All right.

Thank you, Madam City Clerk.

Welcome to today's lawn legislation committee meeting.

But very especially I want to I want to say happy 916 day to you all.

This is a very special day in our family.

We celebrate it.

Of course, I'll be here all day.

Yes.

Yes, the beautiful city of trees.

And so, you know, it's a special day.

So with that, um, Madam City Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Thank you.

Councilmember Dickinson.

Councilmember Plucky Bombs expected momentarily, Councilmember Jennings.

And Chair Maple.

I am here.

And with that, um, Councilmember Dickinson, would you lead us in the land acknowledgement and pledge of allegiance?

Please rise as you're able.

To the original people of this land, the Nissanan people, the Southern Maidu uh Valley and Plains Miwok, uh Paton Patwin Wynn uh Winton, and the people of the Wilton Rancher's, uh Sakama is the only federally recognized tribe, may we acknowledge and honor the native people who came before us and still walk beside us today on these ancestral lands by choosing to gather together today in the active practice of acknowledgement and appreciation for Sacramento's indigenous peoples' history contributions and lives.

Thank you.

And now please join me in the pledge.

I pledge a leader.

And to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God and divisible liberty and justice.

Thank you.

Councilmember Dickinson.

All right.

So with that, we're gonna get started today with our um consent calendar.

Um any questions, comments, polling from the consent from committee members.

Seeing none.

Do we have any public comment?

Sure, I have no speakers on the consent calendar.

I'll move to the consent calendar.

Okay, we have a motion by Councilmember Jennings.

Do we have a second?

Second.

All right, second by Council Member Plucky Mom.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Abstain.

Seeing none, that passes unanimously.

Um, and that brings us on to item number three.

I'm really excited about this.

This is something that we've been working with in partnership with the realtors, with our other partners for many, many months now.

Um, I want to thank our staff, and especially want to thank Ryan Brown, my chief of staff, for spearheading this.

Um, I know that there's been some fits and starts, but I think this is an incredibly important conversation.

I know that we've talked about um as a body, as a as a city, as a state, um the importance of our housing crisis.

And to me, that means that we have to employ a lot of just different strategies at once to make sure that we have the kind of housing um that we need across the board at all levels.

And so, one piece of that, of course, is ADUs.

I think that we've done an extraordinary job as a city, um, far and beyond many other jurisdictions at making it easier to do that.

But there's of course always more that we can do, and so um the point of today's workshop is to explore that, explore what we're doing, make sure the public knows that all the all the great work that's going on behind the scenes, um, and then also look ahead about what's possible, um, what are the opportunities and what are the possible um snags that we can avoid.

So, with that, we'll get started with our very first presenter, which is Ryan Brown.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

Uh, my name is Ryan Brown, Chief of Staff, of course, to Councilmember Katie Maple, uh, our committee chair, and I'm uh truly honored to be on this side of the dais for the first time in my city hall career.

Um, and today at Councilmember Maple's request, I'm pleased to be helping present the Lawn Ledge workshop on ADU, of course, or accessory dwelling unit construction.

Um, in addition to my own research on other jurisdictions ADU programming, we'll be welcoming a series of brief presentations from individuals who represent different components of the ADU supply chain, uh, here to provide their perspectives and answer questions.

And so I'm excited to welcome uh Greta Seuss, our own senior planner, um, Erin Teague from the Sacramento Area Realtors, Nathan Sibett uh with Lone Depot, and Ivan Katraniac with Imcat Homes.

But before we hear from them, um, I want to take an opportunity to frame this discussion a little bit and walk the committee through some of the peer jurisdiction research that I've conducted over the last few months.

So, our goal today is to take a holistic view of the ADU development process from its inception to the presentation of a certificate of occupancy.

Um and ideally, members of the committee will come out of the workshop today with a greater understanding of why ADU construction has been a little slower than expected across the entire state, and with some new ideas about how we can break down barriers that are preventing the rapid developments of new ADUs in Sacramento.

So accessory dwelling units or ADUs are small independent housing units located on the same lot as an existing single-family home.

They're often called backyard cottages, granny flats, in-law units, et cetera.

They can be attached to the main home, like converting a garage or basement, or detached as a standalone.

The idea is pretty simple.

They provide additional flexible housing options within our existing neighborhoods.

They give homeowners the chance to create more living space for family, generate rental income, or downsize while staying in their own neighborhood.

They also provide a key method for addressing climate change impacts, reducing vehicle miles traveled by creating new housing units in established neighborhoods that are in high demand due to their proximity to job centers, and of course, because additional off-street parking is not mandated, they reduce the number of vehicles on our road by incentivizing car-free living.

Over the last several years, beginning especially in 2016, California passed a series of laws making it easier to build ADUs because they're seen as a key strategy for addressing the statewide housing shortage.

These laws streamline the permitting process, reduce fees, and override some local restrictions that used to make ADUs difficult or impossible to build.

And they have impacted ADU construction in different jurisdictions in a lot of different ways and delivered very varied results that depend highly on the local population density, governance, and of course, incentive programming that's available.

And that's what I want to dive into.

Over the last several months, and with the special shout out with the assistance of the team at the SAC Area Realtors, I've conducted a high-level review of other jurisdictions, ADU incentive and support programs.

And I want to especially highlight two.

And I want to start with the City of Long Beach.

City of Long Beach in Los Angeles County in 2024 launched their Backyard Builders program with the ultimate goal of increasing the number of affordable rental units in high resource communities throughout Long Beach in coordination with their city's housing authority.

And so with an allocation of $200,000 from their general fund and $2.5 million from the low and moderate income housing asset fund, the pilot program aimed to provide 10 direct low-interest loans of up to $250,000 to single-family homeowners in the city.

Priority was given to applicants who committed to renting their new ADU to a tenant with a housing voucher issued by their housing authority for a minimum of five years.

Loans had a 0% interest rate during construction, and during the time the ADU was rented to an income qualified tenant at an approved rent.

Loan payments are deferred during construction, and then once the homeowner gets rental income from that ADU unit, repayment begins.

It was restricted to city residents who have a single-family home or a four-unit or fewer multifamily home.

The first 10 loans have actually been approved and executed early 2025.

Units are expected to be ready for occupancy in 2027.

The city of Long Beach received more than 300 inquiries and 120 formal applications for the 10 available loans.

There are currently no plans to expand the program due to a lack of funds that are ready to be loaned out.

It is designed to roll any loan repayments back into the fund, but that's not going to be enough to create new loans for probably several years at this point.

In addition, I want to highlight Napa County to be clear, not the city, the county of Napa in their unincorporated areas.

They launched their affordable ADU forgivable loan program in 2023, leveraging grant funding from Cal HFA or the California Housing Finance Authority.

Their program is broadly similar to the City of Long Beach.

For owner occupants in the unincorporated county, a loan is provided to help finance the ADU, which must then be rented out below market rate at 80% AMI for a minimum of five years.

It differs significantly in the structure, however.

The loan is provided based on the size of the ADU, $25,000 for a studio, $60,000 for a one-bedroom, and $85,000 for a two-bedroom unit.

An additional $20,000 is available on top depending on the project size, and from what I can understand, every project received the additional $20,000.

After construction, and when the unit is rented out below market rate for five years, the loan is actually forgiven in its entirety.

And then after the loan is forgiven, and assuming that all other costs remain stable, NAVA County estimated these costs to the homeowner for construction, remaining after the loans forgiven.

Studio, about 100,000, one bedroom, about 150,000, and two-bedroom, about 200,000.

Funding for the program came from an initial $5 million ARPA allocation the county received in 2022, which was fully exhausted within 12 months of the program's opening.

The county also allocated a million dollars from the same fund to incentivize market rate ADUs, which finance permit streamlining, fee waivers, feasibility studies, loan fee grants, and a landlord matching program.

No current numbers are available on the success of the program thus yet, but it can be estimated that between 40 and 50 loans were made throughout Napa County, leading to ideally 40 to 50 constructed ADU units.

The summary of these programs, which both of them match pretty closely with conversations I've had with jurisdictions across the state, both high and low resource, is that small numbers of ADUs can be facilitated through the use of direct financial assistance, grant making and interest-free loans.

However, in every case I was able to identify, the funding for those programs has run out quickly as they're often grant-based or coming down from a state or federal source, and uh is led to a very limited impact in the long term because of the lack of overall financing.

Um that meshes with what I've heard from across the state.

Um, and I wanted to make sure that y'all have this information and preparing for the rest of our presentations today.

Um, that concludes my report.

Um, thank you all so much.

All right, thank you very much, Ryan.

At this time, I want to um see if members have any um questions for Ryan.

Given that it's first time presenting here.

I hope that you've uh saved your most difficult ones.

Please be nice.

Okay, sick.

Seeing no questions.

Okay, with that, thank you, Ryan.

Thank you so much.

With that, we'll bring up our wonderful city staff, Greta Seuss.

Resident Expert, been working on this for quite some time now, so welcome.

Thank you so much, Chair.

Um, good morning.

Um Greta Seuss, uh senior planner with the community development department.

I am going to provide a brief overview of some of our ADU programs and production numbers for some context in today's discussion.

Um we've been a leader on this topic in recent years amongst many other jurisdictions that have embraced uh ADU production incentives.

We have a local ordinance that provides more flexible standards when compared to state law standards in most regards.

We have developed a comprehensive online ADU resource center that provides a step-by-step guide to planning and building your ADU with links to our shelf-ready free ADU plans.

The city has also been engaged in annual outreach events and provides streamlined reviews for ADUs.

ADUs typically take about a month and a half to two months from submittal to permit issuance, with our shelf ready plans being approved within 10 days, and we also offer expedited review time frames as well.

This graph shows our ADU production since 2013.

Um state laws, as uh Ryan had mentioned governing ADUs changed drastically starting in 2017.

So since then we've seen a steady increase in ADU production across applications received, permits issued, and permits finaled.

Readers can may note the reduction in numbers from application to permits issued, and then permits issued to final permits.

And this may be attributed to several reasons, including recent laws restricting the number of applications to one application rather than two separate applications for planning and building, which went into effect in 2023.

And then not all permits issued amount to construction, mostly due to costs and supply shortages during COVID or other personal reasons.

And then finally, it's possible that people are not finaling their permits for whatever reason, and that is something that staff is currently researching.

It is worth noting, however, that the same trend when looking at ADU production across these points statewide is very similar.

So we hope to have a customer survey complete as part of our 2025 housing element annual progress report that kind of digs into the reasons why people in the city of Sacramento may not have gone from you know planning to permit issuance or permit issuance to final permit.

And just a quick question on that.

So you answered my initial question, which was are we gonna do a survey?

As a part of that survey, are we sending out a question to every single person who's submitted an application whether or not they completed it and asked them essentially why didn't you complete it?

Or is it something else?

Yeah, that's the intent.

It's to have kind of a list of different options and then an open-ended uh answer that they could provide as to why they didn't go from application to permit issuance or permit issuance to final permit.

Okay, and then uh last question on this is um for those who did complete the process.

Do we have like a customer satisfaction survey?

So you did you did the thing, um, how did it go?

Was it difficult to navigate the process?

Was it easy?

What would you change?

I don't believe we've had that specific outreach done to applicants, but we could include that as part of our outreach.

I would highly recommend that personally.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Okay, and then just uh looking at where ADU permits were issued by geographic area in the past four years.

We see the highest number permitted in the Fruit Ridge Broadway area, followed by East Sacramento, Greater Land Park, and North Sacramento.

And then relating to ADUs, the topic of ADUs being used as short term rentals has been brought up recently.

Um, our finance division has been looking at changes to our short-term rental policies.

And so in the summer of 2023, staff did begin tracking the structure types used for short-term rentals.

Um, and since then, we've had about 100 ADUs being issued as short-term rental permits, and that's less than 15% of the final ADU production numbers and less than 10% of issued permit numbers.

That's my brief presentation, and I'm happy to answer questions.

Thank you very much.

Um, I know I interrupted with my own question, but now turning it over to my colleagues here to see if they have any questions for Greta before she departs.

Okay, all right, thank you very much.

Appreciate the presentation.

Thank you.

Okay, up next, we have Aaron Teague with the Sacramento Area Realtors, and just really again want to thank you for your partnership on this.

I know we've been kind of brainstorming this for quite some time, so just really appreciate it.

Yeah, absolutely.

Thank you for your time today.

Um, good morning, Chair Maple and the committee members.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today for the record.

Aaron Teague on behalf of the Sacramento Association of Realtors.

As we've mentioned, accessory dwelling units, also known as ADUs, play a pivotal role in Sacramento's housing strategy.

As Greta elaborated on the success of the city, and it's always more complex to lead on a new policy, which I think uh the city of Sacramento definitely has, and we should be really proud of that.

That being said, ADUs are not a silver bullet, but they are a practical solution that can help us address some of our the housing pressures that we're facing.

They offer flexible income potential and the adaptability for changing families and community needs.

But while this concept is simple, the reality to homeowners trying to build one is anything but I don't want to diminish the hard work and time the city staff has dedicated to this, especially since there's always going to be growing pains when we try to fit a new product in with the parameters of the planning process.

