City Council Meeting Page 1 of 46 July 8, 2024
7 City of Lafayette
City Council Minutes
Lafayette Library and Learning Center – Don Tatzin Community Hall July 8, 2024 3491 Mount Diablo Boulevard, Lafayette, California 6:00 p.m.
As a courtesy, and technology permitting, members of the public may participate virtually. However, the City cannot guarantee that the public’s access to teleconferencing technology will be uninterrupted, and technical difficulties may occur from time to time. Unless required by the Brown Act, City Council/Board meetings will continue despite technical difficulties for participants using the teleconferencing (Zoom) option. To participate virtually in the City of Lafayette’s public meetings and provide public comment, please follow these steps:
1. Watch or Listen: Meetings are broadcast on the City of Lafayette’s YouTube Channel:
http://bit.ly/LoveLafayetteYouTube.
2. Submit Comments Before the Meeting: Members of the public can provide public comment by sending an e-mail to [email protected] for City Council meetings no later than noon the day of the meeting. Those e-mails will be distributed to City Council, the City Manager, and the City Attorney, and will be posted as part of the public record.
3. Live Remote Public Comments: Technology permitting, members of the public may submit live public comment via Zoom conferencing by using the link below. You must download the Zoom app or software. Zoom meetings can be accessed by telephone, computer, or smart device. When the Mayor invites public comment for the item on which you would like to comment, please use the "raise hand" feature (or press *9 if connecting via telephone only) to alert staff you have a public comment to provide. Each speaker is allowed three (3) minutes to speak.
4. At the time and date of the meeting, please click this URL to join the webinar:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89008805648?pwd=ODQxRGxzaGNHSWVITUVFalFuUHBIZz09 Passcode: 426199 Or join by phone: Dial 1 669 900 9128
Webinar ID: 890 0880 5648 Passcode: 426199
City Council Meeting Page 2 of 46 July 8, 2024
Mayor Dawson called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Dawson, Vice Mayor Kwok; Councilmembers Anduri, Candell, and McCormick
Absent: None.
Staff Present: Niroop Srivatsa, City Manager; Tracy Robinson, Administrative Services Director; Mike Moran, Engineering and Public Works Director; Matt Luttropp, Engineering Services Manager; Patrick Golier, Transportation Program Manager; Mala Subramanian, City Attorney
3. Disclosure and/or Take Action on Remote Participation due to Just Cause or Emergency Circumstances Pursuant to AB 2449 (Gov. Code section 54953(f).)
4. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Candell) to adopt the agenda. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Dawson, Kwok, Anduri, Candell and McCormick; Noes: None).
5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Led by Mayor Dawson.
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS (For Items on the Closed Session only) - None.
7. CLOSED SESSION
Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Gov. Code section 54956.9(d)(2) - (1 case)
OPEN SESSION – 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Dawson announced there was no reportable action taken in Closed Session.
8. MAYOR DAWSON
Land Acknowledgement Statement
We acknowledge that Lafayette is part of the unceded, ancestral homeland of the Bay Miwok people. The Bay Miwok and neighboring Ohlone people have lived in and moved through this place for thousands of years. They stewarded and shaped this land for hundreds of generations. We express our appreciation and gratitude for this profound legacy, which enhances and contributes to our lives to this day. We will strive to honor this land and strengthen our ties with the Indigenous communities that continue to live and work in our East Bay region as our neighbors and community members. We acknowledge and honor them and their ancestors, elders, and next seven generations.
9. PUBLIC COMMENTS (For Items not on the Agenda)
City Council Meeting Page 3 of 46 July 8, 2024
MIKE HAYES spoke about the need for AI media literacy and described his research and its need, and he proposed an AI committee be formed by the City Council.
Councilmember Candell asked Mr. Hayes if he encountered AI issues during an election. Mr. Hayes said he has been working with Dr. Michael Baker from the Commonwealth Club who wants to put on an event with a panel prior to the election so people understand AI better.
10. CITY MANAGER’S UPDATE
City Manager Niroop Srivatsa gave the following update on department activities:
• From the Police Department:
o Police are continuing to monitor the weather for Red Flag Days and high heat. People can sign onto the Police Department’s social media platform, and they will be notified of alerts.
o Police are also planning for National Night Out which will be held Tuesday, August 6th at the Library Amphitheater.
o Police now has an app for parking called Park Smarter where people can use their phone to pay for parking, as well as use the app to add time if away from the parking space. All meters will have a QR code, and the app is available now for use. • From Engineering and Public Works:
o A lot of construction is underway. The City’s contractor has begun work on the raised crosswalks that were recommended as part of safety improvements near schools which should be completed by the end of next week.
o The crosswalk on Stanley east of the Shell Station will require closing the boulevard to thru-traffic, and drivers will need to take a detour.
o The Surface Seal project is well underway, and work is being done on Pleasant Hill Road between Reliez Station Road and Olympic Boulevard near the roundabout. • The Public Art Committee reminds everyone that Acalanes High School student, Emily Bennett’s solo exhibition will be inaugurated at the Town Hall Theater. Emily won the 2024 Best in Show Award at the Lamorinda Arts Council’s 21st Annual High School Visual Arts Competition. • From Parks, Trails and Recreation, despite work EBMUD is undertaking on St. Mary’s Road, the Community Center and Community Park are open, and staff advises residents and program participants to allow sufficient time to come to classes because there are many backups and delays.
Mayor Dawson opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
11. PRESENTATIONS
A. Tracy Robinson, Administrative Services Director
Introduction of interns Emily McDonald and Paul Bursey
Recommendation: Receive and file.
City Council Meeting Page 4 of 46 July 8, 2024
Administrative Services Director Tracy Robinson introduced summer interns Emily McDonald in the Planning Department, and Paul Bursey in Engineering and Public Works Department, and provided a brief overview of their backgrounds, hobbies, and work to be undertaken in their respective departments. Each intern provided brief comments and said they look forward to serving as working with the City of Lafayette.
12. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Dawson asked and confirmed there were no requests for removal of Item A and no public comments.
A. Minutes – June 24, 2024
Recommendation: Approve.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Candell/Kwok) to adopt Consent Calendar Item A. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Dawson, Kwok, Anduri, Candell and McCormick; Noes: None).
13. OLD BUSINESS
A. Patrick Golier, Transportation Program Manager
Connecting Lafayette: Downtown Pathways and Schools Safety Project – Conceptual Design Recommendations: 1) Forward the proposed conceptual design plans to City Council for School Street, Topper Lane and St. Mary’s Road (Topper Lane to Birdhaven Court), recommending that Council authorize staff to initiate the environmental clearance and detailed design phases for the Connecting Lafayette Project: Downtown Pathways and Schools Safety Project, specifically endorsing the general alignment and proposed pathway widths. 2) Forward the proposed conceptual design plans to City Council for an expansion of the sidewalk with additional curb space along the north side of St. Mary’s Road between Topper Lane and Acampo Drive, recommending Council authorize staff to initiate the environmental clearance and detailed design phases.
Transportation Program Manager Patrick Golier introduced Engineering Services Manager Matt Luttropp and Nate Levine, PE, formally of Sandis Engineering, both of whom assisted in development of the concept plans. They provided the staff report, background, public engagement, a timeline, and gave a comprehensive PowerPoint presentation describing the recommended conceptual designs of Connecting Lafayette:
Downtown Pathways and Schools Safety Project. Staff is looking at a construction timeline of summer 2025 if the project can be put out to bid this winter.
Staff recommends the City Council authorize staff to initiate the environmental clearance and detailed design phases for the Connecting Lafayette Project: Downtown Pathways and Schools Safety Project, specifically endorsing the general alignment and proposed pathway widths.
Councilmembers thanked staff for the comprehensive staff report and presentation.
Councilmember McCormick referred to maintenance of landscaping and asked what are the City’s responsibilities. Mr. Luttropp replied that the City will be responsible for maintaining landscaping with irrigation, and on-going costs paid out of the City’s maintenance program.
City Council Meeting Page 5 of 46 July 8, 2024
Councilmember McCormick asked if there are other checkpoints as far as approvals once the detailed designs are completed. Mr. Golier replied that stages would include a 65% design which would be provided to the Transportation Circulation Commission, the public, and the City Council, then 90% design, and then 100% design. Mr. Luttropp clarified that after the 65% design presentation, staff typically does not return to the Council or Transportation Circulation Commission.
Councilmember McCormick said there is a comment in the staff report about the request to lower speed limits and this could not be done because it did not qualify. He asked staff to comment on this, given it is somewhat close to a school. Mr. Golier explained that the City is not able to reduce the prima facie speed limits on residential roadways lower than 25 mph except under certain conditions. Being near a school is one of them, but Topper Lane is more than 500 feet from an entrance to a school which gets them to about Topper Court. This is where the new school speed zone limit will begin and end.
Councilmember McCormick asked if there will be striping on Topper Lane, and Mr. Luttropp said residents have asked not to put a centerline stripe on Topper, but it would be beneficial for everyone to have a fog line on the west side of the street. The east side of the street will have a concrete curb and gutter. A fog line is needed because of the wiggles they are putting in the street. They want people to know to not continue going straight as the street moves a bit.
Vice Mayor Kwok referred to the PG&E power poles and the discussion on whether they can be undergrounded. The answer was there had been a budget for that, but it is no longer possible because PG&E has taken that funding back to address high fire risk areas of the state. Staff said there was still the ability to move the poles, and this would be funded by PG&E. He asked if there is a timeframe or risk of budget loss for that.
Mr. Luttropp said all utility agencies are required to move their utilities out of the City’s way if they conflict with their design for a pathway, storm drain lines, etc. Part of why staff is anxious to get this project going into design is because PG&E takes a while to move their poles out of the City’s rights-of-way and they have certain criteria for all poles to still be in a straight line. This will require efficient coordination.
Vice Mayor Kwok asked and confirmed that telecom and cable and other utilities are also involved. He noticed the markings on School Street and Topper Lane for the poles but saw nothing on St. Mary’s Road and asked if there are no poles on that side of the street. Mr. Luttropp confirmed the poles are on the other side of the street along St. Mary’s Road.
Councilmember Anduri said his questions relate to Topper Lane. The City has a 43-foot-wide right-of-way on Topper Lane, and he asked if anything outside of the City’s right-of-way was being changed. Mr.
Luttropp stated no.
Councilmember Anduri said when he met with Mr. Colbruno and neighbors last year and was shown around the street, it was shortly after the initial engineering survey had been done. There was a great deal of concern about how the City right-of-way extended into the front yards of Topper Lane residents and great concern about what might be built then in those front yards. He asked if the current plan calls for nothing to be built beyond the existing western side of the existing pavement. Mr. Luttropp confirmed this is correct, unless you look at the three-foot road shift which is also discussed in the packet. In that case, it would move three feet closer to those properties, but this is something that is up to the residents to decide if it is something they want to explore.
City Council Meeting Page 6 of 46 July 8, 2024
Councilmember Anduri said even in some cases it seems the roadway is going to not extend as far as it does now, and asked if this is correct. Mr. Luttropp said he believes this would be the one case near the signature oak tree where it does not quite extend as far as it does now.
Councilmember Anduri said there was some concern expressed in the comments received and he also listened to the Transportation Circulation Commission meeting and comments about the vegetation planted. He wanted to confirm the intent is that if the Birdhaven and Topper Lane residents want it, to the extent trees are able to thrive, the intent is to plant trees that will create a 30-foot eventual canopy.
Mr. Luttropp said he believes this is correct. They want to be sensitive to where the power lines are and how tall these trees get and do want to plant trees that will get big, and the City will provide all maintenance and water for those trees.
Councilmember Anduri noted in the staff report there was a four-foot-wide path proposed. He asked how staff sees this working here, staff’s general position on four-foot paths throughout the City, and analysis of the impact on the trees compared to what is now on the six-foot path. His understanding is that staff’s analysis is there is not much of a difference in terms of impact on signature trees.
Mr. Luttropp said with a four-foot pathway they would need to have five-foot landings every 200 feet to maintain ADA compliance. Feedback received from the community was that four-foot-wide pathways are not wide enough because when people are trying to pass each other it is a bit tight, and they have asked to make pathways wider. The previous City Engineer created a policy to have five-foot-wide pathways as a standard because it is easier for people to pass and, again, staff received feedback that it is better but still difficult to pass one another. Thereafter, staff decided to make six-foot pathways as a minimum. The pathways the City recently completed on Pleasant Hill Road, Olympic, Glenside, and Reliez Valley Road are all six-feet wide, so this is the rationale behind the six-foot-wide preference.
He assumes that with the four-foot-wide pathway staff can figure out how to fit the five-foot landings in without hitting any trees without much trouble. The question then is, with a six-foot pathway with no shift which is the proposed option, it removes four more signature trees than the four-foot pathway and it removes six more non-signature trees than the four-foot pathway. But, if they do a three-foot shift in select locations, the number of signature trees removed with the six-foot pathway in a shift is the same as a four-foot pathway, and the six-foot pathway with a three-foot shift removes four more non-signature trees than the four-foot pathway. So, it is possible to minimize the number of trees being removed if residents are willing to allow a three-foot shift in the roadway alignment.
