City Council - Special Meeting

All right. Good evening, everyone. This is the joint special meeting of the Tracy City Council and the Tracy Parks and Community Services Commission on June 9th, 2026. We'll go ahead and call this meeting to order at 5.16 p.m. This time, there is no disclosure pursuant to government code section 54953.8.3. As for the City Council, roll call and declaration of conflicts, please.

Council Member Bedoya? Council Member Evans.

Present, no conflicts.

Council Member Nygaard. Present, no conflicts. Mayor Pro Tem Abercrombie.

Present, no conflicts.

Mayor Areola.

Present, no conflicts.

Thank you. We have a quorum.

All right. And I will ask Chair Lieberg to call your meeting to order, please.

Good evening. It is Tuesday, June 9th at 517, calling the special meeting of the Parks Commission and City Council to order. Can I get a roll call, please?

Commissioner Arbogast.

Here.

Commissioner Fagan.

Here.

Commissioner Jimenez. Present. And Chair Lieberg.

Here.

Thank you. We have a quorum.

All right. Thank you. Members of the public will be able to participate in tonight's meeting remotely via Zoom by visiting cityoftracy-org.zoom.us slash join and using the information provided on the screen. This information is also available in paper at City Hall as well as online. This brings us to item 2A, a discussion on the comparison between the two aquatic center design sets. Staff report, please.

Good evening, Mayor, members of the City Council, Arturo Sanchez, Assistant City Manager. The item before you today is to receive and discuss the results of the comparison between the two aquatic center design sets. One, the plan, commonly and colloquially called the community plan, and two, the city plan. Just a brief history, very short synopsis. On August 19th, 2025, the city council directed staff to prepare a comparison between the two city center, the two aquatic center design sets. That plan, that audit was to compare the designs on several key areas. One was project status, the proposer schedule, a project schedule, a program comparison, a total cost estimate, as well as an operational feasibility cost recovery analysis. That audit is now complete and the findings of the company that we retained of both design sets were found to be deficient and have benefits and also be viable. Staff will now go over a PowerPoint presentation of the findings of the company that we retained to conduct this audit and be available to answer questions as well as any comments from the public after our presentation. So with that, we'll jump in and it is a rather short report, but if we need to go in more in depth, staff is prepared to do so if we need to from a rather lengthy report that was provided by the company. So a brief overview of the company that conducted the audit. Vertex, and I should pause to say that because of scheduling conflicts, normally we would have had the consultant here to provide this presentation. We were unable to get everybody on the same page for scheduling, council, commission, and the consultant. This was the best day that worked for both the council and the commission. It unfortunately did not fall on a date that worked for the consultant due to their holiday schedule that they had planned to be away with their family. You are unfortunately stuck with me giving the presentation and I feel fairly comfortable that I will be able to give you the answers that you seek. Who Vertex is? Vertex is an independent project management and construction advisory firm. They provide an objective evidence-based assessment for public agencies evaluating major capital infrastructure investments. They are a multidisciplinary team that includes experts in architecture, cost estimating, MEP, which is manufacturing electrical plumbing equipment, engineering, scheduling, and operational feasibility. For this engagement, Vertex was retained by the City of Tracy to independently audit two competing design development submissions for the City of Tracy Aquatic Center. The role in this project was objective audit of two design development proposals, one by group four from February 2026, design development submission, and a community plan team from July 2023, design development submission. They evaluated across design and program, cost estimating, project schedule, and MEP systems. The goal was to provide the city with a clear and unbiased framework to inform the procurement decision of the city. A brief recap for the council and the public to be reminded of the plans in a visual sense. Group 4 has provided a plan set. These are the conceptual designs at the 65 million dollar option and the community plan had given the council a brief presentation in August of 2025 that also presented a 65 or 66.5 million dollar option relatively in comparison of a similar option for the council to consider. This is a very high level, not the design development set, this is a very high level conceptual vision of what they could do. These plans were further developed into design development sets, which were what was reviewed by the Vertex company. But they give you a feel for what was reviewed. The placement of the pools, the places where they would have slides, other things. Sorry, I went past. They both also had the option of going to larger parks, $98 million option and a $96.4 million option, which included more amenities, more slides, kiddie pools, so on and so forth. The Vertex company was essentially comparing the design development schematics of both of these designs to determine the viability and efficiencies of both of these designs. So what were their findings? First, let's revisit the six tasks that they were asked to look at. One was project status. They evaluated the current design phase, design Now I need my glasses. Boy, apologies, now I'm starting to really feel old. Current design, design definition, architectural and system coordination, infrastructure and phasing strategy, cost estimating inputs, and schedule construction plan for both teams. Task two, the proposer schedule audit. reviewed narrative schedules for both teams, identified material omissions, compressed durations, and milestone risks, including absent project funding confirmation. Task three, project schedule audit, assessed procurement planning, construction detail, contract negotiation timelines, bid periods, and pre-qualification windows against California public contracting code requirements. Project comparison, task four. Side-by-side comparison of facility program, building site organization, mechanical systems including HVAC, exhaust, DOS, energy recovery and plumbing systems. Task five, total cost estimate assessment compared February 2026 cost estimates group for base 67 million versus their enhanced 97.8 million versus the community plan 96.7 million, including the potential exposure analysis for each team. And task six, operational feasibility cost recovery analysis, modeled attendance expense, revenue, cash flow, and cost recovery across multiple scenarios for years one and year five. That got them to a risk analysis summary. Much of this is further detailed by task in their larger report, but this does a very good job of summarizing the identified risks. that they were able to pull out for each of the tasks. For Group 4, the identified risks included the construction document start date past July 8th completion date and all downstream milestones were considered invalid, not driven by Group 4. They considered that a high risk. The phase 91 days versus six month anticipated duration increases coordination risk and cost growth. They considered that a very high risk as well. The $67 million estimate missing impact fees, IT infrastructure and cost. This was not considered in their cost estimate and they considered that a high risk. Project funding. Confirmation absent from schedule. This could impact the project schedules because it was unclear where the funding would come from. And I believe this was a risk on both sides. Pre-qualification window of five days likely insufficient under the California Public Contracting Code. Then we get into a lower risk areas. Two-day geotechnical investigation insufficient for project scale. Bid period insufficient limits contractor participation. And then the Low risk was construction phase is single undifferentiated line item, no milestone breakdown. For the community plan on the high risk areas, they had a schedule submission high level full construction schedule required before risk evaluation. So there was insufficient information on the full construction schedule. The design development submission dated July 2023. The systems must be revalidated against 2026 conditions before construction documents. Essentially, they're saying it's a three-year-old design development. Difficult to tell where we stand now three years later. Schedule dormant since July 2023. All baseline dates entirely notional. Full rebaseline required. We need to revisit. Again, it's a three-year-old design set. No dedicated procurement phase, critical risk given multi-building scope and long lead items. Project funding confirmation absent from schedule. Again, we're not sure where the funding will come from, which is a concern for staff as well. CD phase five months, still likely insufficient for multi-building destination campus. And then a low risk construction phase, single line item, no phasing or sequencing for phase one and phase two. This leads us to an operational feasibility, high-level review of both plans. And I pulled this slide out of the report because I think it does the best job of sort of distilling the comparison between the two plans in terms of the vision for their operational comparison. In a nutshell, the real distinction between The group four plan and the community plan is the community plan is envisioned as a destination environment that is intended to operate as a cost recovery, a cost recovery facility with entry fees that are intended to make sure that it's generating revenue. versus the Group 4 plan was developed with the guidance of this council and with a price point for entry fees that were designed to keep the fees for entering the facility at a lower end and also with the concept of trying to keep the ability of our residents to be able to get to the aquatic center at a much more palatable cost entry fee. So What that means is, for the group four designs, at all levels, we are subsidizing their operations. It doesn't really matter whether you're doing the natatorium, indoor, outdoor, full design, 98 million, 65 million, we are subsidizing their operations. On the community plan, because of the business model that they've chosen to build this facility around, whether you chose a 65 million dollar phase-in because they do have a model that has that or you went for a 98 million dollar build-out, their business model assumes that we will be charging or that whoever is operating this facility will be charging at a rate that will allow for the facility to recover its expenses. And because of that, it can operate at generating enough revenue that it will not require a subsidy of the city. And so this table essentially shows that real big distinction. And one of the key findings of Vertex was both of these plans are viable. but it comes down to a policy consideration for the council. They both have significant areas of improvement, but they both are viable. It is a question of the council of what kind of a facility do you want to build? Do you want to build a facility that is municipally owned and operated, subsidized by the city, or do you want to build a destination facility that is intended to draw regional attendance with a goal of making enough revenue to pay for itself. And conceptually, that is the biggest distinction between the two plans. That does not mean that the group four plan cannot be changed to operate like the community plan. But they are designed differently. That is the biggest distinction. So some key observations and data gaps from Vertex. The group four models, a publicly subsidized aquatics facility with an admission pricing typical of municipal pools of about four to $6. The community plan models a commercial water park and swim center with a much higher per entry fee of $17 to $25. These are not two versions of the same project as I said. They represent different policy choices about what to build and how to operate it. Personnel dominates both cost structures. Payroll represents 60 to 65% of total operating costs in both models. This is the largest lever available to reduce operating expenses and the most sensitive assumption. Both models project 1% to 2% annual labor cost growth, which may be optimistic in the current California labor market. I really want to take a moment and stop there because that is more than an optimistic viewpoint. 1% to 2% growth is not where we sit. We're more likely to hit 3% or 4%, I think, on average. And at the rate that we're growing in California with inflation or the way things are looking in the state but also nationally, that is really a very optimistic view. So we really have to think about when these models are made, whether they are taking the right approach from an operational perspective. Staff has some ideas which we'll close out with towards the end of this in terms of how to look at these operational models. Community plan requires commercial revenue mix to work. The pro fund model reaches cost recovery only because it includes water park revenues, F&B, retail, cabanas, higher admission. The swim center alone generates just 682,000 in year one. It would run a deficit without the water park's 3.04 million contribution. Group 4's model reflects this reality. A standalone public aquatics facility will need ongoing public subsidy of 1.9 to 2.4 million. What are they saying there? The reason the community plan can make money is because of how it supplements the aquatics portion with the amenities of the larger park. It is all the other ancillary activities that it brings the food, the beverages, all of those other things that it brings to the park that make it a destination, that is what enhances the experience. That is what allows for it to generate revenue that we wouldn't necessarily experience in the group four design. That's why they have the pro fund group helping them dial in the operation in a way that allows them to generate revenue. That is part of their business model. That is where the delta comes in. That's what they're identifying there. Group four enhancement, return on investment varies significantly. Water slides are the most cost efficient enhancement at 58% cost recovery. The indoor rec pool is the least efficient at 28% but serves the most community programming use cases. This analysis can inform phasing decisions if full build out is not immediately funded. So your return on investment is always gonna be what gets you more people in the door, but what people are gonna get the most out of is gonna be your indoor recreation, right? And so that's all they're pointing out. As we come to a close and we start thinking about conclusions and recommendations, it's really if the city's objective is a year-round indoor competitive facility, Group four is the recommended path. It's permit ready today, not complete. There's some things that it needs to, it's most complete submission across all evaluated dimensions, controlled capital cost with phased enhancement pathway. Fully sized and specified MEP systems ready for construction documents before proceeding to construction documents, rebaseline schedule, 26 month CD phase, add missing impact fees, add the elements that the vertex believes were missing from the larger report. If the city believes that its destination aquatic campus at scale is what we are looking for, then the community plan is the recommended path. a broader recreational program, positive operational cash flow potential, long-term revenue generation, secured entitlements, environmental clearance, FAA approvals, infrastructure, and for full build-out is what we should proceed. is what we should pursue. Before proceeding to CD, full schedule baseline with realistic multi-building CD phase, complete MEP across all five buildings, engage GMP contractor, and normalize contingency to a 10%. The long and the short of the report is that both plants have warts. I think for staff, what we'd like to focus on is the fact that the longer report inherently raises a third consideration, which is whether the city should pursue the building of an aquatic center at all. Inherent with choosing either plan comes the long-term fiscal commitments of ongoing operation, maintenance and repair, which are discussed more fully in the staff report. These financial realities beg the question of whether it would be more prudent to reduce scale and focus on delivering a simple competition and warm pool facility akin to the original concept that evolved into the two current plans. Right now, Council is simply hearing, and the only item before you is to hear the results of the audit. And we can dive further into the Vertex report if you like. But really their findings are very simple. They are what can be distilled into two things. Both plans are viable. Which model makes the most sense from a policy perspective to the council? And it's very simple. Destination, city run facility. Staff would offer that there's a third answer, which is we can pursue a much smaller scale alternative, simple return to the original concept. With that, I'll submit to the council for discussion.

Thank you. With that, I'll turn it over to Chair Lieberg to recognize his commission for questions. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

These are clarifying questions that the commissioners may have of Mr. Sanchez. So Commissioner Jimenez, questions on the staff report?

