Agenda packet — Gilroy City Council, April 6, 2026 (part 1 of 5)

April 6, 2026 | 6:00 PM Page 1 of 7 City Council
Regular Meeting

CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA

CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
7351 ROSANNA STREET, GILROY, CA
95020
AMENDED AGENDA – ADDED ITEM 7.1
MONDAY, APRIL 6, 2026 | 6:00 PM
MAYOR
Greg Bozzo

COUNCIL MEMBERS
Dion Bracco
Tom Cline
Terence Fugazzi
Zach Hilton
Carol Marques
Kelly Ramirez
CITY COUNCIL PACKET MATERIALS ARE AVAILABLE ONLINE AT www.cityofgilroy.org AGENDA CLOSING TIME IS 5:00 P.M. THE TUESDAY PRIOR TO THE MEETING

COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC WILL BE TAKEN ON AGENDA ITEMS BEFORE ACTION IS TAKEN BY THE CITY COUNCIL. Public testimony is subject to reasonable regulations, including but not limited to time restrictions for each individual speaker. **Please limit your comments to 3 minutes.** The amount of time allowed per speaker may vary at the Mayor’s discretion depending on the number of speakers and length of the agenda.

Written comments on any agenda item may be emailed to the City Clerk’s Office at [email protected] or mailed to the Gilroy City Clerk’s Office at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020. Comments received by the City Clerk’s Office by 1 p.m. on the day of a Council meeting will be distributed to the City Council prior to or at the meeting and available for public inspection with the agenda packet located in the lobby of Administration at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street prior to the meeting. Any correspondence received will be incorporated into the meeting record. Items received after the 1 p.m. deadline will be provided to the City Council as soon as practicable. Written comments are also available on the City’s Public Records Portal at bit.ly/3NuS1IN.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City will make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to the meeting at (408) 846-0204 or [email protected] to help ensure that reasonable arrangements can be made.

If you challenge any planning or land use decision made at this meeting in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing held at this meeting, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Please take notice that the time within which to seek judicial review of any final administrative determination reached at this meeting is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.

A Closed Session may be called during this meeting pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(2) if a point has been reached where, in the opinion of the legislative body of the City on the advice of its legal counsel, based on existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation against the City.

Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available with the agenda packet on the City website at www.cityofgilroy.org subject to the Staff’s ability to post the documents before the meeting.

Page 1 of 724 ends

April 6, 2026 | 6:00 PM Page 2 of 7 City Council
Regular Meeting

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE GILROY OPEN GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public.

Commissions, task forces, councils and other agencies of the City exist to conduct the people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations are open to the people's review.

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE OPEN GOVERNMENT

ORDINANCE, TO RECEIVE A FREE COPY OF THE ORDINANCE OR TO REPORT A

VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE, CONTACT THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION STAFF AT (408) 846-0204.

If you need assistance with translation and would like to speak during public comment, please contact the City Clerk a minimum of 72 hours prior to the meeting at 408-846-0204 or e-mail the City Clerk’s Office at [email protected].

Si necesita un intérprete durante la junta y gustaría dar un comentario público, comuníquese con el Secretario de la Ciudad un mínimo de 72 horas antes de la junta al 408-846-0204 o envíe un correo electrónico a la Oficina del Secretario de la Ciudad a [email protected].

To access written translation during the meeting, please scan the QR Code or click this link:

Para acceder a la traducción durante la reunión, por favor escanee el código QR o haga clic en el enlace:
bit.ly/3FBiGA0
Choose Language and Click Attend | Seleccione su lenguaje y haga clic en asistir
Use a headset on your phone for audio or read the transcript on your device.

Use sus auriculares para escuchar el audio o leer la transcripción en el dispositivo.

The agenda for this regular meeting is outlined as follows:

1. OPENING

1.1. Call to Order

1.2. Roll Call

1.3. City Clerk's Report on Posting the Agenda

1.4. Pledge of Allegiance

1.5. Invocation

Page 2 of 724 ends

April 6, 2026 | 6:00 PM Page 3 of 7 City Council
Regular Meeting

1.6. Orders of the Day

1.7. Employee Introductions

2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS - Proclamations and Awards

2.1. Fair Housing Month Proclamation

3. PRESENTATIONS TO THE COUNCIL

3.1. Presentation of the Annual Report for the Gilroy Elevate the Arts Program by Silicon Valley Creates

3.2. PUBLIC COMMENT BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ON ITEMS NOT ON THE

AGENDA BUT WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE CITY

COUNCIL
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons desiring to address the Council on matters within the Gilroy City Council’s jurisdiction but not on the agenda. Persons wishing to address the Council are requested to complete a Speaker’s Card located at the entrances and handed to the City Clerk. Speakers are limited to 1 to 3 minutes each, varying at the Mayor’s discretion depending on the number of speakers and length of the agenda. The law does not permit Council action or extended discussion of any item not on the agenda except under special circumstances. If Council action is requested, the Council may place the matter on a future agenda.

Written comments to address the Council on matters not on this agenda may be e-mailed to the City Clerk’s Office at [email protected] or mailed to the Gilroy City Clerk’s Office at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020. Comments received by the City Clerk’s Office by 1:00 pm on the day of a Council meeting will be distributed to the City Council prior to or at the meeting and available for public inspection with the agenda packet located in the lobby of Administration at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street, prior to the meeting. Any correspondence received will be incorporated into the meeting record. Items received after the 1:00pm deadline will be provided to the City Council as soon as practicable. Written material provided by public members under this section of the agenda will be limited to 10 pages in hard copy. An unlimited amount of material may be provided electronically.

4. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS
Council Member Bracco – Downtown Committee, Santa Clara County Library Joint Powers Authority, Santa Clara Water Commission, Santa Clara Valley Water Joint Water Resources Committee, SCRWA
Council Member Fugazzi – Santa Clara Water Commission (alternate), Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority Board (alternate), SCRWA, Visit Gilroy California Welcome Center, VTA Mobility Partnership Committee

Page 3 of 724 ends

April 6, 2026 | 6:00 PM Page 4 of 7 City Council
Regular Meeting
Council Member Marques – ABAG, Downtown Committee, Santa Clara County Library Joint Powers Authority (alternate), Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Governing Board, Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Implementation Board, SCRWA (alternate) Council Member Hilton – CalTrain Policy Group, Santa Clara County Expressway Plan 2040 Advisory Board (alternate), Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority JPA Board, South County Youth Task Force Policy Team, VTA Policy Advisory Committee Council Member Ramirez – ABAG (alternate), Gilroy Gardens Board of Directors (alternate), Gilroy Sister Cities, Gilroy Youth Task Force (alternate), SCRWA, Santa Clara Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee
Council Member Cline – CalTrain Policy Group (alternate), Gilroy Sister Cities (alternate), Gilroy Youth Task Force, Santa Clara County Expressway Plan 2040 Advisory Board, Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority JPA Board (alternate), Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority Board, Visit Gilroy California Welcome Center (alternate), VTA Mobility Partnership Committee, VTA Policy Advisory Committee (alternate)
Mayor Bozzo – Gilroy Gardens Board of Directors, Santa Clara Valley Water Joint Water Resources Committee, South County Youth Task Force Policy Team, VTA Board of Directors (alternate), Santa Clara Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee (alternate)

5. CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered by the City Council to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a request is made by a member of the City Council or a member of the public. Any person desiring to speak on any item on the consent calendar should ask to have that item removed from the consent calendar prior to the time the City Council votes to approve. If removed, the item will be discussed in the order in which it appears.

5.1. Approve the March 7, 2026 Coffee with the Mayor and the March 16, 2026 City Council Regular Meeting minutes

5.2. Approval of the Update to the Gilroy Conflict of Interest Code During Its Biennial Review

5.3. Approve Property Improvement Agreement No. 2026-02, for Data Center Phase 1 Offsite Improvements, APN 841-69-044

5.4. Claim of Christina Johnson (The City Administrator recommends a "yes" vote under the Consent Calendar shall constitute denial of the claim)

5.5. Approve budget amendment and contract amendment to cover change orders on the purchase of a replacement Type III fire engine from BME Fire Trucks, LLC.

5.6. Notice of Completion for the FY25 Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Project No. 25-PW-295 and Approval of a Final Contract Amount of $6,911,105.66

Page 4 of 724 ends

April 6, 2026 | 6:00 PM Page 5 of 7 City Council
Regular Meeting

5.7. Consent the City Administrator's Recommendation to Appoint Harjot Sangha to the Department Head Position of Assistant City Administrator

6. BIDS AND PROPOSALS

6.1. Council Award a Contract to Pros Consulting for the Recreation Division Assessment in the Amount of $372,690 and Adopt a Resolution Amending the Fiscal Year 2026 Budget in the Recreation Fund

1. Staff Report:

Bryce Atkins, Deputy Director of Community Development

2. Public Comment

3. Possible Action:

Council:

1. Award the contract to Pros Consulting and authorize the City Administrator to execute the agreement; and

2. Adopt the attached budget amendment resolution.

6.2. Award Four, Three-Year On-Call Standard and Expedited Building and Fire Plan Review and Inspection Services Contracts with Two, One-Year Extension Options and Each Contract with an Amount Not-To-Exceed $2,000,000 to 4LEAF, CSG Consultants, TRB+ Associates, and True North Compliance Services

1. Staff Report:

Sharon Goei, Community Development Director

2. Public Comment

3. Possible Action:

Award agreements in an amount not-to-exceed $2,000,000 each with:
• 4LEAF
• CSG Consultants
• TRB+ Associates
• True North Compliance Services
to provide standard and expedited on-call Building and Fire plan review and inspection services for the initial period of July 1, 2026 to June 30, 2029, with two, one-year extension options, and authorize the City Administrator to execute these agreements.

7. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS

7.1. Proposed High Speed Rail Tax Increment Financing

1. Staff Report:

Matt Morley, City Administrator

2. Public Comment

Page 5 of 724 ends

April 6, 2026 | 6:00 PM Page 6 of 7 City Council
Regular Meeting

3. Possible Action:

Authorize the Mayor to sign a Letter of Opposition to the High Speed Rail Authority’s Tax Increment financing proposal.

7.2. Receive Draft Community Development Block Grant Program Year 2026-2027 Annual Action Plan and Draft Citizen Participation Plan and Provide Direction on CDBG PY 2026-2027 Funding Allocations

1. Staff Report:

Sharon Goei, Community Development Director

2. Public Comment

3. Possible Action:

Receive draft Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Year (PY) 2026-2027 Annual Action Plan (AAP) and draft Citizen Participation Plan (CPP) and provide direction on CDBG PY 2026-2027 funding allocations.

7.3. Acceptance of Fiscal Year 2024-25 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR)

1. Staff Report:

Harjot Sangha, Finance Director

2. Public Comment

3. Possible Action:

Accept and file the report.

7.4. Council Consideration of Placing a Potential Sales Tax Ballot Measure for the November 2026 Election Ballot

1. Staff Report:

Harjot Sangha, Finance Director

2. Public Comment

3. Possible Action:

1. Council discussion and direction on whether to pursue the placement of a sales tax ballot measure before the Gilroy community for the 2026 General Election.

2. If proceeding with placement, then determine whether to pursue it as general tax or special sales tax.

8. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORTS

9. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS

10. CLOSED SESSION

Page 6 of 724 ends

April 6, 2026 | 6:00 PM Page 7 of 7 City Council
Regular Meeting

10.1. Public Employee Appointment/Employment Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 and Gilroy City Code Section 17A.11(2)
Name/Title: Finance Director

11. ADJOURN TO OPEN SESSION

12. ADJOURNMENT

Page 7 of 724 ends

Page 8 of 724 ends

March 7, 2026 | 9:30 AM Page 1 of 1 City Council
Minutes
City of Gilroy
City Council
DRAFT
Minutes
Saturday, March 7, 2026 | 9:30 AM

1. OPENING

1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Bozzo at 9:30 AM.

2. Roll Call
Attendance Attendee Name
Present Council Member Dion Bracco
Council Member Tom Cline
Council Member Terence Fugazzi
Mayor Greg Bozzo

2. COFFEE WITH THE MAYOR

3. ADJOURNMENT
The Coffee with the Mayor event was adjourned at 10:30 AM.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing minutes were duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Gilroy on XXXXXXX, 20XX.

Kim Mancera
City Clerk

Page 9 of 724 ends

March 16, 2026 | 6:00 PM Page 1 of 8 City Council
Minutes
City of Gilroy
City Council
DRAFT
Minutes
Monday, March 16, 2026 | 6:00 PM

1. OPENING

1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Bozzo at 6:00 PM.

2. Roll Call
Attendance Attendee Name
Present Council Member Dion Bracco
Council Member Tom Cline
Council Member Terence Fugazzi
Council Member Zach Hilton
Council Member Carol Marques
Council Member Kelly Ramirez
Mayor Greg Bozzo

3. City Clerk's Report on Posting the Agenda
City Clerk Kim Mancera reported on the Posting of the Agenda.

4. Pledge of Allegiance
Council Member Bracco led the Pledge of Allegiance.

5. Invocation
Pastor Trevor Van Lar led the Invocation.

6. Orders of the Day
None.

7. Employee Introductions
Interim Utilities Director Karl Bjarke introduced Management Analyst Trainee Yeni Martinez and Utilities Operations Manager Tyson Enzweiler.

2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS - Proclamations and Awards

1. American Red Cross Month Proclamation
Mayor Bozzo presented the American Red Cross month proclamation to Camille McCormack.

3. PRESENTATIONS TO THE COUNCIL

1. Annual Presentation from the City Historian, Toby Echelberry

Page 10 of 724 ends

March 16, 2026 | 6:00 PM Page 2 of 8 City Council
Minutes
CIty Historian Toby Echelberry provided a presentation.

2. PUBLIC COMMENT BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ON ITEMS NOT ON THE

AGENDA BUT WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE CITY

COUNCIL
Mayor Bozzo opened public comment at 6:29 P.M.

DeLinda Yatskevich - commented on housing within Gilroy.

Makhan Gupta - commented and thanked the Mayor and City Council for discussing the homeless in the City of Gilroy and requested that they continue managing the unhoused.

Greg Felios - commented on how he wore a Gilroy Garlic Festival shirt to Disneyland and received many compliments and questions about the Festival.

With no further speakers, Mayor Bozzo closed public comment.

4. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS

1. Council Member Bracco – Santa Clara County Library Joint Powers Authority, Santa Clara Water Commission, Santa Clara Valley Water Joint Water Resources Committee, SCRWA
Council Member Fugazzi – Santa Clara Water Commission (alternate), Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority Board (alternate), SCRWA, Visit Gilroy California Welcome Center, VTA Mobility Partnership Committee Council Member Marques – Gilroy Sister Cities, Santa Clara County Library Joint Powers Authority (alternate), Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Governing Board, Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Implementation Board, SCRWA (alternate)
Council Member Hilton – ABAG, CalTrain Policy Group (alternate), Santa Clara County Expressway Plan 2040 Advisory Board (alternate), Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority JPA Board, South County Youth Task Force Policy Team, VTA Policy Advisory Committee
Council Member Ramirez – ABAG (alternate), Gilroy Gardens Board of Directors (alternate), Cities Association of Santa Clara County, Gilroy Youth Task Force (alternate), Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Governing Board, Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Implementation Board, SCRWA, Santa Clara Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee
Council Member Cline – CalTrain Policy Group (alternate), Gilroy Sister Cities (alternate), Gilroy Youth Task Force, Santa Clara County Expressway Plan 2040 Advisory Board, Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority JPA Board (alternate), Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority Board, Visit

Page 11 of 724 ends

March 16, 2026 | 6:00 PM Page 3 of 8 City Council
Minutes
Gilroy California Welcome Center (alternate), VTA Mobility Partnership Committee, VTA Policy Advisory Committee (alternate)
Mayor Bozzo – Gilroy Gardens Board of Directors, Santa Clara Valley Water Joint Water Resources Committee, South County Youth Task Force Policy Team, VTA Board of Directors (alternate), Santa Clara Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee (alternate), Cities Association of Santa Clara County (alternate)
Council Member Bracco - No report.

Council Member Fugazzi - No report.

Council Member Marques - Reported that she is the City liaison for the Gilroy Sister Cities. They had their fundraiser at the Portuguese Hall.

Council Member Hilton - Reported from the Valley Transportation (VTA) Policy Advisory Committee, which is developing a local investment plan focused on road ridership, increased productivity, and enhancing the customer experience. He reported from Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) that the board approved an additional $6 million for the home rebates program and also approved adding a policy in support of nuclear investigation and development. He also shared that, in celebration of Read Across America, he volunteered his time to read to students at El Roble Elementary and Lugia Aprea Elementary. In addition, he shared how the Gilroy Police Department, Gilroy Unified School District, Gilroy Parks & Recreation Commission, and other partners will be hosting an E-Bike traffic safety pedestrian awareness forum at Brownell Middle School on March 27th from 5:30 pm-7:30 pm Council Member Ramirez - Reported that she participated in Read Across America and volunteered her time reading to students at Eliot Elementary. She will be attending a Cal Cities Housing Community and Economic Development Committee Meeting. She also attended the Cities Association of Santa Clara County, where they discussed ALPRs.

Council Member Cline - Reported that he attended the Sister Cities banquet fundraiser. He attended and participated in Rock the Mock at Gilroy High School. He also participated in the dunk tank at the opening day of Little League in Gilroy.

Mayor Bozzo - Reported from the Gilroy Gardens Board of Directors that Gilroy Gardens is about 80% through its seasonal hiring, which provides 400 jobs to the community.

5. BOARD AND COMMISSION INTERVIEWS

1. Interviews and Appointments to the Arts and Culture Commission City Clerk Kim Mancera proceeded with the interviews and appointments.

The following applicants were interviewed for the Arts and Culture Commission.

Page 12 of 724 ends

March 16, 2026 | 6:00 PM Page 4 of 8 City Council
Minutes
Subul Siddiqui
Meena Vijaykar
Rabia Shahid
The following applicants were selected by the City Council to serve a partial term ending December 31, 2027.

Subul Siddiqui
Rabia Shahid

6. CONSENT CALENDAR
City Clerk Kim Mancera announced that there was a change to Item 6.2 - Notice of Completion for the FY26 CDBG Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Project No. 26-PW-303 and Approval of the Final Contract Amount of $152,974.00. The contractor has clarified the final contract amount which is now $154,979.13, leaving a remaining balance of $21,211.01 to go back into the City's CDBG Fund.

Mayor Bozzo opened public comment at 6:55 P.M.

With no speakers, Mayor Bozzo closed public comment.

Motion
Approve the consent calendar.

RESULT: Passed
MOVER: Council Member Dion Bracco
SECONDER: Council Member Tom Cline
AYES: Council Member Dion Bracco, Council Member Tom Cline, Council Member Terence Fugazzi, Council Member Zach Hilton, Council Member Carol Marques, Council Member Kelly Ramirez, Mayor Greg Bozzo NAYS: None
ABSENT: None

1. Approve the February 23, 2026 and the March 2, 2026 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes

2. Notice of Completion for the FY26 CDBG Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Project No. 26-PW-303 and Approval of a Final Contract Amount of $152,974.00

3. Resolution Establishing Operating Hours for City-Owned Public Off-Street Parking Lots

4. Claim of Alejandrina Castro (The City Administrator recommends a "yes" vote under the Consent Calendar shall constitute denial of the claim)

5. Claim of Isabel Parra (The City Administrator recommends a "yes" vote under the Consent Calendar shall constitute a denial of the claim)

6. Approve Final Map and Property Improvement Agreement No. 2026-03 for Eagle Garden Development, Tract 10500, APN's 808-01-021, 808-01-022, and

Page 13 of 724 ends

March 16, 2026 | 6:00 PM Page 5 of 8 City Council
Minutes
808-01-023

7. Council Approval of Council Member Ramirez's Travel Reimbursement for the League of California Cities Housing, Community and Economic Development Policy Committee meeting

7. BIDS AND PROPOSALS

1. Award a Contract to Storm Water Inspection & Maintenance Services Inc. / An Apex Company for the State Trash Amendments Stormwater Compliance Project No. 800460 in the amount of $143,370
Environmental Programs Manager Mark Johnson provided a report and presentation.

Mayor Bozzo opened public comment at 6:58 P.M.

With no speakers, Mayor Bozzo closed public comment.

Motion
Adopt a resolution amending the Fiscal Year 2026 Capital Budget by appropriating $157,707 from Fund 422 to Capital Project No. 800460.

RESULT: Passed
MOVER: Council Member Carol Marques
SECONDER: Council Member Kelly Ramirez
AYES: Council Member Dion Bracco, Council Member Tom Cline, Council Member Terence Fugazzi, Council Member Zach Hilton, Council Member Carol Marques, Council Member Kelly Ramirez, Mayor Greg Bozzo
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
Motion
Award a contract in the amount of $143,370 to Storm Water Inspection & Maintenance Services Inc. / An Apex Company for FY26 Small Trash Capture Devices Project No. 800460, approve a contingency of $14,337, and Authorize the City Administrator to execute the contract and associated documents.

8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

Page 14 of 724 ends

March 16, 2026 | 6:00 PM Page 6 of 8 City Council
Minutes

1. Consideration of a Community Event Support Program Policy Economic Development Director Raissa De la Rosa provided a report and presentation.

Mayor Bozzo opened public comment at 7:23 P.M.

With no speakers, Mayor Bozzo closed public comment.

Motion
Adopt a resolution establishing a Community Event Support Program Policy formalizing a non-profit subsidy program for community special events and authorize staff to implement the FY 2026-27 cycle using the updated timeline, review considerations, and reporting requirements.

RESULT: Passed
MOVER: Council Member Tom Cline
SECONDER: Council Member Kelly Ramirez
AYES: Council Member Dion Bracco, Council Member Tom Cline, Council Member Terence Fugazzi, Council Member Zach Hilton, Council Member Carol Marques, Council Member Kelly Ramirez, Mayor Greg Bozzo
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None

9. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS

1. Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 Q2 Quarterly Budget and General Fund Forecast Update and Adoption of Resolutions Amending the Budget and Updating the Position Control List
Finance Director Harjot Sangha provided a report and presentation.

Mayor Bozzo opened public comment at 7:46 P.M.

Ron Kirkish - commented on the maintenance and repair of our streets to be considered in the workplan and budget.

With no further speakers, Mayor Bozzo closed public comment.

Motion
Receive Budget Report for the Second Quarter of Fiscal Year 2025-26 (FY26), adopt a resolution approving the updated Position Control List for Fiscal Years 2025- 2026 and 2026-2027 and adopt a budget amendment resolution.

RESULT: Passed
MOVER: Council Member Terence Fugazzi
SECONDER: Council Member Kelly Ramirez

Page 15 of 724 ends

March 16, 2026 | 6:00 PM Page 7 of 8 City Council
Minutes
AYES: Council Member Dion Bracco, Council Member Tom Cline, Council Member Terence Fugazzi, Council Member Zach Hilton, Council Member Carol Marques, Council Member Kelly Ramirez, Mayor Greg Bozzo
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None

2. 2025 General Plan and Housing Element Annual Progress Report Community Development Director Sharon Goei, Planning Manager Michael Fossati and Housing and Community Services Manager Christie Thomas provided a report and presentation.

Mayor Bozzo opened public comment at 8:18 P.M.

Ron Kirkish - commented on the extremely low income (ELI) and that the State and Counties need to get involved.

With no further speakers, Mayor Bozzo closed public comment.

Motion
Accept the report and direct staff to submit the 2025 Annual Progress Report to the California Department of Housing and Community Development and the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, no later than April 1, 2026.

RESULT: Passed
MOVER: Council Member Zach Hilton
SECONDER: Council Member Kelly Ramirez
AYES: Council Member Dion Bracco, Council Member Tom Cline, Council Member Terence Fugazzi, Council Member Zach Hilton, Council Member Carol Marques, Council Member Kelly Ramirez, Mayor Greg Bozzo
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None

10. FUTURE COUNCIL INITIATED AGENDA ITEMS

1. Request to Direct Staff to Provide Council with Options regarding the Addition of Public Hearings to the Architectural and Site Review Permit Process (FAIR Memo - Marques & Ramirez)
Planning Manager Michael Fossati provided a report and presentation.

Mayor Bozzo opened public comment at P.M.

Landon Sepulveda - commented on the data center and voiced that he is against it.

Ron Kirkish - commented on the data center and that there is plenty of water to

Page 16 of 724 ends

March 16, 2026 | 6:00 PM Page 8 of 8 City Council
Minutes
supply it.

With no further speakers, Mayor Bozzo closed public comment.

Motion
Council consideration of a future agenda item directing staff to return to Council with options regarding the addition of public hearings to the Architectural and Site Review Permit process.

RESULT: Passed
MOVER: Council Member Kelly Ramirez
SECONDER: Council Member Carol Marques
AYES: Council Member Tom Cline, Council Member Zach Hilton, Council Member Carol Marques, Council Member Kelly Ramirez, Mayor Greg Bozzo
NAYS: Council Member Dion Bracco, Council Member Terence Fugazzi ABSENT: None

11. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORTS
City Administrator Matt Morley mentioned that he met with CMAP. He also had the opportunity to meet with County Health to discuss community health and pedestrian and EBike safety. He met with Gilroy Gardens to discuss contract negotiations and plans to meet with Sharks Ice by the end of the month.

12. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS
No report.

13. ADJOURNMENT
With no additional business before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 P.M I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing minutes were duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Gilroy on XXXXXXX, 20XX.

Kim Mancera
City Clerk

Page 17 of 724 ends

5.2. City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Approval of the Update to the Gilroy Conflict of Interest Code During Its Biennial Review
Meeting Date: April 6, 2026
From: Matt Morley, City Administrator
Department: Administration
Submitted by: Kim Mancera, City Clerk
Prepared by: Kim Mancera, City Clerk
STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS: Not Applicable

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy in review of the Gilroy Conflict of Interest Code pursuant to its biennial review.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BACKGROUND
The City of Gilroy has adopted the terms of California Code of Regulations, Regulation 18730 and amendments, as the Conflict of Interest (“COI”) Code of the City of Gilroy pursuant to the California Political Reform Act. The Political Reform Act requires each agency to update its COI Code biennially, each even year, if necessary, to ensure that the local code accurately designates all positions that make or participate in the making of governmental decisions, and that the disclosure categories assigned to those positions accurately obligates the filer to disclose all investments, business positions, interests in real property, and sources of income that may foreseeably be affected materially by the decisions they make in their position. The COI Code must reflect the current structure of the organization and properly identify the titles of those who should be filing Statements of Economic Interests (Form 700). The COI Code tells the

Page 18 of 724 ends

5.2. designated filers which financial interests they must disclose and helps provide transparency in local government as required under the Political Reform Act.

State law requires that all changes be submitted to the code reviewing body, in this case the City Council, for approval as an amendment to the COI Code.

ANALYSIS
If a position requires an employee to: manage public investments; negotiate, without significant substantive review, with a governmental entity or private person regarding a governmental decision; approve a rate, rule or regulation; issue, deny, suspend or revoke a permit, license, or similar authorization or entitlement; or advise or make recommendations to the decision maker either directly or without significant intervening substantive review, by: (1) conducting research or making any investigation which requires the exercise of judgment on the part of the official and the purpose of which is to influence a governmental decision; or (2) preparing or presenting any report, analysis, or opinion, orally, or in writing, which requires the exercise of judgment on the part of the official and the purpose of which is to influence a governmental decision referenced in Title 2, California Code of Regulations, section 18701(a)(2)(A), then the position shall be included as a designated position in the agency’s conflict of interest code.

The Three Components of a Conflict of Interest Code include:

1. Incorporation Section (Terms of the Code) - This section designates where the Form 700s are filed and retained (i.e., the agency or the FPPC). This section also must reference Regulation 18730, which provides the rules for disqualification procedures, reporting financial interests, and references the current gift limit.

2. List of Designated Positions - The code must list all agency positions that involve the making or participation in making of decisions that “may foreseeably have a material effect on any financial interest.” This covers agency members, officers, and employees, and it may include volunteers on a committee if the members make or participate in making government decisions.

3. Detailed Disclosure Categories - A disclosure category is a description of the types of financial interests that officials in one or more job classifications must disclose on their Form 700 filings. The categories must be tailored to the financial interests affected and must not require public officials to disclose private financial information that does not relate to their public employment.

The City Council last amended the Conflict of Interest Code on September 16, 2024.

Staff has reviewed the positions covered by the Conflict of Interest Code with the Human Resources Director/Risk Manager and City Administrator to ensure that the appropriate positions are covered. Due to the addition of several new positions, the determination was made to bring this to the City Council for review in April 2026. The

Page 19 of 724 ends

5.2. COI Code is amended to reflect the following actions that are taken, if needed:

1. Add new position classifications that should be incorporated into the code.

2. Delete titles of positions within departments that were subject to the code, but upon examination of duties within the department should not be subject to the code.

3. Delete titles of positions that have been eliminated.

4. Update the titles of positions subject to the code that have been revised.

If additional new or revised classifications, deemed likely to be subject to the Code, are established before the next formal adoption of a revised Code, the City is required to file a Form 804 Agency Report for those new/revised classifications. Staff in those new/revised classifications will be required to complete a Form 700, reporting the disclosure requirement reflected on the Form 804, even if the Code itself has not been formally revised to incorporate the positions.