Councilmember Anduri asked if there was one remaining resident willing to do that, and Mr. Luttropp said the one resident called him and asked if staff could explore it to save two trees right across from their house. He has not heard from their adjoining neighbor as to whether they support that shift, and he needs that neighbor’s support of it because he must transition in and out of it. Then, there is one more neighbor mid-block who has not let him know whether or not they are willing to see that lane shift or not. If the Council moves forward, this would need to be worked out relatively soon because staff needs to know what the alignment is before doing this.
City Council Meeting Page 7 of 46 July 8, 2024
Councilmember Anduri said in walking that area, it looked as though there is one spot where there is a significant tree in the middle of the proposed pathway zone. He asked if any consideration was given to three feet on one side and three feet on the other side which has been done similarly on Reliez Valley Road with a large tree. Mr. Luttropp said the problem with that is that they would be very close to the root ball on either side of the tree. So, they do not want the edge of the pathway to be closer than about one and one-half feet from the tree, so they did not consider doing three feet on each side going around it.
Councilmember Anduri said there was a comment at the last meeting that consideration was not given to a one-way circulation option. His understanding is that this was raised at public meetings but did not receive support. Mr. Luttropp confirmed it was raised and it did not receive support, so it was dropped from consideration.
Councilmember Candell referred to narrower sections that go down to the four feet away from the six feet. She asked if there can be areas that are only four-feet wide. Mr. Luttropp said technically, they could do this. There is the issue of the scoping changes for the grant and the more you drift away from six feet, the more difficult it will be to get the scoping change. Also, in looking at the trees he did not think they would save any signature trees and there are only four non-signature trees that could potentially be saved by doing that over the six-foot pathway with the three-foot shift.
Councilmember Candell asked if there was thought about making the paths permeable or semi-permeable to help with the root problem. Mr. Luttropp said yes; one thought is they could construct the subgrade of the pathway near trees out of permeable rock which has been done on Glenside and Olympic. The surfacing material of the pathway is then not quite as significant because at least they have provided an area for the water to get underneath the pathway and for air to circulate underneath which is what the tree wants and needs.
Councilmember Candell said they got a detailed letter about issues with drains, and she asked if this will be addressed. Mr. Luttropp said yes, staff will be addressing drainage on the street. There is an existing drainage ditch which will have a storm drainpipe installed and quite a few residential drain lines that come out to that ditch now. Those will be tied into that storm drain system, so they do not backup anyone’s drainage. This is something staff will want to go over in detail with residents at the 65% plan level to make sure they have caught all of those drain lines.
Councilmember Candell referred to the matching $775,000 which comes from LFFA and CCTA, and she asked and confirmed that this has already received approval.
Councilmember Candell asked how is the City paying for the St. Mary’s drop-off design and asked how much it will be. Mr. Golier replied this was in the 2023-24 CIP and it was $200,000 from the General Fund, which was approved last year.
Councilmember Candell said there was no data collection on the actual number of students that walk down Topper Lane, but someone wrote in, and they counted 10 students, and she asked if this is correct.
Mr. Golier said he collected data on Topper Lane with cameras on either side of the street a year ago, and that number could be true.
City Council Meeting Page 8 of 46 July 8, 2024
Councilmember McCormick said a key milestone not reflected here is having to go back to MTC to get approval for the scope change. He asked when that will happen and asked how staff feels about the chances of success. Mr. Golier said he has been communicating with his counterpart at MTC and letting them know what is happening. What they want is an indication from the Council of what the width and alignment would be. They are aware of some of the changes that have been occurring based on community input and is not expecting a tremendous amount of pushback because he has been keeping MTC informed.
Councilmember Anduri said in looking at the design now on Topper Lane on the east side when constructed, according to the plan, the curb will be a straight line from almost up to St. Mary’s all the way down to the end. Mr. Luttropp confirmed except when going around the signature oak tree where it shifts over a bit.
Councilmember Anduri said if other neighbors agree to a shift and it is possible to get a more pleasingly curvy edge to that street, he asked if it would work from an engineering perspective. Mr. Luttropp said it would be great—the more significant wiggles they could add, it would serve as a traffic calming measure.
However, staff has not explored this because of the significant pushback they got from residents about moving the road onto the west side of the street.
Mayor Dawson said most of her questions have been answered which she described regarding School Street where trash and mailbox will be accommodated, as well as utilities which will matter in terms of timing and coordination.
Mayor Dawson opened the public comment period.
GARY RISKE, Topper Lane, said he is directly impacted by this proposal, fully supports the School Street pathway and a sidewalk on St. Mary’s Road, thinks it will be much more utilized once in place which will obviate the need for a pathway on Topper Lane. The City is very financially stressed right now, and he is a CPA. He is concerned if the 1% sales tax is not approved and thinks there would be much better expenditure of funding if it went towards the St. Mary’s Road sidewalk and Topper Lane was left out of the provision process entirely. There would be many more people able to utilize a sidewalk at St. Mary’s Road than Topper Lane. And, given limited resources, this would be a better use of funding. The heat also has highlighted the environmental impacts and trees on Topper Lane may not be aesthetically pleasing, but they work to provide shade cover, noting there was a 50-degree difference in the pavement in sun versus the shaded part. So, taking out 30 trees will have a significant impact.
MICHAEL COLBRUNO said he is speaking on behalf of a broader Topper Lane group, thanked the Transportation Circulation Commission and the Council for coming out and understanding the impacts.
He believes the plan will move forward under general consensus for a reduced width path. There have also been discussions about vegetation and said he submitted documents on studies of temperature differences of shade and pavement which he described as pavement on average being 152 degrees. He echoed comments from Mr. Riske and asked for clear direction on the reduced path and asked for the critical protection of mature vegetation.
City Council Meeting Page 9 of 46 July 8, 2024
Councilmember Anduri asked and confirmed Mr. Colbruno was opposed to replacing mature trees with 15-gallon trees that would take several years to grow, and that the impacts to frontages, widths, vegetation, drainage, speed limits were all right questions asked by Councilmember Anduri. If the path must be built, Mr. Colbruno said he thinks those are the right mitigations. He would encourage asking the question to ensure there is follow-up from staff to ensure residents would have the ability to weigh in on what vegetation is moving forward, noting it is an emotional item for neighbors.
Councilmember Candell asked if Mr. Colbruno thinks the majority of Topper Lane residents support the six-foot path with much of the mitigations discussed. Mr. Colbruno said yes, they would accept it, recognizing what is likely to occur to move forward and keeping the grant money. While there is no overall consensus, if it must move forward, the reduced path width would be acceptable.
JOHANNA GLADIEUX said the neighbors would have to accept the six-foot path. She thinks the preference is for something much more diminutive, less urban, and more in keeping with Topper Lane. In their letter, they believe this path is not needed in the form being presented. She thanked everyone for the time on the project but thinks staff is only moving particulars around within the confines of the OBAG free stipulations. They have been told nothing less than six feet will be accepted and were put into this grant without their knowledge and without having any hand in crafting it. She described items in their letter such as cost, miscommunications, rejection of ideas, lack of transparency with the grant, and thinks there are many other ways to create safe access on Topper Lane to the schools and the trail without doing what is currently being proposed. Topper Lane is a rural lane in the heart of Lafayette, and this is not needed.
She also voiced concern that this meeting was scheduled around a holiday and many neighbors cannot participate.
KEN HERTEL, 857 Birdhaven Court, thanked the Council for their questions tonight, said his pathway is proposed to be four feet of a softscape that would work around trees that can more than accommodate 10 people. He wants to provide a safe pathway for his neighbors, does not want to impose on Topper Lane residents, but all of these hardscape improvements have been placed up against his back fence.
There is a three-foot landscape strip between the roadway and the pathway at his property that expands to 3.75 feet, so this is inadequate. This stretch is from the top of St. Mary’s, and it gets worse when getting to his next-door neighbor and then his next-door neighbor where there is no landscape because of the oak tree. The Engineering Department is also proposing to move the power poles to his property line.
Mr. Luttropp noted staff must have a design first before they can relocate the power poles.
Mr. Hertel said if they end up on his property line he gets an easement and a taking of his property, and he will not be able to plant trees there. There are many gaps in information and what Topper Lane residents are not recognizing is this design of six feet is going to completely obliterate the landscape on Topper Lane.
City Council Meeting Page 10 of 46 July 8, 2024
CHRIS FESENMAIER said his two children are not counted among the 10 children because it is not safe to walk on Topper Lane. He does not want to cut down trees, does not want impacts for Topper and Birdhaven neighbors, but he must advocate for his kids’ safety and his own safety because he would like to be able to walk down Topper Lane to go to the trail, to the Library, and to restaurants downtown. There has been mention of several alternatives and staff did their homework and looked into several other options. Avalon is a place that also does not have a sidewalk and no landscaping and no free space to put one. Going down to Hope Street in the east direction to get to the trail is a bit further out of the way. It would be fine there, but it is currently a ditch that is filled with leaves and branches and people cannot walk on it if they have a stroller or limited mobility. He implored the Council to take this opportunity as it will not come again. His biggest fear is nothing will happen because they pass this up and there is opposition and then no money, leaving two hurdles instead of one. He therefore asked the Council to approve this plan so neighbors can have a safer route for the current children on the street as well as future children.
JOE LORDAN, 862 Birdhaven Court, thanked the Council for their due diligence over the last several weeks and months and said the safety issues surrounding Topper and School Streets have been well-known for a long time. When they moved here seven years ago, this issue landed in their laps. He has three children who are working their way through the LES and Stanley School system, and it will be germane to him for a long time. Since then, they have witnessed the hazards of the street and the need for a protected pathway, citing too many close calls and near misses to ignore. He appreciates the values advanced by all homeowners and his neighbors, advocates for the balanced approach that provides the safest pathway with the greatest utility, the least disruption, supports preserving as many trees as possible with the least impact of those whose property abuts Topper Lane, and said frankly he cannot provide any additional insight that the City Engineers and project architects have not already considered. Change is hard, but doing nothing is not acceptable given the safety issues at hand. He believes that as the custodians of this town, it is incumbent upon the City to leave it better than they found it. This network of safe pedestrian passage-ways, particularly those on Topper and School Street, accomplishes this goal and he is supportive of moving forward with the proposal.
Councilmember Candell asked if there is a sidewalk between Birdhaven and Hope on St. Mary’s, and Mr.
Lordan said no, there is not.
PATRICIA KENNEDY-RISKE agrees that the number of children who walk down Topper Lane is less than 10 on a daily basis. She has two weeks of data, and this is less than 1% of kids attending Stanley and Lafayette Elementary School. Regarding a one-way street, the City had looked at this, but this was with a 10-foot pathway. She believes if the City looked at a one-way street with a six-foot pathway it could make a difference in the amount of vegetation that could be saved. She is the neighbor willing to have the pathway closer to her fence to shift the road over just to save two trees and is adamant that the trees must be saved, as the destruction of approximately 70% of the vegetation on their lane should not occur.
Last Tuesday, the pavement was at 152 degrees in the sun, yet only 105 in the shade. Gravel paths registered 160 degrees in full sun but only 102 under the trees. She cited benefits of mature trees and said the lane will be turned into a hot spot which will take 15-20 years to recoup and the landscape strips of 3 ½ feet up to 5 feet are not adequate for trees to be planted with deep roots.
Councilmember Anduri asked if there would be support from Topper Lane homeowners if a one-way, sixfoot option was considered. Ms. Kennedy-Riske said she thinks so if a lot of the trees can be saved. Again, it might depend on which way the one-way street goes as well. She knows the 10-foot was negatively received because it showed all vegetation being removed. It was not because of the one-way inconvenience but because of destruction of vegetation.
City Council Meeting Page 11 of 46 July 8, 2024
Councilmember Anduri said in the email sent by Ms. Riske this morning she concluded by saying she believes there are several options. The second one was to request staff to return to MTC to rescope the project from 10 feet to six feet and the City commit to working with residents to maintain as much vegetation as possible together to ensure adequate replacement. If the Council does this, he asked if it would be acceptable to her, and Ms. Riske said yes--if they can have acceptable vegetation.
JEN AHLSKOG said she is an environmental engineer and a resident of Topper Lane. To answer Councilmember Candell’s question about the sidewalk between Birdhaven and Hope, she and her husband walk their dog twice daily, so they know many of the nearby streets. It is wide right there and her husband has walked that way from Birdhaven, and it takes 2 ½ extra minutes so a bit of sidewalk could be added there, and the City would not have to mess with utilities, drainage, etc. With that, she would encourage the Council that if they have to have a path on Topper Lane that it be less than six feet. She moved here from other states and thinks California does a great job with ADA compliance, but it would be great to have this path right-sized. With regular dog-walking, she comes upon someone about once a week so it is not like the street is very busy where they will be passing people on a regular basis. She therefore asked to consider six feet or less.
Regarding vegetation, by removing trees they will lose a lot of wildlife habitat as well in the trees. She walks on First Street regularly and there are no nesting birds or anything there, but there are many on Topper Lane.