But as a city, if this is an option that we really want homeowners to embrace, we have to invest the time to help them through the process and exploring some of the options I think Ryan mentioned that other jurisdictions are doing with a funding source.

Uh let's start with the broader context.

Sacramento, like many cities in California, is facing a housing affordability crisis.

The qualifying income for a median price home in the Sacramento metro area is 145,000.

A figure that's out of reach for many residents.

On the flip side of the story, that number gives us is that there are renters that actually could qualify to purchase a home, but either lack the knowledge or the savings needed for a down payment for homeownership.

According to some recent data provided by the National Association of Realtors for the SAC Metro area, 7.7% of renters aged 25 to 34, 7.2% of renters age 35 to 44, and 8.8% of renters aged 45 to 64 are currently eligible to purchase a home.

These numbers may seem small, but they represent real people and they're missing the opportunity to build equity.

These are Sacramento residents who could move from renting to owning if we could create more accessible housing options.

ADUs can help make that shift possible.

It can also help renters have an affordable option in the community while they save for a down payment.

ADUs allow homeowners to generate income, providing housing for family members, and contribute to neighborhood level affordability without major development.

ADUs have proven value across California.

Since 2013, they've consistently increased property values.

A 2023 study from UC Irvine found that in Los Angeles, the presence of an ADU increased the parcel's assessed value and selling price by seven to nine percent.

They're often rented at market rates, which helps homeowners cover their mortgage and other expenses.

But the reason we found that ADUs haven't significantly lowered rental prices is that it's tied to the cost of building them.

Right now, the average cost to build an ADU ranges from 150 to 200,000.

But with the rise in material costs, more homeowners we connected with recently have been quoted up to 300,000 for a finished and final project.

Now I realize that this number kind of shifts through, and we've got some experts here that could probably give more accurate information than that, but this was just kind of the sample survey that we took amongst our members.

That's a lot due to the major financial commitment, especially to those that aren't developers or investors.

Despite the cost, ADUs offer meaningful benefits.

They support multi-generational living, which is increasingly in demand.

In the Sacramento metro area, the share of buyers seeking multi-generational housing has grown from a steady 14% between 2012 and 2021 to now 17% in 2024.

And that trend is expected to continue.

They provide income to support mortgages, retirement, and other financial goals.

You'll probably hear me say that a lot because it's true.

They offer housing options within existing neighborhoods without the need for large-scale development or the urban feel of apartment buildings.

As we know, ADUs are a way to gently increase density while preserving the character of communities.

Additionally, Sacramento is uniquely positioned for these because we have several neighborhoods with large lots, making ADUs a useful option.

The reality is that building an ADU in Sacramento is still a difficult process.

Most homeowners are not developers, they're regular people trying to do something positive for their families and their financial future.

I've categorized a couple key barriers we've seen from some of our members and their clients and some just a smathering of just different experiences.

The customer service and navigation, the process of interacting with city departments is complex.

Homeowners often don't know where to start, who to talk to, or what steps to take.

Even though the city has a comprehensive website, which I took time to walk myself through, there's just so many unknown pieces until you've engaged with staff or a contractor for the final option.

Just seems to be really an abstract complexity.

Let's remember, this is all while most people are trying to manage this project in their spare time.

They're juggling work, family, and all of life's demands.

The permit and building approvals, it sounds like there is a more streamlined approach to this, but I think just homeowners can't always see the distinction between the two pieces and are just they're getting lost in and getting frustrated with the process.

The cost in financing, I know Nathan is gonna get into some of the details of this, but without a dedicated financial product that's out on the market, homeowners are often having to front the money, and with build times sometimes averaging two to three years, delays can be financially devastating, especially if they're counting on the rental income to offset the costs.

Universal design limitations.

I think this one was the most surprising to me as I put together some research on it.

There's been a lot of excitement on the pre-approved plans that the city has, but they're very rigid.

I spoke with a few homeowners that were so excited to be able to use this, but they needed just a small tweak, such as flipping the door or the window to the opposite side to make it fit their parcel, and the plans didn't allow.

So in this case, homeowners now have to go through the whole process.

So could we expand the universal design not to just create new models of it, but just those basically flipping the option so that that's something that we can look at.

So on that note, I do want to offer some ideas and maybe something.

I don't want to just bring problems to the table without a few solutions or ideas.

And I think the most positive piece of this is we already have a good structure or foundation in place.

We don't need sweeping changes that make a big impact.

Um I already mentioned the just flipping the designs on the pre-approved plans, I think could be a very good first step to kind of really help those homeowners fit different options into their um spaces.

And then it sounds like the city has already started to streamline between the building and the the permitting department, which is something that I think the more we can do to help own homeowners through this process because that seems to be where a lot of the um I will call it stickiness as a term of art today, uh where things just get stuck, which goes into customer support.

Uh if there's an option to try to find a dedicated person that's gonna help people navigate this or a help desk to guide homers through the process, we cannot have the same expectation for them to have the knowledge base for these projects.

They are not professionals, they are people like I will use myself as an example.

We're trying to juggle all the things and build something as you know, in our free time.

And and that's something to consider, and then support financing solutions.

And again, I know Nathan's gonna talk about this, but how can we have access to funding um that without taking on an unsustainable risk?

So in closing, ADUs are not a cure-all, but they are practical, scalable solution that can help us meet the needs of our residents.

They support renters, first-time home buyers, seniors and families, all within the fabric of our existing neighborhoods.

But like any opportunity, if it's too hard to access, we can't benefit from it.

Sacramento has a chance to lead by making ADUs more accessible, more affordable, and more homeowner friendly.

So I appreciate your time today.

Thank you, Miss T.

That's really really helpful, and I appreciate the specificity of the recommendations.

Um, like I have been doing for the other speakers, want to open it up to specific questions for now.

Um, not saying before you have a chance to ask me questions.

Yeah.

Make it really hard.

Okay, counselor plugyball.

Oh.

Sorry, no questions for Aaron.

Uh, we are we doing public comment or how do you want to see?

Oh, we have uh okay.

I'll do, I have a question.

Yeah, yeah, Counselor James.

And we have still have an additional um presenter as well.

Yeah, and I think I heard the additional presenter would be talking about the financial aspect of it.

Yes.

Okay, because I'm I'm really interested in in understanding um the banks and savings and loans and who has specialized in this area.

I'm I'm really interested in knowing what what cities have the very best practices as it relates to ACUs?

ADUs.

We're following, yeah.

Right.

So I'm just really interested in understanding that, and I'm just trying to understand are we following those best practices or are we starting on new?

Well, this is a great segue, if that's okay.

We have a great opportunity.

Nathan Sibett, who will be presenting on uh on the loan department and and essentially the financing piece.

If it's okay with you, Council Jennings would like to tap and then we can talk.

All right, welcome up, and thank you, Erin.

Well, thank you guys for having me today.

Nathan Sibett with Loan Depot.

Um so financing ADUs is is somewhat challenging.

The biggest ways that people are financing ADUs are either through their existing equity, so using home equity lines of credit, doing cash out refinances, which in the last few years has been extremely difficult because rates have been elevated.

Um I do think as rates come down, we may see more um folks tapping into that.

We are starting to see some products come on the market where there are some renovation loan products through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that you can do.

It's called you can do use um uh basically build an ADU by uh having a contract that uh basically can pull equity out of your home and they'll appraise it based off the feature value.

Um the issue is there's a six-month limit to have these completed.

So that's one of the sticky points on that is you have to have the whole project done in six months from pulling out that money um to be able to use up financing.

So the approved plans really are the key if we're gonna go that route.

Um and we are starting to see a few different home equity line of credit lenders that are offering renovation HEWACs where basically they're looking at the um after improved value of the property to be able to loan on, and that's another um avenue for for folks to potentially get financing.

Besides that, the what I've seen from previous clients and and customers that I've talked to, there it's a combination of pulling money from 401ks, barring from family, from friends to make these typically um financing work for an ADU.

So there's not a really good uh a great product um for this on the market that's uh uh available through through any means.

Um uh Kelly Chaffey did have some grants available, but they ran out of funding very quickly back in 2023.

Um, and uh I have seen nothing on the horizon of those being replenished.

So um they still I think that's probably the biggest challenge is is trying to come up with the money to 300,000 in equity for a lot of people is is tough to be able to pull out.

Um, but it's it's you have to get creative on these, and and that's kind of the the biggest challenge we're seeing.

So and have you seen any from a obviously from a local government standpoint because that's what we have control over, we don't control the banks.

Um, but curious if you've seen any jurisdictions that have um I know that Ryan mentioned Long Beach and the County of Napa, but have been creative on this front.

Not here locally, um, so I have not really seen any any it would have to be something from from like SHRA.

I've there's really not been a lot of funding available that I've seen, or the only one that was a statewide was Calais Chafee that ran out fairly quickly, so um yeah, it would be nice to have some more of these products come on.

Um, I think the key would be is if we can get more pre-approved plans, um, would be a big key to being able to use some of these renovation products that are available nationwide to be able to um be able to streamline the process and um it because it six months is still a pretty quick turnaround to have a project completed, but if there are more pre-approved plans where we can get it approved 10 days and then have them built fairly quickly, I think that's a good solution.

Um couple other comments too.

Um in kind of researching for this, I I have a few friends that are actually in the process of building ADUs in the city.

Um, and just from their perspective, their kind of comments, their biggest kind of issue was they do love the website, but it was no one really told them about it up front and navigating how to pay fees and the amount of different places you're paying fees to just seemed kind of overwhelming.

Um, if there was more streamlined approach, maybe one or two permit fees throughout the entire process.

They said it would make their life completely a lot easier, and same thing.

They were looking for a pre-approved plan, but based on their yard, the two plans or the three plans online, none of them fit what they needed, and so they had to go through the whole process, which ended up costing um substantially extra.

So their comment was if there was a few more plans available online that could be slightly modified would be a huge lift throughout this process.

Really good feedback.

Um, and I think it also speaks to why it would be a great thing to make sure that we're um serving people who have completed the process too, so that we can learn from them and how we can improve in our customer service delivery.

Um Councilman Jennings, did you have specific questions to ask on the financial?

Just um one on top of the others, but have we been intentional about the financial institutions bringing them into a room and having them help us to problem solve this?

Our major banks and savings and loans.

Have we been intentional about doing that?

Going to our membership, those who belong, and bringing them into the room to talk about this.

I'm not aware of of that happening.

Um, and on a local level, I would start, I think, with some of the smaller credit unions, like local credit unions, I think would be a great place to start.

Um, because that that's really where in the I I've seen some places on the East Coast, and ultimately that's where it's gonna be the most impactful is a smaller financial institutions that um have a little bit more leeway to loan private money.

Um, but I think that that's a great great place to go with that.

Yeah, I come from that financial world um early in my career, and I can name six people that I could call tomorrow that could sit down and talk to me about what could be done in order to build a product that would maybe do this, or maybe the what are the possibilities of not being able to do it.

So I just asked, are we intentional about doing that?

Because I don't think it's that big of a problem.

They want to make loans, and we need loans that can be made on a product that is fully um funded.

Absolutely, and I think the biggest constraint that I see from the financial side is the time it takes to build from start to finish, complete a project.

Six months.

That part needs to be dialed in.

If we can get it down to six months or less, I think you'll have a lot more financial institutions that are willing to participate and play in this ballpark.

If it's taking longer than that, then they don't want to have their money tied up in a construction project.

I can tell you just from experience.

And if I may interject really quickly, um, as a part of this conversation, uh, we were coordinating with a couple of the credit unions locally because I agree with you.

I think those are the best places to start.

Um, fortunately, didn't work out from a timing perspective, but would love your help and support and setting up some of those conversations because I think we'll we'll have some learnings out of this that we can then bring forth to them.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Um, other questions on the side of the days, okay.

And I'll I just first thank you so much for your presentation.

And I just want to say, you know, that's one of the key things that we've heard or that I've heard as I've had these conversations with constituents.

As you saw a lot of the um new ADUs being built in Sacramento are actually built um in my area as well as um council member um Gera, and and and I think that's because there's space and you know it maybe it's easier to fit in some of these plans in there.

Um, but the key concerns that we're hearing is that people don't have the money to do it.

Um, and most people that live in our communities, including the ones that I represent, which are um very low income, they don't have a hundred or two hundred thousand dollars laying around, they can't necessarily need to get a loan from a family member, um, and it becomes out of reach for them.

And so I think uh as we think through creatively on the financing side, that's one of the key areas.

I heard that one of the challenges for some of the banks is around appraisals, so they're essentially not having enough data for them to be able to appraise and say, okay, we know what this actually means, what this is worth in the long term, so it's difficult for them to assess what they can give a loan for because they don't ultimately know at this point because maybe there's not enough data yet, um, what you know what the actual potential ultimately I think on ADU because there are properties out there that do already have ADUs on there that we we've so that are finance, and I haven't had any appraisal issues, so for the most part, they are giving value, but it does depend on the neighborhood.