The following positions were removed in the latest COI Code upon further examination of the duties are not subject to the code:
• Building Board of Appeals Members
• Parks and Recreation Commission Members
• Special Assistant to City Administrator
• Engineer I/II
• Facilities/Fleet Superintendent
• Management Analyst
• Network Administrator
The following positions have been retitled in the latest COI Code (Disclosure Category remains unchanged):
• Hazardous Materials Supervisor / Deputy Fire Marshal → Fire Marshal • Administrative Services and HR Director/Risk Manager → Human Resources Director/Risk Manager
• Environmental Engineer → Senior Environmental Engineer • Senior Engineer → Senior Civil Engineer
The following positions have been added in the latest COI Code:
• Assistant City Administrator
• Economic Development Director
• Deputy Director of Community Development

Page 20 of 724 ends

5.2. • Utilities Operations Manager
The proposed new City of Gilroy COI Code is attached as Exhibit A to the resolution.

ALTERNATIVES
N/A

FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
There is no fiscal impact.

PUBLIC OUTREACH

NEXT STEPS
Staff recommends the Council adopt the update to the City conflict of interest code.

Attachments:

1. DRAFT Annual Conflict of Interest Code - 2026 - Redline Version

Page 21 of 724 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

GILROY IN REVIEW OF THE CITY OF GILROY CONFLICT OF

INTEREST CODE PURSUANT TO ITS BIENNIAL REVIEW
WHEREAS, the Political Reform Act (“Act”), Government Code Section 81000 et seq., requires state and local agencies to adopt and promulgate conflict of interest codes, and the City of Gilroy (“City”) is an agency subject to this statute; and WHEREAS, the City’s Code incorporates by reference the terms of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations section 18730, and any amendments to it that have been duly adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission, and contains appendices designating officials and employees and establishing disclosure categories, as shown below; and WHEREAS, upon biennial review of the existing Code, it has been deemed necessary to bring the Code up to date by adding and deleting positions, correcting position titles, and revising disclosure categories assigned to designated positions/employees as needed.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Gilroy does hereby amend the City of Gilroy Conflict of Interest Code and adopts the amended City of Gilroy Conflict of Interest Code, attached as “Exhibit A”.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Gilroy at a regular meeting duly held on the 6th day of April, 2026 by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

APPROVED:
___________________
Greg Bozzo, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
Kim Mancera, City Clerk

Page 22 of 724 ends

Resolution No. 2026-xx
Conflict of Interest Code Biennial Review
City Council Regular Meeting | April 6, 2026

Page 2 of 9 ends

CERTIFICATE OF THE CLERK
I, KIM MANCERA, City Clerk of the City of Gilroy, do hereby certify that the attached Resolution No. 2026-XX is an original resolution, or true and correct copy of a City Resolution, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Gilroy at a Regular Meeting of said Council held on Monday, April 6, 2026, with a quorum present.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of the City of Gilroy this Tuesday, XXXXX
____________________________________
Kim Mancera
City Clerk of the City of Gilroy

Page 23 of 724 ends

EXHIBIT A
POSITIONS DESIGNATED BY STATUTE (87200)

POSITION DISCLOSURE CATEGORY
City Council Member 1
Planning Commission Member 1
City Administrator (Manager) 1
City Attorney 1
City Treasurer 1
Finance Director 1

DESIGNATED POSITIONS

DESIGNATED POSITIONS DISCLOSURE CATEGORY
Administrative Services and Juan
Human Resources Director/Risk
Manager
1 Assistant City Attorney 1
Assistant City Administrator
Assistant to City Administrator 1
Special Assistant to City Administrator 1
Building Board of Appeals Members 1
Building Official 4
Casual Employees performing work
similar to designated positions*
Chief of Police 1
City Clerk 1
City Engineer/Transportation Engineer 1
Community Development Director 1
Consultants* 1
Deputy Director of Community Development 1
Deputy Director of Public Works – Operations 1
Economic Development Director 1
Economic Development Manager 1
Engineer I/II 3
Senior Environmental Engineer 3
Environmental Programs Manager 2
Facilities / Fleet Superintendent 3
Finance Analyst 1
Financial Director 2
Finance Manager
Fire Chief 1
Fire Division Chief 3
Hazardous Material Supervisor/Deputy Fire Marshall
Fire Marshal
4 Housing and Community Services Manager 1
Information Technology Manager 3
Management Analyst 2
Network Administrator 3
Parks and Recreation Commission Members 1
Planning Manager 1
Police Captain 2

Page 24 of 724 ends

EXHIBIT A
Public Works Director1
Recreation Manager2
Retired Annuitants**1
Senior Civil Engineer4
Senior Management Analyst2
Utilities Business Manager1
Utilities Director1
Utilities Operations Manager1

Page 25 of 724 ends

EXHIBIT A
*Consultants shall be designated on a case-by-case basis, depending upon the nature of their services. Consultants are included in the list of designated employees and shall disclose pursuant to the broadest disclosure category in the code subject to the following limitation: The City Administrator may determine in writing that a particular consultant, although a “designated position,” is hired to perform a range of duties that is limited in scope and thus is not required to fully comply with the disclosure requirements described in this section. Such written determination shall include a description of the consultant’s duties and, based upon that description, a statement of the extent of disclosure requirements. The City Administrator’s determination is a public record and shall be retained for public inspection in the same manner and location as this conflict of interest code. All agreements with a consultant, whether or not such consultant is required to file a disclosure statement in accordance with this resolution, shall contain a certification by the consultant that no conflict of interest exists in connection with the contract being entered into between the consultant and the City. **Retired annuitants may be included in the list of designated employees when the City Administrator, or his or her designee, determines that they are performing work that is the functional equivalent of a designated position. If such a determination is made, then disclosure shall be pursuant to the disclosure category required by this Code for the comparable designated staff position.

CITY OF GILROY CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE

DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES
Category 1:

All designated employees in this category shall disclose all sources of income, all interests in real property in the City of Gilroy, all investments and all business positions in business entities in which he or she is a director, officer, partner, trustee or employee or holds any position of management.

Category 2:

All designated employees in this category shall disclose investments, business positions and sources of income from business entities which provide services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment of the type utilized by the City of Gilroy.

Category 3:

Category 4
All designated employees in this category shall disclose all investments, business positions, and sources of income from business entities, which engage in land development, construction or the acquisition or sale of real property, and all interests in real property in the City of Gilroy.

Page 26 of 724 ends

CITY OF GILROY CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
The Political Reform Act (Government Code Section 81000, et seq.) requires state and local government agencies to adopt and promulgate conflict of interest codes. The Fair Political Practices Commission has adopted a regulation (2 California Code of Regulations Section 18730) that contains the terms of a standard conflict of interest code, which can be incorporated by reference in an agency’s code. After public notice and hearing, the standard code may be amended by the Fair Political Practices Commission to conform to amendments in the Political Reform Act. Therefore, the terms of 2 California Code of Regulations Section 18730 and any amendments to it duly adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission are hereby incorporated by reference. This regulation and the attached Appendix [or Appendices], designating positions and establishing disclosure categories, shall constitute the conflict of interest code of the City of Gilroy (“City”).

Individuals holding designated positions shall file their statements of economic interests with the City, which will make the statements available for public inspection and reproduction (Gov. Code Sec. 81008). Upon receipt of the statements for those designated in the Political Reform Act as 87200 filers (i.e. mayors and city council members, city managers, city attorneys, city treasurers, and members of planning commissions), the City shall make and retain copies and forward the originals to the Fair Political Practices Commission. All other statements will be retained by the City.

The following designated position classifications are required to file Statements of Economic Interests pursuant to the Political Reform Act of 1974, as amended, and are hereby included in the City of Gilroy's Conflict of Interest Code.

POSITIONS DESIGNATED BY STATUTE GOVERNMENT CODE §87200
The following positions are NOT covered by the code because they must file under Government Code §87200 and are listed for information purposes only.

POSITION DISCLOSURE CATEGORY
Mayor 1
City Council Member 1
Planning Commissioner 1
City Administrator (Manager) 1
City Attorney 1
City Treasurer 1
Finance Director 1

DESIGNATED POSITIONS

CITY ADMINISTRATION

POSITION DISCLOSURE CATEGORY
Assistant City Administrator 1
Assistant to City ManagerAdministrator 1
Special Assistant to City Manager 1
City Clerk 1
Management Analyst 2
Senior Management Analyst 2

Page 27 of 724 ends

CITY ATTORNEY

POSITION DISCLOSURE CATEGORY
Assistant City Attorney 1

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

POSITION DISCLOSURE CATEGORY
Community Development Director 1
Deputy Director of Community
Development
1 Building Official 4
Hazardous Material Supervisor/Deputy
Fire Marshal 4
Housing and Community Services
Manager 1
Management Analyst 2
Planning Manager 1

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

POSITION DISCLOSURE CATEGORY
Economic Development Director 1
Economic Development Manager 1

FINANCE

POSITION DISCLOSURE CATEGORY
Finance Director 1
Finance Manager 1
Financial Analyst 1
Management Analyst 2
Senior Management Analyst 2
Information Technology Manager 3
FIRE

POSITION DISCLOSURE CATEGORY
Fire Chief 1
Fire Division Chief 3
Management Analyst 2
POLICE

POSITION DISCLOSURE CATEGORY
Chief of Police 1
Management Analyst 2
Police Captain 2

PUBLIC WORKS

POSITION DISCLOSURE CATEGORY
Public Works Director 1
Deputy Director of Public Works –
Operations 1

Page 28 of 724 ends

Senior Civil Engineer 4
Senior Management Analyst 2

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

POSITION DISCLOSURE CATEGORY
Administrative Services and Human
Resources Director / Risk Manager 1
Facilities/ Fleet Superintendent 3
Information Technology Manager 3
Management Analyst 2
Network Administrator 3

RECREATION

POSITION DISCLOSURE CATEGORY
Recreation Manager 2
Management Analyst 2

UTILITIES DEPARTMENT

POSITION DISCLOSURE CATEGORY
Utilities Director 1
Senior Environmental Engineer 3
Engineer I/II 3
Management Analyst 2
Senior Civil Engineer 4
Utilities Business Manager 1
Utilities Operations Manager 1
OTHERS

POSITION DISCLOSURE CATEGORY
Consultants* 1
Casual Employees performing work
similar to a designated position* 1
Retired Annuitants** 1
City Engineer/Transportation Engineer 1
Environmental Programs Manager 2
Management Analyst 2

Page 29 of 724 ends

CITY OF GILROY

CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE

DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES
Category 1:

Category 2:

Category 3:

Category 4:

All designated employees in this category shall disclose all investments, business positions and sources of income from business entities which engage in land development, construction or the acquisition or sale of real property, and all interests in real property in the City of Gilroy.
*Consultants and/or Casual employees are included in the list of designated positions and shall be designated on a case-by-case basis, depending upon the nature of their services and shall disclose pursuant to the broadest disclosure category in the code subject to the following limitation: The City Administrator may determine in writing that a particular consultant, although a “designated position,” is hired to perform a range of duties that is limited in scope and thus is not required to fully comply with the disclosure requirements described in this section. Such written determination shall include a description of the consultant’s duties and, based upon that description, a statement of the extent of disclosure requirements. The City Administrator’s determination is a public record and shall be retained for public inspection in the same manner and location as this conflict of interest code. All agreements with a consultant, whether or not such consultant is required to file a disclosure statement in accordance with this resolution, shall contain a certification by the consultant that no conflict of interest exists in connection with the contract being entered into between the consultant and the City. **Retired annuitants may be included in the list of designated employees when the City Administrator, or his or her designee, determines that they are performing work that is the functional equivalent of a designated position. If such a determination is made, then disclosure shall be pursuant to the disclosure category required by this Code for the comparable designated staff position.

Page 30 of 724 ends

5.3. City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Approve Property Improvement Agreement No. 2026-02, for Data Center Phase 1 Offsite Improvements, APN 841-69-044 Meeting Date: April 6, 2026
From: Matt Morley, City Administrator
Department: Public Works
Submitted by: John Doughty, Public Works Director
Prepared by: Jorge Duran, Senior Civil Engineer
STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS: Maintain and Improve City Infrastructure

RECOMMENDATION
Approve Property Improvement Agreement No. 2026-02 for Data Center Phase 1 Offsite Improvements, APN 841-69-044.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City required the design and construction of public roadway and related improvements on Camino Arroyo in conjunction with the Gilroy Data Center project located at 8050 Camino Arroyo. Public Improvements include construction of a new roundabout. A Property Improvement Agreement is required where any project is planning to construct public improvements which are subject to subsequent City acceptance. The action requested authorizes critical roadway safety enhancements and security to ensure completion of work according to the plan and specifications. This work will be paid for and constructed by the site contractor to the benefit of the City.

BACKGROUND
On July 3, 2025, the Architectural and Site Review Permit (AS 20-23) for the Gilroy Data Center project located at 8050 Camino Arroyo (APN: 841-69-044) was approved by the Community Development Director. The project proposal was initially filed in 2020 by Amazon Web Services, Inc (AWS). The AWS project aims to develop a 56-acre vacant

Page 31 of 724 ends

5.3. site, previously used for agricultural operations, into a data center campus, and introduces new construction to the site which triggered an Architectural and Site Permit application. The approved permit allows the construction of a 438,500 square feet data center campus on the 56-acre undeveloped parcel and is located at the southeast end of Arroyo Circle. The 56-acre project site is located at the southeast end of Arroyo Circle and is adjacent to developed areas including the Gilroy Premium Outlets, Kaiser Permanente, and U.S. 101 to the north, south, and west, respectively.

The project will be constructed in two phases. The Phase I, Building 1 data center building is approximately 218,000 square feet. Phase 1 will also include a 2,500 square feet security building.

The project site is located between the two termini of Camino Arroyo, which abut the northern and southern borders of the project site. Access to the project site on the north would be provided by a new driveway at the end of an existing cul-de-sac at the terminus of Camino Arroyo. Access to the project on the south would be provided by a new driveway and new roundabout at the intersection of Camino Arroyo and Arroyo Circle. Per conditions of approval, offsite public improvements require AWS to enter into a property improvement agreement (PIA) with the City.

ANALYSIS
The Developer is requesting the City Council to approve and enter into a Property Improvement Agreement (PIA 2026-02) for the project’s Public Improvements. The Public Improvements include a new roundabout consisting of new street pavement widening, pavement repairs, pavement grinding and paving, microsurface pavement treatment, grading, signing, striping, curb ramps, curb, gutter, sidewalk, lighting, joint trench, landscaping, storm drain, water, sanitary sewer, stormwater management facilities, existing signal modifications, and necessary utility extension and connection to serve the development. As part of the Property Improvement Agreement, the Developer is required to provide Faithful Performance and Payment Bonds of $3,483,400 for 100% of the estimated construction cost of the improvements.

PIA 2026-02 is ready for recording with Santa Clara County upon approval by Council.

ALTERNATIVES
Council has the following options with respect to this request by the developer:

1. Council may enter into PIA 2026-02 for development of offsite improvements.

STAFF RECOMMENDS THIS OPTION as it is important to ensure required public improvements are constructed and operational to serve the project and the community as a whole.

2. Deny the request to approve PIA 2026-02. STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND THIS OPTION because the PIA is required per the Conditions of Approval to

Page 32 of 724 ends

5.3. ensure required public improvements are constructed and operational to serve the project and the community as a whole. Approval or denial of the PIA does not affect the development project approval.

FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
There is no net impact to the General Fund. Plan check and inspection fees have been collected to cover the costs associated with this action. The developer has submitted bonding and insurance for the above referenced Property Improvement Agreement. All of the required improvements are part of the developer’s responsibility.

PUBLIC OUTREACH
N/A

NEXT STEPS
N/A
Attachments:

1. Exhibit A - Vicinity Map

2. Exhibit B - PIA

Page 33 of 724 ends

Page 34 of 724 ends

Page 35 of 724 ends

Page 36 of 724 ends

Page 37 of 724 ends

Page 38 of 724 ends

Page 39 of 724 ends

Page 40 of 724 ends

Page 41 of 724 ends

Page 42 of 724 ends

Page 43 of 724 ends

Page 44 of 724 ends

Page 45 of 724 ends

Page 46 of 724 ends

5.4. City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Claim of Christina Johnson (The City Administrator recommends a "yes" vote under the Consent Calendar shall constitute denial of the claim)
Meeting Date: April 6, 2026
From: Matt Morley, City Administrator
Department: Human Resources/Risk Management
Submitted by: LeeAnn McPhillips, Interim Human Resources Director/Risk Manager.

Prepared by: LeeAnn McPhillips, Interim Human Resources Director/Risk Manager.

STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS: Not Applicable

RECOMMENDATION
Based on the recommendation from Municipal Pooling Authority (MPA) and/or legal counsel, this claim is recommended for rejection.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Based on the recommendation from Municipal Pooling Authority (MPA) and/or legal counsel, the following claim is submitted to the City Council for rejection at the April 6, 2026 meeting:
• Claim of Christina Johnson

BACKGROUND
n/a

ANALYSIS

Page 47 of 724 ends

5.4. n/a

ALTERNATIVES
n/a

FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
n/a

PUBLIC OUTREACH
n/a

NEXT STEPS
n/a
Attachments:

1. Claim of Christina Johnson February 2026

Page 48 of 724 ends

Page 49 of 724 ends

Page 50 of 724 ends

5.5. City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Approve budget amendment and contract amendment to cover change orders on the purchase of a replacement Type III fire engine from BME Fire Trucks, LLC.

Meeting Date: April 6, 2026
From: Matt Morley, City Administrator
Department: Public Works
Submitted by: John Doughty, Public Works Director
Prepared by: Walter Dunckel, Fleet and Facilities Superintendent STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS: Not Applicable

RECOMMENDATION

1. Adopt a resolution amending the FY 2026 Fleet Vehicle Fund (600 Fund) adding $30,000 to cover change orders and additional contingency;

2. Approve Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement with BME Fire Trucks, LLC., in the amount of $25,969, and approve a contingency of $4,031; and

3. Authorize the City Administrator to execute the contract amendment and related documents.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2023, the City Council entered a contract with BME Fire Trucks LLC (BME) to fabricate a new Type III fire engine. BME was chosen through a State (CalFire) solicitation process. As is common, the City used this tag-on bid/solicitation process as a time and cost-savings measure. At the time of award, it was acknowledged that modifications to the truck would be necessary during fabrication. Fire Department staff has identified several changes to the original specifications which require additional budget and funding authorizations. The changes are requested to meet Gilroy Fire operational and organizational objectives.

Page 51 of 724 ends

5.5. BACKGROUND
In May of 2023, the City awarded the Purchase of a Type III Fire Engine to BME Fire Trucks, LLC, utilizing a Cal Fire Tag-On Contract No. 1-22-23-21B. This contract's specifications were written based on how Cal Fire configures its vehicles and the specific configurations they use. Using Cal Fire’s configuration, the City saved money and expedited the vehicle purchase process. Their specifications were very close to the City’s and time was of the essence to complete the purchase. It was known and acknowledged that change orders would be required.

The vehicle on order is replacing a similar unit which was placed in service in 1999.

ANALYSIS
The Fire Department is requesting changes to the specifications of the new Type III fire engine being fabricated by BME. The Department indicates that the changes will result in greater standardization of the fire fleet, improve efficiency of the truck and increase the safety and effectiveness of crews on scene.

The following fire engine build changes are being requested to align with the operational efficiency, clean cab initiative, and to align with standard compartment configurations specific to Gilroy Fire’s fleet. The original specifications were designed from a CAL FIRE Model 34 Type III engine, and though most of the specifications are suitable for the Gilroy Fire Department, there are several changes the Department Apparatus Committee is recommending be included to better fit the needs of the Gilroy Fire Department.
• The interior cab features do not have an adequate number of 12v charging ports to accommodate charging the Department's EMS iPad, Captain’s iPad, cell phone, and portable radios.
• The exterior compartment configuration and size are not sufficient to store current SCBA packs, so we needed to design more practical compartments and configure them to safely and properly store the SCBA packs and spare cylinders.

City SCBA packs are larger than CAL FIRE's. The City also organizes its trucks differently than CAL FIRE.
• Gilroy standard scene lighting on all apparatus provides for more robust lighting

Page 52 of 724 ends

5.5. to improve safety and visibility when working on emergency scenes at night. The exterior scene lighting in the CAL FIRE specification provided very limited scene lighting around the engine. Staff is seeking to enhance scene lighting to align with City standard lighting.
• The upper compartment configurations in the CAL FIRE specification do not account for some of the additional specialized equipment and PPE that Gilroy Fire carries, in addition to standard hose compliments. • The City has used a standard color combination for all its front line apparatus for decades. The Department is requesting a change order to change the color from the CAL FIRE standard to the City standard paint color.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Approve the request. This alternative results in the delivery of a Type III fire truck which fully meets Gilroy Fire Department operational needs.

2. Deny the request. Staff does not recommend this option as the City would end up with a Type III fire truck that does not meet Gilroy Fire Department operational needs.

FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
The funding source for the requested change order is recommended to be the Fleet Fund (600). Staff is requesting Council’s approval of a budget amendment of $30,000, change orders of $25,969, and a remaining contingency authorization of $4,031 for any additional adjustments.

PUBLIC OUTREACH
None

NEXT STEPS
Should Council approve these actions, staff will execute the amendment and have BME

Page 53 of 724 ends

5.5. Fire Trucks, LLC implement the changes to the City’s new fire engine.

Attachments:

1. 2026 Resolution Fleet

2. Change Order 1 gilroy_fire_dept_3950

3. Final Change Orders 1 and 2 for BME Type III

Page 54 of 724 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

GILROY AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF GILROY
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026 AND APPROPRIATING
PROPOSED EXPENDITURE AMENDMENTS.

WHEREAS, the City Administrator prepared and submitted to the City Council a budget for the City of Gilroy for Fiscal Year 2025-2026, and the City Council carefully examined, considered and adopted the same on June 2, 2025; and WHEREAS, City Staff has prepared and submitted to the City Council a proposed amendment to said budget for Fiscal Year 2026 for the City of Gilroy in the staff report dated April 6, 2026, for Change Orders on a Type III fire engine.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that appropriations for Fiscal Year 2026 shall be increased by the Finance Director in the amount of $30,000 within the Fleet Fund, Fund 600, for the BME Type III fire engine.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of April 2026 by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

APPROVED:
___________________
Greg Bozzo, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
Kim Mancera, City Clerk

Page 55 of 724 ends

Resolution No. 2026-XX
Short Title
City Council Regular Meeting | Date

Page 2 of 2 ends

Page 56 of 724 ends

Job Number(s): 3950
Change Order: 1
Change Order Range: — - —
Customer: Gilroy Fire Dept (301)
Submitted Contact Email Proposal # Manufacturer Created By 02/21/2026 Greg Lopez [email protected] 20407-23B BME Fire Trucks, LLC. Dewayne Young By executing this change order (this "Change Order"), Golden State Fire Apparatus, Inc. ("GSFA") and the customer identified above ("Customer") hereby agree to the below-listed modifications to the agreement identified by the above GSFA Proposal Number 20407-23B, BME Fire Trucks, LLC. job number(s) 3950 (such agreement and all exhibits and attachments thereto, the "Agreement"), as well as any additional charges or credits associated with such modifications. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings given to them in the Agreement. # Action Qty Option Description Item Price Extended Price Lead
Time
(Days)
01 Delete 1 02-73-6100 Bumper Cmpt, Door, Alum T/P, ALDP $339.00 $-339.00 — 02 Add 1 02-73-6100 Bumper Cmpt, Door, Alum T/P, ALDP, Notched right side $389.00 $389.00 — 03 Delete 1 02-74-1555 Air Horn, (1) Buell, #1063, Frame Mounted, Cal-Fire 2022 $389.00 $-389.00 — 04 Add 1 02-74-1555 Air Horn, (1) - BME Will provide air Horn, Vendor varies from stock on hand $389.00 $389.00 —
05 Delete 1 10-15-1195 Valve, Akron Brass, 8830 Series, (Pump to Tank) Cal-Fire 2022 $642.00 $-642.00 — 06 Add 1 10-15-1195 Valve, Akron Brass, 8830 Series, (Pump to Tank) Cal-Fire 2022 $662.00 $662.00 — 07 Clarification 1 Re-label pump to tank to "Tank Fill" $0.00 $0.00 — 08 Delete 1 12-08-1100 Discharge, 2" x 1.5", Rear RH - BME Change rear discharges to be 2.5" $778.00 $-778.00 —
09 Add 1 12-08-1100 Discharge, 2.5 x 1.5", Rear RH $778.00 $778.00 — 10 Delete 1 12-20-1150 Reducing Adapter, 2"F x 1.5"M, Chrome Brass $77.00 $-77.00 — 11 Delete 1 12-21-1100 Elbow, 1.5"F x 1.5"M, Chrome Brass $78.00 $-78.00 — 12 Add 1 12-20-1150 Reducing Adapter, 2.5" Fx 1.5"M, Chrome Brass, Elbow $155.00 $155.00 — 13 Delete 1 12-11-7300 Crosslay Flaps, Vinyl, Red - QTY 2 $312.00 $-312.00 — 14 Add 1 12-11-7300 Crosslay Flaps, Vinyl, Black - QTY 2 $312.00 $312.00 — 15 Clarification 1
Hose reel nozzle mounting location to be determined at final inspection. $0.00 $0.00 —
16 Delete 1 14-35-2135 Pressure Governor, FRC, PBA401-D00, Pump Boss, Cal-Fire 2022 - Vendor Discontinued, replaced with PBA501-D00 $2,742.00 $-2,742.00 — 17 Add 1 14-35-2010 Pressure Governor, FRC, PBA501-D00, Pump Boss Max, Dual Sensor (Cummins) - Replacement for PBA401-D00 $2,742.00 $2,742.00 — 18 Delete 1 14-40-4235 Level Gauge, Activation, Park Brake Set, Pump Engaged - QTY 2 $0.00 $0.00 — 19 Add 1 14-40--4215 Level Gauge, Activation, Battery Switched - QTY 2 $0.00 $0.00 — 20 Clarification 1 Pump panel water gauge & Max vision to be battery switched $0.00 $0.00 — 21 Add 1 14-40-4240 Level Gauge, Activation, Park Brake Released, Aux Pump Engaged $0.00 $0.00 —

Page 57 of 724 ends

# Action Qty Option Description Item Price Extended Price Lead
Time
(Days)
22 Clarification 1 Console water gauge to activate with aux pump. $0.00 $0.00 — 23 Delete 1 14-40-4235 Foam Tank Level Gauge, Activation, Park Brake Set, Pump Engaged $0.00 $0.00 —
24 Add 1 14-40-4215 Foam Tank Level Gauge, Activation, Battery Switched $0.00 $0.00 — 25 Delete 1 35-10-1100 D2 Compartment - Shelf, Adjustable, Alum 3/16", Cal-Fire 2022 - QTY 2 $450.00 $-450.00 —
26 Delete 1 35-85-2115 D2 Compartment - Dri-Dek, Grating, Per Cmpt Shelf - QTY 2 $109.80 $-109.80 — 27 Delete 1 42-20-1050 P2 Compartment - NO - 12V Power $0.00 $0.00 — 28 Clarification 1 Shelves in P2 to be shallow, not full width. $0.00 $0.00 — 29 Delete 1 35-10-1100 PH1 Compartment - Shelf, Adjustable, Alum 3/16", Cal-Fire 2022 $225.00 $-225.00 —
30 Delete 1 35-85-215 PH! Compartment - Dri-Dek, Grating, Per Cmpt Shelf $54.90 $-54.90 — 31 Delete 1 35-85-2110 PH2 Compartment - Dri-Dek, Grating, Per Cmpt Surface $54.90 $-54.90 — 32 Delete 1 23-68-6115 Slide -in suction Hose Cmpts / TP1 - Hard Suction Cmpt, Rear, Drivers/Psngr, M34 2021 $1,091.70 $-1,091.70 —
33 Delete 1 41-46-2005 Slide -in suction Hose Cmpts / TP1 - Door Open Sensor, Compt Door $133.00 $-133.00 —
34 Add 1 21-01-2955 TP1 Compartment - Cmpt Dim, Drivers, Top Comp. Full Length, TP1 $3,382.50 $3,382.50 —
35 Add 1 24-09-3100 TP1 Compartment - Cmpt Floor Drains, Corners $27.00 $27.00 — 36 Add 1 24-14-1001 TP1 Compartment - Doors, Roof Compts, Lift Up Alum Embossed T/P, Small <1000sq.in. QTY 2 $1,310.00 $1,310.00 —
37 Add 1 24-19-0200 TP1 Compartment - Lever Latch, Black, Locking, 1250 Key Type, Round Button, Each. QTY 2 $166.00 $166.00 —
38 Add 1 41-45-0030 TP1 Compartment - Compartment Lighting, Dunnage, Tecniq E10.

