Meeting colors

OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD

Record of Proceedings

Stockton City Council and Concurrent Authorities Meeting Summary – October 27, 2026

City Council — Tuesday, October 27, 2026

BodyStockton, California

SessionCity Council

DateTuesday, October 27, 2026

StatusNEW · FILED

Video Record

0:00 / 5:53:43

Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

Speaker numbers apply only to this recording. Names come from transcript evidence. “Possibly” marks uncertain attribution.

Speaker 1

0:00

Fit within administrative authority.

0:02

Second, this change order funds upfitting for about 32 new vehicles budgeted this year.

0:08

Is a change order on a 2023 contract the right tool for recurring annual work?

0:13

Or should it be competitively competitively rebid?

0:16

And when does this contract expire as well?

0:19

And third, uh the state controllers' audit of our city's internal control covers July 2023 through December of 2025 during the life of this contract.

0:29

Before approving more, can staff confirm whether that contract was part of the controller's review.

0:34

None of this is assuming wrongdoing.

0:37

I want to be clear, but a contract that has grown about three times, two and a half times, uh passed its approved amount about three years ago deserves at least a public explanation.

0:49

Thank you for pulling item 6.1, and I'm hoping that staff who maybe can answer some of these questions before we do a roll call vote.

0:57

Thank

Unassigned speaker

0:57

you.

Speaker 2

0:59

Frank Farrell, followed by Yolanda Amen.

Speaker 3

1:04

Thank you, Mayor.

1:05

Members of City Council, I would like to raise a concern regarding a proposed uh expenditure, more than three uh point two eight million for police vehicles, motorcycles, and vehicles uplifting, all involving vendors located outside of Stockton.

1:21

We want to we want to shop locals and take care of our local um economy.

1:26

As chief policy officer with the Greater Stock Chamber of Commerce, I strongly support providing our police officers with vehicles and equipment they need to protect our community, however, I also believe we have a responsibility to support the businesses that employ our residents, could contribute to our tax-based and invest in Stockton.

1:48

My question is simple.

1:50

Before we send more than 3.28 million dollars outside of Stockton, have we determined whether qualified local businesses can provide these vehicles and services at a competitive price?

2:02

Additionally, has the city calculated how much uh local sales tax revenue Stockton will receive from these transactions versus what may be allocated to other jurisdictions.

2:14

I mean, Folsom, City of Folsom is probably saying bank, this is great.

2:18

So I'm just saying uh I respectfully ask the council to obtain a clear accounting of the sales tax implications, local vendor opportunities, and actual cost savings before approving these expenditures.

2:33

I know our local uh four dealer who can provide these uh told me today uh they didn't even know about the this going out because it's it went to a uh a levered purchasing agreement uh with the state, which I know are good, but we want to give our local businesses the opportunity to bid on our local uh jobs.

2:56

Thank

Unassigned speaker

2:57

you.

Speaker 2

3:00

Yolanda, amen.

Speaker 4

3:13

I have a concern about this contract.

3:16

Um, as David said back in 2023,

Unassigned speaker

3:19

um

Speaker 4

3:19

there was 2.16 million allotted for this.

3:23

Um we're looking at a total of what 7.6 million.

3:27

That's an increase of what 5.47 million.

3:31

And I think you owe it to the residents to explain why.

3:34

I'm not questioning the need to equip our police vehicles.

3:38

I'm asking for transparency and accountability when spending our tax paying dollars.

3:43

Before approving this extra amount, I'd like to understand what the previous four charge orders covered.

3:50

What was the additional money, what the additional money paid for, and why the original contract has grown so much?

3:56

I only ask because we're constantly being told that we're short officers, we need to increase salaries for recruitment, and there just aren't enough funds for substations, obviously.

4:07

We all want our police officers to have what they need to protect our community.

4:11

We have neighborhoods in need and other city services that depend on responsible budgeting.

4:17

If your responsibility to ensure public money is spent wisely, asking questions doesn't mean I'm against public safety, it means this is our money, and even in my household between me and my husband, we discuss anything before we make some crazy large expenditures.

4:34

We deserve a clear baked breakdown of these costs and an explanation of what safeguards are in place to help prevent such large contracts increases in the future.

4:43

And since some of you talk about supporting local, why aren't these being purchased local?