BUCKLEY HUGHES said he appreciates the time and invested efforts, said many Councilmembers have been to his home and walked around the properties. He sent a letter but urged the Council to give consideration to maybe splitting the distance instead of a 10-foot path, to make it a five-foot path. What is not pointed out in some of the utility drawings and the drawings generated to date which will be coming, is that the fire hydrant lines run in the pathway and they are not represented on any drawings. Some of the telephone poles simply could be avoided by going to a five-foot pathway. They would not have to be moved and would be in the landscaping area. He supports the meandering pathway up and down Topper Lane because it is a lane. They do not get much foot traffic there and they do not want a lot of E-bike traffic on Topper Lane, which he described. The other concern is by not submitting to the MTC for a sixor 5-foot pathway and only using a six-foot guidance, it locks in the City. Then, they might have to go back if there are utility issues. Therefore, he urged the Council to look at a five-foot pathway and make it a meandering pathway because so many utilities could be avoided simply by meandering it as opposed to a straight line. He asked to keep the hybrid option open for MTC approval simply because being in construction for 40 years and seeing a lot of civil work in his time up in the millions of dollars, he firmly believes this pathway will be over-budget. Also, having some crushed granite in and around the trees might help save them and also maintain the rural neighborhood.
Councilmember McCormick asked Mr. Hughes to reiterate the concern about fire hydrants. Mr. Hughes said he is at 883 Birdhaven Court and right across the street is 839 Birdhaven. On the left side of his rear yard there is a fire hydrant, and it is exactly five feet from the street. From the proposed curb there, it will have to be moved if the City goes to six feet. There is no landscaping in that area because they have put the landscaping at the fence, so if they simply reduce it to five feet, there are quite a few areas. Even at the corner of Topper Lane and St. Mary’s Road you can get around the redwood tree there and possibly save that tree, as well.
City Council Meeting Page 12 of 46 July 8, 2024
SUSAN CALLISTER said she does not live on Birdhaven or Topper and used to live in Lafayette and then moved back into the house she grew up in about 4 blocks away from Topper Lane. She has learned about this late in the game and was stunned when she heard the City wanted to put a walking path or sidewalk down Topper Lane which is one of the prettiest lanes in Lafayette. She did not write a letter but listened to speakers and agreed with most of their comments.
Her suggestion is to put a sidewalk between Topper Lane and Birdhaven so if people want to walk to schools they can use the sidewalk and go through the Stanley yard instead of down Avalon and cut through and go to Lafayette School. If they want to go on the trail, a sidewalk can be between Birdhaven and Hope Lane and they can use Hope Lane. Or, if they have a couple of Birdhaven neighbors that live at the end of the street and some of the money for this project can be offered up to each neighbor to have a six- or 10- foot walkway on either side of their property lines going to the trail at the end of Birdhaven, the City would not have to spend millions of dollars on this. She asked to save some of the money for this grant for other things, hopes Topper Lane can stay a lane, asked not to remove trees, asked not to have sidewalks there, and asked that the City’s country lanes remain as is.
BILL BUCHER said he lives downtown and represents the Lafayette Homeowners Council. During the past several years they have been following these activities and have had members of their Board attend several of the public outreach meetings. They appreciate a lot of the feedback and work done from neighbors. Staff broke this into three sections, but he believes the School Street project needs to go forward one way or the other. He thinks having a multi-use path that connects from the trail to the road is perfect. Hopefully, some decisions to be made will not impact that. The second thing is the study portion to do along St. Mary’s Road is a given to him. Hopefully in the future, the City can find money to fund that, but this is a logical thing which is to put the sidewalk in and formalize parking and continue that on, all the way including from getting to Topper to Hope Lane. This should be done and move forward.
In the matter of Topper Lane, why they are very concerned with the homeowners and neighbors is because they think a pathway on a road that connects and goes through ultimately is a good thing for safety. People have offered dozens of great ideas but if it can be worked out with the neighbors on both streets it is not just for their benefit but for the community. The other paths they have done on Olympic, Reliez Valley, and others and the need for a six-foot path does become apparent on a busy street. Topper Lane is busy at just a small amount of time. Happy Valley did not have a six-foot road and can get out of the way for someone passing; however, it is more critical for a busier street and Topper Lane is really just a lane. Therefore, he hopes the Council can come up with a safe path that can be used for all pedestrians.
ROBERT LAVOIE said he thinks the Topper Lane idea is a $750,000 road to nowhere. He agrees with Gary Riske and Scott Ellis who is traveling right now and cannot speak. Birdhaven people can use Hope Lane.
They can go down St. Mary’s and cut through Stanley. They can go to Moraga Road and there are many alternative routes to get downtown or to Lafayette Elementary. If they are just going to Stanley there is no reason to go on the School Street side. There is a 137-foot strip that is gravel covered but not a sidewalk from Birdhaven to Topper and then 620 feet from Topper Lane to Acampo. If this is paved, there will be very few utilities as noted. There are no power lines in that area and there would not need to be any City expense for landscaping, which is 1,100 feet on Topper if they do that. There is zero impact to neighbors, and you get people over to Stanley. Stanley already has a 10-foot road going 40% of the way along the west side of the campus, and he thinks the City Council should ask the school to finish that all the way to First Street. There is basically dirt back there.
City Council Meeting Page 13 of 46 July 8, 2024
He sent pictures and the only issue is on the north side where they have a junkyard they need to put a fence around to let people through. This would be a nice, safe path, no cars anywhere nearby, and it would be nicely landscaped and quiet behind the trees. It can be made 10 feet easily without disrupting anything. The traffic counts are clearly lacking because there are very few people that come from St.
Mary’s from Topper Lane, except for residents of Birdhaven and Topper. Again, it is destroying one of the most beautiful little streets in town and it is also adding 1100 feet of maintenance that the City cannot afford to be maintaining.
The City could go down to four feet where there is a pinch point and then go back up to six feet where it is not needed. If the path is done on the west side of Stanley it would be much less expensive than $750,000. Regarding security worries, the City could put a fence along the classrooms open up to a little courtyard in a couple of places to keep people out from walking through, but it is an open campus anyway.
He thinks the school should help with a solution as the City pays $140,000 for crossing guards and he thinks they could help with this situation.
CHERYL MACDONALD said Topper Lane was never notified about this project and it was somehow put into a grant that should never have happened in that order. She does not know how the City can correct that which is the 300-foot radius rule. This is very critical with transparency and understands why there is a lack of trust. She thinks it is upsetting to hear so many trees are proposed to be cut down on Topper Lane. He recognized the heat concerns and if new trees are installed, she asked not to put a light pole next to it. She asked to look at the east end of Lafayette and said the Council will see lights are hidden in the trees. She would love to know the cost of maintenance it will take to maintain this project. The City has already asked for money from the General Fund, and she asked to make the pathway as small as possible as it does not need to be six feet and asked to save as many trees as possible.
SUE PEGNIM said she is a resident of Birdhaven Court and purchased her property within the last four years. She has four children, the youngest being 32 but has three grandchildren that go to Lafayette Elementary School and one that will eventually go. She is mostly concerned with the fact the City is proposing installing in a six-foot-wide pathway. If they must have one, she would like a four-foot one. She is also concerned about the destruction of vegetation which directly impacts her property. There is a big tree that will likely be removed, and the plan states the power pole behind her fence will be removed. So, she will be left with no green vegetation behind her yard with direct sun from the west. It is very difficult to follow this because when she moved into her house there was a dead tree on the same right-of-way behind her house and she called the City to have it removed because she thought it would fall down on the street. She was told it is her responsibility to have it taken down. So, she had to pay a lot of money to have this large tree taken down, so it is ironic now for her now to not have any say of what goes there.
She would hope that the City, if it must have a pathway, come up with a narrower pathway which would not impact vegetation. Unfortunately, the path has been turned to meander right next to her fence which necessitates the removal of this large tree that provides shade for herself and her neighbor. Some plan could be made that would lessen all of the impact of removal of vegetation and she thinks maintaining new trees might be a financial burden for the City down the road and she is very concerned about lack of upkeep. Lastly, she is not in favor of the current project and have been to many meetings where people have proposed smaller lanes and different projects but was voted down. She would like to see changes made that would make it more amenable to those living on Topper and Birdhaven.
Mayor Dawson said in addressing points, one point refers to the type of vegetation. She gathers some comments that have been made in terms of the size going in, and asked if this is something the City can consider such as larger than a 15-gallon box tree when the time comes, or larger trees to start with.
City Council Meeting Page 14 of 46 July 8, 2024
Mr. Luttropp said staff can definitely look at that. When they did the downtown projects, in speaking with landscape professionals, they said at some point there are diminishing returns. You can plant larger trees and they are shocked by replanting them, than if you wait eight years down the road, a larger tree may not be doing as well as a smaller tree would do because it is not as severely shocked. The other thing he has spoken with multiple residents about is if the pathway is pushed closer to the street and in some areas, that is the intent, then the space behind the pathway is also adjacent to the landscaping of the backyards for Birdhaven. So, in effect they are getting a much wider area for the roots to spread out than if you plant the tree between the curb and pathway where you have a three- or four-foot-wide landscape strip. Then, you are pretty confined, so if you plant it on the backside, you are less confined, and he would think the trees would do better.
Mayor Dawson said she knows PG&E has standards for poles and easements around that, but she also knows this is something the City could work with them as well if there are certain tree sizes. As far as fire hydrants, she asked if this has been something taken into account.
Mr. Luttropp said fire hydrants can be moved similar to utilities.
Mayor Dawson said the other question was speaking with the school district regarding the westside path on Stanley. Mr. Luttropp said the district is not receptive to that at all; They have a lot of security concerns about that and are not willing to consider it.
Councilmember Anduri said in going back to the presentation by Ms. Riske and the follow-up questions relating to one-way traffic with a six-foot path, he asked how practical is it to consider that at this point based upon prior discussions with the neighborhood and discussion of one-way.
Mr. Luttropp said from a technical standpoint, a one-way street is certainly a feasible thing to do. It provides significantly more right-of-way to work with. His concern is that he is not optimistic that in the end, the neighborhood is going to support that either. They have explored many options and have not been supportive. Now that they are this late in the process, he is reluctant to go back to the start and go through it all over again expecting a completely different response.
Councilmember Anduri asked if there was a negative response to a one-way street no matter how wide the path is. Mr. Luttropp said that was not the way any of the questions were proposed. There were many options at the first meeting and, overwhelmingly, people did not like the one-way option. They were only talking about the 10-foot path at the first meeting, so everything had a 10-foot path. The least offensive option of all options was to not shift the road, do not do one-way, and the residents rightfully pointed out that they do not want a 10-foot pathway and to go for something smaller. This is how they ended up where they are and why he is not optimistic going back to the start is likely to achieve a different result.
Councilmember Anduri said they discussed earlier about maintenance and speakers asked about the cost.
He asked if there is a rough estimate of what it would cost annually to maintain the vegetation along Topper Lane.
Engineering and Public Works Director Mike Moran said it is another 1100 feet and the City has several thousand feet they maintain now. It certainly is an incremental added cost of landscape maintenance like center medians. Also, the beauty of a one-way design is it leaves all vegetation intact and provides a 10- foot road with a 10-foot path without removing any trees from the start. He was part of those early on discussions.
City Council Meeting Page 15 of 46 July 8, 2024
He said the one-way never got any discussion and it was presented like that, but obviously, that provides a loop for anyone living on Topper Lane must abide by going to and from their homes, so there is a huge trade-off there. If every tree wants to be saved and some are not in very good shape, the City could do nothing, but many will go away by themselves over the next decade, and they could do a one-way.
Whether they are talking about 6 or 10 feet, the one-way through this entire process never caught on any traction from the beginning. He heard it tonight and it is still an option because design-wise, it is easy. It gives the middle of the roadway to work with.
Mayor Dawson said she would imagine this would impact traffic around the school more and they are trying to have it safe and minimize congestion for multi-modal use.
Councilmember Candell asked if staff believes they have a chance to save any of these trees by going wider and then narrower than the six feet and even down to four feet. Mr. Luttropp said no.
Councilmember Candell asked even with the meandering, a split, or something else, and Mr. Luttropp said he already mentioned the comparison between a four-foot and six-foot pathway with the lane shift. They already know that is not a lot of trees. There will always be a trade-off, so if you do a six-foot pathway and a road shift, you are saving four trees by going with a four-foot pathway, and they are not signature trees.
Councilmember Candell referred to the PG&E easements and asked what are the rules around a PG&E pole for planting. Mr. Luttropp said PG&E would prefer that they never plant anything under any power lines, but he does not think they can direct what they plant, although it would behoove them not to plant something that they know is going to grow significantly higher than the power lines simply because they know it will get cut in a haphazard manner by PG&E.
Councilmember Candell asked what is the size of the easement. Mr. Luttropp said it is not an easement.
The poles are all located within the public right-of-way so the City can have PG&E move those poles anywhere within the public right-of-way. The goal would be to move those to where landscaping is so they would want to try and meander things a bit to make it so the poles could still line up. To Ken Hertel’s point, if you can meander it in an artful way you may be able to keep the poles where they are now. He thinks there is one pole that must move which is the one across from the signature oak tree.
Councilmember Candell said she keeps hearing about shade. She knows they have signature trees and others. She asked if any of the other ones that are not labeled as signature trees provide a significant amount of shade for the path because maybe the way they separated the types of trees is not helping residents with the shade question. She asked if they could have a different way of distinguishing which trees and then figuring out the path; to keep the ones that provide the most shade.