QTY 2 $232.00 $232.00 —
39 Add 1 41-46-2005 TP1 Compartment - Door Open Sensor, Compt Door. QTY 2 $360.00 $360.00 — 40 Add 1 23-68-6110 TP1 Compartment - Hard Suction Cmpt, Rear RH, (M34 2012) $1,765.00 $1,765.00 — 41 Add 1 41-46-2005 TP1 Compartment - Door Open Sensor, Compt Door $180.00 $180.00 — 42 Delete 1 24-19-0100 TC1 Compartment - Lever Latch, Black, Non-Locking, Round Button, Each $53.00 $-53.00 —
43 Add 1 24-19-200 TC1 Compartment - Lever Latch, Black, Locking, 1250 Key Type, Round Button, Each $83.00 $83.00 —
44 Delete 1 24-05-2310 DS Fwd. SCBA Pack Storage - SCBA Stge, Drivers, Rear Wheelwell, 8" Round, Cal-Fire 2022 $294.00 $-294.00 —
45 Delete 1 24-05-2450 DS Fwd. SCBA Pack Storage - SCBA Door, Cast Products, Lever Latch $199.00 $-199.00 —
46 Delete 1 24-05-2500 DS Fwd. SCBA Pack Storage - SCBA Tube, Plastic, w/ Mat $39.00 $-39.00 — 47 Delete 1 24-19-0415 DS Fwd. SCBA Pack Storage - Lever Latch, Textured Chrome Raised Button, Non-locking, Each $39.00 $-39.00 —
48 Delete 1 24-05-7000 DS Fwd. SCBA Pack Storage - SCBA Cylinder Tether, 1" Nylon $41.00 $-41.00 —

Page 58 of 724 ends

# Action Qty Option Description Item Price Extended Price Lead
Time
(Days)
49 Add 1 24-05-2305 DS Fwd. SCBA Pack Storage - SCBA Compt, Drivers, Rwd Whlwell, Full Pack Storage $1,316.70 $1,316.70 —
50 Add 1 24-05-2465 DS Fwd. SCBA Pack Storage - SCBA Door, Painted Stainless Steel $798.00 $798.00 —
51 Add 1 24-19-0411 DS Fwd. SCBA Pack Storage - Lever Latch, Black, Locking-1250, Round Button, Each $87.00 $87.00 —
52 Delete 1 24-05-2450 DS rear. SCBA Bottle Storage - SCBA Door, Cast Products, Lever Latch $199.00 $-199.00 —
53 Delete 1 24-19-0415 DS rear. SCBA Bottle Storage - Lever Latch, Textured Chrome Raised Button, Non-locking, Each $53.00 $-53.00 —
54 Add 1 24-05-2465 DS rear. SCBA Bottle Storage - SCBA Door, Painted Stainless Steel $798.00 $798.00 —
55 Add 1 24-19-0410 DS rear. SCBA Bottle Storage - Lever Latch, Black, NonLocking, Round Button, Each $87.00 $87.00 — 56 Delete 1 24-05-6315 PS Fwd. SCBA Pack Storage - SCBA Stge, Psngr, Rear Wheelwell, 8" Round, Cal-Fire 2022 $294.00 $-294.00 —
57 Delete 1 24-05-2450 PS Fwd. SCBA Pack Storage - SCBA Door, Cast Products, Lever Latch $199.00 $-199.00 —
58 Delete 1 24-05-2500 PS Fwd. SCBA Pack Storage - SCBA Tube, Plastic, w/ Mat $39.00 $-39.00 — 59 Delete 1 24-19-0415 PS Fwd. SCBA Pack Storage - Lever Latch, Textured Chrome Raised Button, Non-locking, Each $39.00 $-39.00 —
60 Delete 1 24-05-7000 PS Fwd. SCBA Pack Storage - SCBA Cylinder Tether, 1" Nylon $41.00 $-41.00 — 61 Add 1 24-05-6305 PS Fwd. SCBA Pack Storage - SCBA Compt, Psngr, Rwd Whlwell, Full Pack Storage $1,316.70 $1,316.70 —
62 Add 1 24-05-2465 PS Fwd. SCBA Pack Storage - SCBA Door, Painted Stainless Steel $798.00 $798.00 —
63 Add 1 24-19-0411 PS Fwd. SCBA Pack Storage - Lever Latch, Black, Locking-1250, Round Button, Each $87.00 $87.00 —
64 Delete 1 24-05-2450 PS Rear SCBA Bottle Storage - SCBA Door, Cast Products, Lever Latch $199.00 $-199.00 —
65 Delete 1 24-19-0415 PS Rear SCBA Bottle Storage - Lever Latch, Textured Chrome Raised Button, Non-locking, Each $53.00 $-53.00 —
66 Add 1 24-05-2465 PS Rear SCBA Bottle Storage - SCBA Door, Painted Stainless Steel $798.00 $798.00 —
67 Add 1 24-19-0410 PS Rear SCBA Bottle Storage - Lever Latch, Black, NonLocking, Round Button, Each $87.00 $87.00 — 68 Delete 1 24-33-5120 Hosebed Flaps, Color, Red $0.00 $0.00 — 69 Add 1 24-33-5110 24-33-5110 - Hosebed Flaps, Color, Black $0.00 $0.00 — 70 Delete 1 40-10-1145 Front Console - Electrical Console, Cab, BME, Cal-Fire 2022 $3,889.00 $-3,889.00 — 71 Add 1 40-10-1255 Front Console - Electrical Console, Cab, BME, Navistar HV, (4 Door), AP-00-001998 $5,410.00 $5,410.00 —
72 Delete 1 42-21-3310 Front Console - 12 Volt Pwr Source, Switched Battery $0.00 $0.00 — 73 Add 1 42-21-3305 Front Console - 12 Volt Pwr Source, Battery Hot $0.00 $0.00 —

Page 59 of 724 ends

# Action Qty Option Description Item Price Extended Price Lead
Time
(Days)
74 Delete 1 40-10-1800 Rear Console - Rear of Center Console Helmet Mounting Board, Cal-Fire 2022 $144.00 $-144.00 —
75 Add 1 40-10-1146 12Volt Disconnect Switch, mounted to front console, to control console circuits $450.00 $450.00 —
76 Delete 1 40-15-6202 Kussmaul Auto Eject Cover, Red $0.00 $0.00 — 77 Add 1 40-15-6202 Kussmaul Auto Eject Cover, Yellow $0.00 $0.00 — 78 Delete 1 41-36-5455 Rear Scene Light - Scene Light, Whelen, Pioneer PCH1P1. QTY 2 $1,906.20 $-1,906.20 — 79 Add 1 41-36-5300 Rear Scene - Scene Light, Whelen, PCPSM1C, LED - Rear. QTY 2 $1,766.00 $1,766.00 — 80 Add 1 41-40-6400 rear Scene - Scene Light Switching, Rear, Automatic Back-Up $211.00 $211.00 — 81 Clarification 1
Scene light switching rear auto back up to be tied into rear under bumper micros only. $0.00 $0.00 —
82 Clarification 1
Option Pricing - Upper Zone B&D Scene; PCPSM1C qty (2) = $1,722.00 Side Scene; PCPM2C qty (2) = $3,018.00 $0.00 $0.00 — 83 Add 1 02-73-9501 Front Bumper Bezel - Ruby Red Reflective background $50.00 $50.00 — 84 Add 1 42-10-3905 Radio Pre-Wire - one (1) additional for a total of two (2) $387.00 $387.00 — 85 Delete 1 80-65-1320 Painting, Cal Fire Spec, *Special* $0.00 $0.00 — 86 Clarification 1
Lightbar - Lightbar to have steady burning forward facing red. $0.00 $0.00 —
87 Clarification 1 Paint Spray outs verified and signed by "G. Lopez" $0.00 $0.00 — 88 Delete 1 40-30-1305 License Plate Mounting, Front $72.00 $-72.00 — 89 Add 1 35-70-3210 SCBA Mntgs, ZICO, Walkaway, UH-6-30-2-SF. QTY 4 $1,164.00 $1,164.00 — 90 Clarification 1 SCBA brackets to be installed post final inspection. $0.00 $0.00 — 91 Add 1 42-21-1560 P2 Compartment - Power Point, BlueSea 12V Accessory Panel, USB, 12V $319.00 $319.00 —
92 Delete 1 40-10-1155 Rear Console, Cab, Navistar HV, Freighliner, AP-00-008392 $2,778.00 $-2,778.00 — 93 Add 1 40-10-1160 Rear Console, Cab, Navistar HV, AP-00-018699 $3,759.00 $3,759.00 — 94 Delete 1 42-21-3310 Rear Console - 12 Volt Pwr Source, Switched Battery - 12V & USB $0.00 $0.00 —
95 Add 1 42-21-3305 Rear Console - 12 Volt Pwr Source, Battery Hot - 12V & USB $0.00 $0.00 —

Page 60 of 724 ends

Change Order Breakdown
Total Additions $32,621.90
Total Deletions $-18,046.50
Change Order History
Change Order Status Total
Change Order 1 Locked $15,905.41
Total Change Orders $15,905.41
Current Change Order Summary
Per Unit Sub-Total $14,575.40
Number of Units Purchased 1
Change Order Sub-Total $14,575.40
Current Day State Sales Tax Rate 9.125%
Sales Tax $1,330.01
Total of This Change Order $15,905.41
Change Orders Due Prior To Delivery or Pick-Up – Customer shall pay any balance due as a result of Change Orders to GSFA prior to GSFA’s delivery of the applicable Product (or Customer’s pick up of such Product at GSFA’s facilities, if approved by GSFA). GSFA shall have no obligation to deliver, or permit pick up of the Product if the Customer has not made full payment prior to delivery or pick-up.

CONTINUED FORCE AND EFFECT – Except as expressly modified herein, the terms and provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and are hereby ratified and confirmed by Customer and GSFA, and this Change Order is incorporated into the Agreement by this reference.

MANDATORY CHANGE ORDERS – Notwithstanding any other provision contained herein, if this Change Order is being submitted by GSFA to Customer pursuant to Section 8.b of the Standard Terms and Conditions (such Change Order, a "Mandatory Change Order"), then Customer shall execute this Change Order, and Customer's failure to do so shall not relieve Customer of its obligations for the changes reflected herein, as provided in the Agreement.

EFFECTIVE DATE – The effective date of this Change Order shall be: (i) if operating as a Response (as defined in the Standard Terms and Conditions) to a proposed change order submitted by Customer, the date set forth beside Customer's name in the signature block below (provided that such date is within the seven (7) days allowed for acceptance by Customer under Section 8.a of the Standard Terms and Conditions); (ii) if submitted by GSFA and not a Mandatory Change Order, the date set forth beside Customer's name in the signature block below; or (iii) if submitted by GSFA and a Mandatory Change Order, the earlier of the date set forth beside Customer's name in the signature block below or fifteen (15) days following Customer's receipt of this Change Order (for the avoidance of doubt, regardless of whether Customer has signed this Change Order as of such date) (such applicable date, the "Effective Date"). Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent any provision of this Change Order requires the review and approval of the Manufacturer (including, without limitation, any engineering review required in connection with proposed Customer changes which will alter Product Specifications), such provision shall not be effective unless and until the Manufacturer conducts such review and GSFA receives such approval.

COUNTERPARTS – This Change Order may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original (including copies sent to a party by electronic transmission) as against the party signing such counterpart, but which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. A signed copy of this Change Order delivered by facsimile, email or other means of electronic transmission will be deemed to have the same legal effect as delivery of an original signed copy of this Change Order. If this Change Order is returned to GSFA with the signature of Customer's authorized representative but without an attestation or co-signers signature, then absent Customer's written notice to the contrary, GSFA shall be entitled to rely on such single signature as sufficient evidence of the signatory's authority to execute this Change Order and bind Customer thereby.

INTENDING TO CREATE A BINDING AGREEMENT, Customer and GSFA have each caused this Change Order to be executed by their duly authorized representatives effective as of the Effective Date.

ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO BY CUSTOMER

Page 61 of 724 ends

**s1**
Greg Lopez
Division Chief

ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO BY GOLDEN STATE FIRE APPARATUS
**s3**
Dewayne Young
Golden State Fire Apparatus

Page 62 of 724 ends

Job Number(s): 3950
Change Order: 2
Change Order Range: — - —
Customer: Gilroy Fire Dept (301)
Submitted Contact Email Proposal # Manufacturer Created By 03/18/2026 Greg Lopez [email protected] — BME Fire Trucks, LLC. Dewayne Young By executing this change order (this "Change Order"), Golden State Fire Apparatus, Inc. ("GSFA") and the customer identified above ("Customer") hereby agree to the below-listed modifications to the agreement identified by the above GSFA Proposal Number —, BME Fire Trucks, LLC. job number(s) 3950 (such agreement and all exhibits and attachments thereto, the "Agreement"), as well as any additional charges or credits associated with such modifications. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings given to them in the Agreement. # Action Qty Option Description Item Price Extended Price Lead
Time
(Days)
01 Add 1 Cab Repaint - Documented in BME Change Order 1 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 — 02 Add 1
Body Side Scene Lights - Option Pricing quoted by BME - Upper Zone B&D Scene; PCPSM1C qty (2) = $1,722.00 Side Scene; $1,722.00 $1,722.00 — Change Order Breakdown
Total Additions $9,222.00
Total Deletions $0.00
Change Order History
Change Order Status Total
Change Order 1 Locked $15,905.41
Change Order 2 Active $10,063.51
Total Change Orders $25,968.92
Current Change Order Summary
Per Unit Sub-Total $9,222.00
Number of Units Purchased 1
Change Order Sub-Total $9,222.00
Current Day State Sales Tax Rate 9.125%
Sales Tax $841.51
Total of This Change Order $10,063.51
Change Orders Due Prior To Delivery or Pick-Up – Customer shall pay any balance due as a result of Change Orders to GSFA prior to GSFA’s delivery of the applicable Product (or Customer’s pick up of such Product at GSFA’s facilities, if approved by GSFA). GSFA shall have no obligation to deliver, or permit pick up of the Product if the Customer has not made full payment prior to delivery or pick-up.

Page 63 of 724 ends

and Customer's failure to do so shall not relieve Customer of its obligations for the changes reflected herein, as provided in the Agreement.

INTENDING TO CREATE A BINDING AGREEMENT, Customer and GSFA have each caused this Change Order to be executed by their duly authorized representatives effective as of the Effective Date.

ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO BY CUSTOMER
**s1**
Greg Lopez
Division Chief

ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO BY GOLDEN STATE FIRE APPARATUS
**s3**
Dewayne Young
Golden State Fire Apparatus

Page 64 of 724 ends

5.6. City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Notice of Completion for the FY25 Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Project No. 25-PW-295 and Approval of a Final Contract Amount of $6,911,105.66
Meeting Date: April 6, 2026
From: Matt Morley, City Administrator
Department: Public Works
Submitted by: Nisha Patel, City Engineer
Prepared by: Julie Oates, Engineer
STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS: Maintain and Improve City Infrastructure

RECOMMENDATION

1. Approve the Notice of Completion for the FY25 Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Project No. 25-PW-295, and

2. Approve a final contract amount of $6,911,105.66 for the FY25 Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Project No. 25-PW-295.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Construction of the FY25 Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Project (Project) was completed by McKim Corporation, and Public Works staff have reviewed and approved the performed work. The Project consisted of pavement grinding and asphalt concrete overlay of twelve street segments and two alley segments, pavement striping and markings, and associated work. The street segments were selected based on the City’s Pavement Management Program, StreetSaver, which evaluates and prioritizes maintenance of the City’s overall road network.

Staff recommends the City Council approve the Notice of Completion and approve a final contract in the amount of $6,911,105.66 with McKim Corporation for the FY25 Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Project No. 25-PW-295.

Page 65 of 724 ends

5.6. BACKGROUND
On June 16, 2025, City Council awarded the contract to McKim Corporation in the amount of $6,479,784.04 with a project contingency of $647,978.96 for a total allocation of $7,127,763.00 and authorized the City Administrator to execute the contract and associated documents.

ANALYSIS
The Project scope of work included pavement grinding and asphalt overlay of twelve street segments and two alley segments, pavement striping and markings, and associated work. Construction change orders resulted in a net increase of $431,321.62 to the Project for a final contract amount of $6,911,105.66.

Contract work was performed primarily between August 2025 and October 2025.

Following completion of change order work and punch list items, the Project was deemed complete. Project documentation has been finalized, and all punch list items have been addressed by the contractor.

Staff recommends the City Council approve the Notice of Completion and the final contract in the amount of $6,911,105.66 with McKim Corporation for the FY25 Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Project No. 25-PW-295.

ALTERNATIVES
N/A

FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
Construction of the Project was funded by Gas Taxes (205), SB1 Road Funds (210), Measure B (212), and Vehicle Registration Fees (220). There were no impacts to the City’s General Fund.

The total Project construction cost was $6,911,105.66. The remaining balance of $216,657.34 will go back into the City’s Gas Tax Fund (205). The Project’s funding sources and amounts are summarized below.

Funding Source Amount
Gas Taxes (205) $283,342.66
Road Funds SB1 $3,293,591.00
Measure B (212) $3,006,409.00
Vehicle Registration Fees (220) $327,763.00
Total $6,911,105.66

Page 66 of 724 ends

5.6. PUBLIC OUTREACH
N/A

NEXT STEPS
N/A
Attachments:

1. 25-PW-295 NOC

Page 67 of 724 ends

Page 68 of 724 ends

Page 69 of 724 ends

Page 70 of 724 ends

5.7. City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Consent the City Administrator's Recommendation to Appoint Harjot Sangha to the Department Head Position of Assistant City Administrator
Meeting Date: April 6, 2026
From: Matt Morley, City Administrator
Department: Administration
Submitted by: Matt Morley, City Administrator
Prepared by: Matt Morley, City Administrator
STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS:

RECOMMENDATION
Consent the City Administrator's Recommendation to Appoint Harjot Sangha to the Department Head Position of Assistant City Administrator.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Following an update to the City's Position Control List, the City of Gilroy has an Assistant City Administrator (ACA) position available.

BACKGROUND
At the March 16, 2026 City Council meeting, the City Council approved an update to the City's Position Control List, which included the classification of the vacant Assistant to the City Administrator to an Assistant City Administrator (ACA). The City Administrator has identified Finance Director Harjot Sangha to serve in this role. Harjot recently served as Interim City Administrator for the period of January 5, 2026 - February 8, 2026. Harjot has demonstrated the skills and expertise that will bring immense value to the city.

Page 71 of 724 ends

5.7. ANALYSIS
N/A

ALTERNATIVES
The alternative is to forego the appointment of Harjot Sangha, and this alternative is not recommended.

FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
There is no fiscal impact associated with this appointment. The fiscal impact associated with the position change was recognized at the March 16, 2026, City Council meeting for FY27.

PUBLIC OUTREACH
N/A

NEXT STEPS
Following Council approval of this interim appointment, Harjot Sangha will assume the necessary duties and responsibilities of the Assitant City Administrator.

Attachments:

None

Page 72 of 724 ends

6.1. City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Council Award a Contract to Pros Consulting for the Recreation Division Assessment in the Amount of $372,690 and Adopt a Resolution Amending the Fiscal Year 2026
Budget in the Recreation Fund
Meeting Date: April 6, 2026
From: Matt Morley, City Administrator
Department: Administration
Submitted by: Bryce Atkins, Deputy Director of Community Development Prepared by: Bryce Atkins, Deputy Director of Community Development STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS: Develop a Financially Resilient Organization Ensure Neighborhood Equity from City Services

RECOMMENDATION
Council:

1. Award the contract to Pros Consulting and authorize the City Administrator to execute the agreement; and

2. Adopt the attached budget amendment resolution.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BACKGROUND
During the City’s budget and strategic planning process, the City Council identified the need to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the City’s Recreation Division. The assessment was intended to evaluate several policy and operational issues, including the ongoing $1.5 million General Fund contribution supporting recreation services,

Page 73 of 724 ends

6.1. community concerns regarding the affordability of youth recreation programs, the best approach to the aquatics program, and staffing and organizational needs associated with requested position additions during the budget process.

Given that decisions regarding recreation programming, funding levels, staffing, and service delivery are interrelated, Council determined that a comprehensive evaluation of recreation operations was necessary to inform future policy direction and ensure longterm financial and operational sustainability of recreation services.

At its regular meeting on September 15, 2025, the City Council considered whether the assessment should be conducted internally by City staff or performed by an outside consultant. Following discussion of the relative advantages and trade-offs of each approach—including considerations related to objectivity, staff capacity, cost, and timeline—the Council directed staff to pursue engaging an independent consultant to complete the Recreation Division assessment.

Following Council direction, staff prepared a draft scope of work outlining the proposed assessment components and distributed it to the City Council on November 6, 2025, for review and comment. Council feedback included consideration of additional partnership opportunities, such as potential recreation programming at the Library, as well as questions regarding funding sources for the assessment.

To maintain project momentum and avoid delays associated with Assembly Bill 339, staff released the Recreation Assessment Request for Proposals (RFP) on December 18, 2025. Issuance of the RFP allowed the procurement process to proceed while still providing the City Council an opportunity to review and request modifications through subsequent Council consideration and issuance of an addendum, if desired.

The Recreation Assessment is intended to provide the City Council with objective analysis and actionable recommendations on recreation programming, organizational structure, service delivery models, and financial sustainability, to inform future policy decisions.

ANALYSIS
The City received four proposals for the recreation assessment RFP. The four proposals were scored by an evaluation team comprised of the Recreation Manager, Assistant to the City Administrator, and a Management Analyst Trainee. Attached to this report are the scores for each proposal. Below are the combined average scores, in order from highest to lowest score.

Firm Name Average Score Proposal Amount
Pros Consulting 88 $372,690

Page 74 of 724 ends

6.1. BerryDunn 81 $298,007
Matrix 79 $188,780
Raftelis 69 $99,200
All four firms were then invited to a question-and-answer format interview about their proposals.

Pros Consulting scored the highest. The evaluation team felt their firm, and the assigned team in particular, had the most experience conducting these types of assessments for recreation functions among all proposals received. Additionally, their proposed methodology and deliverables were fully aligned with the scope of work in the RFP, and their interview responses were the most insightful. The evaluation team is most confident that Pros Consulting will conduct the assessment to the highest quality.

The evaluation team determined that BerryDunn and Matrix could also conduct the assessment, though the methodology appeared more general in nature. However, staff is not confident that Raftelis understood the project or that their cost proposal fully covered the scope of work.

Pros Consulting’s cost proposal is the highest. However, staff feel that there is value in pursuing the full amount of their proposal, for the following reasons:
• The assessment will impact the Recreation Division's operations and growth over the next 10–20 years and will provide guidance and information to staff and Council for both strategic planning and budget development. • The accumulated fund balance in the Recreation Fund may not be as robust in the future and may not be able to afford the very thorough and complex assessment proposed in this effort.
• As mentioned previously, the subjects of review raised by the Council are interdependent, as are they with the other aspects of the operation. Assessing them in their entirety simultaneously provides the most accurate assessment and the most meaningful recommendations and effective implementation. • Pros Consulting is already familiar with Gilroy, having conducted the recreation needs assessment just before the COVID-19 pandemic, and understands some of the community dynamics. The previous work demonstrated the firm’s reliability, quality, and timely delivery, even during the pandemic. • Pros Consulting set aside time during the interview to explain their inclusive and thoughtful approach to reaching out to “hard-to-reach" populations, especially our Spanish-speaking residents and those with limited access to technology. • Their team qualifications seem to be the best of the team proposals, with extensive experience in program and service analysis, working with

Page 75 of 724 ends

6.1. municipalities on similar projects.

ALTERNATIVES
As an alternative to the recommended action, Council may:

1. Award to Pros Consulting, removing the facility assessment, bringing the total award to $259,918.

2. Award to Pros Consulting, setting the dollar figure to $225,000, and City staff and the consultant can negotiate the maximum possible scope of work within the budget.

3. Award the contract to another firm, or with another award amount.

FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
$372,690 from the Recreation Fund. As mentioned when receiving direction to pursue an outside consultant for the assessment, additional funds would need to be appropriated into the budget. The Recreation Fund is projected to have $1.3 million in available fund balance at the end of the current fiscal year that may be used for this assessment. This available balance excludes the amount already appropriated for the Las Animas Pickleball Courts Project. Attached is a resolution amending the budget for Council adoption.

PUBLIC OUTREACH
This subject has been discussed at prior Council meetings. Additionally, there is a large public outreach component to this project, which will be advertised to encourage participation.

NEXT STEPS
If awarded, staff will finalize and execute the contract and commence the project.

Attachments:

1. Budget Amendment Resolution - Recreation Assessment Award

2. Score Card

3. PROS Consulting Proposal

4. BerryDunn Proposal

5. Matrix Consulting Group Proposal

Page 76 of 724 ends

6.1. 6. Raftelis Proposal

7. Recreation Assessment RFP

Page 77 of 724 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF GILROY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026 IN THE

RECREATION FUND AND APPROPRIATING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
WHEREAS, the City Administrator prepared and submitted to the City Council a budget for the City of Gilroy for Fiscal Years 2026 and 2027, and the City Council carefully examined, considered, and adopted the same on June 2, 2025; and WHEREAS, City Staff has prepared and submitted to the City Council a proposed amendment to said budget for Fiscal Year 2026 for the City of Gilroy in the staff report dated April 6, 2026, for the awarding of a contract for the Recreation Division assessment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully examined and considered the same and is satisfied with said budget amendments.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that appropriations to the expenditure accounts in the Recreation Fund (Fund 290) are hereby increased by $372,690 for Fiscal Year 2026.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of April 2026 by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

APPROVED:

______________________________

Greg Bozzo, Mayor
ATTEST:

Kim Mancera, City Clerk

Page 78 of 724 ends

Resolution No. 2026-XX
Budget Amendment: Recreation Division Assessment
City Council Regular Meeting | April 6, 2026

Page 2 of 2 ends

CERTIFICATE OF THE CLERK
I, KIM MANCERA, City Clerk of the City of Gilroy, do hereby certify that the attached Resolution No. 2026-XX is an original resolution, or true and correct copy of a City Resolution, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Gilroy at a Regular Meeting held on Monday, April 6, 2026, with a quorum present.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of the City of Gilroy this Date.
____________________________________
Kim Mancera
City Clerk of the City of Gilroy
(Seal)

Page 79 of 724 ends

Criteria
Max
Possible
Score
Reviewer 1 Reviewer 2 Reviewer 3 Average Score
Consultant’s experience and qualifications as they relate to the scope of services of the RFP 25 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 Project methodology and understanding of the assessment needs 25 21.0 20.0 21.0 20.7 Staffing plan and team’s individual qualifications 20 20.0 18.0 19.0 19.0 Prior work example 15 10.0 11.0 9.0 10.0
Cost proposal 10 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3
Project Schedule 5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
TOTAL 100 82.3 80.3 80.3 81.0
Criteria
Max
Possible
Score
Reviewer 1 Reviewer 2 Reviewer 3 Average Score
Consultant’s experience and qualifications as they relate to the scope of services of the RFP 25 24.0 19.0 22.0 21.7 Project methodology and understanding of the assessment needs 25 21.0 18.0 19.0 19.3 Staffing plan and team’s individual qualifications 20 20.0 10.0 18.0 16.0 Prior work example 15 15.0 12.0 10.0 12.3
Cost proposal 10 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3
Project Schedule 5 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.7
TOTAL 100 90.3 69.3 78.3 79.3
Criteria
Max
Possible
Score
Reviewer 1 Reviewer 2 Reviewer 3 Average Score
Consultant’s experience and qualifications as they relate to the scope of services of the RFP 25 15.0 18.0 15.0 16.0 Project methodology and understanding of the assessment needs 25 20.0 15.0 12.0 15.7 Staffing plan and team’s individual qualifications 20 15.0 10.0 14.0 13.0 Prior work example 15 12.0 12.0 11.0 11.7
Cost proposal 10 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Project Schedule 5 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.7
TOTAL 100 75.0 67.0 65.0 69.0
Proposal Firm: BerryDunn
Proposal Firm: Matrix Consulting Group
Proposal Firm: Raftelis

Page 80 of 724 ends

Criteria
Max
Possible
Score
Reviewer 1 Reviewer 2 Reviewer 3 Average Score
Consultant’s experience and qualifications as they relate to the scope of services of the RFP 25 25.0 24.0 24.0 24.3 Project methodology and understanding of the assessment needs 25 25.0 25.0 19.0 23.0 Staffing plan and team’s individual qualifications 20 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Prior work example 15 15.0 15.0 12.0 14.0
Cost proposal 10 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7
Project Schedule 5 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.3
TOTAL 100 91.7 91.7 81.7 88.4
Proposal Firm: Pros Consulting

Page 81 of 724 ends

Request for Proposals No. 26-RFP-AD-531:

Recreation Division
Assessment
February 6, 2026
Prepared By:

Page 82 of 724 ends

February 6, 2026
City of Gilroy
7351 Rosanna Street
Gilroy, CA 95020-6197
RE: Request for Proposals: 26-RFP-AD-531 City of Gilroy Recreation Division Assessment Dear Selection Committee:

On behalf of PROS Consulting, LLC, I am pleased to submit our proposal for the City of Gilroy Recreation Division Assessment in response to the City’s Request for Proposals.

Consultant Legal Name and Corporate Structure: PROS Consulting, LLC is a privately held incorporated company specializing exclusively in parks, recreation, and community services planning, operational analysis, and financial sustainability for public agencies.

Firm Credentials: PROS Consulting brings nearly 30 years of national experience delivering recreation assessments, operational studies, cost recovery analyses, staffing evaluations, and implementation-focused plans for cities, counties, and special districts across the United States. Our team is composed of former parks and recreation directors, senior municipal managers, and subject-matter experts with direct experience implementing the types of recommendations contemplated under this RFP.

Understanding of the Work and Qualifications: We understand that the City of Gilroy is seeking a practical, decision-ready Recreation Division Assessment that evaluates programs, staffing, facilities, financial sustainability, equity, and partnerships within real-world operational and fiscal constraints. The City does not need a vision-based master plan, but rather a clear, defensible assessment that supports near- and long-term decisions. PROS Consulting is uniquely qualified to perform this work due to our practitioner-led approach, disciplined integration of community engagement and technical analysis, and proven ability to translate findings into actionable recommendations that City leadership can confidently implement.

Subconsultants: PROS Consulting proposes the following subconsultants to support this engagement:

KTUA – Community outreach, park system inventory, GIS analysis, level of service evaluation, and outdoor capital prioritization
ETC Institute – Statistically valid community survey and engagement analytics 110% – Cost-of-service analysis, cost recovery evaluation, and fee policy development Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning – Indoor facility assessment, utilization analysis, and capital improvement planning
Each subconsultant will perform work directly aligned with their specialized expertise and the City’s scope of work, under the direction and integration of PROS Consulting.