In reviewing the risk involved, is there a method in which we can overcome some of these risks when you're talking about that some of the plans it does not have, if you go, if you can refer back to that risk. If you can show that up, bring that. Yes. It's showing in here that there's no schedules, for example, the community plan identified risk, project funding confirmation absent from schedule. So I would assume that if we're identifying these risks, then there's a plan to overcome these and that if the community plan is what we want, that's what's going to happen. Is that correct?

Mayor, would you like me to answer these questions now?

Yes, please.

Through the chair to member Jimenez. Yes, if at some point the council were to direct staff to pursue a particular plan, the identified risks would have to be addressed by staff as identified by the consultant. So we would not be able to proceed or I would not recommend proceeding without resolving all of the risks.

Okay.

Thank you. That was my concern.

Commissioner Fagan, comments, questions?

I just feel that in 2018 that the city got the land and approved a plan, which was a community plan for a pool back in 2018, which was approved and for the community. And now it's, what, eight years later? And I don't understand myself what's wrong with the plan that was approved in 2018. Everybody approved it. We broke ground on that. Okay, there was a shovel in the dirt. We're ready to go now. If there were financial problems with the property and or other legal ramifications, the plans for the pool, the plans for the aquatic center were still approved. They were not questioned. So therefore, I just, you know, if it's already been approved and ground was broken on that and everybody was happy with it at that time, I don't see why we're not happy with it this time. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Arbogast.

No questions at this time.

Two questions, please. First, we have the the generic concept of the city plan versus the generic concept of the community plan, the Surlin plan, where it's more of a destination facility. Can you give examples of, it's not in the report that I saw, of what other cities may have a, just a, I'm going to call it the, you know, city-sponsored aquatic center versus a destination-sponsored aquatic center? Are there examples or breakdown? You think it's 50-50, you know, 75-25?

Chair Lieberg, I don't have a comparison list. I can off the top of my head say that the City of Chico recently built a municipal facility or is building a municipal facility for about $30 million is my understanding. Similar concept, much smaller in scale, much more like the Group 4 design. They will be operating it, I believe. But they're in construction now. I do not believe they're open yet. Um, I understand that there are several cities in and around the surrounding area that may be pursuing similar concepts, but I don't know of any that are open and I didn't do the research before today's meeting.

Okay. And is there any destination aquatic center that the city owns like that is being proposed here?

That I am aware of? No. You know, facilities like Great Wolf Lodge or Raging Waters, I am aware of those, but the Parks and Rec Department had done more extensive research than I for this particular item since it was only noticed for the comparison and not for this particular question.

Okay. Thank you. And then second question. The original direction from the council was, you know, apples to apples comparison. You hit it. One of the biggest discrepancies is the charging the pricing point to get into the facility, you know, $4 to $6 versus $17 to $25. In my opinion, that is not an apples to apples comparison anymore. Now you're comparing apples to oranges. And when The Surlin plan is talking about return on investment and we're quote-unquote profitable of some kind. They're charging six times the amount of money that the city is proposing to charge. Ultimately, this is going to be a city-owned facility, not a Surlin or a developer-owned facility. Is it fair to say, I'm asking, what would happen if you flip the numbers? If Surland charged $4 to $6, what would that do to their return on investment? And if the city charged $17 to $25, what would that do?

I would posit to guess that it would affect their business model in that they would make significantly less revenue, sort of simple math. But one of the recommendations of Vertex in the table slide was that the city should consider increasing on the Group 4 side the entry fees so that it could generate more revenue. That was one of their recommendations in the longer report so that it could begin to catch up to the community plans.

And who provided those values, $4 to $6 versus $17 to $25?

The $4 to $6 value was developed in conjunction with Parks and Rec staff, is my understanding, and the group four in deliberations with sort of trying to achieve the goals of the council to make it an amenity that all of Tracy residents can attend.

Okay. And the $17 to $25?

I think that was a business model decision where they were trying to get to an achievable business operation that would allow for the operations to operate at a sustainable business model that would require no subsidy from the city. But all of these are policy considerations for the council at that time at some future date to make, right? These are just models at this point in time.

Okay. Thank you. Anyone on the commission need their turn back questions?

All right, Mr. Mayor, back to you, please. Thank you, Chair Lieberg. All right, we'll turn to council for preliminary questions. Mayor Pro Tem.

So just so we're clear on what we're looking for tonight is we're looking for your staff is looking for input from both the commission and council, which plan maybe they prefer. And then or it could be As you pointed out, it could be paused both and relook at the plans. That was my understanding for option three, right? Is to possibly come up with some other mechanism or other way of doing it, maybe scaling back on these designs. Is that true?

Through the chair to Mayor Pro Tem Abercrombie. It's to receive and discuss the audit results, right? The discussion could include, you know, as a result of this, you'd like staff at some future date to come back with a third option, right? What do we do if we decide not to pursue either one of these? What do we do if we decide to place one of these in some other alternative venue? What do we do if X, Y, and Z? But it is not to make a choice between one of these tonight.

Thank you. Council Member Widoya.

Can we ask questions to Vertex?

As I stated at the beginning, they are not available today.

Understood. That's right. That was the last council meeting. Okay. Best you can. So, you know, how you mentioned payroll is about 60, 65% for both models. Just looking at California labor costs, If labor costs were to grow, let's say, faster than projected, you know, you kind of emphasized when you said it's probably not the one to two, it's more like the three to four. Is there a certain model that takes a bigger hit if labor costs go up X or both stay the same? And when looking, I know you said we can do kind of like an all of the above or reset, as Mayor Pro Tem mentioned. When looking at the two options before us, is there one that gets us to a first phase that's usable for residents quicker?

Through the Chair to Council Member Bedoya, I think that to your first question, I think it's a very prudent question. There is a difference in the employee business model if you do city operation versus private operation, because I think that is the question you are asking. city employees versus private employees, there are different rates of pay, right? Because city employee compensation is different than private employee compensation. So that would have to be factored into the business model. And I think that's the question you're getting at. So that three to 4% is compounded by the rate of pay of employees in uh when you factor in a city employee versus a private non-city employee because i think their rates of pay might be significantly different than ours so that is a very real practical reality and it does get and it is affecting that that analysis so what you've hit on is a very real um a very real financial analysis model. But how it would work in the real world, I think we'd have to do a deeper analysis into that modeling, depending on where you were looking. If you say, for instance, at some future date, the council decided to go in one particular direction and they were interested in applying one business model over another and wanted to know what that looked like, then we'd have to look at it there. As to the second question, and now I'm having a senior moment, you'll have to remind me with the

I guess short question, when just looking at the two options, is there one that gets us to a usable first phase faster to use?

Well, I think the answer to that for me is just based on my exposure to the plans. The group four sets are designed to do phasing They were designed at the council's direction to be phased in. I'm not sure that the community plans were designed that way. So the short answer for me would be the group four. But I'm not as well versed in the design sets in that way. Okay.

A couple more questions. Thank you. If council were to go, if the decision was made to go with the community destination model, WOULD THE CITY OPERATE IT DIRECTLY OR WOULD THERE BE A PRIVATE OPERATOR OR LIKE AN

Again, I think this is an excellent question because I think that it is a policy question. I think the recommendation of staff just right now would be that we'd have to consider not operating it as a city facility, that we'd have to look at pursuing a third party operator in order to be able to operate it in the model that they are looking to operate it in, which means not operating it as a traditional municipal facility, but to operate it as a revenue generating facility, right? Allowing a third party vendor to operate it.

Okay, two quick questions. So I think some later materials were submitted. Can staff just shed some light on what was reviewed, what was not reviewed? Did that affect any analysis? Just to wrap it up, are there any common elements between the two options that are given today? If we were to be looking to take, you know, from the best of both, what would staff recommend? And that's it for me.

The common elements are the amenities that, in quotations, the larger community of Tracy has for decades now been indicating that they've been seeking. 50-meter competition pool with a warm-up pool slides. Lazy River components, the kiddie pool, the toddler area, those are the amenities that have been added over time. But the core amenities that I started with, 50 meter pool, slides, warm up pool, those are really the core that have always been at the heart of, as I understand it, the discussions for the community. And those exist in both plans. Both plans also contain derivatives of the other elements. what they look, how they feel, the size, the scope, the length of the lazy river, the width of the lazy river, the layout, the trees, the particular feel, all of that is what is the difference, right? And you have to get down to the design elements that were included in the community plan because it was designed to incorporate itself into that specific plan versus what has been worked on by group four that has been taking its direction from this council as to what we were looking for, an auditorium versus an outdoor facility. An outdoor facility with a screen that people can enjoy movies in, right? A community room where people can be in. A walk-in toddler area where people who have mobility issues can be in. These are all elements that exist in both. There are viable options in both plans. It is really, it boils down to a distinction of, you know, where does the council as a whole, when it arrives at that decision point, If it needs to make a decision, which direction would it like to go?

Thank you, Councilmember Evans.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, staff, and to our consultant for putting together this presentation and analysis. First of all, I'll qualify. I won't use the developer plan, group four plan monikers. There's a city plan. and there's a developer plan. Both have had community input, sufficient community input. So I'll be referring to this as the city plan, developer plan. Group four is the city plan. Developer plan is what they're calling the community plan. So I just want to be sure, because the print's really small, I want to be sure I understand the entry fees I'm seeing in the city plan, it's four to six bucks a head. Developer plan, 17 to 25 bucks a head, if I'm seeing that right. So for a family of four, we're talking 16 to $24. for the city plan and $68 to $100 for the developer plan, is that correct?

I believe your math is correct, sir.

Okay, so using just the high end, you know, I'm a pessimist, so I go high. $24 for a family of four if we stick with our current plan that is in progress, or $100 for a family of four to gain entry under the developer plan. Okay, and that is before food or ice cream or anything, correct?

Yes, sir.

Okay. So going way back in this project, and I've done a lot of investigatory work on this, it goes all the way back to 1988. That's as far back as I can find anything on this project. There's a lot about it in the 1990s, but the first time it came to light was 1988. And that was back before I even knew anything about it. I didn't know anything about it until I sat in Serlin's office in mid to late 1990s. and talk to them about the various things that they had planned for a community. But the initial intent, as I understand, going all the way back to the beginning, was for us to be able to host competitions, for our water polo team to be able to host competitions. Is that correct?

through the chair to council member Evans. That is my understanding as well that the original intent of the community was a need to be able to host competition pools to be able to do their training and to be able to meet for the teams, the multiple competition teams that existed in the city of Tracy at the time.

Okay, perfect. Thank you. So can we go to slide three? Just want to be sure we're all clear what we're looking at. So So on the left side, that's the city plan. The right side is the developer plan. Can you show me where, which is the competition pool in the city plan, the group four plan?

If I had a laser pointer, I would be able to show that it would be the number one. Number one, okay. It would be that right there would be the number one. Perfect. Thank you so much, Madam Clerk. And on the right-hand side, sort of assuming that will be the next question, I believe that in that particular picture there, the 50-meter pool sits outside of the layout of their $66.5 million option.

Okay. So the competition pool is not included in the developer plan that we're talking about here?

I believe that if I'm understanding that particular image that I picked up from a prior presentation, yes.

Okay, so just to be clear, four times the entry fee doesn't include the original intent of the project. Okay, so how far along is our drawings currently for the city's plan?

Apologies, I missed a portion of that question.

The city's design, how far along are we? I know it's in progress. Council's directed months, months ago for us to move forward like a year ago, right?

It is in design development. Both of these are in design development. So pre-construction documents.

Which phase are we in for the city plan?

Design development.

Right. A 30, 60, 90 issue for construction, how far along are we?

Oh, I don't know the answer to that. I'd have to rely on the group four group when they get up if they can make their public comments.

Okay. I'd also like an update on where we are monetarily with that, how much money we've sunk into those drawings. Has any outside operators shown any interest in running either of these models? I mean, this has been in the public eye for a while. We've been approached by a business that deemed this profitable and would have an interest in running this and potentially earning a profit?

No one has approached us and we've not asked for anyone to see if there's interest.

Okay. So likely, I mean, at least by all indicators at the moment, the city would be running one of these facilities, whichever one we move forward with.

Absent other direction, that would be... Okay.

Okay. I think for now that answers all my questions, but if there's a way, if we can get an answer before we close as to, you know, what phase we're in in our own drawings, I'd like to know that. And approximately, I know it's not going to be to the minute, but approximately how much we've spent to date on those drawings. Thank you, Councilmember.

Councilmember Nygaard.

Thank you, Mayor. It's, yes, been a long discussion for many, many years, and here we are on this council having the difficult decisions on facing this amenity that's been long promised. I wanted to ask on the community plan, are any of these phased amenities, can they be put in different sequence?

Through the Chair to Council Member Nygaard. I would assume that that would be possible, but I really don't know how that would work, practically speaking. We'd have to talk to the designers when that time came. Okay.

Um, I also wanted to ask about, um, uh, it's been brought up before, uh, with other colleagues on the personnel costs. So right now, um, you know, the, the consideration we have is, uh, both plan, or one plan was given the direction on 30% of cost recovery. Is that something that could be discussed to see if there's a way to increase that?

