Crestmoor Fields &
Stormwater Treatment Basin
TRAVIS M. KARLEN
COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
JULY 28, 2026
1. Provide an updated assessment of the Crestmoor Fields financial trajectory since the project was last presented in December 2025
2. Present the full lifecycle cost picture: construction, operations, and turf replacement prior to requesting authorization of a revised Improvement Agreement
3. Review the stormwater treatment basin required to serve the fields
4. Receive Council feedback and general direction prior to bringing the agreements forward for consideration
2 OBJECTIVE
PROJECT BACKGROUND
3 Toll Brothers: Developing the former Crestmoor High School site as a 155-unit residential subdivision
6.9 acres dedicated; 5.3 acres for sports fields, remainder for parking and paths
October 2023: City Council provided direction on the Crestmoor Fields Multi-Use Master Plan
Original 2023 estimate: $9.2 – $11.2 million, with 10% annual construction inflation
January 2025: Council directed a reduced Phase 1 scope, valued at approximately $6.6 million
4 Fields Site & Master Plan
December 9, 2025: Council adopted Resolution No. 2025-114, authorizing an Improvement Agreement with Toll Brothers not to exceed $6.6 million Toll Brothers' legal counsel raised concerns with the agreement, requiring roughly seven months of renegotiation
San Bruno Community Foundation (SBCF) formally approved $1,952,400 for design and construction of field lighting
Lighting incorporated, raising the current authorized budget to $8,552,400 Agreement includes substantive changes and new funded scope: Requires further Council action, along with a stormwater basin reimbursement agreement 5 December 2025 Council Action
& Subsequent Delays
Regulatorily required to threat stormwater runoff from the field Site conditions did not allow for the field to be considered self- treating
Basin for fields is currently proposed to be combined with the basin for the development to maximize usable surface for the fields
Per current maintenance agreement, Toll Brothers would maintain the combined basin
Deferring the Combined Basin: Results in substantial increase design and construction costs, as well loss of usable field space, increased maintenance costs and potential liability. 6 Stormwater Treatment Basin
COST ESCALATION
SINCE
DECEMBER 2025
7 $8.55 million Currently Authorized - Could Reach or Exceed $10 million Cost Escalation since December 2025
Stormwater basin: $200K to $305K (+52.5%)
Design cost differential: +~$170,000
Additional escalations: Rising and Unknown
Toll Brothers Concerns Regarding Costs
Construction costs trending higher
Budget pressure evident before bids solicited
Concerns about value engineering efforts
8 Construction Cost
$520K Toll Brother’s Design Quote – Increase of +$170,000 Design Cost Quotes
Callander & Associates: ~$350,000
Toll Brothers: ~$520,000
Reflects market-driven cost escalation
Why Have Toll Brothers Manage Design?
Places change-order risk on Toll Brothers
Anticipated construction savings should exceed differential 9 Design and Site Costs
ONGOING OPERATIONS &
MAINTENANCE
10 Estimate Update
December 2025 Estimate - $85,000
Today’s Estimate - $150,000-$175,000
Cost components with field lighting:
Turf, irrigation, cleaning: $75K-$100K
Lighting & electrical: $75K
Driven by inflation, utility rates, labor
11 Annual Operating Costs
Turf Replacement Reserve:
8 -10 year turf life
$1.8M replacement estimate
Requires $180,000/year planning
investment
Estimated annual costs - $330K - $350K
Estimated 10-year commitment - $12M - $13.5M
12 Total Cost of Ownership
10 Year Project Total
Construction incl. lighting: $8.55M-$10M+
10 years of O&M: $1.625M
Turf replacement: $1.8M
Annual Components - Recurring
Operations & maintenance: $150K-$175K
Turf replacement reserve: $180,000
Staffing 0.5 FTE (Included in O & M)
FIELD USE REVENUE — CAN FEES
COVER COSTS?