Cover Letter

Page 83 of 724 ends

Conflict of Interest Statement: PROS Consulting certifies that neither the firm nor any individual who will perform work under this contract has any conflict of interest, including employment by the City of Gilroy, which would impair our ability to perform the services described in this RFP.

Agreement Acknowledgement: PROS Consulting acknowledges that it has reviewed the City of Gilroy’s standard professional services agreement and accepts the agreement without modification.

Primary Contact
Michael Svetz, Principal, PROS Consulting, Inc
10664 S. Indian Wells Drive
Goodyear, AZ 85338
Email: [email protected]
Telephone: 623 388-1787
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal and look forward to the possibility of partnering with the City of Gilroy to deliver a clear, defensible, and implementationready Recreation Division Assessment.

Sincerely,
PROS Consulting
Leon Younger, President

Page 84 of 724 ends

Request for Proposal - 26-RFP-AD-531
City of Gilroy Recreation Division Assessment
i
Table of Contents
Cover Letter
Executive Summary .................................................................................. 1 Section 1 – Company Background......................................................... 2 Section 2 - Company and Project Team Qualifications ....................... 3 Section 3 – References ........................................................................... 15 Section 4 – Proposed Methodology ...................................................... 19 Section 5 - Proposed Timeline ............................................................... 40 Section 6 – Prior Work Samples.............................................................. 40 Section 7 – Pricing................................................................................... 41 Section 8 - Additional Information ........................................................ 47

Page 85 of 724 ends

Page 86 of 724 ends

Request for Proposal - 26-RFP-AD-531
City of Gilroy Recreation Division Assessment
1 Executive Summary
PROS Consulting, in partnership with KTUA, ETC Institute, 110%, and Group 4, submits a senior-led, low-risk proposal to complete the City of Gilroy Recreation Division Assessment. This team has been intentionally assembled to deliver a decision-ready evaluation that addresses recreation operations, staffing, facilities, and financial sustainability with clarity, discipline, and immediate applicability.

The proposed team brings complementary expertise across the full scope of work: PROS Consulting provides overall leadership, synthesis, and implementation planning; KTUA leads park system and outdoor asset analysis; ETC Institute delivers statistically valid community survey research; 110% conducts cost-of-service, cost recovery, and fee policy analysis; and Group 4 evaluates indoor facilities, utilization, and capital needs. Each firm is responsible for discrete, clearly defined tasks aligned directly with the City’s requirements.

This proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of Gilroy’s operating realities, including limited staffing capacity, reliance on seasonal service delivery, aging assets, affordability expectations, and increasing pressure for accountability and defensible decision-making. The proposed approach is designed to evaluate not only what services are desired, but what can be realistically staffed, funded, and sustained over time.

The methodology integrates community input, operational analysis, financial evaluation, program lifecycle assessment, and park and facility analysis into a single, coordinated framework.

Implementation considerations are embedded throughout the process so staffing impacts, financial implications, and policy decisions are evaluated alongside findings rather than deferred to a later phase.

The result is a focused set of prioritized recommendations supported by transparent analysis, defined tradeoffs, and clear implementation steps. Deliverables are structured for immediate use by City staff, the Parks and Recreation Commission, and City Council, including a defensible needs assessment, staffing and financial strategies, capital prioritization, and a phased implementation roadmap.

The PROS Consulting Team Advantage
PROS Consulting serves as the integrator and strategic lead for this engagement, bringing nearly three decades of exclusive focus on parks, recreation, and community services planning for public agencies.

The PROS team is composed of former parks and recreation directors, senior municipal managers, and national subject-matter experts who understand how recommendations perform once they leave the report and enter real-world budgets, staffing plans, and Council agendas.

What differentiates PROS is its ability to translate complex analysis into clear, implementable decisions. Rather than producing aspirational plans, PROS emphasizes operational feasibility, financial defensibility, and phased implementation grounded in staffing capacity and funding reality. This approach reduces risk for the City by ensuring recommendations are actionable, politically defensible, and aligned with how local governments actually operate.

PROS’ role as prime consultant ensures disciplined project management, consistent synthesis across subconsultants, and a single point of accountability for quality, schedule, and outcomes. The result is a cohesive assessment that moves beyond findings to provide City leadership with the confidence and tools needed to act.

Page 87 of 724 ends

2 Section 1 – Company Background
Who is PROS Consulting?
PROS Consulting is a small firm with a big presence in the field of management consulting for public entities and non-profit organizations. With a small team of highly professional and experienced consultants, PROS is a flexible firm that is agile to the evolving dynamics of the social, economic, and political environments our clients operate in. PROS is among only a small handful of firms that have tremendous experience in the field as practitioners and have become nationally recognized for helping to shape and further transform the industry of parks and recreation.

The full name and location of the office that will be working on this project are:

Full Legal Company Name: PROS Consulting, Inc.

Headquarters: 35 Whittington Dr., Suite 300; Brownsburg, Indiana 46112.

P: 877.242.7760; F: 877.242.7761
Contact Information: 10664 S. Indian Wells Dr.; Goodyear, AZ 85338 Project Manager: Michael Svetz, Principal; 623.388.1787; [email protected] PROS Quick Facts
• In the last 31 years, PROS Consulting has completed more than 1,000 projects in over 47 states and numerous projects internationally in seven countries.
• The PROS Team has worked in highly diverse environments from the inner cities of Los Angeles, Miami, Atlanta, and Dallas to desert communities in Nevada and Arizona to remote areas in Appalachia, Montana, and the American West. Our experience includes working with the best-of-the-best, the worst-of-the-worst, and a lot in between.
• Our planning team has a great depth of operational experience with over 100 combined years as former parks and recreation
managers. This perspective of being trained “in the industry” and not just “on the industry” allows us to relate to communities and their residents, recreationalists of all types, and to understand the unique relevance of needs that can be most appropriately served by our clients. In other words, great recreational and park planning is not just collecting surveys and reporting results – it is about achieving a sustainable balance of services, meeting community needs, and resource protection with community fulfillment. • This project is not about the PROS Team or what we think is best for your organization and stakeholders, nor do we believe that what works in some parts of the country will work here. This project is about producing reliable, sustainable, relevant, and innovative outcomes for the City of Gilroy, and the people that live, work, and play in the region.

Page 88 of 724 ends

Request for Proposal - 26-RFP-AD-531
City of Gilroy Recreation Division Assessment
3 Section 2 - Company and Project Team Qualifications
PROS Consulting Qualifications
Management consulting and planning services offered by PROS span the full spectrum of planning needs for public agencies, and are grouped into the following practice areas:
• Strategic Planning – completed over 400 strategic plans for cities, counties and state agencies to help them become established in their market or to reposition themselves. • Master Planning – completed over 500 master plans for parks and park systems that have been successfully
implemented and driven over $5 billion worth of capital investment.
• Programming Analysis – As part of many of our Master
Plans or Strategic Plans, PROS utilizes our PROS Program Positioning Model, or 3PM. The outcome of the process is the creation of a dynamic recreation program plan that
results in increased registration, drives customer retention and loyalty, improves customer satisfaction, and
increases revenues. We have completed over 300 program
plans for systems across the country.
• Needs Assessment – completed over 300 needs
assessments as a precursor of doing a Master Plan,
Strategic Plan or Feasibility Study.
• Operations, Maintenance and Organizational
Development – PROS has completed over 450 plans that
involved operations, maintenance, and organizational
development components.
• Financial Planning and Management – PROS is most
renowned for providing the most innovative and proven
methods for financial planning and management in the
public sector with direct experience with over 150 proven ways to fund public parks and park systems.
• Feasibility Studies and Business Planning – PROS has completed over 200 feasibility studies and business plans, often counseling our clients on how they can shape their projects and their vision around the reality of what is feasible and sustainable. “PROS Consulting has proved to be responsive, innovative, and sensitive to the unique needs and interests of our community. Based on the recently completed Parks and Recreation Master Plan, I am confident it will provide us a sound framework for decision-making for the next five years and beyond.

PROS has assisted us to become CAPRA Accredited and the NRPA Gold Medal award-winning park system CCPR is today on many planning projects and has played an integral role in CCPR’s planning efforts for over two decades.”

Page 89 of 724 ends

4 Unique Experience Specific to the Project
Central to our project approach is providing a high level of responsiveness to the City of Gilroy Recreation Division staff and maintaining accessibility throughout the project lifespan. Our team is flexible and will work efficiently to effectively serve as an extension of the City’s project staff.

PROS has three CAPRA Visitors on staff and have worked with nearly 40% of CAPRA accredited agencies, as well as 55% of NRPA Gold Medal Winners.

The matrix below illustrates why our Consulting Team is the most qualified.

Qualifications PROS Consulting Differentiator
Parks & Recreation Management 130+ years of combined practitioner and planning experience in parks and recreation.

Public Agency Planning Expertise Completed 1,150+ planning projects across municipal, county, and regional agencies.

Public Sector Finance &
Budgeting
Delivered 175+ cost-of-service, financial management, and revenue enhancement studies for public agencies.

Park-Centric Partnerships Assisted 110+ agencies in developing and sustaining innovative public, nonprofit, and private partnerships.

Fiscal & Financial Planning Completed 220+ business plans at the park, facility, sector, and system levels.

Community Engagement &
Facilitation
Facilitated 4,600+ in-person and virtual public meetings, workshops, and focus groups nationwide.

Staff Training & Development Designed and delivered training programs for 10,000+ parks and recreation professionals over 29 years.

CAPRA & NRPA Gold Medal
Experience
Since 2012, supported 55% of NRPA Gold Medal agencies and nearly 40% of CAPRA-accredited agencies; two CAPRA Visitors on staff.

Regional & Local Government
Experience
Extensive experience across Arizona and the Southwest,
including Phoenix, Casa Grande, Oro Valley, Scottsdale, Goodyear, Buckeye, Chandler, Palm Springs, CA, Clark County, NV and many others.

Forensic Accounting & Economic
Analysis
Integrate forensic accounting into all financial studies; former public finance director and CPA on staff.

Operational & Programming
Analysis
Completed 375+ system-wide and site-specific operational and program assessments.

Statistically Valid Surveys &
Benchmarking
Conducted 830+ statistically valid surveys and developed North American best-practice benchmarks.

Page 90 of 724 ends

Request for Proposal - 26-RFP-AD-531
City of Gilroy Recreation Division Assessment
5 Management and Organizational Capabilities
PROS Consulting operates as a highly integrated national firm specializing exclusively in public-sector parks, recreation, and open space management consulting. Our organizational structure is intentionally lean and senior-led, ensuring every project benefits from direct Principal involvement from kickoff to completion.

Our team model combines centralized project management with flexible task distribution across specialized practice areas including planning, finance, operations, engagement, and GIS. This approach ensures continuity, consistency, and accountability, allowing PROS to complete more than 1,000 parks and recreation planning projects without disruption or duplication of effort.

Unlike larger multi-disciplinary firms, PROS’ project teams are composed of seasoned practitioners who are former park directors, operations managers, and finance professionals that understand how recommendations translate into implementable outcomes.

Quality and Cost Control Procedures
Quality assurance and fiscal accountability are embedded in every phase of our process. Our three-tiered internal review system includes technical, financial, and narrative validation prior to client delivery. Each deliverable, whether a memo, analysis, or report, is independently reviewed by the Principal and our internal Quality Control (QC) Review Panel to ensure accuracy, clarity, and alignment with project objectives.

At the core of our consulting approach is the commitment to deliver tailored assistance that precisely aligns with our clients’ requirements. To prevent the need for change orders, our services are structured around a fixed, not-to-exceed fee based on a thorough understanding of the project’s parameters and deliverables. This fixed-fee approach ensures accountability and transparency, providing the City with predictable costs and clearly defined expectations.

The fee structure for this project is based on the approach outlined in the Scope of Work and will reflect PROS’s extensive experience delivering similar master plans throughout Arizona. • The proposed fee will be a not-to-exceed amount, inclusive of all costs, both direct and indirect, such as travel, materials, and reimbursable expenses.
• PROS employs a transparent pricing model, ensuring that clients fully understand how project budgets are allocated and tracked.
• We do not request change orders or additional fees unless there is a substantial addition of scope after contract execution.
• We remain flexible in refining approach and cost to align with client outcomes and budgeting needs and welcome the opportunity to discuss options collaboratively.

This disciplined yet adaptable process has resulted in a 98% on-budget record over the last five years across all master plan projects.

Beyond project completion, PROS remains committed to our clients as trusted advisors, offering continued assistance during implementation to ensure recommendations are achievable, measurable, and sustainable.

Page 91 of 724 ends

6 Accountability and Change Order Prevention
PROS’s methodology is designed to anticipate, not react to, project challenges. Our firm commits to clear, measurable deliverables tied to the approved scope and timeline. Prior to project start, PROS provides the City with:
• A detailed project schedule aligned to milestones and deliverables. • Defined decision points to ensure shared accountability between PROS and the City. • A risk mitigation plan identifying potential schedule or coordination challenges early in the process.

Because our planning process is built around transparent communication, scope clarity, and proactive coordination, change orders are virtually eliminated, except in cases of client-requested scope expansion.

Ability to Stay on Task and Meet Schedule
PROS has a long-standing record of on-time and on-budget project delivery, supported by our internal Project Management Plan (PMP) system that tracks milestones, dependencies, and review cycles.

Each project includes:
• A dedicated Project Manager responsible for day-to-day coordination and progress reporting. • Internal team check-ins and regular client updates.
• Cloud-based task management is accessible to all team members for real-time visibility.

Our firm’s size and structure allow us to be responsive without bureaucratic delay, a critical advantage in maintaining schedule discipline.

Page 92 of 724 ends

Request for Proposal - 26-RFP-AD-531
City of Gilroy Recreation Division Assessment
7 PROS Consulting Resumes
Michael Svetz, Principal
Education
• B.S., Miami University, OH 1990
• M.S., Miami University, OH 1991
Employment History
• Principal, PROS Consulting; 2012 to present.
• Director of Parks and Recreation, City of Goodyear, AZ; 2009 to 2012 • Director of Parks and Recreation, City of Charlottesville, VA; 2004 to 2009 • Director of Parks and Recreation, City of Strongsville, OH 2000 to 2004 • Assistant Director of Parks and Recreation, City of Strongsville, OH 1997 to 2000 • Recreation Supervisor, City of Brunswick, OH 1991 to 1997) Professional Experience
Michael Svetz brings 35 years of parks and recreation experience with local governments, including 15 years in executive leadership roles. He has served as Director in Strongsville, Ohio; Charlottesville, Virginia; and most recently Goodyear, Arizona. His career includes developing and implementing innovative business practices to create self-sustaining operations for multimillion-dollar community centers, golf courses, and Major League Baseball spring training complex. Mike has led the development and execution of strategic and master plans for the agencies he directed as well as city and state associations. His background reflects deep expertise in organizational development, community engagement, board and city council relations, and political navigation, all core elements of effective parks and recreation planning. Since joining PROS Consulting, Mike has managed a wide range of projects in master planning, program and event planning, land use planning, business planning, maintenance, and strategic implementation. His project management discipline and operational insight have supported the creation of innovative, fiscally sustainable solutions for communities across the U.S.

Similar Project Experience
• Apex, CO Recreation District Strategic Plan and Cost Recovery Study • Aspen, CO Recreation Division Business Planning Services • Tukwila, WA Recreation Division Program Plan and Community Center Business Plan • Virginia Beach, VA Sports Management Unit Operational Assessment • Clark County, NV Parks and Recreation Strategic Master Plan • Palm Springs, CA Parks and Recreation Master Plan
• Phoenix, AZ Parks and Recreation Master Plan
• Scottsdale, AZ Parks and Recreation Master Plan
• Chandler, AZ Parks and Recreation Master Plan
• Douglas, AZ Parks and Recreation Master Plan
• Oro Valley, AZ Parks and Recreation Master Plan
• Casa Grande, AZ Parks and Recreation Master Plan
• Fort Collins, CO Parks and Recreation Master Plan

Page 93 of 724 ends

8 Jayne Miller, Principal
Education
• M.A., University of Maryland
• B.A., Midland Lutheran College
Employment History
• CEO, Jayne Miller Consulting, June 2020 to present
• President/CEO, Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy, Feb. 2018 to Oct. 2020
• Superintendent, Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board, Nov. 2010 to Feb. 2018
• Director, Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority, March 2010 – Sept. 2010
• Community Services Area Administrator, City of Ann Arbor, Aug. 2003 to Feb. 2010 • Parks & Recreation Manager, City of Ann Arbor, Aug. 2000 to Aug. 2003 Professional Experience
Jayne brings 40 years of parks, recreation, and leisure services experience, including more than 20 years in senior executive leadership across public and nonprofit organizations. An internationally recognized leader in urban parks and equitable investment strategies, she has served as President & CEO of the Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy, Superintendent of the Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board, Director of the Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority, and in multiple leadership roles for the City of Ann Arbor.

Under her leadership, both Pittsburgh and Minneapolis received national recognition for advancing social equity, including NRPA and state awards of excellence. Jayne is a frequent national and international speaker and currently serves on the boards of City Parks Alliance and World Urban Parks (Board Chair), and is a CAPRA Commissioner, Park Foundation School Director, and American Academy of Park and Recreation Administration Fellow.

Similar Project Experience
• Redmond, WA Comprehensive Recreation Program Plan
• Louisville, KY Parks For All Action Plan, Parks and Recreation Master Plan • Study of Maryland State Parks System
• Cleveland, OH Parks and Recreation Master Plan
• Durham, NC Parks and Recreation Master Plan
• Fargo, ND Parks and Recreation Master Plan
• Five Rivers Metroparks, OH Parks and Recreation Master Plan • BREC, East Baton Rouge Parish, LA Community Engagement Policy • Cuyahoga Valley National Forest Conservancy Strategic Plan • Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy, PA, Restoring Pittsburgh Parks, Parks and Recreation Master Plan
• Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy, PA, Led PPC fundraising in 2019 raising $12.1M in 9 months – most funds raised in a single period over the PPC’s 23-year history • Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board, MN, 20 Year Neighborhood Park Plan

Page 94 of 724 ends

Request for Proposal - 26-RFP-AD-531
City of Gilroy Recreation Division Assessment
9 Nick Deardorf, Senior Business Analyst
Education
B.S., Indiana University – Kelley School of Business
M.B.A, Indiana University – Kelley School of Business
Employment History
Consultant, PROS Consulting, 2013 to 2021 and 2026 to current Consultant, Resultant, 2021 to 2026
Professional Experience
Nick serves as a Senior Business Analyst at PROS, where he specializes in using data and business intelligence to provide actionable insights for public agencies. Following a short tenure in technology consulting focused on data-driven outcomes, Nick returned to PROS to help agencies utilize data to drive organizational efficiency and bridge the gap between analytics and strategic implementation. His expertise encompasses a wide range of planning efforts, including assessments, feasibility studies, market analysis, business process improvement, forecast modeling, and organizational development and training. Nick’s professional foundation is strengthened by nearly two decades of work in hospitality, providing him with a unique perspective on service excellence and stakeholder engagement.

Beyond his consulting work, Nick is a dedicated community leader, serving as the President and Founder of a youth sports non-profit and volunteering as a coach for local youth athletics. He combines a high-level business acumen with an extroverted, service-oriented approach to help agencies maximize their potential and achieve sustainable community outcomes.

Similar Project Experience
• Gilroy, CA Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
• Walnut Creek, CA Strategic Plan
• Chino, CA Parks and Recreation Master Plan
• Los Angeles County, CA Business and Operations Strategic Plan • Brownsburg, IN B.A.S.E (Before and After-school Enrichment Program) Business Plan • Indianapolis, IN Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan • Chicago Park District, IL Customer Service and Leadership Training • Channahon, IL Park District Master Plan
• Marysville, OH Parks and Recreation Master Plan
• Huber Heights, OH Needs Assessment and Master Plan
• Great Parks of Hamilton County, OH Comprehensive Master Plan • Five Rivers MetroParks, OH Comprehensive Master Plan
• Canton Leisure Services, MI Strategic Plan
• Streamwood Park District, IL Marketing Plan
• Virginia Beach Parks and Recreation, VA Strategic Plan • City of Livonia, MI Customer Service Training
• Hot Springs, AR Northwoods Urban Forest Park Feasibility Study • Town of Blacksburg, VA Employee Training Portal

Page 95 of 724 ends

10 The PROS Consulting Advantage
Project Team Qualifications
We have expanded our expertise and capabilities to best serve the needs of the City of Gilroy. The subconsultants proposed for this team are chosen for their specific expertise to ensure the highest level of innovation and successful outcome. Services can be scaled up or down depending on need. Our entire team is inspired and excited to develop a planning document that elevates parks and recreation for the Gilroy community.

Focus Area PROS Consulting Advantage
Management and
Organization
Senior-led teams with deep California and national recreation operations experience, led by former parks and recreation executives delivering practical, implementable recommendations.

Quality and Cost Control Fixed, not-to-exceed pricing with clear task alignment, strong quality control, and a proven record of budget discipline.

Accountability Clearly defined scope, deliverables, and milestones aligned to Gilroy’s RFP, supported by regular coordination and documented check-ins.

Schedule Adherence
Proven ability to deliver complex California municipal assessments on schedule using disciplined project management and experienced teams.

Page 96 of 724 ends

Request for Proposal - 26-RFP-AD-531
City of Gilroy Recreation Division Assessment
11 110%
110% has served the parks and recreation field for 16 years and counting by inspiring ethical decision making, strengthening leadership competencies, and ensuring the financial sustainability of parks and recreation. We offer three categories of services:

Education, Presentations & Trainings (including the popular Financial Sustainability Certificate Program), Financial Sustainability Strategies, and Planning Initiatives (i.e., Master, Strategic, and Comprehensive Plans). Over the past five years alone, 110% has worked with more than 150 public-sector clients to help organizations and professionals position themselves for long-term resilience, strength, and vitality.

Services Provided: Master Plans, Strategic Plans, Comprehensive Plans, Financial Sustainability / Cost Recovery Strategies, Financial Analyses (including Capital Improvement Planning), Recreation Service / Program Analyses, Staffing and Organizational Analyses, 1:1 Coaching, Team Coaching, Financial Sustainability Certificate Program Classes, Presentations

Page 97 of 724 ends

12 Group 4
Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc. is a
nationally recognized, California-based architecture
and planning firm with more than 40 years of experience supporting public agencies in the planning,
assessment, and implementation of parks, recreation,
aquatic, and community facilities. Founded in 1976, Group 4 has partnered with cities, counties, and special districts across the country to evaluate existing facilities, align assets with community needs, and develop actionable capital improvement strategies grounded in operational and financial realities.

A core strength of Group 4’s approach is its emphasis on operational sustainability. Facility recommendations are evaluated not only for physical condition and community need, but also for staffing efficiency, programmability, revenue potential, maintenance requirements, and long-term cost implications. This aligns directly with the City of Gilroy’s need for a practical, implementable CIP roadmap that balances service expectations with fiscal responsibility. \

Page 98 of 724 ends

Request for Proposal - 26-RFP-AD-531
City of Gilroy Recreation Division Assessment
13 KTUA
KTUA is a California-based planning and landscape
architecture firm with more than 55 years of experience supporting public agencies in the assessment, planning, and implementation of parks, recreation facilities, trails, and outdoor public assets. Founded in 1970, KTUA brings a multidisciplinary team of planners, landscape
architects, GIS analysts, and designers focused on
creating functional, equitable, and sustainable outdoor environments that serve diverse community needs.

KTUA’s experience in parks and recreation planning, active transportation, and natural resource management positions the firm well to support Gilroy’s evaluation of indoor and outdoor facilities, LOS and access analysis, and long-range capital planning. As a long-standing California corporation with a 28-person multidisciplinary staff, KTUA provides both regional knowledge and scalable technical capacity to support the park assessments and capital improvement roadmap under Task 6.

Page 99 of 724 ends

14 ETC Institute
ETC Institute is a 102-person market research firm that specializes in the design and administration of market research for governmental organizations. Our major areas of emphasis include citizen satisfaction surveys, park and recreation surveys, community planning surveys, business surveys, transportation surveys, employee surveys, voter opinion surveys, focus groups, and stakeholder interviews. Since 1982, ETC Institute has completed research projects for organizations in 49 states. ETC Institute has designed and administered more than 3,500 statistically valid surveys and our team of professional researchers has moderated more than 1,000 focus groups and 2,000 stakeholder meetings. During the past five years alone, ETC Institute has administered surveys in more than 700 cities and counties across the United States.

Core services of the firm involve conducting statistically valid surveys and related market research. ETC Institute has conducted more than 600 surveys for parks and recreation systems in 46 states across the Country for a wide variety of projects including parks and recreation master plans, strategic plans, and feasibility studies. PROS Consulting and ETC Institute have teamed up on more than 500 similar parks and recreation projects.

Ryan Murray
ETC Institute Director of Community Research
Education
B.S. in Public Administration – The University of Kansas Summary of Professional Experience
Mr. Murray has over 12 years of experience in survey administration, development, supervision, and research analysis. Throughout his tenure at ETC Institute Mr. Murray has had the pleasure of working on survey projects that cover a wide variety of topics, including parks and recreation, community planning, customer satisfaction, transportation, employee, library, comprehensive planning, parks and recreation master plans, water and utility, and business development. His current role as Project Manager includes survey design, developing sampling plans, quantitative and qualitative data analysis, interpretation of results, and presentation of findings. In his previous role he planned, coordinated, and supervised the administration of large-scale origin-destination transportation studies on over a dozen projects throughout the country. Mr. Murray has worked as a Project Manager on projects for over fifty state, county, local, and private sector clients.

Similar Project Experience
Mr. Murray has served as a project manager for over 175 parks and recreation surveys for local governmental organizations.

Page 100 of 724 ends

Request for Proposal - 26-RFP-AD-531
City of Gilroy Recreation Division Assessment
15 Section 3 – References
CITY OF GILROY, CA RECREATION FACILITY AND PROGRAM NEEDS ASSESSMENT (2020) Gilroy, California
The City of Gilroy (“City”) is a hard-working, suburban community, full of rich heritage and vibrant culture. It is a youthful city with strong family values that is well known throughout the bay area and beyond as the Garlic Capital of the World. Gilroy has a storied past that makes it unique and represents a community that is defined by its resiliency. Like many great cities, Gilroy also provides enhanced quality of life for residents through its parks, trails, and recreational facilities. The Gilroy Recreation Division (“GRD”) plays a vital role in the community by providing access to recreation opportunities through the provision of quality programs and services.

In an effort to optimize the delivery of services, the City, with support from the Mt. Madonna YMCA for the community survey, hired PROS Consulting for the development of a Facility and Program Needs Assessment (“Assessment”). This Assessment included a robust community engagement process and market research to identify current and future resident needs related to recreation programs and facilities. The research is used in tandem with industry knowledge and an internal assessment to determine strategic priorities for advancing GRD and increasing access to quality recreation in the City.

It is important to note that the Covid-19 Pandemic began during the final steps of the Needs Assessment.

Not only did this create major shifts to the organization in the midst of the Assessment, but the extensive community engagement process and feedback from residents was collected prior to the pandemic.

Every effort was made to reevaluate the Assessment and address GRD in its current state, postpandemic; however, there were some components of the Assessment, such as community input, which were not feasible to update. The following goals were established for the Needs Assessment:
• Engage the diverse Gilroy community served by the GRD and YMCA, leadership, and stakeholders through an inclusive, and innovative public outreach process to build a shared vision for facilities and programs.
• Utilize a wide variety of data sources and best practices including a bi-lingual (English and Spanish) statistically valid survey to predict trends and patterns of use and how to address unmet facility and program needs in Gilroy served by the GRD and YMCA. • Determine unique Level of Service Standards and utilization to develop appropriate actions regarding that reflects the GRD and YMCA’s strong commitment in providing high quality facilities and programs for the Gilroy community.
• Understand program capacity and compatibility with users through innovation and “next” practices for the GRD and YMCA to achieve the strategic objectives, identify current and project future recreation facility demands, and highlight revenue and partnerships. • Develop a prioritized needs assessment to ensure long-term success through a data driven and community values supported approach.

Client Reference: Mr. Adam Henig, Recreation Manager; 7351 Rosanna St.; Gilroy, CA 95020; 408.846.0577; [email protected]

Page 101 of 724 ends

16 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VA REVIEW OF DIVISION OF SPORTS MANAGEMENT UNIT (2025) Virginia Beach, Virginia
Virginia Beach Parks & Recreation is dedicated to promoting healthy lifestyles and protecting its coastal environment; ensuring all residents – regardless of their physical, social, and economic circumstances – can access the programs that are offered.

A key component of the Parks & Recreation Department is the Sports Management Unit. This unit was founded in 2013 and was formed from combining three separate units with three separate coordinators: Golf Courses, City Wide Athletics, and Princess Anne Athletic Complex. In 2018 the finances of the three budget units were combined as well. City Wide Athletics has been a part of the Parks & Recreation department for decades, offering youth and adult recreational sports leagues.

The Golf Courses unit was re-structured to be run through lease agreements by private managers in 2011. Princess Anne
Athletic Complex (PAAC) opened in February 2007. PAAC
hosted local league and small tournaments until 2013, when sports tourism came into focus. In working with the City of Virginia Beach Convention and Visitors Bureau Sports Marketing team, the Sports Management Unit has solicited, hosted, and retained numerous events that bring visitors to the city from across the country. The mission of the Sports Management Unit is to provide citizens with the opportunity to participate in diverse offering of recreational sports and contribute to increased visitations to the city through the booking of sporting events.

