City Council - Regular Meeting

Regular City Council meeting of Monday, June 15th. The time is 6.01 p.m. And we're going to go ahead and start with the Pledge of Allegiance. Please stand if you are able.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Great, thank you so much. We are now moving on to the public forum. This portion of the meeting is when members of the public can speak to the council on any item that is not on tonight's agenda. If you'd like to speak on a matter that is on the agenda, please reserve your comments for when that agenda item is called. The purpose of public forum is to provide the public with an opportunity to be heard. However, if your comments do not address the topic that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the city, or if your comments are disruptive, I will provide a warning. If the warning is not followed, I will direct the city clerk to cut off the microphone. Each speaker is usually given three minutes. This time may be adjusted at my discretion based on the number of speakers or number of items on the agenda. If you ask questions during public forum or during public comment with respect to an agenda item, those questions will not be answered during your allotted time. However, a member of the council may, at the conclusion of public comments, direct your questions to staff for response. Pursuant to state law, the council may not discuss issues brought up at public forum, but council members or staff may provide brief responses to statements made. Do we have anyone in chambers or online for public comment this evening?

I have no speaker cards and there are no hands raised online.

Okay, I'm gonna go ahead and close the public forum, and we're gonna turn our attention now to the consent calendar. I just wanna flag that one item on the consent calendar, I'm gonna go ahead and poll for review at our next meeting, and that is item number one, approval of the minutes. We are going to take some more time with those minutes from the May 18th meeting, and we will see those on a future agenda. So in terms of items, two through five. Does anyone have any item they want to discuss any further this evening? No? Okay, looking at our city clerk, do we have any public comment on items two through five?

There is none. Okay. I'll move the minutes. I mean, excuse me, I'll move the consent calendar two through five.

Thank you. Moved by our vice mayor. Seconded by council member Long. Let's go ahead and vote.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Items two through five are passed. And we are moving on to regular agenda item. Number six, which is our second hearing at this body on our proposed budget for fiscal year 26-27, as well as levying of the municipal services special tax, the special municipal sewer tax, and consideration of operating and other fund budget schedules of fees and changes and appropriations. I'm going to go ahead and turn it over to our city administrator.

Thank you, Mayor Smeagol-Anderson. So before you tonight is a body of work. That's been in progress for quite some time. It's been the subject of several public meetings, and it has been informed by the work of both staff, our various commissions who have submitted annual reports to the council, and the feedback that's been provided along the way through the public meeting process. So there were a number of items that Director Bawa will be covering tonight that pertain to specific topics that were raised in the first public hearing on this subject matter. She will walk through some of the components that were covered in associated next steps, as well as field any questions that you might have. She has a very brief PowerPoint that will start with a high level recap. And we'll be ready here shortly to bring that up on the screen.

Okay, bear with us. We're having some technical difficulties with the presentation.

Mayor Anderson and members of the council, we have for you the second public hearing, and hopefully we have your blessing on this budget for adoption today. I'll have a quick highlight. So at the last meeting on June 1st, a balanced budget was presented proposed for Fiscal Year 26-27. That funds City's core services and also while advancing the City Council's strategic priorities with revenues totaling of $41,198,740 and expenditures of $41,540,678. And then there are some operating transfer in and transfer outs. The transfer ins are like from sewer fund and traffic safety funds. And then transfer outs are more consistent with the city's longstanding practice of investing in the facilities. and infrastructure. So the budget includes a $1 million transfer to the facilities maintenance fund and $750,000 to the capital improvement fund. That is a pass through of an Alameda County grant. And then $400,000 for assisting with the aquatics fund operations. It's the first full year of the pool operations. And after these transfers, the general fund is projected to use approximately $1 million from the fund balance in fiscal year 26-27 and a projected ending balance in June of 2027 of $6,840,000, which is approximately 17% of the expenditures. And at the last meeting on June 1st, staff was directed to review two items. The first one was to look at the progressive penalty structure for the off-leash dog fines and that has been incorporated in the attachment A of the staff report with First occurrence fine of $100 and a second occurrence fine within 24 months, the fine of $200 and $300 for a third occurrence within 24 months of the first one. The second item was facilities rental fee study. This will require reviewing a full scope, coming up with a full scope of the work. estimated project budget and timeline and staff is proposing we'd bring that as part of the year end which comes in fall of current fiscal year end and we need to identify funds and I think that's the first opportunity without moving the current proposed budget I think that's the first opportunity we come back with that proposal so that's what we're proposing right as at this point the budget includes six resolutions And I'll go over each one of them. The first one is approving the operating budget appropriations. The operating funds include the general fund, which is 41 million, and then schoolmates fund, which is 1.9. So together that is $43,111,111,482. The second budget resolution is appropriation of other funds, which includes special revenue funds. Those include some grant funds, Measure B streets and road funds, traffic safety, athletic facilities. Those are the kind of funds that fall in that category, totaling projected budget of $744,000. Capital project funds include CIP, equipment fund facilities capital and the facilities maintenance and that services for the aquatics bond that we have and then the sewer and aquatics enterprise funds so total other funds appropriation request for fiscal year 2627 of 21 million two hundred and ninety five thousand eight hundred and twenty five dollars those two resolutions together a total appropriation request comes to 64 million The third resolution is for approval of the updates to the previously adopted city's fee schedule. And that is provided in attachment A of the staff report. It is broken down by department and the kind of service the fee is for. The fourth resolution is for the approval of the appropriations limit. We do that every year at the time of budget. It's also called the GAN limit. It's a constitutional fiscal control, basically, The city manages the increase in our revenues, the tax revenues, prudently. And it limits that the tax generated revenues each year that we receive, they can only go up a certain amount. And it depends on the cost of living and the population growth. So those are the two factors, and we have provided those numbers. The base year was 1979, resolution, it was voter approved and when it was passed. And every year we include those. So for this year, including those two factors, we are requesting a GAN limit of $36,613,146. And just to give a little bit more background, only specific revenues are included, most of all the tax revenues, and it excludes any franchise fees that we have revenues that we get from those like waste management or cable or PG&E licenses and permits, revenues, charges for services. Those are not in there. The grants are not in there like the COPS, POST, or any Alameda County grants. And revenues that we charge for services provided by recreation, those are not in there as well. The fifth resolution is for setting the municipal services special tax. And that one was approved by voters in March of 2024 and started on July 1, 2025. So current year is the first year. And the current year increase was 20%. However, the language is the way it is written. Subsequent year increases are capped at the lower off. for the December CPI. And December 2025 CPI for the Bay Area, San Francisco, Oakland, Hayward area increases 3%. So we have for you a resolution which proposes a 3% increase in the rates, single family commercial. Plenty of family in the chart.

Can I ask a question? So this year it was a 20% increase and every year thereafter it's the same size?

Yeah, so July of 2026 is, yeah, every year.

Okay, so we already had a big bump and now it's just going to go up.

CPI, Consumer Price Index, exactly. Thank you. And then it's all rounded down to the nearest dollar. That's how it's kind of calculated. And then the last one is the... approval of the municipal sewer tax rates. And these are also limited. The increase is limited to the consumer price index increase. Same, we're using the December 2025 increase of 3% for the Bay Area. And also here, the amounts are rounded down to the nearest dollar. So that caps. Sorry, that concludes my presentation. Happy to take any questions that you may have.

That's one other question I had about the slide. Is the December CPI, does that capture the CPI for the whole year or is that just?

It's increased of December 2025 over December 2024. So a 12 month, yeah. Got it. Yeah, year over year.

All right, any questions? We have seen this material both in budget workshops and at our first hearing. On this matter, we have had an opportunity as a council to ask lots of questions, but you can always ask more.

Can I just ask one clarifying question about the new increase step up in fees where it says it's within a 24-month period? So all three, like the clock will reset to zero after 24 months after the first infraction? Or... if your third time is outside that 24 month window, but within like 12 months of the second infraction, does that become then the second in a 24 month period? And I'm just what, like the kind of the reason I'm asking is like, I suspect if we end up enforcing this, people are going to have questions about it. And I'm wondering if there's a written policy or anything specific.

No, I'm looking at Define because she wants to weigh in.

Um, I would defer to a police chief on that question. Um, but as far as, um, administrability, it would probably be cleanest if, um, it's, uh, within 24 months of the prior, um, uh, penalty that might be easier to keep track of. But, um,

The question was whether or not there were three in consecutive 24 month period.

Well, the question was, how do you calculate when does the 24 month reset itself?

Basically from the previous bite. So if there are three bites within a 24 month period, it doesn't run necessarily like on a calendar year, but if there's a bite in June of June of 2026, then it's, if there's a third bite within before June of 2028,

So what if you have the second bite within, and I'm sorry to be pedantic about this, if the second bite is within the two-year period, the third is outside, but within two years of the second?

