on the particular development project. So, sheets at the Supreme Court level, right? It's not that it, it created new law in the sense that it said Nolan Dolan do apply to both types of fees, but it didn't change Nolan Dolan. Nolan Dolan has existed for a very, very long time. Right? We now know that we have to apply Nolan Dolan to both types of fees, right? Legislatively enacted fees, being the new piece, right? And so, in sheets that that, particular, when it, on remand, that that particular fee got upheld, just reinforces the importance of the detail, the level of detail in the Nexus study, and we've had many, many, many meetings. talking about the level detail, you know, justifying the fees. We had actually lots of conversations between square footage versus unit size, right? And which one is actually better and more accurate. So, that's the kind of work that we're trying to do to ensure that our nexus fee study does dot all those I's and cross those T's. And I did read the, some of the public comments, and I did take a look at the Cal HDF versus Los Altos case. Um, it appears they had a hearing in December. There is no ruling yet. That's trial court level, whatever comes out of that isn't going to be precedent setting. It'll be informative. We'll see if they appeal, right, depending on what the decision is. Um, I read, I actually read the briefs. Um, I read, Debris from Cal HDF and the challenges that they made on the part, they challenged several fees, but just the challenges they made on the park fee. Um, We're already aware of the capital improvement plan adoption. That, one of the things that they said they violated. Um, but I didn't really see just in the brief itself. They didn't raise concern for me. It's things that we've already thought about. It's things that we're working on. I obviously can't guarantee that we won't get challenged. But everything that was raised in here doesn't feel like anything that we have missed. right? We are talking about those things trying to ensure that we have that on the back end. So, as these cases are kind of new, you know, post sheets and you're getting these challenges. Um, Like I said, this one's still at trial court level and I don't even have a decision. We don't even have a decision from the trial court judge yet. What happens after that? You know, up on appeal, kind of like sheets. We've got a we got a new opinion, but on remand, those fees were still upheld. Right? Even applying Nolan Dolan. those fees were still upheld. So it's really hard to, to this early, to say, I have yet to see a case where, on remand, you know, it's gotten all the way up and it's come back and the court has said, under sheets, you did it wrong. And this is the factor you missed. This is where more work needs to be done. So we're kind of a shot in the dark, trying to make sure we're doing all the work and that we can withstand challenge.

[00:47:38] Unknown Speaker: And then the last question is just, um, I mean, it all seem pretty. This feels pretty standard to me. Um, aside from just the, to your magnitude of the numbers, um, like per person per human, it's like 30 something 1000 dollars. Right. Um, Is, is there anything in here that's unusual compared to the studies that you've done in the opportunities or like, you know, are, per 1000 that's standard or just the, the approach that we're taking? I'm just curious sort of where we ball in the, this is very boiler plate or this is very, um, you're weird sort of thing. Yeah. Yeah. So,

[00:48:26] (EPS): yeah, doing getting tooth, you never want to be the kind of pretty creative consultant in the next study world. So... study world. Probably true. In other worlds, it's fine. So, um, yeah, we, we, we have, and I, so we basically follow this, to your point, is a very standard, common structure. Um, you know, those same, the same conversations, what's the service standard, what's the occupancy rates? Do we charge it per unit per square foot? What's the cost? I think they're, obviously, um, the big difference if you look more broadly amongst California, um, getting beyond the, you know, the kind of South Bay and the peninsula is the costs are way lower. Um, so you could, you'll often, I mean, then there are indeed some cities out there that have higher. So, I mean, 33 acres per 1000 I think is the most common, but there are folks who have higher ones, but obviously if your land costs $500,000 an acre. You know, your fee is still going to be a lot less than the one here and it would be announced in view. So, um, it ends up being, you know, from my perspective, it's kind of like, the standard approach. We can certainly all discuss, and we should discuss from a technical perspective, like the land cost and the improvement cost and get all those assumptions right, but then we have this maximum. Um, that doesn't always give, you know, people, there are other policy concisions, uh, considerations out there, right? So it's a, it's a mechanical answer of a maximum fee. It doesn't necessarily mean it's the fee that you or, you know, your community will want to adopt, but it gives us the, you know, it's kind of, you know, based just on the better rock of standard practice. Any questions?

[00:50:08] Member Emily Ann Ramos: Okay. Uh, did you go, go ahead. Okay. Um, so I totally get that this is mostly about the nexus study, but it also talks about the intact update. So, um, I had a question from, um, from a resident, um, and I think it was just because when we had our builders remedy projects, they're like, would this next study even like do anything? Um, uh, and would we just have to wave away, uh, the park fees. But my understanding is that this next study is supposed to help us bolt, not bolster it as in like increase it, but bolster like the, um, the backing of, of our park fee as it is, correct? So

[00:50:53] Jennifer Logue (City Attorney): the purpose of the nexus study is to allow us to adopt a fee under the mitigation fee act. We only have a fee under the Quimby Act. Quimbyak does not require Nexus fee study. The mitigation fee act does require, um, a nexus study. A mitigation fee act fee can be imposed on properties that do not have subdivision maps or partial maps. Right now, we are bound by Quimby Act, which has that limit. And that is what has created the problem with, for instance, a development project, that is only going to have rental units and apartments, and they are not mapping that for condo conversion later and they're not building a condo project. Right now, our Quimby act fee cannot be imposed against a project like that. And so we are leaving some of those fees on the table right now. Um, in light of R Quimby, actually, doing this next study is step one in order to adopt a mitigation fee act fee, which would not require the city to leave those types of fees on the table anymore. So that's a good question and I can understand the confusion, but what we are trying to do is close the gap in our fee collection at this time. And so it's, I know it's hard to think of it, but that's why the, the, um, slide started with, there's 2 mechanisms under which cities can adopt these fees. Right now, we've got one. We are trying to do it so that we have both. And that's what this nexus fee study. is going to help us do set. absolutely. Okay. Um,