13 Per Player Fees:
Currently - $11 - $18 Per Season
Full Cost Recovery - $575 - $950
Recommendation: Move to Hourly
Current Per Player Fee Model
Per-player in lieu of hourly
Resident: $11/player; Non-res: $18/player
No City Recreation use planned
All revenue from outside groups
14 Field Use Fees
Cost Recovery – Per Hour Model
Hourly Rate instead of Per Player
Non-lighted: $55-$70/hr.
Lighted: $110-$130/hr.
Multiple new outdoor facilities onboarded with no additional resources Crestmoor Fields will require dedicated resources for:
Field scheduling and allocation coordination
User group agreements, permitting, and fee collection Turf inspection, maintenance, and irrigation management Field lighting operation and utility management
Contract management and user-group conflict resolution Staffing analysis and Fee Analysis
15 Staffing Implications
• Total construction costs: Projected to exceed $10 million (+$1.45 million above the current authorized budget)
• Annual O&M costs have risen to $150,000-$175,000
• Turf reserve adds $180,000/year, bringing total annual cost of ownership to $330,000-$355,000
• The per-player fee model is inadequate; cost recovery would require $40-$130/hr., a fundamental departure from existing fees • City Recreation does not anticipate programmed use; all revenue must come from outside user-group rentals
• Parks staff capacity is already constrained relative to workload 16 Key Financial Concerns
1. Whether to proceed with the Revised Improvement Agreement, given costs are projected to exceed the authorized budget
2. Whether to proceed with the agreement for the stormwater treatment basin
3. Whether staff should explore partnerships or co-management with user groups, school districts, or other agencies to share operating costs
4. Whether design modifications or scope reductions should be explored to bring costs within budget
5. How the City will fund the annual operating shortfall and long-term turf replacement reserve given General Fund constraints
17 Direction Requested
QUESTIONS
18 CITY OF
SAN BRUNO
Annual Inflationary Adjustment for Development
Impact Fees, In-Lieu, and Capacity Fees
City Council Meeting | July 28, 2026
• Background
• Recommendations
• Next Steps
MEETING AGENDA
2 CLEARSOURCE PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO
Background
• Each year, the City Council reviews proposed
adjustments to established development impact fees,
in-lieu fees, and capacity charges
• Via Municipal Code and adopted Ordinances, the City
Council has authorized annual adjustments to these
fees each July, to reflect annual changes in regional
cost inflation
• Prior to applying authorized adjustments, staff
presents the adjustments to the City Council
ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT OF FEES AND CHARGES
4 CLEARSOURCE PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO
• These fees are assessed on new development projects
to offset the costs of public capital facilities and
infrastructure that is needed to serve new demand
created by the development projects
• Fees collected are to be used for public facility
improvements only
• Fees collected fund facility needs created by new
development rather than existing deficiencies
ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT OF FEES AND CHARGES
5 CLEARSOURCE PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO
• Fees are based on a rational nexus between new
development and the costs of the public facilities and
infrastructure needed to accommodate such
development
• Fees do not pay for operation and maintenance of
facilities or staffing costs
• Fees collected are segregated from General Funds, so
that they can be accounted for and dedicated to
specific purposes
ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT OF FEES AND CHARGES
6 CLEARSOURCE PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO
Recommendations
ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT OF FEES AND CHARGES
8 CLEARSOURCE PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO
Description Adjustment Note
Citywide Development
Impact Fees; Bayhill Specific
Plan Area Development
Impact Fees; Affordable
Housing and Parking In-Lieu
Fee
No Change
(0%)
Fees adjusted annually by
change in California
Construction Cost Index for
San Francisco area. For
most recent year, index
decreased, so fees remain
unchanged.
Water and Wastewater
Capacity Fees
2.65% Annual Adjustment Fees adjusted annually by
change in Engineering
News-Record Construction
Cost Index – 20 City
Average. For most recent
year, index increased
2.65%.