Mr. Luttropp said they know the trees that will be impacted. Signature trees will be the ones producing the most shade because they are the biggest trees. Those are the ones you would want to save the most.
Most of thew non-signature trees are significantly taller than six feet and provide a measure of shade but he is not sure parsing out the trees with shade versus no shade changes the decisions that need to be made. Either they will do a six-foot pathway or not, and people will need to live with the impacts this has.
Councilmember Candell said it just seems like there is a more refined approach they could take to some of these trees and help understand what they are doing to impact the shade and she did not think they captured that. Mr. Luttropp said it does not change the end result though.
City Council Meeting Page 16 of 46 July 8, 2024
Mr. Golier added that they do have a landscape architect on the team and that person had been engaged to prepare the initial boards for the May Open House to present some initial concepts, scale, and size, but that person needs to understand the alignment and the amount of landscaping space to come back with more concrete plans.
Councilmember Anduri referred to the landscape space because he has been thinking four feet, and Mr.
Hertel mentioned his property is three feet, and he asked for more feedback. Mr. Levine said it does vary and change. If they start by the trail or the north of the roadway and work their way down, they have a five-foot section. When they make it in between the two driveways that are on the east side, they are still at five feet. When they do their meander they are now down to four and three-quarter feet and as that continues, they drop down to three and three-quarter feet. By the time they get to the heritage tree where they have no landscaping on the other side, they are down to three feet, so it starts at five feet and skinnies its way down to three feet. To take an average, it is about four feet but to the point made, there are three-foot sections, sections less than four feet and they are continuous which has less opportunity for landscaping.
Councilmember Anduri asked about south of the heritage oak tree. Mr. Levine said south of the heritage oak, it is a bit of a triangle but once they get back to its full size, it is three feet all the way to St. Mary’s Road. He thinks they are talking about 75 feet in total length there where it does not get beyond three feet.
BREAK
Mayor Dawson called for a break at 9:10 p.m., and thereafter reconvened the meeting at 9:18 p.m.
Mayor Dawson called for Council deliberation.
Councilmember Candell suggested separating the project by School Street, Topper Lane, and St. Mary’s Road. She fully supports the School Street concept as proposed.
Councilmember McCormick agreed and said it is wonderful they have worked with the schools and got the easement on the school property to have a larger turn signal. It was a nice innovation they brought Town Hall Theater into discussions to talk about their traffic needs and it will be a dramatic improvement over what is there now.
Mayor Dawson said she very much appreciates all of the work by staff and all engagement by neighbors as well as the schools, working together, and participation in the multiple stakeholder meetings, and as they heard, there are still things they would like to see worked out, but she wants to express the great appreciation for the collaboration that has taken place already.
Councilmember Anduri echoed comments of the Mayor and specifically thanked homeowners along School Street. They had several Council meetings where the Council heard from them. This design has turned out much better than he thought it was going to turn out and it is very good work. It is the result of the homeowners, the school, staff and everyone coming together.
Vice Mayor Kwok concurred and cannot add anymore to observant comments.
Mayor Dawson agreed as well, and she thinks the School Street design looks good to move forward. She suggested commenting on the St. Mary’s item.
City Council Meeting Page 17 of 46 July 8, 2024
Councilmember McCormick said in the staff presentation done he asked if there is a piece of St. Mary’s Road that is part of the grant project. There is a little lip where some sidewalk work is being done and asked what exactly is being proposed there.
Mr. Levin said yes, there is a very short section between Topper and Birdhaven that is getting a six-footwide sidewalk that fits within the right-of-way.
Mayor Dawson discussed the north side of St. Mary’s Road between Topper Lane and Acampo Drive. As stated before, there is no money for construction but the design would be important so it is ready should the City procure any grant monies in the future.
Councilmember McCormick said he thinks it is great to have shovel-ready projects like this, as grants sometimes come up quickly which is a concern. The City having a well-defined plan ready to go is terrific and they should probably have more in their “back pocket” to do, and he especially likes the notion in the change of the diagonal parking to straight parking to make it easier to back out.
Councilmember Anduri said he supports the staff recommendation #2, as did Councilmember Candell for St. Mary’s Road.
Vice Mayor Kwok said he is also pleased to see the progress on St. Mary’s Road. He would call out that the research or the study done on traffic movement concluded that people were not doing U-turns there and a traffic signal was not going to be a good use of funds. That whole analysis was very helpful. The proposed realigned parking is a quick win, and he is glad it ended up this way. When this conversation began a couple of years back, he was hopeful that Stanley Middle School would allow an entrance on the backside. One of the speakers mentioned if they could open up the fence and have people come down that way instead of Topper Lane, and this is something the City and schools have explored and closed off as an opportunity. So, what is before the Council in terms of what is for St. Mary’s Road is a good solution which the community explored thoroughly and have come out with good solutions, and he is supportive of this item.
Mayor Dawson said she is as well for those reasons, as well as having shovel-ready projects especially when they are on the school safety side which has been the City’s priority.
Councilmember Candell asked if the City is exploring getting Stanley Middle School to open the fence up on the east side because now it is an informal gap, or she asked if it was part of this project. Mr. Golier said if it is on their property it is not part of this project; however, the school has collaborated very well with staff so he can go back to them and let them know they have this approved by the Council.
Mayor Dawson then referred to Topper Lane and asked for comments.
Councilmember McCormick said interacting with neighbors on Birdhaven and Topper has been terrific. He thinks it is a great neighborhood. The passion in the neighborhood is terrific and he would have no hesitation moving there or recommending someone move there. It seems like a special place and residents are trying to keep it that way. That said there were several comments that resonated with him.
He thinks the safety of the walkers is important and comments received from some of the parents perhaps that there is less traffic than would otherwise be there because there are safety concerns on the street he thinks is notable. That spoke to him; that they would probably have more activity if there was a safer route.
City Council Meeting Page 18 of 46 July 8, 2024
Regarding drainage, the City re-did his street and re-did the paving and drainage and it was an amazing result. It is clearly not the priority, but he thinks it will be a nice benefit if this project goes forward as planned because it will be significantly improved. He appreciates the changes and knows it has been torturous with what the City has done in listening to members of the public and coming together and having a plan that is at least acceptable is heartening. Just having the grant money and the way the funding is coming together is really nice. It is not really hitting the General Fund.
He knows there are concerns with what the Council will talk about next and the fact this is being funded primarily with grants or earmarked buckets is a good opportunity and it will be hard to turn down.
Residents love their street and love Lafayette, and they want to keep it that way, and he really respects that.
Councilmember Candell said she is still very mixed on this one. She loves the safe paths, agrees that probably a four-foot pathway would be sufficient, and knows that puts the City’s funding at risk just because of the number of kids. The one on Springhill is four feet wide and they have 250 homes, and it serves the entire community more than sufficiently. She understands the want to get the six feet and questioned whether this is a want or a need on this particular street given the number of people. She thinks it is more a want than a need. So, she still thinks the City should try to go to MTC if they can and give some flexibility to reduce the cost, avoiding things they do not have to move, go narrower in certain parts and not, tell them they are doing this because of shade and heat they are experiencing, and justify it on that and the fact this is a very rural type of road to begin with.
The City would be making a dramatic change to not a very busy street that is a more rural road than an urban road and do their best to give themselves as much flexibility as they can with the size of that pathway. Hopefully, that will help in many ways. It will hopefully reduce the number of trees they will take down, will let them plant bigger trees when they want to plant them again, and try to get some flexibility with MTC and not fix them at six feet which might limit them. This would be the direction she would take.
Councilmember Anduri asked how feasible this is by taking that approach. Mr. Golier asked if he was asking technically or politically. Councilmember Anduri said politically with MTC, and Mr. Golier said the City must meet ADA and four feet would not meet ADA so he could not say what MTC’s response will be.
Councilmember Anduri said on the technical side, his understanding was in terms of removal of existing trees, he asked if it is correct that there is no difference between a six-foot pathway and the four-foot pathway with five feet every 200 feet in terms of the need to remove existing significant trees. Mr.
Luttropp said that is not quite true. A six-foot pathway with a three-foot shift in alignment in certain areas is closer to true. They will have the same number of significant trees removed and less significant trees would be removed with the six-foot pathway. That lane shift is critical to keeping the tree removals comparable. Once they do not do the lane shift then the tree removals increase. They need to do the shift for it to be comparable. If they do not do the lane shift, then there are more trees removed-both significant and not significant with a six-foot pathway than a four-foot pathway.
Councilmember Anduri said in addition, if they have a four-foot path, he confirmed there is more room to plant trees that can grow larger and there is more space for the trees to grow in. Regarding whether it would be useful or not to go back and explore one-way, both in terms of politically and in terms of technically. If they do that technically, he asked what this does in terms of delaying coming up with a design. He assumes this will have an effect on Acampo and School Street.
City Council Meeting Page 19 of 46 July 8, 2024
Mr. Luttropp said if the Council wanted to do a re-visit of the one-way street they would need at least one month to get some analysis of how that will impact traffic and perhaps some new sketches.
Mr. Levine said there are a couple of things that will have to happen. There would be a more robust traffic analysis that they need to look at. They would look at the volumes, how it would impact delay, queuing, circulation, and emergency access. This can get done in a couple of weeks to one month. Also, once you get a picture of that understanding the feasibility, they need to put together the new concept drawings.
Assuming they had direction on the pathway, it would depend on how that comes together. This might take two to four weeks, as well. Honestly, there would also need to be some form of further community engagement because before there was more focus at stakeholder meetings asking the question to residents, but they did not ask the question to the broader community because they did not receive any traction on the local level. So, this would need to be revisited.
Councilmember Anduri said even if the Topper Lane residents came in with a signed petition from all residents of Topper Lane, that is not the end of it. It is also the broader community need that needs to be considered.
Mr. Luttropp said running it through the whole process, he guessed it would take three to four months so that would mean everything associated with this, going to MTC, starting the final design, which would definitely push the City into construction in 2026.
Mayor Dawson asked if this jeopardizes the grant itself in terms of deadlines and use. Mr. Luttropp said no, just the schedule itself.
Councilmember Candell referred to emergency vehicle access. They looked at this on Martino and they said they request 20 feet of access. Mr. Luttropp said he would need to go back to the Fire Department and find out what they would want for a one-way street. They just did one for Boyer and he thought it was 18 feet for one-way. Mr. Golier said no, it is 20 feet, but Boyer is two way. Mr. Luttropp said staff can find out.
Councilmember McCormick referred to a one-way street, and he thinks they would generate a lot of additional vehicle miles through that by circling around the school or get stuck in school traffic when someone just wants to go downtown depending on which way it went so in going back to the purpose of going one-way would be not to take out any trees because there would be plenty of room for a six-foot path and landscaping. So, these are fairly big changes.
City Council Meeting Page 20 of 46 July 8, 2024
Councilmember Anduri said one of the things that struck him about the Transportation Circulation Commission meeting was that there appeared to be unanimous support among Birdhaven and Topper Lane residents that four feet would be an acceptable pathway. It seems to him that similar to Councilmember Candell, on Reliez Valley Road they used to have four feet and he has to say it was widened to six feet which was great, but it is a different situation there because there are people going by with a speed limit of 30 mph and people zip by so people appreciate the wider sidewalk. In this case, if they were starting over and just spending the City’s own money and doing this, he would think they would do a four-foot path because this would provide safe routes to school. He sees the number of students as a significant number walking along they want to provide safety for if it were made safer. So, if they could go to MTC and say they would prefer to have a narrower path because it solves the heat dome question which is becoming more significant. If they cannot get that, then six feet would be the fallback, and he would support that. But, no matter what it is, he would want the Council to commit to try to save as many significant trees and shade trees as possible and also he would want the City to commit to planting as many trees as possible that will grow to provide a canopy that is subject to the residents wanting to do that. He assumes they would, but another requirement would be for them to weigh in on the vegetation. If residents say they want the priority to be trees to create a canopy, the City should accommodate that.
The other thing he would want to include is to try to develop some curvature, meandering of not just the path but to the curb on the east side. He thinks that would go a long way towards creating the look and feel they want. The straight curb on the east side does a lot to take away from the idea of a lane or a semirural feeling. So, he suggested getting more neighbor feedback or try to get some more interesting lane should be accommodated. With those assumptions, he would favor going forward.
Councilmember McCormick said this seems reasonable, but he asked if Councilmember Anduri is saying he would approve the conceptual design subject to or just with general direction to staff to make this happen. It sounds like they are ready to take a conceptual design which is 6 feet wide to MTC. He asked if they are saying they need a four-foot one to take to MTC and ask them. There were several comments that the Council needs to be specific about their direction and asked what they are really asking for here.
Councilmember Anduri said what he would like to do is ask staff to go to MTC and say the preference is for a four-foot pathway in areas where it will save trees and make sense, but if this is not possible to maintain the grant, to do the six-foot pathway.
Mayor Dawson said she appreciates trees and arguments were to keep shade and keep as many trees as possible, but she would say they would also have to talk with PG&E too of where they can put the poles which will matter as well as how they can work with tree plantings in general.