Yes, ma'am. There is no prohibition to working on the, because as I understand your question, we're really focused on the Group 4 design and their business model. And there is no prohibition at reworking that particular business model to try and attempt to recover more revenue by reworking the entry fees.

Because it is alarming at this time, in this current climate, that we, you know, to ask for 70% subsidy. You know, we have also the track, I believe, coming in relatively around that same model. So, you know, I'm hoping that we can... look at good cost recovery because that's I think really essential knowing that the the other consideration here is which is both are viable but what plan do we want do we want a municipal plan or do we want a destination facility The municipal plan, my concern is the 70% subsidized cost. The destination facility, do we meet the need of the community with what the original ask was? I do remember the competitive pool being very much part of that ask. And if there is, like I said, ways of shifting the phasing of the amenities, But I do understand that, you know, also I think Councilmember Bedoya brought up the employee cost. If there was a third party contracted entity, that could potentially help save some cost, correct?

It could. It would be up to whether we could find a third party operator. But yes, we'd also have to look at putting that out to bid and see if there's interest. Yes.

Okay. The only other thing that I'm concerned about is, you know, still the, you know, the location. We're on Corral Hollow again. We have a lot of, you know, issues with that artery. Okay.

Neither of these plans are required to be built there.

My biggest concern is the fact that we're still looking at a site that is off Corral Hollow that has been impacted this past decade with the most traffic. We have four construction planned phases to improve, but that's still five years out. And, you know, making it a destination, you know, you do bring in, you're going to be bringing in, you know, surrounding areas. So, yeah, could we potentially look at a, because the one thing I am concerned about is when you say A destination facility, the first thing that comes to my mind is out of area, out of state potentially, wanting to come and stay here in Tracy, which is awesome. But how do we accommodate them? So I'm thinking the most of our hotels are on the other side of town. So yes, I would love to see, you know, is there a way if we make a destination facility that we could make it could there be a chance of looking at a site that would be accommodating more hotel access?

I'd be interested in seeing that as well. It'd be worth looking into.

It is a fair question. Just as an ancillary discussion, our legacy fields does an excellent amount of business and it draws people from in and out of state a significant amount. So if we were to may create a destination facility, there is every reason to believe that we would be very successful.

Well, I love the idea of making Tracy's name on a map for something that is recreational and fun for families to enjoy. But I would want to make sure that we have it in a space that truly accommodates families to come to Tracy.

Yes, and all of our hotels are in a different area, but that is not the question in front of us now, so we'll just compare. But of course, at the end, if the council directed staff to come back with an alternative item discussing that, that is the council's purview. For now, we will continue with the audit results. Yeah.

So at this point, I don't have any. I'll save later.

Thank you, Councilmember. Many of the questions I had were already asked. However, I did want to highlight, so we have the slide that's currently above us and the slide that's after this that shows the full build out. My recollection is that there were intermediary positions as well. I believe they were around the $72 million mark. So if we can go back to slide three, I just want to confirm in the city plan, the amenities that are included here, and because originally there were two of the lower level for the city, talking about an outdoor versus indoor pool. So I want to confirm for what's shown here at the $65 million mark, is that with an outdoor pool or with an indoor pool?

So I will... Just note that the consultant is shaking her head because I may be showing an incorrect design. So when she does her public comment, she may correct the record of what I am about to say for the record. So Mayor, my understanding is this is showing a conceptual design that does not show an indoor natatorium. It shows an outdoor facility only. But it would show a community room and other amenities that the council asked for.

Okay, because I thought the vertex report referred to a $56.4.

They made their analysis based on what was submitted. I am presenting a visual in order to be able to remind the council what it could look like, not necessarily the designs that they had access to review. This is just the visual presentation that the council saw at a prior meeting. So it is a reminder of the conceptual designs that the council has seen in the past, not the design development, which they have not seen.

Okay, because I think that gets us to the point that Council Member Evans is trying to make. We're looking at various levels. It looks like the community developer plan does not include the competition pool, but the city plan does. I want to confirm that. And then perhaps if someone from public comment can explain what would the mid-tier get us, particularly I'm interested in the indoor pool, because I think we had consensus based upon that. And then what would that look like with regards to the other amenities, which include the water slide, the lazy river, the toddler area, if we can get some clarification on that, because essentially they are different at this 65, $66 million level. I believe they're going to be substantially different at the $72 million level. And ultimately at the 96 to $98 million level, they are all there, but structured differently.

Yes. And my apologies, Mayor, I gave a really high level visual reminder, not intending to go that deep into the into the actual designs, trying to stay high level. And I apologize for that.

No worries. Okay. And then I share the concerns that my colleagues have already expressed related to the ticket prices. I think that, you know, this is kind of the first time we've had those comparables. And I think the intent was always to have something that would be accessible for, you know, our middle class families, you know, working class folks. And I think the four to six price range gets us more to there. Can you tell us what is the current price range for the Joe Wilson pool?

I believe it's less than $4, but I'll have to confirm with staff during the public comment and I'll have the answers to that and to Council Member Evans' question during that.

Okay. And then I would be interested if during public comment someone could highlight how we get to those price points because they are substantially different. You know, looks like one's approximately four to six times the other. And that's going to make a huge difference for how we proceed. The other question I had was you had highlighted the thing that makes it kind of distinctly a destination scenario is the access to food drinks refreshments that type of thing will any of that also be available could it be available with regards to the city plan yes and it was a recommendation of the vertex group that we should look at our business model to make it more in line like the community plan okay and then as was stated earlier you know this plan has been in development for quite a bit of time. The more modern era has been since around 2018. But we have suffered multiple, you know, challenging economic times since then. And the reality is that the region has changed since then. So what I'd be curious if the sides could bring it up during public comment is did this analysis take into consideration the fact that now there are multiple aquatic centers in the Tri-Valley, as well as the development of the Great Wolf Lodge to the east of us. So we're talking about destination cities that's now much more competition. So I'd be curious if this assessment evaluated potential competition costs. And then finally, Could you give us a little more information with regards to more of the long-term labor costs? I don't think it was until somewhat recently that it was highlighted that this potentially could be privately run. That's something that I was not supportive of in the past. So I'd be very interested to see kind of what it would look like for city labor costs. And has there been any discussions related to our our unions about if there's any concerns there.

Would you like me to answer those questions now?

To the best you can.

As it relates to the competition in the geographic area, I believe one of the teams has conducted or retained an organization that does analyses of of, I forget the name of the organization, but I'm sure when they come up, they will talk about it. And they did look at what the potential impact of the competition in the area would be, and they took into account that. Group four, working with the city, we did not take that into account in our business model. It's not something that plays a role in how we look at parks and recreations programs. We treat our recreations facilities as being available to all at the lowest price point to be available to all our residents. When it comes to looking at the impact to our labor groups, it's not something that we would have discussed with our labor groups because it's not something that we're currently in the business of doing we don't run a destination aquatics facility it's not something we're in the business of so it's not something we currently we currently have employees conducting if we begin to do that business then i think we'd have a discussion but at the moment we do not conduct that business so it's not something we're in the business of doing. So if we decided to go that route, we'd have to make the decision very early on and put out an RFP to see if someone's interested in operating a city-built facility.

Okay. And then can you highlight, at full complete build-out, what is the average number of employees that would be needed? And are they substantially the same or no?

I believe that the two business models have two different ways of staffing the facility without doing a deep dive into the documents that were provided and the business models that they have which they did provide I wouldn't be able to tell you the difference what I can at a very high level tell you is that the city's business model I believe has more staff than the a community plan business model. And I think that just breaks down to how many people we believe we need to have in, say, a lazy river monitoring an area, how many lifeguards we might need to have in a particular area, so on and so forth. And I don't think there's necessarily a set standard. It's more our policy versus their policy and how they reached it. So short answer, we have more employees than they do in their business model.

OK. All right, well, with that, at this point, we will go out for public comment. Can I please see hands raised for members of the public that'd like to speak on this item? Okay, I think I saw 15. Sorry, can I see hands raised? Some of you guys keep moving them. One, two, three, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10. Okay, 17. Okay, so with 17, that would get two minutes each. Do we have any speaker cards to begin with?

Yes, Mayor, we do.

Okay, I'll turn it over to you, Madam Clerk, for speaker cards.

Certainly, Mayor. First speaker is Christina Orsi.

Good evening. Good evening. My name's Christina Orsi, and I am a lifelong third-generation Tracy resident. When my daughter was four years old and my son was seven, they joined the Tracy Triton swim team, and we were heavily involved parents. My husband even served as the board president, and back then, parents like us were already advocating for a new aquatic center because we were in deep need of it for competition. We joined that cause full-heartedly and supported the Surlin-backed Aquatic Center because we believed that if we worked together and stayed committed, our children would one day have the facilities they deserve right here in their hometown. That was 20 years ago. Our daughter's 23 and our son is 26. They spent their childhoods competing, training, and representing Tracy, but they will never swim in the aquatic center that was discussed when they were kids. I stayed in Tracy because I believe in this community. I wanted to raise my children in a city that values youth sports, recreation, and a high quality life for all of its families, not just the ones that can afford expensive entry fees. If this is a community plan, how many community families and sports teams, we have not discussed the cost that it will take a sports team to rent the facility, to use it in this for-profit model. My children missed this opportunity. I hope the next generation doesn't have to do the same 20 years from now. Something to note, our competition teams use those events and invitationals as major fundraisers for their organizations. So I would ask you to ask those questions. How would a food facility compete with those teams' ability to raise funds? Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Community Plan Designers.

Good evening, Council, Parks Commission. Thank you. We're excited to be here and hear the discussion on the audit report. And I just want to, a few things I want to let you know. There's some important information that's been submitted to the Council that was left out of the Vertex report. We have a short presentation on that. And we have all of the expertise that was behind the plan are represented here tonight or online. So we have representatives from HLA, Profund, WTI, every expert that you have a question about, which they'll be happy to answer.

Sorry, can we stop clock? Mayor and Council, we're having problems hearing over there. Stop the clock. Yeah, stop the clock. Can you pull it closer to you?

The podium goes up. Should I just raise it?

Okay.

The podium goes up.

To your right. There you go. Thank you.

Mr. Long, one second. Madam Clerk.

Yes, we just wanted to clarify, are all of you speaking or is...

Yes, we'd like to combine our time so we can all speak.

We can allow one at a time, so we'll need the rest of, you know, two minutes. Next person, two minutes. So the others could please, if they each want two minutes.

Okay, I'll finish my minute in 24 then Mr. Otterman can go. So we want to make sure that things are clear about ticket pricing. That is all flexible. The model came from a design of does the city want to recover more costs and have a more financially stable project? And that's the idea behind that. There's flexibility in that also imputed in the models and Amber Watson can speak more to that. is the idea for many, many complimentary passes. There's discounts you can use. So it's not everyone has to pay $17 to go in. And that $17 price is actually in the middle of market rate. So it's about a different experience, but flexibility to price that. Also, the city doesn't have to do a private operator. The model imputes a fee for private operator, and they can train the city and then LEAVE THE PROJECT WHEN THE CITY IS UP AND READY TO DO THAT. AND THAT WILL BE PART OF STEVE'S PRESENTATION. LABOR COSTS WERE ACTUALLY IMPUTED AT A HIGHER RATE THAN WHAT WAS SAID, 1%. IT'S HIGHER THAN THAT. AND THE COMMUNITY PLAN IS PHASED AND THE OPTION THAT Mayor Areola mentioned was a $72 million phase that included a 50-meter pool. The only reason it wasn't included in the first phase of $65 million was to have a better financial performance, but 50-meter pool has always been a priority, and that would be part of the plans. If we're just suggesting to the city that they start with rec, it's better financially, and they can add the pool. But they can phase it and do any way they want. I'll turn it over to Steve.

Two minutes or so. There are slides in your packet where I was prepared to speak to, but they take about three and a half minutes, so we'll have to move on. I do want to reemphasize a point that Chris made is that the pricing that everybody's been talking about is based not on trying to achieve 100 percent cost recovery or even a high cost recovery. It is based solely on looking at 15 market comparable facilities in California as well as a few outside California that are large recreation based aquatic facilities that municipalities own and run. The ticket pricing was set by picking the average and a little lower of those 15 comparables. And that is how we reached the ticket pricing based on the market, not based on a target. So I want to be especially clear that when we talk about the prices are high, it's based on what we see from the financial statements received directly from those aquatic centers in other parts of the state. The other is that there's a thought there's a private operator that is going to basically, not exactly, but basically own and operate the park, and that is a misunderstanding. What we have put in our financial projections and have always talked about is a professional management company that comes in and trains the employees as to how to operate the park the way it's supposed to be, with management plans, maintenance schedules, staff safety training, and the like, that private or experienced professional manager helps get the facility off to the right start. Our model expects that all the employees are municipal City of Tracy employees with the exception of this expertise that comes in initially that gets it off to the right start and when it is moving and the staff takes over, has become the experts of their own part, that the professional consultant then steps away. AMBER WATSON. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS.