Fiscal Impact of Proposed Changes
• No fiscal impact on the City’s General Fund
• Fiscal impact will be dependent on new
development activity
FISCAL IMPACT
10 CLEARSOURCE PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO
Next Steps
Staff recommends that City Council adopt resolution
updating fees and charges
If adopted fees will be effective October 1, 2026
and incorporated into Citywide consolidated user
and regulatory fee schedule
NEXT STEPS
12 CLEARSOURCE PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO
Questions or Feedback
CITY OF
SAN BRUNO
Fiscal Year 2026/27
User and Regulatory Fee Schedule
City Council Meeting | July 28, 2026
• Background
• Study Findings and Recommendations
• Next Steps
MEETING AGENDA
2 CLEARSOURCE PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO
Background
• Communities generally use tax revenues to fund
services that provide general (community-wide)
benefit
• Public works
• Public safety
• Park maintenance
• Communities generally use fees and charges (direct
recovery) to fund services that provide direct benefit
• Plan Review
• Permitting
• Inspection
USER AND REGULATORY FEES
4 CLEARSOURCE PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO
TYPES OF FEES EXAMINED
• This update DOES
NOT examine taxes,
assessments, utility
rates, or
development impact
fees
CLEARSOURCE PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO5
Phase One (This
Evening’s Item):
Administrative and Non-
Development Fees
Phase Two (Fall 2026):
Development-Related
Fees and Water /
Wastewater Service
Fees
Citywide Administrative
Fees
Planning Fees
Finance Fees Building Fees
Police Fees Fire Fees
Library & Recreation Fees Public Works Engineering
and Utility Fees
Study Completed in Two Phases
• Comprehensive fee studies are performed periodically
(typically every 3 – 5 years)
• In years between comprehensive studies, City adjusts
fees to account for change in regional cost inflation
BACKGROUND
6 CLEARSOURCE PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO
• Legal requirements
• Encourage direct recovery of costs incurred
to serve private interests/benefit or respond
to individual actions
• Provide opportunity for relief to General
Fund or other Funds where costs are
incurred
• Enable continuity of service levels by
improving cost recovery levels
PURPOSE OF FEE REVIEW AND UPDATE
• Why do Cities
Review Fees and
Charge Fees for
Services?
CLEARSOURCE PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO7
• Cost of Service Guidance
• Costs allocated to the payor should bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the payor’s burdens on or benefits received from the governmental activity
• Cost Recovery Guidance
• Fees should not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged
LEGISLATIVE GUIDANCE
8 CLEARSOURCE PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO
Study Findings and Recommendations
OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS
10 CLEARSOURCE PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO
Description Count Percentage
Fees Proposed for Inflationary Adjustments / Phase-In to Align to Prior City Council Direction
115 59%
Fees Proposed to Remain Unchanged 45 23%
Fees Proposed to Decrease 7 3%
Fees With Changes that Vary Based on Specific Criteria
(Fees May Decrease, Remain Unchanged, or Increase)
14 7%
Fees Proposed to Increase to Improve Cost Recovery 14 7% New Fees 1 1%
Total 196 100%
Fiscal Impact of Proposed Changes
• Anticipated fiscal impact is approximately $70,000
in additional annual revenue
FISCAL IMPACT
12 CLEARSOURCE PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO
Next Steps
Staff recommends that City Council adopt resolution
updating fees and charges and authorizing annual
inflationary adjustments to fees
If adopted fees will be effective October 1, 2026
and incorporated into Citywide consolidated user
and regulatory fee schedule
NEXT STEPS
14 CLEARSOURCE PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO
Questions or Feedback
Supplemental Information
• Fees Proposed for Inflationary Adjustments / Phase-In to Align to Prior Council Direction
• Approximately 59% of fees
• Primarily recreation fees and parking fines
• Recreation fees - multi-year phase-in linked to RAC opening.