Vice Mayor Kwok said he thinks this is complicated. They have many views from the public even after extensive outreach, so it reflects this challenge. Staff has put a lot of time and effort into this, and he thanked everyone. He looks at this project as heat to the City’s infrastructure on a 50-year timeframe. If there are some trees that would need to be replaced with new trees that over 20 to 50 years, he would look back on this project and see mature trees and would say that is fine. He is fine to take especially some of the trees that are not healthy and replace them with more thoughtfully planted trees. Of course, there will be some important trees that hopefully could be saved.
City Council Meeting Page 21 of 46 July 8, 2024
He referred to Councilmembers Anduri and Candell’s suggestions to go forth with a four-foot path to MTC and see if they would accept this. He would be in support of a four-foot pathway the entire length with the exception of ADA compliant areas in order to bulb out and try to see if they could go with that. That would give the most amount of flexibility. If they approve that, then that would be great. He thinks that would be functional for their needs in that case. If they would not accept the 4-foot, rather than going to the six-foot, he would go to five feet and see whether they would take the 5-feet the whole way. If they did not, then they would be back to the six-feet, and he would say they have exhausted their opportunities and he was still in support of the pathway on that street and he would support the staff recommendation, but he would like to see if they could propose a four- or five-foot option with MTC and, in the last case, six feet.
Mayor Dawson said in looking at the 2030 or 2040 view, realistically they would love to see St. Mary’s be improved. This is all part of the connected pathways. They would have more people using St. Mary’s and going through Topper, so she did not want to minimize this opportunity to put in the path where more people would be using it at a later date because it is safer, wider, and accessible to people going both ways on that path. She agrees with proposing four feet to MTC where it saves some environmental assets but if not she would go with what is recommended now and then propose the five-feet and then six-feet.
Councilmember McCormick said he thinks the 6-foot path is acceptable to him, but if they can get MTC to approve four or five feet, they should try.
Mayor Dawson said there will also be more meeting opportunities at the 65% design stage, as well and more from the landscape architect moving forward.
Discussion ensued regarding the need for a resolution and City Attorney Mala Subramanian suggested a motion reflecting the Council’s action and if a resolution is found to be required by MTC, it can return on the Consent Calendar.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Candell/McCormick) to: 1) approve the proposed conceptual design plans for School Street, Topper Lane and St. Mary’s Road (Topper Lane to Birdhaven Court); and 2) direct staff to submit a scope of work change to MTC for the portion of the project on Topper Lane for an ADA compliant pathway at four feet wide or five feet wide. If neither of these options are approved by MTC, a six-footwide pathway would be constructed. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Dawson, Kwok, Anduri, Candell and McCormick; Noes: None).
Councilmember Anduri noted that also needed is to authorize staff to initiate the environmental clearance and detailed design which cannot be done until they hear from MTC. He confirmed staff will return at a future meeting for this. He asked for the Council to approve specific direction to staff with respect to saving as many significant and shade trees as possible and planting as many trees and providing a canopy and getting as much input from residents as possible. Mayor Dawson also emphasized the need to work with PG&E on the trees.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Candell) to: 1) to give specific direction to staff to make efforts to save as many significant and shade trees as possible; 2) to plant as many trees as possible along the road to provide a canopy; 3) to maximize residents’ ability to provide comments on the type of vegetation; and 4) to develop some curvature to the curb on the east side. on planting materials and add chicanes to the street alignment with fronting neighbors’ agreement. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Dawson, Kwok, Anduri, Candell and McCormick; Noes: None).
City Council Meeting Page 22 of 46 July 8, 2024
14. STAFF REPORTS
Niroop Srivatsa, City Manager
Tracy Robinson, Administrative Services Director
A. Results from the Tracking Poll on a Potential Sales Tax Measure Recommendation: Receive and file.
Administrative Services Director Tracy Robinson presented the results of the tracking poll conducted several weeks ago. She introduced Dr. G. Gary Manross of SRI, who will make the presentation.
Dr. G. Gary Manross, SRI said this is a tracking poll and not a benchmark poll. The context to this study is that they did the benchmark back in January and, at that time, they were looking to test voters’ awareness of the fiscal challenges facing the City, how the City got there, looking at alternatives for resolving the issue, and if a tax were put on the ballot what would the outcome may be.
There was a period of several months where the City made a concerted effort through Vistas, social media, media releases, and othersformats to inform the local electorate and the community at-large of the fiscal challenges. A big question was, did awareness of this increase voter approval, and did the rationale being tested shift awareness and voter support. In terms of the tracking poll itself, it included 200 completed surveys.
There are two points about SRI that are truly unique and will not be found in any other research or polling firm. One is that Dr. Manross spent many years with world class scholars working out an algorithm and model to identify opinion leaders. Opinion leaders and influentials are not the same. In fact, influentials know they’re influentials but opinion leaders may or may not know their opinion leaders. What happens in terms of accurately predicting outcomes about whether an initiative will pass or not pass has to do with the mainstream voter. If she/he feels definite either way for or against, the vote is not going to change at the end of the day. But it is the middle ground which drives the initial sense of whether they will support the collective core values of the local electorate. This is where a person might not be interested in increasing taxes, but he/she understands that it is important, and they will check with a friend. This is who those opinion leaders are. They are looking at the 16% of opinion leaders that people will turn to, and they look at to see which side of each question and issue being testing the opinion leaders are on.
The sample is plus or minus statistical error of 5.5 to 7. This gets them to the second difference about SRI.
About 25 years ago, he created a model called the SRI go/no go model. Data was collected from June 24th to June 26th and typically they take a week, but due to legal deadlines of the City to get something on the ballot, they pushed through until they got it. It turns out it will not impact the statistical margin of error.
The first finding which will come as no surprise is that there are happy people in Lafayette. People are very satisfied with their quality of life in Lafayette and opinion leaders in this case was 100% and the benchmark was 93%. So, 96% for the mainstream voter and there are almost no dissatisfied people. Most residents have aggressively chosen to live here, and they like it, which is important. Some of the findings will be impacted by the fact that they are happy residents.
City Council Meeting Page 23 of 46 July 8, 2024
In looking at the level of awareness, when they began, 74% were not aware the City is facing fiscal challenges. It was very clear the first thing that had to happen was to make constituents aware. In that process, they were also trying to create a dialogue between the community and the City so people, as they learned about this $2 million deficit, had questions and concerns. Lafayette is truly unique because it has a very sophisticated audience. Before they began this public outreach, they learned this. There are people that ask why the City is spending money a certain way or another, for a grant which they suggest putting someplace else, to resolve the $2 million deficit, but the City cannot do this legally. So, the City has a very sophisticated electorate who are happy campers, and they will definitely pay attention.
There are two ways of resolving the problem. Dr. Manross said if you learn from someone you trust or even those that hold the City in high regard in this case would this make someone concerned that the $2 million deficit is going to impact the quality of life for themselves or their families. 94% of opinion leaders said yes, it will make them concerned. 84% of the mainstream voters said they will be concerned which is important. The benchmark back in January was 83% and it is 84% now. This gets him to the last point—in order for something to be statistically different, it has to be 3 points. Something with 1 or 2 points difference, and in this case it is 1, there is no difference.
Therefore, regarding support, they can either go out and get new revenues through various ways or cut expenditures. One way to raise revenue is to ask the electorate to increase sales tax. Another way is to increase property taxes, or the City will have to cut back services. The electorate does not want to cut back services. They want to find new revenues. That said because it is Lafayette, they also want the City to justify it. For opinion leaders, 59% feel that way and there is no difference from the benchmark survey, so this is robust.
So, the front end or benchmark question is, would you support a 1% increase in sales tax. The money is going to be put in the General Fund and that means it is a general tax which means you need a simple majority support. The minute the money is dedicated to anything, and it is particularly problematic with a sales tax, it requires 2/3 voter support. With a sales tax, it is even more difficult because typically if the money is put to the General Fund, it would not be dedicated as the needs are many, so it will be dispersed.
The City must show that money will be used to benefit the community in multiple ways. Support at this level is 48% and the City needs 50%, with 39% definite support and potential support at 57%, which gets him to the go/no go model.
It turns out that they asked a question--Would you be likely to vote yes or no? And is that a definite yes or a probable yes, a definite no or a probable no? With the go/no go model, they take 100% of the definites, half of the probables, and forget the statistical margin of error which has gotten them within 1% or 2% of reality. 48% says that a 1% is possible which is huge. The City can be very proud of its staff.
It says they did a great job getting the information out there and the awareness went way up. So, for the two dimensions they care most about it is very encouraging, especially when looking at opinion leaders.
With 48.5% there is no statistical difference. That is robust.
City Council Meeting Page 24 of 46 July 8, 2024
Then, the question is that not everyone agrees. They wanted to test threshold and willingness to pay for whatever the electorate wants. The whole point of local government is to provide services for its constituents that they want and for residents to perceive a need, and perceived reality is real. The people who said, no they will not support a 1% tax were then asked if they would support a ¾% tax increase.
Now, they are over the threshold, with 50.5% with 56% potential, 53% with opinion leaders, which is on the cusp of significance, and likely yes went from 41% to 50.5% which is a huge jump. They also created a feedback loop where constituents could ask staff questions, and they got very pointed questions. Not everybody embraces this. They have a likely yes of 50.5% so they had both support and non-support and were able to get back to people with an answer to their question.
One of the real problems with a tax is misinformation. A good example of this is that if someone is paying $10,000 in taxes a year for property tax, what they do not know is only $600 of that goes to the City. What they are thinking is that the City is rolling in money. Those misunderstandings and that misinformation has to be corrected which the City will be doing. If they are not going to support a ¾%, they were asked if they would support ½%. Support then goes up to 55.5%, potentials at 61%, and opinion leaders 63%. It went from 46% at the benchmark to 55.5% in this poll. So, the City knows at the end of the day Dr.
Manross will recommend a go. The question will be whether the Council wants 1%, ¾% or ½%.
Constituents do not want to cut services. That said they have different values. Some people want one thing. Others want other things. They tested to see what services residents do not want the City to cut, and the very first thing they do not want cut is anything that risks wildfires in neighborhoods. The budget today does not put money into minimizing or reducing risk of wildfires in neighborhoods. Yet, what they have is 88% of opinion leaders who are concerned, 61% extremely concerned. Regarding message strategy this is all important. If you talk about risk of wildfire to neighborhoods, this is a big deal.
Regarding the concern over the need for maintaining public streets, the magic word is repairing potholes and storm drains. He was monitoring the City’s prior topic of storm drains, and the City’s electorate understands storm drains and the implications of those to their property. 97% said this will make them concerned and they want public streets maintained and potholes repaired, and storm drains fixed. There is almost a 10-point difference in the mainstream voter and over half are extremely concerned. Whatever outreach is done, the City needs to be talking to constituents about what the City plans on doing with this money, assuming the initiative passes, to maintain public streets.
Regarding concern over reducing the number of police officers in Lafayette, this is a major concern. 82% of the mainstream, 81% of the opinion leaders, and later on when this is discussed in a different way, it will not be particularly important because people are happy. They are safe. They know they are safe. The City has a great police department. They like to see police on streets, and they do not want that cut back because that has to do with safety.
Regarding the concern over traffic safety and circulation, 77% is a big number, but 91% is a huge difference with opinion leaders, so the City cannot leave this out of the discussion. The City has to be careful when talking to the electorate because the City should identify the top 3 or 4 and no more that they truly care about because otherwise it becomes counter-productive. They identify the collective core values of the target population and then correspond that to concern and behavior and how they will likely vote.
Regarding a concern over maintaining recreation services for youth and seniors, there is more concern among opinion leaders, but this is still a big number but not a driver. As to maintaining a vibrant downtown, the City already has a vibrant downtown.
City Council Meeting Page 25 of 46 July 8, 2024
Dr. Manross said he knows Lafayette pretty well as well as the East Bay. It is a destination. People come to Lafayette to dine and shop. That turns out to be a critical issue. In terms of talking about maintaining a vibrant downtown, the City has a very sophisticated electorate so opinion leaders will be highly educated and sophisticated so that language works with them, but not so much with the electorate at large.
As for concern over repairs to the Community Center, he believes the City has leaky roofs and other challenges that must be addressed, but it is not a driver. They might spend money to do this, but it will not be the front end of the communication process. Regarding investing in affordable housing, if this was a community with a high ratio of low income and low SES, this would be huge. It is huge in many communities in the East Bay but not so much in Lafayette or Orinda or Moraga. In fact, this gets into the drawbridge theory of NIMBY. There is not a lot of room here for affordable housing, but this also gets them to another problem which is that the State mandates the cities to do things, but it does not provide funding. It could come from a grant, but usually it comes out of the City’s General Fund.
Now, the questions are asking if you have heard it from someone you trust, would it make you more inclined to support or more inclined to oppose a funding measure if the Council places one on the November ballot. These are rank ordered and the number one is that revenues will remain in the City, and that the State cannot take the City’s money. The best thing about a sales tax measure is that the money stays in the community to benefit Lafayette residents. People outside the City pay sales tax and, but you cannot talk about it that way. What the City needs to say is, people dine and shop in Lafayette and they pay a sales tax just like residents do, and that money stays in the City which the State cannot take and it benefits local residents.