Within that would be a second within a two-year period, not a third within a two-year period.

Okay. So I have a follow-up question for the police chief. In terms of the off-leash step-up, 24 months versus 12 months. I'm just curious as to why 24 months. That's hard to keep track. I was just wondering why it's not just a year.

One of the things that my staff and I weighed, it's a huge increase. And the goal is not to be punitive, but to improve behavior. And our hope, going from $100 to $500 over the course of 12 months, we would hope that That behavior would improve over the course of 24 months with also communication and education around dogs being off leash in our parks. And the seriousness of the fine, we know that it's an administrative fine. It isn't a mini code or an actual penal code section. And so we are hoping for compliance because we're all good neighbors.

If it would make sense to reset the clock after 12 months, right, as opposed to 24 months, you might not remember. I don't know. It's just that I refer to your judgment.

And I think that I think to your point, not remembering. I think that there's something that we can there can be communication that we can have with those that are cited in order to help them remember.

So can I correct something? Sure. The proposal is 100, 200, and 500. There is a typo on the slide, but the fee schedule itself lists 100, 200, and 500 within 24 months. The moment he said 500, it means that there is a typo. But you're looking at 100, 200, and 300 now. So I mean, are you- directing us to go for like 100, 200, 300 in a 12 month period instead of 100, 200, 500, and 24. I was just curious about why 24 and not 12.

The hope was just to improve behavior and not be punitive. We thought that a 24 month period were given the ability for an individual to, I think I understand your point. If you have three within a year, it means that you haven't learned your lesson, whereas over the course of a 24-month period, you may forget about the two that occurred 18 months ago, I think, maybe.

That's what I was thinking. But it might be kinder to reset the clock sooner, but... Less punitive. Less punitive, yeah, to get a clean slate every 12 months as opposed to...

I don't know that it would be necessarily a clean slate every 12 months. It would be... A new slate. Well, a new slate after the previous citation, 12 months for the previous citation, not necessarily each calendar year.

Right, I hear you. You have some discretion, too, don't you?

I don't think so. Officers have discretion. The goal is to... communicate first and educate, that is our goal. But the majority of the off-leash calls for service, or calls, because they're actual calls for service, a lot of them aren't proactive. These are members within our community that see this behavior and they are calling us. there aren't a number of proactive patrols around off-leash dogs.

Can I ask a question? I assume it's best practice to, like, when you issue the first citation to say you know that if you get cited again for the same thing that it will cost this much.

Absolutely. And there's also... There's an appeals process. There's also communication with individuals that there aren't very, the individuals that are cited are often, we try to educate them. Our animal services folks have lengthy conversations with them. Our captain of police has met personally with a number of individuals that have been cited because we are trying to educate and we're also, we also allow for an appeals process.

I was going to say, I think I'm fine with the 24 months. I feel like you're going to remember if you got cited. You know that you should not be having your dog. Somebody's going to have a conversation with you if you've been cited. And if you continue to do it in 12 months or 24 months, you know.

OK, one other kind of annoying question. Is it the dog or is it the person? So for example, if there are many members in your household and you all take turns taking your dog to Crocker Park to run off leash, is it citation by individual?

I think it's the dog fine. It's not a person fine. But the person pays for the dog.

Anyway, that's a nuance. I don't know. $500 is a lot.

That's the other thing I am sort of struggling with. $500 seems like a lot. But if you've gotten two already.

I know.

then it's not sinking in.

Yeah. And this is an attempt to say, hey, listen, we've given you two chances to course correct, and now you're actually defying us, and you really don't want to change this. And so the only tool we do have is to have it literally cost something. Right. I mean, it could be $10,000, right? Oh, my goodness. Wow. Yeah. Wow.

Wow. And then, Chief, if I may, so for the fourth and fifth violations, those would also be 500, which is kind of...

Correct. Okay. It doesn't progress after 500. It's progressive.

And can you remind us what the enforcement parameters are? I think last meeting you talked about how... there's some, you can basically send these types of citations to collections or something like that?

Correct. So, yeah, we have petitioned the California State Franchise Tax Board. And so in the event that you choose not to pay for the administrative, pay the administrative fine, you can be sent to collections.

Wow. Okay. We're serious here. Okay. All right. Any other questions about that topic? Any other questions? Any thoughts from our city attorney? No?

As long as it's under $1,000 a year, the city's fine structure is permissible. Okay.

Okay, yeah. 10,000's out. Yeah.

All right, Chief, thank you. Thank you for bringing this back to us. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, so any other questions about the presentation this evening or any of the changes or any of the materials that we've gone over before? Okay, public comment.

There's none.

OK. No public comment. Bringing it back to council. I think this is one of those agenda items that takes a little brain power. Right. So you have to do each one of them individually?

Correct. So you're passing six different resolutions. So I would recommend reading the item, taking a vote, then going to B, reading the item, taking a vote.

Okay, until completion. That sounds great. Who wants to take the lead on making the motions here? Or do we want to go rotate? Okay, so we're going to do a little. So we're going to start with the Vice Mayor.

Okay. I move that we adopt the following resolution, which approves the fiscal year 2026-27 operating budget and sets total appropriations at $43,111,482, as shown in Table 1 at the end of the report.

Great. Thank you. So moved. Do we have a second? Second. Moved by the Vice Mayor, seconded by Council Member Long. Let's go ahead and vote.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. The first item A passes unanimously. Now we're on to item B.

Bear with me. I don't have my glasses. So adopt the following resolution, which approves the 2026-2027 other funds budget and sets total appropriations at $21,295,825, table one, towards the end of the report.

Great. So moved by Council Member Long. Do we have a second?

Second.

Seconded by Council Member Premier. Let's go ahead and vote.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Item B passes. Item C?

I move to adopt the following resolution, which approves updates to the city's adopted schedule of fees and charges as reflected in Attachment A.

Second. Okay. C is moved by Council Member Ramsey, seconded by the Vice Mayor. Let's go ahead and vote.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

We're moving on to item D. I move to approve the following resolutions necessary to establish the annual appropriations limit for 2026 and 2027 as presented in attachment B.

Second.

Okay. Moved by Council Member Plumier, seconded by Council Member Ramsey. Let's go ahead and vote.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Item D passes unanimously. Item E. Come back around.

I move that we adopt the following resolution, as outlined in the staff report, necessary to levy the fiscal year 2026-27 municipal services and special tax.

Great. So moved by the Vice Mayor. Second? Second. Seconded by Council Member Long. Let's go ahead and vote.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. E passes unanimously.

And on to F. I move that we adopt the following resolution necessary to levy the fiscal year 2026-2027 special municipal sewer tax. Great. Thank you. So moved by Council Member Long. Do we have a second?

Second.

Oh, my gosh. That was a race. Council Member Plumier won that. She's going on Jeopardy right now. Okay. So we have a motion by Council Member Long, second by Council Member Plumier. Let's go ahead and vote.

Aye. Aye.

Hi. Hi. Hi. Item F passes. I think that was all of the items in our packet this evening. They are all referenced in our staff report. I just want to take a moment and really appreciate our staff, our finance director, Karen Bawa, all of our directors who are here this evening. I think they're all here. Thank you so much. Let's just have a little round of applause. Well done.

And we're not doing it for another year. Yay.

Thank you. I know that represents a lot of work, and I really appreciate that we were just able to pass a balanced budget. That's so exciting. All right. We are now moving on to agenda item number seven, which is an introduction and first reading of an ordinance with respect to a potential increase in the real property conveyance tax. Yes. This is also something we have talked about at prior meetings and has been talked about at the Budget Advisory Committee.

Thank you, Mayor Spiegel. Anderson, this evening staff is returning to the council with the draft of an ordinance for your first reading. And as directed at the last discussion of the city council, we have left open a decision point for Council to deliberate on tonight, which is the final percentage that would apply to a change in transfer tax rate. So what we've attempted to do is lay out a framework that is in alignment with the direction you've provided and allow you the chance to talk through, based on the information that's collected to date, the research that's been gathered, where Council would like to proceed if anywhere with a change. And of course we are here as staff to answer any questions you might have.

Great. Okay. Thank you. Let's go ahead and start with public comment for this issue and then we'll bring it back. Any public comment on this agenda item number 7?

I have no public comment cards and there are no hands raised in the online audience.

Okay, great. So close public comment and we can have a conversation. If the questions come up, that's fine as well. We have talked about this previously. The real property conveyance tax, for those who are just joining the discussion, is the tax that takes place when a property changes hands for some type of, what's the word? What's the legal word? Transaction. Transaction or like compensate. Something has to.

Conveyance.

Conveyance.

No, is that it? It's right there in the title.

It's in the title. I thought there was another word, but anyway. Okay, so currently it is 1.3% of $1,000.

