[0:06] >> I pledge allegiance to the flag

[0:09] of the united states of america, and

[0:10] to the republic

[0:13] for which it stands,

[0:17] one nation, under god, with liberty

[0:19] and justice for all.

[0:27] >> presentations and proclamations.

[0:31] 3.1, recognition of

[0:34] 2025 dublin

[0:37] pride week contest winners.

[0:44] >> good evening, honorable mayor and

[0:45] council members. I'm shelby perry

[0:46] and I'm recreation

[0:47] coordinator for the parts and services department.

[0:49] tonight I'm here

[0:50] to speak to you about the wonderful evidence

[0:51] of dublin pride week and recognize the

[0:53] winners of the annual contests that

[0:54] are offered during this event. I do

[0:58] want to recognize mike

[1:01] cameras for partnering us for

[1:02] the "nature in our backyard" photo

[1:03] contest and the dublin san ramon women's

[1:04] club for

[1:05] organizing the essay and poster contest.

[1:08] the event kicked off on saturday,

[1:09] april 26th and ran through saturday,

[1:10] may 3rd. The

[1:12] relevance took place during the weekend celebration. Volunteer day,

[1:14] compost giveaway, volunteer fair,

[1:19] and a food drive for

[1:20] the children emergency food bank,

[1:22] to name a few. While I'm really

[1:23] here tonight is to recognize the winners

[1:25] of the contest that took place

[1:27] as part of dublin pride week. We have the photo contest

[1:31] , essay contest, and poster

[1:32] contest. As I talk about each contest,

[1:34] I ask

[1:35] that each group wait until the end

[1:37] so everyone can come up

[1:38] and take a photo with city council.

[1:43] so first, we have the

[1:44] "nature in our backyard" photo contest.

[1:47] it is the seventh year and we had over

[1:49] 200 submissions this year.

[1:51] the judges narrowed it down to the top

[1:52] 10 and the

[1:53] community voted, april 18th to april 28.

[1:57] so these are our top four. We have

[1:58] our grand

[2:00] prize was reggie's wood panel, first place,

[2:06] finish with eyes that see all. Second place,

[2:09] jenny with full moon at the dish.

[2:12] and third place is anthony, with great

[2:13] egret of the creek.

[2:21] students of all ages in public and

[2:22] private

[2:23] schools were invited to participate

[2:24] in our essay and photo contest. We

[2:25] had great participation this

[2:28] year with over 120 entries

[2:30] for the essay and poster contest and

[2:31] the theme for this

[2:32] contest was the same for dublin pride

[2:34] week which was our city, our pride.

[2:35] the

[2:36] winners receive gift cards and certificates.

[2:40] so, here's some of our essay contest

[2:43] winners right here. And then,

[2:46] their name is listed as

[2:48] well as the school, we had a good variety this year.

[2:52] and

[2:54] then, these are our poster winners as well,

[2:58] to go with our city our pride.

[3:04] and here are our winners.

[3:13] thank you

[3:14] to all of our participants and partners

[3:16] and thank you, city council, for your

[3:17] time

[3:18] and support. At this time, will all

[3:19] the photo contest

[3:22] winners, with your certificates?

[3:34] >>

[3:36] thank you so much, and congratulations. And

[3:37] we love your photos.

[3:40] thank you.

[3:43] thank you, congratulations.

[3:46] congratulations.

[3:49] now it's your time.

[4:04] [ inaudible ]

[4:07] we

[4:09] need to move around.

[4:10] >> you guys stay there.

[4:31] >> now, can we have all the

[4:32] essay contest winners, and take a

[4:34] photo with city council?

[4:39] >> congratulations, we're so proud of you.

[4:43] so, you are our pride, too.

[4:46] congratulations.

[5:18] >> we've got one more. Lastly, can we

[5:19] get all the poster

[5:21] contest winners up to take a picture?

[5:28] >> beautiful posters, thank

[5:30] you. Great work. Great work, thank you. Congratulations.

[5:34] good job.

[5:37] yes.

[5:40] >> two in a row, look at you.

[6:08] >> thank you so much.

[6:10] >> thank you, shelby. So, we'll have

[6:15] 3.2, elder abuse awareness month proclamation.

[6:17] june

[6:20] is

[6:22] elder abuse awareness month, and june 15th is

[6:26] world elder abuse awareness day.

[6:29] the national council on aging

[6:32] estimates that

[6:34] 5 million americans over the age of 60

[6:38] are victims of elder abuse.

[6:41] neglect, and exploitation.

[6:44] research has shown that

[6:47] elder abuse, neglect,

[6:50] and exploitation is one

[6:53] of the biggest issues facing senior

[6:56] citizens around the world.

[6:57] this proclamation brings awareness

[7:02] to the issue of elder abuse,

[7:05] and supports efforts to end it.

[7:08] so, today, we have community

[7:09] engagement and legislation division

[7:13] , alameda county district attorney

[7:14] office here to

[7:17] accept the proclamation. Please

[7:20] come for a

[7:22] few words, and we'll give you the proclamation. Thank you.

[7:32] >> good

[7:33] evening, mayor, city council members, and

[7:35] members of the dublin community.

[7:41] my name is ld lewis and

[7:42] I proudly serve as the head of the

[7:43] alameda county district attorney's

[7:44] office community engagement

[7:45] and legislation division. I'm honored

[7:46] to be here this evening on behalf of

[7:47] district

[7:50] attorney ursula jones dixon to

[7:52] accept this meaningful proclamation recognizing june

[7:53] as

[7:56] elder abuse prevention month.

[8:00] we extend our heartfelt thanks to

[8:02] the city of dublin for standing with

[8:03] us and recognizing and addressing

[8:04] elder abuse. This proclamation reflects

[8:08] your ongoing commitment to

[8:09] protecting the safety, dignity, and

[8:11] well-being of our elders

[8:13] . Some of the most treasured yet vulnerable

[8:14] members of our community

[8:17] . In alameda county

[8:19] we believe that justice is only real if it reaches

[8:20] every

[8:21] corner of our community, especially those

[8:23] who may struggle to

[8:26] speak for themselves. Elder

[8:29] and dependent adult abuse

[8:30] often hide in plain sight. It can

[8:32] take the form of physical harm

[8:34] , emotional manipulation, financial exportation, or neglect.

[8:38] according to national studies,

[8:43] nearly half of elder mistreatment

[8:44] victims reported spouse or

[8:45] family member as the perpetrator.

[8:49] and institutional settings, over 64%

[8:50] of staff surveyed admit

[8:53] to some form of abuse against older adults.

[8:58] these are not just statistics, these

[8:59] are calls for action.

[9:02] our office is responding with urgency and compassion

[9:05] . At the district attorney's office,

[9:06] we

[9:07] are taking bold steps to protect older adults

[9:11] , through our elder

[9:12] and dependent adult assistance unit,

[9:14] a specialized

[9:15] team in our victim whiston's division,

[9:18] we provide individualized support for

[9:21] elders and dependent adult victims, guidance

[9:23] through

[9:24] the criminal justice system process, help

[9:28] accessing victim compensation program benefits,

[9:34] transportation to court, referrals

[9:35] to trusted medical,

[9:38] legal, and counseling services.

[9:41] in the first quarter of this year

[9:42] alone,

[9:43] our office supported 2818 new victims

[9:44] ,

[9:46] a meaningful increase that reflects our renewed commitment

[9:49] to outreach and survivor center justice.

[9:56] our work doesn't stop at the court

[9:57] room. That's why we work in close

[9:59] partnership with adult protective

[10:00] services, legal

[10:01] assistance for seniors, the family justice center

[10:02] , and local law enforcement

[10:05] and health providers across alameda county.

[10:08] together, we form a network

[10:10] , that came not just to prosecute

[10:14] wrongdoing, but to heal harm, restore dignity, and

[10:17] ensure long-term safety.

[10:20] this month, and every month, we

[10:21] reaffirm our commitment to ending

[10:23] the cycle of abuse.

[10:26] but, we can't do this work alone,

[10:29] preventing elder abuse requires

[10:32] vigilance from all of us.

[10:34] that includes neighbors checking in, service providers

[10:38] recognizing warning signs

[10:40] , faith and community leaders are spreading awareness

[10:43] and policymakers like you all continuing to invest

[10:47] in preventative resources.

[10:53] we have to have an eye out for red

[10:54] flags

[10:55] that include unexplained injuries,

[10:56] or hygiene or signs of

[10:59] neglect, sudden changes in finances,

[11:02] or that unexplained involvement

[11:05] of a new friend or caretaker,

[11:10] by learning these signs and speaking

[11:11] up we can interrupt cycles of abuse

[11:12] and ensure elders get the protection

[11:14] they need. At the heart of this work

[11:15] is

[11:18] a simple, powerful principal

[11:19] . Listen to survivors. Believe them. Support them,

[11:22] respect their autonomy. The justice system

[11:27] must never

[11:28] be a barrier to dignity. It must be a

[11:30] bridge to safety and

[11:33] respect. Again, thank you

[11:35] to the city of dublin for this proclamation,

[11:36] and for

[11:37] your continued partnership. Under the leadership of

[11:39] district

[11:40] attorney ursula jones dixon, who has made

[11:45] elder abuse and community safety

[11:47] a top priority in her 100 days, we are building

[11:51] a more responsive, equitable, and compassionate system.

[11:55] we will continue to ensure that older adults

[11:57] in alameda

[12:00] county live free from fear with

[12:01] the dignity and respect they have

[12:02] earned over a lifetime. Thank you.

[12:06] >> thank you very much.

[12:15] I would like to present this

[12:16] proclamation. Thank you for your work.

[12:18] >> thank you. Together.

[12:42] >> agenda

[12:43] item 3.3, gun violence awareness day,

[12:44] and month proclamation. So, june is

[12:48] recognized nationally as gun violence awareness month. And

[12:51] gun

[12:54] violence awareness day is

[12:57] observed on the first friday of.

[13:00] this year, it's on june 6th.

[13:06] many people will demonstrate their support

[13:07] of gun violence awareness by wearing

[13:09] orange in remembrance of

[13:12] pendleton, who was

[13:15] shot and killed on a

[13:17] playground in chicago, where she was a young teen.

[13:21] so very sad. So we want to make sure

[13:23] everybody has this awareness. So today,

[13:27] we have mom's demand actions

[13:30] for gun scents

[13:33] in america be here. Would you like

[13:34] to say a few words, and then also come over?

[13:48] >> hello.

[13:50] thank you, mayor and council members

[13:51] for inviting

[13:53] us this evening. We really appreciate the honor.

[13:57] my name is

[14:00] jenny dogs,

[14:01] I am the local group leader from livermore

[14:03] valley mom's demand action.

[14:05] we're a nonpartisan gun violence prevention

[14:06] group, of

[14:07] volunteers in the tri-valley. Working

[14:11] to make sure our communities are safer from gun violence.

[14:17] we work to raise awareness about the

[14:18] importance of secure

[14:19] storage of firearms to protect our

[14:22] children, teens, and people in crisis

[14:24] to prevent stolen guns

[14:27] from being funneled

[14:30] into the underground

[14:33] market and used as crime guns.

[14:35] we also work to raise awareness about gun violence

[14:39] restraining orders , and how they can save lives

[14:45] when someone is in crisis of

[14:48] harming themselves or others. Additionally,

[14:49] we

[14:50] work to keep individuals with dangerous histories

[14:51] from

[14:53] possessing guns, and stopping the spread of

[14:57] a traceable firearm.

[15:00] we're all here tonight

[15:02] to thank you, mayor hu, and city council members

[15:06] and of course

[15:09] , josie.

[15:12] for taking time to proclaim

[15:15] this coming friday, june 6th, as

[15:17] national gun violence awareness day in

[15:18] the city of dublin.

[15:24] thank you for acknowledging and

[15:26] remembering all the survivors and

[15:27] victims of gun violence, and declaring

[15:30] dedication

[15:33] to do all you can to

[15:35] end this public health crisis. It

[15:36] is with deep gratitude

[15:39] that we accept this proclamation.

[15:42] you are

[15:45] true champions of gun

[15:46] violence prevention and take seriously your roles

[15:48] in doing all

[15:50] you can to protect the community here in dublin.

[15:54] we're grateful

[15:56] that for at least the past three years

[16:00] you have recognized national gun violence awareness

[16:03] day by granting a proclamation

[16:06] and lighting up

[16:09] the wavy and orange.

[16:12] by wearing orange, we do remember and

[16:13] honor those

[16:14] affected by gun violence and show our commitment

[16:18] to finding solutions

[16:19] and advocating for safer communities.

[16:24] this weekend, we want to remind everyone

[16:27] to wear orange, and also we invite you

[16:33] and the public to come to our family-friendly

[16:35] wear orange event on saturday, june 7th,

[16:39] from

[16:41] 10:00 to noon. It's going to be at the

[16:42] amador valley community park in pleasanton.

[16:45] this program will include

[16:48] a program of speakers

[16:50] , a resource fair, and craft activities

[16:54] for children and adults alike.

[16:57] thank you again for

[16:59] your support and dedication and for recognizing

[17:01] national gun violence awareness day.

[17:09] >> and we will invite you over for

[17:11] a photo together. And we have a few speakers.

[17:58] >> there we go.

[18:01] three, two, and one. Got it.

[18:13] >> michelle, we

[18:15] have a few speakers, right?

[18:16] >> yes, I have two speakers lips. One of them

[18:19] was turned in on zoom, it was

[18:20] cynthia, that person is not in zoom right

[18:22] now, so we'll take the one that

[18:23] we have here in person, that's mike grant.

[18:37] >> good evening,

[18:40] 48 years under the atf.

[18:43] one death is too much.

[18:47] I wonder why this council doesn't

[18:49] recognize other groups with a proclamation,

[18:54] like car accidents, 42,000 a year that

[18:55] I, 178,000 die

[18:56] from alcohol related in the united states.

[18:58] 480 die

[18:59] from smoking related deaths. We all have

[19:04] , and they have many laws on

[19:07] the books for that.

[19:10] but,

[19:11] nothing the amount of gun laws that

[19:13] are on the books in this

[19:14] country, 20,000 gun laws, federal,

[19:16] state, and local. So I asked the question, are they working?

[19:19] firearm safety

[19:21] is just not a trigger lock, it's going into depth

[19:27] with training people how to handle

[19:28] a firearm safely, knowing if

[19:29] it's unloaded, and I've been to this

[19:31] council many times telling you that you

[19:32] need

[19:33] to start doing this in this town,

[19:34] but you don't. The true gun safety

[19:37] , more gun laws will not do

[19:40] it. Education does it. These

[19:41] anti-gun groups, which were just up, amongst

[19:43] every town

[19:48] for gun safety collects $187 million a year.

[19:52] yet, none of them do any

[19:55] firearm training at all.

[19:56] they hand out trigger locks. Plus,

[19:58] they take a lot of that money

[20:03] and they're running into the legislation,

[20:04] I have a complete

[20:05] list of their form 990s, just filled

[20:07] with politicians. Locals, too.

[20:10] the gifford lawrence center gets

[20:12] 10 million. No training. Brady center,

[20:16] 11 million, no training. Now,

[20:21] the pro-gun groups, the nra, has many training classes.

[20:25] hunting

[20:26] and safety programs for the children, over

[20:27] 120,000 instructors in this country.

[20:28] I'm one of them.

[20:34] the state of california, the doj,

[20:35] has firearms trainers, 4000 of them.

[20:37] I'm one of them. All

[20:39] gun owners in california must take an fsc test

[20:40] and

[20:43] passed 23 questions out of 30 , and

[20:46] seven of those questions

[20:47] are keeping your guns locked up, and

[20:49] they sign an affidavit on it. So

[20:51] what I'm asking this council to do

[20:58] is to make one of

[20:59] these rooms available, the many that we

[21:01] have in the town that you try to rent

[21:03] to us and you got to be a 401, a 501(c) to

[21:04] get it free,

[21:06] to give it to somebody like myself

[21:07] so I can put on a true

[21:08] firearms training class for the children

[21:10] and the adults on

[21:13] how to handle, no with a gun is loaded or

[21:14] unloaded.

[21:16] this class will cover many

[21:18] things, and there's no live guns in the

[21:19] class, there will be no weapons

[21:22] on the city properties.

[21:25] we have plastic guns, but I think

[21:26] it's time that

[21:27] you guys wake up and realize if more gun

[21:28] laws are not going to

[21:30] make it, we've got enough on the books.

[21:31] I

[21:33] support what they're trying to do,

[21:34] but I think they need to come

[21:36] to the realistic version that education

[21:37] is where it's at. Thank

[21:40] you.

[21:41] >> thank you.

[21:46] >>

[21:48] that's the only speaker, I did get a

[21:49] response back from the other speaker and

[21:50] that

[21:51] person has lost their voice and will not

[21:52] be making public comments on zoom

[21:53] tonight.

[21:54] >> you want to respond? Go ahead.

[21:55] >> I just wanted to make

[21:57] a quick asked. We now have the capability to

[21:58] light city hall in

[22:01] colors as well, correct?

[22:04] >>

[22:05] correct.

[22:06] >> could we light city hall

[22:07] in orange as well as the way this year?

[22:09] >> we can. >> perfect. Wonderful.

[22:10] >> marsha has a comment, please.

[22:16] >> we

[22:18] are also doing half the month in purple

[22:19] for elder abuse awareness month. It'll

[22:21] be orange and purple.

[22:22] >> I love it,

[22:23] thank you very much. Perfect.

[22:24] >> so, 3.4,

[22:25] employee introduction.

[22:39] >> tonight, I have the pleasure of

[22:40] introducing communications intern reese maeda,

[22:43] reese joined our team yesterday, and we're

[22:45] thrilled to have her on board this summer.

[22:48] she recently earned her bachelor's

[22:49] degree in business marketing from

[22:51] san jose state university and she's

[22:52] eager to gain hands-on experience through this internship.

[22:58] she is originally from san leandro and

[22:59] regionally supported marketing

[23:00] and can medications efforts for sdsu's

[23:02] national and global engagement

[23:04] department, and also served as an adobe student ambassador.

[23:09] she hopes that her work will foster

[23:11] community and that her time here

[23:14] will leave an impact.

[23:15] in her free time, reese enjoys photography,

[23:16] watching comedy shows, playing soccer,

[23:18] and taking road trips. Reese previously

[23:19] interned and has been to dublin events,

[23:24] but she's not a dublin resident she's

[23:25] familiar with this community and she

[23:27] is excited for the opportunity, so

[23:28] please join me in welcoming reese

[23:29] after she

[23:32] shares a few words.

[23:33] >> good evening, honorable mayor and

[23:34] members of the city council. My name is

[23:40] reese maeda, I'm thrilled to be joining

[23:41] the city

[23:42] of dublin as a summer intern with the communications division.

[23:46] I am beyond happy to spend my summer here, and

[23:47] would like to

[23:48] share that I am most excited to learn more

[23:49] about this beautiful community, the

[23:50] people

[23:51] that are its foundation, and being

[23:53] able to bring

[23:55] everyday stories to life. Although

[23:56] I

[23:57] don't personally reside in the city of

[23:59] dublin, I'm constantly struck

[24:01] by the energy and liveliness that

[24:02] radiates from

[24:05] these streets and public events.

[24:07] from day one I was genuinely delighted

[24:08] to

[24:09] discover how warm, thoughtful, and

[24:11] welcoming these people are.

[24:12] I hope that my work here will continuously

[24:14] help to foster good

[24:15] community and fellowship, and that

[24:16] my time here will leave a lasting impact.

[24:19] thank you for this opportunity to

[24:20] further develop

[24:21] my skills to my professional experience, and knowledge.

[24:25] >> thank you so much, and welcome, reese.

[24:29] we have

[24:32] a token for you. And

[24:35] you're in good hands,

[24:36] I'm looking forward to having you

[24:40] in our big family and working together. Thank you.

[24:52] >> good evening, honorable mayor and council

[24:53] members. It

[24:55] is my pleasure to introduce to you my --

[25:01] joins the city clerk's office as an

[25:02] administrator technician and today

[25:03] was her

[25:04] second day on the job. Just as I am excited to have

[25:08] her join us, she is excited to join

[25:11] the city of dublin. She brings over

[25:12] 15 years

[25:13] of public sector experience , including

[25:14] roles

[25:16] at the east bay regional park district in public safety

[25:19] and interpretive and recreation. And the berkeley lab

[25:23] in the workforce

[25:26] diversity office and hr. My

[25:28] seal is in hayward, has three teenagers,

[25:29] including twin teenage daughters,

[25:32] two cats and a bunny.

[25:35] during covid, she had

[25:37] a dozen backyard chickens. And in her spare time,

[25:43] mycile loves to spend time gardening, so

[25:44] let me introduce

[25:46] you to mycile.

[25:47] >> good evening, mayor

[25:48] hu and councilmembers. Thank you

[25:50] for having me today.

[25:52] I'm very excited to be part of the

[25:53] dublin team. I would have

[25:54] worn green but I wanted to support,

[25:56] the wear orange team.

[25:59] a big thank you to

[26:00] city manager colleen tribby, and city

[26:02] clerk marsha moore for bringing me on board.

[26:05] I'm looking forward to supporting the clerk's office

[26:07] and to help make the city government work

[26:08] better

[26:11] for the dublin community,

[26:13] and the community at large in the

[26:14] county. I

[26:16] live in hayward, and three teenagers.

[26:20] family is over there. Once

[26:22] again, a pleasure to meet you all, thank you.

[26:26] >>

[26:27] welcome, and thanks for having your

[26:29] family here as well. So,

[26:31] we also have this for you, welcome to our city

[26:35] ,

[26:40] and bring your public work experience and

[26:41] also, we love your hobbies, a growing

[26:42] garden, and the chickens. Excellent, welcome.

[26:49] >> and thanks for the family as well. Family is here.

[26:56] good news.

[26:59] so,

[27:05] we have agenda item four, now, for public comment.

[27:08] at this time, the public is permitted to address

[27:11] the city council on non-agendized items.

[27:14] please step to the podium

[27:16] and clearly state your name for the record.

[27:19] comments should not exceed three minutes.

[27:25] do we have comments?

[27:26] >> we do, mayor,

[27:27] I have five speakers.

[27:29] the first speaker is mike grant.

[27:40] >> again, mike grant, and undiluted

[27:41] firearms training in town. I've come

[27:42] tonight to talk about this program that

[27:47] the dps put on.

[27:52] for the public safety for the citizens.

[27:55] I want to commend them, chief fox

[27:59] and colleen for putting that together, it's great.

[28:02] I think there's other things

[28:04] we talked about that they should probably,

[28:05] the city citizens should see

[28:08] , a little bit more of,

[28:10] what we get for the bang for the buck

[28:11] and that

[28:13] has to do with a lot of people came

[28:14] up here years ago, and

[28:17] were against basically us

[28:19] using the alameda county sheriff's

[28:20] department, and they wanted to

[28:23] start looking at other avenues going

[28:24] out and getting

[28:25] our own police department, which is

[28:26] very expensive. I don't think they

[28:29] realize exactly what we get for the dollar

[28:35] that we spend with them, and have

[28:36] all this extra

[28:38] coverage. It's very important

[28:41] that we put some of that out to them,

[28:42] I understand

[28:43] in the future here, three to five years out

[28:44] we're

[28:46] going to have a contract due again, I

[28:47] think it's important that

[28:50] the public understands it , and if

[28:51] they

[28:52] haven't taken that class, and you have

[28:53] some kind of committee together, they

[28:54] are not

[28:55] on the committee, they need to take

[28:57] that class and see what these guys

[28:58] do every day to keep this city safe.

[29:04] the last thing is colleen attended

[29:06] that, and I want you all

[29:09] to know her callsign,

[29:14] was one adam 12. She didn't like that, but

[29:15] that's what we called

[29:17] her when we were in the cars. Just

[29:18] thought

[29:19] I'd pass that on to you. Thank you,

[29:21] colleen.

[29:22] >> thank you. >> mayor,

[29:23] the next speaker is sherry lewandowski.

[29:42] >> good evening,

[29:43] mayor, council members and staff.

[29:45] longtime dublin resident.

[29:50] recently, my husband and I drove down south

[29:51] interstate

[29:53] highway five. To visit friends and

[29:54] after driving a couple

[29:55] hundred miles, we realize that interstate

[30:00] two lanes in one direction,

[30:03] in the opposite direction. So

[30:04] I'm wondering, why would dublin propose

[30:08] to build a six lane to four-lane express area

[30:09] for just

[30:12] a mile and a half?

[30:13] stretch of road to connect dublin

[30:15] to rober moore, at a cost of

[30:16] $160 million according to the alameda county transportation

[30:18] report. Really? 100

[30:21] 50 million?

[30:24] for just a mile and a half?

[30:27] a couple meetings ago I

[30:28] showed you this depiction of an alternate road design.

[30:32] it's taking two existing roads already,

[30:38] and you would only have to build a

[30:39] third of

[30:41] a mile road to connect those two. It accomplishes the

[30:42] actual

[30:43] open space initiative of connecting dublin

[30:45] to livermore.

[30:51] if you add

[30:52] a bike lane and a pedestrian lane

[30:54] this cost is going to be under $50

[30:55] million. That's a lot less than the

[30:56] 160 million. This alternate design

[31:00] fulfills the fact that it can

[31:03] connect to two cities.

[31:05] you don't have to go through landowner

[31:06] properties, five of

[31:07] them you don't need to annex unincorporated land

[31:09] for commercial development, so

[31:12] dublin's

[31:14] urban limit is going to be maintained.

[31:18] there is no

[31:19] real impact to environment and the

[31:20] wildlife, and we save open space.

[31:23] livermore will not give any financial support

[31:26] for this role because it includes

[31:27] commercial development on the

[31:30] road across the property.

[31:33] that leaves dublin with

[31:34] a full responsibility, the whole 160 million.