If they're if it's midtown or if it's a neighborhood that has a lot of ADUs built, it's easier to provide that.

But yeah, if it's somewhere that doesn't have a lot, it can absolutely be a challenge as well.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

All right, appreciate it.

And then last up, we have Ivan.

Welcome.

And this is with ADU builders.

Thank you so much for having me here today.

Um, my name is Ivan Katrinyak.

I'm the founder and CEO of a company called MCAT Homes.

Uh, we've been in a construction company since 2016, but in 2020, we transitioned into becoming an ADU specialty builder.

Uh, with the whole laws that are being passed, we decided to switch into this direction, and we've seen a ton of demand.

Um, I always sell this to all of our customers to everyone we work with ADUs.

Up until four years ago, no one really knew what an ADU was.

California puts out this blanket law, and now all the jurisdictions have to scramble to make this work.

And so I do want to say, out of uh the many different jurisdictions we work with.

Uh we have two uh Northern California uh California offices, one here in Sacramento and one in Pleasanton.

Sacramento is by far the best city to work with.

I will say that.

So thank you.

Uh I sent a text to um uh our permitting director, and I I as I was sitting there, I said, Hey, I'm here at City Hall.

Is it anything I could uh ask them that you would want to ask them?

And she said this honestly, in my opinion, they set the bar because they are efficient, they always hit their plan check target dates.

Almost all of the reviews are done in-house.

We don't have to submit to a bunch of different departments.

Um, I've always said everyone should try to model the city of Sacramento.

So uh, yes, there's always room for improvement, but I just do want to say Sacramento, you guys are doing a pretty good job from the building builder side.

Now, I do agree with some of the things that were mentioned uh with homeowners stepping into the website, looking at everything as a builder.

Uh, when we open it up, we've dealt with it a thousand different times.

We understand how to navigate that through that pretty easily.

Uh, but there are some ways where it can become a lot more informational for the homeowner.

Um, uh, I think overall it's still gonna always be a complicated process for any homeowner.

If you've especially never dealt with construction, you don't understand the process, it is a complicated process.

I will say this.

We've done commercial work, we built gas stations, and when we transition into ADUs, ADUs are the most complicated process of residential construction because you have a new construction property retrofit to an existing home.

There's a lot of complications that arise during that process.

And so to build out something that's very informational to every homeowner, it just requires a lot of education.

What we've been doing is putting on ADU seminars, which I think would be even healthy to create from the city standpoint is you know, quarterly ADU seminars or something like that.

These have been so helpful to all of our customers.

Every single time we put one on, we had anywhere from 80 to 250 people come by to the ADU seminar and get just education on this.

But overall, for homeowners, it's gonna be always a complicated process.

Um obviously, as a builder, we want to encourage homeowners to work with builders, but being an owner builder on an ADU construction project is always gonna be complicated.

Um the couple things that our team did talk about where we see where we can improve in is uh one thing they mentioned is the process for demolition permits.

Uh those are fairly complicated for there's not much reason why they should be complicated, they're just complicated to obtain demolition permits, and if there's a way to make that smoother and easier, um, and uh sometimes when we submit permits, we get uh things kicked back uh that could be reviewed at different cycle corrections.

So I think improving some of the processes within the permitting department and how they review our plans.

Uh for the most part, City Sacramento doesn't do too much third-party plan check reviews, but uh just one thing from, and I could be wrong on this, but from what I know, uh when we outsource a third-party plan checkers, they get paid on how often they touch those plans.

So if they kick it back once or twice, they're always incentivized to at least have one or two corrections on every plan check cycle.

And so we've had plants come back for no apparent reason that do not require review.

And so these kind of items will actually expedite the plan review process because out of all the the ADU process, the most complicated is the pre-construction process.

I always tell this to our clients uh during construction, the balls in our court, we control the schedule, we set the inspectors when it comes out.

Uh during pre-con, you got 20 hands in the jar.

You're dealing with fire, solar, you're dealing with utilities, you got easements, you got plan check, building check.

Uh Title 24, there's so many things that are going on.

And I think improving the communication between departments that really don't communicate, but say fire department, building department, they communicate, and and City Sacramento does a fairly good job, but I think there's still breaks in communication and maybe even creating a single platform for how this ADU process goes forward when it comes to permit submittals.

So let's say we need to install fire sprinklers on an ADU.

We got to get a flow test uh calc from uh the water department in that area.

That department doesn't really communicate with the building department.

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.

And so improving communication between some of these departments, I think is what would really improve and make it easier.

Uh another thing, this is our uh head of construction that he brought up is the there he believes and and I I agree with him on this is that all building inspectors should be ICC certified.

It's the international code compliance.

I don't believe uh, and this is was from a senior building inspector that the city of Sacramento does not require ICC certification.

I could be wrong on this, uh, but I uh this is what was brought to us.

The city of Sacramento does not require ICC certification for building inspectors.

Uh, the reason why we would uh appreciate this is uh we've had discrepancies with building inspectors come on site.

We want to always maintain good relationships with the building departments and building inspectors, especially on behalf of our customers.

But sometimes they are on site, and there's discrepancies in what they call out.

And some of our guys have been in the field, they've built 100 ADUs.

I think to date, we've built this year a little over 65.

We're gonna complete maybe about 100 for the year.

Our goal is to hit 120.

Hopefully, we'll get there.

Um, but they've built hundreds of ADUs.

They've been you know dealt with these codes many times, and we'd have an inspector sometimes show up and call something out.

You get in a confrontation, puts a bad taste in everybody's mouth.

Working forward, that person is not difficult.

We've had many times to escalate things to the senior building officials.

They call their field inspectors and correct them.

Next time you see them on site, you know, you gotta bring a box of donors or something like that.

And um, so just uh making sure that everyone's on the same page with the code compliance.

Um I had many times uh where I had I drove out of the office, went to the field, sat down with inspector uh just because of how our some of our project managers were being treated and dealt with because someone's really stuck in what they think is right, and they have uh authority to call things out without I believe having the full proper certification.

Um, there's some amazing this is like out of the many inspectors we dealt with.

This is uh, you know, one or two that this came up, but you know, if you're dealing with one inspector on a project or for a certain region, he's touching, you know, any time 30, 40 different projects.

Uh just in the city of Sacramento, we have I think 43 right now ongoing permits.

And so uh we work heavily in this area.

Um, and so that's one area where just from our team where we think there could there could be some improvement.

Um, another thing that I wanted to mention is uh some of the flood zones and the requirements for flood zones.

Um it's a little bit uh I think too much.

Um there's a requirement for full drainage modeling in conjunction with flood zones, uh, or if let's say uh pretty much what they're saying is if uh if there's a water levels rise with the Sacramento River uh that directly uh impacts a home that's a mile, two miles away, and it's like saying if I put a drop in a bucket, five gallon bucket, I have to provide a full flood zone to show how that single drop will affect uh this whole area.

And sometimes it's a little bit too much.

Um couple things as well is smud power hookups, and so talking about building delays, um, getting it done in under six months, even with expedited permitting, is still a very, very difficult to accomplish.

Uh, number one, just overall the building construction process.

Uh for our team, we try to have everything done within about three months.

We've had a record ADU built in under two months, but building something under three months is still fairly complicated.

Anything, anything over a thousand square feet, you're not gonna be done in three months.

Um, you have two weeks of foundation from the time you break ground to the time you pour slab.

That's that's a run that's a tight schedule.

You got from there a week and a half to two weeks to get your shear inspection, uh, from breaking ground to the time you're drywalled in.

Uh, we try to have that done within seven to eight weeks.

That's a tight timeline.

Um, you're you're coordinating multiple different subcontractors.

Uh you're coordinating multiple different inspectors.

Uh at that time you might have special inspections, you have to bring in third-party inspections outside of the city's requirements.

And so I think uh uh the building timeline could definitely be shortened with the permitting side.

Construction is three to four months.

Uh, and uh I I think that's a fairly good average.

Um, but what would have to happen is actually the loan requirement would have to be improved.

And I'll touch on that in a little bit, but smud power hookups is what delays that we can't pass final inspection till we get SMUD power hookups.

Uh I have a project right now.

I'm waiting on SMUD.

It's uh it's off of a 1452 our villa right there in uh South Line Park.

We've been waiting on SMUD to come and drop power for the last month and a half.

Uh we passed inspect, we passed uh our uh they gave us like a partial final, but we're waiting for SMUD to come drop power.

That's probably been the biggest setback is the power hookups.

Any ADU over a thousand over I'd say 750 to 800 square feet, we recommend them doing a power upgrade.

If the home has a 200 amp panel, we recommend them in improving that panel to 400 amps to supply the proper power to the ADU and to the home.

With that happening, SMUD has to come in and do an additional uh power upgrade.

Um for them to come drop the line and the communication that's uh SMUD provides, it's very just like hey, we'll be there in three weeks, and they'll just show up one day without telling you and for some reason flag the panel for something they never brought up in the past, and then you wait another three weeks after you had inspections approved, you'd work with the SMUD designer, and everything's good to go.

I we just had that happen.

Uh we've submitted the panel, they said everything's good to go.

We sent it to the SMUD designer, field this field inspectors approved it.

They show up and said your buzz bars incorrect, you have to upgrade it.

Well, that would have been good to know previously.

And so those are some things that we've run into.

Um funding uh and pre-approved plans before I actually mention that.

Uh yeah, so uh pre-approved plans.

The problem with pre-approved plans is a couple things.

I think definitely there could be more options available, but also improving the process of how builders can submit their own pre-approved plans.

Um I know San Jose made this very easy, uh, where builders can submit their own pre-approved plans, and you have uh our pre-approved plans that customers would work with.

The reason why we say this is when we go when a client goes to use a pre-approved plan with the building department.

We've built, I think about maybe 10 pre-approved plans with the city of Sacramento.

The issue is is those plans they are rigid, uh, like someone mentioned before me, and there's a reason why they're rigid.

You can't just move a window or a door because that messes with the shear schedule, and that impacts the engineering on the property.

Uh windows and doors, uh, their place in specific areas, and you have the shear walls.

And so if you move a window or door, the reason why that's so difficult to move is you have to get engineering to come review it and approve that that property again.

And so that becomes an issue.

And so I think just providing more options, bigger options, smaller options would definitely be something that would help, but also providing uh the option for builders to have a smoother process to submit pre-approved plans.

Because if I have to work with the pre-approved build uh pre-approved plan set, I'm not working with the building department, I'm working with the architect who designed those plans for the building department.

And let's say there's a correction that needs to happen.

Or let's say we have to, you know, they provide the engineering and the building is approved, but we still have to drop it on the site.

And so when we have to do a site plan review for those plans, then in those cases uh you are uh you're uh in those cases you're getting into pretty much a lot of delays back and forth.

And so I could talk about this issue for a long long time.

And I wish you could, but unfortunately, we have a very, very long day.

Um I just uh I just wanted to get it all out there.

Yeah.

But uh anyway, sorry if I rambled on for a bit too long, but uh, these are some of the things that we have noticed we have seen.

I I just want to thank you so much for um your presentation and for your expertise because um I know I learned a lot in the last five five or seven minutes or so, and um I'm not a builder, but you are, and so I think uh it's really important for us as policymakers to hear about you know what what it's really like on the ground because sometimes you know you you set the policy, but things um implementation is different, and we have to have those real world examples and experiences to help us um make sure we're doing the right thing.

So uh at this time we are now um at the end of our presentations.

Thank you.

Um, I'm gonna I don't believe we have any public comment.

Okay.

I oh yeah, I was gonna move to you.

Um thanks for thanks for your comments.

I we uh we've heard the estimate of the overall cost of uh of uh building uh an ADU is 200 to 300,000 uh or easily can be.

I'm I'm curious if you can give us uh based on your experience, the estimate of the actual construction cost, not not regulatory fees or anything, just you know, uh hammer and nail board, uh just what really costs the construction cost is.

Yeah, uh the most uh I'll give you the construction cost for the most typical ADU size, which is 750.

Yeah, that's a good size.

So 750 is the average ADU size that we've seen built, and the average cost will range between I'll say like 185 to 215.

It's about how much it costs for for a 750.

Um, it changed it depends.

Uh, not even not even talking about uh permit fees and things like that.

Right.

Uh yeah.

Excluding permit fees, because when we provide a contract, we don't include permit fees.

So this is our cost between 185 and 215.

Sometimes it goes up, sometimes it's a little bit lower.

Uh biggest determining factor is utilities, power upgrades, those change a lot.

SEPTIC, no sub tick, uh, those really affect the price.

Okay, thank you.

Of course.

Awesome, thank you so much.

Um, and I actually have a couple questions for Greta.

Um, but I really appreciate all of the presenters um for taking your time and being here today.

And while she makes her way up.

So, one of the questions that I wrote down as I was um listening to some of the comments um is around the the pre-approved plans.

Obviously, we heard quite a bit about that.

Um, how that one, they're a great resource um and that for for when people can use them, but maybe there's some challenges in making sure we have enough different types of plans to fit different um styles.