$13 per thousand.

Every thousand dollars of the sale price.

Correct.

Which is 1.3%.

And we, as a council, not everybody's the same. Back in 2020, maybe I'm the only one who was here in 2020, had put this on the 2020 ballot requesting an increase to 1.75%. That did not pass. But then our city was the beneficiary of two kind of record-setting years of transfers because of COVID. So many people sold and bought homes in Piedmont that we exceeded our estimated receipts for two years by quite a lot. And I think there's consensus that that is unlikely to happen again. So we are revisiting the decision that we made in 2020, and I'm grateful that I'm here to have this conversation again and open to folks' thoughts. We have a range that has been given to us by, or suggested to us, I should say, by the Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee. We have some numbers associated with that range. in our staff report and the need is great. As we talked about in prior meetings, our revenues are not keeping pace with our expenditures and that is due to external factors such as inflation and the cost of construction, the cost of even asphalt to repave our streets has gone up quite tremendously. And anyone else can chime in at any moment?

I think where we left the conversation was sort of around the numbers, right? I think we all were in agreement that we should move forward with this. And I think it was sort of the one eight and potentially above. So I appreciate this chart here that shows what that would yield. Um, I might've been the only one who was sort of inclined to go higher.

Um, I don't know if that's changed since the last time we met, but, um, could I go back and just a little bit more to the overview? I think, uh, it was obvious from our, um, uh, conversations around budget about the need. I mean, that was, that was unanimous and I think the numbers spoke for themselves. The second one was that the budget advisory committee also gave an option in their study of, you know, you could consider a tiered option or a single number. There was some discussion on that and we thought simpler is better. I think also there was also some research done in what neighboring communities are doing and how far below we are with that. And then we got all the way to the amount, and you're right, that's where we left it. But I wanted to concentrate on everything we agreed on and the need first to get to it.

I don't know that our starting place is 1-8. I think there was some conversation around 1-7-5.

Yeah, no, and I'm super comfortable with 1-7-5, and I was comfortable with it six years ago. I'm comfortable with it now. I look at our neighboring community, Oakland, and 1-7-5 is their transfer conveyance tax for properties between $2 and $5 million. So there's some alignment for a lot of our properties here in town with that number. That's a number that obviously I approved previously. I feel very comfortable with that number. I feel like it tells a consistent story to the community that the need in 2020, we looked ahead. We're always looking ahead. It's the same need, right? It hasn't gone away. So that's where my head is.

And I might say from 2020, though, the need's increased, right? So I mean, it's not going to lessen. And I guess the other thought that I had, I mean, same from the week before, which is like, if we're going out for this, we don't have that many tools in the toolkit to lean on to generate revenue. And so if we're going to go out and ask, does it make sense to go out with something that you know maybe at the top of it but then we're not going to come back for you know oh we missed this amount of revenue and again from 2020 to now the financial picture is different and prices have increased and all you know we've taken on major projects we have more obligations so that would be my thinking in leaning more on the upper end of the scale

to add on to that with the need, like the more we defer, the lower we end up here means the less money we bring in, the more projects we defer, ultimately it will cost us more money in the long run. So it kind of makes sense. I mean, I get that it's a balancing act because we want it to be approved, but we don't know what that, you know.

I mean, the other thing that we have done that the community, I'm sure, will point out to us is we've increased the parcel tax by 20% since 2020, right? So that has been an addition to our budget, which has been welcome and needed. So this isn't, you know, we are looking at all the tools in our toolkit, so to speak, as we move forward to address the shortfalls.

And can I ask a question? So if we aim too high and this measure doesn't pass, we could, in theory, lower the number and put it on the ballot again. But the earliest time to do that would be 2028. That's correct. OK.

And it may not. I mean, we don't know exactly why it didn't pass, right? We were assuming that it was up against the pool, and that was the favorable. And maybe people were planning to move. Yeah. And I mean, I think really, do we think the calculus is the difference between whatever these percentages is? Is that really going to make or break people voting for it? Or is the concept in and of itself that people buy into that, and that's what they're going to vote on, whatever the number is.

Well, I look at, I think this was discussed a little bit before, but the difference between 1.75 and 8 is 200K, and between 2 is 800K. But I'm thinking, I don't know, of the narrative, too. It's like, you know, we tried this at 1.75. We're not coming back for any more. Just the same. The need is even greater. But, you know, I mean, I think that narrative, I mean, for me, that's easier to come.

Yeah. I have to say, I'm also feeling cautious. We are never going to have enough money to meet the need. I mean, our needs are great, and we're not going to be able to get there. And then also when we talk about coming back for a second election, I mean, what does an election cost us? $60,000? We're at $120,000 for two elections, which is cutting into whatever we're lowering. We would have to lower it the second time. So I think we need to be careful we get it right now. I also think that we have to have some sensitivity to the affordability conversation that's all over the country right now and that we need to show some sensitivity to that. And the fact that we had this on the ballot in 2020 at 1.75, which was a significant increase for something that hadn't been increased in 33 years, going from 1.3 to 1.75, lost by 338 votes. I don't want to be in a position where we have to go argue information on this. This should be, here's the need, here's The simple answer to that need, we got really close the first time. We really didn't launch a campaign on it because we were so focused on getting the pool in. I think we move forward with 175. I think that's our messaging, and that's the comfort spot in this economy.

I was thinking, too, the narrative, too, that it matches our neighbors, the narrative also that it's not a progressive tax, which some people think is punitive. No, we're just keeping it simple and we're just matching the neighbors. It's, you know, not everything we need, but it seems to be an easier narrative.

I mean, the other thing that I am tuned into and particularly maybe sensitive to the topic of the concern about the community of the pool and how much It costs not only to build, but then the operations. And I think the consistency in saying, you know, this is what we needed in 2020 before we had the pool, and it's still what we need, right? So it's not pool-related because it isn't pool-related, right? I mean, just really bringing home the message that this has nothing to do with pool operations. So, yeah.

I think, you know, I don't know that we, however we make the case for this i'm not sure that what we did in 2020 is really relevant to what we're going to do now right we're in a totally different position and they're different considerations on the table and so i think we have to look at it from where we are now I mean, the two-point excites me. I mean, I'm like, we have a lot of capital projects. I know we've talked extensively about our roads. We have all these things that are in the queue. So for me, the difference in numbers could be some projects, right? And so I feel like what we should be communicating to our residents is that, We are trying to ensure that our capital projects get done. And this additional resource is a way to do that. I mean, I'm inclined, but obviously, we all.

Yeah.

Go ahead. Sorry.

I appreciate everything you're saying. I'm having some consternation over the pool that was over budget. And I think there's a lot of things our community wants answers on why it was so grossly over budget. And we all carry the burden of that. And they want to know that we are spending in a responsible way and we're collecting revenues in a responsible way. I'm not inclined in lieu of the problems with the budget on the pool to go for a bigger ask right now. I think that 175 will get us to where, unless I hear differently from our finance director, will get us a significant amount of revenue. Again, it's very volatile. We know that. To help with projects that we've identified. Will it cover everything?

No.

We will never cover all the need. We just can't. So knowing that, what's the number that we're comfortable with asking? This is what we asked for in 2020. We got super close without campaigning for it. I would feel confident that we could go and get it done this time. I don't want to do it twice. I don't think any of us want to do it twice.

Okay, so I think we are being asked by staff to come up with a number this evening. And I don't, I mean, we could, we have two meetings in July. So if we didn't come up with a number this evening, we could come up with a number in July. I'm just not sure what would change between now and the July meeting. The one thing that may change, actually, come to think of it, there is something that may change between now and July. that may have a huge, should I let our city attorney talk about it? Who wants to talk about the thing outside of our control at present that might change the calculus on this?

Okay, so this is the Taxpayers Protection Act and a constitutional amendment that has qualified for the November ballot. We should know later this month whether it will stay the course. Last week, there was a scheduled joint committee in Sacramento that we had planned to participate in along with other local jurisdictions throughout the state of California. That hearing was placed on hold. We do not have any new information at this stage, although I think the discussions to date in general have included the potential... for either A, the measure moving forward in its current format, and the elimination of transfer taxes for charter cities as of 2028, or a possible legislative fix that could cap the transfer tax at a level that would be potentially at or above where we are currently, or at or above the discussion of this evening, which is another rate that is greater than the 1.3% that we currently have in place in Piedmont. So there are many things, many balls in the air with reference to where the subject matter will ultimately land. But the do nothing different approach would either A, leave us where our transfer tax rate is currently at 1.3%, or worse, could result in its total elimination as of 2028, which would have us then working a different alternative for a contingency plan for either service level reductions or identification of other REVENUE MEASURES THAT COULD NOT BE ON A BALLOT UNTIL 2028 BECAUSE THOSE TOPICS CAN ONLY BE CONSIDERED IN EVEN NUMBER OF YEARS.