In 2025, PROS Consulting completed a review of the
Sports Services Management Unit. The assessment
included an analysis of data to develop a clear set of
goals, policies, standards, and recommendations for the next ten (10) years with a focus on the operations of the Sports Management Unit. The process included staff and key leadership engagement, operational review, level of service/gap analysis, policy development, business process management, allocation principles, and financial management.

Client Reference: Mr. Michael Kirschman, Parks & Recreation Director; 2517 Landstown Rd.; Virginia Beach, VA 23456; 757.385.1122; [email protected]

Page 102 of 724 ends

Request for Proposal - 26-RFP-AD-531
City of Gilroy Recreation Division Assessment
17 ASPEN RECREATION DIVISION BUSINESS PLAN (2024)
Aspen, Colorado
In 2023, PROS Consulting was retained to complete a 2024 Aspen Recreation Division Business Plan.

This plan was an update to the one also completed by PROS Consulting in 2015.

The Aspen Recreation Department has an agreement with
the Recreation Advisory Committee that a Business Plan
must be updated every ten years. The current Business Plan was set to be re-evaluated in 2025 but given the COVIDdriven impacts on public recreation facilities, early funding was granted to proceed with an updated Business Plan in 2023.The City was also looking to move to a five-year
recreation business plan rather than the ten-year recreation business plan to better address the consistently evolving nature of public recreation within the Aspen community. The primary focus of the updated recreation business plan was to:
• Inform decision-making regarding the operation of all components of the identified recreation facilities and fees structure.
• Provide an analysis of current programming and fee schedules of programming, and recommendations for the future, to ensure financial sustainability and programming continuity. • Identify internal and external partners, responsibilities, and processes to strengthen collaboration to deliver high quality community recreational services. • Provide a cost recovery analysis and make recommendations for a preferred subsidy model based on a classification of services methodology that is unique to Aspen. • Any other recommendations to help ensure the long-term financial sustainability of the facility and its programming.

The Aspen Recreation Division Business Plan was developed to provide the organization with a roadmap for the future using knowledge gained from community input, cost of service and program inventory review, and comparison to national standards and trends. The planning process incorporated a comprehensive series of discovery and analysis strategies to understand the workings of the organization and included a strong community engagement process.

The Aspen Recreation Division Business Plan includes a
system-wide approach for accomplishing short and longterm goals, initiatives, tactics, and measurements to ensure that the Division can operate effectively,
efficiently, and sustainably – while providing world-class services, programs, parks, and facilities to the
community for many years to come.

Client Reference: Desiree Whitehead, Recreation
Director; City of Aspen; 970.429.2083;
[email protected]
Core Program/ Service Area Benefit Level Classification Minimum
Recommended Cost
Recovery Goal
Recommended Fee
Range
Adult Sports (Non-Ice) Individual Value-Added 75% $700 - $1,000 Aquatics - Certification Courses Balanced Important 30% $150 - $400 Aquatics - Group Lessons Considerable Community Mostly Essential 20% $40 - $50 Aquatics - Private Lessons Considerable Individual Mostly Value Added 50% $35 - $100 Ice - General Programs Balanced Important 30% $75 - $100 Ice - Leagues Balanced Important 30% $175 - $500
Ice - Summer Camps Considerable Individual Mostly Value Added 50% $700 - $800 Ice Programming Admission - Daily Visit Balanced Important 30% $18 - $60 Personal Training Balanced Important 30% $125 - $150
Recreation Center Admission - Daily Visit Individual Value-Added 75% $12 - $40 Recreation Center Admission - Punch Pass Individual Value-Added 75% $120 - $600 Recreation Center Membership - 1 month Individual Value-Added 75% $70 - $300 Recreation Center Membership - 3 months Considerable Individual Mostly Value Added 50% $160 - $550 Recreation Center Membership - 6 months Considerable Individual Mostly Value Added 50% $325 - $900 Recreation Center Membership - 12 months Balanced Important 30% $550 - $1,750 Rentals and Reservations Individual Value-Added 75% $10 - $500 Youth After School Community Essential 5% $15 - $30
Youth Biking Considerable Individual Mostly Value Added 50% $100 - $125 Youth Climbing Considerable Individual Mostly Value Added 50% $100 - $525 Youth Day Camps - Specialized Considerable Individual Mostly Value Added 50% $250 - $400 Youth Sports Balanced Important 30% $75 - $200
Youth Summer Camps Balanced Important 30% $50 - $100

Page 103 of 724 ends

18 CINCINNATI, OH RECREATION COMMISSION PROGRAM AND FACILITIES BUSINESS PLAN (2019) Cincinnati, Ohio
In 2019, PROS Consulting, Inc. completed a Recreation Business Plan for the Cincinnati Recreation Commission (“CRC”). The CRC is a CAPRA accredited agency and a winner for two NRPA Gold Medal awards. CRC boasts a network of citywide recreation centers which complement CRC’s variety of aquatic facilities, 2,500+ acres of CRC outdoor athletic and playground facilities. Each year, millions of people visit CRC's recreational facilities and enjoy many programs at indoor recreation centers and outdoor play areas. In addition, tennis attractions and premier public golf courses make CRC a top-notch organization.

The CRC desired a Programs and Facilities Business Plan to serve as a road map for the next five years and to recommend program direction, facility operations, maintenance, and capital improvements based on community needs. The plan provided an extensive overview of the system including historical context regarding CRC’s rich history and national prominence; in addition to clearly stating its current condition, needs, cost for meeting needs, and future challenges.

This plan included an inventory of current, as well as desired, facilities and programs needed to serve the community and prioritizes direction for the future programming of CRC’s park and recreational assets and services. The study included a community-supported action plan that provides guidance for future development and redevelopment of programs, facilities and services.

This Business Plan created a clear set of objectives that provided direction to CRC staff and the Board of Commissioners for a short-term, mid-term and long-term range. There were numerous steps in the project, with the following key areas of focus being foundation components.

The Business Plan was developed to equip the CRC with government business principles to guide the process. The final deliverable included a dynamic and realistic strategic action plan that created a road map to ensure long-term success and financial sustainability for the CRC, as well as action steps to support cultural vibrancy, strong social connections among communities, and quality of life for the community and businesses that make Cincinnati a great place to live.

Client Reference: Mr. Daniel Betts, Director; 805 Central Ave., Suite 800; Cincinnati, OH 45202; 513.352.4006; [email protected]
Where are We Today?
Site and facility operational
assessments
Programs and services
assessments
Classification of services
Levels of services standards
Where Are We Going Tomorrow?
Community needs analysis
Demographics & trends
analysis
Benchmarking &
comparative analysis
How Do We Get There?
Needs prioritization
Financial management and
operations strategy
Funding and Revenue
planning
Strategic plan

Page 104 of 724 ends

Request for Proposal - 26-RFP-AD-531
City of Gilroy Recreation Division Assessment
19 Section 4 – Proposed Methodology
A Decision-Ready Recreation Division Assessment for the City of Gilroy The City of Gilroy Recreation Division Assessment is fundamentally a decision-support effort, not a visioning exercise. PROS Consulting is committed to delivering an assessment that is practical, datadriven, and immediately usable by City leadership, staff, and elected officials as they make near- and long-term decisions related to service delivery, staffing, facilities, and financial sustainability.

The City of Gilroy does not need a stand-alone vision document. It needs a clear, defensible understanding of current conditions, the pressures facing the Recreation Division today, and a realistic roadmap for strengthening operations over time. This assessment is structured to translate community needs, operational realities, and industry benchmarks into clear actions that can be staffed, funded, and sustained.

Our work will be guided by four core commitments, each tailored specifically to Gilroy’s Recreation Division and the scope outlined in the RFP.

1. Clarity of Need, Role, and Prioritization
The assessment will establish where the Recreation Division is performing well, where capacity is constrained, and where adjustments are truly needed. This includes a clear understanding of how program demand, staffing capacity, facility condition, cost recovery, and access interact across recreation programs and facilities.

Rather than assuming expansion or growth across all service areas, the assessment will clearly define:
• Which programs and facilities are meeting community needs effectively • Where service gaps or inequities exist
• Which assets and services require reinvestment, modification, or reprioritization • Where current demand does not justify additional capacity This clarity allows City leadership to prioritize with confidence, align decisions with available resources, and avoid reactive or incremental changes that do not improve overall system performance.

2. Recommendations Grounded in Gilroy’s Operational Reality Gilroy’s Recreation Division operates with a small full-time staff, a reliance on part-time and seasonal employees, contract instructors, and partnerships, and a diverse service population with varying needs and abilities to pay. These realities shape what is feasible and sustainable.

All recommendations will be evaluated through the lens of:
• Staffing capacity, scheduling, and supervision requirements • Program delivery models (City-led, contracted, or partnered) • Facility condition, utilization, and maintenance implications • Equity, affordability, and access considerations
• Alignment with City policies and administrative structure

Page 105 of 724 ends

20 This ensures recommendations are not theoretical best practices, but operationally achievable solutions that fit Gilroy’s staffing model, organizational structure, and community expectations.

3. Financial and Operational Defensibility
PROS Consulting will ground all recommendations in transparent financial and operational analysis, not aspirational wish lists. The assessment will evaluate current cost recovery, subsidy levels, and fee practices and provide clear context for how financial decisions affect access, service levels, and sustainability.

This approach enables City staff and decision-makers to:
• Understand tradeoffs between affordability and financial sustainability • Align program and facility recommendations with budget realities • Evaluate total cost of service delivery, not just revenues • Phase improvements in a way that matches funding and staffing capacity The goal is to support informed decision-making, not to prescribe outcomes without a clear understanding of their implications.

4. Implementation Begins at the Start of the Assessment Implementation is not deferred to the end of this project. From the outset, PROS will integrate implementation thinking into every phase of the assessment so findings and recommendations are actionable as they are developed.

This includes:
• Testing priorities through structured community engagement • Evaluating partnership and contract roles alongside City responsibilities • Identifying staffing and organizational implications early • Structuring recommendations so they can move directly into short-, mid-, and long-term action planning
The result is an assessment that is ready for adoption and immediate use, rather than one that requires reinterpretation or follow-up studies.

City of Gilroy Context and Planning Intent
The City of Gilroy’s Recreation Division plays a critical role in supporting community well-being, youth and senior services, inclusion, and quality of life. Recreation programs and facilities serve residents across age groups, income levels, and abilities and rely on a mix of City staff, seasonal employees, volunteers, and partners to deliver services.

At the same time, the Division operates within constraints that must be addressed directly:
• Limited full-time staffing capacity
• Increasing expectations for equitable access and affordability • Aging facilities with ongoing maintenance and lifecycle needs

Page 106 of 724 ends

Request for Proposal - 26-RFP-AD-531
City of Gilroy Recreation Division Assessment
21 • Pressure to balance community benefit with financial sustainability • The need for clearer performance measures and decision frameworks The intent of this assessment is not simply to identify opportunities, but to define a clear, achievable path forward that strengthens the Recreation Division’s ability to deliver services effectively and sustainably.

Key Note: Recreation Assessment, Not a Master Plan
This effort is intentionally
structured as a Recreation
Division Assessment, not a
parks master plan. The focus
is on:
• Programs and
services
• Staffing and
organization
• Financial
sustainability and
cost recovery
• Facility condition and
utilization
• Equity, access, and
partnerships
• Clear implementation
actions
Why This Matters
This approach ensures the
City of Gilroy receives an
assessment that is specific,
defensible, and grounded in
reality. It is not generic, not
aspirational without context,
and not transferable to
another community. It is
designed to support confident
decision-making by City staff
and elected officials, from
initial findings through
implementation.

Page 107 of 724 ends

22 Scope of Services
Task 1 - Project Initiation, Background Review, & Governance Project Kickoff and Alignment
• Meet with City leadership, Recreation Division staff, and key stakeholders. • Confirm project goals, success measures, decision making expectations, and overall project schedule.
• Confirm roles, responsibilities, communication protocols, and coordination procedures.

Background Document Review
• Collect and review existing City documents, including budgets, fee schedules, staffing structures, organizational charts, prior plans and studies, participation data, facility condition information, and policies.
• Establish baseline conditions and identify key issues requiring further analysis in subsequent tasks.

Governance and CAPRA Alignment Review
• Review existing Recreation Division policies, procedures, and governance practices.
• Assess alignment with relevant National Recreation and Park Association Commission for Accreditation of Park
and Recreation Agencies standards.
• Identify gaps, risks, and near-term improvement
opportunities related to governance, planning, finance, human resources, risk management, and operations.

DELIVERABLES
• Project work plan and schedule.
• Stakeholder map.
• Communications and engagement plan.
• CAPRA gap summary, noting which standards are fully/partially met and priority fixes.

Page 108 of 724 ends

Request for Proposal - 26-RFP-AD-531
City of Gilroy Recreation Division Assessment
23 Task 2 - Community Engagement and Needs Assessment
a. Engagement Strategy and Design
• Develop a community engagement
strategy utilizing the IAP2 Spectrum of
Public Participation Model in alignment
with the goals of the Recreation Division
Assessment.
• Design a mixed methods engagement
approach that includes a statistically
valid resident survey, intercept or on-site
surveys, focus groups, and partner
interviews.
• Coordinate with City staff to confirm
target audiences, outreach methods, and
engagement timing.
• Ensure the engagement approach reflects National Recreation and Park Association survey guidance and best practices.
b. Survey Administration and Data Collection
• Administer a statistically valid resident survey of at least 375 resident households in coordination with
ETC Institute .
• Conduct intercept or on-site surveys at recreation
facilities, programs, and events as appropriate.
• Facilitate focus groups with key populations,
including youth, seniors, underserved
communities, and program participants.
• Conduct interviews with partner organizations and
service providers.
c. Community Needs and Satisfaction Analysis
• Analyze community input related to satisfaction,
unmet needs, participation barriers, and desired future services. • Evaluate results by demographic characteristics and geography where data allows. • Identify key themes related to access, affordability, program availability, and service gaps.

DELIVERABLES
• Engagement plan and instruments (survey tool, discussion guides). • Engagement finding report: Satisfaction, unmet needs, barriers (cost, location, time, language), priorities by demographic and geography.
• Updated needs assessment report.

Page 109 of 724 ends

24 Task 3 - Staffing and Organization Assessment
Organizational Structure and Role Alignment
• Review the Recreation Division
organizational structure, reporting
relationships, supervisory
assignments, and decisionmaking authority.
• Assess role clarity across full
time, part time, seasonal, and
contract positions.
• Evaluate spans of control,
layering, and functional alignment
relative to current programs,
facilities, and administrative responsibilities.
• Identify structural strengths and inefficiencies affecting accountability, service quality, and staff workload.

Workload, Scheduling, and Service Capacity Analysis
• Evaluate staffing workloads
by functional area, program
type, and service delivery
model.
• Review scheduling practices,
coverage requirements, and
seasonal staffing patterns.
• Assess the alignment
between staffing capacity and program demand, facility utilization, and peak service periods. • Identify operational stress points where staffing capacity limits service delivery or program quality.

Staffing Benchmarking and Comparative Analysis
• Benchmark staffing levels and ratios against National Recreation and Park Association and California Park and Recreation Society peer agencies.
• Compare staffing on a per capita basis and, where applicable, per program, per facility, or per service category.
• Evaluate how Gilroy’s staffing model compares to peers with similar population size, service mix, and organizational structure.
• Identify gaps between current staffing levels and industry benchmarks.

Workforce Development and Succession Planning
• Review training practices, onboarding processes, and professional development opportunities. 11,184 6.00
Dream/Develop 11% 1,236 0.66
Launch 45% 5,069 2.72
Administer 41% 4,562 2.45
Evaluate 3% 317 0.17
TOTALS 100% 11,184 6.00

EXISTING STAFFING LEVELS
Recreation Program
Management Function

ANNUAL WORK
HOURS

FTE COUNT
(1,864 Annual Work
Hours = 1 FTE)

PERCENTAGE OF

TOTAL STAFF TIME

ALLOCATED

Page 110 of 724 ends

Request for Proposal - 26-RFP-AD-531
City of Gilroy Recreation Division Assessment
25 • Assess supervisory capacity and readiness for staff development. • Identify workforce development priorities tied to current and future service needs. • Evaluate succession planning risks related to key roles, institutional knowledge, and long-term organizational stability.

Staffing Strategy and Recommendations
• Develop staffing recommendations that address identified gaps, workload pressures, and organizational inefficiencies.
• Identify no cost, low cost, and investment level staffing strategies. • Evaluate alternative service delivery options where appropriate, including contracted or partnered models.
• Align staffing recommendations with financial, operational, and implementation considerations.

DELIVERABLES
• Organization assessment memo with options (no-cost, low-cost, investment scenarios), updated organizational chart, role definitions, and training plan. • Peer benchmark table (City vs NRPA medians/quartiles) Task 4 - Financial Analysis, Cost Recovery, and Fee Policy Financial Sustainability Strategy
To support the overall process and the Department’s operation of current and future recreational programs and services most effectively, project partner 110% will develop a comprehensive Financial Sustainability Strategy. Over the past three years, 110% has completed this process, which positively impacted hundreds of organizations nationwide and helped them create a justifiable strategy providing direction specific to taxpayer investment and revenue-generating opportunities.

This process consists of the following three key focus areas:

1. Education & Training

2. Financial Analysis

3. Strategies & Recommendations

Page 111 of 724 ends

26 Education & Training
Financial Sustainability 101 – Staff & Board Workshops
These workshops offer a comprehensive overview of the Financial Sustainability Strategy Process, an explanation about why the Department would choose to engage in this effort, and how the outcomes will positively affect service delivery and quality. An introduction to financial management and cost recovery, the merits of revenue generation, how to think differently about spending/ investing taxpayer dollars, and the importance of a sound financial strategy are among the topics covered.

Service Category Development Workshop
The Department’s pre-determined Service Category Development Team will work alongside 110% to develop service categories which represent all organizational services. A workshop will be led offering information and insights about service category development, the differences between services, service areas, and service categories as well as resources to support the development of categories will be provided to the team to assist in the development of categories and definitions. This is a critically important step in the development of a financial sustainability strategy that has a heightened opportunity for effectiveness.

Beneficiary of Service – Staff, Commission & Council Representatives Work Sessions These interactive virtual work sessions allow staff, Parks & Recreation Commission, and City Council members an opportunity to rank the Department’s service categories starting from those determined to align most with the “common good” to services which are more “exclusive.” By ranking all service categories from “common good services” in contrast to those providing the “exclusive benefit,” your organization will begin to connect the dots between those services that should receive the greatest subsidy (common good services) in contrast to those that may receive little to no subsidy (exclusive services).

Financial Analysis
Cost of Service Analysis - Operating
The cost-of-service analysis identifies the Department’s total cost-of-service delivery by thoroughly reviewing and analyzing all expenses and participation/use data provided for the study period. 110% will work closely with the Department’s data gathering team to ensure that all expenses and services are identified, and to develop meaningful service, facility, and park areas to appropriately attribute expenses to services. The result is a clear picture of your total cost-of-service which will guide the development of cost recovery/subsidy investment goals.

Summary of Results
Results are calculated and presented by Service Categories and Service Areas, providing the Department with multiple views of the data to aid in the implementation of the Financial Sustainability Strategy. A more detailed view, with results broken down to the Sub Service Area level, is also provided in an excel file upon completion of the project.

Expense Insights
Through this process, insight into where and how the Department utilizes its expense budget is developed. This review contributes to a holistic understanding of how the Department’s fiscal landscape plays a pivotal role in forecasting future performance and capital investment needs.

Page 112 of 724 ends

Request for Proposal - 26-RFP-AD-531
City of Gilroy Recreation Division Assessment
27 Facility and Park Area Maintenance Expenses
Understanding the total maintenance expense of facility and park areas is critically important for decision-making about new infrastructure, budgeting appropriately to maintain a desired level of service, and for use in pricing services provided by the organization. Facility and park area expenses are developed as part of this process.

Year-over-Year Performance
To the extent to which relevant data is available and usable, a comparative analysis of prior year-overyear performance will be conducted to show trends regarding revenues, expenditures, subsidies, and cost recovery performance.

Strategies & Recommendations
Cost Recovery/Subsidy Goal Setting
After completing the financial conditions analysis, the Department will set cost recovery/subsidy investment goals based upon current performance, analysis insights, and budget projections. At this point, the Financial Sustainability Strategy begins to take shape.

Financial Sustainability Strategy & Alternatives
The Department’s Financial Sustainability Strategy is the foundation from which the organization builds its commitment to financial discipline. Strategy alternatives are valuable when performance deficiencies or alternative revenue generating opportunities exist, such as specific service areas like enterprise or business operations such as a golf course or water park. Alternatively, strategies might be

Page 113 of 724 ends

28 based upon short-term (2-3 years) performance expectations in contrast to a longer-term timeframe (3- 5 years or beyond).

Policy Development
The development of the Department’s Cost Recovery & Resource Allocation Policy will position the Department to address immediate financial challenges and long-term goals, such as infrastructure investments, cost recovery expectations, and scholarship strategy.

Insights Into Action Work Session
A project team work session will offer methods and strategies for turning insights into action, providing guidance and suggested ways to use the data and information resulting from the overall process.

Financial insights will assist staff in taking the steps needed for implementation such as a pricing tutorial, cost reduction options, exploration of partnership opportunities, capital investment considerations, opportunities for continuing education for staff, advisory and policy making bodies, and other actions that may lead to greater community impacts and increased revenues.

Continuous Improvement Recommendations
The Department’s financial wellbeing is the principal interest of this process. As such, a series of recommendations resulting from what was learned, observed, and heard throughout the process will be provided to the Department at the conclusion of the process. Recommendations for improvement may include incremental changes intended to improve performance over a period of time as well as breakthrough changes that are expected to create immediate and profound improvement in a more abbreviated timeframe.

Benchmarking Analysis
Up to three identified organizations similar in size and services offered will be jointly determined for the benchmarking analysis. Areas for benchmarking consideration will primarily include service offerings, fee structures, and cost-recovery governance with the intention of being operational recommendations for improving the competitive position of the Department.

DELIVERABLES
• Financial analysis with revenue/expenditure trends and recommendations for cost recovery. • Financial dashboard (trends, margins by line of business, subsidy per participant). • Draft Cost Recovery Policy with category targets, methodology, and annual update process. • Draft fee schedule adjustments and equity supports.

Task 5 - Program and Service Portfolio Review (Lifecycle and Alignment) Program Inventory and Participation Analysis
• Compile a comprehensive inventory of recreation programs and services, including City provided, contracted, and partnered offerings.
• Analyze participation levels, registration trends, and utilization by program type and age group. • Review demographic data served by programs where available. • Identify participation trends and program areas experiencing growth, decline, or stagnation.

Page 114 of 724 ends

Request for Proposal - 26-RFP-AD-531
City of Gilroy Recreation Division Assessment
29 Community Need and Service Gap Evaluation
• Compare existing programs and services to identified community needs and priorities from Task

2. • Identify gaps in service by age group, program type, schedule, and location. • Assess access considerations related to cost, timing, registration practices, and geographic availability.

Program Quality and Mission Alignment
• Evaluate program quality, consistency, and alignment with Recreation Division values and priorities, including equity, youth development, senior services, and inclusion. • Review program objectives, outcomes, and performance expectations. • Identify programs that strongly advance community benefit versus those with limited strategic alignment.

Program Lifecycle and Portfolio Analysis
• Conduct a program lifecycle assessment to classify
programs as introduction, growth, maturity, or decline. • Evaluate programs based on demand, equity impact,
cost recovery, staffing requirements, and operational
complexity.
• Identify programs that should be expanded, modified,
partnered, sunset, or piloted.

Peer Comparison and Market Context
• Compare Gilroy’s program offerings to peer agencies to identify service gaps and opportunities.
• Evaluate scheduling balance, program mix, and service delivery models relative to comparable agencies.
• Identify opportunities to reduce duplication or improve coordination through partnerships.

Page 115 of 724 ends

30 Program Strategy and Recommendations
• Develop program specific recommendations addressing growth, modification, partnership, pricing, or discontinuation.
• Identify short term pilot opportunities and longer-term program adjustments. • Align program recommendations with staffing capacity, financial sustainability, and facility availability.

DELIVERABLES
• Program and services evaluation summary.
• Program portfolio matrix (demand, equity, cost recovery, lifecycle stage) with action recommendations and 12–24-month pilot plan.

Task 6 - Parks, Facilities, Asset Management, and Capital Needs

PARKS - KTUA
Inventory and Analysis
KTUA will conduct a comprehensive field inventory of all 23 City-owned parks and collect park inventory data using a custom Esri Field Maps application. This tool ensures all data is geographically referenced and compatible with GIS tools such as ArcPro, ArcMap, ArcGIS Online, storyboards, or any other GIS software available to the City.

The park inventory will include photos and data that considers the capacity of each outdoor amenity to meet community needs, including their functionality, accessibility, and condition. This analysis will result in a quantitative and qualitative assessment of park amenities to determine if park facilities serve their intended purposes or need to be retrofitted, renovated, or reimagined to meet current and future needs. The results of this analysis will also inform decisions and recommendations for the maintenance and operations of these amenities. Upon completion of the park inventory, KTUA will evaluate future opportunities for improvements within each park. The results of this evaluation will lead to discussions with City staff on which parks should be rehabilitated and renovated.

The result is a unique program prioritization for your system and community.

MacMillian Matrix:

The LOS Prioritization Lends

Page 116 of 724 ends

Request for Proposal - 26-RFP-AD-531
City of Gilroy Recreation Division Assessment
31 Park Level of Service Analysis (Parks +)
Assessing current and future parks needs requires a comprehensive understanding of existing and future levels of service. KTUA will use three analyses to evaluate the current and future Level of Service (LOS) of the City’s park system:
• Park Acreage LOS Analysis uses park acreage and the City’s current and forecasted population to calculate the park acres provided per 1,000 residents. This LOS will be compared to the City’s five (5) acres per 1,000 residents parkland goal (PR 1.4), as stated in the 2040 General Plan, to determine the current and projected per capita park acreage deficit (or surplus). This can inform goal setting and recommendations development. • Amenity LOS Analysis uses the park amenity inventory, current and forecasted population, and national park amenity averages to determine LOS. Park amenities will be compared to a database of over a decade of park amenity benchmark data collected by the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA). This database allows for a population-based amenity comparison to long-term state and national averages, as well as to the most recent year of data, to determine how well Gilroy’s park amenities are meeting community needs. • Accessibility LOS Analysis uses mode-specific park access points and travel networks (for walking and driving) to create a “park service area” for each park. Park service areas are generated for each park to show citywide park accessibility by a given mode and distance, most commonly a half mile walk and a two-mile drive. These distances are adjustable based on the unique characteristics of the City’s transportation system to determine equity of access and identify park gap areas. Amenity-specific service areas can also be provided relative to key demographics, such as the half-mile walking distance for parks with playgrounds displayed over populations with a high percentage of young children.

Page 117 of 724 ends

32 KTUA will also incorporate planned land use, the size and location of planned/funded future parks, and lessons learned from community engagement, best practices, and emerging trends to anticipate demographic, economic, and sociological changes.

ADA, Safety, and Operations
KTUA will conduct a high-level ADA, safety, and deferred maintenance analysis for parks and their associated outdoor amenities. This analysis will take place during the park inventory process as KTUA staff count, assess, and score the condition of each major amenity. This will comprise planning-level observations, not compliance audits. The information taken will help facilitate capital priorities by determining which amenities should be considered for repair or replacement.

Facility Alignment, Growth, and Capital Priorities
KTUA will summarize all of the data analyzed during the Level of Service process to determine potential recommendations that are based on overarching priorities identified by City staff, residents, and stakeholders. Recommendations will also be rooted in the City’s projected growth and diversification.

To support the City in making informed decisions and helping guide capital priorities, KTUA will develop a planning-level Capital Improvements tool for all infrastructure projects identified throughout the recommendations phase. This Tool is a comprehensive matrix that categorizes all park-specific and citywide recommendations into priority tiers along with the city policies/objectives that support the recommendation, whether it addresses an LOS deficit, where the recommendation originated from (outreach, staff, LOS, etc.), and planning-level cost estimates. The elements in this tool are specifically chosen to facilitate the prioritization of projects while being backed by various sources. This tool provides transparency and a “paper trail” of decisions made by staff year after year.

The priority and resource requirements of each action will be collaboratively determined with the City.

High priority actions with high resource requirements are those that are both urgent, high-effort, and costly, while low priority actions with low resource requirements are “nice-to-haves” with low demands of staff or funds. This framework balances decision making in different funding and staffing scenarios.

FACILITIES – GROUP 4
Inventory and Analysis
• Compile an inventory of indoor
recreation facilities operated,
programmed, or supported by
the Recreation Division, including
shared-use and partner facilities.
• Review available documentation
including facility age, size,
building systems, maintenance
history, ADA compliance status,
utilization data, operating
agreements, and staffing models.
• Confirm facility inventory,
shared-use assumptions, and
data gaps with City staff.

Page 118 of 724 ends

Request for Proposal - 26-RFP-AD-531
City of Gilroy Recreation Division Assessment
33 • Conduct site visits (as appropriate and in coordination with City staff) to assess building systems, site infrastructure, accessibility, safety, and overall condition. • Identify and summarize service-related issues such as layout, allocations of space, functionality and flexibility, customer experience, in addition to evaluating the location, suitability, and capacity of current sites to support expanded recreational services, • Identify deferred maintenance, code compliance issues, and high-risk deficiencies.

Facility Level of Service Analysis (Facilities)
• Analyze facility utilization by program type, time of day, season, and user group. • Evaluate geographic access, service catchments, and underserved areas. • Identify capacity constraints, scheduling conflicts, and operational inefficiencies, particularly within gymnasiums, aquatics facilities, and multipurpose spaces. • Evaluate how existing facilities support priority services such as youth sports, aquatics, senior services, indoor recreation, special events, and community programming. • Assess the suitability of shared-use facilities for long-term recreation service delivery.