[31:37] the city's financial shows that it

[31:39] doesn't have enough money to pay for this design.

[31:41] the cities already taken millions of

[31:42] dollars out

[31:45] of the general fund.

[31:47] as a loan to the trap's impact fee

[31:48] fund, in

[31:51] order to jumpstart the project.

[31:53] but, how to pay back that loan and

[31:54] pay back the balance for the

[31:56] cost of the road are not identified and not confirmed.

[32:00] the reason the simple two lane road

[32:03] was not considered is because it

[32:04] didn't meet the profit objectives

[32:05] of the property owners and developers. But

[32:06] it

[32:08] does meet the residents financial and environmental objectives.

[32:12] the property

[32:14] owners and developers want the city's multilane road

[32:18] because they will profit a

[32:19] lot from it. And yet, they're not

[32:21] willing to pay for it. Why

[32:22] not? Doesn't seem fair. In my opinion,

[32:27] the city spending $160 million

[32:30] for a short one and a half mile road

[32:31] doesn't make

[32:32] financial sense. And not a good use of public money.

[32:36] given there's a major freeway only

[32:39] 1200 feet in parallel to it.

[32:41] the more important road improvement

[32:42] needed in our city

[32:44] to support the public safety that

[32:45] that six or 60 million should

[32:47] be used with the benefit of dublin residence. Thank you.

[32:48] >> thank you.

[32:51] >> mayor,

[32:53] the next speaker is norm lewandowski.

[33:03] >>

[33:04] good evening. My name is norm lewandowski.

[33:06] a

[33:08] concerned resident of dublin. I'm

[33:09] here also to speak about

[33:12] the dublin extension road. Project.

[33:17] before you decide to move forward on annexation

[33:23] and $160 million extension road with

[33:24] six

[33:25] lanes and commercial development,

[33:27] ask yourselves,

[33:30] what would the residents have

[33:33] said if you would have put this

[33:36] on the 2024 measure ballot?

[33:39] you know they would have

[33:42] overwhelmingly voted no.

[33:45] that's why the city perfectly used

[33:47] misleading wording that said measure

[33:48] ii was

[33:51] about saving open space

[33:54] , less traffic, cleaner air, and quicker emergency response.

[33:57] the city had been

[33:59] planning on this road since 2014 ,

[34:00] and has already spent millions

[34:03] before measure ii

[34:06] was even on the ballot. Selling

[34:09] the way it was written, was

[34:11] a way for the city to take control

[34:12] away from the residence

[34:15] on the decision-making process.

[34:18] by the way,

[34:21] why doesn't the city show the planned commercial

[34:23] development on the pictures of the

[34:24] roadways that's on dublin's

[34:27] woodside for this project?

[34:31] you know what residents would

[34:33] say if they saw this occur in open space.

[34:37] I asked the consul to realize

[34:40] that you

[34:41] have been elected to do was in the

[34:42] best interest of the residents, not

[34:44] was in the best interest of developers for property owners.

[34:49] spending $160 million based on

[34:52] wishful funding assumptions

[34:56] for an exorbitant road that benefits

[34:58] only a very small percentage of

[34:59] dublin's population makes it absolutely

[35:01] no sense to me.

[35:03] especially when the city's latest

[35:07] financial data shows that

[35:09] dublin's reserves will be depleted in 2031.

[35:12] I can assure you that the city's current

[35:13] extravagant extension road project

[35:18] cutting through open space is not what residents want.

[35:22] think about

[35:23] this when asked to move forward with this project.

[35:28] I wanted to add,

[35:29] we have quite a few residents trying

[35:31] to contact the

[35:34] council on their website. I've

[35:37] navigated the website myself,

[35:39] and it's not easy. Before, there used

[35:43] to be a contact , it used to be

[35:52] council@dublin.ca.gov,

[36:00] and I understand that that's not working anymore.

[36:01] for residents to contact the

[36:03] council, I'd like you to take a look at

[36:04] that website, see if

[36:05] you can reactivate that. Or make it more

[36:07] easily to find how to

[36:08] send in some sort of response. Thank you.

[36:10] >> thank

[36:13] you. We'll take the comment.

[36:16] >> mayor, the next speaker is todd benson.

[36:32] >> good evening, city council, my

[36:34] name is todd benson, 12

[36:35] year resident of dublin. What I'm

[36:37] here to talk about is the

[36:39] dublin to livermore extension. And

[36:40] I

[36:41] agree with all the comments that I've

[36:43] heard so far, and the map,

[36:46] which was very helpful. The cost

[36:49] of the road extension,

[36:52] what I've heard and confirmed,

[36:54] it's roughly one 60 million now, but

[36:55] it probably won't get started

[36:58] for a couple years. So then

[36:59] what will the cost really be and who's

[37:01] going to pay for it. One

[37:02] also has me concerned is just one

[37:04] of the three major

[37:07] projects dublin has planned.

[37:09] one of them being the future dublin downtown,

[37:10] the other being

[37:13] the dublin sports arena, which sounds great, but

[37:16] these two, I'm

[37:19] sure they're more expensive

[37:21] than the road extension, and who's

[37:22] going to be paying

[37:24] for all of this? And who benefits

[37:25] for this? I'm concerned,

[37:28] as they were mentioning,

[37:30] that dublin will run out of money.

[37:31] these aren't cheap, and who is benefiting from

[37:34] it besides the developers? I'm just

[37:36] very concerned at the end of the day, or the years,

[37:39] we're going to end up holding most

[37:40] of the bill, and the

[37:41] developers will just make their money and go.

[37:49] these are the kind of projects that

[37:50] worry me and other residents, because we

[37:52] don't want to get stuck with a bill.

[37:54] we're not against development, smart

[37:55] development, we're not against

[37:57] improvements to our city. But we are

[37:58] against paying for things

[38:01] that aren't

[38:02] well budgeted for, and is going to

[38:04] cost all of us

[38:07] a lot of money. As we

[38:08] know right now, the state and federal

[38:10] governments are not going to come to

[38:12] our rescue, especially now. Getting

[38:13] back to the road extension, I

[38:15] hope the council will look and consider

[38:16] this very good plan that's been

[38:18] presented to them. I don't know about you, but

[38:22] under $50 million compared to $160

[38:23] million

[38:24] for a road extension just extending

[38:25] existing roads

[38:28] that we already have

[38:31] , in my understanding it would be a

[38:32] third

[38:33] of a mile to connect the two, sounds

[38:34] brilliant. I think you guys should

[38:37] seriously consider that. Please. And

[38:39] I'm urging others in our community, I'm not

[38:43] only active within my neighborhood,

[38:46] but other local organizations.

[38:49] and I'm

[38:51] explaining all of this to them, I'm talking

[38:52] about how much this is costing

[38:54] us and that the city council is not really

[38:55] doing their job in looking out

[38:57] for us. I think they're looking out

[38:58] more for the greedy developers and the landowners

[39:01] who are the real beneficiaries of

[39:02] all this.

[39:04] so I'm urging them

[39:07] , as was also spoken, to

[39:09] please write and call the city council, with

[39:10] their concerns of this

[39:16] overspending that we just don't have,

[39:17] and may run out because

[39:18] we don't end up like pleasanton, who

[39:19] does have a deficit and they're

[39:20] shutting down their library hours.

[39:22] so please, consider this idea, because

[39:25] dublin residents are watching, and we will be

[39:30] voting for our own needs and goals for

[39:31] the future. Thank you.

[39:37] >> mayor, the last speaker is

[39:40] tony rodolfo benson.

[39:50] >>

[39:51] good evening, city council. My name

[39:53] is sonia rodolfo benson.

[39:56] I've been a resident of east bay

[39:57] for 30 years, dublin resident for over 12 years,

[39:59] and I would

[40:00] like to discuss how the city council needs

[40:02] to be more honest with dublin.

[40:04] about the plans and development they are

[40:05] approving and what the

[40:06] cost will be, we talked about how

[40:07] this project you're talking about that's

[40:09] going to be parallel 580 is going to cost

[40:14] 160 million at this time.

[40:16] the one that we're proposing is less than that.

[40:20] I've been commuting

[40:22] to south san francisco for many years.

[40:26] I travel along

[40:29] bonners road which

[40:30] is only a two way road, and that works

[40:32] out just great, along

[40:35] 580. I've also traveled

[40:38] on black hawk, going to black

[40:41] hawk, and this is a six lane

[40:44] road, really wide road, and there's

[40:46] hardly anybody there, and I travel that to teach.

[40:50] think about it . $160 million

[40:53] of road

[40:56] that is probably

[40:59] not going to be used,

[41:01] versus a fraction of that that's going

[41:02] to

[41:04] be just as functional, and when you

[41:07] talk about saving money, I think it

[41:11] just makes more sense.

[41:16] as a resident of dublin, I'm really

[41:17] concerned about

[41:18] how we're spending money, because

[41:19] I plan to live here for many years

[41:22] , and if we're going to lose money

[41:23] and we're not

[41:24] going to be able to pay our bills,

[41:26] we need to pick about that. I think

[41:28] safety on the roads is much more important.

[41:29] I

[41:30] traverse stagecoach road all the time, and the people

[41:34] that striving that road has been speeding

[41:35] all the time, not

[41:36] stopping, maybe a speedbump there would be

[41:41] so much more effective

[41:44] , something that you need to think

[41:45] about, safety of the roads rather

[41:47] than spending so much money on a road that's

[41:48] probably going to be not as used.

[41:53] again, I'd like you

[41:54] to take this into consideration, thank you.

[42:01] >> mayor, I'd like to get clarification. As

[42:02] far as we know,

[42:05] the email council at --is

[42:08] working, if anyone has

[42:11] any

[42:12] trouble with it, I'm happy to help, you

[42:14] can find my email address under the

[42:15] city manager's apartment and email

[42:17] me and I'll work out any communication issues.

[42:23] >> thank you. Any other comments? >>

[42:24] I have no other speaker slips, mayor.

[42:26] >> at this moment, we'll recess

[42:29] our regular meeting and go

[42:32] to the gad meeting, we'll call

[42:35] that meeting to

[42:38] order at 7:50 p.m. And then, for

[42:41] the gad meeting, we also

[42:44] want to see if there's any public

[42:45] comments.

[42:46] >> I have no public comment, mayor.

[42:47] >> no public

[42:49] comments on the g.a.d. Meeting, so we'll go

[42:53] for the consent calendar of

[42:56] the g.a.d. Meeting.

[42:59] so, for consent calendar,

[43:04] I want to ask any questions about consent calendar?

[43:08] we're

[43:11] in g.a.d. Meeting. We have

[43:14] >> I'm

[43:16] happy to make a motion to approve the consent calendar.

[43:17] >>

[43:20] okay, go ahead, councilmember.

[43:21] >>

[43:22] still trying to shift between the

[43:23] two. But, on the

[43:26] item 3.2 on the consent calendar,

[43:29] not to

[43:31] exceed amount is $1 million for each of

[43:38] --

[43:39] >> which I been? >> on the 3.2 on

[43:40] the

[43:41] g.h.a.d... The ngo contract.

[43:43] the not to exceed amount is $1 million for

[43:44] three years

[43:47] from each of those for each of those contracts

[43:48] and

[43:49] it doesn't appear to me as if we've

[43:50] ever come anywhere close to

[43:51] $1 million for g.h.a.d. Services,

[43:56] in any of the three, can we talk a

[43:57] little bit

[43:58] about why that not to exceed amount

[43:59] is set the way it is?

[44:02] sorry.

[44:05] >> good evening.

[44:08] president, and board members, the

[44:09] g.h.a.d. Engineer, that item tonight

[44:14] is to award three separate

[44:17] contracts for on-call services

[44:19] to ngo for each of the three guards

[44:20] in dublin, that

[44:21] is correct, for a three-year term

[44:23] with a not to exceed amount of $1 million.

[44:26] you are correct that in the

[44:27] past, looking at the last contract

[44:29] to be held with

[44:31] our g.h.a.d. Service consulting, we have

[44:32] not reached that

[44:34] amount in the three or five year term,

[44:35] we chose a larger amount to

[44:36] avoid having to potentially come back

[44:38] to the board

[44:41] for an amendment, which may sometimes

[44:44] delay our day-to-day activities.

[44:47] it is an arbitrary number but a number

[44:48] that we thought was

[44:49] reasonable given other types of contracts we had

[44:53] as an example on the city side for on-call services.

[44:56] >> there's a

[44:58] couple of different kinds of contracts in here,

[45:01] the ngo contract is for consulting,

[45:03] but they don't do the actual

[45:05] grading or hill slide work if there

[45:07] was another flood and there was a slight, for example.

[45:12] it's the consulting

[45:13] services for that work, correct?

[45:14] >>

[45:15] thanks for asking

[45:16] that, it's for a professional engineering services, it includes

[45:21] geologists, civil

[45:22] engineering, they also provide the gis services

[45:24] , they are also

[45:29] our on-call emergency response meeting the

[45:30] first ones on

[45:31] the ground when we get a call for

[45:33] any issues out there.

[45:34] it's for day-to-day services, which includes

[45:38] what I would say is g.h.a.d. Staff.

[45:42] it is professional services, not

[45:43] contract services, but contractor services.

[45:46] >> even in the period that included

[45:48] the two flood years, we

[45:51] didn't come close to $1 million.

[45:54] >>

[45:55] not for professional services, you're

[45:56] correct.

[45:57] >> it seems to me that this

[45:58] is higher

[45:59] than his really necessary. The contract as written,

[46:03] the budget

[46:05] , it looks like the highest amount

[46:12] is under $600,000 budgeted.

[46:17] for the three-year term, is that right for

[46:18] the g.h.a.d. With

[46:19] the most extensive consulting services ?

[46:23] >> for every year we come to the board, we

[46:24] bring a proposed budget

[46:27] for that fiscal year,

[46:29] so in every year you are correct,

[46:30] we are not coming

[46:31] in here that, if we're looking at potentially

[46:32] a five-year contract or agreement,

[46:36] there is a potential ,

[46:37] I would agree, not likely, but a potentially

[46:39] could exceed that amount that

[46:41] we've had in the past.

[46:42] >> these are

[46:43] three-year contracts.

[46:44] >>

[46:45] currently three-year contracts, in the past

[46:47] I would say excellent services, we

[46:48] request the board to

[46:49] extend that for another two years.

[46:56] we have in the past gone to a five-year

[46:57] maximum.

[46:58] >>

[46:59] at that point we cannot only extend the

[47:00] term but extend the not to exceed,

[47:01] correct?

[47:02] >> that's correct. >> okay, thank

[47:03] you. I would feel more comfortable

[47:04] if

[47:05] we did not have a one million-dollar

[47:06] not to exceed amount on these.

[47:09] on two of

[47:10] them, 500,000 would be more than sufficient

[47:12] and on the third

[47:13] 600,000 would still get us there,

[47:15] if my math is correct.

[47:18] that give staff complete heartburn? That amount?

[47:22] >> no, staff can always return to

[47:24] the board to amend it if

[47:25] we need to exceed or increase the

[47:27] amount to exceed.

[47:28] >> okay.

[47:30] that would

[47:31] be my preference but that's just my

[47:33] preference, I don't know how the rest

[47:34] of the board feels.

[47:35] >> we have been

[47:36] using this 1 million in

[47:37] the contract for many years, or it's new?

[47:45] >> out be

[47:46] honest, I don't have the answer in front

[47:48] of me. I was a looking

[47:49] at how much our expenditures have

[47:51] been they've never been a $1 million. I

[47:52] don't

[47:53] recall what our last five-year contract

[47:54] not to exceed was, it obviously, we

[47:55] pay for

[47:56] the actual services expended and invoiced.

[47:57] >> so,

[48:00] I see there's

[48:02] additional cost if we want to make

[48:05] the change. And maybe depends if that's

[48:09] critical, with that make any

[48:12] bigger savings?

[48:15] seems like,

[48:17] you know, if we reduce our limit with

[48:20] that end up with more work efficiency, better savings

[48:24] , not that

[48:27] way? That's how I feel.

[48:28] >> yeah. It's just

[48:30] a not to exceed.

[48:35] we haven't collected it, that level.

[48:36] >> we haven't.

[48:41] I'm not sure, I agree with you and I

[48:42] like how you're looking at

[48:43] the different levels and what's appropriate.

[48:45] to me,

[48:47] this is just a provision that allows it

[48:48] to go up to there. It's

[48:51] not that we are actually

[48:53] collecting that. If it's the will

[48:54] of everybody else I'm fine to

[48:56] make that administered of change if there's

[48:57] a cost of making the administrative

[48:59] change, this is not that critical, but, the awareness

[49:02] , it's a really good point you've made.

[49:06] so,

[49:08] if it costs money to make that change, I'm not sure

[49:15] it's

[49:17] value, in my head.

[49:18] >> does it cost money

[49:19] to make that change?

[49:20] >> it's

[49:21] very easy to make the change.

[49:22] >> very easy?

[49:24] >> I think it's

[49:25] just an administered of thing, if

[49:27] you keep it even at three quarters

[49:28] of 1 million

[49:30] for all three, then, it doesn't

[49:33] , in my opinion it doesn't add any real

[49:34] value in

[49:35] terms of transparency or accountability. But,

[49:36] if it helps

[49:39] you, then, that's fine.

[49:40] >> I

[49:41] also value that point. It's just, it is

[49:42] a threshold.

[49:45] it's an administrative

[49:46] threshold. That's all that is. So,

[49:51] yeah, if that's easy, I'm good.

[49:54] >>

[49:56] in that case, I'm happy to make a motion

[49:57] for the entire consent calendar with

[49:59] the caveat that we have the not to exceed

[50:00] amount on all three contracts be

[50:03] three quarters of 1 million.

[50:06] >> all in favor, say aye. >> aye.

[50:09] >> thank you, the motion passed unanimously.

[50:15] so, let's see.

[50:17] we'll adjourn that meeting and reconvene

[50:20] the regular city council meeting now.

[50:24] let's go back to city council.

[50:30] so, now we are in city council meeting agenda

[50:33] number five, consent calendar.

[50:36] so, consent calendar items are typically

[50:39] noncontroversial

[50:41] in nature, and are considered for approval

[50:42] by the city council

[50:45] with one single action.

[50:48] so

[50:50] I want to ask councilmembers, any

[50:51] questions?

[50:52] >> I have several items, I

[50:54] have a question on 5.2, I have a potential

[50:58] separate motion on 5.5,

[51:01] and on 5.7.

[51:04] >>

[51:07] any from you?

[51:08] >> questions

[51:10] on 5.8, and 5.10.

[51:11] >>

[51:13] 5.8, 5.10.

[51:16] should we

[51:17] pass the rest of them first, and then

[51:19] go over each of them?

[51:20] >>

[51:27] make a motion for the consent calendar, excluding

[51:31] items 5.2, 5.5, 5.7, 5.8, 5.10.

[51:34] >> second. >> so we have first and second,

[51:36] all in favor say aye.

[51:37] >> aye. >> these

[51:38] agenda items passed unanimously,

[51:39] so let's go back to the questions, 5.2,

[51:44] councilmember josey?

[51:45] >> item 5.2 is

[51:46] a masterpiece schedule, which

[51:49] I very much appreciate

[51:51] the summer vacation of it with the

[51:52] residence

[51:55] fees, and the nonresident, for

[51:59] every item, there was a couple comments

[52:01] I wanted to make.

[52:02] one, the blanket statement that we have

[52:07] , that the nonresident rate

[52:09] for park fees and things like that is 20% higher

[52:12] . I would love to see us call more

[52:13] attention to that

[52:16] in the schedule, bold it

[52:17] or somehow make it a little bit more obvious

[52:22] so that nobody gets

[52:23] shocked. I don't know that a ton of people look at

[52:25] this,

[52:28] mostly people just go

[52:30] through their cart on the website,

[52:31] but I still don't want surprises

[52:32] for residents or nonresidents when they're looking

[52:33] at our fee structure and then they

[52:34] go to

[52:35] check out and they're like wait a

[52:37] minute, I thought it was this rate,

[52:38] so that would be one comment I would

[52:40] have, and my second comment is on

[52:41] the wave, have we ever thought about having

[52:43] a

[52:46] senior rate for the wave?

[52:48] we do have a lot of multigenerational

[52:49] families in

[52:52] dublin, and we have a

[52:54] lot of grandparents to stay home with

[52:55] the kids in the summer, and I

[52:58] would love to see us, if it's

[52:59] the will of council if we could investigate

[53:01] having a senior rate for both the

[53:04] wave and also lap swimming. Whatever

[53:07] age that might be,

[53:10] I wanted to hear if

[53:11] that's something that would be feasible.

[53:14] something along the same lines as

[53:16] perhaps the veteran rate

[53:19] to have a senior rate as well.

[53:20] >>

[53:21] anything is feasible, that's your guys's prerogative.

[53:24] >> could I add seniors and disabled?

[53:28] >> sure.

[53:30] >> mayor and council members, I think

[53:31] we had

[53:32] investigated a fee related to the disabled category.

[53:34] I

[53:36] feel like I recall that we had some challenges

[53:43] in defining

[53:45] what that is. So we'll go back and

[53:46] do that work again, I just

[53:48] want to make you aware that we talked about

[53:49] this before and I recall

[53:51] having some challenges related to,

[53:52] how

[53:55] do you define that? But,

[53:58] we will work on that,

[54:00] the senior one clearly is easy.

[54:01] >>

[54:06] an arbitrary age, whatever social

[54:07] security retirement is, if

[54:10] we decide to call it 65,

[54:12] but I would love to see if we can

[54:13] figure out a

[54:15] way to make that happen.

[54:16] >> 55? >> maybe not

[54:19] , maybe something just a little bit

[54:20] higher

[54:21] than that, I think. That would be

[54:22] great whatever standard for the

[54:24] area, whatever the park services call senior rate.

[54:30] might be instead of us trying to make a

[54:31] determination based on

[54:34] how old we are.

[54:35] >> we can keep it

[54:36] simple, senior and youth can be the same rate.

[54:40] just a random

[54:42] recommendation.

[54:43] >> the youth is by height,

[54:44] we have,

[54:46] in the wave, we

[54:49] have the little kids, because of the

[54:50] slides

[54:52] and all that, it's by height. I would

[54:53] leave

[54:54] it up to park staff. To make the ages.

[55:04] [ inaudible ]

[55:05] >> but that's

[55:07] for next time.

[55:12] >> we can update it at any time. >>

[55:13] we can

[55:15] implement a senior rate. As soon as

[55:16] I talk

[55:18] to the wave staff, we can get something put in immediately.

[55:21] there will be some stipulations around it,

[55:22] we're going to have to investigate

[55:23] whether or not, with the veteran rate

[55:25] it's something they have to purchase

[55:26] in

[55:28] person, because it's how active net is set up,

[55:31] I assume

[55:32] seniors would be something relatively

[55:34] the same, they would need to do it on site.

[55:37] >> we would do the same

[55:39] thing for height restrictions. So that

[55:40] anything that's off of the normal

[55:45] full price, you would have to do on

[55:46] purpose because you're certifying

[55:47] that

[55:48] you are, in fact, that age for that height.

[55:49] in order to get the

[55:51] discount.

[55:52] >> we can get it started

[55:53] .

[55:54] >> that would

[55:55] be fine with me.

[55:57] that would be great, since we're rolling

[55:58] into a summer season.

[56:01] that would be great.

[56:03] those are my questions on that item.

[56:04] >> at 5.2. 5.5?

[56:07] >> that's me again.

[56:10] I think it's the very ,

[56:12] stay where you are. Now I need to

[56:13] find in my

[56:16] notes webpage that's on.

[56:19] page 122 is probably, or page 92,

[56:22] is the best way to go.

[56:30] I don't feel that this particular one,

[56:31] I love all

[56:33] the rest of them, this particular box 9,

[56:46] that looks like it's not all about, so much

[56:50] as it is

[56:51] about, a toxic cloud. I don't know

[56:53] if it's

[56:56] the colors, or what, it

[56:57] didn't fit the theme of what we were going for,

[57:04] but, to me, it evokes exactly the opposite

[57:08] of what we're trying to promote,

[57:10] I wanted to pull that to see what

[57:11] the rest of

[57:14] you thought of it, and see

[57:19] this is not one that I would love to

[57:20] see on a

[57:23] utility box in dublin,

[57:25] promoting the theme of nature in the

[57:26] urban environment because it

[57:27] doesn't evoke nature to me, it evokes

[57:28] toxic fumes and trying to avoid them.

[57:32] I think it's

[57:33] just a meeting but I wanted to pointed

[57:35] out to the

[57:37] rest of you.

[57:38] >> to be honest, this

[57:39] one sort of

[57:41] caught me off guard as well, but

[57:42] I read the artist statement, and felt

[57:44] better about it. It

[57:47] reminds you of the wall the

[57:48] type story line where, if we don't start protecting our

[57:52] environment, here's the doomsday scenario.

[57:56] I think it's quite clever

[57:58] and I like it, but again, the art is

[58:02] very, very objective.

[58:05] or subjective, rather.

[58:06] >>

[58:11] I liked

[58:12] what the artist had to say that when you

[58:14] drive by, get the opportunity to read with

[58:16] the artist had to say about it, I

[58:17] think that she or he, the

[58:18] artist was going for the beauty is

[58:19] overtaking the urban environment,

[58:23] life will out sort of thing.

[58:26] that's not what the

[58:29] image evokes to me. So

[58:31] I just wanted to, I think that I'll

[58:32] be voting

[58:34] against this particular one. And so

[58:37] if you'll indulge me, I'd like to

[58:38] make the motion when we

[58:39] get there. But if the rest of you

[58:42] love it I'm happy to be voted down.

[58:47] >> I did a look

[58:49] at each of them, I love a lot of them.

[58:50] I really love them.

[58:53] and even this one,

[58:55] I kind of understand why you feel that way,

[58:59] but,

[59:05] I thought, it's okay. That's

[59:06] how I feel, it's great, I understand

[59:08] more about it, that's how I feel.