I JUST WANTED TO ADD A SPECIAL PARCEL TAXES CAN BE CONSIDERED OFF THE REGULAR 2028 GENERAL ELECTION CALENDAR. SO IT CAN BE CONSIDERED OFF THAT CYCLE.

some comfort in that. Yeah, okay.

So just for those who may be new to this topic, so if the statewide measure passed, the statewide measure that's being put on the ballot by the Howard Jarvis Tax Initiative passed, then charter cities would not be able to levy real property conveyance taxes, such as the one we're talking about tonight, right? So that source of revenue would go away entirely for all charter cities. So that would be Oakland, Berkeley, San Francisco, Los Angeles. Right, lots and lots of cities. So all of these cities would be scrambling to find other sources of revenue to fill that need. And for Piedmont, it represents at least 10%, if not more, of our annual budget. So the council would be looking to see how we could fill that need in another way. And so what you're referring to is a special parcel tax, which is another way to potentially fill that need if we're not allowed to levy real property transfer taxes. Okay. That's a lot.

It is a lot, but I don't think that that should affect our calculus here. I think we need to go forward with this. The question is what the number is and hope for the best with that. measure and deal with the fallout if we have to. That's right. In the future.

That's right. I think the limitation that might come up is if there is a legislative solution between now and June 25th, I think, which capped it. Because then all the cities would have to cap who have a real property conveyance.

So you're saying that that cap may be above the number where?

We don't know what they're talking about.

Could be. Okay. Okay.

Could be above, could be below. We don't know. We don't know if the legislature could even agree on what the cap should be, right?

Yeah. So can we decide a number that we want and then say unless the legislature decides whatever and then we will take the cap as long as it's below the number that we decide instead of having to come back to us because then it'll be too late to get on the ballot, right?

So from a timeline point of view, we still have some additional items after tonight that would be coming forward to the council. So we'd have tonight's first reading with a particular value established. We'd have that second reading coming to the next regularly scheduled meeting, let's say July 6th.

Yes, the council can change because of our rules as a charter city. We can change the number at second reading.

Okay. And then we would modify that final ballot language. The subsequent items that will be in front of the council are you taking action to consider the ballot language in the format as it would be published in the pamphlet. So there's still some other opportunities between now and final. final implementation of the plan for the election cycle.

And are there other updates to the language? Since we have not updated as a city the real property conveyance tax in 33 years, are there other changes that are being made to kind of bring the code up to date, or is it similar to what we had passed 33 years ago?

There are revisions that were were instituted, that were proposed in 2020, we're taking the ordinance that's in front of the council tonight, takes those revisions and puts them back in front of you. And so they're not substantial. Not substantial.

Yeah. The past six years, nothing's really changed too much. Correct. Okay, great. All right.

Can I make one quick suggestion on that, which is just to use gender-inclusive language? Are we not? No, it says his and him everywhere.

Okay.

Let's change that.

Yeah. It's 2026. Yeah.

I mean, the good news is we agree with that change. Yeah. we agree at least on the 1.75, where we go from there, and maybe in a week or two weeks we'll have a better indication of what the temperature is in the room, and we can land on a number. It seems reasonable.

One thing we didn't say, the one thing we haven't repeated at this meeting, which we discussed two weeks ago, was that this involves how many This is a tax on a conveyance that occurs on 120 parcels. 120 to 130 transactions. Transactions, right.

That was the word I was looking for, transaction. Yeah.

That was the word. Thank you. Yeah, it is a transaction. It comes out of the cost of sale when you sell. And typically in Alameda County, I believe, it is split between the buyer and the seller. It's negotiated, yeah. Yeah, but I mean, other counties have other ways of doing it. That's how we have traditionally done it here in our county. Okay, I'm so glad you caught that about the language. Thank you. I appreciate that. Any other questions or any other questions?

We're not deciding. We've decided to kick the can.

Well, we're going to just see whether there is an agreement, what happens, and then try to decide what we'll get a lay of the land to inform our decision on.

Did I hear you saying for now? Should we go ahead? So this could be the first reading?

Yes.

And we could put 1.75 in there for now, for the first reading, so it's not a blank? Yes.

We need to have something in there for the first reading.

That's correct. For first reading.

You can't have a blank.

Correct. Okay. So we could put 175 in there and we can change that number at the next meeting. And obviously we have given direction about language. Are people comfortable with that at the first reading or do people want to do the first reading in July? I'm comfortable proceeding.

Yeah. I would say we could put the two point. I trust that we all can revisit this as needed in two weeks.

Yeah, we've been advised by council we could change the number, but I do think we should move forward. I think that we need to get this discussed and be transparent about it and have local news sources report out on it.

In which case, if local news is reporting on it, I just want to put this out there, and we say it's 1.75, it's going to be really hard to bring it up. So I think if we say 1.75, we're stuck with 1.75. Unless we say 2.0, and then we come down. They're not going to say we have to, though. They're going to cap us, right? So we're still going to be under...

If we said 2.0 and brought it down, then I think people would appreciate us.

Right. I think that's the only way to go. We're either okay with 1.75 or we need to aim high with the caveat that we might come lower. I'm comfortable with 1.75. And I'm comfortable with 1.75.

For the reasons I stated earlier.

So it sounds like it's 1.75 because that's three. Yeah. We're counting.

Okay. All right. So we need... Do we need a motion at this time? We do need to move? Okay. Thank you. So we need a motion to approve the first reading of this ordinance as discussed, the changes as discussed this evening, subject to voter approval at the November 3rd, 2026 election.

I'm happy. Go ahead.

Yeah, I'll make a motion as soon as I find the first page.

Yeah, I was looking for it too. You're quicker.

Okay. I make the motion that we approve the proposed amendment to the city's agreement. Oops, that's not correct.

You're ready for the next agenda item.

It's page 93 of the PDF if you're looking at the floor, please.

I move that we approve the first reading of Ordinance 792-NS, amending Chapter 20, Article 4 of the Piedmont City Code to increase the real property conveyance tax subject to voter approval at the November 3rd, 2026 election with the amount of 1.75%. Percent. Percent.

and the amendments to language that we discussed this evening.

MAY I ASK THAT IF COUNCIL COULD JUST TAKE A LOOK TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S INTERNALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE REST OF THE CODE, AND IF IT IS, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE GENDER INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE, IF THERE'S SOME DISCREPANCY WHERE IT WOULD RENDER THE REST OF THE CODE ODD, I WOULD JUST ASK THAT

We do it in the future. Correct.

Correct.

Could the motion include updated here, verify it legally, but then as a future policy, just do that automatically? Sure. Okay.

Can we? Okay.

So with that last asterisk, that's the motion.

I think it's clear what council desires. Okay, great. Okay. So we have motion by Council Member Ramsey. Second. Second by the Vice Mayor. Let's go ahead and vote. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye.

First reading passes unanimously. Thank you very much, my colleagues. We are now moving on to agenda item number eight, which is, Tom, you gave away the thunder a minute ago. Yeah. Consideration of a fifth amendment to the city's agreement with Coastal Engineering to increase the contract not to exceed amount of $1,767,000 for city engineering services and approval of an amended overall contract amount of $4,467,497.

Thank you, Mayor. Council members, I was excited when I heard Council Member Ramsey was going to just pass it in advance, and so I missed my shot. That was it. That was the one time that almost happened. Yeah, got so close. Thank you, everyone. I'm joined also online by Heidi Uterbach. Steve Anson is on vacation with his family in New Jersey right now, so Heidi is joining us. if you have any specific questions for Coastland. I'll be very brief. I mean, I think since 2011, Coastland has acted in the city engineering role for the city of Piedmont. They have worked in that time on just almost every endeavor that we have. So plan review, building plan check, they assist in the planning process, engineering specifications, city details. and capital projects. The more capital projects we have, the more their contract is driven and the dollar figure is larger. We have several large projects coming up in the next year. The largest of which is actually the phase six sewer project. It's about a nine month project and it's inspection. So it's very labor intensive and it makes up a significant portion of this amendment. Assuming that they'll be on site the design was done by others I've been at engineering But they will be working on the construction management inspection side. That's the plan so We should do ribbon cuttings for for utilities in particular That has to be a goal to have a ribbon cutting for a utility project but but that is that's that's um you know they they're involved with almost everything we do and i think one of the real valuable things they bring is continuity of service because they have been a part of of piedmont for so long they bring a level of expertise to the community they understand much of what what it is that we need they understand what we're working on they understand what we're working on now but also in the future so they're overseeing projects that will be in construction sometimes two years two years from now and they're assisting on those. And I'm thinking of the phase seven sewer project in that instance, so another utility. But it's really valuable to have one firm that continues to have input and assist the city. So with that said, that's really all I have. If there are questions about their scope of services or any specifics with this agreement or what's envisioned, we welcome any questions.