4:51

Our local businesses are hurting.

4:53

I'm sure they have cars.

4:54

If they don't have what you need, I'm sure that they can find and order them.

4:58

Let's support local businesses.

5:01

Thank you.

Speaker 2

5:05

That concludes our speakers, Mayor.

5:07

Yes, Penny,

Speaker 5

5:07

can you um come back up to the podium, please?

5:13

So I read one of the dates March seventh, twenty twenty three.

5:28

Those bids are sealed.

Speaker 6

5:30

Yes.

Speaker 5

5:30

And they have to be submitted by a certain time.

5:34

And once those bids are received, who opens them?

Speaker 6

5:38

City clerk's office.

Speaker 5

5:39

Okay, and who reviews them?

Unassigned speaker

5:41

The

Speaker 6

5:42

City Clerk staff along with assigned public work staff.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting

Procedural██████████████████18%

Public Safety███████████████15%

Public Comment███████████11%

Public Engagement█████████9%

Community Engagement███████7%

Audit Committee███████7%

Disability Rights█████5%

Affordable Housing█████5%

Procurement Process█████5%

Summary of Proceedings

Stockton City Council and Concurrent Authorities Meeting – October 27, 2026

The Stockton City Council met in regular session on October 27, 2026, beginning at 1:01 PM. All seven council members were present: Mario Enríquez, Mariela Ponce, Michele Padilla, Brando Villapudua, Michael Blower, Christina Fugazi, and Jason Lee. The meeting included a consent calendar, a public hearing, several policy adoptions, budget and audit items, a city manager’s update, council comments, and a closed session. The council recessed to closed session at 6:43 PM and reported no reportable action.

Note: The transcript includes an extended discussion about a police vehicle/upfitting contract and a request to pull "item 6.1" that does not correspond to the posted agenda item 26-0953 (RD 2042 flood report). The posted agenda does not list a police vehicle contract; this discrepancy is noted as transcribed.

Consent Calendar

Approved 7-0 the 2026 Annual Progress Report confirming the 200-year urban flood protection finding for Reclamation District 2042.
Approved 7-0 a reimbursement agreement with Eight Mile Development, Inc. for $948,632 for parkland dedication and construction of a community park in Westlake Villages.
Approved 7-0 a $70,257 amendment with Brown and Caldwell (total $268,304) for the Pressure-Based Digester Gas Control System at the Regional Wastewater Control Facility Cogeneration Plant, extending the term to December 31, 2027.
Approved 7-0 a $370,000 amendment with Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. for citywide hazardous waste management services, extending the contract to November 30, 2028.

Pulled Consent Items

6.3 (Land Donation for Stockton Police Department): Approved 7-0. The council accepted a donation of approximately 2.01 acres at 7306 Shoreline Drive from Verona Office Plaza, LLC, deed-restricted for police use. Police Captain Brad Burrell said the site would support Mount Patrol training, community engagement, and North Stockton access. A public commenter said the use looked like a police substation and asked for transparency; staff clarified escrow/closing dates (December 1 and December 31).
6.6 (Civil Service Commission Compensation): Pulled by Councilmember Lee; not approved. The proposal was to raise compensation from $25 to $150 per meeting. Councilmembers questioned the 500% increase, lack of a cap, and inconsistency with other commissions. Staff cited other cities’ practices. The council voted 7-0 to send the item back to staff for a comprehensive review of commission/committee compensation, caps, and comparable cities.

Public Comments & Testimony

Frank Farrell, chief policy officer for the Greater Stockton Chamber of Commerce, supported police equipment but urged the city to consider local vendors and sales-tax impacts before spending more than $3.28 million outside Stockton.
Yolanda Amen asked for transparency on a police vehicle contract that grew from $2.16 million to $7.6 million; she said she was not against public safety but wanted a breakdown and safeguards.
Leslie Heron praised recent public safety statistics, including a 47% decrease in homelessness (2024–2026), a 66% decrease in homicides, and a 33% decrease in non-fatal crimes.
Several speakers, including Pat B and Alyssa Leba, criticized council conduct, racial silencing, and district representation; Pat B defended Councilmember Lee and accused the Mayor of racially motivated remarks.
Yolanda Amen (Stockton Stands) asked about ICE collaboration with other police departments and invited residents to know-your-rights events.
Cynthia Gale Boyd gave the Mayor an "F" report card, praised Jason Lee’s youth center and community work, and said Southside residents feel ignored.
Aaron Moravian, a Manteca resident who tracks public agencies, said he studied item 10.6 and asked about audit follow-through, police technology spending, and public records auditing.
Veterans and community members invited the council to Veterans Day and feed-the-veterans events.