Generally, a 3% phase-in with rounding adjustments
• Parking fines – increase annually by change in regional cost inflation
OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS
17 CLEARSOURCE PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO
• Fees Proposed to Remain Unchanged
• Approximately 23% of fees
• Primarily fees that are limited by the State of California and deposits/other amounts that change periodically, as needed, rather than annually
• Fees Proposed to Decrease
• Approximately 3% of fees
• Update fees to reflect current operational practices and established State limits
OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS
18 CLEARSOURCE PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO
• Fees With Changes that Vary Based on Project Criteria • Approximately 7% of fees
• Example – RAC fitness fees: personal training fees adjusted; fees for child care during workout remain unchanged
• Fees Proposed to Increase
• Approximately 7% of fees
• Adjustments to improve cost recovery
• Primarily fees for regulatory services for which cities commonly recover costs (e.g., specialized license review for applications for places of public amusement, public dance, or
entertainment)
OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS
19 CLEARSOURCE PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO
• New Fee Proposed
• One new fee is proposed
• $30 fee to recover the costs of processing permits for requests to use inflatable jumpers in City parks
• Common fee collected by other regional agencies
• Allows for recovery of costs of application and insurance review
OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS
20 CLEARSOURCE PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO
No New Regulations are Proposed
This is a service that is already
provided without an existing fee
identified in the current fee schedule
8a. Ballot Measure: Height Ordinance
No. 1284
July 28, 2026City Council Meeting
AGENDA
I. Objective
II. Background
III. Recommendation
IV.Questions
2 OBJECTIVE
3 • Adopt Resolution(s) to submit to the
voters repealing Ordinance No. 1284
BACKGROUND
4 Ordinance No. 1284
• Adopted 1977
• Requires voter approval:
> 3 stories/50’
Residential density increases
Multi-story parking structures
Certain changes to Crystal Springs Road and Sneath Lane
STATE LAW IMPACTS
5 • Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) – exempt from
public vote
• SB 9 (2021) – ministerial 2-unit/lot split approval
• State Density Bonus Law – approved without a
vote:
732 El Camino Real (6 stories)
850 San Bruno Ave (10 stories)
• SB 79 (2025) – transit area density mandates
LOST ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES
6 Two examples of lost opportunities to strengthen tax base • The Crossings – Hotel (1999)
Failed ballot measure contributed to deal collapse
$3.0 – 4.0 M/year lost revenue
• Google/YouTube Bayhill Master Plan
Future phases on hold indefinitely
INITIATIVE: ELEVATE SAN BRUNO
7 • FY 2025-26 priority: Transit Corridors Plan Assessment Fiscal analysis: investment is being lost to neighboring cities • FY 2026-27 priority: Elevate San Bruno launched January 2026 Improve investment in San Bruno
Will require ballot measure(s)
More info: elevatesanbruno.org
POLLING
• Rescind Ordinance No. 1284: 53.2% support
• Rescind for a targeted geographic area: 51.4% support • Simple majority threshold
8 BALLOT OPTIONS
a. Rescind Ordinance No.