ADA, Safety, and Operations
• Conduct a high-level ADA, safety, and deferred maintenance analysis for facilities. • This analysis will take place during the facility inventory process as Group 4 staff count, assess, and score the condition of each space.
• This will comprise planning-level observations, not compliance audits. • The information taken will help facilitate capital priorities by determining which amenities should be considered for repair or replacement.

Facility Alignment, Growth, and Capital Priorities
• Identify and prioritize capital improvements, renovations, replacements, and potential new facilities.
• Develop a phased Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) roadmap (0–5 years, 6–10 years, and 10+ years) with order-of-magnitude cost estimates.
• Identify potential funding strategies, partnerships, and operational impacts associated with recommended improvements.

DELIVERABLES
• Facility and park needs assessment reports.
• Facility and park assessment books with inventory tables, condition scores, utilization analysis, and repair/replace priorities.
• Capital improvement plan (CIP) roadmap (0–5, 6–10, 10+ years) with order-of-magnitude costs and funding options.

Page 119 of 724 ends

34 Task 7 - Technology, Data, and Business Processes
Systems and Process Review
• Audit existing registration and point of sale
systems.
• Review scheduling, reporting, and data
governance practices.
• Identify operational pain points related to
refunds, waitlists, and utilization reporting.

Data and Performance Improvements
• Identify opportunities to improve data quality,
reporting consistency, and system use.
• Review integration opportunities with finance and
human resources systems.

DELIVERABLES
• Systems improvement plan with priority fixes, training modules, and key performance indicator(s)
• (KPI) dashboards wired to NRPA benchmark categories.

Task 8 - Equity, Access and Inclusion
Participation and Access Analysis
• Map recreation participation against
community demographics.
• Analyze barriers related to cost,
transportation, language, and digital
access.

Pricing and Access Alignment
• Evaluate alignment between pricing,
scholarships, and the cost recovery policy.
• Identify strategies to protect access for socioeconomically challenged populations.

DELIVERABLES
• Equity action plan including but is not limited to sliding-scale/fee assistance model, outreach strategies, language access, mobile/ pop-up programs, and targeted pilots. p y y
...however how
much do we
"own?"
What is the true
"level of service?"

Page 120 of 724 ends

Request for Proposal - 26-RFP-AD-531
City of Gilroy Recreation Division Assessment
35 Task 9 - Partnerships, Sponsorships, and Volunteers
Partnership and Agreement Review
• Inventory existing memoranda of understanding and agreements with schools, libraries, nonprofits, and leagues.
• Evaluate partnership performance and risk.

Partnership and Sponsorship Opportunities
• Identify new partnership models and shared use agreements. • Develop a sponsorship and naming framework consistent with public ethics standards.

Volunteer Program Review
• Assess volunteer program structure and compliance practices.

DELIVERABLES
• Partnership framework (criteria, templates, performance KPIs) • Sponsorship policy outline with approval workflow
Task 10 - Risk Management, Safety, and Operations Standards Policy and Practice Review
• Review policies related to incident reporting, background checks, aquatic safety, youth safety, emergency plans, and insurance.

Standards and Training Recommendations
• Identify relevant National Recreation and Park Association and CAPRA standards. • Recommend standard operating procedures and training cadence.

DELIVERABLE
• Operations & safety compliance report with priority SOP updates and training calendar.

Audubon Center Partnership
Description
Partnership
Agreement
Recitals
Role and
Responsibility
(Services,
Programs,
Facilities)
Point of Contact Key Issues
Key
Performance
Indicators
Reporting
Process and
Communication
Partnership
Dates and
Termination
Clause
Aullwood
Biedler Forest
Debs Park
Discovery Center
Grange
Partnership Assessment

Page 121 of 724 ends

36 Task 11 - Performance Measurement and Benchmarking
Performance Metric Development
• Build a key performance indicator scorecard aligned with National Recreation and Park Association and California Park and Recreation Society Agency Performance Review metrics.

Data Collection and Reporting
• Define data collection cadence.
• Define public facing reporting practices.

DELIVERABLES
• KPI dashboard & definitions; 12-month measurement plan and template quarterly report.

Task 12 - Programmatic Mini-Studies
Program Cluster Structuring
• Organize Recreation Division offerings into the program clusters identified in the RFP. • Confirm program definitions, delivery models, and service objectives for each cluster. • Identify which clusters are internally delivered, externally delivered, or hybrid.

Program Cluster Analysis
For each program cluster, PROS Consulting will:
• Review staffing models, including City staffing levels, seasonal and part time use, and contract staffing.
• Evaluate alternative service delivery models currently in use or feasible for Gilroy. • Assess program mix and scale relative to participation, demand, and operational capacity. • Identify risk considerations associated with safety, supervision, liability, and compliance. • Review fee strategies and cost recovery practices relative to affordability and access. • Assess marketing practices and alignment with industry best practices.

Page 122 of 724 ends

Request for Proposal - 26-RFP-AD-531
City of Gilroy Recreation Division Assessment
37 Cross Cluster Findings
• Identify themes and patterns across program clusters related to staffing efficiency, financial performance, risk exposure, and service effectiveness.
• Highlight clusters that may benefit from restructuring, partnership, pricing adjustment, or operational refinement.

DELIVERABLE
• Program Report
Task 13 - SWOT Analysis
Synthesis of Program Findings
• Compile and synthesize findings from the program and service portfolio review and the programmatic mini studies.
• Focus analysis specifically on Recreation Division programs and services rather than system wide park planning.
• Identify patterns related to demand, access, staffing capacity, financial performance, and operational risk.

Program SWOT Development
• Identify internal program strengths related to service quality, community value, participation, and operational effectiveness.
• Identify internal program weaknesses related to staffing constraints, cost recovery, delivery complexity, or sustainability.
• Identify external opportunities related to partnerships, pricing strategies, service model adjustments, or unmet community needs.
• Identify external threats related to financial pressure, staffing limitations, risk exposure, or changing demand.

DELIVERABLE
• SWOT analysis document.

Task 14 - Growth and Opportunity Identification
a. Opportunity Identification
• Identify short-term and long-term opportunities to expand or improve Recreation Division programs and services.
• Ground opportunities in findings from staffing, financial, program, facility, and equity analyses. • Focus on opportunities that are realistic given staffing capacity, facilities, and financial constraints.
b. Partnership and Service Model Exploration
• Explore partnership models with schools, nonprofit organizations, private providers, and regional entities.

Page 123 of 724 ends

38 • Evaluate alternative service delivery approaches that could improve efficiency, access, or service quality.
• Identify opportunities to leverage partnerships to reduce risk or operational burden. c. Sustainable Growth Strategies
• Recommend strategies that support
sustainable service growth rather
than unchecked expansion.
• Align growth opportunities with
financial sustainability, cost recovery
practices, and organizational
capacity.
• Identify implementation
considerations related to staffing,
funding, and oversight.

DELIVERABLE
• Growth opportunities report.

Task 15 - Implementation Roadmap and Council Presentation Synthesis of Findings
• Synthesize findings from all prior tasks into a single, cohesive assessment framework. • Ensure recommendations reflect operational, financial, staffing, facility, and equity considerations.
• Confirm internal consistency across program, facility, and financial recommendations.

Recommendation Prioritization
• Develop clear, prioritized recommendations based on impact and feasibility. • Identify recommended timing, responsible parties, and resource implications. • Align recommendations with City decision making and budget processes.

Implementation Roadmap Development
• Prepare a phased implementation roadmap organized by short term, midterm, and longer-term actions.
• Identify decision points, dependencies, and sequencing considerations. • Include planning level cost ranges and potential funding sources where applicable.

Policy and Framework Development
• Draft recommended policy updates related to cost recovery, partnerships, sponsorships, and fee schedules.
• Ensure policy recommendations are practical and aligned with City operations.

Market Gap &
Growth
What is the
relationship
between where
the mark currently
provides services
and where those in
need of those
services?

Page 124 of 724 ends

Request for Proposal - 26-RFP-AD-531
City of Gilroy Recreation Division Assessment
39 City Council and Stakeholder Presentation
• Prepare briefing materials and
presentation content suitable for
City Council consideration.
• Present findings and
recommendations to City Council
and community stakeholders.
• Support City staff in
communicating key outcomes and
implementation steps.

DELIVERABLES
• Draft Report for staff review.
• Final report (executive summary and detailed appendices: benchmarks, inventories, engagement findings).
• Phased implementation roadmap (0–6, 6–18, 18–36 months) with budget ranges and decision gates.
• Slide deck and talking points for Council.

Page 125 of 724 ends

40 Section 5 - Proposed Timeline
The project approach and scope of work detailed in this proposal will be completed by the PROS Team collaboratively with the City of Gilroy Recreation Division staff. PROS can begin the project immediately and has the capability and availability to meet the project schedule depicted below. Specific dates will be set during the kick-off meeting process, and we will consider any special requirements by the City of Gilroy regarding scheduling to meet your expectations.

Section 6 – Prior Work Samples
Prior work samples for PROS Consulting can be accessed via the Dropbox link below:

PROS Consulting Prior Work Samples
Task 1. Project Initiation/Mgmt., Background Review, and Governance Task 2. Community Engagement and Needs Assessment
Task 3. Staffing and Organization Assessment
Task 4. Financial Analysis, Cost Recovery, and Fee Policy Task 5. Program and Service Portfolio Review
Task 6. Facilities, Asset Management, and Capital Needs Task 7. Technology, Data, and Business Processes
Task 8. Equity, Access, and Inclusion
Task 9. Partnerships, Sponsorships, and Volunteers
Task 10. Risk Management, Safety, and Operations Standards Task 11. Performance Measurement and Benchmarking
Task 12. Programmatic Mini Studies
Task 13. Program Focused SWOT Analysis
Task 14. Growth and Opportunity Identification
Task 15. Implementation Roadmap and City Council Presentation Gilroy Recreation Division Assessment Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month 6 Month 7 Month 8 Month 9 Month 10 Month 11 Month 12

Page 126 of 724 ends

Request for Proposal - 26-RFP-AD-531
City of Gilroy Recreation Division Assessment
41 Section 7 – Pricing
The following fee breakdown is based on the project approach described in the Scope of Work for the City of Gilroy Recreation Division Assessment. We would appreciate the opportunity to meet and discuss the project approach and fees to ensure they are consistent with your expectations, as we are flexible in meeting your needs. We based our project approach on your RFP deliverables and elements that can easily be modified to meet your budgeting needs. This fee is a not-to-exceed amount and includes all costs, both direct and indirect, including any reimbursable expenses. PROS Consulting uses a transparent pricing model toward project budgets. We do not change-order our clients unless there is major scope addition to the project after contract execution.

Summary
1 Project Initiation, Background Review, & Governance 159 $ 30,858.00 2 Community Engagement and Needs Assessment 252 $ 45,088.00 3 Staffing and Organization Assessment 60 $ 13,150.00
4 Financial Analysis, Cost Recovery, and Fee Policy 153 $ 29,375.00 5 Program and Service Portfolio Review 72 $ 14,520.00
6 Parks, Facilities, Asset Management, and Capital Needs 646 $ 113,172.00 7 Technology, Data, and Business Processes 24 $ 4,840.00 8 Equity, Access and Inclusion 44 $ 9,080.00
9 Partnerships, Sponsorships, and Volunteers 53 $ 11,585.00 10 Risk Management, Safety, and Operations Standards 16 $ 3,520.00 11 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking 20 $ 4,400.00 12 Programmatic Mini-Studies 146 $ 28,710.00
13 SWOT Analysis 16 $ 3,520.00
14 Growth and Opportunity Identification 54 $ 11,110.00 15 Implementation Roadmap and Council Presentation 230 $ 40,682.00 1,945
$ 372,690.00
Fee per Task

DERIVATION OF COST
Gilroy Recreation Needs Assessment
Scope Work Activity Total Hours
per Task
Total Hours
Total Fee

Page 127 of 724 ends

42 PROS Consulting Derivation of Costs
1 Project Initiation, Background Review, & Governance 40 12 20 $ 14,740.00 a Kickoff, goals, metrics, schedule, communications 16 2 8 $ 5,280.00 b Collect, review, budgets, fees, staffing, policies 8 2 4 $ 2,860.00 c CAPRA mapping, gaps, quick wins 16 8 8 $ 6,600.00
2 Community Engagement and Needs Assessment 52 0 32 $ 16,720.00 a Surveys, focus groups, interviews 16 8 $ 4,840.00
b NRPA survey methodology 16 8 $ 4,840.00
c Satisfaction and unmet needs 4 8 $ 2,200.00
d Inclusive community representation 16 8 $ 4,840.00
3 Staffing and Organization Assessment 40 10 0 $ 11,000.00 a Structure, roles, workload 8 2 $ 2,200.00
b Staffing benchmarks 8 2 $ 2,200.00
c Staffing to service alignment 8 2 $ 2,200.00
d Workforce development, succession 8 2 $ 2,200.00
e Staffing efficiency recommendations 8 2 $ 2,200.00
4 Financial Analysis, Cost Recovery, and Fee Policy 10 0 0 $ 2,200.00 a 3–5 year trends, revenue, expense, subsidy, cost recovery 2 $ 440.00 b Cost recovery policy, resource allocation, fees, scholarships 2 $ 440.00 c Fee benchmarks, cost recovery targets, governance 2 $ 440.00 d Revenue opportunities, partnerships, sponsorships, grants 2 $ 440.00 e Program/facility sustainability, financial viability 2 $ 440.00 5 Program and Service Portfolio Review 48 0 24 $ 14,520.00 a Participation and utilization 8 4 $ 2,420.00
b Program gap identification 8 4 $ 2,420.00
c Program quality and values 8 4 $ 2,420.00
d Program lifecycle analysis 8 4 $ 2,420.00
e Peer comparison and access 8 4 $ 2,420.00
f Program and pricing recommendations 8 4 $ 2,420.00
6 Facilities, Asset Management, and Capital Needs 12 0 24 $ 6,600.00 a Inventory and condition 2 4 $ 1,100.00
b LOS and access analysis 2 4 $ 1,100.00
c ADA, safety, operations 2 4 $ 1,100.00
d Capacity and maintenance 2 4 $ 1,100.00
e Facility alignment and growth 2 4 $ 1,100.00
f Capital priorities 2 4 $ 1,100.00
7 Technology, Data, and Business Processes 16 0 8 $ 4,840.00 a Auditing of processes 8 4 $ 2,420.00
b KPIs and improvement recommendations 8 4 $ 2,420.00
8 Equity, Access and Inclusion 24 0 10 $ 6,930.00
a Participation vs demographics, barriers analysis 16 8 $ 4,840.00 b Pricing/scholarships aligned to cost recovery 8 2 $ 2,090.00 9 Partnerships, Sponsorships, and Volunteers 32 6 0 $ 8,360.00 a Inventory MOUs, performance, risk 16 2 $ 3,960.00
b New models, shared use, sponsorship framework, ethics 8 2 $ 2,200.00 c Volunteer structure, compliance 8 2 $ 2,200.00
10 Risk Management, Safety, and Operations Standards 16 0 0 $ 3,520.00 a Incident reporting, screening, safety, emergency, insurance 8 $ 1,760.00 b SOPs, training cadence, CAPRA references 8 $ 1,760.00 11 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking 16 4 0 $ 4,400.00 a KPI scorecard, NRPA/CPRS metrics 8 2 $ 2,200.00
b Data cadence, public reporting 8 2 $ 2,200.00
12 Programmatic Mini-Studies 84 0 62 $ 28,710.00
a Review up to 14 program clusters 20 30 $ 9,350.00
b Evaluate 6 aspects of program/service delivery of each program cluster 64 32 $ 19,360.00 13 SWOT Analysis 16 0 0 $ 3,520.00
a Identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats 8 $ 1,760.00 b Incorporate findings from staffing, financial, program, and facility analyses 8 $ 1,760.00 14 Growth and Opportunity Identification 40 0 14 $ 11,110.00 a Short/long-term opportunities 12 4 $ 3,300.00
b Partnership models, collaboration 14 5 $ 3,905.00
c Sustainable growth strategies 14 5 $ 3,905.00
15 Implementation Roadmap and Council Presentation 80 0 36 $ 23,540.00 a Synthesis report 30 20 $ 9,900.00
b Priorities, impact/feasibility, timeline, cost, owners 12 4 $ 3,300.00 c Implementation roadmap 4 4 $ 1,540.00
d Council + stakeholder presentations 12 $ 2,640.00
e Draft policy updates 14 4 $ 3,740.00
f Briefing materials, Council deck 8 4 $ 2,420.00
526 32 230 788
$220.00 $220.00 $165.00
$ 167,640.00
Fee per Task
Total Hours
Hourly/Unit Rates
GRAND TOTAL FEE + EXPENDITURE TOTAL

DERIVATION OF COST
Gilroy Recreation Needs Assessment
PROS Consulting
Scope
and Task Work Activity Mike Svetz, Principal
Jayne Miller,
Principal
Nick Deardorf,
Business
Analyst

Page 128 of 724 ends

Request for Proposal - 26-RFP-AD-531
City of Gilroy Recreation Division Assessment
43 ETC Institute – Derivation of Costs
1 Project Initiation, Background Review, & Governance 0 $ - a Kickoff, goals, metrics, schedule, communications $ - b Collect, review, budgets, fees, staffing, policies $ - c CAPRA mapping, gaps, quick wins $ -
2 Community Engagement and Needs Assessment 80 $ 16,000.00 a Surveys, focus groups, interviews 80 $ 16,000.00
b NRPA survey methodology $ -
c Satisfaction and unmet needs $ -
d Inclusive community representation $ -
3 Staffing and Organization Assessment 0 $ -
a Structure, roles, workload $ -
b Staffing benchmarks $ -
c Staffing to service alignment $ -
d Workforce development, succession $ -
e Staffing efficiency recommendations $ -
4 Financial Analysis, Cost Recovery, and Fee Policy 0 $ - a 3–5 year trends, revenue, expense, subsidy, cost recovery $ - b Cost recovery policy, resource allocation, fees, scholarships $ - c Fee benchmarks, cost recovery targets, governance $ - d Revenue opportunities, partnerships, sponsorships, grants $ - e Program/facility sustainability, financial viability $ - 5 Program and Service Portfolio Review 0 $ -
a Participation and utilization $ -
b Program gap identification $ -
c Program quality and values $ -
d Program lifecycle analysis $ -
e Peer comparison and access $ -
f Program and pricing recommendations $ -
6 Parks, Facilities, Asset Management, and Capital Needs 0 $ - a Inventory and condition $ -
b LOS and access analysis $ -
c ADA, safety, operations $ -
d Capacity and maintenance $ -
e Facility alignment and growth $ -
f Capital priorities $ -
7 Technology, Data, and Business Processes 0 $ -
a Auditing of processes $ -
b KPIs and improvement recommendations $ -
8 Equity, Access and Inclusion 0 $ -
a Participation vs demographics, barriers analysis $ -
b Pricing/scholarships aligned to cost recovery $ -
9 Partnerships, Sponsorships, and Volunteers 0 $ -
a Inventory MOUs, performance, risk $ -
b New models, shared use, sponsorship framework, ethics $ - c Volunteer structure, compliance $ -
10 Risk Management, Safety, and Operations Standards 0 $ - a Incident reporting, screening, safety, emergency, insurance $ - b SOPs, training cadence, CAPRA references $ -
11 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking 0 $ -
a KPI scorecard, NRPA/CPRS metrics $ -
b Data cadence, public reporting $ -
12 Programmatic Mini-Studies 0 $ -
a Review up to 14 program clusters $ -
b Evaluate 6 aspects of program/service delivery of each program cluster $ - 13 SWOT Analysis 0 $ -
a Identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats $ - b Incorporate findings from staffing, financial, program, and facility analyses $ - 14 Growth and Opportunity Identification 0 $ -
a Short/long-term opportunities $ -
b Partnership models, collaboration $ -
c Sustainable growth strategies $ -
15 Implementation Roadmap and Council Presentation 0 $ - a Synthesis report $ -
b Priorities, impact/feasibility, timeline, cost, owners $ - c Implementation roadmap $ -
d Council + stakeholder presentations $ -
e Draft policy updates $ -
f Briefing materials, Council deck $ -
80 80
$200.00
$ 16,000.00
Fee per Task
Gilroy Recreation Needs Assessment
Scope
and Task Work Activity
Ryan Murray,
Project
Manager
ETC Institute
Total Hours
Hourly/Unit Rates
GRAND TOTAL FEE + EXPENDITURE TOTAL

Page 129 of 724 ends

44 KTUA Derivation of Costs
1 Project Initiation, Background Review, & Governance 1 12 16 0 $ 4,368.00 a Kickoff, goals, metrics, schedule, communications 1 8 8 $ 2,644.00 b Collect, review, budgets, fees, staffing, policies 4 8 $ 1,724.00 c CAPRA mapping, gaps, quick wins $ -
2 Community Engagement and Needs Assessment 0 32 16 40 $ 12,368.00 a Surveys, focus groups, interviews 4 4 16 $ 3,100.00
b NRPA survey methodology $ -
c Satisfaction and unmet needs 4 8 $ 1,724.00
d Inclusive community representation 24 4 24 $ 7,544.00 3 Staffing and Organization Assessment 0 0 0 0 $ -
a Structure, roles, workload $ -
b Staffing benchmarks $ -
c Staffing to service alignment $ -
d Workforce development, succession $ -
e Staffing efficiency recommendations $ -
4 Financial Analysis, Cost Recovery, and Fee Policy 0 0 0 0 $ - a 3–5 year trends, revenue, expense, subsidy, cost recovery $ - b Cost recovery policy, resource allocation, fees, scholarships $ - c Fee benchmarks, cost recovery targets, governance $ - d Revenue opportunities, partnerships, sponsorships, grants $ - e Program/facility sustainability, financial viability $ - 5 Program and Service Portfolio Review 0 0 0 0 $ -
a Participation and utilization $ -
b Program gap identification $ -
c Program quality and values $ -
d Program lifecycle analysis $ -
e Peer comparison and access $ -
f Program and pricing recommendations $ -
6 Parks, Facilities, Asset Management, and Capital Needs 8 76 140 44 $ 38,172.00 a Inventory and condition 8 20 12 $ 5,376.00
b LOS and access analysis 2 16 32 32 $ 11,112.00
c ADA, safety, operations 2 12 16 $ 4,588.00
d Capacity and maintenance 12 24 $ 5,172.00
e Facility alignment and growth 2 16 24 $ 6,312.00
f Capital priorities 2 12 24 $ 5,612.00
7 Technology, Data, and Business Processes 0 0 0 0 $ -
a Auditing of processes $ -
b KPIs and improvement recommendations $ -
8 Equity, Access and Inclusion 0 0 0 0 $ -
a Participation vs demographics, barriers analysis $ -
b Pricing/scholarships aligned to cost recovery $ -
9 Partnerships, Sponsorships, and Volunteers 0 0 0 0 $ - a Inventory MOUs, performance, risk $ -
b New models, shared use, sponsorship framework, ethics $ - c Volunteer structure, compliance $ -
10 Risk Management, Safety, and Operations Standards 0 0 0 0 $ - a Incident reporting, screening, safety, emergency, insurance $ - b SOPs, training cadence, CAPRA references $ -
11 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking 0 0 0 0 $ - a KPI scorecard, NRPA/CPRS metrics $ -
b Data cadence, public reporting $ -
12 Programmatic Mini-Studies 0 0 0 0 $ -
a Review up to 14 program clusters $ -
b Evaluate 6 aspects of program/service delivery of each program cluster $ - 13 SWOT Analysis 0 0 0 0 $ -
a Identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats $ - b Incorporate findings from staffing, financial, program, and facility analyses $ - 14 Growth and Opportunity Identification 0 0 0 0 $ -
a Short/long-term opportunities $ -
b Partnership models, collaboration $ -
c Sustainable growth strategies $ -
15 Implementation Roadmap and Council Presentation 0 32 64 0 $ 13,792.00 a Synthesis report 8 24 $ 4,472.00
b Priorities, impact/feasibility, timeline, cost, owners 12 16 $ 4,148.00 c Implementation roadmap 12 24 $ 5,172.00
d Council + stakeholder presentations $ -
e Draft policy updates $ -
f Briefing materials, Council deck $ -
9 152 236 84 481
$220.00 $175.00 $128.00 $118.00
$ 68,700.00
Fee per Task

DERIVATION OF COST
Gilroy Recreation Needs Assessment
Scope
and Task Work Activity Joe PunsalanPrincipal
Jacob Leon
Senior
Associate
Nicole Rogge
Senior
Planner
Isabel Perez
Senior
Planner
KTUA
Total Hours
Hourly/Unit Rates
GRAND TOTAL FEE + EXPENDITURE TOTAL

Page 130 of 724 ends

Request for Proposal - 26-RFP-AD-531
City of Gilroy Recreation Division Assessment
45 110% Derivation of Costs
1 Project Initiation, Background Review, & Governance 10 0 0 $ 2,150.00 a Kickoff, goals, metrics, schedule, communications 2 $ 430.00 b Collect, review, budgets, fees, staffing, policies 5 $ 1,075.00 c CAPRA mapping, gaps, quick wins 3 $ 645.00
2 Community Engagement and Needs Assessment 0 0 0 $ -
a Surveys, focus groups, interviews $ -
b NRPA survey methodology $ -
c Satisfaction and unmet needs $ -
d Inclusive community representation $ -
3 Staffing and Organization Assessment 10 0 0 $ 2,150.00 a Structure, roles, workload 2 $ 430.00
b Staffing benchmarks 2 $ 430.00
c Staffing to service alignment 2 $ 430.00
d Workforce development, succession 2 $ 430.00
e Staffing efficiency recommendations 2 $ 430.00
4 Financial Analysis, Cost Recovery, and Fee Policy 60 73 10 $ 27,175.00 a 3–5 year trends, revenue, expense, subsidy, cost recovery 35 54 $ 16,975.00 b Cost recovery policy, resource allocation, fees, scholarships 23 $ 4,945.00 c Fee benchmarks, cost recovery targets, governance 10 10 $ 3,250.00 d Revenue opportunities, partnerships, sponsorships, grants 4 $ 700.00 e Program/facility sustainability, financial viability 2 5 $ 1,305.00 5 Program and Service Portfolio Review 0 0 0 $ -
a Participation and utilization $ -
b Program gap identification $ -
c Program quality and values $ -
d Program lifecycle analysis $ -
e Peer comparison and access $ -
f Program and pricing recommendations $ -
6 Facilities, Asset Management, and Capital Needs 0 0 0 $ - a Inventory and condition $ -
b LOS and access analysis $ -
c ADA, safety, operations $ -
d Capacity and maintenance $ -
e Facility alignment and growth $ -
f Capital priorities $ -
7 Technology, Data, and Business Processes 0 0 0 $ -
a Auditing of processes $ -
b KPIs and improvement recommendations $ -
8 Equity, Access and Inclusion 10 0 0 $ 2,150.00
a Participation vs demographics, barriers analysis 5 $ 1,075.00 b Pricing/scholarships aligned to cost recovery 5 $ 1,075.00 9 Partnerships, Sponsorships, and Volunteers 15 0 0 $ 3,225.00 a Inventory MOUs, performance, risk 5 $ 1,075.00
b New models, shared use, sponsorship framework, ethics 5 $ 1,075.00 c Volunteer structure, compliance 5 $ 1,075.00
10 Risk Management, Safety, and Operations Standards 0 0 0 $ - a Incident reporting, screening, safety, emergency, insurance $ - b SOPs, training cadence, CAPRA references $ -
11 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking 0 0 0 $ -
a KPI scorecard, NRPA/CPRS metrics $ -
b Data cadence, public reporting $ -
12 Programmatic Mini-Studies 0 0 0 $ -
a Review up to 14 program clusters $ -
b Evaluate 6 aspects of program/service delivery of each program cluster $ - 13 SWOT Analysis 0 0 0 $ -
a Identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats $ - b Incorporate findings from staffing, financial, program, and facility analyses $ - 14 Growth and Opportunity Identification 0 0 0 $ -
a Short/long-term opportunities $ -
b Partnership models, collaboration $ -
c Sustainable growth strategies $ -
15 Implementation Roadmap and Council Presentation 10 0 8 $ 3,350.00 a Synthesis report 1 4 $ 815.00
b Priorities, impact/feasibility, timeline, cost, owners 1 4 $ 815.00 c Implementation roadmap 2 $ 430.00
d Council + stakeholder presentations 4 $ 860.00
e Draft policy updates 2 $ 430.00
f Briefing materials, Council deck $ -
115 73 18 206
$215.00 $175.00 $150.00
$ 42,350.00
Fee per Task

DERIVATION OF COST
110%
Scope
and Task Work Activity Farrell Buller
Principal
Alexis Rankey
Data Consultant
Matt David
Operations
Gilroy Recreation Needs Assessment
Total Hours
Hourly/Unit Rates
GRAND TOTAL FEE + EXPENDITURE TOTAL

Page 131 of 724 ends

46 Group 4 Derivation of Costs
1 Project Initiation, Background Review, & Governance 16 32 $ 9,600.00 a Kickoff, goals, metrics, schedule, communications 8 16 $ 4,800.00 b Collect, review, budgets, fees, staffing, policies 8 16 $ 4,800.00 c CAPRA mapping, gaps, quick wins $ -
2 Community Engagement and Needs Assessment 0 0 $ -
a Surveys, focus groups, interviews $ -
b NRPA survey methodology $ -
c Satisfaction and unmet needs $ -
d Inclusive community representation $ -
3 Staffing and Organization Assessment 0 0 $ -
a Structure, roles, workload $ -
b Staffing benchmarks $ -
c Staffing to service alignment $ -
d Workforce development, succession $ -
e Staffing efficiency recommendations $ -
4 Financial Analysis, Cost Recovery, and Fee Policy 0 0 $ - a 3–5 year trends, revenue, expense, subsidy, cost recovery $ - b Cost recovery policy, resource allocation, fees, scholarships $ - c Fee benchmarks, cost recovery targets, governance $ - d Revenue opportunities, partnerships, sponsorships, grants $ - e Program/facility sustainability, financial viability $ - 5 Program and Service Portfolio Review 0 0 $ -
a Participation and utilization $ -
b Program gap identification $ -
c Program quality and values $ -
d Program lifecycle analysis $ -
e Peer comparison and access $ -
f Program and pricing recommendations $ -
6 Facilities, Asset Management, and Capital Needs 114 228 $ 68,400.00 a Inventory and condition 20 40 $ 12,000.00
b LOS and access analysis 20 26 $ 9,480.00
c ADA, safety, operations 24 48 $ 14,400.00
d Capacity and maintenance 16 48 $ 12,480.00
e Facility alignment and growth 16 40 $ 11,040.00
f Capital priorities 18 26 $ 9,000.00
7 Technology, Data, and Business Processes 0 0 $ -
a Auditing of processes $ -
b KPIs and improvement recommendations $ -
8 Equity, Access and Inclusion 0 0 $ -
a Participation vs demographics, barriers analysis $ -
b Pricing/scholarships aligned to cost recovery $ -
9 Partnerships, Sponsorships, and Volunteers 0 0 $ -
a Inventory MOUs, performance, risk $ -
b New models, shared use, sponsorship framework, ethics $ - c Volunteer structure, compliance $ -
10 Risk Management, Safety, and Operations Standards 0 0 $ - a Incident reporting, screening, safety, emergency, insurance $ - b SOPs, training cadence, CAPRA references $ -
11 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking 0 0 $ -
a KPI scorecard, NRPA/CPRS metrics $ -
b Data cadence, public reporting $ -
12 Programmatic Mini-Studies 0 0 $ -
a Review up to 14 program clusters $ -
b Evaluate 6 aspects of program/service delivery of each program cluster $ - 13 SWOT Analysis 0 0 $ -
a Identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats $ - b Incorporate findings from staffing, financial, program, and facility analyses $ - 14 Growth and Opportunity Identification 0 0 $ -
a Short/long-term opportunities $ -
b Partnership models, collaboration $ -
c Sustainable growth strategies $ -
15 Implementation Roadmap and Council Presentation 0 0 $ - a Synthesis report $ -
b Priorities, impact/feasibility, timeline, cost, owners $ - c Implementation roadmap $ -
d Council + stakeholder presentations $ -
e Draft policy updates $ -
f Briefing materials, Council deck $ -
130 260 390
$240.00 $180.00
$ 78,000.00
Fee per Task
Total Hours
Hourly/Unit Rates
GRAND TOTAL FEE + EXPENDITURE TOTAL

DERIVATION OF COST
Gilroy Recreation Needs Assessment
Group 4
Scope
and Task Work Activity Dawn Merkes Principal PM
Justin Nutt
Arch Design

Page 132 of 724 ends

A-1
ATTACHMENT A – CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I, __________________________________, declare as follows:

That I am the _________________________, of ________________________________, (Title) (Company)
the Consultant making the attached proposal; and that I have read the sample Agreement for Services (Attachment B), including the insurance & indemnification requirements contained therein, and hereby state that I understand and am willing to abide by, and can meet the requirements of the contract, including insurance and indemnification requirements, without modification thereto, should my firm be selected for a project or projects based on my qualifications and proposal, assuming a mutually agreeable scope, fee, and schedule can be established.