So my my question is around the utilization.

How often are those pre-approved plans used for the ADUs that we have built in the city?

Um so we have sorry, I'm trying to pull up the exact numbers because I have that information from our annual report.

Um, so as of 2020 early 2025, 15, about 15 were constructed, 22 permits were issued, and 20 additional applications were submitted for with using those plans.

Out of how many?

Um, out of how many total?

I'm not sure the percentage of ADUs using that use the plans.

Yeah, what I'm trying to figure out is how many of the total ADUs that are being built, how many are utilizing the pre-approved plans versus needing to go through the full process?

Not a lot.

Okay.

I mean, I would have to maybe like you don't have to come up with a percentage, probably less than 10%, something like that.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Um and I do know that our our building, so our plan review team actually, they're the ones that created the plans, and they are currently working on some revisions to the plans to make them to give some alternatives.

I don't know exactly what that means or what the specificity of it, but we can certainly talk to them about it.

I know that it would just take more staff time.

I think we paid for overtime for our staff to be able to do those plans with a state grant.

So that's how they were made, and so it would require more resources to make our plans.

As with the things, it's uh it's up to us up here to figure out how we're gonna pay for it, but that makes a lot of sense.

Um, Councilember Plucky Baum.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Thank you, Ryan, for an excellent presentation.

Um just real brief, I know we're running late.

Um I think it was 2018-2019.

Uh the planning commission under um Alex Ogilvy and um John Wong Connolly took a couple trips up to Portland and Seattle.

One of the programs we looked at up there was um uh Portland or uh the state of Oregon's um grant program for ADUs.

They were providing uh full cost to construct uh all the liability.

Um so in exchange uh for a homeowner making their backyard available, the state would would take care of everything it took to build that ADU in exchange uh for the use of that ADU for some period of time.

So six, eight, 10 years, that would be the repayment period.

Uh so at the end of that time, uh the homeowner would own the ADU free and clear.

Um but during that period of time they would have um a supported tenant in that location.

I believe the state of Oregon has discontinued um that um is anyone else hearing that?

Okay, uh has discontinued that uh program.

And I'm guessing uh this is me guessing that it might be because the economies of scale just didn't make it uh pencil for them, but it would be an interesting way for us to look at uh a way to um do what ADUs do best, which is unlock uh mixed income communities, provide uh greater density in existing uh lower density communities, high resource communities.

Um I think this is a a great opportunity for us to look at um more closely.

It would probably require a partnership with um either someone that had a revolving loan fund or some other um uh housing entity or state entity that that had resources uh up until the time uh you know the city has those resources.

Um thank you again for your leadership on this.

You know, obviously we need to build uh an absolute ton of housing yesterday, and every little bit helps.

Yeah, and I and I um I want to say too also that the efforts that the mayor and councilman plugybom have been um spearheading with Streamlined Sacramento.

Sounds like a lot of those same themes are here too.

So I think um stay tuned.

Uh maybe some of these things will become just a little bit easier um as those efforts get underway.

Um Councilman Jennings, any other additional comments from you?

Okay.

Well, Council for Dickinson.

Sorry, I can't I couldn't see your name up here.

It's okay.

We've got a technology issue here.

I had a couple uh if now it's the time appropriate time, I had a couple other questions.

Uh and this is for uh probably for um our city's city staff, someone among them.

Um I uh I have run into people who uh have been interested in building uh an ADU, and it's not the it's it's not the the city fees that have deterred them, it's the um other agency fees.

Can you uh uh just uh speak to the extent to which ADUs are subject to school fees, sewer fees, you know, the other agent public agency fees beyond um beyond whatever the the city fees are.

Do they typically get hit with those fees as well?

Um I would need to triple check.

Um so a uh SB, I think it's SB or AB 13, um back in like 2021 or so um states that a local agency special district or water corporation shall not impose any impact fees.

That's the legislation that um uh you know prohibits the impact fees uh for units less than 750 square feet.

So I I think that utility like I'm not sure about SMUD.

Um I think that we have we have so many school districts in Sacramento that it's hard to um you know make that process a little bit more streamlined, but I can't 1000 percent say for certain we can look into it though and and re report back on the I think you're asking about SMUD, right?

Yeah, well, um I think uh I mean it uh uh I don't know which of them maybe the largest school fees can be significant.

But I and I didn't quite catch you.

Did you you you said uh special district fees is what the legislation it sounds like might have been Tim Grayson's legislation.

Was it um any special any special district?

Yes.

Local agency special district or water corporation.

That would seem to include school districts.

Yeah.

So okay.

Well, if you can just follow up with what uh uh uh non-city entities, yeah, it should it should be the case, but I want to triple check before I confirm.

Okay, and as long as you're there gonna um uh remember now it was last, I think it was last year, but uh maybe the year before.

Um this the uh city along with the urban league sponsored uh uh a workshop at Grant High School.

Yes.

And the turnout was was quite quite good, quite strong.

I was very and I would I was surprised how many people can the in level of interest.

I'm uh I'm just curious whether this whether the the city has done any other workshops like that.

Uh it has uh if not, is it entertaining?

Are we entertaining doing that?

Because that seemed to be uh something that generated uh a lot of response and a lot of interest uh uh and it was a good how-to with respect to a lot of the issues we've been talking about for people who are interested in in ADU.

So have there been any other of those and uh and are there any others planned or or can thought about?

Um so we have done um one per year for the last three or four years, including that one in partnership with um someone from the Casito Coalition, and so we did do one recently again this past year.

Um I'm trying to remember the school.

We usually hold them at schools that we were at.

Um, like the land park area, and before that we were at um uh a school in the south area.

They're all escaping my names.

But um basically any time that uh we're asked to go present on our resources, we are happy to do that.

And this um organization has been consistently basically bringing folks together.

Um I think the challenge is uh just like, yeah, staff time for organizing and um making sure that uh the folks that are represented at the events are uh equally able to participate, and so it's nice to have a third entity kind of hosting the event where the city can present all of our resources, and we're always happy to do that.

Okay, that but it's a it's average one one a year or so for the last three or four years.

Uh and and would it be within the capacity of uh the department to do more uh in a in a year if that if that opportunity uh present itself or does it really stretch you to to do these?

I think it it can stretch if we're the ones organizing.

I think it's much easier to show up and um provide presentations and materials, and that's a little easier of a lift for staff.

Okay, thank you.

Thanks, Chair.

Great questions.

And then this will be the last thing I promise.

I seem to recall that there was uh legislation, I can't remember if it was last year or the year before, that would have allowed for essentially lots to be split and ADs to be sold.

Do you have a maybe a status update on that?

A little bit of a softball?

Yes.

Yeah, we've had a little bit of staffing um challenges this past year on our team.

So we have that queued up for um bringing um something forward in uh early 2026, hopefully adopting by the middle of 2026.

So that's the plan.

It's in our planning and zoning work program.

It's the ADU condoization.

Um, yeah, I'm very excited about that as an opportunity as well because I think um, you know, as Aaron Teague mentioned, there are you know, there's a you know somewhere up to a 10% uh 10% of people who may otherwise qualify for homes that are not doing it for one reason or another.

And I imagine that if there were more opportunities that were a lower cost, such as an ADU that someone could purchase, that we're gonna increase those opportunities for homeownership and generational wealth building over time.

And so I'm really excited to see that come forward.

Thank you for your work on it.

And I know you're also working on several other things all at once.

This is just one one little tiny bit of your portfolio, but just thank you to you and the entire team for all your do and thanks for the the presentations.

Thank you.

All right.

With that, and seeing no other comments, um, I think we will move on to our next item.

Um, and I would like to state at the outset here because I did receive um a number of phone calls and messages um uh about this that this is the very, very, very beginning of a conversation.

This is on here because there have been several members of this body and the council and beyond and those who are not even sitting here anymore who have brought this up over the years.

Um, there's always an interest on what do we do with vacant lots, vacant properties?

What does that mean for Sacramento?

Um, and so you know, we continue the conversation here, but uh, just want to be really clear that we're not making any you know formative decisions today.

The question before us is you know, do we want to provide direction and do we want this to get forwarded to the full council for discussion?

So with that, I'll pass it on over.

Okay, hello again.

Good morning.

Um, Greta Sue, senior planner and community development.

Uh, I'm joined today by co-chief Peter Limos, and today we'll be co-presenting on two different efforts related to the topic of vacant properties.

Uh, the first is on the topic of a vacant property tax measure.

Oh, if I could get the I don't think it's projecting to the um live stream, the presentation.

Um, but the first is the topic of the vacant property tax measure, and the second is an enhanced, thank you so much, uh vacant lot and vacant building monitoring and enforcement program.

Uh so I'll start first with the um tax proposal.

So, by way of background, staff first visited the city council law and legislation committee on this item back in March 2023 for an initial discussion, and then again at the December 2023 meeting, uh, where committee members requested that staff conduct voter polling and outreach before moving forward with the potential measure.

Um, I will review those findings, but first I would like to provide a refresher on existing California jurisdictions who have vacant property taxes in place.

The first two are the City of Oakland's vacant property tax and San Francisco's commercial vacancy tax.

Oakland's measure has been in effect since 2019 and applies to any property, both developed and undeveloped, that is not in use for more than 50 days in a calendar year.

This measure has generated between seven and nine million dollars per year, and revenue supports affordable housing and homelessness prevention.

San Francisco's commercial vacancy tax applies to street-facing commercial space in certain commercial districts that are vacant for more than 182 days in a calendar year, and this has generated between 700,000 to 2.7 million per year in revenues, which goes towards a small business assistance fund.

Two other taxes that have been passed are the San Francisco Empty Homes Tax and the City of Berkeley empty homes tax.

These are two more recently passed measures that apply to vacant residential units.

Um San Francisco's tax is currently not being enforced due to a court in due to a court ordered injunction at the trial court level, and the city of Berkeley is still enforcing their measure, but a lawsuit has been filed.

As stated, the previous committee direction was to conduct voter polling prior to considering bringing forward a measure to voters.

The voter survey found that the overall mood in the city was pessimistic, and that while a solid majority backed the establishment of a vacant property tax, support did fall short of the two-thirds majority as would be required for the measure to pass.

Additional information and messaging did increase support, but only to 63% of those polled.

Voters were also most enthusiastic about dedicating funds to address homelessness, cleaning up blight and illegal dumping, and building affordable housing.

They backed a number of exemptions from the requirements of the measure, most notably for properties that have development applications in the process.

Staff is currently seeking direction to conduct additional voter polling to build off of the limited findings of the 2024 poll and to retest voter sentiment.

This new poll would be used to craft the most successful measure possible based on what voters are most supportive of related to application of the tax, exemptions, and use of revenues.

These are two upcoming ballot timeline options for consideration.

While more aggressive, it would be possible to pay place a measure on the June 2026 ballot.

On this timeline, outreach would be limited to November and December time frames, and the council must call the measure by January of 2026.

The November 2026 ballot option would allow for more extensive outreach with council needing to call the measure in late July of 2026.

If the November timeline is chosen, this would be the project timeline with outreach occurring throughout the winter.

And this concludes my presentation.

I'll now pass it to Peter to present on the enhanced vacant lot and vacant building monitoring and enforcement program.

Thank you.

We'll hear from Peter first and then we'll welcome.

I'm Peter Lewis, I'm Coden Housing Enforcement Chief for the Community Development Department.

Today I'm here to bring forward the enhanced vacant lot and vacant building monitoring enforcement program as requested from the committee during the March 2023 committee meeting.

So to kind of go over what we're existing, what we have in place existing.

So we have a vacant lot registration program.

This program was passed in 2018, brought forward a registration process to register all vacant lots within our city.

The purpose was to reduce blight, ensure maintenance.

Currently we have 4,415 vacant lots citywide that identified.

So owners were to register.

The lots annually were to maintain their properties and withdrew the registration process.

When the vacant lot ordinance passed in 2018, it was for there was no enforcement or monitoring part of it.

It was for the registration at a later time.

Chapter 136 would be enforced on the monitoring enforcement process.

We currently have a weed abatement program.

This is a proactive fire prevention program.

Series of reminders are sent out notices to the property owners prior to the inspections.

Annually inspections are during fire season.

Inspections kick off April 15th.

It's focused on reducing fire hazards.

Several officers are dedicated for three months annually.

And this comes annual to the council under the weed abatement and rubbish enforcement program.

We have complaint-driven enforcement.

We're addressing issues by complaint basis.

This is our neighborhood code compliance.

We get complaints for illegal dumping blight vegetation.

There's no proactive inspections of vacant lots through this program.

When compliance is achieved through the code enforcement program, the case is closed.

We do have a vacant building monitoring program.

This is only reactive, so if we get a complaint for a vacant building, it's an useless property.

There's monthly monitoring, complaint response fee from the dangerous buildings team, requires maintenance and uh to not accrue additional fees for monitoring.

Um the case can remote main or the property can remain vacant as long as it's maintained.

And uh there's only monitoring when there's actually violations.

Otherwise, the case is closed.

So our current approach relies heavily on the fire season inspections for the vacant lots and for complaint basis on all other inspections.