Okay, thank you for that. Any questions? Sure. Thank you for this, and thank you to Coastland for all that they do to help move our projects along. Can you talk about the fees, the previous pool plan review and inspection? It's a significant number, and I think it-

That's a great question. So I think, you know, one of the things that I worked on with our new finance director is making sure that we are staying within our authorization. And one of the things that we have seen is that, you know, the pool project was funded, but many of the building plan check and inspection components were actually worked on. They were paid out of some of the funds that were specific to that project, but they were not considered in previous past authorizations. And so we wanted to go back and look at those authorizations, the work they were doing for the, I think it's primarily building department, and making sure that we were accounting for those and that we were truing up our agreement so that the actual value of this contract reflects the actual level of services provided. Okay, thank you. So that's not new expenditure, to be clear. It is previously expended, previously funded, but expended, and it's just making sure the authorization aligns with what the work was performed.

And it was included in our final budget for the pool.

That's correct. And so many, to clarify, so much of this is actually included in many of the capital budgets that you see. So, for example, phase six is the closest one. It's a very large number. This number is, you know, of future planned work. It's almost 50% of that planned work is just the inspection and construction management for phase six. That is actually included in the phase six sewer project budget that we have. So that's account 124 that we have. That's the sewer enterprise fund budget. So this is not a separate pot of money. This is making sure that the authorization for that particular vendor to work on that project, that we do not exceed that authorization.

Yes. And just to repeat, this just basically shows up in different places, right?

That's correct.

Okay. Thank you.

Could you talk about the... type of contract, what time and materials means, and whether, you know, let's say if a project is deferred, you know, what happens to that budget money? You know, is it guaranteed that they're going to...

Yeah, so time and materials are that, you know, a vendor works when they are called out and when their services are required, they have a rate schedule. And so according to that rate schedule, they charge for the hours of service performed. There's usually a cap. on their services, so it's a not to exceed. That's part of what you see here. Some projects are easier to scope out because there are fewer variables. So if we say we want you to design a roadway project, an experienced designer can project out based on what they understand about the road. They can scope that out and they can give us a much more defined Scope that includes a fee that is specific to that this many hours for these various phases of work very often on the construction management side on the building inspection side Plan permit plan check you don't actually know how many permits you're going to get is it going to be 100 is it going to be 300 Is it going as a project? Are you going to get called out for, you know, for what we expect to be maybe three inspections or will inspections fail and you have to come back repeatedly? Will there be other complications? So there are other things that drive that scope. If you do not have those additional items, they do not bill that fee. That's then that's the idea.

Okay. Do we have any public comments?

There is no public comment.

Okay. Bringing back to council, any other questions or comments? We obviously have a long-standing relation with Coastland Engineering. They've worked with us for many, many years and have helped us do a really good job with the projects that we have here in town. This seems very detailed, so I'm satisfied. Does anybody else have any questions?

I'm happy to make the motion.

Okay, great.

I move that we approve the proposed amendment to the city's agreement with Coastland Engineering LLP for additional design and construction services on the time and materials basis, increasing the contract not to exceed amount by $2,767,000 and approving an amended overall contract amount of $5,867,497. and authorize the city administrator to execute related documents.

Okay. The motion is made by the Vice Mayor and is seconded by Council Member Long. And we should go ahead and vote.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. The motion passes unanimously. Thank you so much. And thanks to Coastland for all the good projects. So many projects. That's a lot of projects. That's great. Okay. We are moving now on to agenda item number nine. I think I flipped one too many. Which is consideration of amendment. Oh, I see. So it's another amendment. Amendment to consulting services agreement with client first technology consulting with revised exhibits A and B in an amount not to exceed $263,500. Thank you, Mayor Smeagol-Anderson. $254,000. I'm sorry, maybe I'm reading on the wrong, am I reading on the wrong thing?

There's another amendment coming up.

Oh, do you want to clarify? Oh, I see the agenda caption is different from the staff report. So I don't, which is the correct number?

The staff report.

Okay, so scratch what I said, refer to the staff report, and I'm going to turn it over to our city administrator.

Thank you, Mayor Smeagol-Anderson. So included in this item is a staff report detailing the history of the city's work with Client First. Client First performs a very important set of responsibilities for the city and has done so for the last 11 years. Client First serves as the equivalent of a contract IT director and policy framework overall for the city's IT infrastructure. The existing contract with Client First is scheduled to expire as of June 30 of this fiscal year. And the intent of this amendment is to provide for both a detailing of the next 12 months' worth of work activities, which you will find on the last page of your packet associated with item nine in exhibit B. That work is detailed out by project name and estimated cost, and it totals $254,500. So just to be clear, that is the correction needed to that agenda statement, 254,500. And as part of the action before the council today You would be providing, if we move forward, the authorization to proceed with our fire time and attendance project, our incident response and disaster recovery tabletop exercises that are now a part of our annual best practice in collaboration with Bay City's Joint Powers Insurance Authority. We'd be proceeding with the website selection RFP. moving forward with the pool video camera bidding process in cooperation with Client First and also proceeding with a number of controls for a future AI in the city of Piedmont. So if there are any questions associated with this body of work, which would be developed into a work plan over the next 12 months, the item before you, this evening would allow for our relationship with Client First to be extended for another fiscal year. Happy to take any questions.

Okay, great. Does anyone have any questions? How about public comment?

There is no public comment.

Okay. This is a very thorough staff report. Again, another long-standing relationship, and they have provided very good service to us for many, many years. So I am comfortable with this.

Can I make a quick comment? Just that it's extremely important to have high-quality IT consultants in today's technology environment, and having a contractor that does good work is really important.

Agreed.

We appreciate those comments of staff and also note that we are in the process of an update to the city's IT master plan with the help of Client First and look forward to bringing forward that body of work in the not so distant future when that work product is available. The prior plan, we've actually executed the vast majority of those deliverables and That's been some of the benefit of working with Client First through the years is we've had the opportunity to both identify needs and work to accomplish them together.

Great. Okay, so this is an action item. We do need a motion. So moved. Thank you. Council Member Long has made the motion. Do we have a second?

Second.

Seconded by Council Member Pommier. Let's go ahead and vote.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Motion passes unanimously. We are now on to item number 11, which is... Nope. Item number 10, which is a consideration... Okay, another amendment. In the amount of, I hope this number's right, but 197,780 for six month extension with computer courage for information technology support services and to authorize the city administrator to execute this amendment.

Thank you Mayor Smeagol-Anderson. So this particular relationship has been in place for the last ten years and The work that's performed by Computer Courage is companion work or complementary work to that of Client First. It involves really the day-to-day support that's part of our daily operations. And the existing agreement is scheduled to expire June 30th. We are in the process of an RFP at this time. That effort has not concluded yet. So given where we stand with expiration, the projects that are in process, and should there be any kind of a transition, we want to make sure we have a period of time between expiration and that future date, whether it's proceeding as is or making a change, that we've got enough space to do so with a six-month window. So the proposed action for you tonight with staff's recommendation is to consider an amendment for a six-month extension. I will note that for the fiscal impact section, I would like to correct a typo, which is the reference to the fiscal year. It should read 26-27, not 25-26. And it is accounted for along with the prior action in the very recently adopted 26, 27 fiscal year budget.

Okay, great, thank you for that context, that's very helpful. All right, do we have any questions about this six month extension with Computer Courage?

No question, just noting I think there's just a 3% increase. Yes. Yeah. Okay. For the fees.

Was that the only change in the terms and conditions? Yes, it was.

Okay. Can you just give a little bit more, I know you mentioned a little bit, but a little bit more context of the difference between this contractor and the previous contractor, because it's a little confusing. They're kind of in the same space, and just to kind of clarify. Okay.

So if we were to identify a client first role as providing policy framework for the work of IT in city operations, they are taking the big picture look along with all of our city departments engagement in both framing the procedures and processes for IT work within the city and working on framing such as master plan and procuring deliverables. Computer courage, on the other hand, is staffing our operations with one full-time person that is embedded in our organization. And should we have needs on any given day that are associated with maintaining regular activities, for instance, in our dispatch center, or we might have an issue pop up in our financial management software, or have a need for a new workstation to be set up for an employee who might change location or be a new hire. That type of day-to-day work is performed by Computer Courage. It's delivering on projects that have already been crafted identified and deliverables that are day-to-day related work whereas client first is framing number one the bigger picture the the overall priorities and needs in coordination with the city so they're the policy framers and the folks who scope out the work to be performed And computer courage provides the day-to-day boots on the ground, for lack of a better term. But they often work in tandem when we have major projects. So like the dispatch center relocation project involved both client first as part of the transition, as well as computer courage and physically relocating equipment, for instance. They were carrying out the physical work from location to location.