[00:52:25] Member Emily Ann Ramos: because they also have the question of, like, how does, how, hypothetically, we pass the next study, we pass the park piece based on that nexus study. How does that interact with, um, uh, things like uh, developments under SD 79 and. Yeah, I'll just go with, how does that interact with like developments that would fall under SP 79 or other essentially state laws or oh, state density bonus? So

[00:52:56] Jennifer Logue (City Attorney): all of those laws will remain in place, and we will still be subject to those laws, and I don't know if Christian wants to help, but to the extent that they create exceptions or you can impose the fees. We are going to be bound by that, but Christian, do you want to help in that area? Thanks,

[00:53:14] Christian Murdoch (Community Development Director): person. members, Christian Murdoch Community Development director. I think the main law that comes to mind for me in this context is SB 330 and the preliminary application process, which vests developers into certain fee levels and other city requirements at the time of the preliminary application. Many of these development projects, including some of the builders are many projects, for instance, have filed preliminary applications under SB 330 and so we would not be allowed to impose this fee on those projects unless they voluntarily chose to subject themselves to the new fee. So I think that's probably one key distinction. Beyond that, it's hard to provide a broad response about other state laws and applicability of fees to specific projects. Um, things like SP 79. I am not aware that they affect city's ability to impose fees of this sort as an example, but I think those responses would need further research in relation to other state laws potentially. And

[00:54:06] Member Emily Ann Ramos: so as we are looking at adopting this, um, This updating the park fees, so as in, uh, Previously, we've been using the Plan B act for one of those things, uh, fees, but we are now adding the medication mitigation, um, and so both of those will be considered the park fee update. Yes. correct? Okay. Um, how does that um, align with our housing element program that said that we are going to reduce our carpies by 20%? Sure. Um,

[00:54:42] Christian Murdoch (Community Development Director): I think the main, uh, the main relationship of what we're talking about this morning to the housing element program one. is the completion of the Nexus study. That is a critical building block for all the other peripheral requirements of that program, including exploration of expanded credits against the city's parkland dedication, parkland dedication, uh, and movie requirements. And so we need to know what those fee levels are, what the maximum permissible levels are, update our assumptions, including modernizing and best practices for the land valuation as an example, to calculate where that new upper limit is. And then compare that to the average across a variety of development types language, for the 20% reduction that the program requires. And so we need to know where this nexus study ends in terms of a maximum. Compare that across the different typical development. types. Some of them will already potentially achieve that reduction and may not need further specific interventions. Some of them potentially could go up. If the council supports adopting those, then we would need to explore how credits and other measures under that program could achieve the 20% reduction.

[00:55:51] Member Emily Ann Ramos: Clarifying question. So this 20% reduction is based on What's currently we had as parties or what the maximum allowable parties based on the next study? Yeah,

[00:56:03] Christian Murdoch (Community Development Director): it's a great question. I think there's not a lot to, um, provide clarity in the program language. I think there's some art there that we will need to provide a rational basis. So I think we are looking at what the current fees are is probably the best form of comparison. We know that the current fees will calculate at a given level. The new fees that would come out of this next study and the fee adopted by council, which could be lower than with the next study supports. We'll set a new V. And if there's not a 20% reduction across an average range of typical residential projects, we will have some further work to do to either lower the fee, change certain other assumptions, or provide additional credits that would provide a reasonable pathway to achieve a reduction for typical projects. So that is a separate phase of work that we haven't done yet because we need to know where these fees will end up based on the nexus study at this point in time.

[00:56:53] Member Emily Ann Ramos: Okay. So, um, um, my familiar familiarity, but the next study is mostly with having to do with affordable housing next study fees. But my understanding is that, um, you can, you have the next day, and that tells you the maximum amount you can charge, but then the council can choose less than that, if necessary, and that's the same thing for this next study. Correct.

[00:57:16] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, it's essentially you could artificially reduce. In various areas, as Christian was saying, the various types. This gives you the baseline that we just haven't had yet. So

[00:57:28] Member Emily Ann Ramos: it's kind of like our how when we did our fees study. Like, this is how much is costing the city and then if we did it 100% recovery, then it'd be this. Yes. But like we could choose to like not.

[00:57:41] Unknown Speaker: Just one point of clarification, since we currently don't have a mitigation fee, there is no current baseline for the mitigation fee. This would establish that, right? Okay. Correct,

[00:57:52] Jennifer Logue (City Attorney): but since we're aligning it with our Quimby fee. I mean, they're based, they're going to be the same across the board. So, I think what Christian was saying is that, in, in an easier world, our nexus study would have, next study would have already taken our current fee and dropped it down 20%, so we didn't have to do additional work. And in that sense, we would have already met our obligation. But doing this nexus study tells us, are we equal? Are we above, are we below and how much below are we? And if we're only 5% below, across um, residential types, do we need to do some sort of artificial or credits or waivers or whatever to get us further down? So we're here and we're trying to see what the nexus study tells us where we can be.. Yeah,

[00:58:41] Member Emily Ann Ramos: do you have any more questions, remember? Wait,

[00:58:43] Jennifer Logue (City Attorney): after public conference? All right.

[00:58:45] Member Emily Ann Ramos: Okay, so. Would any, we're gonna move on to public comment. Would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on this item? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom. In-person attendees should raise their hand to be called on. We will take in-person speakers first. Each speaker will have 3 minutes.