Kind of give you an idea of where we're at on this.

Of the 4400 lots, only 1400 are registered, it's about a third.

And of those third, 317 are using the exemption.

So they still have to register, but they're exempt from paying the fee.

As they may be a community garden, they may be adjacent and continuous use of an existing property, and there's several other exemptions to the code.

There's limited enforcement capacity of the 160 declared nuisance vacant lots.

We are monitoring periodically, but more of it is responsive to complaints, and that's due to staffing levels.

They're about 40% of the time they hit them monthly for a follow-up.

So inspections are limited under the current season, fire season.

There is no dedicated enforcement team for enforcing either vacant buildings or vacant lots.

So the gaps in coverage is the registration of vacant buildings.

Um there is no registration process currently in place, so it takes a lot of time when we do come across these vacant buildings for the research and time to try to find owners and notices and such that are a lot of warnings and pre-notices before any enforcement can be taken, especially dealing with the absentee property owners.

And of course, the makes the response all complaint driven.

So that existing program lacks the authority to be consistent proactive monitoring of all the vacant properties.

So our previous direction, in March of 2023, was to bring back to the committee an expanded vacant lot program that included to include all vacant lots of measures to enforce and maintain them.

Establish a cost recovery fee, doing a fee study to have the program be full, cost offset and reimbursable from the fees against the properties, and strengthen the abatement authority to allow faster response to nuisance properties.

Current our current process takes about 90 days before we can actually abate something as a nuisance of overgrown vegetation or debris.

So looking at shortening that period of time, and increase the appeal costs to be offset for what it costs the uh to recover staff time.

So the enhanced program is directed response to law and legislation committee from the 2023 report and direction to come back with stronger proactive enforcement model.

So our proposed program code changes, looking at vacant lots, including the decision to should we also do registration of vacant buildings and storefronts, bringing a ordinance that's unified.

So currently you have to go to three different sections of the code to look at commercial, residential, and vacant lots for the same enforcement models.

So bring it all in one chapter and three consecutive sections.

Monthly inspections, the dedicated team, proactive year-round monitoring the enforcement, and this would be for all vacant properties.

Should we look at all vacant storefronts, vacant buildings, and vacant lots on a monthly basis?

Cost neutral funding, registrations, monitoring appeals, full program uh offset reimbursement.

Whatever the level of enforcement is that we've come forward with, we need to make sure that's cost neutral for the city.

Registration renewal.

So having a set registration, right now it's kind of discretionary.

We try to do it in February, March of each year, but coming forward with an exact date for whether it's going to be one registration or three registrations, but having it set for January 1st and having the 16-day period for all properties to be registered.

Compliance and appeals.

So we looked at several jurisdictions and got an average of what it takes for both their compliance for their appeal and their cost of appeal.

Currently, our appliance time is 30 days, whether it's vacant lot and vacant buildings, because that's our appeal period.

So looking at most jurisdictions, they were 10 to 15 days.

Looking at other jurisdictions, that would still be significantly lower than other jurisdictions appeal period, even looking at our own county, which is a seven hundred dollar flat fee.

Compliance for buildings following our building code and our ordinance, it states that there's a 30-day compliance time for building code violations, and then they have to go through that nose in order before you types of other fees can be charged.

But bringing that consistent also with the flat appeal fee ordinance-wide for all appeals, and not having the variations right now between $50 and $100 that we currently have in place.

Stronger enforcement tools to bring forward declaration of nuisance properties should also be applied to buildings.

So currently, if a building is monitored, once it comes into compliance, it's the case is closed compared to the nuisance property vacant lot.

Um that ordinance states that once it's been declared a nuisance because it had two citations or penalties within it within a two-year period, then it's monitored for two years, and it's monitored for two years until they have two consecutive years of no violations.

So should we also put that on vacant buildings?

Because currently, like I said, they um are closed as soon as they come into compliance, and then often we're right back again.

Declaration of property nuisance on all properties, owner monitoring requirements.

We looked at some jurisdictions that we had requirements for the owner to document that they were at their property anywhere from every every two weeks to every month.

And if they failed to monitor their properties and they couldn't provide documentation by timestamp photos when we received a complaint, then it was enhanced penalties for us being there compared to okay, you were there a week ago, transit got on your property, we're gonna give you a warning, you have to get it, please get it cleaned up.

Also cleaning up the ordinance for things like what can the property use for.

Often we have vacant properties who become storage places, whether it be for vehicles, for unsheltered, for debris, for building materials, um, being clear in the code that the property is vacant that are vacant cannot be used for other um other uses if it's not approved in the development code.

So our project timeline, I'm sorry, let's go back for one second.

On the maintenance standards, um clear property maintenance standards.

So in our code, a lot of it is discretionary language.

Like overgrown vegetation, it says blight or overgrown or a nuisance or visual blight.

So, what is that?

Being specific in the code of what is overgrown vegetation.

So being specific, such as five inches or more over 50% of the lot or any vegetation over 11 inches in height, ground covering.

So be more specific in our code and throughout the code to assist the constituents in knowing what compliance is and providing more direction for our officers, and so it's not so discretionary.

Um securing and boarding standards, so what does that mean right now?

Often you'll see fence boards, other things used to secure buildings, being specific and clear as as we require our contractors to do to board a certain way, also require the property owners to board a certain way, paying boards so they match the exterior of the building, being specific of what has to be secured, what has to be repaired.

So that would be an enhancement to the code.

Um how and where we're gonna board, how are we?

How is fencing and securing going to be done?

So can temporary fencing be up and for how long compared to temporary fencing, compared to iron fencing, and then where nuisance vacant lots properties qualify for right now for an exemption.

So if they come in and they file an exemption, they don't pay for their vacant lot fee.

They stop to register, but often they are in violation.

There's nothing that when they become a nuisance there because they're exempt from the ordinance.

Um basically saying if it if somebody has an exemption under the code, they didn't have to pay the fee, but they become a nuisance that they go they lose their exemption and fall under our regular program, which would be two years of having to pay the fee, which is minimal currently, and but they would receive a monthly monitoring.

Response fee, so higher response fees, looking at our response fees to other cities.

Currently vacant buildings has a $500 response fee.

So we get called out to a vacant building, it's been previously cited.

Then there's a $500 response fee because it takes additional time for us to find out what's happened to the responsible party, track everybody down.

So including something like that, and the follow that same model on our vacant lots.

Looking at anything we pass or anything we move forward, it has to be comprehensive, cost neutral and for monitoring and enforcing our property standards.

So we project a timeline as we're here today, September, for the committee review, bringing a draft ordinance for city attorney's review.

Well, that's being reviewed in the months of uh we provided um in October, November, December, we that's when we would do our community outreach to our partners and stakeholders, and uh then review the ordinance uh and do uh meeting conversion and such and return to Allenow to the committee in February of 2026 with a draft ordinance, draft fees, and uh what staffing may look like that in March to council for consideration in May enact the ordinance, so with those re enhanced restrictions, or requirements of vacant properties, vacant buildings, whatever it's going to be, and we can begin enforcing those at that time once it's uh passed and the times set.

That would give us a May to December, develop um staffing, get the program set up, get everything going forward, and then be consistent in January of 2027 for the actual registration.

If we're going to add any buildings or vacant storefronts, or even just bring back our current vacant lot registration to be consistent to be where it's due in January.

These are vacant lots currently sit.

So D1 is the heaviest with vacant lots, and that is a lot to do with subdividing of large parcels for that are in construction and draft.

So these are properties that aren't going to be registered because they've been recently subdivided as an exemption in the code, that they are able to do one registration for several lots without paying any fee.

Uh, to give you an idea also of the so I mentioned we have 163 active dangerous building cases, and those are prevalent in the two highest are D2 and D4.

They have the most of the vacant building current active cases in the city.

So program costs and resources.

So if we looked at the current process that we're doing, and we wanted to bring the best model forward to say we're going to look at every property that's vacant, whether it's storefront, building or vacant lot, um, we're talking additional staffing needs between 10 and 25 employees.

This would be support, supervisors, field inspecting staff, and that would be very expensive.

Um additional costs would include budget for contractors to make nuisance buildings.

So we have a very low budget right now for abatements that would have to be significantly increased.

And current vacant lot or vacant lot monitoring fees and all monitoring fees of vacant properties would increase anywhere between 50 and 100% of what we currently charge.

Um, give you an idea, monitoring fees currently right now is $340 a month.

So it's over $4,000 a year if we if we're making under our current program and we have staffing to monitor a property under our current program, our current fees.

Alternatives, respond to complaints only with current staffing, but enhanced maintenance requirements.

So that would just be status quo, but with a new ordinance or enhanced ordinance to be clear on what's required of vacant buildings and vacant lots.

Monitor only nuisance vacant properties.

This would be once they've been declared a nuisance.

So that means that we have to have the series within two years of code enforcement violations where we provide the warning, we provide the citation, they don't comply, and then it's um ratified.

Then that's we that they'd have to have that twice before it's ever declared nuisance.

Uh respond to properties who fail to register currently with due to stapping the and the amount that we have, there's nobody actually monitoring the ones that aren't registering.

We have sent out some penalties.

We tried it last year to see how it was.

There was significant revenue increase of about $300,000.

Um do not include storefronts.

So that's one that we could choose not to do.

It's going to be a completely different program, adding it into our code.

With these alternatives, uh the decisions have to be made of where direct staffing if we chose not to change anything and we still want monitoring and such done.

Where do we redirect our current staffing?

Um, do we look at future revenue to see if we could add staffing, which would be limited off of the revenue increase by redirecting some staff to do monitoring to do penalties to just deal with the current program we have in place?

So our current uh registration monitoring of a nuisance property.

Um if we currently are able to monitor a property monthly with our current fee, our current registration, it's $4,150 a year, and that's under a vacant lot registration program, slightly higher in a vacant building because there's about $30 more per month under our current program for uh monitoring between dangerous buildings and our code compliance.

So our fee studies nearly uh completed, and staff has identified several areas of municipal code that will require modifications.

A proposed enhanced vacant lot and building monitoring and enforcement program as outlined in attachment five of your packet.

Pending direction from law and legislative committee, staff would prepare an ordinance for an enhanced vacant lot and vacant building monitoring enforcement program, conduct outreach proposed amendments this winter, and return to the committee in early 2026 with an ordinance and recommendations of what staffing and cost would be.

That concludes the presentation.

Thank you very much.

Um I know that we have quite a few public commenters, so we'll move on to public comment first, and then I'll open it up to the committee for any questions or comments.

Thank you, Chair.

I have 11 speakers.

The first is Aaron Teague.

Did you submit a six?

Okay, we'll come back to that.

Justin Wilson.

Yes, Justin Wilson, John Hershey, Frank Louie, and please line up in the middle aisle.

We have 11 speakers.

Justin, then John, then Frank.

Welcome.

Hi.

My name's Justin Wilson.

I came here to talk about the vacant lot program and how it's uh affecting some people uh in our district.

Um I mainly wanted to talk about how the vacant lot program affects M1S properties, light industrial properties.

Uh as it's written now, uh, it doesn't take into consideration areas that are rule and don't identify with more urban areas of the city.

For example, in Robla, which is semi-rule and rule, uh, it has properties with many different uses.

Um vacant lot program never negatively impacts the Robla area, especially light industrial zone properties.

Uh one of those issues is the requirement for structures where many of the buy right uses on light industrial land don't require structures, um, as per the code, and they have been left open to enforcement.

Uh they're now being forced to build structures that they don't need.

Um people, like my grandmother, for instance, uh, aren't even being able to being uh allowed to go through the development process to build structures to correct the issue without enforcement.

Um that own these properties are elderly, and they don't understand these new ordinances.

Uh they have trouble maintaining their properties to these standards, especially in our area where we are rural, and you know, these lands were once agriculture lands.

Um, other problems like uh, thank you for your comments.

Your time is complete.

Our next speaker is John Hershey, then Frank Louie.

Afternoon, committee members and chair.

Uh my name is John Hershey, and I'm here on behalf of UA Local 447 Plumbers and Pipe Fitters.

I'm here to ask you today to not adopt a one-size-fits-all approach to the vacant land issue.

Local 447 holds 97 acres and trust for its pensioners next to Watt Avenue.

447 maintains this property in accordance with the laws, we wait for the right investment scenario.

This is not a blight blighted vacant lot in the city.

Local 447 has a fiduciary duty to its members to make the best use or investment of this property.

Watt Avenue is being widened, and this road project will greatly affect the use and value of this property.

It would be highly unfair to tax us parcels since it is uh additionally, since it is not creating any sort of nuisance scenarios for the city.

We are respectfully asking that you adopt an approach that gives the city and its land landowners some flexibility.

A tax on all on all parcel approach is unfair.

We definitely support other alternatives for the city to be able to deal with the bad actors.

Local 447 often engages in local activities that promote career opportunities and supports projects that help transform our region and is not just an absentee landlord.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair Maple.

My name is Frank Louie.

I'm the executive director of the Stockton Boulevard partnership.