I understand that the attached sample agreement is the current version used by the City of Gilroy.

The standard agreement for Professional Services is currently being updated, and a new version may be used by the time the agreement resulting from this RFP is executed.

Signed this _______ day of __________________, 2026
By _______________________________
Title: _____________________________
Leon Younger
President PROS Consulting, Inc.
5 February
President
Section 8 - Additional Information

Page 133 of 724 ends

Wage Theft Prevention Policy Statement
It is the policy of the City that all parties contracting with the City must comply with all applicable federal, state and local wage and hour laws including but not limited to the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the California Labor Code. Suitable language regarding this requirement should be in all contracts.

1. Disclosure. As a part of any City solicitation for goods and/or services, including public works projects, contractor shall complete a “Bid Certification” (“Certification”) that requires each potential contractor to disclose whether the contractor has been found by a court or final administrative action of an investigatory government agency to have violated federal, state, or local wage and hour laws within the past five (5) years from the date of the submitted bid or proposal.

2. Disqualification. The City MAY disqualify a potential contractor based on the disclosed violation.

3. Contract Termination. A current contractor found by a court or by final administrative action of an investigatory government agency to have violated applicable wage and hour laws, in the five (5) years prior to or during the term of the contract with the City, may be in material breach of its contract with the City if the violation is not fully disclosed and/or satisfied per City contract requirements. Such breach may serve as a basis for contract termination and/or any other remedies available under law, including a stipulated remediation plan.

I, _________________________, certify that (Business Name) _________________________________ ☐Has
☐ Has Not
been found by a court or by final administrative action of an investigatory government agency to have violated applicable wage and hour laws on more than one (1) occasion or has one (1) unpaid wage judgment.

For each disclosed violation, please provide a copy of (i) the court order and judgment and/or final administrative decision; and (ii) documents demonstrating either that the order/judgment has been satisfied, or if the order/judgment has not been fully satisfied, a written and signed description of potential contractor’s efforts to date to satisfy the order/judgment. The completed Certification shall be submitted by the potential contractor to the City as a part of its bid or proposal.

Signature and Date: _________________________________________________________________ Attachment B - Wage Theft Form
Leon Younger PROS Consulting, Inc.
2/5/2026

Page 134 of 724 ends

Chad Snow, Principal
Berry, Dunn, McNeil & Parker, LLC
[email protected]
Teresa Jackson, Project Manager
Berry, Dunn, McNeil & Parker, LLC
[email protected]
Proposal Submitted On:

February 6, 2026 before 4:00 p.m.

Berry, Dunn, McNeil & Parker, LLC
2211 Congress Street, Portland, ME 04102
SUBMITTED BY:

RECREATION DIVISION ASSESSMENT (RFP #26-RFP-AD-531)
City of Gilroy, California

PROPOSAL FOR THE

Page 135 of 724 ends

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY 5
SECTION 01: Company Background 9
Introducing BerryDunn 10
Organizational Structure 11
SECTION 02: Company and Project Team Qualifications 13
Roles, Responsibilities, and Qualifications 14
Subcontracting Partners 16
Prior Relevant Experience 18
SECTION 03: References 19
Previous Work for Government Agencies 23
SECTION 04: Proposed Methodology 24
SECTION 05: Proposed Timeline 37
SECTION 06: Prior Work Samples 39
SECTION 07: Pricing 46
SECTION 08: Additional Information 48
APPENDIX A: Resumes 51
2

Page 136 of 724 ends

BerryDunn is the brand name under which Berry, Dunn, McNeil & Parker, LLC and BDMP Assurance, LLP, independently owned entities, provide services. Berry, Dunn, McNeil & Parker, LLC provides tax, advisory, and consulting services. BDMP Assurance, LLP, a licensed CPA firm, provides attest services.

February 6, 2026
City of Gilroy
Attention: Katty Alvarez
7351 Rosanna St.

Gilroy, CA 95020
Dear Katty Alvarez and Members of the Selection Committee:

On behalf of Berry, Dunn, McNeil & Parker, LLC (BerryDunn, we, our), I would like to thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal in response to the City of Gilroy’s (the City’s) request for proposals (RFP # 26-RFP-AD-531) to develop a Comprehensive Assessment of the Recreation Division. Once completed, this assessment will serve as a resource to support decisions and enable the Division to set priorities and serve residents equitably. Our team proposes an integrated approach that will result in data-driven recommendations with a realistic implementation strategy.

BerryDunn is a limited liability company with more than 40 years of experience consulting for local, state, and quasi-governmental agencies. Our team is committed to delivering a collaborative, transparent, and inclusive process that engages interested parties and reflects the unique character of the community. We understand the importance of balancing innovation with proven best practices to develop practical and implementable strategies that are both visionary and achievable. By leveraging our extensive experience and tailored approach, we will help you navigate challenges, seize opportunities, and realize long-term success aligned with your priorities and values. Below and throughout this proposal, we highlight our key strengths. These elements will guide our work to support you in meeting your objectives and creating lasting value for the community.

We bring in-depth
experience with CAPRA
accreditation, having
worked with more than
40 accredited agencies
and including two site
evaluators on our team
Our project manager
has direct experience
applying cost recovery
methodology across
park and recreation
systems
We offer strong
geographic information
systems (GIS)-based
mapping and spatial
analysis that integrates
with the broader
assessment
Our team can develop
planning-level
dashboards and other
tools to guide decisionmaking
Our team also includes Kimley-Horn to address conceptual capital costing needs. ETC Institute (ETC) will design and implement a statistically valid survey as part of the community outreach. No one on our team has a conflict of interest related to this project or work with the City. We have reviewed the City’s standard agreement and accept it without modifications.

We are confident that, if selected to partner with you on this important initiative, we will deliver a data-driven Comprehensive Assessment of the Recreation Division that reflects current conditions and sets a roadmap for the future. We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal and thank you for your time and consideration.

Page 137 of 724 ends

As a principal in BerryDunn’s Local Government Practice Group and Chief Strategy and Growth Officer of our Consulting Services Team, I am authorized to bind BerryDunn to this proposal. Please consider me the City’s primary point of contact for any questions or updates during the evaluation process. We have reviewed the request and submit this firm, irrevocable offer, valid for 120 calendar days from the proposal due date of February 6, 2026.

Sincerely,
Chad Snow, PMP®, Principal, Chief Strategy and Growth Officer Consulting Services Team
Berry, Dunn, McNeil & Parker, LLC
207.541.2294 ǀ [email protected]
4

Page 138 of 724 ends

Executive Summary

SUMMARY
5

Page 139 of 724 ends

The Gilroy Community
Gilroy is a community of nearly 60,000 with a strong agricultural history. The City is known as the “Garlic Capital of the World,” and has evolved into a family-friendly community with small-town charm and big-city access. The City is located on the southern edge of California’s Silicon Valley and offers multiple natural and built attractions to residents and visitors.

Members of the Gilroy community can participate in organized and recreational sports, adaptive programs for people with disabilities, health and fitness programs, dance, enrichment, and more. The Recreation Division offers free and fee-based programming to residents of all ages. The Division supports seniors and other residents in need with lunches, food banks, and free groceries. Families can also apply for youth scholarships to make recreation programming more accessible.

Gilroy’s previous Needs Assessment was completed during the COVID-19 pandemic, and many of its assumptions are outdated. This Comprehensive Assessment of the Recreation Division will provide the City with actionable and implementable strategies to enhance service delivery in a responsible way. The City expects a thorough analysis and benchmarks against national standards.

How BerryDunn Can Help
At BerryDunn, our approach to parks and recreation needs assessments is built around one core goal: helping our clients make informed, strategic decisions that reflect the unique character, needs, and aspirations of their communities. We don’t deliver off-the-shelf solutions. We work collaboratively with you to understand your goals, engage your constituents meaningfully, and deliver a plan that is actionable, realistic, and aligned with your long-term vision. Our team combines deep technical expertise with decades of experience leading and supporting parks and recreation agencies, helping to ensure that you receive insights that are both data-driven and grounded in practical, real-world understanding.
6

Page 140 of 724 ends

We have tailored a team to help you reach your goals and enhance service delivery. Our team offers:

A Connected, Decision-Driven Recreation Assessment
BerryDunn’s team is structured to deliver a fully integrated assessment that connects governance, staffing, finances, programs, facilities, equity, technology, and performance measurement. Rather than producing isolated analyses, our approach helps ensure recommendations are aligned, mutually reinforcing, and grounded in operational reality.

CAPRA Expertise Led by Certified Site Evaluators
BerryDunn brings exceptional depth in accreditation by the Commission for Accreditation of Park and Recreation Agencies (CAPRA) and readiness, with two certified CAPRA site evaluators on the project team.

This provides the City with direct, firsthand insight into how agencies are evaluated during the accreditation process, what documentation reviewers look for, and where agencies most commonly fall short.

Cost Recovery Expertise Grounded in Proven
Methodologies
BerryDunn brings deep, practical expertise in recreation cost recovery, led by a project manager with direct
experience applying the Cost Recovery Pyramid
Methodology and complementary pricing and subsidy
models across parks and recreation systems. This
approach moves beyond ad hoc fee setting to establish
a clear, defensible framework that aligns community
benefit, individual benefit, market conditions, and equity considerations.

Decision-Focused Dashboards and Performance Measurement The team includes specialized expertise in developing planning-level dashboards and performance frameworks that support staff and City Council decision-making. These tools translate complex data into clear insights without committing the City to new software systems or ongoing maintenance. 7

Page 141 of 724 ends

GIS-Based Inventory, Mapping, and System Analysis
BerryDunn brings strong GIS-based mapping and spatial analysis capabilities to support a data-driven inventory and assessment of the City’s parks and recreation system. Our GIS work is fully integrated with the broader assessment, allowing facility inventories, condition findings, access analysis, and service levels to be evaluated together rather than in isolation.

Assessment Findings Designed to Inform One Another
Each needs assessment is intentionally linked so findings reinforce one another rather than stand alone:
• Engagement and survey results inform program, service, and equity needs • Staffing and organizational capacity are evaluated in the context of service expectations and facility demands
• Financial and cost recovery analysis is tied directly to service categories and affordability goals • Facility and access analysis is aligned with demographic trends, growth patterns, and equity considerations
Needs Assessments Focused on Action and Implementation
• Each assessment is structured to answer practical, decision-focused questions • Findings are translated into clear priorities, trade-offs, and phased actions • Results directly support implementation planning and City Council decision-making Equity Embedded Across All Needs Assessments
Equity is not treated as a standalone task. The work plan intentionally embeds equity considerations across all needs assessments so access, affordability, and service outcomes are evaluated consistently and systematically.
• Equity integrated into engagement and needs assessment Community input is analyzed by demographic and geographic characteristics to identify disparities in participation, access, and satisfaction.
• Equity aligned with cost recovery and pricing decisions Financial and cost recovery analyses explicitly evaluate how fees, subsidies, and scholarship programs affect access for socioeconomically challenged populations. • Equity evaluated through access and service coverage
Facility inventory, level of service, and 10-minute walk analyses are used to identify neighborhoods with limited access to parks, programs, or facilities.
• Equity embedded in program and service assessment
Program and service categories are evaluated based on who is served, who is underrepresented, and whether service delivery models create unintended barriers. • Equity translated into actionable strategies
Findings inform practical recommendations such as targeted outreach, language access improvements, mobile or pop-up programming, place-based service delivery, and pilot initiatives focused on underserved populations.
8

Page 142 of 724 ends

Company Background
SECTION 01
9

Page 143 of 724 ends

Introducing BerryDunn
BerryDunn’s Parks, Recreation, Libraries Practice offers clients deep industry expertise in parks, open space, and natural areas built upon decades of experience working in and with agencies on:

All our Parks, Recreation, Libraries consultants are former industry practitioners and seasoned advisors, and our proposed project team consists of professionals with many years of experience operating the assets the Recreation Division manages. Collectively, our team of more than 20 professionals have completed over 700 related planning projects, working with local, state, and national government agencies, as well as private-sector organizations, as they seek to make progress toward a shared vision.

Looking beyond the industry, we strive to deliver high-quality services by understanding expectations up front, developing a reasonable and achievable project approach, gaining concurrence on project tasks and timing, and using appropriate staff for each engagement. Supported by a wider team of over 350 consultants dedicated to serving nearly all aspects of local and state government, we offer a holistic approach to the City’s initiative. It is through our firsthand experience in parks and recreation and our broader team’s well-rounded perspective that we bring tailored insights to the government operations and community needs that impact every project.

Company Name:

Berry, Dunn, McNeil & Parker, LLC
(BerryDunn)
Founded and Incorporated: 1974 in
Maine
Headquartered: 2211 Congress
Street, Portland, ME 04102
Locations:

Arizona
Connecticut
Hawai’i
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Puerto Rico
West Virginia
Business Type: Limited Liability
Company
Employees: 990+ nationwide
Website: www.berrydunn.com
• Master Planning
• Strategic Planning
• Needs Analyses
• Financial Analyses
• Cost Recovery
• Quality Assessments
“The overall experience of working
with the BerryDunn Parks | Recreation
| Libraries team was OUTSTANDING!
Their entire team consisted of subject
matter experts who were responsive,
knowledgeable, supportive, and patient
every step of the way!”
Former Client: City of Sanibel, Florida
10

Page 144 of 724 ends

Organizational Structure
BerryDunn has been in operation for 52 years and is a well-established organization, with an operational structure that allows our consultants to effectively focus on client commitments. For example:

We maintain an operations team comprised of human resources (HR), payroll/finance, office management, IT, legal, compliance, and administrative personnel, which supports the operational needs for all of BerryDunn’s offices and personnel.

All of our consultants are equipped with the necessary technology to conduct their work, regardless of their work location.

We have established procedures in place for employee hiring, onboarding, training, and promoting individual development and growth within the organization.

Within our consulting groups, we regularly evaluate resource needs based on existing, planned, and anticipated client commitments to ensure the availability of qualified personnel for successful project performance.

Bringing Deep Expertise to the City
BerryDunn’s Parks | Recreation | Libraries Practice brings the City the guidance of nationally respected experts with decades of hands-on experience leading parks, recreation, and library systems. Jason Genck, Lisa Paradis, and Chad Snow have served in executive roles where they drove innovation, operational excellence, and meaningful community impact. As co-practice leaders, they provide strategic direction and mentorship to our project team, helping to ensure that the solutions we develop are grounded in practical insight and tailored to meet your specific needs and goals.

Jason Genck, MPA, CPRP
Senior Manager
Lisa Paradis, MBA, CPRP
Principal
Chad Snow, PMP®
Chief Strategy and Growth Officer
Consulting Services Team
Together, Jason, Lisa, and Chad shape the vision and approach of our Parks, Recreation, Libraries Practice, helping ensure every project delivers best practices informed by real-world experience and communitycentered solutions. Their leadership means that the City will benefit from a collaborative process focused on strategic, responsive planning that supports your long-term success and reflects the aspirations of your community.
11

Page 145 of 724 ends

Our firm’s organization is represented in the organizational chart below.

Figure 1: Firm Organization
BerryDunn’s project team includes six members from our Parks, Recreation, Libraries Practice. We bring diverse, hands-on experience—from leading parks and recreation organizations to guiding agencies through strategic planning, master plans, cost recovery efforts, and more. The following chart (Figure 2) outlines our team structure, showcasing the leadership, key support roles, and strategic partnerships that will contribute to the success of your project.

Figure 2: Project Team Organizational Structure
Teresa Jackson
Project Manager
James Mickle
Engagement Manager
Lakita Frazier
Subject Matter Expert
Nikki Ginger
Subject Matter Expert
Becky Dunlap
Subject Matter Expert
Dante Cavaz
Subject Matter Expert

PRIME PROJECT PARTNER
Randall Kopff
Landscape Architect
Marissa
Pellegrini
Landscape Architect
Responsible for Conceptual
Capital Costing
Ryan Murray
Director of Community
Research
Responsible for Statistically Valid Survey
Design and Implementation
12

Page 146 of 724 ends

Company and Project
Team Qualifications
SECTION 02
13

Page 147 of 724 ends

Roles, Responsibilities, and Qualifications
Below and on the following pages, we introduce our proposed project team members, describe their roles and responsibilities, and detail their qualifications as they relate to delivering projects of this nature. Full resumes can be reviewed in Appendix A.

Teresa Jackson, CPO, AFO | Project Manager
As project manager, Teresa Jackson will serve as the City’s primary point of contact.

She will oversee day-to-day project progress, track key tasks and milestones, and manage the overall Comprehensive Assessment of the Recreation Division to help ensure timely and successful delivery.

Teresa is a manager in our Parks, Recreation and Libraries Practice. She has more than 25 years of experience supporting municipal parks and recreation and special events departments, including as recreation manager for the City of Sacramento, California. She has completed multiple similar services and programming assessments and has guided agencies through cost recovery policy setting and implementation. Teresa is highly skilled in community outreach, facilities management, programming, public policy, and project management.

James Mickle, CPRP | Engagement Manager
As engagement manager, James Mickle will work closely with the project manager, Teresa Jackson, to provide strategic oversight throughout the engagement. He will guide project initiation, shape the engagement strategy, support the development of key deliverables, and help ensure the highest standards of service quality. He will also work closely with our project team to develop strategies for improving equitable service delivery. He will serve as the City’s alternate point of contact.

James is a manager in our Parks, Recreation, Libraries Practice. He has over 20 years of experience in recreation operations, programming, and administration; volunteer board leadership; and community and employee engagement. Prior to joining BerryDunn, he served in positions of progressive responsibility for the City of Norfolk, Virginia’s Recreation and Leisure Activities. He is committed to supporting underserved communities and holds a Certificate in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) from eCornell. As equity is a high priority for the City, we will leverage James’ extensive experience assessing parks and recreation systems for “opportunities for all.”
Time
Percentage
37%
Time
Percentage
14%
14

Page 148 of 724 ends

Lakita Frazier, CPRP | CAPRA Subject Matter Expert
As subject matter expert, Lakita Frazier will assist with organizational analysis and help ensure the final Master Plan positions the City for CAPRA accreditation.

She will also assist with the engagement and outreach.

Lakita is a senior consultant in our Parks, Recreation, Libraries Practice. She has more than 20 years of parks and recreation leadership experience within county and municipal agencies, including as executive director for Richland County Recreation Commission, South Carolina, and as director of parks and recreation for the City of Suffolk, Virginia. She is an expert in developing high-performance teams, designing programs through community engagement and partnership, and managing public-sector organizations. She also has experience in fiscal management, public-/private-sector alliances, and personnel management.

Nikki Ginger, MAEA, CPRE, SHRM - SCP | Organizational Subject Matter Expert
As subject matter expert, Nikki Ginger will assist with organizational analysis.

Nikki is a manager in our Parks, Recreation, Libraries Practice. She has more than a decade of urban parks and recreation leadership experience, including nearly 13 years of experience with the Chicago Park District, where she helped to lead the District’s CAPRA accreditation and earn National Gold Medal recognition. She has a diverse background in organizational and professional development, employee engagement, and staff training, and she excels at helping agencies engage and support their staff and communities.

Becky Dunlap, CPRP | Data Analysis and Visualization Subject Matter Expert
As subject matter expert, Becky Dunlap will assist with the technology assessment and data hygiene analysis. She will also assist with dashboards and implementation strategies.

Becky is a manager in our Parks, Recreation, Libraries Practice who is focused on helping organizations operate more efficiently and intentionally. As a CPRP who is also certified in Six Sigma methodology, she brings a systems‑oriented, analytical approach to improving organizational processes and solving complex challenges specific to the parks and recreation field. Becky’s specialization is in technology systems and data management, innovating with interactive dashboards to help organizations streamline decision-making.

Dante Cavaz | GIS Subject Matter Expert
As subject matter expert, Dante will assist with the facility inventory, level of service analysis, and access analysis.

Dante Cavaz is a consultant in our Parks, Recreation, and Libraries Practice. He excels in using GIS analysis and data-driven methodologies to support parks and recreation agencies in their planning and strategic initiatives. With both technical expertise and a commitment to community engagement, Dante’s work informs outcomes that cater to clients’ diverse needs. His strong communication skills, ability to synthesize information sources, and fluency in Portuguese allow him to engage effectively with a variety of interested parties and contribute to projects promoting equity and community well-being.

Time Percentage
9%
Time Percentage
11%
Time Percentage
8%
Time Percentage
12%
15

Page 149 of 724 ends

Subcontracting Partners

KIMLEY-HORN
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. is a 4,500-person, multidisciplinary consulting firm composed of civil engineers, roadway designers, environmental engineers, landscape architects, planners, and other talented design professionals.

Founded 53 years ago and with 14 offices in California alone, Kimley-Horn brings a panoramic perspective from successfully completing numerous parks and recreation projects for federal, state, regional, and local government clients.

Kimley-Horn is currently working with our team on a Parks and Recreation Master Plan for the City of Modesto, California.

From concept to implementation, Kimley-Horn has extensive experience planning and designing active and passive parks, greenways, and peopleplaces for agencies and municipalities throughout California. Kimley-Horn’s planners and landscape architects emphasize the development of a functional, pleasing visual environment, meaningful themes, and strong connection to environment while being sensitive to budget and long-term maintenance.

With strong local ties and park design experience, Kimley-Horn has the capabilities and resources to complete a wide range of tasks that not only meet communities’ needs, but also act as recreational destinations for years to come.

ETC INSTITUTE
ETC Institute is recognized as the national leader in the design and administration of market research studies for local government organizations.

Since 1982, ETC Institute has completed research projects for organizations in 49 states. ETC Institute has designed and administered more than 2,500 statistically valid surveys, and our team of professional researchers has moderated more than 1,500 focus groups and panels and over 2,000 stakeholder interviews. ETC Institute also uses the most up-to-date and innovative analytical tools that will help the City understand and use their survey data. ETC Institute has conducted research for more major U.S. cities and counties than any other firm. ETC Institute conducts approximately 150 surveys per year for clients throughout the country, and they are ready to begin whenever it is most convenient. Because their CEO is also the owner of ETC Institute, they have tremendous flexibility to go above and beyond the scope of work to help ensure each client is satisfied and that all tasks are successful.

Bringing Specialized Expertise Through Trusted Partners Including subconsultants on our team allows us to strategically enhance our capabilities by bringing in specialized expertise, local knowledge, and additional capacity to meet the unique needs of your project.

Subconsultants often offer deep subject matter expertise or niche services that complement our core strengths, helping ensure a more tailored approach. By collaborating closely with our partners, we create a unified team that leverages the best available resources to deliver high-quality, efficient, and impactful results.

Time Percentage
9%
Time Percentage
6%
16

Page 150 of 724 ends

Randall Kopff, PLA, CLARB, Landscape Architect | Kimley-Horn With over 24 years of experience, Randall brings a dynamic blend of creativity, technical expertise, and strategic thinking to parks and recreation projects. His work spans every stage of the process—from site inventory and analysis to master planning, design development, and implementation. Known for his ability to transform public input into meaningful design solutions, Randall collaborates closely with clients to help ensure each project reflects a shared vision. His skills in graphic presentations, 3-D modeling, project management, and technical drawings make him a versatile partner who can guide complex projects from concept to completion with clarity and precision.

Marissa Pellegrini, PLA, ASLA, CLARB, Landscape Architect | Kimley-Horn Marissa is a landscape architect and urban designer with more than 13 years of professional experience in landscape architecture and planning. She possesses a deep portfolio of parks, recreation, and active transportation experience and she specializes in parks and recreation projects. She has managed, served as lead landscape architect, and led community outreach on a wide range of multidiscipline projects including park revitalization, waterway revitalization, multiuse paths, and neighborhood, community, and regional parks and recreation facilities. Marissa will use her strong professional knowledge and insight on systemwide parks and recreation planning, site-specific parks and active transportation planning, and consensus building to help ensure this project reflects the City’s vision and remains grounded in long-term sustainability.