[59:10] maybe make some change to the color to make it

[59:14] more lighthearted somehow.

[59:17] that's how I feel. But I'm good.

[59:20] mike, how do you feel?

[59:25] >> I thought it was cool. It's different

[59:26] than the other

[59:29] ones, and in my mind, each

[59:31] one of these has a different message.

[59:34] and a different angle for the message,

[59:41] and I see it as a little different

[59:42] than the

[59:43] other ones, but I don't like it when everything

[59:44] else is the same.

[59:47] so, I personally don't

[59:50] have a problem with it. I thought

[59:52] the artist did a really good job. It's different.

[59:55] it's interesting. People are going to

[59:56] look

[59:59] at it and go, it's a

[1:00:00] utility box. No, they're going to say,

[1:00:02] that's a really cool thing, they'll

[1:00:04] figure out what the heck is going on.

[1:00:08] >> I think the art itself

[1:00:09] is very cool, being part of this panel of,

[1:00:14] I'm happy to have someone else

[1:00:16] make a motion.

[1:00:17] >> we go through everything and

[1:00:20] then we can vote.

[1:00:21] >> and then

[1:00:23] 5.7 is, the agreement

[1:00:27] for the additional library services,

[1:00:29] it's got the automatic. You again,

[1:00:30] I

[1:00:31] pulled all your items. The agreement

[1:00:32] with the services

[1:00:35] has an automatic 5% escalator

[1:00:37] . What are we getting for additional hours?

[1:00:38] are we

[1:00:40] just paying for staff?

[1:00:41] >> I can try to get

[1:00:43] you my broad understanding of it and

[1:00:44] the library was generous enough

[1:00:47] to send staff here to answer more specific budgetary questions

[1:00:50] if I can't cover everything.

[1:00:53] it is my understanding that it does

[1:00:56] cover staff, it also covers an increase in

[1:00:59] insurance premiums as well as increase in utility costs.

[1:01:05] because it is a pass-through, so

[1:01:06] we paid utility cost up-front for that

[1:01:08] building and we charge them back for

[1:01:09] their

[1:01:10] portion of it that they actually use.

[1:01:11] utility costs do go up for them. They

[1:01:14] don't have a standard,

[1:01:17] it's for some of their employee raises,

[1:01:19] it's about the cpi because of the

[1:01:20] way their unions negotiate

[1:01:25] salary increases. If you have more specific questions,

[1:01:29] darshan is here to hopefully be

[1:01:31] able to answer those for you.

[1:01:32] >> so,

[1:01:35] you threw me a little bit, I get the

[1:01:36] insurance.

[1:01:38] we paid the insurance or they pay

[1:01:40] the insurance?

[1:01:41] >> we mean worker's compensation.

[1:01:44] okay. And

[1:01:47] so, they pay that and

[1:01:49] we are paying that for those hours.

[1:01:50] >> that's correct. >>

[1:01:53] and that goes up, do we know

[1:01:56] , that's an incremental every year,

[1:01:57] do we

[1:01:58] know the percentage that that is ,

[1:01:59] we don't

[1:02:02] really know that yet. And

[1:02:04] the utilities, you threw me because we pay

[1:02:08] on that building and we charge them back

[1:02:09] for all of

[1:02:10] the hours that they're using it or

[1:02:11] only the hours that are

[1:02:13] part of the original , is it 28? 23?

[1:02:21] >> again,

[1:02:22] I'm not sure of the breakdown. I know

[1:02:24] that we pay for it up-front and

[1:02:25] we get charged back a certain amount, but

[1:02:27] perhaps you know a better answer

[1:02:28] for that.

[1:02:29] >> basically, this contract

[1:02:33] covers staff cost, and

[1:02:36] if you are interested

[1:02:38] in the 5% increase, so basically ,

[1:02:42] it is more than 5%.

[1:02:45] cost of materials is

[1:02:48] going up, we are

[1:02:51] buying a lot of material that

[1:02:52] people are using online materials,

[1:02:54] so that is getting expensive.

[1:02:56] showed us what has gone up, maybe 10%,

[1:03:00] utilities are going up,

[1:03:03] so

[1:03:04] the cost of doing business is more than 5%,

[1:03:06] but that is

[1:03:09] ,

[1:03:12] agreement we agreed that

[1:03:14] we will not increase more than 5%.

[1:03:16] that's what we do with other cities.

[1:03:21] >> the materials

[1:03:22] and stuff, though, those are fixed cost, yes?

[1:03:26] if we didn't increase the hours, those costs

[1:03:27] would still

[1:03:29] be borne by alameda county.

[1:03:30] >> yes,

[1:03:31] the hours

[1:03:32] increase is basically keeping open,

[1:03:35] and all that, but, when we do that

[1:03:39] overhead expenses.

[1:03:42] material cost

[1:03:44] and other costs coming to that overhead as well. So,

[1:03:48] overall cost of doing business.

[1:03:51] so, I

[1:03:54] can get the detail like that,

[1:03:55] is funded by three different sources.

[1:03:57] number

[1:03:59] one is property tax. Property tax,

[1:04:03] we get about

[1:04:05] 1% of total property tax collected.

[1:04:12] we

[1:04:15] have that property tax.

[1:04:18] dublin has an assessed value

[1:04:20] of over 3.4 billion. Where is overall

[1:04:24] area has an assessed

[1:04:27] value of 159 billion. About

[1:04:30] 50% of the total property taxes

[1:04:33] 5.5 million. And

[1:04:39] the seven of this contract, 700,000, that funds 23.

[1:04:45] to fund even,

[1:04:48] we used to keep friday open.

[1:04:54] so the city comes back to say,

[1:04:57] we're going

[1:04:59] to add more of, the last couple of years,

[1:05:03] [

[1:05:04] inaudible ] over there, and the cost

[1:05:06] of keeping one open

[1:05:09] is about 30,000 annually. So,

[1:05:12] and other utilities,

[1:05:15] if we keep it

[1:05:18] more open, we use more utility,

[1:05:21] that is how it is calculated.

[1:05:24] and then the third part is like,

[1:05:27] we contribute the 500,000,

[1:05:30] that is the budget,

[1:05:42] if you look at that budget.

[1:05:48] [ inaudible ]

[1:05:51] and 51 hours, that's

[1:05:53] the most open hours in the entire system.

[1:06:03] [ inaudible

[1:06:06] ]

[1:06:07] >> I understand.

[1:06:09] my questions are, there are fixed

[1:06:12] costs and their hourly cost.

[1:06:14] if the city of dublin decided we had

[1:06:15] a budget crisis tomorrow and one

[1:06:17] of the things we had to cut for the library hours,

[1:06:20] the citizens of dublin, residents of

[1:06:21] dublin would be able

[1:06:24] to get their books online. They

[1:06:26] would still be able to take advantage

[1:06:27] of the whole collection online, correct?

[1:06:30] all of the materials.

[1:06:33] the books

[1:06:35] would still be there for the number of

[1:06:36] hours that the library was open that

[1:06:38] the county pays for, correct? That cost wouldn't change.

[1:06:42] we would still be

[1:06:44] paying the utilities on that building

[1:06:45] all the time, utility costs would

[1:06:46] go down,

[1:06:47] if there's nobody in their the lights are not on,

[1:06:50] and we would still be passing on a lower cost

[1:06:53] to the county for the hours the county

[1:06:54] was in there, right?

[1:06:57] the cost that we

[1:06:59] would no longer be paying for would

[1:07:00] be for the

[1:07:03] personnel to staff it while in the extra

[1:07:06] hours that we were there,

[1:07:08] and the workers comp for those hours

[1:07:09] while they were working, and

[1:07:10] the utilities during those hours.

[1:07:12] but we

[1:07:14] shouldn't be, in my opinion, we should

[1:07:15] not be paying, we

[1:07:18] should be picking up a , we should

[1:07:19] be

[1:07:20] dividing the cost of the collection

[1:07:26] by the 23 hours you pay for, the 28

[1:07:27] hours we pay for, vice versa, that

[1:07:29] was fixed costs that the county would be paying anyway.

[1:07:33] that shouldn't be part of the hourly calculation.

[1:07:37] >> only paying

[1:07:38] $700,000 out of the $6 million budget.

[1:07:43] city comes back to the library

[1:07:44] to keep that open for more offers,

[1:07:48] >> I understand that. >> so basically,

[1:07:53] for the 28 hours that we keep open,

[1:07:58] the $5 million expense,

[1:08:01] is not directly the same

[1:08:04] as all the materials,

[1:08:07] like

[1:08:09] I.t. Cost.

[1:08:10] >> my question, my original question is

[1:08:13] what is in what we pay

[1:08:15] for, and why is it going up by 5%

[1:08:16] instead

[1:08:19] of by cola, basically?

[1:08:20] >>

[1:08:21] most of the staff cost is utilities.

[1:08:25] that staff

[1:08:28] is more than 5%.

[1:08:31] some of them are 7% increases.

[1:08:37] so, that's the cost.

[1:08:40] we do that with

[1:08:43] every city, 5%, we do 5% increase.

[1:08:48] >> I guess I just want to be able

[1:08:49] to see

[1:08:50] those breakdowns. Thank you, appreciate it.

[1:08:55] >> I have questions on this as well,

[1:08:57] I want to be more fundamental on this. The question was

[1:09:01] , it's very basic, why are we seeing

[1:09:03] an increase in cost, and what's really driving it, and

[1:09:07] councilmember went in to fix the variable structures.

[1:09:10] what I'm more interested in is,

[1:09:15] this might be a question that can

[1:09:16] be quickly answered, are

[1:09:17] you providing all the detail to the city

[1:09:22] the breakdown of these

[1:09:25] different characteristics?

[1:09:28] so we can figure out what's really driving

[1:09:29] it? It's a fundamental question. Do you

[1:09:31] provide the city

[1:09:33] with a detailed breakdown, of the whole thing.

[1:09:37] >> we can

[1:09:40] write any additional information if

[1:09:43] there is any other information

[1:09:46] , we can provide that.

[1:09:47] >>

[1:09:49] it was a basic question, do

[1:09:52] you provide that information

[1:09:54] for the city to evaluate the detail,

[1:09:55] or,

[1:09:56] >> we

[1:09:57] do provide. We do provide whatever

[1:09:58] we are asked for.

[1:10:01] for the last couple of days we have

[1:10:02] been

[1:10:04] going on the email, provided.

[1:10:06] the questions that were raised. So,

[1:10:10] that's

[1:10:13] basically, whatever questions

[1:10:16] you

[1:10:17] have, we have the information, we

[1:10:19] can provide more detail. This

[1:10:22] can be, like when

[1:10:25] we do the business,

[1:10:28] like we are supposed to close the library

[1:10:31] at 5:00, to keep it open to

[1:10:34] 8:00, three hours, we need staff

[1:10:37] for that three hours, we need

[1:10:39] utilities for three hours, and the

[1:10:40] staff cost is going up.

[1:10:43] so we asked steady to

[1:10:46] increase 5%,

[1:10:51] >> so I want my question answered.

[1:10:52] okay? I appreciate that,

[1:10:54] that you're answering her question

[1:10:55] that I didn't ask.

[1:10:58] my question is, I think it would be

[1:11:00] a good thing to simply provide the city with

[1:11:01] a full detail

[1:11:04] of what

[1:11:07] these costs are about,

[1:11:09] so we can assess what's driving it, and I had

[1:11:13] an easy question I was about to lead

[1:11:16] into, so I apologize for being a

[1:11:18] little abrupt, but I didn't wanted to digress.

[1:11:21] we go through these evaluations periodically,

[1:11:22] and

[1:11:24] I do see the value of having full service

[1:11:28] ,

[1:11:30] and we certainly don't want to be

[1:11:31] in a situation like some of our

[1:11:34] cities that we know of, but, I am curious,

[1:11:37] about,

[1:11:40] on the baseline,

[1:11:43] it's 28 hours.

[1:11:46] how many

[1:11:47] very fundamentally, generally speaking, how many

[1:11:52] ftes, how many people are involved in that baselevel?

[1:11:55] and on the incremental, is

[1:11:58] it more or less the same? In

[1:12:00] terms of, the numbers of people that,

[1:12:04] that we are paying

[1:12:06] for for this service. You understand the question?

[1:12:10] >> yeah. The number of people

[1:12:13] will depend on if we're opening additional

[1:12:16] , three more hours, we will need

[1:12:19] the same that we

[1:12:22] during regular hours.

[1:12:25] for these three hours, there will be additional,

[1:12:28] additional

[1:12:31] staff, and we can extend hours for the same staff.

[1:12:34] so some staff will

[1:12:36] continue more hours, some staff we have

[1:12:40] for part-time employees.

[1:12:42] we have service as needed employees.

[1:12:47] we have to, like

[1:12:50] keep that open and

[1:12:52] provide the staff, and it depends on like

[1:12:56] rush hour morning, afternoon,

[1:13:00] so the project manager makes a decision how many staff

[1:13:05] .

[1:13:06] >> so, it's

[1:13:07] not like, okay, back three years ago

[1:13:08] you had x

[1:13:11] number of people allocated

[1:13:12] for the base, and the incremental.

[1:13:17] it doesn't change, or

[1:13:18] it does, it actually does change?

[1:13:22] these numbers, here, that I'm looking at,

[1:13:23] the actual funding amounts,

[1:13:26] the number of hours,

[1:13:28] it could be different year to year,

[1:13:29] we

[1:13:31] could be getting five people at some,

[1:13:32] for

[1:13:34] a certain amount of hours, or we could

[1:13:35] be getting four or whatever.

[1:13:39] it's moving around. Is that, I'm trying

[1:13:41] to get a feel.

[1:13:43] you talk about other things and insurance,

[1:13:44] I'm

[1:13:46] focusing on the actual employees.

[1:13:50] >> the actual

[1:13:53] employees, so, I think

[1:13:56] maybe she can explain it better.

[1:13:58] when the extended hours, how many

[1:13:59] staff they

[1:14:02] are using, and so,

[1:14:05] --

[1:14:06] >> I just want to be clear.

[1:14:08] as concise as possible, I don't want

[1:14:09] to

[1:14:10] use up all your good time. I just

[1:14:11] want to get an idea of

[1:14:13] when we're presented with a baseline

[1:14:14] of

[1:14:17] 28, what's the expectation? And

[1:14:20] we're adding 23,

[1:14:23] what is the expectation?

[1:14:28] it's good to see you again, haven't

[1:14:29] seen you in a

[1:14:30] long time.

[1:14:31] >> I'm the ranch manager.

[1:14:34] so, we are open like you said 51 hours

[1:14:35] a week, our full-time

[1:14:37] is 18.8. We have only nine full-time staff,

[1:14:41] and I

[1:14:43] want to say 18 part-time staff. And,

[1:14:51] because staff is scheduled to work

[1:14:53] 7 1/2 hours a day, but we're open 10

[1:14:55] hours a day, that's why we need a lot

[1:14:56] of part-time staff, right?

[1:15:00] as far as traffic is concerned, I

[1:15:02] can tell you, it's not five

[1:15:03] people. If you look at the average,

[1:15:05] we have about 100 people

[1:15:07] in our end of the library, we're really busy.

[1:15:10] and I understand, as you mentioned, people

[1:15:14] can use

[1:15:15] material and get everything at home,

[1:15:17] people

[1:15:20] need more than that.

[1:15:23] they want to visit their local

[1:15:24] library, they want to attend programs, our

[1:15:25] programs are very well attended. We

[1:15:27] really promote early literacy, and

[1:15:29] I can tell you that

[1:15:32] in the summer, we have to have

[1:15:35] new programs. Last week, we had

[1:15:36] 92 people lined up for baby time.

[1:15:41] so it's only

[1:15:42] going up, it's not going down, because

[1:15:49] we believe in equity and everything

[1:15:50] is free in the library and not

[1:15:51] everyone can afford to go pay for different

[1:15:53] programs to attend programs. So everybody

[1:15:54] comes

[1:15:55] to the library to see what they can get for free.

[1:15:58] and to get their bang for the buck.

[1:15:59] >> so the formula

[1:16:02] is not

[1:16:03] straightforward. It's complicated,

[1:16:04] right? Depending on the needs and

[1:16:05] the programs.

[1:16:08] so, when I'm given

[1:16:14] a summary chart that says here's our

[1:16:15] expenses

[1:16:16] and the number of hours we're asking for

[1:16:17] and the numbers are going up, you

[1:16:19] kind of look at it and say what's

[1:16:20] driving it? Is it

[1:16:28] a number of employees? I wanted to

[1:16:29] keep it simple, but now, listening to

[1:16:31] you it's, it's a little more complicated

[1:16:32] than that. It sounds like. Okay.

[1:16:35] I guess, in ending my comments,

[1:16:38] or question, I think it would be good

[1:16:39] if

[1:16:41] the city hasn't received detail,

[1:16:44] it would be good , at

[1:16:46] least to have a little more detail

[1:16:50] on this, so that we could see it.

[1:16:53] that's my only

[1:16:54] request and recommendation, if we

[1:16:56] don't already have it.

[1:16:59] >> thank you. I want to say something.

[1:17:02] I used to be , what

[1:17:05] do they call, a liaison committee,

[1:17:07] also friends with the libraries. I

[1:17:08] know

[1:17:11] this is critically important to have

[1:17:12] the hours

[1:17:14] we are providing, and dublin only has one library,

[1:17:20] and sarah mel has

[1:17:21] two, so in the past we talked about

[1:17:23] how we can serve so many people

[1:17:26] with only one library, so

[1:17:29] this is a great way. My self , I

[1:17:32] sometimes just go there because I

[1:17:33] just want to

[1:17:34] have a place I can sit down without

[1:17:35] any distractions.

[1:17:41] so I think this is critically important

[1:17:42] to have

[1:17:43] the services that we provide to our residents,

[1:17:47] and I understand you talk about

[1:17:50] the 5%, it's a little bit

[1:17:52] more than cpi, so I would like to say

[1:17:53] maybe we just ask staff to

[1:17:56] look into the details

[1:17:59] to make sure it's reasonable. I'm

[1:18:00] sure it

[1:18:01] is but, we have councilmember comments and then, if

[1:18:02] you want

[1:18:04] staff can report back to you. The

[1:18:06] details of those.

[1:18:07] >> I

[1:18:08] think one of the questions , I think

[1:18:11] we should be able to get that level of information.

[1:18:17] >> go ahead, vice mayor. >> just two questions.

[1:18:20] thank you for the presentation and for the details.

[1:18:24] in terms of online material,

[1:18:26] how do you track that to a particular branch

[1:18:30] is my first question. And

[1:18:32] the second question is, in terms of

[1:18:33] the

[1:18:35] hours, obviously we were, the county

[1:18:36] provides the

[1:18:39] base level of 28

[1:18:40] , we've been providing the additional 23

[1:18:42] hours of services per week,

[1:18:45] have we looked at

[1:18:48] hourly utilization,

[1:18:49] and if 23 is the right number, and

[1:18:51] are we extending

[1:18:54] the correct

[1:18:55] 23 hours over the course of the week.

[1:18:57] >>

[1:19:00] so we do have a device

[1:19:03] that counts the number of

[1:19:04] people that enter the building every

[1:19:05] hour, and we can produce that report

[1:19:06] that shows

[1:19:08] foot traffic at different days and different hours.

[1:19:12] we usually

[1:19:15] look at that report. But we

[1:19:16] haven't looked at it in great detail to see

[1:19:21] , I

[1:19:22] know that saturday, sunday are our

[1:19:23] busiest days, monday evening, tuesday

[1:19:25] evenings are busiest days. And when

[1:19:26] we have programs it's busy, it's hard to predict.

[1:19:30] and

[1:19:33] for example,

[1:19:34] december is our slow time of the year.

[1:19:36] when

[1:19:38] kids go back to school in august, september, so,

[1:19:42] it's different.

[1:19:45] it depends on so many factors. That

[1:19:47] was one question, the second question

[1:19:48] was about the e-books

[1:19:51] and how you contract.

[1:19:54] it's trackable, because

[1:19:57] when customers

[1:19:58] make a library card, you can designate

[1:20:00] dublin as a resident.

[1:20:03] it's, I don't know ,

[1:20:06] I'm not

[1:20:09] in the department that

[1:20:10] generates the report. It's doable, I'm

[1:20:12] sure. We can get that

[1:20:14] , like how many e-books are checked out

[1:20:17] by dublin residents is the question I guess.

[1:20:18] >>

[1:20:21] I was more

[1:20:23] curious how you attributed to a particular branch

[1:20:24] as opposed

[1:20:25] to general in terms of utilization.

[1:20:30] >> that

[1:20:33] attract who is using.

[1:20:36] >> we can track

[1:20:39] how many new

[1:20:40] cards were issued to the city of dublin

[1:20:41] residents, for example. It's doable.

[1:20:45] if you're looking for those reports,

[1:20:47] we can produce those.

[1:20:48] >> I was more interested

[1:20:49] in the hourly

[1:20:50] utilization and trying to get an understanding,

[1:20:53] the type of hours that we're providing as

[1:20:54] well as are

[1:20:57] those the right ones? The quantity

[1:20:58] as well

[1:20:59] as the specific timings that we're extending.

[1:21:06] >> thank you. Thank you for the great

[1:21:07] information,

[1:21:09] I want to make really clear

[1:21:11] that my questions were about the escalator,

[1:21:12] the 5%

[1:21:13] escalator, not the value of the additional

[1:21:15] hours. I want to make

[1:21:18] really clear that I'm all in

[1:21:20] on the additional hours, I know you

[1:21:21] were trying to defend the library,

[1:21:24] our library in dublin is one of the

[1:21:25] heaviest utilized in the county, we

[1:21:27] know that. It's also one of the most popular

[1:21:33] amenities we have in dublin when

[1:21:35] we ask, we're about to do the community

[1:21:36] service again that our committee ranks

[1:21:37] among

[1:21:38] the highest things that they love about dublin.

[1:21:42] you all do

[1:21:44] great work, I appreciate what you do

[1:21:45] and what your staff does, and for

[1:21:46] anybody who doesn't know the history

[1:21:48] of why we have the extra hours that we

[1:21:51] have, that's a council request. It's

[1:21:52] not a

[1:21:53] request from alameda county library,

[1:21:54] it was about a request from us,

[1:21:56] vice mayor biddle requested it every year to increase

[1:22:00] two

[1:22:02] hours a year, until we got to where

[1:22:03] we are to continue to

[1:22:06] add budget every year on every budget

[1:22:07] cycle until we could increase the

[1:22:09] hours to where we are now and that's something

[1:22:11] that has been near and dear to council

[1:22:12] for a long time.

[1:22:15] I support data, as

[1:22:17] you know, and I agree with your request

[1:22:18] to make sure it's the right additional

[1:22:21] hours that are open,

[1:22:26] and there's been conversation about friday's,

[1:22:27] not fridays over the years to make

[1:22:28] sure

[1:22:29] that we're open the hours that our

[1:22:30] residents want us to be open, and

[1:22:33] if we even made an attempt to cut back

[1:22:35] our residents would be lined up 20

[1:22:36] but the microphone asking us

[1:22:39] not to do that. I want to make sure

[1:22:40] that I was

[1:22:41] clear, that my questions were not about

[1:22:42] and not going in the direction of trying

[1:22:44] to reduce those hours. It is about

[1:22:45] ,

[1:22:47] what are we paying for? What goes

[1:22:48] into that number and why an automatic

[1:22:49] escalator,

[1:22:51] when it's basically staff costs,

[1:22:54] instead of

[1:22:57] having to be cpi each year, what's going into that

[1:22:58] .

[1:23:00] >> are we good on this item?

[1:23:03] okay. Okay, additional.

[1:23:06] 5.8 .

[1:23:13] waste

[1:23:14] management.

[1:23:15] >> thank you. >> thank you.

[1:23:16] >> just a quick question,

[1:23:18] this was coming from councilmember

[1:23:19] morada around why

[1:23:20] we don't have a rate hike ceiling

[1:23:21] on our contracts for the waste management.

[1:23:25] and seems like his words,

[1:23:28] were at

[1:23:29] a disadvantage every time given these contracts are long-term,

[1:23:34] so

[1:23:35] I was hoping you could speak to that.

[1:23:38] >> I want to make sure I understand

[1:23:40] the question, the question is why

[1:23:42] do we not have a max annual rate?

[1:23:48] for our contracts? Disposal contract?

[1:23:49] >>

[1:23:52] it's more,

[1:23:57] without any ceiling to that, any limit

[1:23:59] to that upper limit, looking at the

[1:24:01] year over

[1:24:02] year increases.

[1:24:03] >> so, for disposal, there is

[1:24:07] a great

[1:24:09] limit, a rate adjustment, for the

[1:24:13] first year it's 6%, for years

[1:24:16] two through 10,

[1:24:19] it's 7%.

[1:24:21] the reason why it goes up a little bit

[1:24:25] is because we've been

[1:24:26] in this contract with waste management

[1:24:28] for

[1:24:29] the previous 10 years, and they've fallen behind

[1:24:34] on the disposal rates .

[1:24:37] so, we're

[1:24:38] allowing a little bit of a catch-up,

[1:24:43] so it's basically cpi plus a

[1:24:46] max 3.5% for that catch-up,

[1:24:49] but it can't exceed 7% per year.

[1:24:52] for disposal.

[1:24:55] for organics,

[1:24:58] there is not a ceiling,

[1:25:01] in the agreement,

[1:25:04] but the rate is

[1:25:07] better than what we've had,

[1:25:08] and of course we have to approve these

[1:25:10] rates. The city approved the rates annually, so

[1:25:12] if they're proposing something that's excessive,

[1:25:16] then we

[1:25:19] can deny those adjustments.

[1:25:21] >> okay, and then in terms of the recycling

[1:25:25] .

[1:25:26] >> recycling in this contract?