Second is citizen oversight which they want, which is particularly desired by opinion leaders. The profile of opinion leaders is proprietary, but in general they are information seekers and as information seekers in most cases, they will be more aware of what benefits the City provides and what it does not provide.
They will be more aware of whether they are safe or not safe, do they have parks and recreation, are they happy or not about it.
This is why they got incredible feedback from the community and while not all positive or negative, they appreciated having that feedback. They will continue to appreciate having that feedback. The City has wonderful staff and handles things very well. The City was also able to clarify much misinformation. A good example is that you pay $10,000 or more a year in property taxes, and they think the City is rolling in dough, for every $10,000 the City gets $600. This is one of those messages that you do not necessarily promote, but when people say to the City that it is rolling in dough and people are paying too much in property tax to begin with, then the City should clarify that it only gets $600, which is a huge impact.
Next voters were told public safety services will need to be reduced. The City does not want to talk about that. Voters ask how. Many communities say public safety services will be reduced and they say “whoa— that’s a push” but not in Lafayette. The answer comes back in the form of “how?” So, the City needs to talk about specifics in how, what benefits are, what threats are if this does not pass.
Sales tax is not charged on most groceries and prescription drugs. You would not expect it to have a huge impact in Lafayette. People are going to buy their groceries and drugs, but if someone is homeless or a lower SES, that matters. In Lafayette’s case, it does not matter. It does not mean the City does not talk about it, but they do not highlight it or push it.
City Council Meeting Page 26 of 46 July 8, 2024
Increased sales tax rate would match Moraga and Orinda’s. The City does not have to use this. It is not that voters do not love the folks in Orinda and Moraga, as the composition of the electorate is similar, but what they care about is Lafayette specifically The message is how much will it increase and what will be done with the money. The City will talk about the fact that without these funds, the City will not be able to invest in disaster wildfire preparedness. Only 6% of the mainstream, slightly over one-third are much more likely to support. It has a greater impact on opinion leaders because they understand what that means. What they must say is the City today in its budget, does not budget any money to minimize risk to wildfire to neighborhoods, but they need to do that so please support the initiative. He believes Orinda is doing so very specifically on wildfire preparedness. It is how you talk about it and not what you talk about.
Regarding street repairs, road maintenance will be deferred, future street repairs will be significantly more expensive, and if you talk about potholes, now they care, so how the City talks about something is critical.
It will help property values. Those in the City will pay their fair share, and the City should not talk about their fair share. You talk about visitors dining and shopping and they pay sales tax. The money comes to benefit Lafayette voters, but you do not say fair share. Without these funds, the number of police officers will be reduced, and this is specific, and it should have a greater effect, but it does not. They care about it, and they have shown this, so the City will need to talk about how to demonstrate that this is real and that they do not want it to happen. The fact is, if they cannot afford funding, one of the cuts will be police officers off the street and residents do not want that.
They will talk about improvements to enhance safety for motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists, but how they do that will be critical. Without these funds there could be no investments in parks, trails, open space, and recreation programs. The residents love their trails, parks, and recreation programs. The bottom line is that the electorate is happy, they congratulate the City, and things have to be talked about a certain way.
He said awareness from public outreach in Phase I hit the target. This brought some heartburn to staff and also to some constituents. He said based on experience, 52% support is likely because they went from 41.5% after arguments on the benchmark poll to 52% on the tracking poll which is huge. Opinion leaders are at 55% so this is robust and significant. There are 41% definitely yes, and so 52% is real. That said, it is up to 1% but when going down to ¾% which gets them 55% likely, 61% potential, and if you go down to ½% then you have 57% likely and 63% potential. So, the ¾% and ½% are very real, and if the Council needs to debate the 1% which is a risk because the City may lose. In his experience over the years ¾% does not ring the bell for some reason. Most voters recognize 1% is a penny for every dollar and a one-half penny for every dollar, but the minute you say ¾ of a penny, it confuses the issue, and it costs votes. So, his professional judgement is that some probables will go to a definite because it is a yes or no at the polls. When you have that potential of 63% this is huge, but this is the Council’s call.
Another critical factor is the problem is that if the City goes with ½% it keeps the City where it is at and it means they will not have to cut back on services presently being provided to the community, but it will not bring more services. For example, it does not buy the neighborhoods wildfire protection, and it is not in the current budget. So, it is status quo, so if the City is going to address these other issues, they will need at least the ¾% and frankly at 1%, it is not about money or threshold. It is about how the City is going to spend that money. However, it does not take away the risk that it could fail at 1%.
City Council Meeting Page 27 of 46 July 8, 2024
Regarding a sunset clause, 66% say they want it to sunset. He said they have done a lot of work on this dimension. The bottom line is that most voters if they see a need, no one believes there is a free lunch.
The question is, if what the City is going to do with the money squares with what people thinks how it should be spent, then they will vote yes. But they will make that decision for themselves and their children but not for their grandchildren. Time will go by; things will change, and they can make their own decisions.
So, it is not that they do not support it. It is just not permanent, and they want it brought back. 45% say no for 15 years. 40% say okay. 52% of opinion leaders say yes, but 15% say no. 10 years will still not fly because 32% says no, and the benchmark at 38% said no. 41% of opinion leaders say no for 10 years as well. 73% say yes for 7 years. 63% of opinion leaders say yes for 7 years, and they did not test this for the benchmark.
So, regarding conclusions and recommendations, local voters have the quality of life they enjoy as a resident of Lafayette. As such, they do not want services provided by the City to be cut back. They are happy and the City is doing a beautiful job. The level of awareness among voters regarding the fact that the City will soon be facing an annual deficit of more than $2 million increased from 26% to 44% which was due to public outreach and feedback from the community. It is not good enough. On the one chart, opinion leaders are way too high on level of awareness, so they have to make them aware of the need and they can make a decision to support this or not. The level of support among voters among all categories tested: the most important one is for a 1% increase which grew from 41.5% in January to 52% today. When looking at it in isolation, it is a risk and nonetheless, his prediction is that it exceeds the threshold willing for passage and the potential support is 61%. So, this is worth considering, and the Council will be the best judge as to whether to do it or not.
Conclusion 3 confirms the finding from the benchmark voter survey that most Lafayette voters have become highly concerned, which is 83%. When they learn from someone they trust that the City is facing an annual deficit in excess of $2 million, it is unacceptable to constituents, particularly with the City’s history of managing their budget, meeting needs, and they need to explain to constituents about how they got here. The answer partly is inflation because the cost of everything is going up, but income is not.
The State is demanding and making mandates without money which must come from the City, and so it means there has to be a concerted effort regardless of what the Council chooses to do to put forth the dire circumstances the City is faced with, and the conclusion from Phase I outreach has been highly effective. That said they are still at only 52%, so they are not there yet. Opinion leaders need to be talked to effectively, and then there has to be a sunset and his recommendation is 7 years.
The top 3 concerns among Lafayette voters in terms of not wanting cutbacks to specific services that are presently being provided through the City are 1) anything that will increase the risk of wildfires in their neighborhood. It must be made clear that the City does not have money in its existing budget to do that, and if they get ½% increase, all you have is status quo and it will not be addressed; 2) making it impossible to continue to properly maintain streets. He saw that the City’s community understands this 3) having to reduce the number of sworn police officers presently protecting the City. They do not want that to happen, and they just need to figure out how to talk about it, so it makes sense, and it is believable. The problem is the City’s constituents feel safe.
City Council Meeting Page 28 of 46 July 8, 2024
There are additional concerns identified in rank order and the findings from the tracking poll that need to be promoted. They need to be informed that 100% of the revenues will remain in the City and not seized by the State. They need to be made aware of the fact that visitors who come to dine and shop will also pay the tax. The sales tax goes back to the City to benefit residents. The City will create a citizens’ oversight committee to monitor how funds are spent and produce an annual report that will be made available to the community at-large. They want accountability and to have a say in accountability and influentials should be on that committee because they have to be trusted.
So, SRI’s recommendation is to ask voters to authorize an increase in the sales tax. The question is ½%, ¾% or 1%. Dr. Manross recommends a 7-year sunset, and the critical thing is to continue to make a concerted effort to inform constituents of the need and what caused this need. He noted the ¾% was not included in his initial report, but he will revise it and send it to the City Manager. Lastly, he provided the definition of advocating. The Council has a moral obligation to tell voters what you want to do, why you want to do it, what it will cost, how they got here and why they need this, and then the benefits of voting yes and the consequences of voting no.
Mayor Dawson thanked Dr. Manross and suggested taking public comment on the presentation before the Council goes to questions.
DUCAN SEIBERT, resident and Chair of the Lafayette Emergency Preparedness Commission, said he is very focused on wildfire. The wildfire component is one of the strongest things the City needs to push. He is advocating for a 1% increase because wildfire awareness is very high right now, insurance is being dropped which is on everyone’s mind, and if you can get fire insurance it is very expensive. There is an increase in Firewise communities very rapidly because people are so aware of the wildfire issue. So, he believes this to be the strongest argument for the tax increase. Also, he said no one decides where to make a retail purchase based on the sales tax rate. He does not think it is a factor for anyone coming into town. They should also stress that the citizen oversight committee, like all committees in Lafayette, is all volunteer.
None of the money raised by the tax rate increase would go for the sales tax oversight committee.
Ms. Robinson stated there are comments regarding Item 14.B, and she suggested City Manager Srivatsa provide the staff report first.
B. Consideration of a Sales Tax Measure for the November 5, 2024 Ballot Recommendation: Direct Staff to work with a subcommittee of the Council to prepare a resolution establishing November 5, 2024 as the election date for the voters to consider adopting a general purpose, one cent transaction and use (“sales”) tax for a period of seven years, with an advisory Citizens Oversight Committee.
City Manager Niroop Srivatsa said tonight staff is here to request the Council’s consideration in placing a local sales tax measure on the November 2024 ballot. Over recent years, the City has faced significant financial challenges resulting in an annual structural deficit exceeding $2 million or equivalent to 10% of their General Fund budget. This deficit is primarily driven by inflation, increased insurance costs, infrastructure maintenance needs, and additional State mandates imposing financial burdens on local governments.
Recognizing the urgency of achieving fiscal sustainability, the Council formed a fiscal sustainability subcommittee in 2022. Their task was to explore options for addressing the City’s on-going deficit and, last October, the subcommittee presented their findings, highlighting the following critical points as Dr.
Manross just mentioned:
City Council Meeting Page 29 of 46 July 8, 2024
The City’s current budget projections show a persistent 10% deficit. This projection does not account for new and necessary projects like wildfire mitigation, traffic management, maintenance for any new parks, or any future planning necessary to accommodate growth. The budget does not include sufficient contributions to their sinking funds needed to repair and upgrade the facilities they own, including their aging community center.
At that point, the subcommittee identified a local sales tax as the most viable option to increase revenue.
On the expenditure side, City staff conducted a comprehensive budget review earlier this year and identified several service and personnel cuts amounting to a 10% reduction in expenditures. The City Council in June postponed acting on these specific cuts pending a decision on the sales tax measure, although the Council did freeze the hiring of four positions.
She then referred to the outreach mentioned and said since January the City has taken several initiatives to inform the public and to gauge satisfaction with current services. They include:
• Distribution of the Vistas to all residents in January. This goes to all Lafayette addresses explaining municipal finance, revenue sources, and the distinction between the General Fund and restricted funds.
• Dr. Manross conducted a benchmark survey of 400 likely voters to establish community values and perspectives on a potential sales tax.
• Another issue of the Vistas was sent out in May detailing the reasons behind the budget deficit. • An open letter from herself was sent out in June and this email explained the deficit and the consideration of a sales tax measure. The recipients included chairs of community organizations, homeowner associations, school administrators, faith leaders, commissions and committee members, and active community members totally over 100 emails and responses were received back from those emails.
• In June, another tracking poll was conducted, and the results were just presented. • In addition to all of these initiatives, staff has been sending regular email notifications to those who have signed up for City Council meetings and they have included notice of the meetings in their Weekly Roundup which is sent to 10,000 subscribers.
Tonight, the Council has seen the results indicating a 55.5% likely support for a half-cent sales tax measure and this is a local sales tax measure where the funds stay within the community, and 52% likely for a one percent sales tax. Their sales tax consultant estimates that a one-half percent increase would generate approximately $2.4 million annually while a 1% increase would yield $4.7 million.
She wanted to highlight again what Dr. Manross said. These are the basic community concerns that were identified from the tracking poll. A half-cent would maintain basic services, but limit funding for additional programs that were discussed by their consultant and by the speaker. Those additional programs include wildfire preparedness, repairing aging facilities, maintaining new parks, and maintaining new facilities.
Conversely, a 1% tax would provide resources to address inflation, economic downturns, and would fund some of these programs identified here; however, it carries more risk with only 52% likely support. She noted that the adjacent cities of Moraga, Orinda, Walnut Creek, and Pleasant Hill have higher sales tax rates.
City Council Meeting Page 30 of 46 July 8, 2024
She added their rates and sunset periods. Based on extensive analysis and review, armed with the data Dr. Manross provided, staff met with the subcommittee, and they recommend placing a measure on the ballot asking Lafayette voters to approve a 1% tax for 7 years, with the appointment of an oversight committee. This approach offers the best opportunity to address the City’s immediate budget deficit, invest in wildfire prevention, and tackle overdue infrastructure maintenance. They recommend directing staff to work with a Council subcommittee to prepare a resolution for consideration at the next meeting.