[00:59:07] Member Chris Clark: And

[00:59:07] Member Emily Ann Ramos: I'll see any person. I don't see anyone in their hand online. Oh, okay. Um, thank you. I will now bring the item back for committee deliberation and to provide direction to the guide, the final development of the study as future consideration and potential adoption by the city council. Who wants to go first? All right. Oh,

[00:59:29] Member Lucas Ramirez: and I appreciate the questions that each of you asked since you actually covered some of the other ones that I've had on my list. Um, I think this is, um, directionally very good. Um, I think we're, I, I'm glad that we're doing this work, the, the, uh, ambiguities that we've been contending with have been hard, right? practically and also politically. So it's really good that we're doing this work. And I think there's um, a strong foundation to work from. There are some things I think we can work through at the nexus level, but I think what I'm hearing is, there are policy considerations that I don't know if they go to the finance committee or directed to council, where most of the big decisions will have to be made. But at the the nexus level, Um, a couple of the things that are um, Probably me, I guess. The big one is, um, We are de facto penalizing family units. Um, the, I'm, I am pleased personally to see that there is substantial fee relief for, uh, multifamily housing, but especially when you get to the, the 2 bedroom and 3 bedroom units. Um, you start seeing, I think, economic, um, uh, disincentives to create units of that size. Uh, and I know that's, that's been, um, priority for the council for a long time. So, I, whether there are decisions we could make in crafting the nexus study that could help address that, or if we need policy solutions to address that, I'm open to suggestions. Um, but if, if there are limited options at the policy level, that allow us to distinguish between studios and 3 bedroom units, for instance, then we really need to fix it now. If we can't, for instance, say, we're going to apply, you know, an arbitrary 20% reduction for 3 bedroom units, and if there's a lethal prohibition from doing that or even an ambiguity. then we can't wait to get to the policy, adoption phase, since it will prohibit us, I think, for making policy decisions that could help incentivize specifically 2 and 3 better meetings. But if we can do that, then maybe we don't have to fix the problem at the nexus study level. But that's why I think seeing the comparison between the values or the ranges. Um, based on a square footage calculation. compared with, but, per bedroom calculation would be instructive. I think, You're probably gonna end up. I think, like, you were hearing earlier. It's something that's functionally equivalent. Um, But in my mind, I would rather incentivize smaller units that have 2 and 3 bedrooms rather than provide a direct disincentive to just having the 2 and 3 better. That's that's a helpful distinction. Um, so if the per square foot calculation helps us achieve the unrelated council of adding units that are available for families, then I think that might be a good approach for us to consider. Um, but if it also means that the fees are substantially higher, you know, that we're, we're not ending up in a, in a better place. So that's a tricky one and without the math. Without charts for me to point to, I don't really know what the answer is, but I would like for us to continue to think about. Um, while this is directionally very good, how do we make sure we're not? We don't end up penalizing family units when they're already hard to provide.

[01:03:29] (EPS): Tonight, that was one thing into that, or is that okay? Oh, sure, my, sorry, I do whatever you want. Um, yeah, so I think it's, I just so I, so I, so it sounds like, right, it would be helpful for you to have calculations on a per square foot basis so you can compare them. Um, yeah, my instinct is that, um, There will be a difference. I don't think it'll be hugely different because in the same way the studio has smaller square footage in a 3 bedroom right, 3 bedroom, even if we have a flat per square foot, the 3 bed, 3 bedrooms are still going to have a higher fee. So I don't, it's worth looking at, so you can see the impact on your kind of, on, on that goal, and so you can understand what, you know, if it makes a difference, but I think you'll still have that same, in terms of the maximum fees, that same challenge.

[01:04:15] Member Lucas Ramirez: I agree with you. I think that's that's true. It's just the, where the disincentive is placed is, is a little bit different, right? Here, we're saying, if you provide family units, you will be punished, right? Like every bedroom you add is more of a direct penalty as opposed to the total size of the unit. You could have, you know, in this case, really enormous studios, penthouse studios, right, that are that show a lot of rent. And, you know, they'll they'll pay a minimal fee, right? So, like, I'm having a hard time articulating the difference, but... That's one thing I think would be helpful to explore. The other thing that troubles me is I'm looking at the, this is a really helpful chart. Slide 10, the parking improvements. Um, it's, it's really notable that the, the, I went for, you know, the low per acre cost and the high per acre cost. The highest per acre cost is the smallest park, right? And it's not even new. It's 2019. So those costs were, you know, substantially less than, I would imagine they would be, you know, in 2025. Below is the biggest part. Um, and so I, I feel, I, I, I feel, and again, I don't really know how to articulate this, but I think we need to think about why that might be the case. Um, the, there's sort of a, an inflation, based on, including the smallest parks, which are important. don't want to diminish the value of having mini parks that are, you know, .3 acres, but it also means you, you end up shifting up the per acre cost and inflating the fees on, on development, which creates a disincentive to build. So, I think one thing that would be, like, I don't really know how to fix that, but, uh, what it tells me is we need bigger parks, you know, maybe we should stop doing .3 acre parks. There are other benefits to that. Like maintenance, you know, so, um, I, maybe that, that's a policy issue, but, um, I, I almost want to take out the, um, uh, the outliers, the ones that are like that, almost $7000000 per acre for a .3 acre part means that. The total fee impact is much greater. What would it be if we took out the outliners, right? And we just said moving forward or not going to have mini parks less than a half an acre or something, right? And that half an acre, it really starts to kind of moderate out. Um, so I, I, I, I don't want to ask you the question directly, John, because I feel like this is a tough question, but like, why is it that very small car parks are so gosh darn expensive. Um, there's probably a good answer going to, you

[01:07:14] (Community Services Director): know, I'm going to start and then I'll turn it over to public horse stretcher, Jennifer Ing. There is certainly an economy of scale, as you can see. Um, that's really what that comes down to, and I'll, I'll let Jennifer go into more details on that. And

[01:07:28] (Parks/Public Works staff): she says this is where I'm supposed to sit. So it absolutely is economy of scale if you think about the type of work that goes into, um, designing and creating and putting a park out to construction, a lot of the effort is really spent on community engagement, that effort is sunk cost, whether your park is, you know, a quarter of an acre or whether your park is 7 acres in size or bigger, right? And so that is just cost that goes into any size park that we do. But as John said, there is definitely economy of scale, right? The, the, um, The larger parks overall, they're just the, um, The design costs are spread out more, um, amongst the larger area, and you'll see that in any jurisdiction in this area. Smaller ones cost more.