In our district, our PBI district, we have over 80 vacant lots during uh within that 4.2 mile stretch of Stockton Boulevard.

These sites remain undeveloped, not because of neglect, because development is market driven.

A tax cannot uh create demand.

Uh we've seen progress near Aggie Square, where both private and public investment and market interest led to new housing.

That's the model, demand first, then development.

The proposal is a blanket ordinance that lumps every vacant lot into the same category.

It does not account for the unique market conditions along Stockton Boulevards.

Sacramento should be more business friendly, focusing on tools that help property owners uh market their sites, attract investments, and connect with the right usage.

Instead of adding enforcement and fees, let's view vacant lots as an opportunity by working with landowners and P bids uh along with the city to help unlock these parcels to create more housing, retail, mixed use benefits for the entire community.

What I'm looking at when uh Mr.

Limos presented the fee structure, we're gonna have one of the highest in our region, and that's not being business-friendly.

Thank you very much.

Next speaker is James, then Aaron Teague.

I'm James Cathcart, Own River Vacant Lot on 18 uh 31 O Street across from Smud.

It is a community garden.

Uh I've had that vacant lot for uh about 50 plus years, and it is kind of an iconic uh garden.

People just love it, and uh it's a special thing for downtown.

And uh if I have a lot of fees and uh things and I have to close it down, I would make a lot of money because I get two or three uh uh things a week trying to buy the property, but I don't buy it because uh I've lived there forever and I was uh uh partly responsible for the creation of all the historic districts in midtown and uh uh I was uh initially uh the started the Sacramento Old City Association, and so I've been here forever and I I love my garden and I'd like to make sure that it's kept and I don't have enough fees or problems with uh so that I would have to sell it to and make a lot of money.

Thank you very much.

Aaron Teague, then Liz Williams.

Welcome back.

Thank you.

Sorry about that.

Good morning, committee members again, Aaron Teague on behalf of the Sacramento Association of Realtors.

Um, I'm here today to oppose moving forward with a vacancy tax before we've exhausted our enforcement mechanisms.

If our goal as a city is to streamline development and attract investment, this proposal sends the wrong message.

If the goal is to target bad actors, then let's give staff the tools they need to do just that through clear triggers and enforcement when necessary.

The March 2024 2023 polling showed that the support for the vacancy tax fell short of the required two-thirds threshold.

Yet here we are discussing additional polling without having reviewed the initial results with stakeholders or explored alternative solutions.

What has changed to make a vacancy tax more viable now?

As a stakeholder who recently participated in outreach meetings regarding the business operations tax, I know it is possible to pull together interested groups together to review the polling data and offer feedback for a much more productive conversation today.

It seems like based on the polling results and other taxes being considered throughout the city has an opportunity to consider enforcement measures that will target the properties that have created the most challenges.

If the vacancy tax proposal does move forward, it would be helpful to understand that if the jurisdictions where these have been implemented actually saw improvements from a vacancy tax, and if the vaccant spaces are decreasing, and then what happens to the programs that rely on that tax revenue, since theoretically it should be a funding source that diminishes over time.

I request whatever direction the committee decides on today that SAR be included in the development process.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Liz Williams and John Vignoki.

Good afternoon, Chair, members of the council, city staff.

On behalf of the Metro Chamber and the member businesses we represent, we must respectfully request that you take a strong opposition to moving forward with any consideration of a vacant property tax.

While we share the same goal of reducing vacant parcels, we encourage the city to weigh whether incentive-based tools such as targeted tax credits, streamline permitting, temporary activations, or public-private partnerships could achieve the same goals with fewer unintended consequences.

As you know, storefront vacancies are already a significant concern.

Overly strict enforcement without parallel incentives for activation, may risk keeping storefronts boarded up even longer and further slowing our local economic recovery.

If the objective is to address nuisance and blighted up properties within the city, we urge the counselor council to instead focus on setting clear expectations and giving staff the resources to enhance an enforcement program when needed.

We would like to highlight that if initial polling showed that this concept lacked the necessary support from voters, we ask what has changed in this short time since then to bring this proposal back, and particularly at a time when economic uncertainty is high and taxation fatigue is even higher.

The Metro Chamber recently engaged in extensive proactive outreach on the business operations tax, as also mentioned by our partners at SAR.

We ask that the same proactive stakeholder engagement be applied here.

We really appreciated that.

Especially on a proposal that has come before council previously and has not led had meaningful community follow-up since this initial polling.

We respectfully request that any action taken today include direct direction for robust stakeholder engagement as part of the process, and the Metro Chamber stands ready to be a partner in that.

Thank you.

John Vignoki, then Alison Lee.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee.

My name's John Vignoki, and uh I own a development company that uh has had some expertise in successfully converting vacant lots into vibrant uh mixed use and multifamily communities.

So I'm not here to obviously you know I oppose this, um, but I want to talk about some solutions and actually my personal experience trying to activate a vacant lot in Sacramento, and I think Tom and Greg will remember this because we didn't necessarily get on the wrong foot.

I was kind of pushing the boundaries a bit.

Uh, get off on the right foot.

I meant.

Um, anyways, uh, so while vacancy taxes appeal is a simple fix for underutilized land, they risk creating more economic friction than they resolve.

Uh California's businesses and real estate industry already contend with very high costs, a very long list of taxes, regulatory complexities, and market uncertainties.

So instead of adding more punitive measures to our already overflowing plate, I urge the city to adopt incentives.

So I want to speak to specifically about our experience activating this vacant lot.

So it's where the grace was.

This was about 2021, and I started working with Rashawn Davis and Unseen Heroes to activate this vacant lot.

And we're like, well, let's do a cool food pop-up.

How hard could that be?

Because we're gonna plan this 45 unit building.

And so, like, let's just activate it between now and then.

And so I invested like 150 grand, worked with this local chef.

Um, and when I went to the city, uh worked with Carl, and I love the planning department, we have a great planning department, but they don't have the tools to actually activate a vacant lot quickly like San Francisco does.

So funny enough, the People's Republic of San Francisco where I fled was easier to activate a vacant lot than it was in our pro-business city.

And so what ended up happening is um, you know, uh we opened in the middle middle of winter, we finally got our approvals, opened in the middle of winter, uh, missed the music circus season.

Um we couldn't get our ABC permit, Yvette Daniels, not to put her on blast, but she was like a huge problem.

We were approved for our permit, and literally she couldn't process it and get it open, so it strained the partnership.

The chef left and went back to Chicago, and we lost a really good business and I lost 150 grand trying to activate a vacant lot.

So let's make that.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker is Allison Lee, then Matt McDonald.

Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the city council.

My name is Alison Lee, and I'm the legislative director for Region Business, a coalition of local business leaders dedicated to helping Sacramento realize its full potential through bold and innovative policy leadership.

We oppose the vacancy tax and request the city find new ways to make it easier to do business in our region, not harder.

Thank you.

Matt McDonald, then Henry Harry and James Allison.

I have four more speakers.

Welcome.

Good afternoon.

Matt McDonald with the California Apartment Association speaking in opposition to a vacancy tax ordinance.

Uh, we believe that if the city pursues this policy any further, it will be uh the city choosing the stick instead of the carrot with the business community.

We do not believe a vacancy tax will be an inducement to property owners to build faster.

A vacancy tax will lower, will not lower the cost of aggregate material or steel or labor.

Uh it will not lower the cost of city fees, which you just raised recently, nor will it lower the cost of permitting or environmental review.

All vacancy tax will accomplish is to raise the barriers to entry in a city that frankly already has too many.

Uh, and you're considering this against the backdrop of discussion of a business modernization tax increase.

Um meanwhile, one thing the business community doesn't hear enough of is let's grow the pie through economic development, and this has to change.

If you have an issue with a vacant blighted property, please focus on code enforcement.

Nobody wants bad actors failing to maintain their properties, but it does not follow that a vacant property is automatically blighted or neglected.

Painting all property owners with a broad brush is unfair and self-defeating.

Please consider this before you move forward in this process.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Henry Harry, James Allison, and Keon Bliss.

Thank you, members.

Uh I've stood here before and said, please stop taxing us.

Please don't tax us.

And this feels like a money grab.

It's an opportunity to raise taxes on us, so hey, why not do it?

Um recently, our mayor was on studio Sacramento, and he was mentioning how much uh there how much wasteful spending was going on surrounding homelessness.

And so I think it's unfair that you would um target a small group of people and tax them to pay for citywide problems that we all should be paying for.

Um I don't think you should tax us because you guys have big salaries.

I don't think you should tax us because the council keeps overspending money.

I don't think you should uh tax us because of bad actions by this council, where you bought a building for 18 million dollars is probably only worth five million dollars, and then our mayor is on video trying to sell that building.

So don't tax us because of your actions.

I actually question what non-tax plan is being looked at.

I know uh during the presentation uh there were several options as to, you know, you know, do we cut out the old bureaucracy of you know 25 extra officers?

Uh do you just have some type of monitoring process?

I'll offer up.

Can we get some volunteers to monitor these properties, take pictures and then send them to the appropriate people?

Uh law enforcement agencies have reserved deputies and volunteers, they're non-paid.

Um, and so um in my community, I'd probably volunteer to do it.

Um just one last uh note here.

Um, just maybe there's even an off-duty approach to finding people to monitor these buildings.

Thank you for your comments.

James Allison, then Keon Bliss will be our final speaker.

Welcome.

Afternoon, Chair, Council members and staff.

My name is James Allison with the Power and Alliance.

We're a property business improvement district representing Sacramento's manufacturing industrial core.

Uh, and about the 3,000 or so businesses that uh do business in that area and the 30,000 jobs that they support.

Um ultimately today, you know, I I uh really wanted to hear what staff had to say in terms of what my response was going to be.

Um rather than uh reiterate a lot of the fantastic points that I've heard from some of my colleagues in the PBID and business community today, all of which I uh agree with wholeheartedly.

Uh I wanted to share some of the opportunity that's presented in front of us right now as a community.

You know, I I took this role uh in power in, namely because I was familiar with the area.

I remember going to visit my dad who worked at warehouses, a couple of them within the district that I now represent.

Uh funny enough, the overgrown vacant parcel, uh, the big field that he found our childhood cat in is still a unused, vacant, overgrown field.

Uh nobody feels the pain of these vacant parcels more than our PBID community does.

I guarantee you that every single individual that came here to speak today has at some point in the last week dealt with a vacant parcel that's creating some sort of challenge.

Uh the challenge there is that there's a lot that goes into what makes a vacant parcel vacant.

Uh, what we aren't discussing are the opportunities that we have to be able to work together and identify the sources.

Uh really ultimately is this is an absentee landowner who really is doing nothing about that property and is letting this go into disuse.

Or is this somebody that has a genuine idea for something that they want to do where either the market isn't supporting the idea where the city's getting in the way?

I have a uh a parcel owner who has a blighted property right now with a abandoned building on top of it.

Uh, it creates nothing problems for him day in and day out.

It's one of the parcels that we're talking about today.

Uh, the city simply won't let him demolish the building that is becoming a part problematic parcel.

So when we have these sorts of issues, that's where we need to come together to work, and the PBID community is here to do that today.

Thank you.

Keon Bliss is our final speaker on this item.

Honestly, I can't say I'm surprised with the number of builders and developers that are opposed to taxing the thousands of vacant lots that are sitting around uh Sacramento County.

Uh while we continuously, and they continuously advocate for us to punish and uh police away our unhoused issues, our unhouse problems, which majority of the city council continues to oblige, we leave a lot of these vacant lots to just be sitting there wasting our time as much as our members of certain members of city council do, uh conversating with amongst themselves.

And honestly, I think it's disingenuous to think that a number of the members of the public, many of whom would be here if it weren't uh if it weren't 1246 p.m.

during a work day, uh, to really comment on this, uh, would support that, if no other reason than this is land that people could be staying on safely, but we don't want to do that because our like our business owners and developers don't want to let an uh let the RIF RAF onto their property.

And as we're considering a potential measure, I think it's important for uh measure of transparency to note that several of the speakers that have come up today um are speaking for like our major donors uh of Sacramento's uh city majority members of city council members.

Um, the department association given no less than uh twenty uh then twenty thousand dollars to a majority of city council members, including uh 9800 to uh my council member plucky bomb and uh 1400 to uh Rick Jennings.

Also the Metro Chamber giving as much as uh $8,800 uh to uh council member Plucky Baum, 2,000 to uh to Dickinson, and uh at least thank you for your comments.

Your time is complete.

Chair, I have no more speakers on this agenda item.

Thank you for your comments.

Your time is complete.

Thank you very much to all the um public commenters that came out today and for um providing your viewpoints on this.

Um, as I mentioned at the top, this is uh the start of a discussion.

Um I recognize that uh that the last time that we discussed this in public is 2023, so some time has passed, so um I think that there's merit to making sure that we are in touch with the community and understand what's going on.

But um, so I'll make just a couple comments before I pass it over and I have a question too.

Um, but one of the things that I was struck with um from a couple of the commenters is around a stakeholder outreach process.