[1:25:28] we're in

[1:25:30] negotiations right now with aci, alameda county

[1:25:34] , recycling is not part

[1:25:37] of this agreement.

[1:25:38] >> okay.

[1:25:40] and just, my question

[1:25:43] , one additional question is, the

[1:25:45] way I understand it is that there's a cost

[1:25:48] for operating in terms of the waste

[1:25:49] and all of that, and then

[1:25:51] there's some set percentage as an

[1:25:55] overage admin type fee in

[1:25:56] terms of establishing the rate. Is that correct?

[1:26:01] >> so, for

[1:26:03] the waste management agreement, there

[1:26:04] is the

[1:26:06] tipping fees, that is what is in this agreement.

[1:26:08] that's the disposal fee, and then

[1:26:10] there's the government fees.

[1:26:13] those government

[1:26:15] fees are fees that are not paid to

[1:26:16] us, I'm sorry, I don't

[1:26:17] have them all listed, hh w fees, there's

[1:26:19] all of these fees

[1:26:20] that various other government entities charge,

[1:26:25] those fees

[1:26:26] don't really change very much. In fact, they

[1:26:28] change very very little from the current contract.

[1:26:31] I don't remember exactly,

[1:26:34] it's pennies on change,

[1:26:37] so those fees are more or less stable over time.

[1:26:39] it's just the cost for processing

[1:26:43] the landfill disposal. That's what changes

[1:26:46] yearly.

[1:26:47] >> thank you for the clarifications.

[1:26:52] >> thank you. You're good? Okay, good. So,

[1:26:55] 5.10.

[1:26:58] >>

[1:27:01] [ inaudible ]

[1:27:04] >> did you have a question? >>

[1:27:06] just wanted to clarify on 5.10, why

[1:27:07] we wouldn't want to

[1:27:10] enforce that

[1:27:12] as opposed to outsourcing.

[1:27:13] >> in source the

[1:27:16] function of lanlogic?

[1:27:19] the reason, the main reason

[1:27:21] we do it is we wouldn't be able to cost-effectively

[1:27:28] get that kind of skill

[1:27:30] set that we use lanlogic for, which is

[1:27:31] high-level networking, database administrators, the x rail,

[1:27:34] and other skill sets

[1:27:37] that we don't have

[1:27:39] those high-level, it would not be

[1:27:40] cost-effective to

[1:27:42] do that. Each one of those would be somewhere between

[1:27:46] 175 and 200,

[1:27:49] as a base salary plus burden.

[1:27:52] and it would never even out. We

[1:27:55] pay about a fifth of that,

[1:27:58] to get all those skill sets, inside lanlogic.

[1:28:01] >> it's a fractional work

[1:28:04] across those areas. Perfect, thank you.

[1:28:07] >> that's all the questions.

[1:28:10] so how do we go with

[1:28:13] all the items?

[1:28:14] >> happy to

[1:28:16] make a motion for 5.2, 5.7, all of them.

[1:28:22] 5.2, 5.5,

[1:28:25] 5.7, 5.8, 5.10.

[1:28:26] >> I'll second. >> so we just

[1:28:28] all in favor say

[1:28:32] aye.

[1:28:33] >> aye. >>

[1:28:34] so those items approved unanimously,

[1:28:35] thank you. And let's move on to

[1:28:38] agenda

[1:28:41] item six, public hearing.

[1:28:44] 6.1, adoption of rates

[1:28:45] for garbage collection, disposal,

[1:28:46] and recycling services provided by

[1:28:50] avi, and establishing

[1:28:56] 2025 to 2026, a new assessment.

[1:28:57] >> good evening, honorable mayor,

[1:29:02] j black stuff, finance director.

[1:29:05] I'm here to present the

[1:29:06] adoption of rates for the garbage collection for 25-26.

[1:29:13] just a quick background, amador valley

[1:29:14] industries began providing

[1:29:15] services in 2005 to the city of dublin.

[1:29:18] the contract was extended in 2020,

[1:29:20] it was extended for 15

[1:29:21] years to 2035. We were notified in 2034,

[1:29:26] by avi,

[1:29:27] that they intended to sell the company to

[1:29:28] livermore sanitation inc. Or lsi.

[1:29:33] later in the year, the assignment

[1:29:35] of the agreement to lsi was approved

[1:29:36] by the city council. Part of that was

[1:29:39] the amended and restated agreement that

[1:29:41] was executed then in 2025.

[1:29:47] the agreement provides

[1:29:50] for an annual rate adjustment,

[1:29:52] adjustments are based on multiple

[1:29:55] factors including cpi indexes, number

[1:29:56] of build units, annual growth service,

[1:29:59] annual

[1:30:02] tonnage and disposal fees.

[1:30:05] for 25-26, the rate increase

[1:30:07] for all services is recommended to increase 4.06%.

[1:30:13] and this will put the new baseline

[1:30:14] for

[1:30:15] residential at $44.66 a month. That is

[1:30:20] $1.70 for a month increase.

[1:30:23] the

[1:30:24] dublin baseline service is placed

[1:30:26] on the property tax bill.

[1:30:32] the rates are going up, as I mentioned, that

[1:30:35] equates to 2088 per year.

[1:30:37] so, how does that compare to various cities,

[1:30:41] around our area?

[1:30:44] san ramon, is at 52

[1:30:47] , this is their baseline rate.

[1:30:53] which is $7.45 higher,

[1:30:55] livermore is at $40.73, $3.93 lower, castro valley

[1:30:59] is at 55.49, $10.

[1:31:02] and $.83.

[1:31:05] and then pleasanton,

[1:31:08] is kind of an outlier, and is at

[1:31:16] 32.78, attachment eight we lay out the

[1:31:17] comparison and we do a

[1:31:20] three city comparison

[1:31:23] , we use to

[1:31:25] include pleasanton but we have since removed them because

[1:31:26] they

[1:31:27] are an outlier. The question has come up,

[1:31:31] why is it so low? We've been looking

[1:31:32] into that as

[1:31:34] much as we can find. We've talked with

[1:31:38] one of our consultants, and

[1:31:41] from them, one of

[1:31:44] the big reasons is , at least

[1:31:46] from an efficiency standpoint, is

[1:31:47] that their vehicles are parked

[1:31:50] in

[1:31:51] pleasanton, and that their transfer

[1:31:53] station is in town.

[1:31:54] they say that by having everything

[1:31:56] located in the city that you're

[1:31:59] performing the service in,

[1:32:01] it adds an hour of productivity efficiency

[1:32:04] as opposed to dublin where they need

[1:32:05] to go pick up

[1:32:07] the trucks, drive back, drive to dublin and

[1:32:13] go down, we don't have that transportation,

[1:32:14] we have to go to the landfill.

[1:32:16] but another piece that happened is their transfer station

[1:32:20] , just like we do appreciate

[1:32:22] any capital assets, their transfer station was depreciated,

[1:32:28] and around 2020 it was fully depreciated.

[1:32:31] so, that came off, so that would have reduced

[1:32:34] the amount to begin with, but it was also found

[1:32:38] that they had over depreciated, so that

[1:32:39] money

[1:32:40] had to go back to the ratepayers.

[1:32:44] you

[1:32:46] take all of those things into consideration

[1:32:47] and it gets them to a very

[1:32:50] low rate, so that depreciation dropped

[1:32:51] the rates

[1:32:52] by 13% that year. So that's a pretty large amount.

[1:32:59] and again, we don't know all of

[1:33:01] it, we can't see everything but from

[1:33:02] our research that's what we've found.

[1:33:05] so, for our annual rate adjustment,

[1:33:08] we look at four different areas,

[1:33:11] index adjustment, which

[1:33:14] we call our I, this is a weighted

[1:33:16] cpi we look at three indexes and wait

[1:33:17] it against annual cost,

[1:33:22] add everything up, and the reason

[1:33:23] we do that is,

[1:33:26] that way in

[1:33:28] case one of the indices is significantly higher,

[1:33:29] it

[1:33:30] doesn't artificially increase everything.

[1:33:32] the

[1:33:34] weighted is meant to balance everything out.

[1:33:38] then we look at annual growth, that's looking at

[1:33:41] two points in

[1:33:42] time, january to december, that's

[1:33:45] the number of units

[1:33:46] served. That's residential, everything.

[1:33:49] in terms of residential and commercial.

[1:33:54] one thing to note

[1:33:55] is that if the change is negative,

[1:33:56] it's set at zero. Approved tip fee,

[1:34:00] as shannon was mentioning,

[1:34:02] historically we've had an agreement

[1:34:03] with waste management

[1:34:06] only for solid waste.

[1:34:09] we've

[1:34:10] always relied on avi, and their agreements with third-party.

[1:34:17] landfills for organics and recycling, we now recently

[1:34:20] are in a contract with waste management for organics,

[1:34:24] and we're looking to do

[1:34:25] a first party agreement with recycling.

[1:34:27] so, that's a new

[1:34:29] change, but having a long-term agreement

[1:34:33] in case gives

[1:34:34] us stability and credibility, the marcus

[1:34:37] for anybody who's listened to me,

[1:34:39] the markets have jumped all over

[1:34:40] the place especially with organics and recycling.

[1:34:44] and annual tonnage, that's the amount of stuff

[1:34:48] that is disposed

[1:34:49] of, garbage, organics, recycling.

[1:34:51] so, the biggest cost

[1:34:54] in all of this is the

[1:34:56] collection element. That's just everything

[1:34:57] associated with the collection of

[1:35:00] garbage,

[1:35:01] organics, recycling, that's everything that

[1:35:03] has to do with picking

[1:35:06] up those three. Items.

[1:35:09] that's

[1:35:11] adjusted annually by the rr I, cip and annual growth.

[1:35:18] commercial recycling is an

[1:35:19] element that was created to incentivize

[1:35:20] commercial recycling, when we did the

[1:35:21] amended and restated agreement

[1:35:23] we basically reset that, so we do the annual calculation

[1:35:27] and apply a $421,795 credit

[1:35:30] for that, so we back that out.

[1:35:33] when I show you the

[1:35:34] chart of the cost elements, that one

[1:35:36] is low, it's at $72,000.

[1:35:39] and

[1:35:42] then waste disposal, city

[1:35:44] has renegotiated the long-term contract with waste management.

[1:35:45] that is annual tonnage

[1:35:48] times tip

[1:35:50] fee, that's a simple pass through to the consumer.

[1:35:54] we also have a container compensation element

[1:35:57] , a replacement of bins, that's the annual growth factor.

[1:36:00] customers get added on,

[1:36:03] they're going to

[1:36:05] have to replace the bins, and that's how that's captured.

[1:36:08] recycling disposal, we are currently

[1:36:12] through avi taking all

[1:36:15] of our recycled material

[1:36:17] to aci in san leandro, hoping to have

[1:36:18] a first

[1:36:21] party agreement with them

[1:36:27] --

[1:36:36] 25-26,

[1:36:41] currently we pay market rate, and then

[1:36:42] in the agreement, that should

[1:36:44] all be laid out of price and increases

[1:36:45] in

[1:36:48] that sort of thing.

[1:36:51] that is the

[1:36:52] annual tonnage times the annual tip

[1:36:53] fee, and as I mentioned we're currently

[1:36:56] working on that agreement. And organics,

[1:36:57] this is new to

[1:37:00] us, we have historically processed

[1:37:01] everything through avi's vendors.

[1:37:06] they're

[1:37:09] over, we actually had to truck

[1:37:11] a lot of this outside of the area.

[1:37:15] so, the

[1:37:17] good thing with this is it will be local.

[1:37:21] it's not as far as

[1:37:23] we have to take, the annual adjustment

[1:37:24] is calculated, it's the tonnage and

[1:37:26] the annual disposal fee. Because we had to truck

[1:37:31] the organics outside of the area,

[1:37:33] there was a holding fee

[1:37:35] that was incorporated. Now that we

[1:37:38] have the new agreement, we're going

[1:37:39] to

[1:37:42] need to speak with lsi and look at

[1:37:48] removing that, when looking at the two

[1:37:49] fees,

[1:37:50] they're very similar. The actual disposal fee is

[1:37:51] about

[1:37:53] the same when you take into consideration

[1:37:57] the new rate

[1:37:59] we'll be paying versus the lower rate plus

[1:38:00] the holding fee, it was less expensive

[1:38:03] to take it over to the central

[1:38:04] valley, but there's a holding fee, but

[1:38:06] we're going to look at that,

[1:38:08] any savings we get from any of these

[1:38:09] agreements, first party agreements will

[1:38:10] immediately

[1:38:12] go back to the ratepayers.

[1:38:14] and vehicle and administration elements, this

[1:38:21] is capture at all costs, this is our capital, art appreciation.

[1:38:24] this will

[1:38:26] come off as soon as the assets are fully depreciated.

[1:38:30] this does not get increased each

[1:38:33] year, it's set at

[1:38:35] the amount, and it just carries over

[1:38:36] until it's fully depreciated.

[1:38:41] the last element is the franchise

[1:38:42] fee, which is based on a

[1:38:45] percentage of avi's revenue.

[1:38:47] this summarizes all of the elements,

[1:38:48] as you can see the collection

[1:38:50] element is by far the largest. With

[1:38:51] all the other fees broken out.

[1:38:57] and you can see

[1:38:58] the vehicle and administration element is

[1:39:00] set at the $1.6 million.

[1:39:03] in total, it is a

[1:39:04] $1.3 million increase, and that's

[1:39:07] where we apply the 4.06%

[1:39:10] to generate the revenue.

[1:39:13] so, since this is

[1:39:16] on the property tax,

[1:39:20] we need to conduct a public hearing, deliberate,

[1:39:21] and approved the resolutions amending

[1:39:22] the

[1:39:25] schedule of service rates

[1:39:27] for integrated solid waste services

[1:39:28] and approve the resolution,

[1:39:29] approving and establishing the collection

[1:39:30] of minimum residential garbage and

[1:39:31] recycling service

[1:39:33] fees for fiscal year 25-26. The second

[1:39:34] is placing

[1:39:36] it on the tax roll. And here to answer any questions.

[1:39:40] >> so, we'll

[1:39:43] ask questions first, go ahead.

[1:39:44] >> the presentation, you know I'm

[1:39:46] going to have some questions.

[1:39:52] the organics, the

[1:39:53] new organics contract that we just

[1:39:54] approved is not included in this, correct?

[1:39:55] >> correct.

[1:40:01] will that be, I know

[1:40:04] the cost is a wash

[1:40:05] between the old with the holding fee, and

[1:40:07] so we will see that

[1:40:10] updated

[1:40:11] next year, is that right? You won't

[1:40:13] updated this year at all?

[1:40:14] >>

[1:40:15] we can't, once they close the role.

[1:40:18] >> I'm going to jump around a little bit,

[1:40:21] that rolled me to my next question

[1:40:22] which is, you said

[1:40:25] that if we see a savings with

[1:40:31] if we saw a savings it

[1:40:32] would immediately go back to the ratepayers.

[1:40:34] >> may be immediate wasn't. >> so,

[1:40:37] we would roll

[1:40:38] that into next year's rate, correct?

[1:40:40] otherwise we

[1:40:41] would have to hold another hearing.

[1:40:43] but, we would roll that

[1:40:46] into next year's

[1:40:49] .

[1:40:50] >>

[1:40:51] and especially because we'll also

[1:40:53] hopefully be having recycling. So

[1:40:55] we'll work with lsi on

[1:40:58] readjusting that

[1:41:01] way we calculate that.

[1:41:02] >> okay.

[1:41:04] which segues beautifully into

[1:41:07] the growth factor conversation.

[1:41:09] which, as you know from prior years, I

[1:41:10] hate that

[1:41:13] element. Not only is the floor being

[1:41:16] at zero problematic for me, but

[1:41:19] the way we use

[1:41:20] the census, the total census residential we

[1:41:21] don't distinguish between the two.

[1:41:25] I find problematic because

[1:41:28] we have a ton of new houses,

[1:41:30] then our business community is having

[1:41:34] their rates go up a little bit

[1:41:35] , more than it should. And conversely

[1:41:37] if we had a whole new

[1:41:40] commercial center come online,

[1:41:45] then our residents end up paying a

[1:41:46] little bit more for that. Is there

[1:41:48] a way that we can renegotiate that

[1:41:49] element so that we split the growth

[1:41:52] , it would mean that

[1:41:54] the resident rate and the commercial rate

[1:41:55] might adjust

[1:41:58] slightly differently

[1:42:00] , percentagewise, but that commercial growth

[1:42:01] would be placed

[1:42:04] , the percentage will

[1:42:07] be placed on the commercial,

[1:42:09] and the residential growth would be

[1:42:10] placed on the residential

[1:42:12] customers that would be more equitable,

[1:42:13] I think, for

[1:42:16] lack of a better word.

[1:42:19] is there a way to look at that?

[1:42:20] >>

[1:42:21] there's no easy way as everything

[1:42:22] is set up now.

[1:42:23] >> we're sorry,

[1:42:24] go ahead.

[1:42:25] >> on the collection element

[1:42:26] , everything

[1:42:28] is

[1:42:30] just thrown into that pot, that you would have to

[1:42:33] figure out what the costs were on the commercial side.

[1:42:37] not say

[1:42:39] it can't be done but the way it currently

[1:42:40] is and the way it's

[1:42:41] currently written into the contract.

[1:42:43] we would have to essentially hit the reset button.

[1:42:46] >> the way we calculate that, we multiply,

[1:42:49] we know where new service

[1:42:52] has been added. Because

[1:42:55] we multiply that census

[1:42:58] by the dollar amount.

[1:43:01] so, it seems like it wouldn't be that hard

[1:43:06] .

[1:43:07] >> one thing to point out, that it is

[1:43:13] up to your discretion, we've always

[1:43:14] applied the

[1:43:15] rate across everything. That doesn't

[1:43:16] mean you have to.

[1:43:19] >> but we

[1:43:21] wouldn't want to do it arbitrarily, which is,

[1:43:25] it was strictly

[1:43:27] arbitrary, did we want to hold the same

[1:43:28] orsay, we want to

[1:43:31] keep the residential percentage

[1:43:33] at a certain rate, in order to get

[1:43:34] the total, the total guaranteed

[1:43:40] to be the right

[1:43:42] amount, we can adjust, but we didn't

[1:43:43] have any data behind it in the past

[1:43:45] when we talked about the idea of doing

[1:43:46] that. We would want, I

[1:43:49] personally would want to have ,

[1:43:51] going up by this much because commercial

[1:43:52] growth, just for that one element.

[1:43:55] >> based

[1:43:57] off the census, the information, we

[1:43:58] have the information and we can do

[1:43:59] the

[1:44:00] calculation that would essentially

[1:44:01] say, growth factor for commercial,

[1:44:04] and for residential it's y.

[1:44:07] then come back to you and

[1:44:09] recommend that each be adjusted by that. Amount.

[1:44:13] >> we wouldn't be ,

[1:44:19] but, at least we would have that data going

[1:44:21] forward which would be certainly helpful to have

[1:44:23] even

[1:44:26] if we chose, we'd rather

[1:44:29] raise it all the same amount.

[1:44:32] >> that's a good point.

[1:44:35] I've

[1:44:36] never approached it that way, that

[1:44:37] is definitely, it would be an extra step.

[1:44:41] >> as long as that's doable,

[1:44:42] that's information I would love to

[1:44:44] see next time. And then,

[1:44:47] just to make sure I understand,

[1:44:53] the agreements that we have, the

[1:44:54] first party agreements with waste

[1:44:55] management, there's no additional

[1:44:58] fee on top of those that we get charged

[1:45:02] by our holder to honor those .

[1:45:03] they don't have an additional administrative

[1:45:04] fee, they just honor the agreement

[1:45:05] that we have with

[1:45:06] waste management. Waste management

[1:45:08] charges

[1:45:10] them those tipping fees.

[1:45:11] >> for waste disposal

[1:45:14] , I believe for

[1:45:17] organics in the past,

[1:45:19] because it was their agreement, there

[1:45:20] was the overhead attached to that.

[1:45:23] >> but with her

[1:45:26] right now with garbage,

[1:45:29] we negotiated

[1:45:30] the rate, abi pays that tipping fee,

[1:45:32] it's passed on directly with

[1:45:33] no additional, and that's what the

[1:45:35] new organics will be like.

[1:45:37] >> that is something we'll need to discuss.

[1:45:41] >> okay.

[1:45:44] >> since this is new

[1:45:46] to us, in the agreement, it's something we'll need to.

[1:45:48] >> that's my questions, thank you.

[1:45:50] >> thank you. Any

[1:45:53] other questions from you?

[1:45:54] >>

[1:45:55] councilmember addressed it more thoroughly,

[1:45:58] that I could, and it was about the

[1:46:02] imbalance or how the two

[1:46:04] residential and commercial equalize, and how

[1:46:07] come I thought that was very good comment.

[1:46:13] I have a really small comment here,

[1:46:14] I was looking at it,

[1:46:17] you break out by

[1:46:19] kansai's, for example, for residential.

[1:46:23] and I noticed that,

[1:46:29] is the 64th or

[1:46:31] 70 even used? We get 32 and 96 is

[1:46:32] according to what I

[1:46:34] read. But, how are we coming up with this factor here

[1:46:37] for the middle range? It looks like

[1:46:38] it exceeds

[1:46:41] the average. It's just tweaking.

[1:46:45] I'm not looking at that, I'm looking

[1:46:47] at your comparison

[1:46:50] chart your excel spreadsheet.

[1:46:53] >> so,

[1:46:56] the 60,

[1:46:57] >> is it utilized?

[1:46:59] >>

[1:47:02] I think 64, there is

[1:47:05] a little under 3000. That

[1:47:07] utilize it. It would be an upgrade from the 32,

[1:47:10] and the 96 is a lot less, there's only 300.

[1:47:14] and then, there's less than

[1:47:17] 10 that have two 32.

[1:47:20] it's a really small amount.

[1:47:23] that won't be in anything, that's

[1:47:24] just

[1:47:26] in our census data. The reporting we get. So,

[1:47:29] people are not.

[1:47:35] 17,400 residential units.

[1:47:41] for customers. And about 3000

[1:47:44] of them utilize the 64.

[1:47:45] >>

[1:47:46] that's statistically significant.

[1:47:50] >> I was

[1:47:51] just wondering why that number, everything else

[1:47:53] turned,

[1:47:56] a little

[1:47:59] different, a little less

[1:48:01] than or significantly less than the

[1:48:02] three city average and that

[1:48:04] would just kind of popped up. A little more expensive.

[1:48:11] if you have that answer, if not, it's not dead.

[1:48:17] see what I'm getting at?

[1:48:18] >> livermore

[1:48:20] ,

[1:48:21] >> on average.

[1:48:26] 85, castro is 76.

[1:48:29] yeah. I don't know

[1:48:32] why livermore's, I believe ours is

[1:48:35] just a factor of whatever the 32 is.

[1:48:38] like 50%?

[1:48:44] >> for those 3000 customers. >>

[1:48:47] it was set in '05

[1:48:49] and we've been adding on, I don't know

[1:48:50] how they came up

[1:48:53] with.

[1:48:54] >> all right.

[1:48:56] I'm fine. I got

[1:48:58] my questions answered, thank you.

[1:48:59] >> thank you, michael.

[1:49:02] vice mayor?

[1:49:03] >> I've got

[1:49:05] three, I think three

[1:49:08] quick questions. The first

[1:49:13] is back to councilmember morada's

[1:49:14] question, I was asking that prematurely

[1:49:15] around the

[1:49:16] recycling piece of it. If we have

[1:49:17] any ceilings, rate hike ceilings,

[1:49:20] and

[1:49:23] if not, why?

[1:49:24] >> 10%.

[1:49:26] that's

[1:49:29] for recycling?

[1:49:30] >> no, that's for the

[1:49:32] rr I factor, cpi.

[1:49:37] >> that's the amalgamation of four different factors?

[1:49:40] >> three different factors , times their cost.

[1:49:45] set

[1:49:48] at 10.

[1:49:49] >> okay. >> to be honest,

[1:49:51] it's never gone that high. Okay.

[1:49:54] second question is

[1:49:57] , have we ever looked at

[1:49:59] some sort of discount, or accommodations

[1:50:02] for low or fixed income residents?

[1:50:06] >> we talked about it.

[1:50:10] livermore is an example of a city that has it.

[1:50:14] it's built into their agreement, so

[1:50:15] it's a

[1:50:16] cost, the burden is on the hauler.

[1:50:21] I think the hard part

[1:50:23] for us is we put things on the property tax

[1:50:24] ,

[1:50:27] the way we calculate it,

[1:50:30] and

[1:50:31] if somebody is subsidized, somebody else

[1:50:32] is paying for it, and that becomes

[1:50:36] a prop 218 issue.

[1:50:40] you would have to figure out a way that

[1:50:42] the general fund could subsidize it.

[1:50:47] >> if I could. Because of the prop

[1:50:48] 218 problem, it

[1:50:49] would have to be general fund. Livermore

[1:50:51] does have a program

[1:50:56] for low income subscribers that also

[1:50:57] are

[1:50:58] subscribed to pg&e chairs. So they

[1:51:00] can get a larger

[1:51:03] can for the smaller can price.

[1:51:05] that's built into the agreement, that's on them.

[1:51:09] something that we can

[1:51:11] certainly talk to our provider about, that was interesting.

[1:51:15] to me. But, if we were to do it ourselves,

[1:51:17] we would be challenged. I think we

[1:51:18] would end up subsidizing

[1:51:20] from the general fund.

[1:51:21] >> is that

[1:51:23] something you can investigate on as

[1:51:24] we're looking into

[1:51:27] those contacts you mark

[1:51:30] >> yeah, I think part of it

[1:51:31] would be looking to see other cities

[1:51:33] that have it on the property

[1:51:36] tax, it's like 50-50. To see if they have any subsidy.

[1:51:39] my thought

[1:51:42] was a lot of it, they

[1:51:44] put in their agreement that the hauler

[1:51:45] has to, but

[1:51:48] we can look into it.