[01:08:19] Unknown Speaker: That's that's just the way it is. Um, so, so again, I, I, I, I think, thinking about this a little bit more. Um, and again, maybe there's the, the unrelated body of work related to the parks and recreations strategic plan. You know, do we want to have very small parks that are very expensive, maybe not. Um, but I, I do think if there's a way we can think about this where we're, we're taking out those outliers, parts. I mean, they're still expensive, right? We're still, you know, upwards of of $3000000 more than $30000 typically. Um, so that, that, It's not a tremendous amount of relief, but it could, it could help. Understood? Keep these, the fee impact, um, uh, less severe or reduce that burden a little bit. So, I would welcome creative ideas for thinking about that. I think it's prudent to include the park improvements cost, right? It's not just, like, buying the land is important and very expensive, but so too, is the development of the park. So, including both of those things in the analysis, I think is good and improvement, and prudent. I just think that if we can, Think about whether this is a, like a fair representation of, of the types of parks that we want to create moving forward. Do we really want parks that cost of most $7000000 an acre to build? That's excluding the acquisition cost. You know, as a policy maker, I'd say, let's let's find ways to reduce those costs and maybe that means not having, unfortunately, you know, very, very small parks. Um, so those are, The 2 things that I wanted the flag to go to the questions. Um, So, yes, uh, I support staff's recommendation to maintain the existing Parkland dedication for a lose the requirement from the, and also adopt, uh, the, uh, medical study pursuant to the mitigation fee at, that seems good and sensible. Number two, yes. I also support the stats recommendation to include non-residential development. We're going to need, uh, we have a very ambitious parks and repreation strategic planets, started to go through it. And I think it's really good. Um, and I'm going to tell you the same thing in the briefing tomorrow. Um, but it's also expensive. So I think we need to think about additional sources of revenue and there are real impacts on the community, uh, from non-residential development. So I think it's appropriate for them to contribute. And then, yes, I support the staff's recommendation to continue the park service standard of 3 acres per 1000 residents. So I think those 3 are good. There's additional input and direction, and the things I would add are, uh, one, um, trying thinking through the, uh, family unit penalty issue, and that could be having staff share with us the side-by-side comparison of per bedroom fees and per square foot fees, and see if that maybe useful. Or alternatively, if there's policy solutions that we could implement to reduce that penalty, like the arbitrary reduction in fee, whichever makes sense. Um, the 2nd one would be, Thinking through the park improvements cost, chart, a little bit more and trying to drive down that per acre cost. So the total fee burden on development goes down. Um, so again, that's that's tricky. I don't have good solutions for that, but I think that will be important to include. And also like what we include in parts too, right? If it's just green space, right? That's probably a lot cheaper than, you know, an aquatic separate. So right, thinking about like what we include in these parks, I think, will be helpful to consider. Um, I do think we should have a financial feasibility analysis. I don't think the R3 analysis is sufficient, and especially if we're going to include non-residential development, which we should do, but non-residential development also, should be financially feasible. Um, so I think that that actually is an important step that we should provide direction on. I would like to see the range and land values across the city, that's fairly easy to provide. Um, if there is, if the range is very minimal, then I support this direction. But if there's a big difference between a property, you know, in, I don't know, one part of the city, let's say, a rock street property compared to a Coesto. you know, yeah, exactly, West Area property, then I think that we should actually, we should reflect that in the in the next city. And we might want to, just as we do with planning areas, right? Breakout. This planning area has a higher land acquisition cost. So the fee is higher. This area has a lower cost, so the fee is lower. So I think that would be helpful to have if there is a meaningful difference in the land values. Um, and then, um, the last thing is, I think something, I don't remember who, who it was, maybe it was you are, but I'm, I'm thinking about, we now have sort of 4 different classes of development. There's, Entitled projects, Using the old Quimby Act methodology, which is the highest fee, and then there's the more recent approved projects under the new Quimby Act methodology, which is substantially lower, and probably lower than with the post Nexus study adoption fee. And then there were the projects entitled, or in the queue, that are exempt from Quimby, because there's no subdivision, and, but, um, uh, we don't have a mitigation fee, Nexus study, so we can't impose a fee. And I think what would be helpful is for staff in whatever way is appropriate to tell the council how we're going to approach that because this is complicated and not necessarily something that we can solve today, but that's a problem that we have, you know, within recent history projects that are treated so differently. And I think having staff, maybe the confidential memo or something or in briefings, just sort of share, here's how we're approaching this challenge. Um, so that's, so that's my people. Bye, Stan Clark. Um, For