I guess what I'll have to say is that primarily when we develop the financial models that you are referencing, we assume that we'd like to achieve cost recovery. So by no means is a demand. These are suggestive to say, if you did this, then this would yield this cost recovery. In many of our models, we actually put in a worksheet for whoever was receiving it to say, well, what if we only charged $10? And it calculated that out. So in that one scenario, I'll say if you modeled out $10 instead of the 17 or 20 everybody's referencing, we'd be looking at approximately 80% cost recovery. This is not something that we're pushing to mandate. Most, if you went with what we're calling a private operator, or maybe we should really say you know, a professional partner that knows how to operate a facility like this and knows, you know, the ins and outs of maintenance and how much it can save you and proper labor management, proper marketing and sales plans, all of these things, you know, we would or a professional operator would work in conjunction to match your vision. It is not modeled as a revenue share. It is modeled as a service or a fee. So I know we talk about this a lot, but it is modeled as the city's facility with somebody with expertise to help meet your defined goals. So the pricing is absolutely modifiable. As far as labor goes, I'll just mention our model does do 3% year over year from years three forward. That is a little bit conservative, but as you grow, you will also experience reductions due to... Ma'am, your time's up. Sorry.

Also, just a brief announcement. We have some reports that it's difficult to hear. If everyone on the dais and at the podium could please speak as close to the mic as possible, that would be great. Thank you.

Great. Hi, I'm Steve Crocker with Water Technology and I just wanted to talk about the pools and specifically the support of the 50 meter pool. We think that should be, you know, that is a definite part of the facility in our mind. We know it's always been a priority. Our efforts to design The pools as a whole have been always to maximize participation. We know that most recreational swimming takes place in June, July, and August. But we really, really have tried to design the facility to maximize participation with the year-round pools. With the six-lane pool complementing the 50-meter pool, we have a great situation for meets in the winter season, which are short course. and as well as meets all summer long. What we don't want to happen is in the summer we don't want to have to close down the majority of the facility because there's a 50 meter meet going that needs a warm-up pool. We think that's a real mistake. We have designed the pool specifically so that that 50 meter combined with the warm-up pool can operate completely independent. with locker rooms that allow access for the spectators as well as the athletes, keeping separation from the recreational aspects of the pool. It's critical for USA swimming competition that you have locker rooms that accommodate separation of 18 and unders and adults. And all that has been considered in the way that we've laid out the facility for competition day, and every single day.

12 seconds, I'll just say we have other consultants online if there's any other questions for them. Thank you so much.

Next speaker, please.

Next speaker is Steve Otterman.

Oh, excuse me.

Next speaker is Dawn Murkies.

And... Okay.

Okay. Here in person or online? George is here. Okay.

Can we have the slides brought up that we sent in as well?

We didn't present any slides. Mayor, it would help clarification.

Do you have the slides that they previously sent you?

I do have the slides. They're also in the public comment packets that were given to the council and also in the back of the room. I do have them digitally also.

If they can get them within two minutes.

Okay. Yeah. Most importantly, the first slide would be great. Good evening, Mayor, members of the council. I'm Dawn Marcus with Group 4 Architecture. Chair and commissioners, good evening. And also with me is George Steins from Councilman Hunsaker, our aquatic consultant. And online, who will also be joining the discussion, is Gary Chubb with Griffin Structures, our construction manager. If you could go to the next slide, please. We prepared just a very brief presentation. Really wanted to take the opportunity to provide clarifications, responses, and corrections to the vertex report. Really important that things be accurate. Just in summary, on this slide, I'd like to note that we disagree with six out of the seven comments. that we in fact have addressed all these items that Vertex has identified as risk. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Gary, who I believe is online and can hear us and talk.

He is okay so ma'am we're going to go ahead and end your time now and then Gary will be entitled to his own time.

How about can I finish my time then we'll go to Gary for the two minutes. Yes 48 seconds. All right if you go to risk clarifications the next slide one more slide please developer impact fees are not typical of public projects. All of the items they have noted that are not included in our budget are actually included in our budget. I believe the last comment for IT AV communication security is perhaps related to the other plan. And on the next slide as well, we have included escalation to 2028 and the project also. has included the appropriate summary of all the costs all the way throughout. So happy to answer any other clarifications and to clarify things that... Ma'am, your time's elapsed. All right, thank you. Thank you. Perhaps we'll go to George and then to Gary.

Good evening, Mayor, Council, Commissioners. George Dynas with Councilman Hunsaker. We're the aquatics consultant that's been working with Group 4 architecture. We also, the aquatics consultants both on design side as well as the operational side and so we were the ones that worked with the city on the operational pro forma for the city plan and so just wanted to point out a couple of things as Mr. Sanchez noted in his review of the report that the fees that we utilized were on the lower end to match similar fees to what Joe Wilson pool is now and that throughout our study we did stress test different levels of admission fees as well as cost recovery and we could certainly do that again just to help increase the overall cost recovery for the facility based on council and commission and city priorities in terms of annual operating costs and what can be recouped with revenue from the facility users. And then also I wanted to say that the indoor pool did come back very high on the priority level, and what that allowed was the city to maximize year-round programming and achieve excess revenue throughout the entire year with the indoor component. Thank you.

And the online person.

Yes, Gary, I see your hand raised. Sending the unloot request. Please go ahead. You're unmuted.

Pardon me?

Okay. My name is Gary Chubb. Good evening, members of the City Council. I wanted to talk about some of the clarifications regarding the schedule. If you can bring up the slide that has the primary questions on it, but the vertex report offered some good questions in terms of our overall schedule. We are through design development. We have been waiting for the city council to authorize the start of construction documents. Rich D' Our overall plan in the big picture is going to deliver this facility in the summer of 2029 and what I mean by that is construction documents will take six to seven months. Rich D' will go through permitting will go through a 22 month construction build and deliver our first phase in the summer of 29 so some of the questions that vertex asked. Rich D' I want to clarify those they asked about. timing of construction documents. They questioned whether we had enough time to do that. They said six months is appropriate for a size of this project. We actually have a total of seven months for that timeline. So we have met the appropriate industry standard of care of this project. Another one of the questions was about pre-qualification. They asked that five days is not appropriate for a pre-qualification phase. To clarify that, we have much longer to pre-qualify the general contracts. The five days is what you have to do to advertise a project, but the pre-qualification of general contractors is gonna last six weeks. That's a point of clarity. They also asked about the public bidding phase, where there's not enough time to negotiate a contract.

Conventional- Sir, your time's elapsed.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker card, please.

I believe we already heard from George Dines, so the next speaker would be Rosario Arulapan.

Good evening, Mayor and Council, and city staff, and the Park Commission. So I've been attending the city meeting and the aquatic center meeting for the last four years and it's a 20 years dream project for the city and the people are waiting. It looks like we are in the same phase of discussion bringing the surland project again and again for discussion. It looks like it's become a dream project forever. And city is pretty much interested because last August 2025, we have five zero voted the same council to move forward with the group four and proceed with that. And again, I don't know why the Sutherland plan is coming to picture for the comparison. Whatever they showed in the risk management and the project design is not apple to apple comparison. The picture entirely giving a different idea to the public. And second thing in the risk management, is the incomplete data never included the delay made on 20 years and 10 million delays and 10 million pending and the delay on 2018 the ribbon cutting it's been eight years delay those delay never has been added into this if the project is given to surland whether it is going to be complete on time is going to be delay or the litigation is going to follow we don't know that so this kind of risk never has been measured there and why we are doing that kind of analysis i have no idea And I don't know why, who gave the name community plan. It's not a community plan. I am a resident of Tracy. I never gave a note. Nobody gave a note. It used to be a Sutherland plan. It's not a community plan. And Manteca, we already have an aquatic center. And Mountain Oaks is planning for an aquatic center. But Tracy is still lagging and lagging and lagging. Again, we are going for a discussion phase. We are supposed to enjoy the swimming pool currently, but it's been 20 years and it's becoming a dream. And I don't know how long it's going to be a dream. And bringing the satellite again, again, the picture, it's not going to no use of anything. Thank you. Thank you.

Next speaker card, please.

May I have those other speaker cards I received for this item?

Okay. All right. We'll go to the public. Anyone who'd like to start? You have two minutes.

Mayor, council, and park commissioners. 20 years, this is ridiculous. The whole city should be upset with this. First of all, I thought, was it a year or two ago that we, not this council, but the council voted on and approved the concept already. And the idea of calling it a community plan, like I said, I'm part of the community. I've never seen it. The first time I've seen that community plan is when A person in Ellis showed me a brochure that they got when they bought the home, that they're actively promoting it to sell homes. So this is a Surlin plan, and this is ridiculous. And then with the drawing up there, it didn't even have the pool that was the whole concept to begin with. This is what we wanted was an Olympic-sized pool for the kids to compete in. And so, like, as far as I'm concerned, this is ridiculous, you know. If we accept that other plan, they're saying it's 66 million. That's without the pool. What else is without? Because the last I heard, it was over $100 million. Now, I might be wrong, but I'm just saying that one plan was already approved. I think it was 70 million or something like that. And I think we should stick with that one. And plus, I don't know if it showed any parking facilities on that plan because there's going to be a lot of cars coming if they do have a competition pool for the competition and all that. And there's no parking on Corral Hollow or in the community area. So is there, have they even thought about having a parking area? That's another thought I have. But thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Good evening, commissioners and council. My name is Dr. Sean Powell. I'm a resident in Tracy. I wanted to share that as a community member, we have been looking forward to an aquatic center for quite some time. As a transplant to this area, it was one of the things that bought me and my young family here. The plan is, the concept is something that's been in discussion for over the last 20 years. And we understand that the region has changed. We've got the Great Wolf Lodge and things like that. And so we don't necessarily need a Raging Waters, but I do believe that it is imperative that we have a recreational aquatic center for our young people and that that center is accessible to all young people despite what their social economic status might might be. One of the things that I heard tonight that created a little bit of concern for me is that though the plan has been in place for about 20 years, there wasn't a lot of information on what currently exists. Just about 45 minutes from here in a small city very similar to ours called Newark, California, The city operates an aquatic center that is municipal and really meets the needs that I see outlined in our plan. I really think it would behoove us to look at practices that already exist. Sometimes there's a lot of learning that we can get from that. That would really help us to move this project forward because at the end of the day, it's our children and our community that are being impacted by the lack of movement forward with this project. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Good evening. My name is Dr. Leah Austin, and I've been a Tracy resident for 20 years. I'm the parent of two adults in their 30s, two teenagers, and the grandparent of two young children. Our family is also part of the Tracy Triton Swim Club, where I currently serve on the board. My perspective tonight is shaped by all of these experiences, as well as the past decade in which I've had opportunities to provide input in various forms into what's now the community plan. It's really time for council to move forward and meet Tracy's aquatic needs of today and into the future, not for yesterday. My youngest children will only be on the swim team for a few more years before moving on to the next phase of their lives, but hopefully my granddaughters will follow in their footsteps. And so, yes, I care about having a great practice and competition space, one that can attract top-tier events, in addition to serving our local team, which is bursting at the seams, or bursting at the lane lines, if you will, at Joe Wilson and the high school pools. And my interest goes beyond that. I care about Tracy building a space that supports our athletes and that my granddaughters and their parents can enjoy over the next 15 years and that maybe my teenagers will come back to someday return with their friends and perhaps one day their families. As a community, we deserve an aquatic center that's financially sound, that serves multiple community needs, that's a fun and top-notch destination, that supports our athletes to thrive, and meets the capacity demands of a growing Tracy. I really just implore the council, no more hemming and hawing. Let's move forward and build the full design of the community aquatic center, which does include that competition pool and space. Let's move that forward so we don't have another generation of parents appearing before the council only to say that their kids have grown while waiting for this center to finally come. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Rebecca McMilton and I've been a proud Tracy resident since 2017. While I currently serve as a board member for the Tracy Triton Swim Club, I am speaking tonight strictly as an individual resident and a parent who sees firsthand the impact of our city's aquatic infrastructure deficit. The Tritons have been a cornerstone of this community since 1965. Today, we have 300 school-aged swimmers, and our recent rapid growth highlights an undeniable demand for aquatics in Tracy. Unfortunately, our current infrastructure simply cannot keep up. We are right in the middle of our summer competitive season, yet our athletes are struggling just to get consistent pool time. The reality is that the few available pools in our city are in extremely high demand for multiple community groups. When you couple that scheduling congestion with aging facilities and sudden maintenance failures, it creates a constant bottleneck. Our kids are routinely losing their scheduled pool time, forcing us to call off practices and cancel meets. They're missing out on training, not from a lack of dedication, but because the water literally is not available. I know there is a debate tonight regarding which version of the aquatic center project to advance. I want to be entirely clear, either design option on the table tonight is fully acceptable. Whether the council chooses the full-scale regional design or the adjusted scale down blueprint, both paths successfully preserved the most critical feature, a competition grade 50 meter pool. Our kids don't need political perfection, they just need a reliable place to swim. I urge the council to approve a design and move this project to construction as quickly as possible. Please keep the promise of Measure V and invest in the future of our children. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Good evening, Council. I'm Mary Matrakos. When I graduated from Tracy High School, there were fewer than 10,000 people here, and we had one public pool. Today, there are 100,000 people here, and we have one public pool. I thought it was interesting to just hear group four say state they have an approved plan by this city council and somehow it's been a year since that happened And we are no further along. It is, it's amazing to me. I think there are some people around here who are just masterful at delay, delay, delay. I want to say that this facility is being built, the majority of the funds are Measure V funds. Measure V is, it is the people voted on it. We voted to tax ourselves because we want amenities. And what the people want is pools. And they want the pools for themselves because in order to have the same capacity that we had a long time ago, we'd have to build another four or five pools. So please, I'm asking you, just move forward in the speediest way possible and at that point it looks like it's, is it studio four? I don't know if I'm saying it right, if I'm saying it properly, but please just build some pools. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker please.