[1:51:51] >> and then my last question is,

[1:51:54] can the diving into the fee

[1:51:57] compensation piece of it

[1:51:58] , if I'm understanding correctly,

[1:52:00] there's a franchise fee 16.35

[1:52:03] admin fee of 7% , so

[1:52:07] total fee compensation element is 23.35.

[1:52:12] looks like year-over-year is

[1:52:15] 4.6% increase.

[1:52:17] but, it seems like the more we use

[1:52:21] , the more we

[1:52:22] pay, so it's, if I understand it's abi revenue,

[1:52:27] it's based on

[1:52:30] abi revenue. Okay.

[1:52:33] is there a way to

[1:52:35] negotiate that? It seems quite high. We're talking

[1:52:39] in the 7 million range.

[1:52:42] per anna.

[1:52:45] >>

[1:52:48] we would need to

[1:52:51] come back to you. And study that topic

[1:52:53] a little bit. I would seek direction

[1:52:54] from a

[1:52:57] majority of you on that.

[1:53:03] >> okay, those were my questions.

[1:53:04] >>

[1:53:05] thank you. I have a few questions

[1:53:06] real quick. Attachment six,

[1:53:09] have a comparison with our neighboring cities.

[1:53:12] so, are residential rates

[1:53:15] look great.

[1:53:18] and an average of three cities.

[1:53:21] about

[1:53:24] lower. And for

[1:53:27] commercial it seems like we are significantly higher than

[1:53:30] the

[1:53:33] average of three cities. What are

[1:53:36] the reasons for that?

[1:53:37] >> that's a tough one.

[1:53:39] part of it is with commercial,

[1:53:45] that we charge 50%, I

[1:53:47] might get this backward, for organics

[1:53:48] and 25% for recycling.

[1:53:52] recycling and organics, especially

[1:53:53] recycling has gone from something

[1:53:57] that a holder can

[1:53:58] make money on to basically breakeven,

[1:54:00] to where it costs more, three times

[1:54:02] more to dispose of recycling than

[1:54:03] it

[1:54:06] is for solid waste. A lot of these cities

[1:54:09] charge up to 100%

[1:54:10] of their garbage rate for recycling and organic.

[1:54:18] I think I've said it in prior years,

[1:54:19] it's getting harder

[1:54:20] to compare apples to apples when you

[1:54:21] look just at the solid waste.

[1:54:24] because you could have

[1:54:26] depending on the city, they charge

[1:54:27] 100% for organics and

[1:54:28] recycling, they could be paying more

[1:54:30] in total than if, I was going to say

[1:54:33] the wrong city, dublin.

[1:54:35] just because of the makeup, we charge

[1:54:36] 50% and

[1:54:38] is 25%. Does that answer? Yeah, it's

[1:54:42] those streams are now.

[1:54:43] >>

[1:54:45] the different parts.

[1:54:48] so, the question is, have you

[1:54:50] heard any feedback from residents or

[1:54:54] commercial customers about

[1:54:57] , any

[1:54:59] feedback about these services?

[1:55:00] >> no,

[1:55:01] very rarely.

[1:55:05] >> do we do any survey or anything?

[1:55:09] >> shannon. >>

[1:55:12] usually to the environmental.

[1:55:13] >> we

[1:55:16] haven't received any complaints

[1:55:17] from the city manager's office, but

[1:55:19] I'll ask shannon to

[1:55:22] address that.

[1:55:23] >> okay.

[1:55:25] >> from time

[1:55:26] to time we get feedback from the public,

[1:55:27] but is not something that happens

[1:55:31] on a regular occurrence.

[1:55:34] we'll get

[1:55:35] feedback from the public. From time

[1:55:36] to time. Usually it's about early

[1:55:37] pickups. So

[1:55:38] there's times that abi is supposed to

[1:55:44] service not too early, and obviously

[1:55:46] not too late, not too late is

[1:55:47] not usually a problem. But we don't

[1:55:49] get a lot of feedback

[1:55:50] from the public on the services.

[1:55:51] >>

[1:55:52] which means

[1:55:55] you're not doing a good job.

[1:55:56] >> hopefully that's what that means. >>

[1:55:58] that's great, thank you.

[1:56:01] so, that's all our questions.

[1:56:02] we'll start the hearing, the public hearing.

[1:56:08] >> mayor, I have no speaker slips on

[1:56:10] this item.

[1:56:11] >> so we'll close

[1:56:12] the hearing. And any additional comments?

[1:56:13] council wants to make, go ahead.

[1:56:18] >> I appreciate all the hard work, this

[1:56:19] is

[1:56:20] a huge contract with a lot of elements,

[1:56:22] I know that you are,

[1:56:25] there's been a lot of

[1:56:26] moving parts, the industry has changed,

[1:56:29] over the last five years drastically.

[1:56:34] I sit on stop waste as well, I

[1:56:35] spend a lot of time talking about

[1:56:37] garbage

[1:56:40] and recycling that I'd like to.

[1:56:43] I

[1:56:44] appreciate the work that you're doing,

[1:56:45] I would like to see going forward

[1:56:46] that we

[1:56:48] can see what we can do that growth factor.

[1:56:52] to talk about that ,

[1:56:55] and that data going forward would be super helpful

[1:56:57] for our residents and our businesses to know

[1:57:02] that we're raising rates equitably.

[1:57:04] I would point out that while this

[1:57:06] is a 4% increase, under 2%, wasn't it?

[1:57:10] >> under 1%.

[1:57:12] on a two year average, we're not doing badly

[1:57:16] for cpi. I think that's great.

[1:57:22] everything we can do to keep

[1:57:23] costs down for our residents is great,

[1:57:25] I'm very supportive of trying to

[1:57:26] figure out a way for folks that are

[1:57:28] on a fixed income, focused

[1:57:30] using pg&e cares or some other metric

[1:57:34] that we use, if

[1:57:35] there is a way that can help them

[1:57:37] out a little bit. Whether it's, I don't

[1:57:40] think it's really helpful

[1:57:43] to give

[1:57:44] them a larger can for the price of

[1:57:46] a smaller can, I don't think

[1:57:48] that's what is necessary, we open the contract.

[1:57:49] then I think

[1:57:52] that's something to look into.

[1:57:55] other than that

[1:57:58] we've done a job here in keeping things

[1:57:59] as

[1:58:01] low as we can.

[1:58:06] in a changing environment, and I appreciate that

[1:58:07] we're looking for first party agreements

[1:58:08] and

[1:58:09] try to knothole things as far as we

[1:58:10] have been, I think

[1:58:11] that's, thank you.

[1:58:12] >> comments from

[1:58:13] you? Additional comments?

[1:58:14] >>

[1:58:16] no additional comments.

[1:58:17] >>

[1:58:18] I appreciate the work as well, thank you

[1:58:22] for going through all of

[1:58:23] that, and answering our questions.

[1:58:25] I'm sort of stuck at

[1:58:28] what's possible in terms of

[1:58:31] negotiating or renegotiating some

[1:58:32] of those

[1:58:33] contracts and the first party contracts

[1:58:34] that we might have, I don't know if

[1:58:37] there's interest in the council

[1:58:40] pausing this now and looking into

[1:58:41] it

[1:58:42] now, or if they want to wait until next year,

[1:58:45] I know there are timelines in terms

[1:58:46] of the tax roll

[1:58:48] and getting out of the tax bill, I

[1:58:49] don't know if there's that sense of

[1:58:52] urgency or immediacy now, or if we

[1:58:54] want to revisit this in one years time.

[1:58:58] >> let's clarify that, what's the timing?

[1:59:01] what's the timing, the urgency,

[1:59:04] to address his question

[1:59:06] to mark I'd like clarification on that.

[1:59:10] I'm

[1:59:12] assuming this is a process that needs to

[1:59:13] be taken care of now.

[1:59:15] >> they will start billing july 1st,

[1:59:19] we need to get information

[1:59:22] to our consultants who put it

[1:59:25] on the tax roll, I'll probably, by

[1:59:26] the end of

[1:59:27] this month at the absolute latest,

[1:59:28] I will send

[1:59:30] it to them as soon as the resolutions

[1:59:31] are passed, it takes time to

[1:59:32] put everything together and get it

[1:59:34] over to the county.

[1:59:37] >> there is a sense of

[1:59:39] urgency, and I echo, I guess, I do

[1:59:40] have some final comments.

[1:59:42] some of the comments that are made

[1:59:43] by council here. Getting more detail,

[1:59:46] splitting it out. Just more of

[1:59:52] , a little more analysis done, here, for us.

[1:59:55] and that's really it. If there's

[1:59:58] a sense of urgency, I just back off that one. Yeah.

[2:00:01] >> so,

[2:00:04] we want to thank you for great work and thanks

[2:00:07] for,

[2:00:10] the great work. That's

[2:00:13] the best compliment,

[2:00:17] for the waste management.

[2:00:21] and thank you, and you want to make a

[2:00:23] motion?

[2:00:24] >> I will, but

[2:00:26] I'm on the wrong page.

[2:00:27] >>

[2:00:28] make a motion that we approve the

[2:00:29] resolution approving and establishing

[2:00:30] the collection of

[2:00:31] minimum residential garbage and recycling service fees

[2:00:36] for fiscal 25-26.

[2:00:37] >> perfect, I'll

[2:00:38] second that motion.

[2:00:39] >> all

[2:00:40] in favor say aye.

[2:00:41] >> aye. >> motion passed

[2:00:42] unanimously. Do we want

[2:00:44] to take

[2:00:46] like two minutes break? Or we're okay

[2:00:47] to go on? No?

[2:00:50] whatever you need to do.

[2:00:53] yeah. We will have

[2:00:56] a good topic.

[2:01:13] [ the event is on a recess. Captioner standing by. ]

[2:07:08] >> in five, four, three, two, one.

[2:07:20] >> agenda item 7.1, preliminary fiscal year

[2:07:23] 2025-26 general fund budget update.

[2:07:30] >> good evening, again.

[2:07:33] to give an update on the general fund

[2:07:36] 25-26 preliminary budget.

[2:07:39] so, tonight's presentation

[2:07:42] , a quick recap

[2:07:45] of the april 15th meeting,

[2:07:48] give an update on the

[2:07:51] economic and sales tax , what we've

[2:07:54] seen, and then an update

[2:07:55] to the 25-26 budget, and then discuss

[2:07:57] some budget balancing considerations.

[2:08:03] so, on the april

[2:08:06] 15th preliminary budget meeting,

[2:08:09] it was a bad week

[2:08:11] all around, economic means. There

[2:08:12] was talk

[2:08:14] of tariffs, the stock market was bouncing

[2:08:15] all over the place,

[2:08:18] we got our sales tax report,

[2:08:21] that essentially had a

[2:08:22] decrease of $1.8 million in 24-25,

[2:08:27] and then 3.8 total

[2:08:30] in 25-26 reflected on the chart.

[2:08:34] this is based on a decline in auto

[2:08:36] sales, auto sales for the city's

[2:08:39] 41% of all sales tax last year. A

[2:08:42] decline in auto sales is a

[2:08:45] big thing for us. And as I

[2:08:46] mentioned, there was an overall softening

[2:08:48] in all sectors in

[2:08:51] sales tax, and also all revenue

[2:08:54] sources at the time. So,

[2:09:00] it's not a recession, but

[2:09:03] a reflection of uncertainty that

[2:09:04] may affect other revenue sources.

[2:09:08] that was the message we gave, and

[2:09:09] a big one was the

[2:09:12] concern about the effects of the federal tariffs.

[2:09:17] a lot of those are still persisting,

[2:09:18] we don't know, but,

[2:09:21] the information

[2:09:24] and the sales tax numbers we have

[2:09:25] gotten since then have been positive.

[2:09:27] so tonight, we're going to look for

[2:09:30] direction to look

[2:09:33] at the cost cutting, and or revenue enhancements.

[2:09:36] I'm sorry.

[2:09:39] you directed us to look at cost cutting.

[2:09:42] I got that backwards. So,

[2:09:45] economic and sales tax update,

[2:09:51] there's still a

[2:09:52] high level of uncertainty leading

[2:09:54] to a lot of volatility in the global markets,

[2:09:56] you can't turn on the financial news

[2:09:57] without hearing one story or

[2:09:59] another and a big part of that is

[2:10:00] uncertainty leads to disrupting business planning.

[2:10:03] businesses just can't predict, or

[2:10:04] plan

[2:10:05] for the future because they don't know what's happening

[2:10:06] with the federal government.

[2:10:12] a positive

[2:10:14] update now that the talks are going from a recession

[2:10:17] is going to happen, now we're hearing

[2:10:18] a

[2:10:19] recession is not imminent. The rhetoric

[2:10:21] and tone have changed toward

[2:10:24] the positive in that regard.

[2:10:27] from our consultants and what we're

[2:10:30] hearing from the news,

[2:10:32] that there is going to be greater clarity

[2:10:33] by the fourth

[2:10:35] quarter of 2025, that's the quarter ending december 2025.

[2:10:36] the

[2:10:39] hope is and the thought is the effects of tariffs,

[2:10:42] and everything else,

[2:10:45] whether or not

[2:10:47] the fed is going to take action should start

[2:10:51] , should be able to start to see those

[2:10:52] happen or

[2:10:54] not by the fourth quarter.

[2:11:00] there was an additional, a news story

[2:11:02] that came out that got a lot of news

[2:11:03] shortly after we met about

[2:11:06] gas prices potentially reaching

[2:11:09] $8.44 a gallon in 2026,

[2:11:11] we were aware that gas prices could

[2:11:12] go up, in california,

[2:11:14] coincidentally at the same time I guess,

[2:11:18] so, hdl thinks

[2:11:21] six dollars a gallon is

[2:11:24] a reality for gasoline.

[2:11:26] from an operational standpoint, for the city,

[2:11:31] it has a limited impact. We

[2:11:32] don't spend a lot of money on fuel,

[2:11:36] the majority of our fuel is for police

[2:11:37] services, the majority

[2:11:38] of staff for nonpolice vehicles are either

[2:11:43] ev's, electric, or

[2:11:46] extended range ev, we don't use

[2:11:49] a lot of gas.

[2:11:50] and any additional cost that we would have

[2:11:52] is

[2:11:55] more than offset by any fuel

[2:11:58] related sales tax increases.

[2:12:00] as a consumer it's bad you're paying

[2:12:01] more

[2:12:02] but the city will get more revenue

[2:12:04] as gas prices go up.

[2:12:06] so, that isn't of any real concern.

[2:12:07] the

[2:12:10] bigger issue is just how is that

[2:12:13] going to affect inflation. Gas prices

[2:12:14] go up, the more cost when energy goes up,

[2:12:18] costs go up. The production of goods,

[2:12:22] the transport of goods.

[2:12:29] this will have any impact, it's something

[2:12:31] we will continue to watch with

[2:12:34] hdl to see what is happening.

[2:12:36] we just wanted to let you know, we're

[2:12:37] aware that

[2:12:38] gas prices are gone up and we're monitoring it.

[2:12:43] on the really positive note

[2:12:45] we got our first quarter sales tax final payment in.

[2:12:48] it's quarter ending march 31st, make

[2:12:49] monthly

[2:12:52] payments and the third month they

[2:12:53] true up, that's for you know how much

[2:12:55] money you're getting and it came

[2:12:57] in $128,000 higher than hdl . We don't know

[2:13:04] why they send

[2:13:05] us the money, and we work with hdl

[2:13:07] usually six weeks after they get

[2:13:08] all the data, and start analyzing,

[2:13:12] we should meet with them around the

[2:13:13] first part

[2:13:14] of july to late july, so we'll have

[2:13:16] a better sense of why it went up.

[2:13:19] at

[2:13:20] this point we're not recommending updates

[2:13:22] to the sales tax projections, there's a

[2:13:23] lot going

[2:13:24] on, but that was a very good thing to see.

[2:13:28] we're happy on that front. So,

[2:13:31] now budget updates, changes we are requesting,

[2:13:34] that have occurred since

[2:13:37] we met on april 15th.

[2:13:40] april 15th

[2:13:43] we mentioned

[2:13:44] that we were going off preliminary budgets

[2:13:46] for fire and police, we got there

[2:13:47] final

[2:13:48] budgets, the fire contract is a decrease of 176,000.

[2:13:52] we're seeing lower personnel costs and

[2:13:55] the county overhead costs and

[2:13:56] the general overhead the county charges

[2:13:58] was lower than anticipated. Our

[2:14:00] dispatch costs did go up a little bit and

[2:14:03] program expenses is general service

[2:14:04] and supplies went up.

[2:14:06] overall a decrease and we wanted to point out that

[2:14:09] they are requesting we allocate $1.75 million

[2:14:13] for the purchase

[2:14:14] of two replacement fire engines, we've

[2:14:15] been setting money aside for this,

[2:14:19] this will be fully funded by the iso

[2:14:21] for vehicle replacement, we knew this was coming.

[2:14:22] the interesting part

[2:14:24] is there's a four year lead time, so we are

[2:14:28] , we need

[2:14:30] to allocate the money, put in a purchase

[2:14:31] order, put it in and we'll see

[2:14:34] in four years. But, we're

[2:14:35] not going to have the trucks anytime

[2:14:37] soon. We are starting the process.

[2:14:40] and I guess that's a nationwide issue right now.

[2:14:43] on

[2:14:45] the police side it's an increase of 2000.

[2:14:49] and

[2:14:50] that's higher personnel cost, there

[2:14:52] was a reduction in dispatch service costs

[2:14:53] but overall

[2:14:55] it's an increase in 260.

[2:14:58] this year's budget includes

[2:14:59] four behavioral health positions,

[2:15:01] the three of them are funded by arpa and one

[2:15:03] by federal grant, and then there's

[2:15:04] also having to dare program positions.

[2:15:07] those are funded by

[2:15:09] opioid settlement funds. We're having

[2:15:10] two retirees teach their and the

[2:15:13] settlement funds will fund that.

[2:15:18] and code enforcement we're requesting

[2:15:19] a $200,000 increase and that's just

[2:15:20] due

[2:15:21] to ongoing legal issues and matters.

[2:15:24] and that's it on the expenditure side,

[2:15:25] and the revenue side

[2:15:28] on

[2:15:30] april 15th meeting we had mentioned that

[2:15:31] we were going to revisit licenses

[2:15:32] and

[2:15:33] permits, so we are requesting a decrease of

[2:15:36] , that's just based on current year trends

[2:15:37] that

[2:15:39] we perceive going into next year.

[2:15:40] and trans occupancy tax,

[2:15:43] we're requesting a

[2:15:46] decrease of 100,000, and that's from

[2:15:49] 1.5 million to 1.4, in the last

[2:15:52] month the receipts

[2:15:58] we were seeing was slightly higher

[2:15:59] again, it's moving

[2:16:00] in the right direction, we're happy

[2:16:01] with what we're seeing but we're still

[2:16:02] lower than

[2:16:03] originally anticipated, we're requesting

[2:16:04] we decrease by 100,000, I should say.

[2:16:10] and this is just kind of a summary,

[2:16:15] we'll be talking about cip, that's

[2:16:16] the transfer outs on the next item. But

[2:16:17] we

[2:16:18] have a very healthy operating surplus

[2:16:22] , just want to point that out, that

[2:16:23] we

[2:16:26] still have a surplus

[2:16:31] and I should point out that all those changes

[2:16:34] I just described is 503 thousand dollars general fund.

[2:16:42] something that we did not include

[2:16:43] but we would like your direction on,

[2:16:47] that may 22nd, the city and the

[2:16:49] unified school liaison meeting , the

[2:16:50] school district requested city fund

[2:16:54] additional crossing guard positions

[2:16:55] at approximately $23,000 per position.

[2:17:00] staff believes this is a reasonable

[2:17:01] request given the growth in the community.

[2:17:08] and previous mention this

[2:17:09] has not been incorporated in the budget,

[2:17:10] and we'll ask for your direction on

[2:17:11] how you

[2:17:12] would like to proceed with that. And then

[2:17:14] at the april 14th,

[2:17:16] you had provided, given us direction to look at

[2:17:18] budget balance and considerations.

[2:17:23] we've gone back and look at potential

[2:17:24] cost reduction in revenue enhancements, staff

[2:17:30] is not recommending any of these actions.

[2:17:32] we still continue to have the strong

[2:17:33] surplus position. The information we're seeing

[2:17:35] with

[2:17:37] the revenue we got , continue to be positive.

[2:17:41] we want to present this,

[2:17:44] that basically

[2:17:47] we have a plan to be implemented should we need to.

[2:17:53] and something to think of as

[2:17:56] we go over this, if immediate

[2:17:57] corrective actions are needed, that's

[2:17:59] usually the first step, revenues coming in low,

[2:18:00] you realize you're forecasting a deficit,

[2:18:02] it

[2:18:04] would have to be on the expenditure

[2:18:05] side, that's because cities

[2:18:09] are strictly constrained on how additional

[2:18:11] revenue can be raised.

[2:18:16] revenue enhancements basically need

[2:18:17] voter approval and with

[2:18:19] voter approval that takes time and is not guaranteed.

[2:18:20] two address

[2:18:21] any immediate actions would have to

[2:18:23] be on the expenditure side as you

[2:18:24] line

[2:18:26] those things up more for future.

[2:18:29] I apologize, that's a little small,

[2:18:31] but, what's big on the powerpoint.

[2:18:35] we work with

[2:18:36] departments on what scaling back would mean

[2:18:38] , parks and community services.

[2:18:44] it would be not getting rid of events,

[2:18:45] but, limiting them, and decreasing them.

[2:18:50] we had an attachment

[2:18:53] that went into more detail, but,

[2:18:56] the impact on that would just be the negative impacts

[2:19:01] on the community quality of life, community engagement.

[2:19:05] we've identified 200 and

[2:19:08] $58,000 worth of cuts, there,

[2:19:12] non-departmental, we talked about

[2:19:14] the library earlier, and how we fund additional hours.

[2:19:17] reduction in

[2:19:19] library hours would be, if we reduced

[2:19:23] all of the city funded

[2:19:26] hours it would be $367,000.

[2:19:28] public works would really be reducing maintenance

[2:19:31] and contract services, especially with mce.

[2:19:35] field conditions, things like

[2:19:38] mowing less, doing less

[2:19:41] preventative on baseball fields and

[2:19:44] that sort of thing.

[2:19:47] and then, the impact would be

[2:19:49] an effect on the user groups. And you

[2:19:50] molest, there would be

[2:19:53] issues with clumping and debris on the grass,

[2:19:56] you'd have clippings.

[2:19:59] and anytime you do for maintenance

[2:20:02] you have the potential for future,

[2:20:03] higher

[2:20:04] cost due to that deferred maintenance.

[2:20:08] and we spend a lot

[2:20:11] on our fields, that would be

[2:20:14] a $1.75 million decrease. And again,

[2:20:16] it's not an all or nothing, they're

[2:20:17] obviously levels you

[2:20:20] could do to this. If it came down

[2:20:21] to this

[2:20:23] we've identified those costs.

[2:20:26] and on the finance side, we would

[2:20:27] come

[2:20:28] back to you for discussion on how

[2:20:29] much we want to set aside for

[2:20:30] preventative maintenance. We currently

[2:20:32] set aside 2 million, we thought

[2:20:35] a good place to start would be

[2:20:38] a reduction of 750,000. But again,

[2:20:39] it's just an arbitrary

[2:20:41] number that we could talk , have the

[2:20:42] discussion

[2:20:43] with you about our infrastructure

[2:20:49] is aging, so any money we don't set

[2:20:50] aside now would affect us later.

[2:20:52] that would just be a one-time or multiple times

[2:20:56] setting

[2:20:58] , not setting that money aside, I should say.

[2:21:01] we would recommend just a hiring freeze.

[2:21:02] it's hard to say

[2:21:05] exactly what that would mean

[2:21:07] in terms of revenue. It depends on the position.

[2:21:12] you

[2:21:14] cannot hire, you have a position that is fully funded

[2:21:16] with developer fees, or an admin position

[2:21:19] that doesn't have any revenue offset,

[2:21:24] level of importance.

[2:21:27] and then typically, when you

[2:21:28] do that, it's up to the city manager

[2:21:29] to approve hiring of the position.

[2:21:35] and then reduce training and travel

[2:21:36] would be one, we

[2:21:38] spent 400,000 they are, that would

[2:21:39] be

[2:21:40] for non-mandated or third-party funded travel. But,

[2:21:43] that would decrease professional development.

[2:21:48] when

[2:21:49] you're not part of working groups,

[2:21:50] sometimes that can affect you in ways

[2:21:51] you

[2:21:52] don't know, and it can lead to lower

[2:21:54] quality of work overtime.

[2:21:57] so, taking all of those into

[2:21:58] consideration, it's $3.5 million.

[2:22:06] and again, those aren't all or nothing,

[2:22:07] those are just, if you did all of

[2:22:09] those all at once, that's how

[2:22:10] much we would save. On the revenue

[2:22:11] side, the city's primary source of revenue

[2:22:14] , big picture, our fees and taxes.

[2:22:20] prop 218 basically says fees can only

[2:22:21] be set at

[2:22:22] levels to recover cost. What that

[2:22:24] means is they can't

[2:22:26] be arbitrarily increased unless you

[2:22:27] have

[2:22:29] an increase in your cost, or the fee was previously subsidized.

[2:22:34] we don't subsidize a lot of fees but

[2:22:36] there are some subsidies to

[2:22:38] the tune of 256,000 , those are fees that

[2:22:39] aren't mandated by

[2:22:40] state law at a certain level, these

[2:22:42] are simply fees we

[2:22:45] have chosen to subsidize, and those

[2:22:46] are for business license fees, and also,

[2:22:53] the remaining are in community development

[2:22:54] and permit fees, and those

[2:22:55] typically have to do with health and safety.