[01:15:01] Unknown Speaker: the, I, The short version is yes to all 4 of the questions. Um, I think the only, At some point I know this is down the road, but one thing that would be helpful would just be to see, um, Yeah. Choose some period of time and say, this is, this is what we, this is what we collected over that period of time and, you know, had, whatever scenarios we're coming up with, here's what we would have collected over that period of time, just so we can, in a sense of, I think this will actually help with the feasibility question because I think the answer is, we're going to be, we're going to be asked to do, more with less or the same with less. Um, and it would just be good for a policymaker standpoint, you know what that delta is. So we, you know, lies wide open. what we're going into and what we'll probably have to make up in terms of, Um, you know, revenue from other sources in order to maintain the standards that we've, that the folks would come to expect. Um. I guess I, the only thing that I, I, I, I do think that, uh, the one thing that did stand out was the, you know, the high level table that was here with table 4 is, um, the Council of Ramirez pointed out, there, There are fees that, at least under this production increase for 3 bedrooms, and I'm not sure how you, that will, you know, we can come up with, uh, you know, what is a generally accepted overall maximum, Fee, and then, you know, we can, we can get into the weeds of, what sort of incentive structures we want to create from a policy perspective, but I, but I don't think that should influence the, You know, you're just figuring out what, what the framework should be. I think there's a 2nd layer of incentive structures where we want to reduce the cost of two, three, 4 bedroom units, then we find a way to lower that and make it up somewhere else, either in these other roads forces. Um. But in terms of, like, actual, the only thing I'm torn on and that I'm not sure I fully agree on is the, the need for a, like, full grown financial feasibility study. Because, um, I don't think any of these fees, when they're going down from, in those cases, from where they are today, I don't think that component alone is going to be the thing that pushes an applicant, one for a developer one way or the other in terms of where they're going. Um, They're gonna build this. It's there are all the other things that go into feasibility, whatever economic cycle you happen to be in time. And I think this is just one lever. So I think it's good to know. I think it's, it's good for us to think about feasibility or this, this component as a part of the overall feasibility. I think whether we need to do a feasibility study. on this specific thing. Um, I think there are just all the other components and fees and other things that you can pose. So, I guess if what you're proposing is that we, we do a feasibility study solely based on these changes that I'm not sure that is worthwhile. But maybe I'm wrong. It seems like a lot of work to come to. And the answer that, We probably already know.

[01:18:43] Member Emily Ann Ramos: Oh, I see. Thank

[01:18:47] Unknown Speaker: you, mayor. So Christian and I were just chatting about this because my my flag on Diana feasibility study is just the timing of it all. So for us needing to uh, get to or adopt the nexus study and then consider all the policy um, issues that I think you raised very well. The feasibility study is a separate beast. So that would take months to do. And in some ways, it's speculative, um, because it's based on all kinds of variables from interest rates to the economics, to uh, the viability of the developer, to just a number of other factors, apply to both residential and commercial developers and development. So, I just wanted to let the committee know that if that is something that you want to give staff direction on, that is going to take a lot longer than actually adopting a Nexus fee, which we know we need legally to do, um, and have been working on for quite some time. So they're kind of 2 different things, and I understand where you're coming from to see, well, our fees going to be so high that we can't get development built, but I think anecdotally, we've seen that our pipeline is probably the largest pipeline in the area of projects. Um, yes, we are entitling, maybe they don't build right away. But it hasn't necessarily hindered development in Mountain View, and you still have the ability to artificially reduce from the maximum level, which is your point about the family units, you know, the larger bedrooms. And so if we are seeing that, you know what, that's the hindrance is that those higher bedroom units are the are the kind of key factor, then that is something that you all have to go always do policy wise, is just reduce that feed. I do think that it's just going to take a lot longer for the feasibility study. I just want to let be honest and let you all know that. It won't be done in time with all of the nexus feed stuff that we were planning to bring to council. I'd say, Full. If, if that. Yeah,

[01:21:06] Christian Murdoch (Community Development Director): I think that's a reasonable initial estimate, several months, you know, internal review, and then sort of packaging it with options that are based off of that analysis, easily could take a tol.

[01:21:17] Unknown Speaker: Then we'd have to hire a consultant for them. So just something to consider. You think the, or did you want to? Um,

[01:21:29] Unknown Speaker: I, I have a perspective. I think if we saw multifamily projects break ground in the past several years. I might be a little bit less. Um, yeah, but even with an environment where we have projects paying $0 in part fees, you know, we're not seeing projects break around. Um, it makes me like, I'm, I'm, I'm not really comfortable with, with an arbitrary adoption, a fees. The fee should be $17.64 per square foot. It just, I remember I pulled out of thin air because it sounds good.

[01:22:06] Unknown Speaker: I would rather it be informed by some understanding of the totality of impacts that affect feasibility, right? It's you're right. It's not just park fees, right?

[01:22:18] Unknown Speaker: point numbers out of this guy. We hired a very expensive consultant. And the fees are going down. And so, and you can show me the materially, this this fee, reduction of, you know, the reason that no one can build anything even with no park fees is because we have a park fee that doesn't make any sense. So I guess, I guess, my, my qualm is, what I like to know the totality of everything, yes, I would. Do I think it's going to change my mind in terms of the overall framework that we're discussing today.

[01:22:55] Unknown Speaker: the next the next study is an independent document. These are legally defensible maximum. Correct. But if we do anything less than that, it's arbitrary. It's 20% or it's, you know. So like I, if we do something less than this, which is what I think we will probably have to do to meet the housing element obligation at the very least, it's, it's not based on an understanding of, you know, the market reality or how it affects, how it interplays with community benefits or inclusionary housing or, you know, offside improvements, right? It's just we're just picking a number. But I think what you're...