Thank you. I appreciate that question.

Yeah, I appreciate that as well. I think that I can't hear that repeated enough, honestly. And then one thing to note is because we are a smaller city, Some larger cities might have this type of day-to-day IT support in-house. I know a lot of companies obviously do as well. But we're so teeny tiny that this is not a service we're able to provide in-house. And so that's the need for working with contractors.

Right. And the advantage, because when we have different needs, there are different individuals within each of these firms that can meet the city's needs. Whereas if we had to depend on one full-time hire, that individual's capacity or ability to cross many subject matters, they may not be as versatile.

We'd end up hiring a consultant anyway.

Right. Good point. Okay. Did we already do public comment? Oh, let's do public comment.

There is no public comment.

Okay. Bringing back any other questions or comments here at the dais? If not, let's go ahead and have a motion. So moved. Thank you. Moved by Council Member Long.

Second.

Seconded by Council Member Premier. Let's go ahead and vote.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Motion passes. Thank you so much for that explanation. We are now moving on to agenda item number 11, which is consideration of approval of a one-year contract with all city management services for crossing guard service and a total contract not to exceed $165,524 in fiscal years 26-27 with two one-year renewal options.

So as Ed Shavies takes a seat here with us at the dais, I would like to note The long-standing relationship we have had with this company, all city management services for our crossing guard services, it has spanned 27 years. And with the help of our chief, we had the opportunity to go out to bid once again for these services. And we've got a recommendation that's before you this evening that reflects the work he's performed. So with that, I'll hand off to you, Chief Shays.

Thank you. So just to be brief, we entered into a contract with ACMS, Wall City Management Services, in March of 1999. We went out to bid this year. We were able to get two vendors that responded. Bless you. All City Management Services and the Crossing Guard Services, Crossing Guard Services LLC both responded. We evaluated both proposals and settled through work with community and staff. We were able to settle with the company that we have previously been with. We also, one of the things that I think is important, we were able to come in at a better rate this year, and so we're excited about that. So we won't see a change in service, and one of the things that I also want to highlight around ACMS is they were Their familiarity with our district and our city, they were able to identify certain holes that weren't addressed around early dismissals. And so with that, I'll take any questions if anyone has questions around this amendment.

So if no one has, I have a couple questions. One, so we do, the city enters into the contracts. Correct. But clearly we're not running the school schedule. We're not running the school calendar. So could you tell us a little bit about how the communication works?

So we coordinate with PUSD around scheduling, around bail schedules, around calendar. And then also... early dismissal for kindergarten and weekday early dismissals for youth that are, I believe it's kindergarten through third grade. And so we're in communication with PUSD around those times. So both calendar and dismissal times.

And do you meet regularly to talk about the calendar or is it just kind of as needed?

As needed. But I do meet regularly with them, but around calendar it's as needed.

Right. Okay, yeah, just curious about how that line of communication goes and whether or not. If there's any need for improvement, but it sounds like it's good. And then I'm curious about, you know, from time to time, we do get requests from members of the public to consider adding crossing guards. And I'm curious to know kind of what is our procedure with those requests? Would they, I mean, if they come to us as council members, obviously we can forward them to you or, so I'm just curious about if folks have, thoughts about crossing guards who how how could they provide that feedback both about the existing services of the crossing guards but also about you know potential other services so they often come up in public safety committing meetings but we also

There's also an opportunity for members of our community to contact the police department in order to have discussions around this. But one of the things that, so public works, the public works director and the police department, well, not just the director, but public works and the police department, not just myself, either the captain and our traffic officer, we meet once a month. One of the things that I think is extremely important, and I think I want community to understand, that often traffic safety concerns generally concerning like driver behavior, speed, stops on violations, unsafe driving, and any other type of enforcement, that type of review goes to the police department. Whereas if we're talking one that's before us now around signage, curb painting, street design, sight lines or parking. A lot of that goes through public works, but we are working collaboratively. But also, I think the most important thing is that we want to be data-driven or data-informed in any decision that we make, and I think that not everyone's perception of issues are real issues when we actually let the data guide us. I see my counterpart standing.

Thank you, Chief and Mayor and Council. I think it's very well said. I'll just add that if you have complaints, please forward them on to Chief Chavies and myself. We take all complaints seriously. We review them. We look at the appropriate next steps depending on the type of issue. Often that's looking at speeds. It's looking at... traffic counts, vehicle counts, and then it's also us doing some visual observation. We go to the sites, we look at them, we look at what we're observing. Using that data, when you have highest speeds, when you have highest volume of traffic, that's when you typically want to do your observations. And then you try to use your experience to judge kind of what next steps are, what's appropriate. Is it a sight distance issue? Is there any issue? Very often there's not. Is it signage that could be clarified? Is it something else? Do we need to make some type of modification? Do we need to bring in a traffic engineering consultant that has an expertise in this type of thing for some of their recommendations? We try not to do that in every instance, and often it's not warranted in most instances, but there are occasions when we do that. And so all of those things are on the table.

That's true. We also want to think it's extremely important, and we're doing it now. We're looking at collision data so that it's not anecdotal and it's actually true. borrow by numbers.

Yeah, and absolutely wanting to prevent collisions also, right? So question about speaking of preventing collisions, I think we do have a bicycle and pedestrian safety plan, I feel like I always get the name wrong, that is coming up and I don't know who might be the person to talk about the cycle that we go through in terms of revisiting that plan, both to look at what we've accomplished and then what is yet to be addressed.

You know, it's a great, great question, and it's right on point because we are just starting that, and we are literally just kind of kicking it off in June, and we're at the very, very beginning of it where we are starting to look at past projects, past reports, gathering collision data, so going through the very early process. We anticipate it will be several months where we look at all of that. We synthesize it. And then there will be some form of outreach process that occurs many months from now. We are required to start it in 2026. We do expect it to be concluded in 2027.

And as part of that, you touched on this, is public outreach. Because I do, my recollection of the last two plans, there was quite a bit of public participation and feedback from the folks that are using the roads, driving, biking, walking around our neighborhoods, really wanting to be involved in the in both the identification and then potentially the prioritization, which would happen ultimately in council, right?

That's correct. So I think step one is that I think the last go-around, so the Piedmont Safer Streets Report is what we called it, and it is the bike pet plan. I think it identified like 90 locations that were considered priority locations. And so when you have 90, you kind of have no priorities, right?

That's a lot of priorities.

That's a lot of priorities. That's a lot. So what we look to do is we said, how do we narrow it down? And we got to 10 to 15 locations. And we've actually done quite a few of those locations. A lot of them are on Oakland Avenue, Grand Avenue, Moraga Avenue. The design is underway. I think by 27, we're hoping to have that construction completed. And so a lot of that work has been done or is close to being done. we need to come up and reprioritize, right? So we do wanna hear from people, there's gonna be outreach, but we have 75 high priority locations from last time. And so what we wanna do is reevaluate some of that criteria to make sure there might be new locations that weren't part of the 75 that are remaining, but we expect that most of the 75 are still gonna be valid. And now we wanna just reorient to make sure that we are addressing in the next, you know, five or six years, addressing those locations that are actually highest priority. And that's both on the pedestrian side and on the bicycle side.

Great. Thank you.

I appreciate that. I have a question for the city administrator. So for 27 years that we've been under contract with these good folks, we had not gone out to bid.

So for most of the years of the history of our relationship, all city ACMS, all city management services was literally the only provider in the Bay Area. It has now expanded to include another vendor that we did have some interest in discussions with. It has been a very solid working relationship through the years. Sometimes it's good, and oftentimes it is a best practice every five years to go out to bid to just refresh your pricing. And that is one of the wonderful advantages of what occurred in this process. We have a recommendation before you tonight that is the same vendor at improved pricing. So it is a great demonstration of the value In this instance, we had competition. I will tell you, in prior years, when the question arose, we went out, conducted some research, and we could not find other vendors working in the space. So the dynamics are changing. It doesn't necessarily mean that there's going to be a change in the service provider, but it does provide for some different pricing scenarios.

And I know we can acknowledge that some of our community folks, especially school families, had some special affections for crossing guards throughout the city and didn't necessarily want to change. So I just wanted to highlight why you made a very good point, why it's important to, these are our best practices, to go out and look.

Okay, thank you. I would like to note, although we don't have a statement included in our staff report, our prior discussions and actions in this regard do include a contribution from our school district partners. They actually offset some of the expense associated with these services, and that commitment's at the $60,000 per year level. So this is an important body of work that we undertake together because we are both committed to the safe movement and travel of pedestrians.