Pat Howell. I thought, like Mary, that this had been decided and that we were going to have our pools, but apparently that's not true. I'd like to remind people that there are other people in the community besides the swim clubs that would like to have a place to go and have a pool. I would like the part where they said that there'd be a toddler area so young mothers would have a place to bring their children. I like the part where they said that they would have facilities for birthday parties for young children, which would bring in revenue. I don't understand why we're here tonight. I thought this was decided. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Good evening, Mayor and Council and Commissioners. Commissioner, you're correct. Back in 2019, we did accept the aquatic. But unfortunately, what a lot of people don't realize, the reason it's being delayed, delayed, delayed, is because Sutherland has taken this to court three times and sued us. And we're in the process of still, he's suing us. They still owe us money. Back in 2024, Council directed our staff with Architect Designs to come back because of them suing us. So we had to start over. They did that. We spent millions of dollars on this conceptual drawing, the city plan, our community plan, the true community, not Surland. It's not his. It's ours. It's our taxpayers money. We need to stop this. We approved it. All five of you council members, after giving direction to staff in 2024, April of 2025, you all adopted this. There's no reason why we're throwing over $100,000 to listen to this. There's no reason at all. Why? You all voted on it. It fits our plan. It's our budget. It fits for everybody. And at one time, Elisa Davis did suggest that to move it out because they'll keep suing us. That didn't happen. So now here we are again. Please stay on course. Mountain House, new city, already approved their aquatic center, their big parks, everything they have going. There is no reason at all that we need a pause. We need that shovel on the ground as soon as possible. This city deserves it. Stop playing politics. Stop playing favors to your friends. It's about the community that you all deserve. were voted in to serve. We need to stop this, please. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Hi, my name is Sam Serpa with the Serling Companies at 1024 North Central Avenue. I do want to correct some of the statements of the earlier speaker. With regards to prior litigation, Ms. Matrakos, who spoke earlier, did sue the city on our development agreement that we had with the city on a development issue. That development agreement included plans for the aquatic center in court when her attorney was asked if they want to limit the lawsuit to the real estate issues or just throw out the entire development agreement inclusive of the aquatics plans, the attorney said throw it all out. So that delayed us by a number of years. I also want to say that it's very important to us to be accommodating to families that are maybe more unfortunate than others. So the model includes 7,000 complimentary admissions. And what we're trying to do is provide enough revenue to get people in for free if they can. And so if someone decides to bring their own bottle of water instead of buying a bottle of water, that's cheaper for them. But if someone wants to buy a bottle of water, that's a dollar. And you can do six bottles of water and get someone in for free. And so if you want to provide more for other people, there's two options. You either create revenue. by giving people an option to buy something, or you take the existing tax base of the city and divert it and put it towards that. And so we're electing to say, give people options to pay for things so that we can afford to bring these less fortunate families in for free with less impact to the city and preserve the city's financial health. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

GOOD EVENING, TRACY CITY COUNCIL. THIS IS SANDY TAYLOR. I JUST WANT TO REMIND EVERYONE THE DECISION YOU'RE MAKING TONIGHT IS AN INVESTMENT IN OUR COMMUNITY. IT'S A HUGE INVESTMENT. And I will go back to Ann Langley, who is standing beside me tonight, reminding everyone on this council, the reason we have the Grand Theodore, the jewel of downtown, is because Ann believed that was an investment in our community. We've had this community plan before us for years, decades. So when people say, we've never seen the community plan, that is not true. Your aquatic center folks have fought for this project for decades. We were the ones, when Troy Brown asked for our support to go out and get Measure V passed, we were the only group in town that knocked on doors in all neighborhoods and asked people to support that tax for benefit of the community. The money has been spent on many other things. It's time now that you dedicate yourselves to the aquatic center that this community deserves. And I ask that you strongly consider the community plan as your priority. It has been the priority of this community for 20 years. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Evening Mayor, council members, commissioners and staff. Last time when I was up here, a plan was approved. It's called City Plan. The other plan was a developer's plan. The City Plan was between 55 and 65 million dollars. The developer plans was over 100 million dollars, so we approved the City Plan. Here we are today again discussing this. It's undeniable that both sides of the aisle want to pull. We all want to pull for our kids. We all want something for the city people to have a place to go to. But are we gonna build something so big that it's gonna cost so much to maintain that we're gonna have to raise the price of the tickets admitting to it? That we're gonna price our own citizens that they can't attend? Great that we do average pricing of the 15 market. Where did we do the average pricing? In the Bay Area? In Los Angeles? $23 a ticket? This poll is subsidized by taxpayers of Tracy. The people of Tracy pay for this poll part of it. Are we going to price us out? So I trust my mayor and my council and staff to adopt the plan that we can fit into our budget, the plan that it will not cost us millions of dollars to maintain down the road. Have we all thought of how much it will cost to insure this pool, to insure this facility down the road? Right now my house, when I bought my house, insurance was $700 a year. Now it's $4,000 a year. Have we thought of that? So the cost of maintaining will go up. What are we going to do then? We're going to ask for more bonds to pass? Are we going to ask for more tax to put in? So please, take the plan that doesn't cost us anything, that doesn't put us in debt. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Good evening. I was president of the Tritons when Joe Wilson Pool was used, was built. We came in and we demanded that it be made as a recreational and competition pool. We never used it. We're building a 50-meter pool that very few people will be able to use. It's five feet deep at the shallowest, 11 in the middle. Most people can't swim constantly in the pool. We're building a competition pool, but we're building a competition pool with 40 parking places. They have 300 members in their swim team. You bring in another couple swim teams, 40 parking places isn't going to do it. Drive by the high school when you see a competition going on and you'll see the entire parking lot. Let's build a competition pool that we can use. Let's move it from where it is. Let's build it in the area that we have a lot of space in where we can give the space that is needed for a competition pool. And let's build a couple other pools in a couple other areas. Trying to build a destination, a destination pool is 100 acres. It's not two water slides. I can go over to Brentwood and there's two water slides. I can go anywhere and there's two water slides. You're not building a destination. Don't fool yourself into thinking that. And then the other rooms that we're building for parties and everything, the city has places for that already and they have set fees. They're not going to be any cheaper there than they are anywhere else. Think about it. Think about everything that you're building. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Greetings. I'm admittedly not very knowledgeable about the subject. I just thought I'd come because I was here last week and nobody said anything about a city council meeting but that's neither here nor there. I would like to thank Councilmember Evans for INFORMING ME BECAUSE WHEN I READ THIS I HAD NO IDEA WHAT G4 COMMUNITY I WOULD HAVE IMAGINED COMMUNITY MEANT THAT WE ALL MADE IT BUT IT SEEMS THAT IT WASN'T THAT WAY. AND IT'S KIND OF AN OXYMORON TO ME COMMUNITY DESTINATION SO IS IT FOR US OR IS IT FOR OTHER PEOPLE WE WANT TO BRING HERE? I THINK IT'S JUST REALLY IMPERATIVE THAT WE FOCUS ON MAKING RESOURCES FOR OUR RESIDENTS BECAUSE THEY'RE VERY SLIM TO NONE RIGHT NOW. THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Hi, Mayor and Council Member. This is Ashish from Amritasi resident. And I have been constantly coming to these meetings, specifically to the Aquatics Centre. And it has been a couple of years since Though I'm new, the history is there, that 20 years delay and all those things. I am not part of this meeting, just came in. What I want to just communicate over here is that rather delaying and playing the delay tactics, let's go with the approved plan which was voted last time and get the poll out. Rather going between two plans and the two plans again will go in different phases and the cost will go up. So keep the cost control in the money what the city has and get the pool constructed. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please. Seeing none in chambers, do we have any online?

Yes, Mayor, four hands online.

Go ahead.

First speaker is Krishna Morukurti. Please accept the unmute request. You're unmuted. Please go ahead.

Hi, good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Krishna and I'm an resident. I have been attending these council meetings for the last four years and advocating for an aquatic center. And after years of discussions and delays, it's encouraging to see finally see some progress going on. Last year, we all know the Council unanimously approved moving forward with Group 4. Since then, additional time and resources have been invested in conducting an independent audit and comparing both proposals. I support moving forward with G4 plan. It provides an year-round indoor aquatic facility, competition and recreation pools, and a strong foundation for our community aquatic needs. Most importantly, the G4 plan allows the city to move forward with a phased approach, building the core facility now and adding future enhancements over the time as funds and demand support them. And residents have been waiting many years for this project and continuing to delay, it will only increase the costs and postpone the benefits to our families and children. So I respectfully ask council today to move forward with the direction already chosen and begin construction as soon as possible The community has waited long enough. Let's build a core facility now and expand it over the time. And finally, deliver the aquatic center that Tracy has been promised and waited a long time for that. Thank you. Thank you.

Next speaker is David Sangri. Please accept the unmute request. You're unmuted. Please go ahead.

Hello, this is David Sangre and I'm with Hotel and Leisure Advisors. I had the opportunity to address the council a few years ago when the discussion of the community plan was occurring at that time and I was under the impression at that time the community plan had been approved, but now you're at the status where you're trying to choose between two important plans. And I wanted to just briefly review that as part of the research for the community plan, the Surlin companies hired us to do a market feasibility study that involved researching and analyzing over 15 different municipal aquatic facilities throughout California to determine their pricing and profitability. And these aquatic centers can lose a lot of money, though there are a few that actually make a small amount of money. And the reason those make money is, yes, they may have some rack rates that are in the slightly higher price range, but most local citizens will have season passes. And those season passes allow them to use it for an unlimited number of times during the season for a certain price. The rack rates are for those people who just come once or twice a season. And the advantage of the community plan is that it offers a water park element along with a 50-meter pool. The 50-meter pool is great for swimmers, but many people are not really swimmers. They just enjoy water recreation. And when I review the Group 4 plan, it really doesn't have so much water recreation involved. that the community plan is a much better place for just people to have fun and enjoy themselves in the water as well as the 50 meter pool for swim meets. So in my opinion the community plan serves the greatest number of people in Tracy. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next speaker please.

Next speaker is Travis. Please accept the unmute request. You're unmuted. Please go ahead.

Hi, Travis Beckett of Tracy. A few things I wanted to bring up. First, I think the format's been a little difficult. It would have been nice to hear from both applicants, so to speak, to allow them to justify a little more. And cutting them short has done nobody in the community any justice. And I don't think we've taken much away from having them be at two minutes secondly um i you know we talk about all time and tracy people go to manteca people go elsewhere for entertainment values and and i think you know what we want in the theme park i support the community plan because it's something my children are excited about it's it's something that people would want to go to if you build another pool That's not a draw to this city. Why don't you ask your local business owners and your local hotel owners, your independents, what they would want? Would they want something to draw people in? Yes. Will that include Tracy residents? Absolutely. I'd also like to raise that in Concord for the Six Flags facility, a day ticket is $35 for that. A season pass is $65. I don't know if any of you have ever taken your children there. I have done so. And you will see people of every demographic. And it was very packed during a midweek sort of thing. So that's the difference between having a pool where people can jump in the side or having a theme park where actually people have a place to stay all day. and participate and yes, invest in our community. That's what this is about. And finally, we found the money for the multi-gen center, which we've mortgaged away. We're gonna be paying for the next 30 years for that 110 million, I believe. And also Legacy Fields, we found the money to complete it. So do the complete plans, do the theme park, Do the community design plans. That's what we've been talking about for 20 years. You brought it up yourself, Dan. 1988, this has been going on. I've lived in this community for less than 10 years, and I've heard about it.

So let's do the right thing and plan to move forward. Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Next speaker is Michael Shomer. Please accept the unmute request. You're unmuted. Please go ahead.

hi i'm mike schomer from wti we're the aquatics designer for the community plan we're also the designer of the aforementioned chico california municipal project and the great wolf lodge we've also done 150 projects in california the advantage of the community plan is first first of all the the the different demographics that we can serve all ages we have a zero depth entry for the toddlers we have a play structure that will do the younger children up to the you know tweeners we have the uh tower slide that will accommodate the more thrill-seeking guests of all of of the older ages And we also have the leisure pool with swimmable water and elite underwater benches for for leisure that that do complement the other amenities, such as the cabanas and the food service, we also incorporate in our design sustainability using. filter systems that use as little water as possible. We have variable frequency drives that control the amount of energy the plan will use. And we also have, as a part of the design, solar panels to help the sustainability of this project. Another advantage of our project is that the adjacencies, as Steve said earlier, the adjacency of the lap pool to the 50-meter pool, that is a very core adjacency we would want. But the adjacency between the zero-depth entry and the play structure, it's near the leisure pool, so when a parent is in the leisure pool, they can keep an eye on their kids in other places. And that is a very important aspect of our design. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Mayor, there are no additional hands on line.