[01:23:32] Unknown Speaker: The path that you're going down suggests that there needs to be a feasibility study, every market cycle, and I just don't think that we can do that as a community, because all the different inputs. This is just one input into it. It's always. Anyway, I don't I don't think I'm going to convince you anything. The only other thing that I wanted to mention just because of the, um, city attorney mentioned might be helpful in terms of my, one council member's thinking is, So for these changes of uses and things, like I don't, If there isn't a net increase in either units or square footage, then I don't really care if the use changes. It's because really at the end of the day, it's about, I'm gonna do men's, are we trying to support it and what is the, um, what is the level which we can justify their usage of all this? So it, it, you know, you're changing to use to, um, from commercial to lab or something like that, I don't think it really changes anything or if you're replacing, um, I, just changes of use as generally is, um, are not really a concern to me, it's really the nexus between the number of users that we're going to have in order to meet our, you know, overall creators who love, and we're, like, finding Harry, whatever you think, actually. Max

[01:24:57] Unknown Speaker: Mayor, I might have missed it, but did you say yes to the 1st 3 questions when you got started?

[01:25:01] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I said yes to all four. Thank you.

[01:25:04] Member Emily Ann Ramos: Or is more like a, not necessarily,

[01:25:06] Unknown Speaker: yes, or your question. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, we, well, we do kind of have additional, but...

[01:25:13] (EPS): Can I just add something on, just on that last point, I think there, um, uh, so I think, I think you can, this is right, more of an ordinance policy kind of issue, what kind of, um, netting out do I do and do use changes matter? Um, what some cities do do is they, you know, they do net out, but they use, for a change of use, they use the kind of new feed study to guide that, right? So if I'm if I'm taking a 10,000 square foot industrial building, But converting it to a 10,000 square foot office building. Like based on, you know, the expectations, there'll be more. There would be more people, even the same size, where there'd be more workers in there. And so, one approach is just to kind of calculate the, kind of like, you get a credit for the industrial building you had, what would be the new fee on the office building, and there might still be an increase, but it would be just a net increase of use. That would be, if that makes any sense. But that's just one way to apply the fee program to figure out the net changes. Um, alternatively, right, you could just say, You could have another policy, which was, you know, if it doesn't, if it's the same building, I don't, and the use has changed, then I'm not gonna bother with any, any fee additions. So there's just some options in there. It

[01:26:24] Unknown Speaker: gets more into a policy discussion of, I just, I've seen a lot of, or maybe, we've just heard rum wings, though. You know, you have some, some smaller projects who, you know, the economy shifted and they want to go from lab to this or from that, back to lab or whatever, and you have a small 30,000 square foot something or other where the fee ends up being really impactful, and all they're trying to do is fill a vacant space, which we want. So that gets into incentive structures and all the other stuff that we'll deal with someday. All

[01:26:58] Member Emily Ann Ramos: right. Um, so one through three, those aren't easy guesses. So, yay, for that. for the additional input. So, um, I struggle like seeing some of the like earlier moves and how does that impact? Like when it finally goes, um, this is why when I code, I push code directly to production, see what happens and if it breaks, it breaks kind of thing, which is a really bad thing to do. Um, So, as I do support um, any of my colleagues, um, uh, input and direction. So I guess the big point of contention, my understanding, is the feasibility study, um, having a feasibility study. So what I, What I'm concerned about is so we know we have certain obligations. So, I don't know, at the end of all this, where we're going to land, essentially, with where we are in these fees. So, um, because as, as, as, as, because Ramirez said, there's like 4 different kinds of scenarios where there might be more, might be less kind of thing. And so I'm trying to look at the totality of it. Um, And so I know that we made an obligation in a housing element to what we, uh, well, I guess depends on how we interpret it. But my interpretation was like, the piece we have now and drop it by 20% kind of thing. And if the next study shows that like, oh, the maximum fees we can charge is 20% less than the current fees are, like, we're kind of good, but if it's, if it's something like, If we do have to take whatever the next study um, shows us of what the next MV is that we are allowed to to charge and then pick a number in there. It makes it difficult for me to to make that decision without some form of visibility study to back that up kind of thing. Um, like, I don't know if there's like a way to, like, not do a full-blown feasibility study, but like a happy feasibility study. I don't, I don't know if that's even possible, but I would love some backing if we have that scenario where, like, we have our maximum allowed these to the next study, and then we have our obligation of that. 20% however we interpret it. So, um, Like, I don't know how we can get there without, like, having a good sense of visibility. I'm

[01:29:21] Unknown Speaker: just trying to think about, sorry, I need you. Go ahead, let's weigh in. That, there are plenty different factors that are, you know, involved in a developer's ability to build, you know, parkland fees would be one of them. We have other fees. There's other variables that they, you know, might have. There's the price of, uh, paying workers. There's the cost of buying the land. There's the cost of supplies and goods that they have to use to build the units. And so, I'm just trying to think of, uh, how a feasibility study solely based on parkland fees alone. Um, could help you all. It could help the council. Um, just inform you all about those larger size units because I think that's really what you're getting at is for the areas where the fee has gone up. Um, what do you do? You know, especially if the housing element program to your point, um, says it can go down or it's supposed to go down by 20%. So if you want to give staff direction, I think, to. figure out how there might be some sort of way we can look at it without it being a full blown feasibility study solely based on a parkland fee. Because to me, it just seems so arbitrary to do a study about a developer's feasibility based on this fee alone. And if it's based on everything. I don't even know that that's a common or normal thing to do. I was talking to Christian, is this done? In other cities? I've never heard of it. to do that sort of all encompassing and study of whether a developer could build or not. Perhaps on major projects, but I don't know that we've done that. So if you could give us direction to have some leeway, because otherwise I could see this just taking a very long time.