I think that makes a lot of sense.

We're doing that right now at BOT.

Um, and you know, I think that the people who are impacted by any policy choice that we make should be the people in the room that we're talking with.

Um this is one of those spaces, but uh another space to do that would be in you know either a round table setting or um a workshop environment because that's how you're gonna get real feedback from people, and you know, you can come here and talk for two minutes and um and they can share their viewpoints.

But you know, the way that we really bounce off ideas back and forth is in that more informal setting.

So that's something that I think is um well taken by some of the commenters.

Um, and so the one of the questions that I have before we move on to other comments from um from committee members, is around technology.

So I noticed um, and this is specific to the enforcement piece.

Um, I noticed that you know there would be a staffing plan and all these other things if we were to choose to go the route of really beefing up um that that department, your department, um, and that um, but as I recently was on a study mission um uh in Europe, and one of the things that they're doing in the Netherlands is that they're using drones for code enforcement, and uh it's a really um an innovative way of one saving cost, not just for us as the city, um being able to be more efficient, right?

You know, if you can send out a drone to a hundred different locations in one day versus someone being able to drive to only so many locations, plus you're not congesting the the roadways with vehicles and all kinds of other things.

So they they found that to be a great benefit for them.

And it's also a cost saving.

So when we think about, you know, when we have any kind of program we're assessing a fine or a fee, that's usually a tie to what the cost of what we're paying to produce that program.

So if we're paying less overall to to produce that, then we then hopefully the goal is that we're charging less.

Um and so I just wanted to get your thoughts on is this something we're considering um and is it something we could do?

Yes, so the first thing we did is we implemented a um app to assist our officers with um doing the fire readabatement inspection so prior um to 2021 of the 4,000 lots, they would look at approximately one quarter of them.

Now we're looking at 100% of them in the three month period for the drones.

Yes, we've looked at that for our vacant lots also, and and for a couple of other programs we're doing, and not only for efficiency, but for officer safety.

Um so it is a key aspect.

Big part of it is we're in the middle of implementing a new case uh code case management system.

So basically our computer system where all the status gonna go, and that's one of the reasons we've said let's start the registration if we're going to change our registration period or to reorganize it for 2027 of January, because that would fall in time with the next nine months that we're implementing and we're actually developing which we hope will be the number one code enforcement case management system and um in our state, and uh also provide things for like uh customer facing um applications so people can register online, they can see cases online and things like that.

So, yeah, the AI is also definitely something we've looked at um programs to where we can put cameras on our actual code vehicles so that they're responding to another complaint, the technology would identify violations or actually complete complete other inspections for them.

Um but it's once again is this has to all fall in place with our with the new case management system because our current system wouldn't be able to house this data.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, with that, um I'll have more comments and questions later, but I will pass it on over to Councilmember Pluckybom.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh it seems to me we're trying to um solve a bunch of uh sort of overlapping related problems.

So let me see if I can tease them out a little bit and find some common ground with you.

Um, first of all, blight, right?

So there's real blight, perceived blight.

Everyone recognizes um, you know, we've had some troubled properties throughout the city um that have you know been historically vandalized and and abused.

Um we we have a process for addressing that through uh code enforcement, but um sometimes um property owners have had those properties for a long time, um, you know, have a low tax basis aren't necessarily um incentivized to move on them uh consistent with you know our expectations and timeline.

Uh another uh sort of uh inverse related um uh goal, I think would be just uh economic activity, um, you know, return on investment for our public investment and public infrastructure and utilities and just vibrancy in communities, right?

Um vacant parcels um when they're not uh our uh gardener left, when they're not you know given to the purpose of uh public gardens tend to be uh dead spaces that are um just kind of a bummer if nothing else.

And so I I recognize that goal.

And then the I think the third um at least the third uh goal would be uh just unlocking opportunities for housing.

We just had a presentation I need to use.

We know we were um desperately undersupplied for housing, so uh looking for opportunities to unlock housing.

Um vacant parcel tax, I I think uh incentives could work.

I think there's um programs out there like what Truckee's doing with the rooted renters program, um other jurisdictions are providing uh either um fee cost uh deferral programs and or uh straight up cash incentives for folks to bring properties into productive use consistent with the goals of that jurisdiction.

I think the um the tax model we've heard loud and clear from our partners and all of the communities that we cited, uh, you know, Oakland, San Francisco, and so on, that have uh deployed these um vacant parcel tax programs have suppressed investment in such a way that um it becomes problematic.

And sometimes the folks that live in those uh D District and other um rent controlled properties and properties that are subject to those uh vacant parcel taxes uh don't always get the benefit of the kinds of investment we're actually trying to attract to Sacramento.

Another strategy that I think sorry, another strategy that I think we could uh deploy would be uh a housing fund.

If we're looking to raise funds for housing rather than taxing vacant parcels, let's tax all parcels.

Everyone needs to pay into a housing fund equitably.

It's the only way that we can actually, I know this is off agenda, so I'm gonna get off my soapbox shortly, I promise.

But that I think is uh an opportunity for us to actually raise a meaningful housing fund so that we can do the kinds of things that we want to do, like we talked about earlier with the ADU program to have a revolving loan fund to do the kinds of investments that we're looking to do.

Uh and then third, we heard uh today about um you know pop-up activations.

Um, if there are things that we can do for um for uh projects like John mentioned for things like outside bites, this the stuff that worlds of worlds force expo is doing.

There are some creative innovative uses that are happening out there.

If there are ways, you're not gonna hear me say this often, but if we can learn from uh San Francisco on this, um there may be an opportunity for us to um you know to steal something that is working there.

Um, and then finally uh enforcement.

Um, you know, we uh uh a lot of this unenforced essentially uh doesn't need to exist.

So the um, you know, if we can't act adequately fund this department and and um give Peter the resources that he's asking for, uh, we should be real candid with our constituents about you know what their expectations should be in terms of you know um our standard as a community.

So anything that we can do with drones, with automation, um, but obviously we're gonna need to provide um staffing as well.

And I know that that's a challenge in all of our enforcement offices.

So uh again, just to summarize, you know, I think uh, you know, there are opportunities for us to provide incentives to unlock some of these stuck vacant parcels.

Uh I don't think taxes will yield the the outcome we're trying to achieve.

Um, and and I think we need to adequately fund uh our our enforcement uh capacity so that we can uh provide, especially in parts of the city that are um uh historically blighted and and and not invested in in the in the same way as uh some of the um wealthier parts of the city thank you all right thank you very much council dickinson thank you chair um uh peter I I had a question for you and uh if you spoke to this uh already I apologize I I missed it but you you showed the chart that if we if we uh engaged in enforcement at a level that you described the cost of the cost of that translated into fees would would be uh one might might say dramatically higher than the other jurisdictions you showed and um I'm curious about what their level of enforcement is whether it's substantially less than than what you showed would would be ours or uh is there comparability can you delve into that just a bit.

Sure what I showed was uh if we went with a model that enforced and monitored every property so or actually required a registration and monitoring of every parcel that was vacant every building that was vacant every storefront that was vacant on an annual basis monthly that it would we would have to charge a monthly fee um I'm sorry an annual fee of over seven thousand dollars per parcel right um other jurisdictions when we look at theirs theirs is a registration uh model and their enforcement at fees and such are significantly higher than ours um some cities are not um enforcing or using that much that I'll give you an example um San Jose um is charging twenty five hundred and thirty six dollars a year and that's a monthly monitoring and registration of of uh properties within a certain district but they have one employee doing this so it's kind of questionable of um could we follow that model we we don't want to tar um identify just one small area we want to do something that identifies the real nuisance and blight um other cities are charging such as um San Francisco charges a complaint so if they go to a non-registered property and they have a complaint there and that person's failed to register they issue a $7,400 investigative fee.

So it takes the time to find the owners do all this processing so that those are penalties that we don't currently charge.

So if you looked at our model of our our current we are already currently close to what other cities are charging.

So if if you just follow our current model if we had staffing to monitor a property that's in violation or nuisance so once it's been declared a nuisance for two years we're supposed to monitor that monthly that would cost over four thousand dollars over that over per year for us to monitor that property monthly that falls in line with the other cities it's just we do not have current staffing to do that.

So our alternatives is what don't we do?

Do we stop doing something else to redirect um our current staffing or forces the council or or the committee's decision is like you know you know let's not let's not look at these types of uh complaints anymore and let's refocus our staffing then then we can monitor those properties but that that is the issue that um how do we how do we redirect forces how do we cost our our give cost recovery for our what we need to get done but yeah that 7,000 you were looking at that's the ultimate um if the choice of the city was to let's monitor register every single property monitor every month that's where we look at 25 new employees coming on 15 million dollars to monitor every property annually okay so so uh that was the as you just said the the uh the ultimate level uh uh of activity uh by the by the city to monitor the the properties and engage in whatever enforcement activity might be right uh generated from that correct okay so so whether it's technology or it's other or a lower level of monitoring it's it's quarterly or something you that then you start backing off that that number yes then we when we bring it forward we'll bring models of different four you know so do we only deal with nuisance properties and monitor those do we include um at what point will we issue a penalty or our hearing fees or do we you know what would happen if we uh instead of billing monthly for a monitoring fee we're gonna be doing it for two years why not bill it annually yeah um those will all be cost savings to the department where we need less staffing do we look at using technology to do some of these inspections or some of these registrations we'll bring forward with all models we possibly can to be least intrusive to both the property owners and to our city budget.

Okay th thanks for that I want to say the a couple things in addition it struck me look going through the material and that's it's at some point although it's cost recovery for the the monitoring it almost becomes the equivalent of of which you would get if you imposed a tax I mean I don't know the exact math of that but uh it the um I think the reality is that the consideration of vacancy taxes is is born of frustration uh felt by many in the community uh as well as uh those of us who who represent them that uh these properties sit uh vacant for years and years and years and nothing happens and they become blighted they become uh where trash and litter and debris uh collects they become locations where fires get started that uh they are um uh perhaps not in the legal sense a nuisance but um but uh in a practical sense um uh they are it it is it is a frustration and so uh there's given that frustration a natural desire to try to figure out what will work to to get people to uh take uh some positive action with respect to the use of the uh of the property that's that's vacant I um uh I certainly understand the the testimony as as well that uh uh using a uh uh a stick as opposed to to a carrot has its has its consequences um and if we uh if we have effective carrots we should use those to absolutely and we should try to um uh develop uh a menu of what we think would be a uh effective carrots um that still leaves still ultimately I think leaves the question of of whether for those who are the most recalcitrant without uh justification there the there uh needs to be uh a stick too uh and I uh as we debate this and consider it uh I don't have a conclusion about uh about that um uh I do think there uh are a couple things that that make sense I think that um first of all um uh rural areas or semi-rural areas do have some different characteristics than the more suburban or urbanized areas and so that's that's a slice that needs to be uh uh called out and uh and examined um that uh uh uh using a stakeholder approach as the chair suggested I I think certainly makes sense regardless of of whether there's ultimately um uh some sort of measure that goes on the on a ballot or or not we should engage those in the community with with uh uh various views contrasting views um uh and uh have that that kind of uh discussion um we um need to uh ultimately keep our our eye on the prize I think and that and and that is uh how do we get constructive use of of these properties the chart you showed um actually came as as no surprise to me with respect to the number of vacant lots in district two um they they are they are everywhere you turn uh and they have been vacant for for a long, long time so uh I have no question in my mind about about sentiment uh in the district I represent with respect to to the desire to see some productive use of those properties uh and um the the level of uh anger that uh and if that goes beyond frustration with the fact that no matter what seems to be done, those properties sit vacant for again for for years and years.

But I think this is a this is a good update.

One of the speakers asked what has what has really changed between the time the last polling was done and when the next polling might be done.

And I'm and I'm I I don't know that it ought to come, it might come back before uh we authorize additional uh polling to be done.

Um but um that's the question that that's exactly why you go out and ask the ask um the public uh through these techniques.

Maybe nothing's changed, but maybe a lot has changed.

So um I I'm I'm not uh uh certainly in a position to to uh uh ordain or let alone uh guess what what's public sentiment might might be on this subject.

But I think it's premature to authorize additional polling, not expenditure at this point, but I I also don't think it it's not something we should necessarily foreclose.

Okay, thank you, Councilmember.

Um and uh I see Councilmember Jennings um up here.

I if it's okay after you're done uh speaking, I think I'll be able to maybe coalesce what I've heard here today into a motion.

Um that's okay with Councilmember Jennings.

Thank you.

Um I'm probably very close to where Councilmember Dickinson is right now with his last comments.

Um I don't think we need to do additional polling.

I feel like we have enough information to know what we know.

Um I'm also looking at the opportunity to separate um the monitoring and the enforcement.

Uh I think we first need to get a good look at what's happening with the properties and just look at what we can do to do the upkeep and focus on upkeep first before we talk about um the carrot and stick.

But I think getting involved with the the owners of the properties and making them accountable for keeping the properties up is something I'm most interested in because um before I can ask you for your money, I need to know if, in fact, um you have the ability to keep your property up, and if not, then there could be some other options at that point in time before I do enforcement, knowing that you don't have the money to be able to take care of the property that you have.

