SPECIAL CITY
COUNCIL BUDGET
WORK SESSION
FEBRUARY 28, 2026
DOCUMENTS
RECEIVED AFTER
PUBLISHED AGENDA
Item #1
WS 26-005
Budget Work
Session
From: BC4AD
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2026 8:26 AM
To: List-Mayor-Council <[email protected]> Subject: Council meeting 2/28/26 item WS 26-005
CAUTION:This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.
Dear City Council,
First I’d like to say I appreciate everything staff have done, we know this is a very important but also difficult project. I’d also like to show appreciation to the city manager, she inherited this mess and is trying to essentially right the ship with a skeleton crew. And thank you to everyone sacrificing their weekend and showing up to do this important work.
Having said that, I’d like to offer my public comment:
With regard to the Business Tax, our group would support something between Livermore & San Jose $3.58 range. We feel this is better long term as these rates don’t get updates frequently and we would appreciate a one and done approach to save on staff time.
Inflation isn’t going away anytime soon, so it is prudent to capture anticipated future inflation and not just look back at previous inflation.
We absolutely support capturing streaming services within UUT. We would also ask has staff considered bringing a raise to the voters? Perhaps .5-1.5% increase? And finally are we capturing solar within UUT?
With regard to traffic codes, we reject red light cameras and speed cameras for the city.
After the ICE & Flock debacles, we do not want any more of this type of infrastructure in the city. The city of Fremont has been caught shaving seconds of yellow lights in order to try and increase citations. This isn’t about public safety. In fact, studies show red light cameras can increase accidents because drivers that are scared and can’t afford fines will slam on the brakes suddenly causing the driver behind them to crash into them.
Not to mention the increased burden on the understaffed police department. And finally, the revenue from citations does not go only to the city, it is split with the state and the third party vendors who get the majority of the pie.
Finally, these systems are expensive. Hearings officers are expensive, averaging over $400 per hour. The cost to install red light cameras in the San Francisco Bay Area is expensive and is handled by Verra Mobility or Redflex, who often provide a full turnkey service including equipment, installation, maintenance, calibration, and citation processing as programs are usually leased or contracted rather than city owned.
San Jose Red Light Camera Pilot (most recent Bay Area installation): Four intersections (one approach each) with a total one-year pilot budget of $733,000 (city general funds).
This covers installation (completed fall 2025), equipment, maintenance/calibration by vendor Verra Mobility, citation processing, and evaluation. That works out to roughly $183,000 per intersection for the first full year of the program.
San Francisco (ongoing program + expansion): Cameras are leased and maintained by Verra Mobility. The city currently enforces 19 approaches at 13 intersections and is expanding by 8 more approaches (to 27 total at 21 intersections). Fiscal analysis shows: Annual professional services: $800,000–$1,100,000 - One-time “Other” costs: $2.8 million (likely tied to expansion/infrastructure) - Plus staff and operations (total annual ~$1.22M–$1.52M).
On the one hand we are firing city staff and here we’re looking to add significant costs that makes no sense and is bad public policy.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/red-light-cameras-may-not-make-streets- safer/
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/major-chicago-study-finds-red-light- cameras-not-safer-cause-more-rear-end-injuries/
We do not support digital billboards. They are tacky and do not generate sufficient revenue but they do create an ugly and distracting look. The other revenue measures more than make up for what we need.
Southland mall: we wholeheartedly support efforts to engineer tourism. Southland mall is a unique property than can be turned into a Santana row type property. This is a longer conversation that will take strategic planning.
One of the things that the city has to do is implement the commercial vacancy tax. There are literally dozens of properties in the city that haven’t been utilized in over 10 years. This is unacceptable as it they create blight and ward off other investment into the city. My vision for the program would not be for staff to constantly monitor this. Make it self reporting in the beginning under an honor system. Then after 3 years when the budget is fixed and more stable then you increase enforcement.
One major aspect that can make landowners activate properties is the threat of a sheriffs sale. The city absolutely could and should enforce this type of program. Bring this to the voters ASAP we would support this. There is a way to reduce the admin burden but we need this tax on the books.
Casinos: this is a nuanced and complex project. Yes, the governor has placed a moratorium and it is a shame prior councils were not creative enough in their vision.
However, there are certain mechanisms that would be exempt from the moratorium that would take careful planning. A casino resort would be perfect for the southland property.
Tree planting: I’ve written before, can we have a tree inventory, especially on trees planted on mission blvd? Many trees are stunted and have not been growing compared to others.
We should demand warranty from whoever installed them. Given nature of tree growth the warranty have to be long.
Finally, do we have any conceptual design for the proposed public safety facility? We support a new facility but we can’t have ugly designs. As a matter of fact some designs cost more than traditional architecture. We would like to see a traditional design that can help reduce costs associated with massive floor to ceiling glass panels. This reduction in costs can help give the department back some of the things that were scaled down.
Today architecture also includes cost-increasing elements, such as large glass sections or asymmetrical window placements. This is true for both everyday functional architecture, like apartment buildings, and public profile buildings.
However, it is mostly notable when it comes to profile buildings or so-called landmarks.
Modernist architecture is based on the idea that it is the geometrical shape of the building that is the decoration. This leads to extremely expensive and dysfunctional buildings.
Take the Walkie-Talke building in London as an example. Costing over $250 million, the curved glass skyscraper had a design that melted cars and even set buildings on fire. The owners had to pay compensation to the car owners and installed a temporary screen on the building to solve the problem.
Or the Walt Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles, USA, by Frank Gehry. This modernist landmark was not only expensive to build at $274 million but also caused unexpected problems. The concave surfaces received the burning sun rays and reflected them to the neighboring houses, causing glare and a significant temperature rise. The adjacent streets, also, suffered from glare which has raised the risks for traffic accidents. There was no option but to sandblast the facade. That operation alone cost about $180,000.
Compare this to the reconstruction of Potsdam City Palace, Germany, a couple of years later. This is also a landmark building, attracting a large number of tourists daily. With $130 million the cost was less than half, and this includes the costs for an exact reconstruction of a historic palace facade.
Thank you,
John
From: BC4AD
Subject: Re: Council meeting 2/28/26 item WS 26-005
Date: February 28, 2026 at 11:05:48 AM PST
To: Zach Ebadi <[email protected]>
CAUTION:This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.
Zach,
Please forward this comment at well:
With regard to the tax on large businesses or manufacturers, even if we bumped the tax up more than the proposal.. it is not feasable for large manufacturers to decide to move a whole production over $30-40k annual tax. The risk of them moving would appear low and I’d ask the consultant to dig deeper on this.
Best,
John