[01:31:26] Unknown Speaker: I'll have a suggestion. Okay. Um, so I'm hearing the Harvard. Um, uh, we, we, we do, an annual cost of development study in the city air work, or it, it's, we were writing about this in a professional account, but it's, I, I, I don't think it's a bad thing to do because it does show sort of order of magnitude, that, that belta between feasibility and, um, like what you would have to do, get a project to actually be built, entitled to every city, is entitling a lot of projects that will never get built. I don't, as Congressman Licardo, would say, um, 100%. Subzero is zero, right? So we can, this is, this is meaningless. We don't actually build housing that generates fees. But, um, the, the, the park improvements chart, you know, can be sort of rethought, and that has, you know, some, some impact on the, um, the, the relative, you know, increases, and and the, you know, uh, maximum new residential fee charts. Um, then I think that's, again, directionally, the right way to go. I'll be satisfied with that, so it could spare you all the trouble of needing to do a whole loan feasibility analysis, which I still think is a good thing to do someday. Um, but, um, that's that's probably sufficient, right? If staff comes back with, look, you know, thinking about where we want to go with the parks and refreation strategic plan, thinking about the types of parks that we want to build and economies of scale. Here's kind of a rethinking of the cost of park improvements, and it's sort of, has a moderating effect on some of the fever. I'll be satisfied with that. And then we could all go to work.

[01:33:19] Member Emily Ann Ramos: Does that sound okay to staff? Oh, great. Yay. Um, I do know like. We, we don't do like a cost, development study here in our city, but I've seen up as, as council member Ramirez mentioned, we see it in a, granted, I think it was severely laughing at data. But anyway, um, we, but we do know, on a general level, that one of the highest fees put onto building new housing is, is a purple housing, which I'll not touch with a 50 foot pole. And then the 2nd one, though, is park fees. So it is, it is a significant portion of peasability. And our uh, of developments. So I'm happy that we found, we found a way to essentially get some backing on the decision that we make, just having more, um, data to back up why we made that decision and it's very important, especially. I hate it all the time when we, we, we have some requirements on a developer and develop, it does a pencil and I was like, what does that mean? And I would love to have our own answer to that. Um, so, but that's, that's my general direction. Um, and I think, Um, so is there a motion to receive the update and provide a direction discussed by the committee?

[01:34:35] Unknown Speaker: Can I just clarify? So is staff clear on what council member Ramirez said about that chart and looking at? Okay, just wanting to make sure we don't need any further clarity. I

[01:34:47] Jennifer: just wanted to, um, Maybe update on next steps. I actually really appreciate the feedback that's been given, and I think this is very helpful. I think that we were pulling our hair out on a lot of these things and this is super helpful direction that we've gotten today. We're going to go back to the drawing board. We meet all the time. We need to punch numbers and incorporate all of this. Do you want us coming back to you? Are we coming to council? That's my 1st question. Because implementing this, right? Do you want to see what it looks like? After we've implemented some of these changes by comparison before we go all the way to council? Or do you want us just to bring it? We can show the before and the after? At council. That's my 1st question. I

[01:35:34] Unknown Speaker: would suggest it just go to council, but with, uh, some summaries, paragraph summaries of the discussion that just occurred, right? And, you know, incorporating your comments, but that way, that way everyone knows. Sort of how

[01:35:50] Unknown Speaker: we got the world. That was going to be my recommendation that, and I would echo what, um, Jennifer said, like, this is super helpful, and this has been, as you all know, a very long process to get here. So, my recommendation would be, we can bring it to council. We can let counsel know about the feedback from the committee, which is typical. That's what we would do anyways and bring those items back. Um, we had originally thought this might be a 30 minute item. I definitely do not think it will be a 30 minute item to counsel and we can talk about the timing of that, to make sure we're capturing, basically, all of your feedback and the chart and how it's done. And then, If the council has different direction at that time, then we can also bring it back. But I think we'll just capture everything that you all did now so that we can move on this. I

[01:36:42] Jennifer: also wanted to clarify one other thing. I've done some research in different jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions have brought the nexus study with the ordinance implementing the new fee, and some have separated the 2 with significance distance between the 2 couple of months between the 2 the nexus study being adopted and then the ordinance coming back. For adoption. I am recommending. I am telling you, do not expect to see the ordinance when this nexus fee comes. Okay, because there is no way we can, we're going to need to come in and letting you know with all of this information the before and after so that you can see what the maximum is. I think, one of the things that was really important for me, and this has been great, is for you to understand, this is just the adoption of the maximum, right? We do have more work to do in order to draft a really good ordinance that provides incentives or other credits or maybe you're going to adopt a coinciding policy that's a temporary waiver or something like that to incentivize some type of residential development. And that is all going to go hand in hand with the ordinance. And I think that maybe when we come with the nexus study, one of the questions to counsel will be, as you're thinking, through this and you're adopting the nexus study, you give us direction on the types of credits or incentives or things that we want to be looking at or bringing to you for consideration and adoption of the ordinance. So I just wanted to provide clarity that you're not going to have to make that ordinance decision on the night that you are adopting the Nexus study. I strongly recommend separating those 2 things. Otherwise, you will get an ordinance that maybe doesn't accomplish your all of your goals. So when staff brings

[01:38:27] Member Emily Ann Ramos: us, uh, like whether or not we choose to bring the next study here to this committee or to straight to council, like we, we're not, we're not passing the, the updated parties then. Is that what staff was wanting to do anyway or sorry, can you repeat that question? Okay, so the way City Attorney Logue was mentioning. So when the Adopting the nexus study is different from, it is going to be a separate item from us adopting the park fees. Yes. The

[01:38:58] Jennifer: ordinance. Yes, the next study does not adopt the fees, the ordinance adopt.

[01:39:02] Member Emily Ann Ramos: How

[01:39:03] Member Emily Ann Ramos: does that work with the deadlines we need to make?

[01:39:05] Unknown Speaker: Well, the deadlines are just driven by, I think, the legal...