Okay, last call, 90 seconds for any additional speakers. Has not spoken yet. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and close out the public comment portion for item four, excuse me, for this item, two-way. I will go ahead and turn it over to Chair Lieberg to facilitate discussion for commission, and we would request a consensus recommendation.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So we're not voting to clarify. We're providing input and trying to reach a consensus. So I will provide the opportunity. Commissioner Jimenez, input and your recommendation for consensus.

Thank you, Chair Leaver. I think we all on the Commission here understand the frustration we've heard this evening and from the citizens and also those not present. Certainly it's time to move along. My concern about the plan for a destination is we have the Wolf Park here, we have Manteca, we have several other areas that we would be competing against. So we would need in this plan to provide something that would be exceptional, something that would, if you go with this plan, would draw people here if they're to support this destination viewpoint. And my other concern also is the pricing. Although we've heard this evening the speakers talk about how they developed the pricing, certainly we want to keep that as low as possible. And I agree that since I've been on the Commission, the first item was for the Tritons. We needed that pool, that 50-meter pools for competition, and that has to be our priority concern, I think, is to fulfill that. I would suggest that we look at going towards, given that we know what these issues are, that we look at building the best possible facility we can, not only for our community, but one that would attract people in here so that our businesses, our restaurants, our hotels will benefit as well. So I'm looking at the community aspect would be my suggestion.

Thank you. Commissioner Fagan.

Would you be able to bring up that picture of the two facilities for me, please, real quick, as the two facilities side by side?

Yes. Channel 26, can you display the PowerPoint, please?

Yeah. This makes it very difficult for me to make a decision because you're showing me these pictures and one on the left has a pool and a wading pool and the other one, the community plan has everything, a 50-meter pool, a river float, and $165 million, $166.5 million. There's no comparison here. So...

Chair Lieberg, through the Chair, Commissioner Fagan, it's also a bit unfair in that it's not intended to give you, in this particular case, an actual visual of where they are design-wise now. It's only intended to give you sort of a rough visual recollection of where they were at a moment in time.

Okay. Okay, thank you. And my other point is, I've had family in Tracy since 1971. I've been coming here. I've lived here since 1990, okay? And I've been on Jefferson School Board, Tracy Unified School Board, this board. And I've learned something as a board member. You're never going to please everybody. I think someone in Tracy and this board and this commission, they have to weigh the consequences and the positives of these things, and they're going to have to make a decision. This has been going on way too long, okay? You're not going to please everybody. There's no way you can do that. What you do is you get all the information you can, and you make a decision to vote for what's best for the majority of the community, okay? That's what this council should be doing and our commission should be doing. Because wavering back and forth, trying to get more information, nothing's happening here. So we have a very concerned and a very patient community. And I think they've been more than patient. And this thing's been way overdrawn out. We need to make a decision one way or the other what you want to do. And if we need to start with a basic pool, and we have the property that we can expand to that later if we can. But right now, looking for the perfect pool for the perfect price and the perfect admission, it's not going to happen, okay? So just make a decision which you folks think is the best for the community, the majority of the community, that they're going to benefit. And let's give our community and our kids a pool and something to start with, okay? I really like the community plan. It's been here for 50 or 60 years, okay? It's already done. It's got the competition. It's got destination potentials on it. It's got everything you need in it, okay? And the other one, I'm sure, has a lot of things, too. But we need to get started, okay? And the community pool has been around for 50 years. The plans are there. The community's approved it. Let's get going, okay? Let's fire the gun, get out of the starting blocks, and let's start moving. If you have to cut it down to where it's a third of the price and start with a 50-meter pool or a wade pool or whatever you want to decide as council people because that's your decision, okay? But make a decision, okay? I'm here to make a decision to recommend to the council. And if it's right, I'm happy. If it's wrong, I can live with it because I'm making a decision I feel tonight is right for the community. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Fagan. Commissioner Arbogast. I just want to say both plans are good. But in talking to people in the community, we need to make sure two things I hear. Number one, that we have to be affordable. And number two, that I just want my kid to be able to go to a pool. And it's been too long. I've lived here since 1998. Too long. We should go with the plan that's already been approved. We should look at our budget and really stay within our means. And if we need to expand later, as we mentioned, we could do that. But for right now, we need to move on something. The majority of people I talk to in the community, that's what they want. They want something done now. They want something affordable, you know, to move on.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Abergast. This cost analysis tonight really focused on the cost. I think there is an intangible item that has not been discussed, and that is trust. You cannot put a value on trust. And I trust the city and the Parks and Rec staff. You know, they were given clear direction. Here is your budget. Build us an aquatic center within that budget. That is what the council directed, and that is what Group 4 did. The council also gave direction to Parks and Rec. Build a BMX pump track. They did that. Build the legacy fields. They did that. Build the track. They did that. If you give the direction to the Parks and Rec Department to build an aquatic center, they will do it. Surland. I do not trust Surland. Sirlin has had this project for 20 years. Okay. The council a year ago reached the same conclusion that Sirlin was not building the aquatic center. They owed eight to $10 million in court. They said the council will never get that. They're going to have to sue us. And you sued them for that money. And that's still going on. Sirlin refused or refused to turn the land over the 16 acres. They finally did. You accepted it. And then Sirlin sued you for accepting that land. Okay. Surland, not the community, Surland owns these plans, not the city. So even if you want to proceed with these Surland plans, you don't own them. You cannot proceed unless Surland turns them over to you. So I don't trust Surland. On that same topic, trust, Surland has built the Ellis community. They've promised the community a school. There's thousands of homes out there, thousands of children. There is no Ellis School yet. If it's important, they'll find a way. If it's not, they'll find an excuse. And Surland has provided excuse after excuses why this has not happened. There is no excuse with the City of Tracy and the Parks and Rec Department. You give them direction, they get it done. The best indicator of future performance is past performance. They've successfully built you projects. Okay. Trust them. Trust your staff. They will get it done. I am 100% favor of group four. One for community plan.

Am I understanding that correctly? I believe you are, yes. Okay. Thank you. All right. We will turn it over to council for discussion.

Mayor, I owe you two answers.

Then please respond accordingly.

First answer is $5 for Joe Wilson pool. Thank you. And the second answer is approximately $3 million to date on the plan development.

And thank you. Do we know what phase in the design process that we're at?

If we could allow the Group 4 representative to provide the exact answer, it would be better to provide than...

I'm thinking we're in the 90s, but just wanted clarification. Go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor. We have completed design development and will start construction documents, which we have budgeted to take seven months, including permit and plan check.

Perfect. Thank you so much. Thank you.

With that, Mayor, as it pleases the Council.

Thank you. Okay, we will turn to Council for discussion. And again, we too are not voting. We're merely trying to build consensus for an item that will come back next week. Council Member Bedoya.

I had a few questions that I had before I kind of heard the commission, you know, kind of, you know, air out their concerns and their consensus. But, you know, if either plan were to remain unchanged, can either plan support food options models like what we're trying to do at the multi-gen center, similar to the concerns that were brought up by, like, the swim team stakeholders? very succinctly get for the public. What was the last consensus or direction that was approved by, I guess, ultimately by this council? And I guess just so it's very, very clear, the plans that are currently under the category of community plan, are those ours to do with as a governing body? what we wish based on direction. I just need those three questions answered.

Through the Chair to Council Member Bedoya, as to the first, the business model that's deployed at any plan that's developed, it remains to be developed. That is to say that if we went with Group 4, for example, what amenities we provide, what food, what things we provide to the community is yet to be determined, right? We're really just talking about the amenities via slides, water, other things that are there. We can dial in those other aspects just like we can dial in the cost that we will charge someone to come in. Those are business model aspects. All that the audit was doing was saying their current concept is based on these ideas. And what they are saying is if you're going to proceed with this, you should really revisit the pricing because that is part of what is creating the deficit. That is all they are saying, right? As to the... Can I just clarify?

I guess I meant more like how at the track, how we had discussed allowing, for lack of better words, like food trucks kind of set up shop in certain areas where it's like...

I believe that that was one of the concepts that had been presented by Group 4 in one of their design elements. They were going to have a food truck area and invite food trucks in. But that's a very specific concept to something they had presented to council.

Okay.

The third question I remember, if you'll have to remind me now that I've gotten distracted, but the, go ahead.

Plan ownership and then I guess what was the last direction from this point?

Yeah, so I'll start with the last direction. The last direction for council was to continue to proceed with the development of the designs, which they have. So we are actually scheduled to come back to council next week with the presentation of the design development and the next step in proceeding with that. So if the council were to decide to continue to proceed with the group four, which there's no reason, there's no indication that that is not the case, at next week's meeting, that is what we will be doing. That is actually scheduled to come back to you next Tuesday. In terms of ownership, We have a limited license to review the community plans. We were given limited authority to accept and provide these to the vertex group for review. That is all we have. We do not have license to produce or to continue to control or construct these particular plan sets.

Okay. So if the decision was made to go with what's called the community plan and those construction documents in that process, THERE'S A WHOLE OTHER STEP OF HOW DO WE ACQUIRE THOSE?

THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. YOU KNOW, I WANT TO HEAR COUNCIL OUT. RIGHT NOW I'M MORE INCLINED TO GO WITH I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY. IN MY OPINION, I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE ONCE YOU DELVE INTO THE AGENDA, GENERALLY REACH THE SAME CONCLUSION. THE TERMS COMMUNITY PLAN AND CITY PLAN, I HOPE THAT AS WE CONTINUE TO DISCUSS THIS, THE non-neutral framing is kind of uh done away with and maybe we use more technical terms um i know at one point you know the the city plan gets called the group four plan but the community plan because it sounds really nice you know the community right it gets called the community plan um i personally don't think that those are neutral terms um right now i'm more inclined to support really whatever elements both have that are in common. That's why I asked the question during clarifying questions. And then I think I heard it before, kind of like, what do the plans have in common that we could move in tandem with? Because ultimately, what I feel is my responsibility is just to get something built as quick as possible that serves the greatest amount of people. And what I've always been a voice up here saying is to keep the costs, something affordable, something that you're not going to just use once a season, something that you can maybe, if you really want to, once a week, once twice a week, just kind of like Joe Wilson pool. I JUST HOPE WE CAN DECIDE SOMETHING SOON. YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO HEAR COUNSEL.

NEW SPEAKER. SORRY, COUNSEL, WHICH ONE WERE YOU LEANING TOWARDS? NEW SPEAKER.

I GUESS I WANT TO MAKE MY FINAL DECISION ONCE KIND OF I WANT TO SEE IF WE CAN REACH CONSENSUS AS A COUNCIL. But ultimately, I think the plans that we've invested into as a council, the Group 4 plan, right now do a good job representing what the community needs are. I want to hear what council says, but right now I'm more inclined to support what's being labeled as the city plan. Thank you. Mayor Pro Tem.

Thank you, Mayor. My biggest concern has always been I don't want us to have a to subsidize whatever plan we went with because we're subsidizing the grand theater, we're subsidizing track. We just had a discussion recently about how do we find enough funds to pay for a fire station and a police station and we were short. So that's my biggest, I don't have a dog in the fight on which one. My biggest concern is how do we make sure that we can afford whatever we put in there and that we can have our community members go to it. And I appreciate both people saying that there's flexibility on the entry fee and that we may be able to recoup some of our costs, but that's where I'm at, is I don't want us to get into a situation where now we're spending a couple million dollars every year to cover this pool, and that's going to deprive us of other facilities that we may need. So I'm really kind of open right now to seeing how we can achieve that.

Can I just be clear? Because I heard, in my mind, I heard a lot of what I said very much rang true with what I heard from Mayor Pro Tem where it's like I'm looking for the best possible solution for this body, you know, if there's a fusion. But right now I'm very much in line with that.

Mayor Bertin, is there any either that you're leaning towards at this point?

Okay.

Council Member Evans.