The resolution will contain the ballot language. With that, she and Ms. Robinson are available to answer questions.
EXTEND MEETING
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Candell) to extend the meeting at 11:00 p.m. until 12 midnight. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Dawson, Kwok, Anduri, Candell and McCormick; Noes: None).
Mayor Dawson opened the public comment period.
JANET THOMAS said she prepared a speech but will say off the record that this month is their 40th year they have lived in Lafayette. They care deeply about the City, and it is a wonderful place to live. She and her husband, Ramsey, think it is a wonderful place to live but given the affluence of the community, the services within the City are laudably basic. They are wonderful and are improving and they have felt this over the last 40 years. They have seen changes and always with a sense that the City is always very fiscally responsible. She has never had any inkling that this is not the case.
So, it is understandable given inflation and the State mandates that there is this budget shortfall. There have been many costs in the last couple of years that were not expected. She seriously would hope the Council would consider a 1% sales tax measure. It makes sense to her given the fact it will not only maintain the services which when she says are basic, she does not mean they are bad. It will also allow the City to enhance those services. When she hears about cuts to staff, she has for many years felt, in fact, that the City is understaffed and overworked and deserves every cent they make. It bothers her to hear there is any inclination towards cutting staff. They want to ensure they can maintain the most wonderful staff they can. They have a great staff now, but cutting salaries makes no sense to her. She was going to bring up wildfire prevention programs. There is a lot of talk about them, but they will require money. So, she has two children now and 4 grandchildren that live in Lafayette. They will be here long after she is and she just thinks they need to look at the reality of where they are, the fact this is a wonderful City, she would like it continue on the road it is going now as a fantastic place to live, and she highly encouraged the Council to consider a 1% tax.
ELLEN POLING echoed Ms. Thomas’s comments and she is here to offer her support as well for the 1% tax and the staff recommendation. She has been in Lafayette for 27 years, is speaking on behalf of her husband and herself, and would like to offer a brief perspective from her 16 years on the Circulation Commission which ended a while ago and a career as a transportation consultant working with cities throughout the Bay Area. In her experience, City staff and decision-makers like the Council work very hard to efficiently allocate the funds they operate with to all the important tasks that cities must execute. These range from infrastructure maintenance and improvement, planning for housing and commercial growth and compliance with State and good governance requirements like housing those that currently live here and will need to live here in the coming years, minimizing wildfire risk and public safety, among others.
City Council Meeting Page 31 of 46 July 8, 2024
In her experience, she has been very impressed over the years with the rigor and integrity that City staff, commissions and Council bring to this work, and she does not believe there is any fat to be trimmed in their budget or not much, and she supports the tax.
ALISON HILL said she is here both as an individual and as someone who is on the Board of Inclusive Lafayette and as a senior citizen since she has lived here more than 50 years. Some of the things she is saying are in answer to comments she has already heard against the sales tax, and one is comments about looking at staffing and cutting staffing. In her observation and years in Lafayette, they have an excellent, hard-working staff who are doing more and more and it is just not possible to ask. Many people do not realize the City Council and all Commissioners are volunteers. There is talk about getting more people to volunteer and she thinks this is not reasonable. They do as much as they do because of all their volunteers.
They talked about unnecessary expenditures. One of those are the lawsuits that keep coming at the City.
That seems to be money down the drain, but nothing that they have control of. If a lawsuit comes, the City must deal with it. She is concerned about any cuts to senior services and senior transportation because Lafayette does what it can for seniors, but it certainly does not need to be cut at all. And, being on the PTR Commission, they are under the amount of parkland the City should have and they need to be able to maintain if not improve upon that. With an increasing population, there is an even greater need.
Lafayette has been a leader in providing childcare services and all care provided is essential for working families. Again, as mentioned, they are committed to the State mandates for housing and that has put a lot of stress and strain on staff. There is no way to do that with fewer staff. She might wonder if some of the turnover among their planners is caused by the workload and pressure. People have to have some balance in their lives. So, to support the City and staff and bring themselves up to parity with their neighbors, she thinks they need the 1% increase to move forward and not just hang in there.
DAVID CLARK said he is in favor of the 1% tax. This is a general tax and the only place he sees the word “general” in all presentations presented orally tonight is in the recommendation, which is fine. But he thinks the City needs to be very careful about the specificity of the items they are suggesting they can use the second tranche of $2 million to pay for so this does not become a special tax. He thinks the City has done a great job of educating folks about the $2 million deficit, but at 1% they are asking for $4 million which is a bigger number than $2 million, so the City needs to justify that additional $2 million. He thinks it is justified and the top three things in the presentation were wildfire mitigation, streets, and police.
Those are great and he thinks they should hammer on those, but he does not think they should make them look like that is exactly what the money is going to be spent on because the City does not want to trigger a challenge that will require a 60% vote instead of 50 +1.
So, he thinks the City should be careful about how those are framed or phrased. It is not in the recommendation, but it is in the published materials. Having said that, he thinks wildfire mitigation is a great argument for the 1% tax because it adds something the City does not currently have. He walked in the 4th of July parade in Orinda, and there was a large fire presence. Lots of people were talking about both the demonstrations. Moraga and Orinda are different fire districts than Lafayette has, and it is very progressive. He spent some time talking with people and they pay for it. It was a bond measure and being paid for, but if someone cuts tree branches down, they will come by, pick them up, and chip them. This is a nice service and probably the kind of thing Lafayette is thinking about, but the previous speaker said this costs money. Potentially, that is includable here, and he thinks that is a real selling point for that additional $2 million tranche.
City Council Meeting Page 32 of 46 July 8, 2024
ROBERT LAVOIE said he would hate to disagree with Mr. Clark, but he thinks if they are going to have any increase in the sales tax, it should be split between actual cuts from the City budget and maybe a one-half percent tax increase. People say there is no fat, but he has never seen an organization that does not have something that can be cut. He thinks the real important thing is to set priorities and make sure the City is not doing things that are not essential and focus on the things that are really critical. He knows the City has about 49 FTEs and he seems to recall the police having about 25. He has not heard about the fire department FETs and knows they are on contract with the County. But they could hire them independently or on a contract basis, so he would like to know the equivalent FTEs. On the budget pie chart Ms. Srivatsa showed, it showed police at 35%, PTR at 6%, Administration at 22%, Planning at 9%, Engineering/Public Works at 27%, and he did not see anything about Fire, and asked where is that in the pie.
They went through the exercise of 10% cuts, and he thinks obviously they probably do not want to cut all that 10% but he thinks there is 5% in there that is viable and so this should be considered seriously and make those cuts. There are different ways of doing it. They can freeze salaries for a couple of years, freeze open positions and keep the raises, and let City staff go through that and make the proper cuts.
As a quick comparison, the President of the United States makes $400,000 a year, the Governor of California makes $225,000 a year, San Francisco Mayor makes $350,000 and they are completely broke, but this is just for perspective. In talking about wildfire, he thinks the City needs to be very specific about what the City can do because most of the wildfire thing is cutting down trees, branches, and making a firefree space around homes, and this is not something the City is going to do. So, if the City is going to offer some kind of fire prevention, they need to break that down and show what the budget is.
GRACE DIXON said she agrees with Janet, David and Alison. She is in support of the 1% sales tax measure.
She thinks the City definitely needs to protect their path and destination aspect in the local community in large. Given her experience just this year, she has interfaced with at least 6,000 individuals in her parks and non-profit outreach. One of her first questions is, “So, are you from around here?” And well over half of the people say “No, I’m from Moraga, Orinda, Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill.” In order for Lafayette to continue to be the destination and have the roads, safety, wildfire preparedness, and parks, they need to not only protect their present but look to the future. She is in support of the 1% and does not agree with the statement that their citizens are happy campers about parks, but this is not part of this discussion.
And she wants to make a strong statement that she believes the City needs to do a better job of communicating to the community. She does not see the full package there and it needs some work. She is saying this with all respect because she wants it to work. She was on the campaign the last time and it did not work, and she wants it to work this time.
Mayor Dawson asked if Councilmembers had questions for Dr. Manross.
Councilmember McCormick thanked Dr. Manross for his presentation and said the staff packet was great, but the context was invaluable. He asked to bring up the new table Dr. Manross provided because he thinks it is the most important table there is, and he would like to understand how it all comes together.
Dr. Manross then displayed the table.
City Council Meeting Page 33 of 46 July 8, 2024
Councilmember McCormick said he is looking at the potential number on the far right at 63% for a onehalf percent and 61% for a 3/4 % and 50% for a 1% measure. This number gives him pause and Councilmember Candell said it does not match what is on the pie chart above it. Councilmember McCormick said the pie chart is up to 1% which he thinks is the confusion. He asked if the pie chart rolled everything together, and Dr. Manross confirmed this is correct. He said when you look at the 1% and 50% potential and 52.5% likely support, it gives you pause which is why he presented it the way he did because they have seen that before. The question is, how to interpret it. So, how you interpret it is this 22% probably yes. They will get at least half of that. And, then you will get some of the unsures because they are unsure now, but it is not a big number.
What he really looks at is the “definitely no.” This is 22% definitely no, which is a small number in relative terms. They have 63% potential yes, so what he said is this is not empirically supported and therefore it is easy to criticize, but the minute you put this up, people go “whoa” and the City will probably lose. But his experience is anecdotal. This is not empirically supported. It is anecdotal based on what he has looked at for many years. When he rolls it altogether and it comes out to 52%, that exceeded the minimum threshold of a simple majority, so he cannot argue that would not give the Council pause. It would. It is the reason he did not put it up before because he did not want to cause anxiety. What he did want to do is be clear to say there is a risk to the 1%. He is not saying definitive or not even making a recommendation.
If the Council asks him as a scientist, then he is with the Council and believe they are in trouble.
As a professional in this field for decades, this has been their experience. It gets back to the go/no go because if you were talking with anyone else, what the Council would be looking at is to add the two together of probably yes and definitely yes, and you would get back to the 50% which is the potential, and you are going to get these other numbers assuming you have an effective outreach. He thinks the City will have an effective outreach based on what happened in Phase I. It is based on feedback from anyone who is going to read the Vistas, the letter, social media, and coverage in newspapers. What happens is when people ask the kind of questions they were asking and they were hard questions, doing line items on the budget, and asking why can’t the City just get rid of something that will take care of the $2 million, except monies being talked about are not flexible. They are earmarked. So, if the City has a grant earmarked for something, they cannot spend it on something else. What he was concerned about is that they would peak too soon, but he is not worried about this because they still have approximately half of the elected which is not aware of the problem.
What these tracking polls do and what the benchmark does is it makes them aware. They are focused and it is not visual. They are not getting distracted. He is surprised he did not get this question and probably will, but there will be a lot of items on the State, County, and other agency ballots asking for money. What is the impact if the City Council chooses to go to ballot, what will be the impact of those other “asks.” The answer is, and particularly in Lafayette, the voter said they cannot do much about the federal or the State, a little bit about the county, but locally, these are their dollars and their taxes and quality of life. So, this will get attention. Those are the people asking questions based on the outreach that are high propensity voters. Part of the question is, when they ask this question and Ms. Robinson, Ms. Srivatsa, and Ms. Iarla answer it, and they have every time, does that have the impact the Council would hope it would have in terms of do they understand the subtleties. What has happened is the example of them paying $10,000 and not knowing the City gets $600 from it.
Councilmember McCormick said he wants to clarify because what he is interpreting this is the potential for any sales tax measure is good. The bottom line is, what is the level, but Dr. Manross is counseling against the ¾% because that seems to be the sweet spot in looking at the number.
City Council Meeting Page 34 of 46 July 8, 2024
Dr. Manross said it is not just his opinion. It is his experience, and it gets down to one silly thing. A penny on the dollar someone will get. A half a penny someone will get. Three-quarters of a penny, they do not.
He has seen that in the past and he agreed that should be the sweet spot, but his experience is that it is not. So, he is torn. He has three decades in this business, and he admitted Lafayette is unique. So, he falls back on his professional opinion and experience.
Councilmember Candell said she is looking at the charts in the presentation on page 9. This is before arguments. The likely “yes” there is 48%, but what you just presented on the slide Councilmember McCormick was just talking about, it was only 42%. So, it went down after arguments. This table is so important that she thinks they need to go back and have him create these tables and verify what you are showing the Council is real because she is seeing some deviations from here to the before and after arguments, and the numbers have gone down for the 1%.
Dr. Manross said that is a fair observation and it was not unnoticed. The answer has to do with ‘probably.’ Sometimes ‘probably’ goes way up when you are not expecting it to, but it is the ‘probably’ going back and forth where, at the end of the day, it has to go to yes or no. So, honestly, he will not get in a defensive posture and says he will have to prove every number. What he will do is rely on the go/no go model that says 100% of the definites, half of your probables, and then you look at that he sees that is his insurance.
He knows he will get half of that. So, when he gets that 48% he will get a little bit of the others.