[01:39:11] Jennifer Logue (City Attorney): So adoption of the Nexus study, well, is meeting one portion of program one. 8. And once again, you know, we have these deadlines that we've said in our housing element, and then there are the realities of trying to accomplish those deadlines. I think that HCD will work with us. I think that to the extent that we are showing that we are making progress and the fact that this conversation is so thoughtful, right? You're not just doing something arbitrary, you're genuinely looking to find a way to reduce these fees and to enable housing development. I think HCD is going to work with us. And I just, we have to have faith that, and I'm not saying 6 months in between. I'm saying a little bit of time in between. I'm just saying don't expect it to see on the same day. And when I say a little bit of time, you know, maybe we get that done in a month or a month and a half . I'm going to say a month and a half because we have a Noticing deadlines and things like that in state law that we have to meet. But, so I'm not saying 6 months in between. I'm just saying, I didn't want you to expect to see it on the same night. Your ordinance will come later. And so adoption of the nexus study will not prohibit the council from thinking of bigger, better things you might want to or need to do in order to accomplish your reduced fees.

[01:40:29] Unknown Speaker: I think we'll be okay. So we talked about bringing it back. John, will you confirm, was it midyear or with a budget workshop in April? The fees. The ordinance. What we're talking about.

[01:40:42] (Community Services Director): We had talked about originally, um, going to council at the end of February was the original...

[01:40:51] Unknown Speaker: So we may just need to think differently about February just based on the feedback you all have given us and bring it at a later time just to involve, um, all this work that we need to do, but it doesn't mean that we'll be so delayed that it will be problematic. I think it just might not be next month in February. It might be April instead. Um, so we were trying to tie it to budget touch points with counsel. So your touchpoint after February is that under April budget workshop that we've added. So maybe that's more appropriate, timing wise for it. Well, we'll work together and figure out timing. So I'm not too concerned. About the deadline because you're you're helping get us there. And as Jennifer said, If we need to, you know, we can show the good faith efforts and work that we're doing to get to resolution on this issue. And

[01:41:44] Unknown Speaker: mayor, when you adopt an exit study, you're adopting a methodology and then the output, you're adopting a data point. The policy discussion will still occur. So the nexus study is a data point.

[01:41:58] Member Emily Ann Ramos: Okay, yeah, I'm happy for him to go back to. Oh, it's fancy. Yeah. Great. All right, was that everything? Wait, oh, um, can someone make a motion?

[01:42:10] Unknown Speaker: Um, I moved to, what, what, what is the, I moved to receive the update, and I guess, provide those direction, which, and please correct me, if I'm wrong, staff, it, I think it included looking at the park improvement costs. When

[01:42:29] Member Emily Ann Ramos: you provided constantly information.

[01:42:31] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, well, but no, I, I, I, um, I don't know if it was important for this meeting, but, uh, what, uh, the vice mayor was suggesting about, uh, changes in use and and some of those, um, I guess it's more net new, right? We're thinking about net new. Yeah, that's just me.

[01:42:49] Unknown Speaker: That'll be a policy thing that the whole council does. Fair enough. I was just sharing my thoughts.

[01:42:54] Unknown Speaker: I do agree with that direction. And then, um, I think the family unit versus square foot. Yeah. Oh yeah, that was the other. And then I think the last one was the range in land values across the city. Did I miss anything? Thank you.

[01:43:12] Unknown Speaker: Oh, and then alternative methodologies to slide 10? That's the one you said. Was that the square footage versus that it was your 1st one. You're looking at the cost, uh, per land acquisition and improvement, you had asked for basically reviewing alternative methodologies. Oh, it's more offended person. No, I think that was

[01:43:30] Unknown Speaker: the cost improvements, right? Yeah. And I trust staff to figure out how to, yes, outlies. And

[01:43:36] Unknown Speaker: then the last thing was the money that, um, reflected over time versus what? It's like the council member, by Samara Clark, run-up.

[01:43:47] Unknown Speaker: That was just a high level. I think you would do that anyway. It's just kind of giving you a bit more and after. Right, what the difference would be. Just so you have a sense of the trade offs. Money collected as opposed to we've entitled it and it's people. Well, yeah, what we what we collected and what we collected under, if roughly, it doesn't have to be depending, just roughly under the new framework, what would have been collected, just so we know the delta.

[01:44:13] Unknown Speaker: I agree with that in spirit. But I just want to make sure we're talking about projects that actually paid the fee. Yeah, yeah, yeah, title projects that never be fine. Okay. Wait for me another lion, bro,

[01:44:24] Unknown Speaker: either. Fair enough.

[01:44:27] Member Emily Ann Ramos: All right. All in favor? Any of those? Any extensions? Motion passes unanimously. All right. All right. it's number six. Committee, staff comments, questions, committee record. Comments, questions, or committee reports from the committee members.

[01:44:45] Unknown Speaker: I just added a question about, um, what, what sort of the, um, things that we'll be talking about. So, we usually have the

[01:44:54] and Services Director): 2 audits. Yeah. So there's the internal audit, you know, as the city auditor will be bringing back the work plan and results of prior audits that have been done. Um, There was one more, I just think. 11? Yes. I'll see you later. Yeah, as adopt, modifying our finance and budgetary policy to just match what's in practice and be updated for the new gaspies. Okay. Those are the 2 I think... That's all I do in your movie before in the TOT. Yeah, so that'll be part of the website.

[01:45:27] Unknown Speaker: Give you some insight into that. All right. and one more thing. Did we say the home buyer program was CPBC or CF?

[01:45:37] and Services Director): I don't think we decided, but it might be CFC, actually, now that you mention it. Eventually. Yeah, essentially bring back the home buyer program for that place.

[01:45:48] Member Emily Ann Ramos: Yeah. All right. Uh, so those are the community reports. Um, this meeting is adjourned at 1048. Thank you. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. I would be so having one about... Okay.

• ← Previous
• Next →