Thank you, Mayor. First of all, I just want to thank staff and our consultants for all the hard work you put into this analysis and bringing it forward and presenting it. I also want to thank the public as always for coming out and speaking up. Your words are invaluable on this topic and Parks and Recs Commission, this is a really great format. Love having you guys here. Your recommendation holds weight, so thank you. Said this before, I'll be a broken record once again. I'm so ready to move forward with this and break ties with the past. I'm ready and we can do it tonight. We can move forward and kind of make that dividing line tonight. When you take a look at both of these things, you know, cities aren't in the business. Cities shouldn't be in business of trying to turn a profit, trying to build a business, trying to build what many are calling a theme park. This is not what cities do. Sure, some try it to varying degrees and almost always unsuccessful on the profitability side. If these built on themselves and allowed you to build things and bring revenue into your community, everybody would be doing it. But they're not because it doesn't work that way. Tremendous risks come with something like this. And Even if you see a potential upside, this isn't what cities and governments are good at doing. You know, if private enterprise wants to come build a theme park or a destination water park, I think they should do it. I would welcome that in our city. um sirlin's a developer and a savvy developer you guys are very interested in this plan excited about it i can see that but i would recommend that you know use your revenue your dollars to build it it shouldn't be built in tax dollars and if you did if you chose to do so i would i would absolutely love to see you turn a major profit on it that's what businesses do that's that's what they're there for and you guys are good at doing it so I don't recommend that the city get in that business. I do recommend that we move forward. I recommend that we break ties with any of the past on this. Move forward with the city plan. We've made a decision before. We've moved ahead. We've spent millions. We've made a lot of progress. We're ready to go to construction drawings. That's a very exciting point. If we can just move forward to construction drawings and kind of stop having a foot in both ponds, our city is going to be much happier with us. Our constituents are going to breathe a sigh of relief just because we've been talking about this for so long. And, you know, there used to be this band I wanted to see as a kid, but I wanted to see the original lineup. And that original lineup, they just couldn't get their act together and make this thing happen for decades. By the time they got back together, I had no interest in seeing them again. I think that's where our community is at right now. They've lost faith. They're tired of it. And so we've got a plan. This works. It's got the competition pool. As Councilmember Nygaard mentioned, I'm open to alternative locations. I'm not stuck with this location. It comes with its downsides. but I really highly recommend we move forward with the city design. And if there are alternatives, it sounds like staff has some ideas. I would want to be sure that whatever we design is able to be moved to that location. You know, I don't want to get into construction drawings and find out that, you know, what now becomes plan A requires, you know, delays in design. For me, I want no further delays, like zero. Like I want us to streamline this thing and get it done. 2029, that's a long ways off still. But when we say 2029, my experience here has been that really means like 2032 or 2034, somewhere down the line, way out there. We could have this thing built, have kids swimming in the pool, have competitions happening by summer of 2029. I'VE DONE SOMETHING WHILE I'VE BEEN UP HERE FOR THREE AND A HALF YEARS, AND I'LL JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT. SO THAT'S MY RECOMMENDATION. WE'VE GOT A RECOMMENDATION FROM OUR COMMISSION. YOU KNOW, YOU GUYS HAD A LOT OF GOOD POINTS. WE'VE HAD DELIBERATION. WE'VE HAD A MEETING OF THE MINDS, AND I'M READY TO MAKE A MEETING OF THE MINDS WITH THIS COUNCIL AND MOVE THIS FORWARD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN NIGARD.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. I did one clarifying question. I did hear the word solar. So I did read over under operational costs that there is a lot of mechanical investment to really offset a lot of the energy costs, and I believe that was under the community plan. Is that correct?

I believe both plans have an investment in solar. I know for a fact that the Group 4 plan, which was done at the direction of council, has a significant amount of solar because it was a sustainability is a huge driving component. Right.

I meant for not just, yes, I heard solar, but I'm talking about now more of the investment of all the mechanical components. mechanical infrastructure.

Yes.

So was that correct to hear that or that I read that the community plan had more investment in energy efficiency?

They did, yes. Okay. In the finding of the audit.

Because, yes, I am extremely very fiscally responsible and looking at how do we have, you know, cost savings and more return on our investment. It concerns me, you know, to have a plan that is going to be highly subsidized by the city. I did hear, you know, that there is flexibility in the pricing. I'd really like to see, you know, what that would look like if there is flexibility because, yes, I do want to make sure that our community is able to enjoy this amenity. And that there, yeah, I'm torn, but yes, too, yes, we've had this out here for decades. But we've had an investment from the beginning, and the plans had been drawn up originally, and past council did approve the original design years and years and years ago. And that is a commitment that we had for this city. I'm leaning towards the community plan for the fact that it does have more return on the investment and less and more cost savings to the community and not a subsidized amenity for future years, because we have our Measure V, sundowning in 10 years. You know, what happens when that funding is no longer available? Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Councilmember. Can we get some clarification from staff to the best of your knowledge? So I kind of asked it earlier about the number of employees, but I think specifically, do we have an assessment about the long-term operational costs? MY UNDERSTANDING WOULD BE WITH FEWER EMPLOYEES, USUALLY LABOR TAKES UP THE VAST MAJORITY OF OUR OPERATIONS. BECAUSE AT SOME POINT, MEASURE V WILL END, AND THEN WE WILL HAVE TO TAKE ON THE COST. AND WHETHER IT'S MORE OR LESS SUBSIDIZED MODEL, THERE'S GOING TO BE AN OPERATIONAL COST. CAN YOU GIVE US A BETTER EVALUATION OR HIGHLIGHT the long-term operational cost between the two.

Mayor, I could go to the specific slide where they had the one to year five comparison. In this slide from operational feasibility, but otherwise I'd have to jump into the information that was provided, the operational information that was provided in the drives and try to look at what they were looking at from a staffing perspective, or ask the two teams in terms of their modeling what they provided.

Can you just kind of describe this slide? What does it look like long term?

Yes.

I'll have to go to the longer report. One second.

Remind me if I forget. Or if it would be easier, we could ask the two parties.

It might be quicker if we ask the two parties about what they've included from a staffing perspective in their operating analysis.

Do the two parties have an easy answer for us? or if they could point us to where the answer is.

Good evening, Mayor, Council, Commissioners. George Dynas with Councilman Hunsaker. So our operating model for the aquatic facility included both full and part-time staff on a year-round basis, expanded hours in the summertime, and then more leaner hours throughout the year. Just seasonal summer recreation does demand higher than that, but we worked with staff to determine the proper number of full-time employees as well as part-time employees, primarily front desk staff, lifeguards, maintenance, and pool managers for that.

Okay, then do you have a cost for what that would be annually in the long term?

It would take me a minute to get those exact costs to come up. We definitely see that as the facility matures over time that you see a higher level of cost recovery as the facility continues in operation, growth of programs, things like that.

Do I think that'd be very helpful for us? Because essentially it's very important that we have the numbers for cost recovery for annual operations. And then I'll be asking another question about ticket costs in a minute. But if you could locate that for us, that'd be great. If you could sit and then I'll ask the other side if they have a quick answer for us.

Good evening again. Amber with Profund. We did create line labor schedules that modeled out a typical operating day, whether it was a summertime day with water park operating or just a wintertime fall day with the swim center. We modeled out line labor needs as well as full-time and professional part-time. So we have 10 full-time year-round staffers identified. We have six professional level part-time staffers, meaning like five to six months a year. And then we have the line labor schedules for the frontline staff. This is an area of expertise that we have, controlling cost. Labor is the number one cost. It's also one of the number one factors to a positive experience and safety. We have three different models. I can give you details, but I don't know if you want me to look at all three and give you the labor costs specifically.

I'd like to know what the kind of long-term labor costs we'd be looking at.

Sorry, one moment. Our models are very robust, and so there's a lot of information in here. So our labor costs, for example, on what we're referring to as the comparable build, are you familiar with our?

Yes.

Okay. So with the comparable build, our labor costs, one moment, please, and this will include burden, assume burdens for taxes, insurance, et cetera? True.

It just took me a minute to get there.

I feel like I need a drum roll, guys. I'm almost there, sorry. Our total wages with burden on the first year is 1.75. Okay, and then like... We do a 3% year-over-year increase for assumed...

Okay, so we had looked at... Our original site had year one and then year five. Do you have the year five for us?

One... For year five, that would become 1.96.

Okay, is that just labor or is that total operations?

That's labor with all associated burdens.

Okay, so year one.

Not maintenance or other operating costs.

It's just benefits, so labor plus bennies, right?

Okay, thank you. And if the other side has an answer.

Mayor, council, commissioners, within our model in year one, we had a total personnel cost of $1.413 million. And that was personnel cost within operations that included four full-time and essentially broke out to about 17 full-time equivalents by the time you count all of the hours from all of your part-time personnel within the operation.

Sorry, so that's four full-time and 17 part-time?

17 full-time equivalents. So that could be 100... plus part-time employees that the total number of hours that they work is the equivalent of 17 full-time employees. And that's a typical way that municipal parks and recreation would look at their bulk of their part-time employees is to look at it in terms of full-time equivalents.

Okay, and that's year one. What about year five?

Year five, we have for personnel, we actually have a very similar type of escalatory factor that 2.5 to three point or to 3% for personnel costs. So that would be the 1.4 million. And so that takes it up to about 1.65 million. 1.7 right in that general range.

Thank you. Okay, so back to staff. So ultimately we're seeing a comparison of in year one with the community slash Surlin plan at 1.75 going to 1.96 in year five. and with the city plan slash group four plan beginning at 1.413 and 1.65 at year five. However, there's a really big distinction that I wanted to highlight and the difference between having 10 full-time and six part-time versus four full-time and potentially 100 part-time is a huge operational difference. Can you quantify for us what that would look like in kind of budget costs. My concern is what this looks like for labor because essentially if we're having my understanding for part-time is they're not going to be accruing some benefits that are more costly to the city. Have you evaluated that? Has Vertex analyzed that? Can you give us a little more information?

No, Mayor, because we weren't asked to do that type of a dive on the individual plans on the staffing analysis. We were just asked to do it at a high level up to this point. But to your point, it does have an impact. That impact has a waterfall effect as well in terms of the number of employees that you employ and their fully burdened costs. is an ongoing burden to the city, right? That impact doesn't end the day they leave the city. It goes on in perpetuity for the city versus the number of small part-time employees who are not necessarily carrying benefits in the long term.

So would it be, can I assume that having fewer employees but more full-time employees would be more expensive for operational costs than having fewer full-time employees and many more part-time employees?

It could be, yes. But it all depends on whether they are in fact city employees or private employees. It depends on the type of benefits they're receiving. Yes.

Well, I wouldn't be interested in a private operator.

Well, then the answer would be yes.

Okay. with regards to the price point ticket costs. So we've heard from Sirland that there is some flexibility as Mayor Pro Tem highlighted. But what I did hear was that the model has a particular designated number of complimentary tickets. Is there a way in which the Sirland community plan Is there a way that that model can change from having a certain number of complimentary tickets to having tickets that are comparable in price to the city plan?

Yes, the business model will be under our control. It's our park.

Okay, so there is a pathway forward in which both plans could be the same price.

Yes, it'll be our choice what business operational model we deploy. The issue that's raised by Vertex is what we deploy has an effect on whether or not we subsidize the park. That's really the downstream effect. We have to take into account how we adjust operations can have an impact on whether or not we will be subsidizing something. So where we change an input can affect the output. Understood.

So for me, there are, I believe that if we go to slide four, So at complete build out, because again, we're not building just for today. We are building for the future. And at some point it was said that we can move around the phasing to prioritize which amenities we would like to build first. I would only be supporting a project that prioritized the competition pool. That's what we promised forever. So no matter what we go with in phase one, that must be there. However, at full build out from the two plans, it does look like the community plan has more. So with regards to the cost, they are very similar within 1.6 million of each other, but we get more bang for our buck with the community plan. That being said, I have two big long-term concerns, one of which is our labor costs. AND IT DOES LOOK LIKE GIVEN THE BUSINESS MODEL THAT THE GROUP FOUR PLAN MAY BE CHEAPER IN THE LONG TERM BECAUSE OF LABOR COSTS. AND THEN FINALLY, MY OTHER CONCERN IS ON TICKET PRICING. WE HAVE A JOE WILSON POOL THAT IS AT $5 BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE KNOW OUR COMMUNITY CAN AFFORD. AND I HAVE HUGE CONCERNS WITH TICKET PRICES BEING UPWARDS OF 24 TO $25. I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF THE COMMUNITY PLAN IF WE COULD GET TO THE LOWER COST THAT IS LESS THAN $10 WITH THE COMPETITION POOL BEING IN THE FIRST PHASE. BUT THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M AT. BUT I WOULD LIKE STAFF PARTICULARLY FOR OUR HR DEPARTMENT TO EVALUATE THAT BETWEEN THE TWO BECAUSE THAT WOULD MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE IN THE LONG TERM. WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO SUSTAIN THIS PARTICULAR AMENITY FOR JUST AS LONG AS THE GRAND THEATER, FOR 100 YEARS. AND IT DOES, THAT DOES NEED TO BE DONE, AND I WAS HOPING THAT THAT WOULD BE DONE WITHIN THE VERTEX ANALYSIS, SO I'M A LITTLE DISAPPOINTED THAT IT WASN'T. WITH THAT BEING SAID, I'M LEANING TOWARDS THE COMMUNITY PLAN BECAUSE WE GET MORE amenities for our cost if it can get us to the same entry point as the Group 4 plan. So I think that leaves us somewhat divided. I'm going to turn it back over to Mayor Pro Tem if you have any additional, nothing. Oh, my apologies. Council Member Bedoya did ask if he could go back.