[2:22:57] they're usually

[2:22:58] the lower level fees, you don't want

[2:23:00] to charge someone $300 for a $500 permit

[2:23:03] because

[2:23:07] it doesn't become cost effective and

[2:23:09] they don't pull the permit and

[2:23:12] that can cause problems.

[2:23:14] and then, besides the fee subsidy,

[2:23:18] the bigger issues we would bring back

[2:23:23] our tax increases. The two we looked at is

[2:23:30] transient occupancy tax, tot,

[2:23:33] our rate is currently 8%, it has

[2:23:34] been 8% since the city's inception.

[2:23:39] the reason why these are popular is

[2:23:40] it

[2:23:41] impacts visitors rather than residents.

[2:23:42] the hotels charge them.

[2:23:48] they don't

[2:23:49] know what they're paying, they don't really

[2:23:50] look at those, they're just charged

[2:23:51] if you go

[2:23:52] to a convention they're always in

[2:23:54] there. Between 12 and 14%.

[2:23:57] these have a high approval

[2:23:58] rating in terms of passing, because

[2:24:00] it's seen as

[2:24:03] a tax on visitors

[2:24:06] and nonresidents. The 2025-26 but

[2:24:09] it has $1.4 million budgeted.

[2:24:12] so if we increased it to 10, we would

[2:24:13] see 350,000 increase it to 12, 700,000.

[2:24:18] that was

[2:24:21] kind of a reference.

[2:24:24] sales tax increase, our

[2:24:27] current rate, this is the

[2:24:30] 10.25, the city gets 1%.

[2:24:32] for 25-26 our revenue is protected at $26 million.

[2:24:36] there is a state tax of

[2:24:39] 10.50%. Point

[2:24:43] 2.5 remaining for all eligible agencies.

[2:24:48] that's anybody

[2:24:51] that overlaps with the city

[2:24:52] of dublin, you can get legislative

[2:24:57] and get a waiver of this,

[2:25:06] that there is a cap

[2:25:09] and we are .25% away from it.

[2:25:12] if we pass that

[2:25:14] we will get x amount of money, because projecting sales tax

[2:25:18] is difficult because it's

[2:25:20] allocated particularly vehicles , you pay

[2:25:24] the

[2:25:26] sales tax on a large purchase like a

[2:25:27] vehicle based on the city you live.

[2:25:30] if you're trying to go to the

[2:25:33] central valley to escape r 10.25

[2:25:36] and you have to show them your I.d.

[2:25:37] and

[2:25:39] they'll charge you anyway. But, just preliminary estimates

[2:25:43] say we think

[2:25:46] about $4.5 million-$6 million.

[2:25:49] and that brings

[2:25:52] us to connect steps.

[2:25:54] provide staff direction on preliminary 25-26 budget, and

[2:25:56] to confirm funding of three additional crossing guards,

[2:25:58] and reduce cost

[2:26:02] and to confirm that reductions are

[2:26:04] not warranted at this time.

[2:26:07] after today

[2:26:08] the final budget proposal will be

[2:26:09] brought back on june 17th for adoption.

[2:26:12] and we are here to answer any questions.

[2:26:22] >> again, thank you for

[2:26:25] a very thorough report

[2:26:28] . A couple of very

[2:26:29] quick questions, one, I don't know, the

[2:26:31] first one if you can answer.

[2:26:34] I saw a

[2:26:35] news report, I think it was today,

[2:26:36] it might've been yesterday, that nationwide

[2:26:37] auto sales

[2:26:38] were down significantly in may, which

[2:26:43] certainly would not be in the

[2:26:44] sales tax figures we saw, and we might

[2:26:46] not have any information about that

[2:26:47] yet in dublin. Do we have a sense of

[2:26:49] whether that was true here

[2:26:55] the way it was in the west of the

[2:26:56] country,

[2:26:57] yet?

[2:26:58] >> not for me but when we talked

[2:26:59] to hdl what we're experiencing

[2:27:00] here, they're seeing throughout the

[2:27:01] state of the nation.

[2:27:03] >> we don't have any reason to think

[2:27:04] our trend would have been

[2:27:05] any different from that.

[2:27:06] >> not unfortunately,

[2:27:07] no.

[2:27:08] >> thank you. When

[2:27:09] we talk about revenues, enhancing revenues is

[2:27:13] almost all voter approval,

[2:27:16] and then you

[2:27:18] talked about the fees that we subsidize, there's other fees

[2:27:22] that we are subsidizing that aren't

[2:27:23] on

[2:27:24] here, particularly parks and rec,

[2:27:25] correct? So if my recollection is correct, our target

[2:27:28] is to recover 65% of

[2:27:31] park and rec fees, right?

[2:27:34] is that accurate?

[2:27:37] not every

[2:27:39] one of them, but that's our target

[2:27:40] for the total program.

[2:27:43] so, there would be a possibility,

[2:27:46] if we wanted to go

[2:27:49] that route, I'm supportive

[2:27:52] of what we're talking

[2:27:53] about right now. If we wanted to go

[2:27:55] down that road eventually there would

[2:27:56] be a

[2:27:58] potential for revenue increases ,

[2:28:00] if we wanted to go that route. I'm

[2:28:01] not saying we would, because

[2:28:04] at

[2:28:06] the same time the city is hurting

[2:28:07] because if we were in a recession our

[2:28:08] residents would be hurting as well.

[2:28:10] we would want to necessarily put that

[2:28:11] burden

[2:28:12] on them but there would be some amount

[2:28:13] of revenue we could recover from

[2:28:18] parks, fees or users groups, little

[2:28:19] league, things like that.

[2:28:20] an opportunity but eventually offset some of

[2:28:25] the mce, for example,

[2:28:28] mow the lawn a little less or continue

[2:28:29] to

[2:28:30] mow the lawn the same way if we charged

[2:28:34] our sports leagues a little bit more

[2:28:35] to

[2:28:36] cover those costs, that would be a

[2:28:37] possibility. To offset some of that negative

[2:28:40] impacts on the sports fields,

[2:28:43] things like that. Okay. And

[2:28:46] we just sent them , we don't have to, that's not

[2:28:49] a 218.

[2:28:52] >> these are not prop 218. >>

[2:28:54] we don't have to, we could set them

[2:28:58] over 100%,

[2:29:01] but right now we're only 65%.

[2:29:02] >> and

[2:29:04] they, they're carved out because it's providing a service

[2:29:07] that others

[2:29:10] can provide as well. We

[2:29:13] can charge some market rate.

[2:29:16] we could technically collect over

[2:29:17] but you'd

[2:29:18] be pricing yourself out.

[2:29:19] >> and there's

[2:29:22] diminishing return. Exactly.

[2:29:27] that was it for my questions right

[2:29:28] now, thank you.

[2:29:29] >>

[2:29:31] thank you, questions mark

[2:29:32] >> yeah.

[2:29:36] quick question, just for my edification,

[2:29:37] if you wanted

[2:29:40] to increase the occupancy, transfer

[2:29:41] occupancy rate, is that

[2:29:43] a voter initiative?

[2:29:46] all of it is ,

[2:29:49] I just wanted to verify

[2:29:52] if that was something

[2:29:55] that would take time anyway, all those revenue producing initiatives

[2:29:58] probably wouldn't be immediate, they'd take some time.

[2:30:02] so, I'm very interested.

[2:30:05] I'm not

[2:30:07] really in favor of, other than your proposal,

[2:30:11] but

[2:30:12] cutting additional costs at this time,

[2:30:17] I listen very carefully to some

[2:30:20] of the speakers and I think

[2:30:23] one of the speakers

[2:30:24] today made a misstatement in that

[2:30:25] our reserves would be depleted after

[2:30:26] a certain

[2:30:27] point in time. That is absolutely

[2:30:28] not the case, we're talking about

[2:30:30] potential deficits. We are extremely strong

[2:30:32] ,

[2:30:35] and our reserves

[2:30:38] are very, very large, and

[2:30:41] can withstand a lot of this. So,

[2:30:43] putting that into context here from

[2:30:44] the operating

[2:30:45] standpoint, I'm looking at some of your proposals,

[2:30:50] potential,

[2:30:53] and while I don't see a

[2:30:55] real need, I appreciate looking into

[2:30:56] what

[2:30:59] we can do. But,

[2:31:02] I look at just

[2:31:07] freezing, hiring, some of the things randomly, and thought,

[2:31:11] I'd ask you, at what point

[2:31:14] in time would you even consider

[2:31:16] doing things like that? We've thrown

[2:31:18] these up here as potential cost cuts,

[2:31:23] but,

[2:31:26] how realistic are they within the next

[2:31:29] three to five years?

[2:31:31] you might mess around with the library

[2:31:32] here and there, and that's

[2:31:34] not draconian, either, as I can see

[2:31:38] from your analysis. But,

[2:31:40] which of these, on this list, would be more

[2:31:44] palatable to phase in , a

[2:31:47] priority in any of this?

[2:31:50] >> I'll jump in.

[2:31:53] so, this list

[2:31:56] is sort of a standard list , that most

[2:31:59] communities

[2:32:00] would look at these general categories

[2:32:04] when they are faced with a structural deficit

[2:32:08] or coming recession. It's

[2:32:11] always going to be

[2:32:13] parks, it's always going to be maintenance. It's

[2:32:14] going to be

[2:32:16] events. And then we have a couple of areas where

[2:32:20] we do things

[2:32:21] a little differently that we could

[2:32:22] tap into, this preventative maintenance,

[2:32:25] we haven't yet done our full analysis

[2:32:29] of the

[2:32:31] health of our internal service funds, they're very healthy.

[2:32:35] but

[2:32:37] we haven't said, well, we need exactly this

[2:32:38] much money for exactly all

[2:32:39] of these assets. So, we just know

[2:32:41] that it's

[2:32:43] very healthy because we've been putting

[2:32:44] 2 million a year into it.

[2:32:47] that would be

[2:32:50] one place that immediately,

[2:32:53] if

[2:32:54] the council said we don't want to

[2:32:56] cut any services to the community, we

[2:32:57] want

[2:32:58] to maintain all of our events the

[2:32:59] way they are, and we want our fields

[2:33:02] to be pristine and all this,

[2:33:04] we might look at something like a year

[2:33:05] off of this preventative maintenance contribution,

[2:33:08] knowing that the reserve is very

[2:33:11] healthy in that fund.

[2:33:14] this list should be viewed as something

[2:33:15] we have

[2:33:16] in our back pockets always, that we

[2:33:17] could always tap into,

[2:33:20] if really needed. But, you bring

[2:33:23] up a good point. We have

[2:33:24] so many reserves that we can also

[2:33:26] use as a bridge. Also

[2:33:29] careful to

[2:33:31] not deplete those, but, I've told you before that

[2:33:35] if it was armageddon

[2:33:37] and everything stopped, we could still

[2:33:38] operate for a year.

[2:33:41] with no money coming in.

[2:33:46] we're in a different position than a

[2:33:47] lot of communities.

[2:33:49] we have an operating surplus of $17

[2:33:50] million. You asked when would we consider

[2:33:53] any of these things.

[2:33:56] in the next year if sales tax looks

[2:33:57] really

[2:33:58] bad, I'll probably come back with

[2:33:59] some recommendation. To just

[2:34:04] make some sort of a one-time cut,

[2:34:05] we'll look at this list but

[2:34:07] I'll likely look at places like the

[2:34:08] preventative maintenance. Maybe I

[2:34:09] would

[2:34:10] recommend using a year of our economic

[2:34:14] , our disaster reserve, we have 8 million in that.

[2:34:17] it would be a bridge for me

[2:34:20] until we really face

[2:34:22] a structural deficit, and we would

[2:34:23] want to be three years

[2:34:24] prepared for that eventuality.

[2:34:25] >>

[2:34:26] I do want to make that,

[2:34:31] our objective is services for the community.

[2:34:35] as you pointed

[2:34:38] out, that some of these cuts

[2:34:40] would impact those services and be very noticeable.

[2:34:44] so, I think we're very fortunate

[2:34:47] that we do have very strong reserves,

[2:34:50] and we have cash flow, positive.

[2:34:52] that we can support those services.

[2:34:56] I absolutely appreciate

[2:34:59] , I

[2:35:02] think these are quite modest changes

[2:35:03] that you're asking for.

[2:35:06] but, that's

[2:35:09] for a different topic. Anyway.

[2:35:11] I wanted clarification on the stages,

[2:35:15] when you might

[2:35:17] implement, and I think

[2:35:18] >> let me add one more thing.

[2:35:21] I

[2:35:22] think I mentioned this before, when we

[2:35:24] heard about this sales tax,

[2:35:27] I changed my budget proposal

[2:35:28] that was going to come before you,

[2:35:30] because I originally

[2:35:33] had four staff added.

[2:35:35] to continue the level of service we provide today.

[2:35:38] it might have been five, four or five.

[2:35:41] and ultimately I came back with two.

[2:35:44] that's already in action, that I took that

[2:35:48] we're

[2:35:49] not really talking about and you don't see,

[2:35:51] the fact of the matter is,

[2:35:54] we're going

[2:35:55] to need those staff to provide the

[2:35:56] ongoing service level, we've already

[2:35:57] said let's

[2:35:58] said let's pause on this and see how

[2:36:00] the rest of the year goes.

[2:36:01] >> I appreciate your

[2:36:03] proactive strategy on this, that's

[2:36:05] really where I'm at right now. I'm good

[2:36:06] with what I

[2:36:09] see, here. That's it.

[2:36:12] >>

[2:36:13] thank you again for the presentation.

[2:36:15] I got a couple of questions. If you

[2:36:16] go back to your budget update slide number four,

[2:36:18] can you

[2:36:20] walk me through the top two lines, the delta,

[2:36:24] roughly 200 and 300,000

[2:36:28] accounting for that half $1 million decrease.

[2:36:33] just a little more detail

[2:36:36] and context to that.

[2:36:39] there we go, yes.

[2:36:41] >> on the revenue side will be the

[2:36:45] $100,000 for the tot that

[2:36:49] were asking a decrease from 1.5 to

[2:36:51] 1.4, based on current year trends.

[2:36:54] and then we're also in the licenses

[2:36:55] and

[2:36:56] fines, that's the one 19. That we're

[2:36:57] asking for. A decrease.

[2:37:03] and on the expenditures, we're having savings

[2:37:06] on the fireside of the 176.

[2:37:07] and an increase in police which is

[2:37:11] 260 and 200,000 for the code enforcement.

[2:37:15] >> got it, okay.

[2:37:18] thank you. For that.

[2:37:21] and then, let's see.

[2:37:24] the transit occupancy tax,

[2:37:27] if we were to initiate

[2:37:30] that, what with the timing look like?

[2:37:39] >> sorry, I'm

[2:37:40] going to jump in again. That's something that

[2:37:42] we would want to coordinate with

[2:37:43] our neighbors. Who are also at 8%, so,

[2:37:48] where is everyone else

[2:37:50] is at 12 around us, so, the city managers

[2:37:51] have talked about it, and

[2:37:59] given pleasanton situation I'm sure

[2:38:00] they are looking at

[2:38:01] it, so we would get back together

[2:38:03] and talk about how to make it happen

[2:38:04] altogether.

[2:38:05] so we show this united front on this.

[2:38:06] >> I think

[2:38:09] ,

[2:38:11] I'm not quite sure how long it takes, it's

[2:38:12] less than a year to

[2:38:13] do it. Probably somewhere between

[2:38:15] six and nine months.

[2:38:16] >> okay,

[2:38:18] and you need

[2:38:21] direction from council, to

[2:38:23] move forward with that or is that more

[2:38:26] driven coordination across other cities?

[2:38:27] >>

[2:38:28] I would pursue

[2:38:30] a schedule

[2:38:33] with the other cities.

[2:38:34] >> perfect.

[2:38:36] and

[2:38:39] then, in one of your slides, you mentioned having more clarity

[2:38:42] in terms of the tax

[2:38:45] , the sales tax

[2:38:48] by fourth quarter of 25. If

[2:38:51] we did see

[2:38:52] a sustained decrease in revenue, what

[2:38:56] are our options in terms of potential

[2:39:00] reductions midyear?

[2:39:03] >>

[2:39:05] midyear become very important at that point.

[2:39:09] I think as colleen said, we have

[2:39:10] to put a package together for you,

[2:39:12] but the preventative maintenance would be

[2:39:13] the

[2:39:15] first off the top because we

[2:39:18] don't want to cut services,

[2:39:21] we need to look to see, if

[2:39:23] they think it's going to be sustained, is this just

[2:39:27] going down and with tickets going

[2:39:28] to go

[2:39:29] up in the year, we might recommend

[2:39:30] utilization of reserves, and may be

[2:39:31] very

[2:39:33] baseline cuts per department.

[2:39:38] >> if I'm understanding correctly,

[2:39:39] we have the opportunity to revisit the

[2:39:40] budget

[2:39:41] based on what's happening. Thank you.

[2:39:44] those are all my questions for now.

[2:39:45] >> thank you, that's awesome. So,

[2:39:48] first, I do want to

[2:39:51] reiterate, we have

[2:39:54] very healthy finance budget, we still have

[2:39:57] $16.8 million

[2:40:00] , and we have a reserve of

[2:40:03] $200 million here.

[2:40:06] we are not in the same state or situation

[2:40:09] as a lot of other cities , we are

[2:40:10] really

[2:40:13] looking at the budget balancing.

[2:40:16] so, want to

[2:40:17] make sure we understand we are in the very positive

[2:40:22] financial situation right now,

[2:40:24] and I do appreciate the city staff taking time,

[2:40:28] looking into

[2:40:31] all those strategies, because

[2:40:32] as just mentioned, we want to have

[2:40:34] those things in mind,

[2:40:37] and to take actions

[2:40:40] in the future.

[2:40:42] so it's a very good exercise to go through this,

[2:40:46] so a lot of ideas about how

[2:40:47] much we can do, what items we can

[2:40:49] think

[2:40:50] about. That's great. Definitely, I

[2:40:52] interested in this

[2:40:55] tot tax increase,

[2:40:58] and working

[2:41:00] together with other cities, and also

[2:41:01] we mention one thing about

[2:41:04] the school

[2:41:07] to

[2:41:08] support the crossing guard, so I was

[2:41:10] in the liaison meeting. I want to give

[2:41:12] kudos, shout out to our city manager colleen,

[2:41:16] because our relationship

[2:41:20] with school district has improved

[2:41:22] greatly over the past year, and

[2:41:25] they actually recognize

[2:41:26] our city manager, our cities work publicly.

[2:41:31] so we appreciate that as well.

[2:41:33] and for the crossing guard, it's about

[2:41:37] safety, and it's about helping

[2:41:42] to feel more relaxed, more at ease.

[2:41:47] at home, where they know their children

[2:41:49] are in safe hands, and also

[2:41:50] the total cost. I think it's $60,000.

[2:41:54] total cost.

[2:41:55] >> just under 70, right?

[2:41:58] total cost, 69. So I

[2:42:01] would like to say,

[2:42:06] our city council numbers also, I want

[2:42:07] to hear from you, but I'm

[2:42:09] supporting this crossing guard. So,

[2:42:10] those are the

[2:42:12] things I want to say. And for other events,

[2:42:19] we know we talk about

[2:42:22] the future services, if

[2:42:23] in case of emergency we'll consider

[2:42:25] other things

[2:42:28] we can say from those things, including

[2:42:31] cutting the grass ,

[2:42:34] and all those things.

[2:42:37] but, I don't think

[2:42:39] we need as of this moment. That's what I thought.

[2:42:43] >> public comment? >>

[2:42:46] we want to see

[2:42:48] if there's any public comments.

[2:42:49] >> I

[2:42:50] have no speaker slips on

[2:42:51] this item.

[2:42:52] >> so now, let's come back

[2:42:53] to any additional comments

[2:42:55] from any of you.

[2:42:56] >> I

[2:42:57] want to echo your comments about the

[2:42:58] school

[2:43:01] crossing guards, I appreciate our

[2:43:02] liaison committee

[2:43:03] with the school district and the cooperation,

[2:43:04] not only on this item

[2:43:07] and an item on consent with

[2:43:10] the school district to have

[2:43:13] the sale of the site,

[2:43:16] for shamrock hills elementary,

[2:43:19] as mentioned,

[2:43:22] and had some very favorable things to say about

[2:43:25] the city

[2:43:27] and our cooperation with a past that

[2:43:28] item with their last board meeting. I appreciate

[2:43:31] your cooperation and

[2:43:33] I'm in favor of us funding those three

[2:43:34] crossing guards. There's

[2:43:37] a lot of history behind

[2:43:40] the

[2:43:42] contract that we have with them now and

[2:43:43] the number of crossing guards refund

[2:43:44] and

[2:43:45] the three additional is appropriate.

[2:43:46] I also in an agreement

[2:43:49] that we ought to give head nods to

[2:43:50] start investigating the tot increase,

[2:43:52] I think there is a lead time

[2:43:55] figuring

[2:43:57] out when we put that on the ballot,

[2:43:58] what ballot it makes sense to go

[2:44:00] on, do we wanted on the presidential,

[2:44:01] on the midyear to mark do

[2:44:02] we wanted on a spring ballot, all

[2:44:04] those things are considerations and

[2:44:05] I think we

[2:44:07] need to give staff the direction to

[2:44:08] bring it back to

[2:44:10] us when it makes sense.

[2:44:13] we want to make sure that

[2:44:14] we're doing it in conjunction with

[2:44:16] the other cities, there will be a

[2:44:17] lot

[2:44:18] of tax measures coming up. We know

[2:44:19] that there is the regional transportation

[2:44:20] tax coming

[2:44:21] up, and so we want to make sure that it's

[2:44:22] on a ballot that

[2:44:25] makes sense. Where it has the best

[2:44:27] chance of success and the least chance

[2:44:31] of getting buried and confused with

[2:44:32] other

[2:44:33] things, and I think working with our

[2:44:34] neighboring cities on that, and

[2:44:39] with advice from visit tri valley

[2:44:41] as well is warranted.

[2:44:44] and I agree that we don't

[2:44:45] need to make any of these other cuts

[2:44:47] at this time. I don't think

[2:44:48] they're warranted. But, if we were

[2:44:55] to all of a sudden find ourselves

[2:44:56] in a recession and

[2:44:57] property taxes went down the same

[2:44:58] way sales-tax are going, it's nice

[2:44:59] to know

[2:45:00] that we have options and a plan in

[2:45:02] place for what we would need to

[2:45:03] do should that happen. I'm supportive of

[2:45:04] what's been presented to us. Thank

[2:45:05] you.

[2:45:08] >> additional comments? >>

[2:45:09] I made it pretty clear I'm supportive

[2:45:11] of

[2:45:12] these rather modest recommendations.

[2:45:17] we are nowhere in need of

[2:45:21] any of these cuts, I'm interested

[2:45:22] in understanding in the long-term,

[2:45:23] when

[2:45:24] you'd foot those switches, I think

[2:45:26] that's important to know.

[2:45:29] listing them is

[2:45:30] good and we're sitting there going, what if?

[2:45:32] we should understand

[2:45:34] how you might engage them. But I think

[2:45:38] our financials, our

[2:45:41] reserves are quite strong,

[2:45:44] structural deficits, we can

[2:45:46] work through it. With some of these

[2:45:53] proposed changes. I think you did

[2:45:55] a great job, it was good analysis. I'm good

[2:45:59] with this point.

[2:46:03] >> how about crossing guard? >> I'm

[2:46:05] fine with the recommendations,

[2:46:08] which was their recommendation.

[2:46:09] >> yeah, thanks for putting this together.

[2:46:11] based on our last

[2:46:13] council meeting we were sort of in

[2:46:14] this

[2:46:15] wait and see position, I think identifying

[2:46:20] earmarking these areas of

[2:46:22] changes budget reductions I think

[2:46:26] is a

[2:46:27] good initiative, it's good to have

[2:46:29] that in our back pocket. I don't think

[2:46:31] we need to move on that now, being

[2:46:32] in the surplus

[2:46:35] position that we're in. We

[2:46:37] have a little bit of time, I am cautious and

[2:46:40] so much volatility happening that I

[2:46:41] want to

[2:46:43] keep a very close eye on what's happening

[2:46:44] with the taxes, and

[2:46:47] revenue

[2:46:48] as well as managers and having these

[2:46:50] to protect

[2:46:53] that surplus

[2:46:56] position is really important.

[2:46:59] but, for now I'm supportive of

[2:47:02] where you are, with the

[2:47:03] three additional crossing guards,

[2:47:10] I don't think we need to make any

[2:47:11] of those cost reductions at

[2:47:12] the moment and also supportive of

[2:47:13] the transit occupancy task forward.

[2:47:14] >> perfect.

[2:47:17] are you going to make a motion?

[2:47:20] is this guidance?

[2:47:23] >> I got --

[2:47:26] just

[2:47:28] direction, I believe I have the direction.

[2:47:32] >> thanks, everyone.

[2:47:35] let's move to 7.2,

[2:47:36] five-year capital improvement program.

[2:47:38] general fund project

[2:47:41] 2025 to 2026

[2:47:44] .

[2:48:08] >> we've gone through the cip

[2:48:10] and looked at the general fund , funded projects.

[2:48:14] as I stated,

[2:48:19] april 15th, the preliminary cip was

[2:48:20] provided to city council,

[2:48:23] we received feedback based on

[2:48:25] what was presented by finance staff on those

[2:48:29] projections for taxes,

[2:48:32] revenues, and other things. We went

[2:48:33] through and analyzed 39 projects that

[2:48:35] were funded either fully

[2:48:38] or partially by general fund. With

[2:48:40] that, we categorized those into three tiers

[2:48:44] , so the first tier is projects that are

[2:48:47] either funded

[2:48:50] with matching dollars

[2:48:53] , so

[2:48:56] we basically maximizing that is

[2:48:59] the project is almost complete

[2:49:02] through implementation

[2:49:05] that we're let's say

[2:49:08] six months from delivering.