Public Hearing

9.1 (Storm Drainage Assessment District – Tra Vigne West Zone 16): The council opened and closed the public hearing with no public testimony. Staff explained that the new Zone 16 would maintain stormwater improvements, including a stormwater separator, pump station, outfall to Bear Creek, detention basin, fencing, and access road, with a maximum annual assessment of $70,659.60 and a 3% annual adjustment. The council voted 7-0 to approve the annexation, overrule protests, and confirm the Engineer’s Report. (Staff’s oral presentation at one point referred to "Zone 17," while the agenda and materials specify Zone 16.)

Discussion Items

10.1 HUD CAPER FY 2025-26 (Informational): Staff reported on CDBG, ESG, and HOME spending. Accomplishments included 50 units at Park Center, 5 DCDC units, 31 units at Edison House, 4 home rehabs, 442 people assisted in homeless services, and 120/40 persons served in overnight shelters. Staff said another 329 affordable units are in the pipeline (Fairview Terrace, La Pasagiata, Hunter House, BRICS). Councilmember Lee requested a comprehensive project-status matrix; staff agreed to provide it.
10.2 ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan: Approved 7-0. The MIG consultant said the plan evaluated 37 buildings, 69 parks, 22 parking facilities, and portions of the public right-of-way, with a 15-year barrier-removal timeline. Public commenters asked for continued involvement of people with disabilities and raised concerns about unsafe crossings, sidewalk parking, and timelines. Councilmember Lee asked about translation services; staff said additional language/translation equipment would be available at the next meeting.
10.3 2026 Transportation Master Plan: Approved 7-0. The plan identifies 65 projects totaling approximately $2.4 billion; 39 projects (about $1.5 billion) are considered feasible by 2040, with about $546 million attributable to new development through a future traffic impact fee. Councilmember Lee asked how county and regional fees flow to the city.
10.4 CFD 2026-1 (Tra Vigne West): Approved 7-0 two resolutions of intention to form a Community Facilities District and to incur up to $100 million in bonded indebtedness. The project includes about 200 acres and 756 residential units (335 in the first improvement area and 421 in a future annexation area). The special tax for the smallest homes starts at $3,073 per year and increases 2% annually until FY 2068-69. A public hearing was set for December 8, 2026, at 1:00 PM.
10.5 FY 2025-26 Budget Carryforward: The council considered authorizing $10,546,981 in carryforward appropriations. Councilmember Lee moved to earmark $1 million for police substation planning and send the item back to staff. The motion carried 7-0, and the Mayor later announced she was reversing her vote from yes to no. The final recorded vote in the agenda is 6-1, with Mayor Fugazi dissenting.
10.6 FY 2027 Internal Audit Plan: Approved 7-0. UHY presented a plan covering five audits: procurement, HR/payroll, grants management, Measure A, and municipal utilities, with completion targeted by June 30, 2027. Councilmember Lee stressed that the Measure A audit must trace all Measure A money, including the City Hall project cost growth. Public commenter Aaron Moradian asked why police technology spending was not audited this year; UHY said prior-year findings would be tracked starting in year two.

City Manager’s Update & Council Comments

The city manager’s office reported Fire Prevention Month and Cybersecurity Awareness Month activities; the Stockton Thunder home opener drew more than 5,700 fans and resulted in a 3-1 win; three data-center listening sessions were announced (November 5, November 9, and December 2); and the new pickleball courts at Fritz Grupe Park opened with 10 permanent courts.
Councilmembers gave district updates, including the "I Am Ready" Youth Center groundbreaking, Halloween safety, neighborhood watch events, graffiti/pothole fixes, and the Safe Grounds project.
Councilmember Enriquez reported multiple ICE enforcement incidents in Stockton and said the city is developing a comprehensive immigration response plan.
Mayor Fugazi noted 28 traffic fatalities this year, urged drivers to slow down, and recognized the UOP pharmacy program’s 20-year outreach milestone.
The council held a moment of silence for community leader Mel Coran.