Thank you. Okay. I had a quick question after I kind of heard more Council discussion. I just want to succinctly wrap up, you know, what I believe. I very much respect what the Commission decided, and if there was support to move forward with the Commission recommendation today, and, you know, Council gave me the green light, I would gladly either make or support that motion. I'm just concerned about next week's Council meeting where we had planned to review what Council had decided on. Can staff answer whoever's the appropriate party? I hear the arguments, you know, I hear the argument or the question argument, you know, that looks like there's more bang for our buck in the community plan. Is there a version of the group floor plan that doesn't have the white shading and like the, at least in the center mass of the, oh, I'm looking at a slide that up here. When I see that slide, like that, what's shaded white right there, that is part of the plan, right? That's the outside pool. It just, that's the, I heard it's the indoor pool, the natatorium. I guess I'm just, the more and more that I look at this, like bird's eye view, it could look like there's more in the community plan. Could I get staffs or the appropriate parties just opinion on that and I know and I say this knowing that the plan was to delve in further into the plan next week and right now we were supposed to just kind of stay on the audit but we've all kind of.

Two reminders. You are reviewing and discussing the results of the audit and in reviewing and discussing the results of the audit you are you know coming down on essentially where you sit on the two plans which you are doing now and you are getting there consensus wise. You can't necessarily have a discussion about an item that's coming up next week.

No, I know.

And at that time, you actually will have an opportunity to discuss this very issue on Tuesday, right? Because you will have an opportunity to see that design. And also at that time, if as a result of this item, you decide to do something else, that is probably the right time to do it, but you will at least have had the opportunity to actually see the design development schematics. that these are not. This is a much earlier rendition.

Everything you said, does that still hold if council was to decide to not go with the commission recommendation and go with

There's no, go ahead. So I'm so sorry to interrupt. David Nafusi, city attorney. So the motion and direction previously from council was twofold, was first to conduct the audit and present the findings and results, which is what we're doing this evening, but also to continue to move forward with the G4 plan, which is why that is coming next week. So there's no action you all could take this evening that would prohibit that from happening, set aside from we need further time to work on the presentation. So that's what's going on tonight. We are presenting the findings as you all requested, and if there's a consensus, we can consider that. But at this point in time, the last council action, as you recall, asking Council Member Bedoya, was twofold. So at this point, staff is prepared to bring back, consistent with council motion and direction, the G4 presentation next week. Okay, all right.

If I may, through the chair of the city attorney, they could provide me direction to return at a later date with some other item. as a result of this discussion.

That is correct. You can ask for some more information, whether it's to get further analysis done by the auditor, Vertex, and or from, you know, to work with, you know, both sides to get some further questions answered as well, if that's the consensus. And, you know, I heard also a lot of looking at, you know, other opportunities and options as well. So, I mean, again, it was a clear-cut dual-track approach, so we can still move forward with one while looking into the other.

So to the Mayor's line of questioning and his train of thought, What I heard him say was I'd be interested in hearing, getting more information from our HR as it relates to the impacts of staffing and.

I think it's imperative that as we move forward, we take consideration of the long term costs as it relates to staffing, labor and operational costs. And I was hoping that we would get that through this particular assessment. So if we can get that next week, It really is imperative for how we will proceed.

I do not know if I could have that in time for that same item, and that's not an equivalent item. It would have to be a separate item that I would have to agendize and bring to have that specific discussion. But by motion, the council could ask that I do that. is what I was getting to. The Council could by motion ask me to bring that as it relates to the findings of this audit as a follow-up. By motion, the Council could say that we are by consensus in support of a particular set of designs as a result of this audit. by motion you could direct me to schedule an agenda, a new agenda item related to one of these design sets. But you can't pick one of them tonight.

Understood. And then secondly, can we provide, if there is consensus, to ask both sides regarding is there a phased approach that includes the competition pool in both?

Yes.

And thirdly, How is there a, it is very clear that Vertex says these are both viable plans, but can we see what the model looks like such that ticket pricing is less than $10? Can we ask those questions?

The short answer is yes, but that will probably take longer than the two weeks we have before you go on council break. To model that out and to think about what phasing looks like and the question would then be which plan?

Understood.

Oh, sorry. That would conclude my questions. The only questions I would have further is if, like, kind of what would be our approach. I would be hesitant to support anything that would delay the 16th hearing. Yeah. Like, I hear the At least this is my perception. I hear the want from a lot to kind of meet somewhere in the middle. I would just hate to further delay with, I would hate to further delay, yeah.

Okay. I'm not sure that council has finalized a consensus, unfortunately. Has anything changed, Mayor Patem?

I do, I mean, looking at it this way, I do like to- I don't know if your mic's on.

LOOKING AT THESE, I DO, YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT ABOUT THE MORE BANG FOR THE BUCK, BUT I THINK YOUR QUESTIONS ALSO ABOUT THE OPERATIONAL CARS ARE HUGE. AS I SAID, THAT'S MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS HOW DO WE MOVE FORWARD FROM YEAR AFTER YEAR WITHOUT BURDENING THE CITY WITH A SUBSIDY? AND IF WE CAN GET THERE, BUT AS ALSO HAS BEEN POINTED OUT, WE NEED TO ALLOW OUR CITIZENS TO ATTEND. it can't be at 25 bucks. Right. Right. So that's, that's where I'm, that's where I'm having a problem is because I, I like both parties, but I mean, there's benefits to both. I understand group four was, you know, given the thing of, Hey, there's going to be a 70% subsidy. So they planned it that way. And Serlin was given a plan of, you know, we want to try to, have full cost recovery. So we kind of sent two different messages out there to these two groups. So that's where I'm in a quandary. But when I look at this and the years that I've been associated with it, I do like the community aspect of it if I was going to pick the two.

Going back to the designs, is there an indoor pool in Surlin's plan?

Through the chair of Council Member Evans, no.

Was that one of the community's top requests? It was one of the top requests. It's not even included. It's like the top three. So we're talking about, I'm being asked to decide to one, delay the project further. Number two, not include one of the top items. When you look at the plan, yeah, the plan on the right, It was really well drafted. It's beautiful. The one on the left, no offense to consultants or whoever drew it. It's not quite as exciting. There's a reason for that. But bottom line is the white box represents something very important to the community. Doesn't look great on paper. But we're honestly considering taking out one of the top items they asked for because the drawing looks better. That's what I'm feeling right now. And we're talking about further delaying this and going back to business with a party that's suing us and us suing them. I just want to be clear. That's the decision that I'm hearing. And I'm stunned that we're even talking about it. Sorry. I appreciate council's deliberation here, but I mean, I'm not going to be convinced to change my vote on this. I'm I'm on solid ground here and council do what it needs to do, but I don't understand it. Sure.

Well, I think without any consensus to change, we'd be moving forward as we are for next week. But I would ask that to the best of staff's ability, particularly when it comes to our HR and the assessment of those labor and operational costs, that would be very prudent for a future discussion. Okay. So without any change, we'll be moving forward with next week or the next meeting.

It is on the agenda. Yes, sir.

Okay. And then so with that, we can move to simply receive the results.

Make a motion to...

So Mr. Mayor, point of context, I think we need to approve it first or receive it first before you do.

Okay.

Yes, please. Okay. Turn it back over to Chair Lieberg. Can I get a motion to approve or to accept the audit?

Motion to approve.

Is there a motion to accept?

Can you repeat the motion, please?

I don't understand. Yeah, so the motion put forward is a motion to receive the results of the comparison between the two aquatic center design sets, one, the community plan, and two, the city plan. We're just accepting the audit is the entire motion.

Okay.

Is that a second? Yeah. Okay, so first by Commissioner Arbogast, second by Commissioner Fagan. Can I get a roll call, please?

Commissioner Arbogast?

Yes.

Commissioner Fagan?

Yes.

Commissioner Jimenez? Yes. And Chair Lieberg?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Chair Lieberg. All right. With counsel, I'll entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion to accept the report.

I'll second.

We have first and second. Roll call, please.

Mayor Pro Tem Abercrombie?

Yes.

Council Member Nygaard? Yes. Council Member Ridogoya?

Yes.

Council Member Evans?

Yes.

Mayor Areola?

Yes.

Thank you.

All right. So we'll look forward to having continued discussion at the next meeting or the next, is it the next meeting? What date is that? So the community knows?

June 16th, Mayor.

June 16th. Thank you. All right. With that, we will go ahead and excuse our Parks Commission.

So I believe we need another motion. Motion to adjourn, Mr. Arbogast? Motion to adjourn.

I'll second.

Can we get a roll call, please?

Commissioner Arbogast?

Yes.

Commissioner Fagan? I'm in. Commissioner Jimenez? Yes. And Chair Liebert?

Yes. All right. I just want to say thank you to our Parks and Community Services Commission for joining us. The council will be continuing with just a couple more items, but we'll go ahead and take a quick five-minute recess.

Thank you.

All right, good evening, everyone. We're returning back from our recess. We already concluded item three, which is the adjournment of our Parks and Community Services Commission. Now that brings us to item 4A, which is an update on the new police upstation. Staff report, please.

Can I get the presentation, please? All right, good evening, mayor and council members. Tonight, we're gonna be talking about two different conceptual designs before you, the transit maintenance facility and the police substation conceptual design. so tonight we're going to be looking at something that is not a fully designed facility these are just conceptual ideas so that we can move forward onto the next phase of the process which is going to be doing environmental work and the reason why we're talking about conceptual ideas is because we want to try to include as many potential uses as we can so that so that when the environmental is done that we can analyze all of those potential uses even ones that we know aren't going to be put in immediately but maybe future uses as well so that way when we do move forward for that the environmental work is already done So as you know, for both the bus maintenance facility and the PD substation, there is a need for that in this community. For the bus maintenance facility, we have a need for a permanent maintenance facility for administrative functions, driver training, bus storage, equipment servicing, fueling and operations, and to allow for future growth. And for the police substation, it's going to enhance public safety operations by decentralizing the police services, strengthening the department's presence within the community, and allowing for future growth as well. So for context, here is the overall site that we're talking about. Back in January of this year, we presented a site selection analysis to council and you approved the recommendation to move forward with the property on Schulte Road for development of future city facilities. This site here shows a potential layout on how things could be structured. Right now, we are working in collaboration with Valley Link to ultimately end up realigning the two parcels on that property. So it's more or less following the gas pipeline that runs along that property. And so the northern half would be the cities, the southern half would be Valley Links, roughly about 100 acres each. But as you can see, there's plenty of room for future growth from the city side on that. Here's a overall layout of these two different sites. We have a police substation which would take up approximately five acres and the bus maintenance site which would take up approximately 20 acres. As mentioned previously, these again are just concepts. We're trying to lay out as many potential future uses as possible for the environmental analysis which will be coming afterwards. Focusing first on the bus maintenance facility, uh we're looking at installing a maintenance building some large and small bus parking and a bus wash in addition to an administrative building municipal storage for landscaping other maintenance that are non-bus vehicle maintenance that would need to take place on that site and other places throughout tracy and then additional parking as well for people who are visiting and for staff There is a lot of varying fuel options that we would be putting in here, the highlight of which is electrical vehicle charging. We do have a mandate to convert our vehicles to zero emission vehicles by 2041. Right now we are focusing on battery electric buses, but we do want to include hydrogen as a fueling option as that technology continues to develop. So we are creating a space for that, although that would not be developed initially. And in the meantime, we have to transition between what we currently have to a zero emission. So there still is a need for diesel and gas fueling to be on site as well. We then have required stormwater retention ponds on the site to help divert the water before it goes on into a nearby storage basin. And then lastly, we are looking to try to be as self-sufficient as possible. So we're looking to include a solar panel farm, potentially a wind turbine, and then another bus training area. But as this site is going to require a lot of electricity, we do want to try to make space for as much generation of that electricity ourselves as possible without having to rely on PG&E. So again, this kind of takes us back to the overview of the site for the bus maintenance facility. Moving on to the police substation. Again, this is a five-acre parcel that we're looking at using, and this is going to include current need as well as room for future growth. In this slide here, kind of the lighter blue area in the center would be the main administration building with room to expand in the future for additional office space as needed. It would have an outdoor multi-use space and then a potential future expansion for a communications center. There would also be room to add a police evidence storage area, which currently the city does not have. They lease out space for that currently, but this could be the city's own larger facility that they could use to house all of their evidence, as well as providing public access to it as well. Within the facility itself, there would be some covered parking for the police vehicles, plenty of motorcycle pass-through covered parking, and as well, utility vehicle pass-through covered parking. This is required to also have stormwater retention on site as well, and so there's an area that is developed for that. This just takes us back to the overall, again, site concept for the police substation. We have a couple of areas here where we're showing what potential traffic flow could look like between the two sites, both entering on and off of Schulte and how we could potentially get in and out of there. THIS LAST SLIDE HERE IS POTENTIAL COST ESTIMATES. RIGHT NOW IT'S ESTIMATED THAT AS SHOWN IN THE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY, IT'S A LITTLE OVER $20 MILLION FOR THE POLICE SUBSTATION AND IT'S LOOKING AT ABOUT CLOSE TO $90 MILLION FOR THE FULL BUILDOUT OF THE BUS MAINTENANCE FACILITY. Again, we're not focusing on the cost here. This is just to kind of give you a rough order of magnitude right now. These aren't fully vetted designs. There's a lot of things that can be done to manipulate some of these figures in the future. The next steps, we have some current things that are coming up.