[2:49:10] the second here is no changes recommended at

[2:49:11] this time, however,

[2:49:13] if there is not enough opportunity in

[2:49:17] tier 3, we could

[2:49:19] go back to tier 2 but staff is not

[2:49:20] recommending at this time.

[2:49:23] with that, we'll go through

[2:49:26] the tier 1, as I said, a lot of these

[2:49:27] if

[2:49:28] you notice are currently in construction referred to as

[2:49:29] implementation

[2:49:32] or will soon be.

[2:49:35] or, that there is grant matching dollars

[2:49:38] for this.

[2:49:44] the city received over $5 million

[2:49:45] in a ctc

[2:49:47] across three projects recently.

[2:49:50] looking to maximize

[2:49:53] those dollars, taking our general

[2:49:54] fund and

[2:49:55] stretching it, that's what represented

[2:49:56] with these 17 projects, here.

[2:50:02] going

[2:50:04] to the tier 2 again, no changes recommended at

[2:50:06] this time, however, there is

[2:50:07] potential opportunity if the council

[2:50:09] so chooses, to go back, but,

[2:50:13] we're not seeking any change at this

[2:50:15] time or recommending it.

[2:50:20] and then we have tier 3 which are the potential adjustments,

[2:50:24] we identified six projects,

[2:50:27] one of them was a new project

[2:50:28] to the cip in the preliminary which

[2:50:30] was looking at analyzing

[2:50:33] where shade could be,

[2:50:35] the first project would be at the wave,

[2:50:39] the next would be the

[2:50:42] sports

[2:50:43] park upgrades, so this half a million

[2:50:45] dollars is on top of

[2:50:48] $150,000 of improvements that have already been done

[2:50:51] . The next

[2:50:54] would be basically a shift

[2:50:57] in completion

[2:51:00] the coal park renovation,

[2:51:02] so we look to move that project out,

[2:51:09] to 26-27. One thing to note is

[2:51:11] there is a 5% escalation for that move out,

[2:51:15] so that's you see out there

[2:51:18] on the

[2:51:19] project change that there is roughly about $150,000

[2:51:21] of

[2:51:22] added cost for delaying this improvement. The next

[2:51:27] would be as the sunday

[2:51:29] school barn improvements again, we

[2:51:30] would move that

[2:51:32] to future, and then when that project is brought back,

[2:51:35] we would reanalyze what the market is

[2:51:38] at that time, and if there would need

[2:51:39] to

[2:51:41] be any sort of adjustment , we would

[2:51:42] add

[2:51:44] that at that time for the project. The same thing

[2:51:47] would be for the storm drain, with the exception of

[2:51:51] we would absorb the initial analyzing

[2:51:56] the lines, within the operating budget of public works.

[2:51:58] that $30,000 assessment we would cover

[2:52:02] for the operating side of public works.

[2:52:06] and then

[2:52:07] finally it would be the san ramon landscaping renovation,

[2:52:12] to close the project,

[2:52:14] we didn't do those improvements, a

[2:52:15] lot of it was,

[2:52:18] previously the drought

[2:52:20] , it didn't make sense to go through and

[2:52:23] do the renovation of landscape when

[2:52:27] they said

[2:52:29] we would let you water one day a week

[2:52:30] or whatever. It wasn't

[2:52:33] a good image for the city to be

[2:52:36] revitalizing the landscape

[2:52:39] to brown your lawn.

[2:52:42] so with

[2:52:44] all those changes potentially, roughly $1.4 million

[2:52:48] or deferment.

[2:52:51] so with that is

[2:52:54] happy

[2:52:57] to answer any questions ,

[2:53:00] and to

[2:53:02] be back in two weeks with the updated cip.

[2:53:06] >> go ahead.

[2:53:12] >> thank you for the report, do you

[2:53:13] mind going back

[2:53:14] to the slide that shows the projects

[2:53:15] you mark can you pop back to

[2:53:18] 2.2 for a question?

[2:53:19] >> sure.

[2:53:20] >> these projects are already in progress?

[2:53:24] >> they're in various stages.

[2:53:29] some of them may not have started

[2:53:30] or they're slated to start this year.

[2:53:33] like

[2:53:36] the sit cams, those are probably

[2:53:39] ,

[2:53:41] what is the chief say, 80% of the way through expenditure?

[2:53:45] okay.

[2:53:48] and then

[2:53:50] the av system upgrade, that is ongoing.

[2:53:51] we're currently revitalizing

[2:53:54] the conference rooms,

[2:53:57] .

[2:54:00] >> I don't want you to go through

[2:54:01] all

[2:54:03] of them. I just wanted to get a feel

[2:54:04] for why they're

[2:54:06] tier 2 in general as opposed to

[2:54:09] what was the distinction between tier

[2:54:10] 2

[2:54:11] and tier 3?

[2:54:12] >> these are all projects

[2:54:15] that we really need to do,

[2:54:18] whether it's to keep up the assets that we have,

[2:54:21] or we're going to

[2:54:24] need to make some changes,

[2:54:27] or potentially

[2:54:29] it may cost more if we don't do this.

[2:54:33] on an added

[2:54:34] maintenance cost.

[2:54:35] >> would you pop

[2:54:36] down to tier 3, now? Thank you.

[2:54:39] on the coal park renovation,

[2:54:42] we do feel we're going to need to

[2:54:43] do that,

[2:54:45] in the future. And it would cost more to defer it.

[2:54:48] at least somewhat more,

[2:54:51] but you didn't feel

[2:54:54] it was tier 2, yet some of the tier

[2:54:57] 2 we know it would cost more to do for them. So,

[2:55:00] you see

[2:55:02] what I'm getting at a little bit.

[2:55:03] >> is a lot of the renovation portions

[2:55:06] that it's tired.

[2:55:09] whereas if we go back

[2:55:14] to the park playground replacement.

[2:55:15] that's getting to the point

[2:55:18] where, it's unsafe, or we need

[2:55:20] to come up to today's standards type of things.

[2:55:24] that's a variation within a park.

[2:55:29] >> I almost hate to ask this question

[2:55:30] and opened this can of worms

[2:55:34] but the marquee signs,

[2:55:36] one of them is when we want to put

[2:55:37] in on the

[2:55:40] east side of town, is

[2:55:41] there any kind of urgency on those?

[2:55:46] it's not on the tier

[2:55:49] 3 list. Existing ones,

[2:55:52] they're not unsafe ,

[2:55:55] correct?

[2:55:56] >> that is correct.

[2:55:57] there's two replacements, that is

[2:55:58] for senior and shannon.

[2:56:01] then there's two ads, one for

[2:56:04] here, and one at

[2:56:07] --

[2:56:08] >> two. Okay.

[2:56:10] and we don't feel that that's a candidate

[2:56:11] for deferral why?

[2:56:12] >> the two replacements

[2:56:16] are the reason why it's sitting at tier 2.

[2:56:19] they're

[2:56:22] getting it passed there, useful life.

[2:56:27] >> and if they went dark, what would happen?

[2:56:30] >> that communication to the folks of

[2:56:34] at senior and other things

[2:56:39] that were advertising to the public.

[2:56:40] >>

[2:56:41] thank

[2:56:42] you, let's go back to tier 3. The coal park renovation

[2:56:46] would cost us more to defer

[2:56:51] , but these others we don't think

[2:56:52] would cost

[2:56:53] us more if we deferred them eventually?

[2:56:55] or

[2:56:58] if we don't do them at all?

[2:56:59] >>

[2:57:01] that is the potential.

[2:57:03] >> talk to me about the sunday school

[2:57:04] barn a little bit

[2:57:05] more. My recollection is this is because

[2:57:07] the floor

[2:57:10] cannot handle the traffic that it

[2:57:11] has now.

[2:57:12] >> correct. Structurally, the

[2:57:13] underpinning is new

[2:57:16] from

[2:57:19] when the barn was relocated.

[2:57:20] it's just that the wearing service

[2:57:22] that is that historic, so

[2:57:24] that's the part that we need to upgrade.

[2:57:28] or preserve in

[2:57:30] some way.

[2:57:31] >> so if we chose not to do that,

[2:57:33] >> we may have to put limitations

[2:57:34] on what can we put

[2:57:35] on that floor so that we don't have

[2:57:37] a high point load

[2:57:40] to

[2:57:41] cause a potential hole in the floor.

[2:57:42] >>

[2:57:43] we would be able to as

[2:57:45] often as we do or as many people as we do,

[2:57:49] >> some particular rentals may

[2:57:52] be limited.

[2:57:53] >> there would be

[2:57:55] a cost to the community

[2:57:58] for us deferring that. And then on

[2:58:01] to go back to that one a little bit,

[2:58:04] that's a pretty big number.

[2:58:07] would there be

[2:58:08] a possibility of picking and choosing

[2:58:10] parts of that cip to defer? Not all

[2:58:13] of it?

[2:58:14] >> yes. We can go back

[2:58:16] and reanalyze what is

[2:58:19] the best use

[2:58:22] of funds at this point.

[2:58:24] the restroom is one of the items we

[2:58:25] know the play structures,

[2:58:28] one of those can we go through

[2:58:31] and analyze or determine , can we save

[2:58:32] a

[2:58:33] certain percentage of landscaping?

[2:58:37] part of it is, what are you

[2:58:39] doing? Am I tearing it out to do those

[2:58:40] other improvements you mark you may

[2:58:42] pay for it no matter what.

[2:58:43] >> okay.

[2:58:46] and the san ramon landscape

[2:58:49] renovation, that number is not hard

[2:58:52] and fast anyway, correct?

[2:58:54] the 239 is a bit of a guess? Yes?

[2:58:58] >> that is a number from

[2:59:01] eight, 10 years ago.

[2:59:04] >> if we did that project that number

[2:59:05] would go

[2:59:06] up significantly, right?

[2:59:07] >> most likely.

[2:59:09] >> if we defer it, meaning we say

[2:59:10] we're going to

[2:59:12] a limit that project, what would be our

[2:59:13] plan ever for the landscaping?

[2:59:16] it is looking pretty tired and dated.

[2:59:19] >> we can look to potentially

[2:59:20] do improvements through maintenance

[2:59:22] over

[2:59:25] a long period of time. Changing out certain plans,

[2:59:28] like five to 10% per year,

[2:59:31] and just

[2:59:33] absorb it with maintenance as an option.

[2:59:36] the other is we could potentially

[2:59:37] look to change this

[2:59:43] to a baby friendly and there may

[2:59:45] be other grant opportunities. Just

[2:59:46] looking at what

[2:59:49] the pallet is, and how we irrigate

[2:59:50] it, there

[2:59:52] may be other opportunities

[2:59:54] to get matching dollars for it, to

[2:59:55] help offset that.

[2:59:56] >> okay.

[3:00:01] that's the extent of my questions

[3:00:02] for now.

[3:00:03] I will have more to say when we get

[3:00:04] to deliberation.

[3:00:07] >> questions? >> yeah. Tier 3,

[3:00:09] got that right there. A couple of things.

[3:00:13] on the

[3:00:16] sports park, for example,

[3:00:19] I was looking at that number, I'm going

[3:00:20] to

[3:00:22] back up a step. We've been using the

[3:00:24] word defer or eliminate, it's either one.

[3:00:31] with reduced,

[3:00:34] eliminate, or defer. What are we

[3:00:37] trying to do here? We have options,

[3:00:40] right?

[3:00:41] >> that's correct.

[3:00:42] eliminate is the san ramon landscape that

[3:00:43] would be off

[3:00:46] the books. The differing is where

[3:00:49] we're going to push that out.

[3:00:52] let's say the shade structure, that

[3:00:56] was a new project that

[3:00:57] came to council, that has not been

[3:00:59] added to the book.

[3:01:01] that was an ask. So, we could look

[3:01:02] to put

[3:01:05] it in as a future project or

[3:01:08] just as an option ,

[3:01:10] we know there's other priorities is

[3:01:14] not worth putting in.

[3:01:16] we could go as future year, it could

[3:01:17] go out into

[3:01:18] the fifth year. As a planning tool,

[3:01:20] and we can refine that number

[3:01:22] as we bring it to council for action.

[3:01:26] >> okay.

[3:01:29] I will speak in terms of

[3:01:32] reduction first.

[3:01:35] have we done analysis

[3:01:38] on these shade structures in terms of

[3:01:41] other options ?

[3:01:46] it sounds like a pretty high number.

[3:01:47] you can say yes, no,

[3:01:49] whatever. Do we have other options

[3:01:50] that

[3:01:52] might reduce that amount?

[3:01:53] >> that was

[3:01:54] the initial

[3:01:56] seed money to go through , the survey

[3:01:59] of where do we need

[3:02:02] shade, how much shade,

[3:02:04] what is the cost of each of these improvements

[3:02:07] at the various locations. That's not even the cost

[3:02:10] to construct the shade.

[3:02:11] >> okay. Oh.

[3:02:14] that's just a planning number.

[3:02:15] >> correct.

[3:02:18] >> so there's some leeway there, I'm sure.

[3:02:22] fallon sports park, have 1 million bucks.

[3:02:28] I think one of the critical things, we all

[3:02:29] know a little

[3:02:30] bit about what the needs are, there

[3:02:32] are higher priority needs

[3:02:35] for that, and others,

[3:02:37] and it seems like a large number. I'm just wondering,

[3:02:41] we're addressing

[3:02:44] the immediate priority needs

[3:02:47] , I know one of

[3:02:48] those needs, we're starting to do, we

[3:02:49] got the flag, that's beautiful out

[3:02:50] there.

[3:02:52] one of the asks was for the mesh netting around

[3:02:53] , I

[3:02:55] called it netting but around , and that's

[3:02:56] included in

[3:03:04] the money that we already have in

[3:03:05] there now, or is that

[3:03:07] in the 500 gram? That's in the 150. Okay.

[3:03:10] so, there's some potential here, I would think,

[3:03:14] to reduce that number.

[3:03:17] I don't

[3:03:19] know about deferring, I'm just thinking

[3:03:20] about

[3:03:23] >> the big thing

[3:03:29] seeding upgrades, and trying

[3:03:32] to build enough room to do

[3:03:35] true stadium seating.

[3:03:37] because, you know the ultimate vision is

[3:03:40] this facility attracts higher-level usage.

[3:03:44] it's a different facility than our

[3:03:47] other baseball fields.

[3:03:50] so, the question is,

[3:03:53] what level

[3:03:56] of seeding is acceptable?

[3:03:57] so certainly there's movement there,

[3:03:59] that was the bulk

[3:04:02] of it. I believe a scoreboard is in that number,

[3:04:08] and,

[3:04:11] off the top of my head I can't remember

[3:04:14] what else was in.

[3:04:15] >> topsfield padding and the wi-fi.

[3:04:20] ea.

[3:04:21] >> those are smaller things,

[3:04:23] when we put

[3:04:25] this number in together it was about

[3:04:26] seeding. There's different levels.

[3:04:29] >> I'll modify that to defer.

[3:04:32] >> I know like now,

[3:04:38] I know we have public comments

[3:04:40] on these. Can we bring the public comments,

[3:04:44] >> I wanted to continue

[3:04:45] with this. I don't think I'm making

[3:04:47] , I'm getting clarification

[3:04:50] on some of these things, here.

[3:04:52] I'm not setting the number, if you

[3:04:53] permit me to

[3:04:56] continue I'd appreciate that.

[3:04:58] on the cold park, the renovation getting

[3:04:59] back to that, when you said

[3:05:02] an escalation

[3:05:05] , is that, how does that trigger?

[3:05:06] >> that's

[3:05:08] for construction. Yes.

[3:05:11] okay.

[3:05:13] there's the potential to split apart

[3:05:20] as councilmember josey mentioned,

[3:05:21] we can

[3:05:23] look at that, too. And

[3:05:25] the other ones, I think she's addressed

[3:05:28] in terms of what they mean in timing.

[3:05:33] but, I'd like an opportunity to

[3:05:34] go through this a little bit more, and

[3:05:36] identify

[3:05:39] either cuts or deferrals.

[3:05:42] that's the extent of

[3:05:43] my clarification questions, thank you.

[3:05:45] >>

[3:05:48] thank you for the presentation.

[3:05:51] I've got three questions

[3:05:54] , all pertaining to tier 2.

[3:05:57] the first one is trying to

[3:05:58] get a little more clarity on condition assessment

[3:06:00] of the water features.

[3:06:03] >> so,

[3:06:06] that is, at

[3:06:07] civic, the fountain by the flagpoles,

[3:06:09] and we

[3:06:10] have the globe in the center of the

[3:06:11] courtyard. Those are all original

[3:06:15] from

[3:06:18] 1989 when we open this facility,

[3:06:21] we

[3:06:22] needed to go through, assess the condition,

[3:06:24] see what improvements need to

[3:06:26] be done.

[3:06:27] >> so, the 50 k placeholder is just evaluation.

[3:06:30] okay.

[3:06:33] second one is the downtown

[3:06:36] dublin townsquare park.

[3:06:39] and I can't

[3:06:42] find the number in front of me, but,

[3:06:44] could you add a little clarity , just

[3:06:48] over 100 k?

[3:06:49] >>

[3:06:50] that's kind of seed money for the city to

[3:06:51] work with the developers,

[3:06:53] as part of downtown. There's the vision

[3:06:57] of that townsquare

[3:07:00] your central focus point,

[3:07:03] when you come in. So, that's for all

[3:07:06] of us to provide initial preliminary design,

[3:07:09] work with the applicant

[3:07:12] to

[3:07:13] come up with a design for implementation.

[3:07:18] >> got

[3:07:19] it, okay. And then the third one was

[3:07:24] the restroom replacement.

[3:07:30] the

[3:07:31] million dollars, there, could you

[3:07:33] walk me through that?

[3:07:36] >> that is to replace two restrooms,

[3:07:37] that's a wholesale replacement. One is

[3:07:39] at alamo, the other is

[3:07:42] .

[3:07:54] and, mabel.

[3:07:57] >> sorry?

[3:08:00] got it. Okay.

[3:08:03] yeah,

[3:08:07] I think those are all my questions

[3:08:09] for now, thank you.

[3:08:10] >> thank you,

[3:08:12] thank

[3:08:13] you for this comprehensive list, and also

[3:08:15] for the

[3:08:18] different tiers on that.

[3:08:21] what are the products and how

[3:08:24] you think about the importance, or

[3:08:25] what's

[3:08:27] the impact of those things? I look at the spreadsheet,

[3:08:35] the attachment, I think the last attachment,

[3:08:36] so my question is,

[3:08:39] for the different years, general

[3:08:42] fund only cost, 25-26, is total

[3:08:45] $16 million.

[3:08:47] you know what I'm talking about? This

[3:08:51] attachment one. Okay.

[3:08:52] >>

[3:08:54] basically be asked for

[3:08:57] funding, whether it was

[3:09:00] planned previously in the cip

[3:09:01] and forward one year, or adjustments

[3:09:03] , so

[3:09:05] those are all of the general fund funding

[3:09:09] for these particular projects.

[3:09:12] >> so, my question is, for this year,

[3:09:18] 60 million, next year 2 million, a year

[3:09:19] after

[3:09:21] is 1.8 million. So, seems like

[3:09:23] the number reduced dramatically over years.

[3:09:27] will this be the case, or next year

[3:09:30] when it's next

[3:09:32] year, we'll see a big number again?

[3:09:36] to send money there again.

[3:09:39] >>

[3:09:41] potentially, as we do the cip every two years,

[3:09:42] this

[3:09:44] is the update year, next year will

[3:09:45] be basically be open

[3:09:48] the project and do a call for

[3:09:49] projects, that's when we potentially

[3:09:51] can bring to you

[3:09:54] other items for consideration.

[3:09:57] that's how you can get more dollars next year.

[3:10:06] so that's

[3:10:08] my questions, so we're open for public comment.

[3:10:12] >> mayor, I have two speakers notes

[3:10:13] on this item. The

[3:10:15] first one is tracy barnett.

[3:10:27] >> council numbers and staff,

[3:10:30] ceo of visit tri-valley, your destination agency

[3:10:35] for the city of dublin, pleasanton,

[3:10:36] livermore, and the town of danville.

[3:10:39] I'd like to begin my comments this

[3:10:40] evening

[3:10:41] with a little story. So visualize, if you will.

[3:10:47] in the not-too-distant future there

[3:10:49] is a family of four

[3:10:50] coming to dublin's new multi use event

[3:10:52] center. On a friday night

[3:10:53] for their daughter leo's regional volleyball tournament.

[3:10:58] they

[3:10:59] check in at the hyatt place, nice

[3:11:00] and close by, they grab some dinner

[3:11:01] at

[3:11:02] the lazy dog and they get ready for the

[3:11:03] early-morning match. They scope out

[3:11:05] the regal theater for the new minecraft

[3:11:07] movie, just in case.

[3:11:10] saturday morning,

[3:11:11] mom, dad, brother jason are watching

[3:11:12] the match at 9:00 a.m. And the team

[3:11:15] advances to the next round. So they

[3:11:17] are to return at 4:00 p.m. For game

[3:11:19] number two. And they've had some time to

[3:11:22] check out the area.

[3:11:24] so first they find the fabulous restaurant for

[3:11:25] lunch,

[3:11:28] it's a family favorite.

[3:11:29] then they take jason, a special needs child

[3:11:31] to work out some energy

[3:11:32] of the imagine playground. After a

[3:11:34] quick refresh back at the

[3:11:35] hotel they popped into vitality balls,

[3:11:37] for drinks and snacks. Game

[3:11:39] two is a tight match. Her last game

[3:11:43] is at now until sunday.

[3:11:46] mom is a

[3:11:47] foodie, she takes the family down

[3:11:49] to a highly rated trays,

[3:11:52] she discovered online, and yes,

[3:11:57] they catch a movie at the regal hacienda

[3:11:58] crossing and the

[3:12:00] whole family is happy and back to bed they go.

[3:12:03] day three, sorry to say, me his team

[3:12:04] is beaten

[3:12:05] by past regional champions. Not to

[3:12:07] worry, everyone sticks around to

[3:12:10] the very end for the awards. Dad

[3:12:11] takes son jason to the dublin heritage

[3:12:13] park because he's a history buff.

[3:12:16] meanwhile, mom and mia shot the

[3:12:18] rack at persimmon place. They returned

[3:12:19] to the center

[3:12:20] for the celebration, and they drive home.

[3:12:22] that is one family

[3:12:25] ,

[3:12:28] staying, dining,

[3:12:29] drinking, bonding, and shopping. That

[3:12:31] was one volleyball player.

[3:12:34] there

[3:12:35] are approximately 15 on a team, there

[3:12:37] are typically 100 teams at a

[3:12:39] regional event like that one and 52 weekends

[3:12:40] that we can book that business.

[3:12:45] they will fill the hotels, the shops,

[3:12:46] restaurants and attractions

[3:12:49] across the entire valley. They will

[3:12:50] add

[3:12:51] to businesses bottom lines, they will

[3:12:52] have to hire more people, they

[3:12:53] will provide more revenues to the

[3:12:55] city, you know how it works. This

[3:12:58] is the sporting events .

[3:12:59] we will attempt to fill that center

[3:13:01] with the many days of

[3:13:03] the year as possible from corporate

[3:13:04] and

[3:13:05] community events, and big-name concerts, too.

[3:13:09] we are making progress, we are working hand-in-hand

[3:13:10] with your staff so

[3:13:13] thank you, colleen, and jeff and jay

[3:13:15] and hazel and felicia. We are making great progress.

[3:13:19] you are our partners and as we continue

[3:13:22] to lead the charge along with our

[3:13:23] consultants

[3:13:25] at a.l.l. Destination advisory,

[3:13:28] the global

[3:13:29] fortune 500 company, we value your

[3:13:31] investment in the multi use event center,

[3:13:32] and see

[3:13:33] it coming to life. Thank you.

[3:13:34] >> thank

[3:13:35] you. We

[3:13:37] look forward for that.

[3:13:40] >> the

[3:13:43] next speaker is guy houston.

[3:14:01] >>

[3:14:02] thank you very much, madam mayor,

[3:14:03] council members, guy houston, tonight

[3:14:04] representing the double leprechauns, one

[3:14:06] of your attendance at the sports field.

[3:14:07] I wanted to put

[3:14:10] maybe a little bit of

[3:14:12] some meat on the bones as far as the

[3:14:13] cost of the different

[3:14:16] items that you're considering this evening.

[3:14:22] the $500,000

[3:14:24] , that was a placeholder, not from me,

[3:14:25] a

[3:14:28] placeholder put in there.

[3:14:31] we have what I'm passing out to you,

[3:14:33] the two major projects to be done, would be

[3:14:36] seating out there at the field, the

[3:14:37] second is a scoreboard,

[3:14:43] is a storage container

[3:14:46] out there, which would be

[3:14:52] , one there now which is utilized

[3:14:53] by

[3:14:54] emerald high, the leprechauns and little

[3:14:55] league and if we had another one out

[3:14:56] there that

[3:14:57] would make everybody's life a lot

[3:14:58] easier. The $500,000, you talked about reductions, so,

[3:15:01] I have

[3:15:04] , my vision is that there would

[3:15:06] be stands out there, much like a lot of

[3:15:09] your high schools, dublin high baseball

[3:15:10] has stands and bleachers at

[3:15:13] their field. You could have there's

[3:15:16] lots of choices as you can see,

[3:15:19] but the one I saw was 155 seats times two,

[3:15:22] is $60,000 right there.

[3:15:25] the

[3:15:28] second item is the scoreboard,

[3:15:30] you can make it from very very low

[3:15:31] two lots

[3:15:33] and lots, but the one that I have shown you

[3:15:37] which would be a huge upgrade and

[3:15:39] possibly the best one in the pecos

[3:15:40] leak is $41,000 board.

[3:15:43] so, we add those

[3:15:46] two together is $100,000.