Yeah, absolutely. So thank you for highlighting that, and also just wanted to... express appreciation for the ability to have crossing guards here in Piedmont. I know, well, I don't know, but I know it's something that is highly valued by our residents. I mean, I think all of our residents, not just residents of school-age children. I think everyone appreciates the crossing guards, and I would hope that every community would have the ability to have crossing guards, but I'm really grateful that we have the ability to have crossing guards. So I just want to... Express appreciation. I am not sure we've done public comment. Have we done public comment?

We have not, and there is none. Okay, thank you.

Yeah, that's number one.

I just wanted to say kudos for going out, for getting better pricing, and for also, you know, I'm glad that we landed where we landed in terms of, you know, the relationship with the crossing guards. And so it just was an all-around win. So thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, I think this is an action item. So moved. Thank you. Second. Move it, move it. The motion was made by Council Member Long. It was seconded by the Vice Mayor. Let's go ahead and vote.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. The motion passes unanimously. Thank you so much, Chief. Really appreciate it. Okay, we are moving on to item number 12. It feels like this is a record-setting agenda here. I ran out of tabs, or almost ran out of tabs. CONSIDERATION OF THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT FOR THE 2627 ANNUAL SIDEWALK SHAVING PROJECT. I LIKE THE NAME, PRECISION CONCRETE CUTTING. THAT GIVES YOU CONFIDENCE, RIGHT?

SOUNDS LIKE THE RIGHT KIND OF NAME YOU WANT TO HAVE.

IN THE AMOUNT OF $164,796 AND APPROVAL OF AN OVERALL CONSTRUCTION BUDGET OF $181,276, DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT UNDER CEQA.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, council members. So this one has been before us several times. This is a vendor that specializes in shaving, grinding, removing offsets that are two inches or less. It's the most cost-effective way we have of treating our sidewalks. They're also a preferred vendor. that is used by our insurance provider, Sedgwick. And so they're a recommended vendor, and I think that they do very solid work. They go out and identify several of these locations, we vet them, and then when we put these projects out to bid, they go out and they do the work very quickly. This is, I think, 2,000, a little over 2,000 unique offsets that have been identified. And I think now we are approaching with them doing inspection about one-third of our city. has been inspected and has been shaven in the last, I think, three years. So I'm glad about that. One-third still leaves two-thirds that we haven't done, but that's tremendous progress. And we're often targeting the areas where we have the oldest, most mature trees. So, you know, there's a reason we're focusing on those areas. With that said, I think the staff report speaks for itself. I think there's a lot of value in getting this work completed, and certainly it will continue the trend of improving our sidewalks and making Piedmont safer for pedestrians.

Thank you. Well, let's turn straight to public comments. I don't forget. Do we have any public comment?

There's no public comment.

Okay. Bringing it back, any questions from my colleagues on this?

I have one question, which I bring up every time we talk about shaving sidewalks, it specifically says in the staff report that it is the mature trees you just mentioned. You highlight those areas as an area of focus. Can you talk a little bit about the long-term plan for trees in Piedmont and their effects on sidewalks?

Yeah, so... And without a rootless tree.

Well, there are some whose roots are not quite so close to the sidewalks.

That is the challenge. I mean, I think it's for those who have not heard this discussion before. You know, trees are beautiful and they have so many benefits to the community. And one of those benefits is not how they help our sidewalks. That is the exact opposite. they are the thing that tears our sidewalks up and so with that said there's a commitment to preserving our urban forest so the first thing we do anytime we come across you know a sidewalk a location with an offset at a street tree is we have an evaluation of whether or not the tree itself is healthy if the tree is not healthy we take the opportunity to look to remove the tree and replace it with something that is more appropriate and there are several species that are more appropriate and that varies because we want tree diversity our Park Commission actually spent a considerable amount of time looking at tree diversity and so you're often looking at the location the soil types, you're looking at the width of the planting area, whether there are power lines overhead or not, or communication lines, and all of these things are factors, and then we look to revegetate, we look to replant. Now, we are aware that there are some trees that we need to be more aggressive with with removal and some trees that we want to be less aggressive with with removal and a lot of that is just a function of some of the things we talked about whether we think that tree in that location will be viable in the next few years. You know if we think it will have you know 10 years of good health that's a tree we want to try to foster we want to keep it alive as long as we can. If it's something that we're looking at and we're saying, you know, in the next, you know, two, three, maybe even five years, this tree is really going to struggle, then we need to think long and hard about getting it out now as part of this type of work. Now, most locations... our trees can be, you know, we can continue to nurse them along. And we know that is not the most cost-effective thing when it comes to sidewalks that, you know, if you would ask an engineer, they would say, let's cut it out, cut it down. But that's not what we want to do. We want to take an approach that's more nuanced than that. So that's part of that's part of the question and part of the answer I'll say the other part is that we do have we do have plans for Continuing when there's to be opportunistic and continuing to remove several of the trees I'm gonna point to a roadway and Nancy is here Nancy Kent who's our parks project manager. She was part of this I wasn't it predates me 2019 Magnolia Avenue and I think 55 trees were slated for removal. So if there are a couple of you that might, I think it predates you on council, but you were involved. That's right. And I think Mayor Anderson was maybe just getting started. Yeah, very challenging. But we have removed in the six, seven years since that time, we probably have removed close to one-third to one-half of those trees, believe it or not, because it's phased removal and it's phased replanting. And so that's what we want to do. Evolution, not revolution. We want to go ahead and take them out, replace them in a way that is responsible and respectful of the neighborhood.

So I have a question just because I do love the street trees on my street. When staff has determined that a tree needs to come out for the that the tree is not thriving and or it's just creating some hazards. Do you notify the homeowners?

We do. Yeah, we notify them and we often notify neighbors. It often comes to Park Commission, which requires notification in a certain radius. I forget the exact radius, but there are neighbors. And occasionally neighbors just disagree. Right. And that comes up also. And then we work through that case by case.

People are partial to the trees. Okay. So, but just to, we could talk about trees. A lot. But this contract is really about the sidewalks, right? This is not the tree work. This is the sidewalk work because of the trees. So do we have any questions about the contract?

On the theme of contract questions, I'll take that one. Could you talk a little bit about the purchasing network that you participated in for this? Why we use it? What are the advantages of it?

yeah so purchasing cooperative networks are like their their public bids that the contractors can participate in in this case they submit a public bid and then we are able to piggyback off of that public bid within you know with with a similar scope and so what we're doing is we are able to use that were submitted and then we were able to benefit from that bid price without going through a formal process of advertising and you know the normal bid openings that you would have developing a scope that's quite as restrictive and so I think there are several benefits to that. There are many different types of services it's my experience because projects can sometimes be challenging to scope out they're so unique case by case it's more common with things that will come up in just the next item, which is like material purchases, for example, which are much more defined in scope. But tree removal, sidewalk shaving per foot, those types of things, sometimes you can benefit from that. And this is one of those instances where sidewalk shaving, when you know it's two inches or less, and it's a price per foot, there's very little variance. So it's very easy to piggyback on another publicly bid contract.

Okay, thank you. So this is an action item. If anyone wants to make a motion at this time. So moved.

Thank you.

Council Member Long is on a roll.

Was that a second? No, it's my second. Okay.

Council Member Long, seconded by Council Member Ramsey in a most unusual fashion, but we'll take it. And do we need to say anything more about CEQA?

The project is properly determined as exempt as routine sidewalk maintenance.

Okay, great. Super. Let's go ahead and vote. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Motion passes unanimously. And we are now on to lucky item number 13, consideration of a purchase of a replacement midsize pickup truck for the Public Works Department in the amount of $68,917.00.