Ryan Murray, Director of Community Research | ETC
Mr. Murray has over 12 years of experience in survey administration, development, supervision, and research analysis. Throughout his tenure at ETC Institute Mr. Murray has had the pleasure of working on survey projects that cover a wide variety of topics, including parks and recreation, community planning, customer satisfaction, transportation, employee, library, comprehensive planning, parks and recreation master plans, water and utility, and business development. His current role as project manager includes survey design, developing sampling plans, quantitative and qualitative data analysis, interpretation of results, and presentation of findings. 17

Page 151 of 724 ends

Prior Relevant Experience
Master, Strategic, and Comprehensive Planning
When you work with our team, you are getting the benefit of a firm that has led hundreds of master, strategic, and comprehensive planning projects. Along the way, we have learned what works—and we have continued to fine-tune how we engage communities, analyze data, and shape recommendations. Our goal is to make every planning process inclusive, innovative, and grounded in real community needs. We also bring the perspective of having worked in the public sector ourselves, so we understand the challenges you face and how to tailor our approach to fit your specific goals. Below are planning projects that show the kind of work we do—and how we can help.
 Ada County, ID
 Adams County, CO
 Athens-Clark County, GA
 Avondale, AZ
 Calvert County, MD
 Charleston County, SC
 City/County of Denver, CO
 City of Aurora, CO
 City of Blue Springs, MO
 City of Bonita Springs, FL
 City of Bozeman, MT
 City of Burlington, CO
 City of Burlington, NC
 City of Cedar Park, TX
 City of Commerce City, CO
 City of Cooper City, FL
 City of Crestwood, MO
 City of Douglasville, GA
 City of Englewood, CO
 City of Fairfax, VA
 City of Ferguson, MO
 City of Fort Lauderdale, FL
 City of Golden, CO
 City of Grand Prairie, TX
 City of Greeley, CO
 City of Hampton, VA
 City of Iowa City, IA
 City of Irving, TX
 City of Kennewick, WA
 City of Lauderdale Lakes, FL
 City of Lynchburg, VA
 City of Jersey City, NJ
 City of Manhattan, KS
 City of Maple Valley, WA
 City of Mebane, NC
 City of Mesa, AZ
 City of Modesto, CA
 City of Montrose, CO
 City of Monterey Park, CA
 City of Nampa, ID
 City of New Braunfels, TX
 City of North Las Vegas, NV
 City of Norwalk, CT
 City of Novato, CA
 City of Oakland, CA
 City of Omaha, NE
 City of Owensboro, KY
 City of Palm Coast, FL
 City of Palmdale, CA
 City of Parkland, FL
 City of Pflugerville, TX
 City of Plantation, FL
 City of Port St. Lucie, FL
 City of Raleigh, NC
 City of Redlands, CA
 City of Rock Springs, WY
 City of Salt Lake City, UT
 City of Sandpoint, ID
 City of Scottsdale, AZ
 City of Tampa, FL
 City of Unalaska, AK
 City of Wheat Ridge, CO
 City of Wilsonville, OR
 County of Dinwiddie, VA
 DeKalb County, GA
 El Paso County, CO
 Elmhurst Park District, IL
 Evergreen Park and Recreation
District, CO
 Howard County, MD
 Hyland Hills Park and Recreation
District, CO
 Illinois Park and Recreation
Association
 Iredell County, NC
 Johnson County Park and
Recreation District, KS
 Jurupa Area Recreation and Park
District, CA
 Lombard Park District, IL
 Loudoun County, VA
 Maricopa County, AZ
 Martin County, FL
 Maryland National Capital Park
Planning Commission, MD
 Mecklenburg County, NC
 Miami-Dade County, FL
 North Carolina Department of
Natural and Cultural Resources
 Peninsula Metropolitan Park
District, WA
 Pima County, AZ
 Pittsylvania County, VA
 Round Lake Area Park District, IL
 San Luis Obispo County, CA
 South Suburban Parks and
Recreation District, CO
 Stanford University
 Sullivan County, NY
 Suwanee County, FL
 Town of Brewster, MA
 Town of Burlington, MA
 Town of Cary, NC
 Town of Chapel Hill, NC
 Town of Davie, FL
 Town of Erie, CO
 Town of Gilbert, AZ
 Town of Sahuarita, AZ
 Town of Timnath, CO
 Washoe County, NV
 Willamalane Parks and Recreation
District, OR
18

Page 152 of 724 ends

References
On the following pages, we provide reference information for clients who can speak well to the quality and
satisfaction we provide when delivering master planning services.

SECTION 03
19

Page 153 of 724 ends

BerryDunn worked with the Town of Gilbert, Arizona on
a Parks and Recreation Master Plan. This plan provided
actionable strategies that would allow the City to continue its tradition of providing superior parks, recreation, and cultural programs. This agency is CAPRA accredited. It offers a variety of programs and services to about 268,000 residents in the Phoenix metropolitan area.

Our team conducted extensive outreach as part of this project, engaging members of the community through a variety of
focus groups, pop-up events, and digital efforts. Our team also completed a program assessment linked with the City’s DEI toolkit and assessment. We also conducted an assessment of Department operations to recommend organizational
efficiencies. This included evaluating policies and procedures, and analyzing the Town’s recreation software to assess how it measured up to workloads and Departmental goals.

To examine the extent to which the Department’s service provision is equitable, BerryDunn conducted a departmentwide assessment of equitable service provision. Department staff and the consulting team identified three core
departmental categories of equity for study: administrative, program menu, and program execution. Our team used the
results to develop recommendations for improving equitable access to parks and recreation within the Town.

Lane Gram
90 E. Civic Center Dr.,
Gilbert, AZ 85296
480.503.6000
[email protected]
Project Dates: 11/2022 - 06/2024

REFERENCE
Town of Gilbert, Arizona
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
20

Page 154 of 724 ends

The City of Omaha thrives as a lively community of nearly 500,000 residents who value access to parks, trails, and recreational opportunities that enhance their quality of life. Spanning more than 10,000 acres across over 200 parks, Omaha’s parks and recreation system connects neighborhoods through green spaces, trails, and community facilities that support active living and social connection. Our team developed a Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan to provide a 20-year roadmap for advancing parks, recreation, and public spaces across the city. Branded as Omaha Outdoors: Opportunities Await, the planning effort highlights what the Parks, Recreation, and Public Property Department is best known for: its robust and expansive park system.

Like Gilroy, the City wanted to focus on improving equitable distribution of parks and recreation assets and programs. Our team assessed program offerings and management practices, combining qualitative scoring with measurable outcomes to support a self-benchmarking analysis of how well the system offers opportunities for all. The master planning process included indepth community engagement including thousands of touchpoints throughout the community. Our team also developed a detailed parks and recreation inventory and level of service analysis, a recreation programs analysis, a trails analysis, and an operations and maintenance assessment. We benchmarked the City against peer agencies and refined existing practices and standards to guide longterm system maintenance. The final plan was adopted in September 2025.

Dan Seder, Assistant Director
1819 Farnam #701
Omaha, NE 68183
402.444.5900
[email protected]
Project Dates: 05/2024 - 09/2025

REFERENCE
City of Omaha, Nebraska
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
21

Page 155 of 724 ends

Redwood City’s Parks, Recreation, and Community
Services (PRCS) Department worked with BerryDunn to
assess its operations. The PRCS Department wanted to
know if its scope of work was sustainable with existing staff and budgetary resources. The City was faced with a growing population in which the percentage of older adults was projected to increase, while the percentage of youth was projected to decrease.

Our team engaged PRCS leadership and staff and
assessed existing policies and other documents. We
also assessed the existing parks and recreation system
and the broader Redwood City community. From these
tasks, our team made recommendations regarding
organizational structure and staffing, appropriate levels of service, and operational changes to improve how PRCS
served the community.

Derek Wolfgram, Library Director
1400 Roosevelt Ave.

Redwood City, CA 94061
650.780.7061
[email protected]
Project Dates: 10/2024 - 06/2025

REFERENCE
City of Redwood City, California
Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Department Sustainability Assessment of Services and Staffing
22

Page 156 of 724 ends

Previous Work for Government Agencies
Our Local Government Practice Group (LGPG) has completed more than 900 projects for local government clients throughout the country. We know that every community is different—and that local context matters.

That’s why we’re proud to bring both national experience and regional insight to our work in California. Whether it is helping cities plan for the future, improve operations, or build stronger community spaces, we have been honored to partner with agencies across the region. Below are a few examples of recent and ongoing projects that reflect LGPG’s commitment to supporting communities just like yours.  City of Alameda
 City of Belmont
 City of Camarillo
 City of Capitola
 City of Corona
 City of Cornado
 City of El Monte
 City of Fountain Valley
 City of Indio
 City of Irvine
 City of La Mesa
 City of Lake Elsinore
 City of Livermore
 City of Lodi
 City of Long Beach
 City of Menifee
 City of Milpitas
 City of Modesto
 City of Monterrey Park
 City of Novato
 City of Oxnard
 City of Palmdale
 City of Pasadena
 City of Redding
 City of Redlands
 City of Redwood City
 City of Richmond
 City of San Jose
 City of San Leandro
 City of San Rafael
 City of Santa Cruz
 City of Santa Maria
 City of Santa Monica
 City of Santee
 City of Simi Valley
 City of Sunnyvale
 City of Villa Park
 Coachella Valley
Association of
Governments
 Coachella Valley Water
District
 Cosumnes Community
Services District
 Imperial County
 Jurupa Area Recreation
and Park District
 Kern County
 Oceanside Public Library
 Sacramento Municipal
Utility District
 San Luis Obispo County
 Santa Clara County
 Santa Cruz County
 Sonoma County
 South Pasadena Public
Library
 Southern California Library
Cooperative
 Stanford University
 Stanislaus County
 Town of Los Gatos
 Vallejo Flood and
Wastewater District
Together with our active involvement in the California Recreation and Park Society, this experience gives us a strong foundation of local knowledge and trusted relationships. It also helps to ensure that we bring meaningful insights, practical expertise, and a clear understanding of both regional needs and national best practices to this project.
23

Page 157 of 724 ends

Proposed Methodology
SECTION 04
24

Page 158 of 724 ends

Below and on the following pages, we present our work plan intended to achieve the City’s goals and objectives for this important initiative. We look forward to discussing our approach with you and further customizing our work plan to best accommodate your needs.

Phase 1: Project Initiation,
Background Review, and Governance

1.1 Initial Project Planning. We will begin with
an initial project planning and discovery session to
identify key interest groups, project team members,
milestones, and expectations. During this session, we
will review the proposed project schedule, work plan,
and define roles and responsibilities. The insights
gained will inform the development of the Project
Work Plan and Schedule outlined in Task 1.2. As part
of this effort, we will identify and map key internal
and external stakeholders, clarifying roles such as
decision-makers, advisors, implementation partners,
and community contributors to guide engagement,
communication, and decision-making throughout the
project.

1.2 Project Work Plan and Schedule. Together,
we will develop a detailed Project Work Plan and
Schedule that clearly outlines the project scope,
communication approach, meeting timelines, and
key groups involved. This foundational plan will serve
as our roadmap—building alignment from day one
and helping ensure that all project activities stay on
track. By defining roles, responsibilities, and quality control processes up front, the City will benefit from
a smooth, transparent process that supports timely
progress, high-quality deliverables, and confidence
in every step of the engagement. This task will also
result in a Communications and Engagement Plan
that defines internal and external communication
protocols, decision points, coordination with City
communication channels, and a clear cadence for
sharing project updates with staff, leadership, and the community.

1.3 Kickoff Presentation. We will facilitate a kickoff
meeting with the City’s project team to establish
shared understanding, build early momentum, and
lay the foundation for a strong partnership. This
session will introduce our team, clarify project goals, walk through our approach and methodology, and
confirm key milestones and expectations. In addition
to aligning on process and logistics, we will tour
relevant parks and recreation facilities. This firsthand experience will allow us to better understand
your community context, user experience, and
operational realities—helping to ensure that our
recommendations are informed, practical, and
grounded in the unique characteristics of the City’s
system.

1.4 Data Request and Data Review. A
successful project starts with a clear, well-rounded
understanding of the City’s current environment.

To lay that foundation, we will submit an initial
information request to gather key documents and
data related to your plans, organizational structure,
operations, and systems. By reviewing this
information early in the process, our team can build a
shared understanding, identify strategic opportunities, and help ensure that our work builds on—not
duplicates—your previous efforts. This approach
minimizes the burden on your staff while allowing
us to deliver recommendations that are informed,
relevant, and aligned with your organization’s goals
and community needs. Information reviewed may
include but is not limited to budgets, fee schedules,
staffing plans, organizational charts, participation
and registration data, facility condition information,
policies, prior plans, and relevant operational reports.

1.5 Biweekly Status Update Meetings. We will
hold biweekly status update meetings with the
City’s project manager to maintain clear, proactive
communication throughout the project. These checkins will keep your team informed on progress, help anticipate upcoming needs and provide a forum
to address risks or challenges early—supporting a
smooth workflow, minimizing delays, and helping to
ensure the project stays aligned with your goals and
timeline.

1.6 Governance and CAPRA Readiness Review.

BerryDunn will conduct a detailed CAPRA readiness
review of the Recreation Division, evaluating policies, practices, and procedures against the National
Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) CAPRA
standards. This review will assess the Division’s
level of alignment across CAPRA categories,
with particular attention to governance, planning,
finance, human resources, risk management,
operations, and administrative systems. BerryDunn
will evaluate not only whether standards are being
1 25

Page 159 of 724 ends

met in practice, but also whether clear, consistent,
and verifiable documentation exists to demonstrate
compliance—recognizing that documentation is vital
to the accreditation process and that each applicable
standard requires defensible evidence.

Findings will identify areas of full compliance, partial compliance, and gaps, with clear differentiation
between policy-level issues and documentationrelated gaps. The review will also highlight nearterm “quick win” actions that can be implemented immediately to strengthen documentation, improve
alignment with CAPRA standards, and enhance
overall operational effectiveness, as well as longerterm considerations that may require policy updates, procedural changes, or resource investment.

Phase 2: Community Engagement
And Needs Assessment

2.1 Public Engagement Strategy. To help ensure
broad, meaningful, inclusive, and transparent
participation in the process, we will develop a public
engagement strategy. This strategy is designed to
increase access, build trust, and generate actionable
input that reflects the full spectrum of community
needs and priorities. It will also align with the City’s culture, identity, and community dynamics. This
strategy will outline how, when, and where input
will be gathered, define outreach and promotional
efforts, and help ensure each engagement activity is
purposeful, inclusive, and results in insights that will directly inform project decisions. The engagement
strategy will also establish methods for tracking
participation by demographic and geographic
characteristics, allowing outreach approaches to be
adjusted as needed to help ensure representation
from diverse community groups.

2.2 Community Workshops, Stakeholder
Interviews, and Focus Group Sessions. Our
team will facilitate a series of public engagement
activities, including community workshops,
stakeholder interviews, and focus groups. Community
conversations will consist of four interactive
2 Phase 1 Deliverables
 Deliverable 1: Project Work Plan and Schedule
with Stakeholder Map and Project Governance
Framework
 Deliverable 2: CAPRA Standards Gap
Summary
Sample project-specific website
26

Page 160 of 724 ends

workshops to gather diverse, actionable input from
key community stakeholders, including businesses,
nonprofits, public agencies, volunteer partners,
and neighborhood representatives. Stakeholder
interviews and focus groups will consist of 12
topic- and/or population-specific meetings with
options for hybrid delivery. For all activities, we will collaborate closely with the City to identify and invite the most relevant groups and individuals, tailoring
engagement activities to maximize meaningful
participation. Anticipating potential barriers such as
technology access, childcare, language, and physical
accessibility, we will design inclusive events—offering child-friendly environments, accessible venues,
flexible scheduling, and multilingual options through
tools like Social Pinpoint—to help ensure broad and
equitable community involvement. This thoughtful
approach will strengthen community trust and
produce recommendations that are representative,
informed, and actionable.

Engagement instruments developed for this phase
will include structured discussion guides, interview
protocols, visual preference tools, and intercept
survey questions tailored to each engagement
format.

2.3 Community Events. We will attend three
community events designed to actively engage
community members through interactive booths,
providing accessible and inviting opportunities for
residents to share their input. By selecting creative
and high-traffic locations tailored to the unique
character of the City, we will maximize community
participation and foster meaningful connections.

Drawing on successful strategies from similar
planning efforts, these events will capture diverse
voices through engaging activities and intercept
surveys, resulting in richer community insights that
directly inform planning recommendations. We can
conduct these intercept surveys along with pop-up
booths featuring interactive elements at:
• Gilroy Garlic Festival
• Social events, such as concerts or family
movie events
• Regular gatherings, such as public markets
• Widely accessed sites, such as parks,
community centers, or public library

2.4 Project Website and Engagement Portal. We
will partner with City staff to develop a customized
project website that keeps the community engaged
and informed throughout the planning process.

This interactive platform will provide easy access
for community members to share input, resulting in
a broader and more diverse range of perspectives
that directly inform planning decisions. By selecting
tools like surveys, mapping, forums, and idea walls
tailored to the City’s unique goals and community
27

Page 161 of 724 ends

culture, we will enhance outreach effectiveness and
foster stronger connections between the City and its
stakeholders. Maintaining the website throughout
the project will help ensure ongoing transparency,
encourage continued participation, and support timely
communication of project milestones and events.

2.5 Statistically Valid Survey. BerryDunn strongly
advocates for incorporating statistically valid
surveys in all planning projects to capture a detailed
and accurate picture of community needs. While
stakeholder meetings and public forums engage
active users and interested parties, surveys uniquely
reach non-users—who often represent taxpayers and
key decision-makers—helping to ensure their voices
shape the plan’s direction.

Partnering with ETC, experts in survey design
and analysis, we will develop and distribute a
geographically diverse survey to a representative
sample of households within the City. The insights
gained will provide critical data on community
values, satisfaction, priorities, awareness, usage
patterns, and demographics, enabling informed,
equitable, and data-driven decisions that guide
sustainable long-range planning. Survey design,
sampling methodology, administration, and question
development will follow NRPA best-practice guidance
to help ensure statistically reliable, actionable, and
defensible results.

2.6 Public Engagement Feedback Summary. Our
team will deliver a Public Engagement Feedback
Summary that synthesizes key insights gathered
throughout the engagement process. By analyzing
demographics, comparable providers, staff input,
and community feedback together, we will identify
common themes, uncover service gaps, and highlight
critical observations. This integrated assessment
will provide a clear understanding of community
needs and priorities, directly informing actionable
recommendations that align with the City’s goals
and drive meaningful improvements. We will deliver
presentations to key stakeholders, including City
leadership, the Parks Advisory Board, the Planning &
Zoning Commission, the Neighborhood Revitalization
Advisory Board, and City Council, to help ensure we
build share awareness of public perceptions, as well
as provide an opportunity for participants to confirm
and provide feedback on findings.

Engagement findings will directly inform an updated
recreation needs assessment that refreshes and
builds upon the City’s 2020 Recreation and Facility
Needs Assessment.

Phase 3: Staffing and Organization
Assessment

3.1 Organizational Structure Review. BerryDunn
will evaluate the Recreation Division’s organizational
structure, including reporting relationships, spans of
control, role clarity, and functional alignment across
management, full-time staff, part-time staff, seasonal
staff, and contracted service providers. This review
will assess how responsibilities are distributed, where decision-making authority resides, and how work
flows across programs, facilities, and administrative
functions.

As part of this effort, BerryDunn will engage staff
through targeted interviews and/or facilitated working
sessions to understand day-to-day responsibilities,
workload distribution, communication practices,
and operational pain points. Particular attention will
be paid to areas where staff are managing multiple
roles, where responsibilities overlap or are unclear,
and where critical functions may be under-resourced
or overly dependent on institutional knowledge.

The assessment will also evaluate how the current
structure supports (or constrains) equity goals,
customer service expectations, risk management,
and coordination with other City departments and
external partners.

3.2 Staffing Levels and Benchmarking. BerryDunn
will analyze current staffing levels and deployment
across programs, facilities, and service areas,
accounting for full-time, part-time, seasonal, and
contracted positions. Staffing capacity will be
benchmarked against NRPA and California peer
agencies using multiple lenses, including per-capita
ratios, staffing per program area, and staffing per
facility or service type, where appropriate.
3 Phase 2 Deliverables
 Deliverable 3: Community Engagement Plan
 Deliverable 4: Engagement Findings Summary
and Updated Needs Assessment Report
28

Page 162 of 724 ends

Benchmarking will be used not as a one-size-fitsall comparison, but as a diagnostic tool to help the City understand how its staffing model compares to
agencies with similar populations, service offerings,
and operating contexts. BerryDunn will identify areas
where staffing levels appear misaligned with service
demands, program intensity, facility complexity, or
community expectations.

3.3 Workforce Development, Succession
Planning, and Future Needs. BerryDunn will assess
workforce development practices, including training
opportunities, onboarding processes, supervision
capacity, and professional growth pathways for
both full-time and part-time staff. The assessment
will identify skills gaps, supervisory challenges, and
areas where additional training or cross-training
could improve service quality, efficiency, and risk
management.

In addition, BerryDunn will evaluate succession
planning and future workforce needs, considering
factors such as anticipated retirements, reliance on
key individuals, and the Division’s ability to adapt
to changing service demands, community growth,
and evolving recreation trends. Findings will inform
recommendations related to organizational resilience,
staff retention, and long-term capacity building.

Recommendations will be presented through clear,
scenario-based options, ranging from no-cost or lowcost operational adjustments to longer-term staffing investments, allowing City leadership to evaluate
trade-offs and prioritize actions based on feasibility, impact, and available resources.

Phase 4: Financial Analysis, Cost
Recovery, and Fee Policy

4.1 Financial Trend Analysis and Category-Level
Cost Recovery. BerryDunn will conduct a three
to five-year financial trend analysis of Recreation
Division revenues and expenditures, organized
by major service categories and facilities where
appropriate. This analysis will examine how costs,
revenues, and subsidies have evolved over time
and how financial performance differs across lines of
business such as youth services, adult programming,
senior services, aquatics, contract classes, facility
rentals, and special events.

The analysis will focus on:
• Revenue sources by category (fees,
contracts, grants, sponsorships, and other
sources)
• Expenditure patterns, including staffing,
operating costs, and shared overhead
allocation
• Category-level cost recovery and subsidy
levels
• Trends in participation, demand, and financial
performance over time
This approach will allow the City to understand
which service categories are structurally subsidydependent, which are closer to cost recovery, and where cost recovery expectations may need to be
clarified or recalibrated. The analysis will also identify broader structural challenges, such as rising labor
costs, reliance on unstable revenues, or mismatches
between service intensity and pricing, as well as
opportunities to improve financial sustainability at the system level.

4.2 Cost Recovery and Resource Allocation
Policy. Building on the category-level financial
analysis, BerryDunn will develop a Cost Recovery
and Resource Allocation Policy that provides a
consistent, transparent framework for setting subsidy
expectations across recreation service categories.

The policy will define appropriate levels of public
investment based on community benefit, individual
benefit, and market context, while explicitly protecting access for economically disadvantaged residents.

Phase 3 Deliverables
 Deliverable 5: Organizational and Staffing
Assessment Memorandum with Peer
Staffing Benchmark Analysis and Updated
Organizational Chart and Role Descriptions
4 29

Page 163 of 724 ends

The policy will:
• Establish cost recovery categories for different
types of recreation services
• Define target cost recovery ranges and
subsidy expectations at the category level
• Clarify how equity considerations, such
as scholarships and fee assistance, are
incorporated
• Provide guidance for applying the policy to fee
setting, budgeting, and future decision-making
• Recommend a process for regular review and
adjustment as costs, demand, and community
priorities change
This policy will support informed, defensible decisions by staff and elected officials and help ensure that
financial resources are aligned with the City’s values
and service objectives.

4.3 Fee Strategy, Revenue Diversification, and
Funding Opportunities. BerryDunn will evaluate
the Recreation Division’s fee structure at the servicecategory level, benchmarking fees and cost recovery targets against comparable California agencies with
similar population size, service mix, and market
conditions. This analysis will identify areas where
fees may be misaligned with category-level costs,
market norms, or community expectations.

In addition to fee benchmarking, BerryDunn will
identify opportunities to strengthen and diversify
revenues across service categories, which may
include:
• Adjustments to fees and pricing strategies
consistent with the Cost Recovery Policy
• Refinement of contractual and partnershipbased service delivery models • Sponsorship and naming opportunities
appropriate for public recreation services
• Grant and external funding opportunities
aligned with recreation, health, equity, and
community development priorities
Recommendations will be framed to balance financial
sustainability with affordability and access, supporting the City’s ability to maintain a diverse and inclusive
recreation system while responsibly managing public
resources. We will develop an interactive financial
dashboard that visualizes multi-year trends in
revenues, expenditures, cost recovery, and subsidies
by program and facility, enabling staff and decisionmakers to monitor financial performance and support data-driven recommendations.

Phase 5: Program and Service
Portfolio Review

5.1 Program and Service Performance Review.

BerryDunn will analyze participation patterns,
demographics served, utilization trends, staffing
demands, and financial performance across
the Recreation Division’s program and service
categories. This analysis will draw on participation
data, registration records, staffing schedules, and
other available information to identify patterns
of demand, shifts in participation over time,
and differences in usage across age groups,
neighborhoods, and service types.

The review will assess the breadth and mix of
offerings for youth, adults, and older adults,
including how services are distributed geographically
and whether access varies by demographic or
neighborhood. Findings will highlight areas of high
demand, underutilization, and potential service gaps,
as well as opportunities to better align service levels with community priorities identified through public
engagement.

Phase 4 Deliverables
 Deliverable 6: Financial Trend and Cost
Recovery Analysis
 Deliverable 7: Financial Dashboard
 Deliverable 8: Draft Cost Recovery and
Resource Allocation Policy with Fee Strategy
and Equity Support Framework
5 30

Page 164 of 724 ends

5.2 Program Life Cycle and Portfolio Alignment
Analysis. Using a life cycle framework (introduce,
grow, mature, and decline), BerryDunn will
evaluate the Recreation Division’s program and
service categories to understand where offerings
are expanding, stable, or in need of reinvestment
or recalibration. This analysis will consider
alignment with community needs, equity objectives,
staffing capacity, facility availability, and financial sustainability.

To ground the analysis in operational realities,
BerryDunn will facilitate a working session or focus
group with Recreation Division staff to discuss current delivery models, operational challenges, program
scalability, and opportunities for refinement or growth.

Staff insights will be integrated with quantitative data to help ensure recommendations are practical and
implementable.

BerryDunn will also conduct a program menu
inventory to assess the overall variety, balance, and
accessibility of recreational opportunities offered
across the system. Participation trends will be
mapped geographically, including the development
of a participation heat map, to visualize demand,
identify underserved areas, and assess whether
existing facilities and infrastructure can support
a future program mix that maximizes community
impact.

By integrating program data, staff input, public
engagement findings, and facility considerations,
this phase will provide a clear, system-level
understanding of how the current program and
service portfolio supports—or limits—the City’s ability to deliver equitable, responsive, and sustainable
recreation services.

Phase 6: Facilities, Asset
Management, and Capital Needs

6.1 System Inventory and Facility Condition
Assessment. BerryDunn will conduct an inventory
of the City’s parks, and recreation facilities. The
inventory will document facility location, size,
classification, amenities, and overall condition, with
attention to accessibility, site access, connectivity,
and operational functionality.

The assessment will begin with a GIS data request
to compile available spatial and asset information,
enabling the development of a consistent, systemPhase 5 Deliverables  Deliverable 9: Program and Service Portfolio
Evaluation Summary with Program Lifecycle
and Alignment Matrix and 12–24 Month
Program Adjustment and Pilot Plan
6 31

Page 165 of 724 ends

wide inventory. BerryDunn will review and confirm
the City’s existing park and facility classification
system to help ensure it reflects current conditions,
intended functions, and industry best practices. This
classification framework will support meaningful
comparison across facilities and inform level-ofservice analysis.

Planning-level condition assessments and life cycle
considerations will be incorporated to document
asset condition, identify deferred maintenance
concerns, and estimate remaining useful life for
major amenities. This information will provide a clear
understanding of where reinvestment is needed to
maintain safe, accessible, and functional facilities.

6.2 Level of Service and Access Analysis. Using
the system inventory and GIS data, BerryDunn
will conduct a Level of Service (LOS) and access
analysis to evaluate how well parks and recreation
facilities serve the community today. This analysis
will assess service coverage, geographic access,
and alignment with community growth patterns and
demographic trends.

A 10-minute walk analysis will be used to identify
areas with limited access to parks and recreation
opportunities, highlight underserved neighborhoods,
and reveal opportunities to improve equitable access.

Findings will consider both physical access and the
type and quality of amenities available, providing
a nuanced understanding of system performance
beyond acreage alone.

6.3 Capital Improvement and Investment
Planning. Findings from the inventory, condition
assessment, and LOS analysis will inform the
development of a phased capital improvement
roadmap. BerryDunn will identify priority investments
needed to address access gaps, reinvest in aging
assets, respond to growth, and support the City’s
future recreation program and service portfolio.

The capital improvement roadmap will organize
needs into near-, mid-, and long-term horizons and
include order-of-magnitude cost estimates and
high-level funding considerations. This roadmap
will provide City leadership with a clear, defensible
framework for prioritizing capital investments and
aligning resources with community needs and
strategic goals.

Phase 6 Deliverables
 Deliverable 10: Facility Needs Assessment
Report and Phased Capital Improvement
Roadmap with ROM Cost Estimates
 Deliverable 11: Facility Inventory and Condition
Assessment Book
32

Page 166 of 724 ends

Phase 7: Technology, Data, and
Business Processes

7.1 Systems, Data, and Process Assessment.

BerryDunn will review the Recreation Division’s
registration and reservation systems, point-of-sale
(POS) functions, scheduling and staffing tools,
reporting capabilities, and data governance practices.

This assessment will examine how information flows
from customer-facing systems through financial
reporting and management dashboards, and where
manual workarounds, duplicate data entry, or system
limitations create inefficiencies or increase risk.

The review will include staff interviews and workflow
mapping to document current business processes
related to registration, refunds, waitlists, scheduling, utilization tracking, revenue reporting, and customer
communications. Particular attention will be paid to
areas that directly affect customer experience, staff
workload, financial transparency, and the Division’s
ability to track participation, utilization, and cost
recovery at a meaningful level.

BerryDunn will also evaluate data quality,
consistency, and accessibility, including how data
are collected, stored, validated, and used across
systems. This will include an assessment of reporting
functionality and the Division’s ability to generate
timely, accurate information to support management
decisions, budget development, and performance
monitoring.

7.2 Performance Measurement and Decision
Support. Building on the systems and process
review, BerryDunn will identify opportunities to
strengthen performance measurement and decision
support. This includes defining a core set of key
performance indicators (KPIs) aligned with NRPA and
CPRS best practices, such as participation trends,
utilization rates, cost recovery by service category,
and customer service metrics.

Recommendations will focus on practical, achievable
improvements—such as improved reporting
structures, standardized data definitions, and
clearer performance dashboards—that enable staff
and leadership to monitor system performance,
communicate results, and support continuous
improvement without increasing administrative
burden.

Phase 8: Equity, Partnerships, Risk
and Performance

8.1 Equity, Access, and Inclusion (Opportunities
for All Framework). BerryDunn will apply its
Opportunities for All framework to evaluate equity,
access, and inclusion across the Recreation
Division. This framework moves beyond participation
counts alone to examine who is served, who is
Sample CIP Dashboard
7 Phase 7 Deliverable
 Deliverable 12: Technology and Business
Process Improvement Plan with KPI Framework
8 33

Page 167 of 724 ends

Gilroy City CouncilApril 6, 2026

Gilroy City Council
April 6, 2026