Key Outcomes

Approved consent items 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, and 6.5 (7-0).
Approved land donation item 6.3 (7-0).
Sent item 6.6 (Civil Service Commission compensation) back to staff (7-0).
Approved Zone 16 storm drainage annexation (7-0).
Adopted the ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan (7-0).
Adopted the 2026 Transportation Master Plan (7-0).
Approved CFD 2026-1 resolutions of intention, including $100 million bond authorization (7-0).
Approved the FY 2025-26 carryforward with a $1 million substation planning directive; final recorded vote 6-1 after Mayor Fugazi reversed her vote.
Approved the FY 2027 Internal Audit Plan (7-0).
Closed session: no reportable action.

Meeting Transcript

Fit within administrative authority. Second, this change order funds upfitting for about 32 new vehicles budgeted this year. Is a change order on a 2023 contract the right tool for recurring annual work? Or should it be competitively competitively rebid? And when does this contract expire as well? And third, uh the state controllers' audit of our city's internal control covers July 2023 through December of 2025 during the life of this contract. Before approving more, can staff confirm whether that contract was part of the controller's review. None of this is assuming wrongdoing. I want to be clear, but a contract that has grown about three times, two and a half times, uh passed its approved amount about three years ago deserves at least a public explanation. Thank you for pulling item 6.1, and I'm hoping that staff who maybe can answer some of these questions before we do a roll call vote. Thank you. Frank Farrell, followed by Yolanda Amen. Thank you, Mayor. Members of City Council, I would like to raise a concern regarding a proposed uh expenditure, more than three uh point two eight million for police vehicles, motorcycles, and vehicles uplifting, all involving vendors located outside of Stockton. We want to we want to shop locals and take care of our local um economy. As chief policy officer with the Greater Stock Chamber of Commerce, I strongly support providing our police officers with vehicles and equipment they need to protect our community, however, I also believe we have a responsibility to support the businesses that employ our residents, could contribute to our tax-based and invest in Stockton. My question is simple. Before we send more than 3.28 million dollars outside of Stockton, have we determined whether qualified local businesses can provide these vehicles and services at a competitive price? Additionally, has the city calculated how much uh local sales tax revenue Stockton will receive from these transactions versus what may be allocated to other jurisdictions. I mean, Folsom, City of Folsom is probably saying bank, this is great. So I'm just saying uh I respectfully ask the council to obtain a clear accounting of the sales tax implications, local vendor opportunities, and actual cost savings before approving these expenditures. I know our local uh four dealer who can provide these uh told me today uh they didn't even know about the this going out because it's it went to a uh a levered purchasing agreement uh with the state, which I know are good, but we want to give our local businesses the opportunity to bid on our local uh jobs. Thank you. Yolanda, amen. I have a concern about this contract. Um, as David said back in 2023, um there was 2.16 million allotted for this. Um we're looking at a total of what 7.6 million. That's an increase of what 5.47 million. And I think you owe it to the residents to explain why. I'm not questioning the need to equip our police vehicles. I'm asking for transparency and accountability when spending our tax paying dollars. Before approving this extra amount, I'd like to understand what the previous four charge orders covered. What was the additional money, what the additional money paid for, and why the original contract has grown so much? I only ask because we're constantly being told that we're short officers, we need to increase salaries for recruitment, and there just aren't enough funds for substations, obviously. We all want our police officers to have what they need to protect our community. We have neighborhoods in need and other city services that depend on responsible budgeting. If your responsibility to ensure public money is spent wisely, asking questions doesn't mean I'm against public safety, it means this is our money, and even in my household between me and my husband, we discuss anything before we make some crazy large expenditures. We deserve a clear baked breakdown of these costs and an explanation of what safeguards are in place to help prevent such large contracts increases in the future. And since some of you talk about supporting local, why aren't these being purchased local? Our local businesses are hurting. I'm sure they have cars. If they don't have what you need, I'm sure that they can find and order them. Let's support local businesses. Thank you. That concludes our speakers, Mayor. Yes, Penny,

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI

TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com