Okay, thank you. Madam Mayor, council members, it's me again. So this is a vehicle that was scheduled for replacement next fiscal year. Unfortunately, the existing vehicle is no longer functioning. And so we are looking to move up the purchase of that. We do not have many backup vehicles that we're able to use. And so we are currently using a pool car, not very efficient, and so we are requesting that in this fiscal year, now that we have budget approval, and we are hoping to move forward with this purchase. I want to address... A couple of things. I know that there was some conversation about, you know, one item that's near and dear to my heart is electric vehicles. I have two electric vehicles, and, you know, we have recently purchased an electric vehicle van. We were hoping this would be our next electric vehicle. We have currently in the city fleet a Ford F-150 Lightning. The Ford F-150 Lightning is a very efficient and well-rated vehicle, and it's been tried and tested in similar applications. Unfortunately, it's been discontinued. So one of the things we've looked at are what are alternatives. We have looked at several alternatives And all of them seem to have very similar issues, which are that they have not had the same performance that the Ford F-150 has demonstrated. And there's a variety of reasons that's occurred. Some of them are more expensive. Some of them are just not practical work vehicles. I'm thinking of the Tesla Cybertruck. The Rivian has horrible ratings in terms of reliability. Some of the other vehicles that I've mentioned here, they have struggled in terms of reliability. And I think the feedback that we've gotten has been that they are not recommended to proceed with those particular types of vehicles. Now, one thing I do want to address is the Ford F-150 Lightning. Because it's been discontinued, one of the things we looked at was looking at the actual availability of service parts in the go-forward. How long does a discontinued vehicle continue to have service parts available? And there's some mixed information on that. Some of it is saying that the factory that produces these parts will continue to produce parts till 29. So you're looking at roughly three years from now and those parts will no longer be offered. And then you're looking at salvage yards or you're looking at aftermarket suppliers. Other parts look like they might be provided until 2035. and so a little bit longer. But either way, that's well within what we would consider to be the useful life of this vehicle. And so I think the recommendation that I would have is that we not go forward with purchasing a vehicle that you might not be able to get parts for replacement and repair. That's not something that we, a conclusion we want to come to, but that ultimately we think is the prudent and wise decision. When you do not have a large amount of vehicles that you can use if a vehicle is down for an extended period of time, you want to make sure you're investing in something where you can get replacement parts relatively quickly and have it operating again. So that's a lot of the calculus on this particular vehicle. The Ford F-150 Lightning that I know, and I'm going to get this wrong, and the people that are suspected out will point that out to me, that this has a revamped motor that is, they're going back to a motor that's considered more reliable. It has better reliability ratings than past, the most recently produced F-150s have had. And so one of the things I'm most concerned about, the thing I am most concerned about always is reliability. That it's gonna work when we need it to and it's gonna work as long as we need it to until it's time for a suitable replacement. And hopefully at that point in time, there will be options that we're more excited about. Now, with that said, you know, we will always continue to look for, you know, for options that align with our values, especially our sustainability values. But at this point in time, our recommendation is to proceed with this particular vehicle.

Okay. Thank you. Do you have any public comment?

There is no public comment. Okay.

Any questions from council members? That was very thorough. Thank you.

Um, I'm curious, uh, so we purchase all of our vehicles. Is that typical with jurisdictions or do any have leases, you know, for cash flow? Does that, are there any benefits to that?

Yeah, you were, we're typically purchasing and that's, that's what's most common. Um, we, we do purchase, you know, we tend to keep our vehicles a long time. We tend to run them into the ground. Um, that's, you know, what, what we want to do. Um, we want to get as much use out of them as possible, but that's what's most common.

Okay, great.

Any other questions at this time? No? OK, thank you. I'm sad that Ford has discontinued the F-150 Lightning. I'm wondering if we can get a lot of money for the one that we have. Not now, because I know staff likes it. It's a collector's item, right? Just thinking about the future. Okay, I think we're definitely ready for a motion. So moved. Thank you. Move by Council Member Long. Do we have a second? Second. Seconded by Council Member Ramsey. Let's go ahead and vote.

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Okay, so approved unanimously. We are now moving on to announcements, reports from Council Members, and discussion of future agenda items. Does anyone have any announcements or reports they would like to give at this time? Let me just check. I'm sure we have some.

I don't have any, but is somebody else planning to talk about the mayor's conference?

Was okay Okay, so I want to commend city staff especially Anna Brown and Lisa are you and Anyone else who assisted in the background with the amazing mayor's conference that we hosted last Wednesday night at the Ellis family pavilion It was gorgeous. I don't know who arranged the weather, but it was beautiful People came early. They stayed late and They really enjoyed themselves. And the bucket hats, and again, I'm not quite sure. I think Rosanna, was that you or Shelly? Adorable. Everyone was wearing their bucket hats and their sunglasses. Not only did Piedmont look good, but we also are very proud of the folks who spoke. We had Eva Thalen and Larissa Martiniak talk about our Sidekicks program. and talk about how they want to encourage other communities to go ahead and get started with the Sidekicks program. And they're out, I think, speaking regionally. But it was definitely a message that was met with a lot of receptive ears at that with the decision makers there, the mayors from Alameda County and their staff, their city managers. So the hope is that other cities will follow suit with that amazing program that we're running here in Piedmont and have that program in our neighboring jurisdictions. That would be so great. It would be. So did you want to add anything?

Plus, I have to say it's a tough crowd because typically during the conference, there's a lot happening. And so it's very hard for speakers to get folks' attention. And this was just not the case. I think everybody felt inspired and felt empowered to potentially explore what we've done here. And so it was just... Another kudos for the rec department and, you know, getting to see them get folks out. We even had the game on on the spring. Go Knicks.

It was a lovely night. It was a lovely night.

Thank you. Thank you, everyone.

The other announcement I have is the 4th of July is coming. And I don't know if you want to say anything about that. I know there's always an over-under on what day the chairs are going to go out. So, you know, maybe tomorrow. I don't know. No, hopefully not until right before the event, of course. But do we want to make any announcements about the 4th of July?

No?

We're thrilled to be working with the community on delivery, and of course our very own Cora Wood will be honored as the Grand Marshal. We're all hoping to change your mind on retiring, but if she doesn't, it's a wonderful way to celebrate her many, many years of service to the city of Piedmont and everyone's lives that she's been a part of growing up here.

Yeah, absolutely. And another thank you to the Rec Department for all the advanced work they're doing. Also, I think the Piedmont Parade Committee is still helping as well. So thank you to the volunteers who are assisting with that. And I'm just thinking about the other thing that's coming up, Anna, I don't know. I'm going to put you on the spot, is election is coming. I don't know if you want to make any announcements about dates or the website.

Yes, the website is currently updated. The candidate filing nomination period opens July 13th and runs through August 7th with potential for an extension should an incumbent decide not to file until August 12th.

Okay. And there'll be three seats open on this body? Yes. And then two seats on the school board?

Correct. Okay. And if anyone is interested, please contact the city clerk so you can figure out how to make your appointment and pull your papers. Great. Okay. Yeah. All right.

Thank you. Okay. Any other...

I don't have an announcement, but I have a proposal for a topic. I do too. Do you want me to wait on that?

No, I just want to make sure we're done with announcements. Did you have any other announcements? No? Okay. Okay, so future agenda items.

So my proposal is that we discuss e-bike safety. We have had communication from community members, one of whom works at Children's Hospital, and there are I have personally seen numerous kids riding not just like my e-bike that I have parked around the corner, but the full-throttle e-bikes that are not pedal-assessed. It's basically a motorcycle. Yeah, it looks like a motorcycle. And they're wearing shorts and T-shirts and no helmets. Wow. Yeah. So I would propose... community engagement, potential code changes. I mean, I don't think code changes is the only answer, but that's a piece of it. But a community engagement effort, I think, would be effective.

That was actually also the item I was going to suggest. I am curious, too, because I think, did you go to something on eBikes? I feel like the eBikes has been a statewide conversation as well, so I am curious about what's happening on the state level as well as in our local area and what more we could do potentially locally here.

I'm in the process of obtaining from Cal Cities a recent presentation that they delivered. I believe it was the April 30th meeting for the division. I was not able to attend, but... I can obtain those materials and I think it would be very useful. I also know Chief Chavis is interested in this subject matter as well. It's been one that he has expressed a great deal of concern before this email as well. So it'd be great to work with council and community on some ways to raise community awareness.

I'm sorry.

We've also discussed this at Alameda County Transportation Commission, and there's a lot of early state legislation on these topics, and there's a lot of cities that are doing, I think, what you're looking for. So there's a lot of shared information out there, and I think it is ripe that we look at this. I hadn't noticed that there's people, maybe I'm not watching where you are, but if we're using e-bikes here, it's an important conversation to have. For sure.

And it did come up in the public safety meeting. So I know the chief has some stuff in the works. So he's on it. Okay, great. Thank you. Super.

Thank you. And I realized I had one other thing I wanted to say is that I'm just enjoying the new pool facility so much. Personally, I love walking by it. I love going there. And today we were lucky enough to have a pool party there for my dad's 91st birthday, which was amazing. And I just can't say enough nice things about that facility. And I think the staff are just so helpful and amazing. And I'm just so proud for our community to have this wonderful facility that we can all use, and I encourage you all to have your parties at the pool, whether they're up in the pavilion or in the poolside room. It is a really nice place to celebrate.

It is lovely to see folks walking. It's usually, like, on Highland, and they're coming with their inflatables or whatever it is, and you're like, wow, and then they're walking. So, you know, they're undeterred by parking, so it's a good thing. They're making it work.

Right, exactly. I did have at the mayor's conference the other night, one of the mayors said to me, they pointed to the school, and I go, is that your city hall? I go, no, that's not the city hall.

That's really funny.

Oh my gosh. Well, thank you.

Thank you for sharing that. We got a lot done all before 8 p.m. I'm so proud of us.

I'm going to go ahead and adjourn the meeting now at 7.56 p.m.