[3:15:50] the

[3:15:51] shipping container is $15,000 would you put

[3:15:52] the cement pad in and then get the container,

[3:15:54] the container is almost a freebie. They

[3:15:55] give those things away. The pad, to put

[3:15:57] the container on, would cost some money. 15,000.

[3:16:01] right now, what our needs are, or what

[3:16:05] we can make this

[3:16:07] really a first-class park, is $115,000

[3:16:11] . Their soft cost

[3:16:14] cost more, as we know, and so,

[3:16:20] if you look at

[3:16:21] the 50% margin, 30% margin, you do the math.

[3:16:23] these are

[3:16:24] certainly things that are not set

[3:16:25] in stone, obviously. You're talking

[3:16:27] about way under half of what that

[3:16:32] $500,000 was.

[3:16:35] the 145 or $150,000

[3:16:36] that you allocated already, we have the best

[3:16:40] like pole and flag in the tri-valley right now.

[3:16:44] so it's something to be

[3:16:45] proud of, not just by our baseball

[3:16:47] team. You have a great sound system,

[3:16:50] and

[3:16:51] kudos to staff for getting that done

[3:16:53] and put together, fantastic.

[3:16:56] the green mesh has

[3:16:57] not appeared yet. That is within that

[3:17:00] hundred 50,000, haven't gotten there yet.

[3:17:05] the next thing is the wi-fi,

[3:17:08] which was in the $150,000

[3:17:09] might be curious as to how much you

[3:17:11] actually spent so far.

[3:17:14] and of the flag was

[3:17:15] more than when people thought it would

[3:17:17] cost but it was a $150,000. All

[3:17:18] I'm saying is that, we can make this

[3:17:20] a real regional attraction,

[3:17:23] and it is

[3:17:24] for the benefit of the double leprechauns,

[3:17:28] but it's also the benefit of emerald high school.

[3:17:31] so far this season, thanks to you, we

[3:17:35] raised our level so much higher

[3:17:38] than were in our previous two

[3:17:41] seasons, the community, we have

[3:17:44] events coming up with tri-valley

[3:17:45] rotary, we have doubled historical,

[3:17:49] we have our partnership with cap parks,

[3:17:53] the team is staying

[3:17:55] over at karen parks, my timing is up.

[3:17:59] so, anyway, if you have additional questions,

[3:18:04] I think the dollars can come down,

[3:18:05] worked well within

[3:18:06] your perceived budgets, and we appreciate everything

[3:18:08] you've done so far.

[3:18:11] >>

[3:18:14] we'll come back for additional comments

[3:18:15] or thoughts, discussions.

[3:18:16] >> sure.

[3:18:20] there

[3:18:23] are

[3:18:24] decisions to make, it's been pointed out

[3:18:26] that we are not in a desperate

[3:18:27] situation, we're not in a cash flow crunch.

[3:18:29] we

[3:18:30] want to be very careful with our money,

[3:18:32] go back

[3:18:35] to the tier 3 list again.

[3:18:38] I think things that we are

[3:18:40] , that we know that we need to do,

[3:18:43] I don't think it makes sense for us

[3:18:47] to defer for the

[3:18:48] sake of differing when it's going

[3:18:50] to cost us additional money.

[3:18:52] I appreciate: being on this list,

[3:18:53] it's the biggest

[3:18:56] item on the list. I would not be

[3:18:57] in support of completely deferring the

[3:18:59] project moving it out

[3:19:01] of additional years beyond what is necessary

[3:19:02] . Simply

[3:19:05] cannot spend

[3:19:08] as much general fund money now

[3:19:11] when it would mean we would

[3:19:12] have to spend even more general fund

[3:19:14] money later because we know we

[3:19:16] need to do it. Those folks have been

[3:19:17] waiting for that renovation for

[3:19:18] a long time, the bathroom building

[3:19:20] really does need to be upgraded. What

[3:19:21] I

[3:19:22] would support, and the cold part piece

[3:19:23] would be to look at,

[3:19:26] are there things that we want

[3:19:28] to reduce that we never want to do? Within that project

[3:19:32] the scope and scale for example.

[3:19:35] the landscaping

[3:19:40] , the landscaping plan what we initially

[3:19:41] wanted to do, do we really need

[3:19:43] to redo this play structure? Is it

[3:19:44] unsafe? Is it sufficient?

[3:19:50] the exercise course,

[3:19:51] I think, people have been asking for

[3:19:53] for a long time, can we look at what

[3:19:55] we're trying to do there and is in

[3:19:56] the right gail? But I wouldn't

[3:19:58] support putting it off just for the sake

[3:19:59] of putting it off. That will cost us

[3:20:02] more in the long run. The stage structure

[3:20:03] I know that was head nods from something

[3:20:05] that I brought, but

[3:20:07] I'm not loving what we've done with

[3:20:08] that particular project, I would be

[3:20:10] supportive of moving that, and hopefully

[3:20:14] putting

[3:20:16] that into the other things that we're already doing.

[3:20:20] every time we touch a park,

[3:20:21] look at its trade requirements, every time

[3:20:23] we have to open anything at any

[3:20:26] of our parks, particularly in regards

[3:20:27] to

[3:20:29] the playgrounds, evaluate if shade

[3:20:30] needs at

[3:20:32] the time, I think there's economies

[3:20:33] to be

[3:20:34] had by doing that and I'm fine with

[3:20:35] us. Deferring or even eliminating

[3:20:38] the cip that just says

[3:20:44] shade structures because I don't think

[3:20:45] this was implemented,

[3:20:47] not the way I envisioned it the way

[3:20:48] the rest

[3:20:49] of council and visited, that would

[3:20:50] be my recommendation.

[3:20:53] on the sports park

[3:20:54] baseball field upgrades, I'm supportive

[3:20:56] of moving that to future projects, but I appreciate

[3:20:59] mr. Houston's comments,

[3:21:02] I

[3:21:05] appreciate his cost estimates, I'm

[3:21:06] a

[3:21:08] little bit leery of the cost estimates

[3:21:09] from members

[3:21:11] of the public, because they are and

[3:21:13] what our staff has brought to us is what

[3:21:14] is going to

[3:21:16] cost, I chuckled when you said they

[3:21:17] are set in stone, mr. Russell

[3:21:23] wants them all set literally in stone

[3:21:24] and bolted

[3:21:25] to the concrete and that's partially

[3:21:26] what increases our costs.

[3:21:29] I do think we definitely need to

[3:21:31] figure out why the wi-fi, we want

[3:21:32] to, if that's part of the 150,

[3:21:35] is that your understanding?

[3:21:38] >> and the green mesh, all of

[3:21:40] that is going to be done and we're going

[3:21:41] to spend the entire 150.

[3:21:42] >>

[3:21:44] if there is a way to get a cheap container out there,

[3:21:47] if that is a small cost, if that whole

[3:21:48] 150 is already gone, the container

[3:21:50] may be something we can work on if there's

[3:21:53] a way to do that.

[3:21:56] through our agreement with emerald, or

[3:21:57] some other

[3:21:58] way we're doing that with leprechauns if that's doable.

[3:22:03] as far as the seating and

[3:22:04] anything additional beyond that, deferring

[3:22:06] that to out years makes

[3:22:09] more sense to me. I'm

[3:22:10] disappointed about the san ramon landscaping.

[3:22:12] but I'm supportive of

[3:22:15] moving that outward since that

[3:22:17] number is a complete guess it would

[3:22:18] be

[3:22:20] way more than that. I'm supportive

[3:22:22] of the recommendation on the storm drains,

[3:22:27] and we

[3:22:28] need to move forward on the improvements, otherwise

[3:22:30] we are going to have

[3:22:32] to limit our rentals, and I'm not

[3:22:33] supportive of that

[3:22:34] and we want to protect that asset. That's

[3:22:36] where I land on all of those.

[3:22:37] >> thank you. You want to say something?

[3:22:39] >>

[3:22:42] I usually do, yeah, thank you.

[3:22:44] so, shade structures, I was a little bit

[3:22:45] surprised. This

[3:22:48] was probably brought up.

[3:22:50] I didn't realize that was all planning

[3:22:52] and there would be an additional cost.

[3:22:54] I am in favor of

[3:22:57] doing something, for that, I

[3:23:00] think if we could look at that from

[3:23:01] a different perspective, and I'm not

[3:23:03] just topping about umbrellas,

[3:23:08] there should be a process, I don't

[3:23:09] want to give up

[3:23:11] on that. I think it's necessary, I

[3:23:12] just don't

[3:23:13] think we should be spending 200 grand for planning.

[3:23:17] for this type of thing. I am supportive of doing something.

[3:23:21] but, not spending

[3:23:24] 200 grand for planning.

[3:23:26] that, I'd like to get some idea of

[3:23:27] what

[3:23:28] the cost would be, so if that's something

[3:23:30] that can be done quicker,

[3:23:34] within our fiscal period, that's fine.

[3:23:39] if it needs

[3:23:40] to be pushed out, okay, but I don't want

[3:23:42] to give up on it.

[3:23:45] I just think, for some reason, the planning

[3:23:48] is really, really high.

[3:23:53] so I don't know if I'm going to get

[3:23:54] any

[3:23:57] feedback on that, I alluded to

[3:24:00] the fallon sports park changes,

[3:24:03] I wanted in my

[3:24:04] clarifying questions, I wanted to

[3:24:06] get a handle on where that

[3:24:09] 500 grand came from, I do

[3:24:10] have a better idea, now, it sounds like, regardless

[3:24:12] ,

[3:24:15] I think we can get a

[3:24:18] handle on those changes.

[3:24:21] we don't need 500 grand

[3:24:23] to make a lot of those changes. I have clarification that

[3:24:27] we are spending

[3:24:30] the 150 for the

[3:24:33] mesh, for the flagpole,

[3:24:34] and for whatever the other thing was,

[3:24:36] so it'll be gone. Well utilized.

[3:24:39] I

[3:24:41] do think we can probably include some of this amount

[3:24:45] in the 25-26 budget. I'm in favor of

[3:24:48] maybe identifying what

[3:24:51] the real need is on that.

[3:24:53] identifying within the fiscal period,

[3:24:57] what we really need to do,

[3:25:00] and then if there's anything ,

[3:25:03] prioritization, push it out.

[3:25:06] say we need 250, 300, whatever

[3:25:08] the number is. And you're timing that,

[3:25:09] you identify in the fiscal

[3:25:10] period, the things that you really think

[3:25:15] have a higher priority. That would be my recommendation.

[3:25:18] I'm kind

[3:25:19] of thinking that way throughout all

[3:25:21] of this, because some of these items are important,

[3:25:24] as we're tweaking

[3:25:27] them, moving things around.

[3:25:29] I don't think we can just say, let's just

[3:25:30] shove them out. We

[3:25:31] need to understand what's critical, and this

[3:25:33] cold park thing,

[3:25:36] line item is

[3:25:39] a perfect example of that. I think

[3:25:40] councilmember josey brought that up,

[3:25:42] and she

[3:25:43] probably has a very good knowledge

[3:25:45] of that. A little better detail knowledge but

[3:25:47] they're probably items in there that

[3:25:51] are necessities,

[3:25:56] and some that are, well, we might

[3:25:57] as well try to

[3:26:00] do this, too. And I think

[3:26:03] councilmember josey was clear

[3:26:05] and said is that something that needs to be changed?

[3:26:09] or is it pretty safe, now? I think there is

[3:26:12] room to defer

[3:26:18] for the

[3:26:20] 25-26. That's really what I'm talking, well,

[3:26:21] yeah. Pushing it out.

[3:26:24] and then, you know,

[3:26:27] the barn,

[3:26:30] yeah, I would be supportive

[3:26:33] of doing whatever is necessary.

[3:26:36] 260 grand , I was unclear,

[3:26:39] I'm

[3:26:41] going to go back if you pardon me and say clarification.

[3:26:45] what exactly would be doing for 260 grand?

[3:26:46] >>

[3:26:48] that is to strengthen the floor.

[3:26:51] >> so it's foundational? >> no. From

[3:26:54] underside of the

[3:26:57] existing

[3:27:00] 1x6 flooring.

[3:27:03] >> subfloor. >> right now there isn't one.

[3:27:06] the historic fabric ,

[3:27:11] spanning from new choices. That's why

[3:27:15] you have this basically spongy floor.

[3:27:18] it's to go underneath and re-support what's there.

[3:27:21] that's why it's so costly, because

[3:27:25] you're having to do everything

[3:27:26] from the underneath, not from the

[3:27:28] top.

[3:27:29] >> to check this one,

[3:27:31] I would be in support

[3:27:34] of continuing with that plan,

[3:27:37] the san ramon landscaping

[3:27:38] I think, that's been talked about.

[3:27:42] I would be supportive of eliminating

[3:27:43] that, and then

[3:27:44] the storm drain, I don't have enough

[3:27:49] support to understand, to me,

[3:27:51] when a storm drain is put on there,

[3:27:54] and you've put it on as a tier 3, I guess

[3:27:58] ,

[3:27:59] I'm a little confused. When you want to

[3:28:01] put a storm drain in, to me,

[3:28:03] that's really important stuff. I was wondering

[3:28:07] why you, pardon

[3:28:08] me, clarification, why you put that on this.

[3:28:12] can you give me a quick background

[3:28:13] on that?

[3:28:14] >> this

[3:28:16] is a condition assessment

[3:28:17] at a fixed period of time, whether

[3:28:18] it's 10 years, 15 years from when

[3:28:20] it was installed. Right now we're not

[3:28:22] receiving a lot of reports

[3:28:25] of issues. So, this is

[3:28:26] part of preventative maintenance.

[3:28:28] going

[3:28:29] in, inspecting the line, seeing what's there,

[3:28:34] and if we

[3:28:35] need to we would do point repairs.

[3:28:37] >> okay, I appreciate that. Then there's

[3:28:38] room to evaluate on that as well.

[3:28:42] so, I think you've targeted tier 3 projects very well,

[3:28:46] you've segregated the

[3:28:47] tier 2 projects appropriately, with

[3:28:49] the exception of a couple of

[3:28:52] items there of curiosity.

[3:28:55] I think the focus should

[3:28:56] be on the tier 3 in terms of deferrals,

[3:28:58] elimination,

[3:29:04] and,

[3:29:07] where I'm going on

[3:29:08] I got enough information.

[3:29:09] >> some guidance, yes.

[3:29:13] >> thank you for

[3:29:16] separating this out, I think, there's a lot here.

[3:29:22] I thought

[3:29:24] councilmember josey was heading in the direction

[3:29:28] that I had in mind which was questioning

[3:29:30] the marquee signs at 850 k, and the monument signs

[3:29:34] at nearly 500 k,

[3:29:37] I don't know if those

[3:29:40] , I don't know if those make a

[3:29:43] whole lot of sense.

[3:29:46] I don't think the value is

[3:29:49] compensable with the cost.

[3:29:52] that being said,

[3:29:55] I agree with the comments around

[3:29:58] the sunday school

[3:30:00] improvements as well as eliminating

[3:30:01] the shade for now.

[3:30:07] I concur with

[3:30:10] councilmember mccorriston

[3:30:13] on the kolb

[3:30:15] park renovation, and just diving in

[3:30:16] slightly

[3:30:19] deeper and figuring out

[3:30:24] the same approach that you've taken

[3:30:25] in terms of the tier

[3:30:27] 1, tier 2, tier 3, diving into that, because

[3:30:28] it is a

[3:30:30] significant amount of money. And then, with

[3:30:33] the fallon sports market, I'm having

[3:30:37] field of dreams fives, if you

[3:30:39] build it they will come. I'm wondering, outside of

[3:30:43] the leprechauns, who benefits

[3:30:46] from what ,

[3:30:48] and diving into that a little bit.

[3:30:49] so,

[3:30:52] if emerald high school or little league

[3:30:55] or someone else is going to

[3:30:57] benefit from a particular project as opposed

[3:30:58] to

[3:30:59] another, I'm more inclined to support that

[3:31:01] as

[3:31:04] to one organization or entity.

[3:31:07] I don't know if you

[3:31:09] have any insights.

[3:31:10] >> sure, the leprechauns

[3:31:11] are just one user,

[3:31:13] we have so many users of

[3:31:14] our fields and facilities. My vision

[3:31:16] has always been

[3:31:22] to have facilities that attract outside regional tournaments.

[3:31:28] those

[3:31:29] are booms for the community, they

[3:31:31] get kids involved and interested in

[3:31:32] sports, and watching and for dissipating,

[3:31:36] and they get people eating in our

[3:31:37] restaurant and things

[3:31:38] like that. Outside groups using it is

[3:31:40] one thing, and certainly

[3:31:43] having a premium

[3:31:46] field makes a big difference.

[3:31:48] again, you're talking about local user groups, too,

[3:31:49] there's

[3:31:52] not enough field space as it is,

[3:31:55] for inside sports and outside sports. He's

[3:32:01] a pecans, little

[3:32:02] league's, all the other clubs that

[3:32:03] compete with little league's, there's

[3:32:04] smaller ones that are

[3:32:07] looking for field space and

[3:32:10] premium spots to play. And be important,

[3:32:12] be just as important as little league

[3:32:13] and emerald high school,

[3:32:16] lots of users.

[3:32:17] >> right.

[3:32:19] outside of whatever that

[3:32:22] 500 k

[3:32:25] entails, that's a

[3:32:28] list of various improvements.

[3:32:33] my suggestion would be to look at what

[3:32:34] those individual improvements are, those

[3:32:35] that actually benefit the community,

[3:32:37] I would rank higher than those that don't.

[3:32:43] what value is a

[3:32:46] marquee sign actually bringing?

[3:32:48] what revenue is that generating versus

[3:32:49] something like this where

[3:32:51] all american, apple pie, baseball,

[3:32:55] it has a sense

[3:32:57] of community, I think it adds value.

[3:33:01] both monetarily, hard

[3:33:04] dollars as well as soft.

[3:33:06] get the community outside bringing it together.

[3:33:15] I would love to see more detail around

[3:33:17] that, that 500 k placeholder,

[3:33:18] things that are actually bringing

[3:33:19] value to the community. I don't know if I trust

[3:33:23] a sign costing 40 k, but maybe

[3:33:26] ,

[3:33:27] just diving into that a little more

[3:33:28] I would be more inclined and certainly

[3:33:34] going back to the barn improvements,

[3:33:35] this is obviously historical site,

[3:33:38] I wish

[3:33:39] steve was here to educate me on the

[3:33:41] full history of it, getting to

[3:33:43] a point that we're destroying a historical site,

[3:33:45] it doesn't feel right at this point.

[3:33:50] I don't know if

[3:33:53] the council agrees in terms of,

[3:33:55] potentially threatening the integrity

[3:33:59] of that floor.

[3:34:02] >> this retrofitting.

[3:34:05] the point

[3:34:06] was made that if we don't reinforce

[3:34:10] the floor, it could respond eunice

[3:34:14] could cause

[3:34:20] coals and permanent damage.

[3:34:21] >>

[3:34:22] I'm more concerned about the safety

[3:34:23] of people using it, less concern about the trampoline effect.

[3:34:26] >>

[3:34:28] sure.

[3:34:29] >> I don't know how the council feels.

[3:34:35] >> [ inaudible

[3:34:36] ]

[3:34:37] >> I'd like to see the improvement.

[3:34:38] the retrofitting gun. If that's

[3:34:41] what you're advocating, then.

[3:34:44] >>

[3:34:47] thank you for your comments,

[3:34:50] so, I

[3:34:52] actually am excited when I heard your comment.

[3:34:55] so, we have a vision. We have a vision

[3:34:56] to

[3:34:59] make double and become a

[3:35:00] sports destiny, and in the future,

[3:35:03] with the baseball field, event center,

[3:35:16] and are passionate young athletes,

[3:35:17] and also adult

[3:35:18] athletes, I envision we will be able

[3:35:20] to keep thriving.

[3:35:23] right now our budget

[3:35:26] is in great shape, we are not

[3:35:29] as much

[3:35:30] last year, but we are much better

[3:35:32] than

[3:35:34] all our neighboring cities, we are in

[3:35:38] positive surplus position.

[3:35:43] we don't have to worry that much, or

[3:35:44] we don't have to look

[3:35:45] at all those ways to try and eliminate

[3:35:47] or

[3:35:50] defer, that's how I feel like we

[3:35:52] keep this positive momentum. Keep

[3:35:56] going, keep doing things. We'll

[3:35:57] thrive our business, we'll generate more revenues,

[3:35:59] and we will be able

[3:36:05] to cover, of course,

[3:36:08] we'll cover our budget, our expenditure,

[3:36:11] and we'll do better.

[3:36:14] that's what I feel. I feel all those

[3:36:16] items, it's great you go into all the

[3:36:17] details, we look at all the

[3:36:19] things, and I agree with all of your comments about

[3:36:23] [ inaudible ] look at

[3:36:26] the sports park we want to support,

[3:36:29] we want to make this, attract

[3:36:32] the players, athletes here.

[3:36:37] we want to do important things that we have to

[3:36:38] do. So, I don't feel

[3:36:41] great about marquee signs, either.

[3:36:47] how about --

[3:36:48] >> I agree.

[3:36:50] my position on the marquee signs is all or nothing.

[3:36:56] the reason that we've had so many discussions

[3:36:57] on

[3:36:58] the marquee signs is because there

[3:36:59] was such a imbalance

[3:37:02] between east and west.

[3:37:04] which is why we've talked about it

[3:37:05] multiple times, because we were going

[3:37:07] to rehab to marquee signs in west dublin,

[3:37:11] and add another marquee sign

[3:37:17] very close to the ones we're rehabbing in

[3:37:19] west dublin, and there were no marquee

[3:37:20] signs in east dublin, and

[3:37:23] my position was that

[3:37:26] if we felt like

[3:37:27] marquee signs were important, important

[3:37:28] enough to be rehabbing two existing

[3:37:29] ones and adding a third,

[3:37:32] then we ought to have

[3:37:33] one where the balance of the population

[3:37:35] is in east dublin, that's how we ended

[3:37:38] up with four marquee signs.

[3:37:40] but, I agree, it's a lot of money

[3:37:41] for marquee signs, and,

[3:37:43] I don't know that we need any marquee

[3:37:44] signs, which is why

[3:37:47] I asked the question about what happens

[3:37:49] if they go dark? But I also don't

[3:37:50] like the image of

[3:37:53] ugly marquee signs.

[3:37:56] I don't know why we feel

[3:37:59] we need one at city hall.

[3:38:04] I don't want us to go into marquee signs

[3:38:05] over and over again, but,

[3:38:08] I don't love the idea of an

[3:38:11] empty or dark one and the senior center,

[3:38:14] I don't know why we want to add another one here

[3:38:17] when everybody's driving by, and if

[3:38:20] we are adding one here, then we are

[3:38:22] saying we think these are important

[3:38:23] enough to add another one,

[3:38:26] we don't will better

[3:38:28] be adding one on the east side of

[3:38:29] time as well.

[3:38:31] >> it seems like nobody likes the

[3:38:32] marquee signs that much.

[3:38:35] maybe look at ways to remove

[3:38:38] the marquee signs or see how bad to

[3:38:40] go dark it is. And adding new ones.

[3:38:44] >> that's not

[3:38:47] necessarily the best way, we should

[3:38:50] evaluate what we need. I appreciate

[3:38:51] that

[3:38:53] we're going back now, two years

[3:38:57] later and re-evaluating this.

[3:39:03] I am,

[3:39:04] for studying this, to see if there's

[3:39:06] a way, and that's it.

[3:39:08] it's not all or nothing for me, it's,

[3:39:11] let's see what makes sense. And let's invest quality time

[3:39:15] in making a

[3:39:16] decision a permanent decision, and

[3:39:18] that's all I'm here

[3:39:20] for is getting kind of late, but, I'm

[3:39:23] very supportive of going in and analyzing it.

[3:39:30] but it's

[3:39:31] not just cut them all or leave them

[3:39:33] all in for me, is whatever

[3:39:34] makes sense in our community.

[3:39:35] >> tier

[3:39:36] 3, let it ride into the sunset.

[3:39:37] >>

[3:39:39] I'm sorry, I need clarity, as they fail,

[3:39:42] we're removing them.

[3:39:45] >> I would like to see

[3:39:48] the cost of removing them,

[3:39:50] >> it's either remove or repair. >> and sometimes

[3:39:54] removal is more extensive than repairing

[3:39:55] because they're encased in concrete

[3:39:57] it's the one at shannon,

[3:40:00] it would be expensive

[3:40:03] to remove it. So let's

[3:40:08] , can I ask a quick question? I'm not

[3:40:09] sure, I think we were

[3:40:10] all in agreement in everything except for cole,

[3:40:12] but I heard

[3:40:13] multiple things about as far as deferring it

[3:40:15] or not deferring it, we all asked

[3:40:16] for more clarity on the different

[3:40:18] items that are part of that. But

[3:40:21] I think mike said defer it,

[3:40:24] >> I said look

[3:40:27] --what is essential and what is

[3:40:29] , we put this in here because it was

[3:40:30] a really good thing.

[3:40:35] classify it that way in terms of priorities.

[3:40:36] less what

[3:40:38] I said.

[3:40:39] >> I'm not in favor of delaying it

[3:40:40] because

[3:40:41] I think that will just escalate the cost.

[3:40:45] I'm in favor of looking at what might

[3:40:47] not need to be done but not delaying

[3:40:48] it.

[3:40:49] >> I

[3:40:50] think we're looking to at all the

[3:40:51] items

[3:40:54] to say if there's , for kolb park,

[3:40:57] if there are things

[3:40:59] we can eliminate, we don't have to

[3:41:00] do. And look

[3:41:03] at things that we have to do.

[3:41:06] it's better to do now than future,

[3:41:09] okay. So,

[3:41:15] this item is for the directions. Do

[3:41:17] you feel you got directions?

[3:41:18] >> let's

City Council Regular Meeting

Agenda

Transcript