1284 (Council Direction)
a. Rescind for a targeted
geographic area
b. No action at this time
9 BALLOT QUESTION
10 FISCAL IMPACT
• County Cost to run Mayor and City Council
• Additional for adding 1-3 ballot initiatives
• Additional legal ads / translation from the City Clerk 11 On the Ballot County Low +Increment County High +Increment Mayor/Council Seats Only $118,000 $141,600
Mayor/Council +1 Measure +13,000 +15,600
Mayor/Council +2 Measures +27,000 +32,400
Mayor/Council +3 Measures +47,000 +56,400
NEXT STEPS
• Submit to County by August 7, 2026
• Arguments and Rebuttals
12 Date Item
March-April Develop options & legal review
June City Council Direction
July City Council Adopts Resolution Calling the Election August 7 FINAL DEADLINE (88 days before election)
August Argument & Rebuttal Windows
September County Ballot Production
October Ballots Mailed; Outreach Continues
November 3 Election Day
RECOMMENDATION
• Adopt Resolution Submitting to the Voters a
Measure to Repeal Ordinance No. 1284
• If wanting Arguments, a Resolution Setting Priorities for Filing Written Arguments and Authorizing
Rebuttals
13 14
QUESTIONS
8b. Ballot Measure: Prohibit Safe and
Sane Fireworks
July 28, 2026City Council Meeting
AGENDA
I. Objective
II. Background
III. Recommendation
IV.Questions
2 OBJECTIVE
3 • Adopt Resolution(s)
to submit an
ordinance to the
voters to rescind
Safe and Sane
Fireworks
BACKGROUND
4 • 2005: voters approved sale/use of "Safe and Sane"
fireworks
• 2008: Res No. 2008-67 established regulatory framework for fireworks sale
• 2024: Res No. 2024-37 cost recovery cap at 7% of gross sales
• June 9, 2026: Council directed staff to prepare information for discussion of rescinding Res No. 2008-67
• June 23, 2026: Council directed staff to return with
resolution to submit to the Voters
Bay Area Cities with Fireworks
• San Bruno and Pacifica only SM County Cities
5 City Name County Name
San Bruno San Mateo
Pacifica San Mateo
Dublin Alameda
Newark Alameda
Union City Alameda
Hollister San Benito
San Juan Batista San Benito
Gilroy Santa Clara
Watsonville Santa Cruz
Dixon Solano
Rio Vista Solano
Suisun City Solano
Cloverdale Sonoma
Statewide Fireworks Fire Data
• FY2013 – FY2022:*
8,427 fires (~936 yearly fireworks fires, about 0.02% of yearly calls for service)
Approximately $32.9M in property loss
Approximately $11.4M in personal property loss
22 fire personnel injuries
50 civilian injuries
4 civilian deaths
18,767 acres burnt (1,876 yearly average)
*Retrieved from California Fire Marshal 2012-2021 Report 6 San Bruno Fireworks Fire Data
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26
Total Fires 8 9 11 5
Exterior 8 7 10 5
Structural 0 2 1 0
7 Fireworks-related fires FYs 2022-26:
BALLOT QUESTION
8 FISCAL IMPACT
• County Cost to run Mayor and City Council
• Additional for adding 1-3 ballot initiatives
• Additional legal ads / translation from the City Clerk 9 On the Ballot County Low +Increment County High +Increment Mayor/Council Seats Only $118,000 $141,600
Mayor/Council +1 Measure +13,000 +15,600
Mayor/Council +2 Measures +27,000 +32,400
Mayor/Council +3 Measures +47,000 +56,400
NEXT STEPS
• Submit to County by August 7, 2026
• Arguments and Rebuttals
10 Date Item
March-April Develop options & legal review
June City Council Direction
July City Council Adopts Resolution Calling the Election August 7 FINAL DEADLINE (88 days before election)
August Argument & Rebuttal Windows
September County Ballot Production
October Ballots Mailed; Outreach Continues
November 3 Election Day
RECOMMENDATIONS
• Adopt Resolution Submitting to the Voters a
Measure to Prohibit the Sale and Use of “Safe and
Sane” Fireworks
• If wanting Arguments, a Resolution Setting
Priorities for Filing Written Arguments and
Authorizing Rebuttals
11 QUESTIONS
12 8c. Ballot Measure: Modernize
Business License Tax
July 28, 2026City Council Meeting
AGENDA
I. Objective
II. Background
III. Recommendation
IV.Questions
2 OBJECTIVE
• Adopt Resolution(s) to submit to the voters a Measure to Modernize and Simplify the Business License Tax
3 ADVERSE REVENUE ACTIONS BY STATE
$20.6M+ Annual Revenue At Risks
The State is shaping the City’s fiscal future.