So I I just want to I'm I'm very much in favor of really focusing on keeping our properties up and holding people accountable for maintaining uh what the property looks like so that other people don't have to suffer as a result of having a business or having a home next to our property that's not being maintained.

So I'm I'm very much interested in anything that we can do, but I'm also interested in having my colleagues here with me, the rest of them, to hear what they have to say about this.

And so I think we should bring this before the entire council in order to have a more lively conversation.

We'll hear more from the public at that point in time.

Now that you've heard some of our views, and we can then move forward with what the action should be.

Um but I'm not in favor at this point in time of additional taxation.

Thank you, Councilmember Jennings.

Um, and I'll have just a couple quick comments.

I am keenly aware that we have a 2 p.m.

meeting in a very, very full day.

So um I I don't want to prolong it, but I do have a couple comments and questions.

One thing I I want to start out by saying is I wish that this item would have been two.

Cause I think we're even though we're talking about, you know, vacant properties, vacant lots, I really think we're talking about two different things.

You know, one being a tax, the possibility of a tax, and then the other being what do we do about our current enforcement and monitoring efforts.

And so in my mind, I'm kind of bifurcating these, and I'm I'm hearing that from my colleagues as well.

So that might that'll be part of the motion.

But one, I think there's value in us focusing on on enforcement first, because we know we're not talking about a huge universe of people, we're not talking about a huge universe of properties.

We know it's finite, we know what it is, and I um, you know, I think that we always should be data driven in what we do.

And so some of the questions I have around or what do we know about this universe?

Um, so you know, some people spoke spoke around this, but you know, like how many of these uh vacant lots, for example, and I want to focus on vacant lots because I also think when I think of storefronts and and and buildings that's um different in my mind too, and should have maybe a different approach.

Um, so focused on lots.

Uh do we know how many of the lots, for example, are individuals that maybe you know live in and around the city limits and we can interact with and are maybe trying to do something with them versus how many are held and you know, you know, in an account because it's from a bigger company and they're using it as a loss on their books or something like that.

I um do we have a sense of that?

Do we gather any data to that effect?

It would be pretty simple to pull.

We we provide it to council every year, it shows the vacant lot, every vacant lot because um we bring it forward as a possible uh nuisance, and it shows the property owner and such on that report.

So we can just pull it from that.

And those property owners, um, as I look through those reports, tend to be like LLCs too.

So I don't know, you know, I know that we also require them to have a a point of contact for you guys, is that correct?

Right, and that's because the largest number of them, as you look in D1, they have a large number and it shows like an LLC, such because it's in the middle of development.

So it might have been one large parcel of several acres, and now it's several hundred small parcels.

Um, that's why you'll see them as LLCs and such until they get developed and then they start transferring into individuals' name as they get constructed and sold.

Makes sense, right?

Yeah, and I I actually would have to admit I was really surprised to learn that the biggest number of vacant parcels as we define them are in district one, right?

We think of district one as being you know a pretty developed community in North the Thomas area, and so I was um I think it goes to show a point that was made by some of the folks up here that um when we we call it vacant parcels or lots or properties, but we're really talking about a collection of different things, right?

You have people who you know might be in a rural community and that's where their horses live in their barn, and you might have people who um have a garden on their lot um versus someone who's planning on building several homes and is owned by a bigger conglomerate versus some of the things that I think I'm personally interested in.

I heard Councilmember Dickinson say this in Plucky Baum, where we you know, I think what we're actually trying to carve out here is who are the problem property owners that have a lot, you know, in the in the central city or in the core that's either in a residential area or in the urban area, um, that is a problem that we see has blight, has trash, um isn't being used for some other kind of use.

And so I guess my question to you I don't expect you to know this answer offhand, but how do we wrap our minds around what that is?

Because I think that's the X that I'm trying to solve for personally, is how do we address that specific finite percentage or group of people or uh owners and try to help them do something versus trying to maybe lay on top um a one-size fits all solution?

So in the current ordinance, we have the list of exemptions, so those properties that are not required to pay the registration fee, which will cover your your urban gardens, your rural space, properties that have been recently um annexed or divided, properties that are adjacent to the primary residential property with the same property ownership, and most of those you get then you can't tell where does the property end.

So those those are current exemptions.

The only thing we ask to be carve out of that, that part of the exemptions are those properties who qualify for this this exemption and then choose not to maintain their property.

Um but otherwise, we would leave the exemptions in place that protects those types of um properties from the monthly monitoring from the from these fees.

And so these are you know, as you get up and do um D1, that would exempt the majority of those properties because they're recently subdivided for for use, or you know, somebody that's in the building um uh permit process.

So they don't leave the program until they have a um permitted and approved and final inspection property, um, but they don't pay the registration fee, or it wouldn't be the monitoring fee, those ones.

So we have the safeguards in place for those, and then if council chose to look at additional types of exemptions that they would um that they would choose to that you know they think they think that would uh influence their constituents, then we could look at and consider that, and we would give you the pros and cons about it.

Yeah, okay, great.

Um, and that's specific obviously to the enforcement monitoring piece, but not for a potential for a vacancy tax, right?

So under the vacancy tax piece, how do we differentiate or would we?

Yeah, I think that we could look at um different models of application.

Um obviously the city and county of San Francisco is really focused on storefronts.

Um Oakland is um uh you know all vacant properties and um whether those are developed or undeveloped, and so you know, we there are many different ways that it could be applied.

It could be um, you know, just on vacant commercial and non-residential, it could be um entirely vacant parcels.

Uh I think that we need to legally stay away from um you know tying the the tax to the value of the property right because of Prop 13, and so that's where things kind of get tricky, but I think it would be interesting to kind of talk with our attorneys and see what we could do around, you know, could we use zones or you know, areas of the city of um, you know, where we're really trying to encourage development or centers and corridors, you know, that hasn't really been explored, and um I'm not sure what you know what legal implications that might have.

I think that that's not something I'm an expert in, but as a planner, I you know, and as you're mentioning this, um this, you know, where are what are what are the problems are what is the problem we're trying to solve for?

Um, I think there are a lot of different types of property.

We also have um some research um that um we've have kind of boiling in the background um on our neighborhood development action team that's doing a little bit of research on vacant property.

So we could also use that to inform um better development and outreach as well.

Great.

Okay.

Well, thank you so much for the answers to the questions, and I think um your answers have only reassured me that um I think going slower and um working with our stakeholders is more important than ever.

I know we've heard this a lot in these chambers, you know, work at the speed of trust.

Um, you know, when I heard 2026, I was like, oh, that feels really fast.

Um, and so I'm sure other people felt that way too.

And so rather than working backwards from a day, I think what we should do is one, um, and this will be my my motion, I'll make a motion, that we move forward uh with a stakeholder discussion with um with the obviously the property owners that would be impacted by any potential tax measure or enforcement changes that we have and really sit down and hear from them what makes sense and also their own ideas.

I've always been really surprised in a pleasant way at the ideas that come forth from the community because I think that also they experience some of their own frustrations, whether it be the PBIDs and others where they have you know vacant lots in there.

So I'd love to see um a robust stakeholder process that really also that takes the 2023 poll results and shares it with them in detail and then and has a discussion on that front.

Um I also think before we bring something back to the council that we look at um not taking vacancy tax completely off the table because I I think that I heard that that there still might be some interest in that potentially that we assess how those programs have worked in the places that they exist, um, because I've heard today that they exist in places, but I didn't really hear necessarily the efficacy of those programs and how those jurisdictions are viewing it.

Um, and so that would be my preference um uh motion to move forward with the stakeholder engagement process, reviewing the 2023 poll results, um, and then um looking at our uh how other jurisdictions are doing it and then taking that information back to the full council for a discussion um about what to do next.

Councilor Pluggy Mom and then Dickinson.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Chair.

Um so uh two thoughts.

One um there is uh another two or three items on the recommendation that I think are worth if you want to make a separate motion.

No, you can clear it.

Um, I don't want to do a substitute, I think we just take them um procedurally actually don't know how this um anyhow uh I do want to at some point uh uh receive the other uh reports and um uh pass a motion directing staff to um uh uh prepare an ordinance for an enhanced lot and vacant uh building monitoring and enforcement program, the the enforcement part of the the conversation on the um the ballot measure vacant parcel tax portion of the conversation.

I don't think anything has changed that greatly in the last 18 months that has increased uh public sentiment around government, unfortunately.

Um the likelihood that we'll get a better outcome seems very low.

Uh and the and the outcome from the poll we already paid for, which was not cheap.

Um, yeah, it was pretty conclusive.

So, you know, I'm hesitant to support spending any more staff time, resources, or uh public funds on an effort that I just don't see going anywhere.

If we want to ask staff to look at a housing fund, a citywide parcel tax, indiscriminate about whether the parcel is vacant or not.

I'm interested.

Uh, if we want to talk about an incentive program, um I'm interested.

But uh uh disincentive program, a tax program.

Uh I think is um that I mean the poll shows us it's it's it's kind of loose.

Okay, so how about this?

Let's put let's let's start by splitting off that piece.

Do you want to make that motion for the enforcement?

Happy to uh I would move we move sections uh one, three, and four of the recommendation to receive the reports and pass a motion directing staff to prepare an ordinance for the uh enforcement program.

Okay, is there a second on that?

Second.

We have a second.

Um all those in favor, please say aye.

Aye, any opposed or abstain?

I'm staying.

Abstain.

Okay.

So we have three and abstain.

And so the on the vacancy tax issue.

Um I I I do hear you on on the concerns, but I also want to be really clear that I've heard from our some of our colleagues that are on the full council that this is a discussion that they would like to have for their own districts, and I don't um so I don't personally support um them not being able to have that discussion.

I think that we should at least move that forward, but with the clear direction that the uh from this council that we have some concerns about how it's structured.

We're not sure if it makes sense that it comes back in 2026 or not, um, and then we want to see really robust stakeholder engagement um as of with the with the poll results that have that and I'm not necessarily in support of doing another poll yet either.

I think that's something I want to hear from my colleagues on the full council.

That's my personal opinion.

So Councilmember Dickinson.

Thanks.

Okay, so I was gonna in lieu of the motion that we just adopted, try to attack what you've been taught and talking about and um it uh it does seem that uh a motion direct directing staff to convene a uh a stakeholder task force to um uh review both issues related to a vacancy tax and uh to identify potentially uh incentives for for development um as well as other um uh appropriate uh uh items uh and to return.

I I would propose return to this committee before we send it on to the uh to the full council uh in a reasonable time uh for consideration uh about further steps and and take that just take that as an interim step.

So if that you had a motion earlier, so I'm not quite sure where I'll take that off the table.

I think that makes a lot of sense for me too, because I think there's still a lot of questions in the air about um, well, one, we'll want to hear from the stakeholder engagement piece um before the and so I think coming back to this committee makes sense before we move anything forward.

I just really wanna be clear then because I've heard it from my other colleagues that this is a discussion that they would eventually like to have in a public setting.

And but I think that that's the purpose of this committee is to make sure that we get all the details in place and um have this more robust discussion.

So I'm happy to support your motion.

Okay.

I can support that as well.

Okay.

Well, we'll get a second from Council Member Jennings.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed or abstain?

Uh no.

Okay.

Three-one, that passes.

Thank you very much.

We really appreciate it.

Hopefully that's clear as mud to you.

Okay.

I know that again we have a 2 p.m.

meeting coming up.

Um and so do we have any comments, questions, ideas?

Councilmember Dickinson.

Is your name just up?

Your name is just up.

Okay, I'm seeing that.

Do you have any public comments for matters not on the agenda?

I have one speaker, Henry Harry.

He's in the back.

There he comes.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Members for thank you member for a thick uh amount of material.

So my comments now have to do with free speech.

And when we uh come to the podium and we want to address something or the behavior of a particular council person, where I am constant, not me personally, but the public is constantly being told that you cannot direct your comments to a particular member, and I understand that that's your rule.

But um the more I see it, the more I question the validity of that rule.

Now, on one hand, you know, I don't think I should be able to come up here and just bad mouth anybody.

And yet on the other hand, suppose there's councilman, uh council person X, who you know came to a community meeting, promised us uh that they wouldn't engage in you know a certain vote or engage with a certain activity.

Three days later, some big wig flies into town, and that council person changes their tone and absolutely stabs us in the back and and takes a vote and takes actions different than what they promised us.

Are you telling me that I can't come here and say, Councilmember Smith, you told us this the other night, but you did something the opposite, and it feels like you sold us out for a vote or some money.

I can't tell that person that, and that's what you guys are telling us.

I can't look at my council member who has uh, you know, in my opinion, done some behavior, maybe several people's opinion, and I can't call them out by name.

I can't call their personal behavior out.

And I'm saying to you, I think that's wrong.

I know you guys have made a rule, but just because you made a rule doesn't make it valid.

And you have some city attorneys over here, and maybe, you know.

Okay, with that we are adjourned at 1 26 p.m.