STATE ACTIONS THREATEN CITY REVENUE
VLF IN - LIEU
$7.0M
$3M loss in FY27
Potential additional loss
TAX SHARING
AGREEMENT
$8.0M
potential annual loss
+ One-time payment
EXCESS ERAF
$2.2M
potential annual loss
CARDROOM
$3.4M
potential annual loss
3 BACKGROUND
Revenue Options:
• General Obligation Bond – Measure Q $102M (2024)
• TOT – 14% (2020)
• Sales Tax – max at 9.875% (2019)
• Charter City – Documentary Transfer Tax
• Parcel Tax
5 BACKGROUND
Business License Tax (BLT)
• Currently Regressive – marginal rate declines at higher receipts • General Tax
• Not polled
• 2/3 Vote of Council
• Simple Majority (50%+1) of Voters
6 BACKGROUND
• Revenue Subcommittee – March 23, April 13, June 3
• June 23 Study Session - Business License Tax
Model 1 – Flat Rate $1/$1000 (or 0.1%)
Model 2 – Categorized Rates ranging from $1-$3/$1000
• Proceed with Model 2 and refinement
• Revenue Subcommittee – June 30
• Recommendation – Revised Model 2
• July 14 Study Session
• Revenue Subcommittee – July 20
7 8
Jurisdiction Comparison
Demographic and Economic Statistics by Location
Location Population* Business Count Business Tax
Revenue**
Revenue Per
Capita Revenue Per Business Ordinance
Last Modified Tax Basis Cap Presence?
(Y/N)
Brisbane 4,661 983 $5,390,411 $1,156.49 $5,483.63 2023 Gross Receipts Y Emeryville 13,314 2,600 $9,527,818 $715.62 $3,664.55 1993 Gross Receipts Y Sausalito 6,856 2,000 $2,142,427 $312.49 $1,071.21 2019 Gross Receipts N Richmond 112,735 5,200 $14,463,504 $128.30 $2,781.44 2021 Gross Receipts N Tracy 96,609 4,700 $8,807,071 $91.16 $1,873.84 2023 Gross Receipts Y Daly City 101,424 2,500 $6,680,000 $65.86 $2,672 2004 Gross Receipts N Burlingame 30,513 8,400 $1,909,822 $62.59 $227.36 2023 Gross Receipts Y San Bruno 42,152 4,200 $2,199,484 $52.18 $523.69 1999 Gross Receipts N South San Francisco 64,601 6,500 $3,175,739 $49.16 $488.58 2025 Per Employee N San Carlos 29,420 4,300 $1,342,096 $45.62 $312.12 > 10 years Per Employee N Millbrae 22,689 1,916 $552,000 $24.32 $288.10 1976 Hybrid Y Hayward 159,770 12,300 $3,782,779 $23.68 $307.54 > 10 Years Per Employee N *Population Data is from the United States Census
**Business Tax Revenue is collected from the State Controllers Office Data – FY 2024 10 MODEL 2 - RECOMMENDED
Business Category Rate per $1000 Gross Receipts (above $75k) Flat Base (up to $75k) Contractor $2.00 $75.00
General Retail/Administrative Headquarters $1.00 $75.00 Professional and Advanced $2.00 $75.00
Property Rental $3.00 $75.00
Services/Other $1.50 $75.00
Categories and Example business:
• Contractors — Construction, repair, plumbing, HVAC, builders • General Retail / Administrative HQ — Retailers, restaurants, general businesses, and corporate headquarters Professional & Advanced Services — Law, medicine, consulting, R&D, and other licensed or credentialed professions
• Property Rental — Commercial leasing, residential rental, hotels, and short-term rentals • Services / Other — Salons, landscaping, personal services, and any business not fitting another category 11 MODEL 2 - RECOMMENDED
Classification $100k $500k $1M $10M
General / Retail
($1.00 per $1,000) $ 100 $ 500 $ 1,000 $ 10,000 Contractor
($2.00 per $1,000) 125 925 1,925 19,925 Professional
($2.00 per $1,000) 125 925 1,925 19,925 Property Rental
($3.00 per $1,000) 150 1,350 2,850 29,850 Service
($1.50 per $1,000) 113 713 1,463 14,963 Old Rate General Business $ 100 $ 530 $ 930 $ 4,780 Ne w Rate s
Gross Receipts and BLT Examples
12 EXAMPLE – RETAIL / ADMIN
Auto Dealer – Gross $6M
Current Structure
$3,130 +$1.65 per $5k above
gross receipts of $5M
= $3,460 / year
Proposed Structure
$75 + $1.00 per $1k above
gross receipts of $75k
=$6,000 / year
13 EXAMPLE – RETAIL / ADMIN
Restaurant/Bar – Gross $400k
Current Structure
$110 + $5.25 per $5k above
gross receipts of $100k
= $420 / year
Proposed Structure
$75 + $1.00 per $1k above
gross receipts of $75k
=$400 / year
14 EXAMPLE – PROFFESSIONAL
Doctors Office – Gross $750k
Current Structure
$530 + $4.00 per $5k above
gross receipts of $500k
= $730 / year
Proposed Structure
$75 + $2.00 per $1k above
gross receipts of $75k
=$1,425 / year
15 EXAMPLE – PROPERTY RENTAL
Triplex (3 Rooms) – Gross $100k
Current Structure
$50 + $1 per room, 3+ rooms
= $53 / year
Proposed Structure
$75 + $3.00 per $1k above
gross receipts of $75k
=$150 / year
16 EXAMPLE – PROPERTY RENTAL
30 Room Complex – Gross $1M
Current Structure
$50 + $1 per room, 3+ rooms
= $80 / year
Proposed Structure
$75 + $3.00 per $1k above
gross receipts of $75k
=$2850 / year
17 EXAMPLE – SERVICE / OTHER
Barber / Nail Salon – Gross $80k
Current Structure
$100 if >$75k and <$100k
= $100 / year
Proposed Structure
$75 + $1.50 per $1k above
gross receipts of $75k
=$83 / year
18 BALLOT QUESTION
19 COMMUNICATIONS
• 3 Public Study Sessions
• 2 e-newsletters
• 3 social media posts (all platforms)
• 1 formal letter
• News Article – Daily Journal, July 18
• Ongoing Education
20 FISCAL IMPACT
• County Cost to run Mayor and City Council, $118k - $142k • Ballot Measure is $13k – $18k
• Additional legal ads / translation from the City Clerk 21 On the Ballot County Low +Increment County High +Increment Mayor/Council Seats Only $118,000 $141,600
Mayor/Council +1 Measure +13,000 +15,600
Mayor/Council +2 Measures +27,000 +32,400
Mayor/Council +3 Measures +47,000 +56,400
NEXT STEPS
• Submit to County by August 7, 2026
• Arguments and Rebuttals – August 11 and 18
22 Date Item
July 28 City Council Adopts Resolution Calling the Election August 7 FINAL DEADLINE (88 days before election)
August Argument & Rebuttal Windows
September County Ballot Production
October Ballots Mailed; Outreach Continues
November 3 Election Day
RECOMMENDATION
• Adopt Resolution Submitting to the Voters a
Measure to Modernize Business License Tax
• If wanting Arguments, a Resolution Setting
Priorities for Filing Written Arguments and
Authorizing Rebuttals
23 24
QUESTIONS
A d Hoc Subcommittee
to Review Council
Policies and Procedures
July 28, 2026 - Prepared by Brian Adam, Assistant to the City Manager 1 Age n d a
I. Objective
II. Background
III. Discussion
IV. Recommendation
V. Questions
2 Objective
• Provide overview of
Council Policies and
Procedures and next
steps for review and
updates
3 Ba c kground
The latest amendment to the Council policies
and procedures were in May 2023.
The council expressed interest in revising
policies and procedures during their strategic
initiatives and planning meeting in January
2026.
4 What P & P Do
Outlines council
conduct and
responsibilities
Provides guidelines
for public
participation
Enhances meeting
efficiency and
transparency
5 Why Review P & P?
Statutory
changes
Reflect updates
in policy
Support
continuous
improvement
6 R ecommendation
•Consider creating an Ad Hoc subcommittee
to review City Council policies and
procedures
7 Questions
8