Councilmember Candell referred to the ¾% that Dr. Manross cannot justify, but there is such a clear case here. They have to maintain and do nothing new and barely hold water at ½%. At ¾% we are getting some extra, and at 1% the City is getting a lot extra, and the City will provide great things with these extras but their chances with that last table in going from the ¾% to the 1% is a big difference. Dr. Manross said Councilmember Candell just identified the debate which is why he would not make a recommendation in that sense, and this is why he worded it “up to 1%.” There is risk in the 1%. Empirically speaking, there is little risk to the ¾%.
Vice Mayor Kwok said they have been talking about the tracking survey and this is a reminder this was conducted in June 2024 and Dr. Manross also referred to the benchmark survey conducted in late January so there is about a 5-month difference in time. He thinks one of the key findings he had here is in that 5- month period as awareness of the City’s fiscal challenges increased, support for new revenue also increased. Dr. Manross confirmed this is correct.
Vice Mayor Kwok said the highest amount of increase was at the 1% level. All levels increased ½%, ¾% and 1%, but the highest-level increase as people became more aware was at the 1% level. Dr. Manross said no, not necessarily. He would have to go back and look at that. The unaware was 74%. It went to 56% which means a lot of people became aware. They did many things. The reason he is a little concerned about this, is that 72% of opinion leaders are still not aware. This is scary. What that means is the City has a lot of work to do. When he lays this down, your first blush is the City would be nuts to go for 1%. He gets that and empirically speaking, that is a fact, and this is why he says, “up to 1%.” He knew this would cause heartburn, but he still will stick with the go/no go model even though numbers get a little funny, particularly the probabilities. He has been in this game for many years. EBRPD never lost as well as other cities in the East Bay or the South Bay. In fact, they had Mayor Reed in San Jose and say he couldn’t become Mayor, but he became Mayor. It was this interpretation of the findings and when you rely on empiricism this is why he is an applied scientist. This is why he taught at UCLA and USC and in the Cal State system, but he did not want to make that his career.
City Council Meeting Page 35 of 46 July 8, 2024
He is an applied scientist. He wants to go out, do the research, identify the message strategy and make accurate predictions, which is what got him to the go/no go model. He just trusts it. It is a combination of art and science and driven by science. If you do not have the proper interpretation, you will miss. Any other research firm would be here telling the City they have 63% support, but it does not. So, he agrees and understands this is where the heartburn is. This is why he was hesitant to bring it up, but you have to credit staff. They pushed him. They knew this would bother the City Council and they had some feedback from Lafayette voters that told them, yes, these are sophisticated folks. They are going to get it. He does not ever like to put himself in a “trust me” position, and that is what he has done here. He almost never does that, but it is the art of interpreting new data.
Vice Mayor Kwok referred to Slide 9 of 53 because when he made his statement just now, he heard Councilmember Candell said that was not a number. He wants to be sure they have a clear understanding of this. He said between the January and June benchmark and tracking poll, awareness increased and that support for a tax also increased and that it increased at the 1% level. This chart shows him that the potential yes was 57% on the 1% increase and in the benchmark survey that number was 47%. So, it went up 10 points and as awareness went up, the potential yes support for 1% increased. So, he asked if Councilmember Candell agreed.
Councilmember Candell disagreed and said on the 1%, there is 42.5% probable one. Dr. Manross said this is after arguments.
Vice Mayor Kwok said he is not looking at before arguments, page 9, and comparing apples to apples to before arguments in the benchmark. Dr. Manross said likely is 36% and it went up to 48%. Councilmember Candell said the final one after arguments was 42.5%.
Mayor Dawson said this is when they were going through the language and it is how you say it and how you ask it, but Councilmember Candell said it went down.
Dr. Manross said the reason is that it had to do with language and in this one, they said, “Would you support a 1% increase, yes or no?” Then, when he did the post arguments, he said, “Assuming the threshold of willingness to pay does not exceed your threshold willingness to pay.” Then, this is where these numbers start to shift in strange ways which is why he created the chart for the Council to see. This is where it is weird, which is in the probable yes. He knows it went down at one point and that is why. It had to do with people saying, they are willing to do ½% and if the City goes with 1% they will vote no. One person tonight said he was for it, but he is for ½%, but if you go with 1% he will vote no.
Councilmember McCormick said he thinks that is the key thing. After the arguments, they got less support for 1% and greater support for everything else. He is going back to the recommendation, and that is an incredible finding. There is better support overall, no doubt, but after the argument, people are happy, so it is hard.
Vice Mayor Kwok said the longer you go it can get confusing because there were many things in there.
Dr. Manross said this is true. Councilmember McCormick said there are also negative arguments against this which is also scary because it also could have brought things down. All these questions are additives.
They did not introduce any negatives like the Council cannot be trusted, and Councilmember Candell said which is why they lost last time. She said after everything being shown today, she would go with ¾%.
City Council Meeting Page 36 of 46 July 8, 2024
Vice Mayor Kwok said he was trying to getto the point in 5 months, the City has managed to do an amazing job of increasing awareness by a certain percentage, but they still have not gotten to everybody and there are still 4 months left to an election. Assuming the City continues to inform the electorate of the situation as they have been doing, he wanted to ask where can they expect this to trend to go. Dr. Manross said something about peaking too early which was an interesting concept, but they are not going to stop their communication effort today. He asked how will the numbers they see in front of them change.
Dr. Manross said he will explain the 80/20 rule. Phase I by design, except they went a little further, typically they do 20% about the tax initiative and 80% about warm and fuzzies. If you have been watching social media, you know they sent a ton of stories out there about wonderful things the City is doing and their successes and 20% about the need, except it ended up more than that. This is why he got a little concerned about peaking too soon. As Ms. Robinson said with the “sweet spot,” this sweet spot is September and October. If you push too hard too long, it has a boomerang effect and a yes vote becomes a no vote.
So, what they want to do is between now and August is continue to do warm and fuzzies, good press, and more communication with the community. But then they will do all the preparation for the end of the debate either through the Vistas or through a brochure dedicated to this, which is where he is inclined to go that direction for many reasons. But what will happen if they just stay cool and hit that beginning of September, while paying attention to the vote-by-mail, he will bet a lot of people in Lafayette vote by mail, so it is all about timing. They must time it so the whole story is there in its proper form in September, reinforced by social media. They have to go back to the huge number of opinion leaders who are not aware of the $2 million pending deficit. If they penetrate that, and they have only gotten halfway there, they must get the other half, and there will be organized opposition along the way, and they already know the impact of that. So, the numbers will definitely go up and all they need is a simple majority.
He said David Clark was talking about the threat of it becoming a special tax and where you control for that, and he did write a proposed ballot language which he has done a lot of, this is where you have to make sure it measures up to the letter of the law. You have to say the City will spend it “x, y, z and maybe 2 or 3 more things and other services for the City.” That language is very critical, so you do not get sued.
He has never been sued nor has any of his clients been sued, so the question was, where will those numbers end up? According to this, they would end up somewhere between 52% and 63% and he would be happy with that. He has never had anyone get upset with him that they got more support than predicted.
Vice Mayor Kwok said again, as awareness goes up, the number could land somewhere between 52% and 63% and it is not likely to decline at 47% or 42%, and Dr. Manross confirmed, but he still thinks the Council needs a healthy discussion about ¾% versus 1%.
Councilmember Candell said also on that table on page 9, the most striking number is the definite “yes” way down in the final table. It goes from 35% all the way up to 49%. She understands what Dr. Manross is saying to still go for the 1%, but personally, this is too risky to miss. She is very concerned if they go for the bigger bite and they have these kinds of numbers staring at them, that is all on them.
Mayor Dawson said when you are at the polling booth, you are not asked arguments. You are just presented with the initial question—yes or no, will you support this? So, this is after arguments where the Council is trying to figure out what are the core values and other things. To her when she looks at this, it is not saying will you still support. It is saying, we are feeling out real language to put on here.
City Council Meeting Page 37 of 46 July 8, 2024
Councilmember Candell said she does not think that will overcome that gap. This is her core problem with this because that is a huge gap. She does not think they will overcome it with any arguments. They have a very educated electorate, and they will have a very motivated opposition. They are going to be at it, just like the last time. She does not think that will be any different. She hopes it can be different this time, but she still thinks they face many of the same issues they had last time. They are working on it, and it is a different Council, which is great, but she does not want to miss this and thinks this gap is too big for her to risk.
Councilmember McCormick echoed the risk of failure is unimaginable and so they cannot take that risk.
They have to succeed smaller even if it is a 20% chance of failing.
Councilmember Anduri said in looking at the tracking poll numbers pre-argument he looks at this and he sees the yes has gone up significantly on the 1% from likely 36% to 48% on page 9. Then, when going ¾%, the likely yes goes up a little bit just barely past 50% but when you ask for ½% it goes up 10% to 55%. So, he agrees with what Councilmembers McCormick and Candell said. They cannot afford to lose this because he disagrees vigorously with anyone who says that there is substantial fat in the budget, anyone who takes the approach that they need to cut staff salaries as they are in a very competitive market for employees, and this is just not a way they can afford to go.
So, he looks at these numbers and he would like someone to make the argument why they would not be much better off going for the sure ½% because they told people they have the 5-year projection that basically shows if they get ½% they can continue to provide the services that people are getting now. He thinks this is a very strong argument to make. He thinks it muddies the waters, but he would be interested in hearing what Dr. Manross thinks about this—when you say in addition to keeping what they have now and then they can do these other things. Then, you get people saying they like this project but not that project, so they will not go all the way to 1%, and then you get also the people who are saying that the Council is just asking for a blank check. They do not know what the Council will spend that remaining half on, which is the very powerful negative argument.
Councilmember McCormick agreed this is the argument that happened the last time. Further, he thinks staff has done an excellent job with the education part. They see it in the quality of the output and what happened on the awareness; however, it has all been in support of the ½%, about the deficit, and what it takes. They have not done any education on the additional things the City would do. They have not said they agree wildfire preparation is important, but what would they do, how much would it cost, and how would they get there. So, it would be a big lift over the next 4 months to make that case also.
Councilmember Anduri agreed and said while he could say generally he can see they could use that ½% for good purposes, he thinks it would be a better governance to go out now and say, we need this ½% to continue to give residents the services they are getting now. They are going to the community to ask them to tell the Council. If they say they do not want to have services they are getting now, the City will cut and cut right away. If the ½% is approved, then over the next 2 years they could then have the community conversation and indicate the City has stabilized, have hit fiscal sustainability for the next 7 years, but there is nothing in here for things that make Lafayette a better place to live, whether it is increased spending on wildfire mitigation, additional parks, and what scares him are the maintenance costs which are not covered in the ½%. The City needs them. But he thinks they make that argument over the next 2 years. He is worried that if they reach too far, they will have a disaster because they will make cuts and people will not get services they are getting now.
City Council Meeting Page 38 of 46 July 8, 2024
Mayor Dawson said what they are considering then is the ½% where the City still may need to make cuts based on the fact the City has some structural issues that will be on-going from year to year in terms of the cost and increasing costs. As good governance, she would opt to lean towards the ¾% because at least the empirical data is there that it is supported because they will not be able to do anything if the City does not have money. One of the things they were looking at as well is Orinda passed their general sales tax for 1 cent. They phrased it as “emergency preparedness” but it was general services, including wildfire preparation. They had programs which Lafayette would hope to do too. There are subsidies for Firewise communities and things the City could actually do to speak to the big concern. This is the kind of thing without making it specific that, as good governance, they need to perform basic services in terms of safety and top priorities of wildfire, potholes, storm drains will still need to be addressed and will not be addressed with that ½% which is the barest minimum to keep the City going and not really well. She does not think this is the way to go.
EXTEND MEETING
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Candell) to extend the meeting from 11:55 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Dawson, Kwok, Anduri, Candell and McCormick; Noes: None).
Mayor Dawson said Dr. Manross noted there is risk at 1% but we have seen before and after arguments, and while ¾% is not ideal, it is more than ½%.
Councilmember McCormick said he agrees, but he feels like they are starting from scratch to build the case and what they would do with the extra quarter percent. If they could turn back time, they would have a Vistas article on wildfire, but they do not have specifics. He worries, and while Mayor Dawson is completely correct, but it is vague right now. He did not know when Orinda went out if they had the whole plan, but he just does not know if they have done the work. The work on the budget shows the results which are dramatic.
Mayor Dawson asked Ms. Robinson to display the slide of what are the things the City would still not be able to do. These are basic services and not “extras.” She did not think that word should be used. These are basic services that are part of their infrastructure, part of the City’s assets that need to be maintained so they do not cost even more money, and so she agrees about getting that message out. She did not think it would be difficult because as they have considered and as evidenced, they have sophisticated constituents. With the caveat of a 7-year timeframe and having a citizen oversight committee, she thinks the 3/4% is very viable, and making sure the message is tight. The resolution language would be very important, and this is what they can start working on.
Councilmember Candell said one idea is to go to the ½ cent how and then maybe in 2-4 years they go again. She asked how realistic is that. Ms. Robinson said it has been done in other communities. The risk the City runs is if they go out in 2 years, voters may say they just gave the City money and ask what the City did with it all. Even though they are very clear about what the money was for, it is an entirely new education push because you must educate the voters and let them know that was for this and this is for something else. So, in some ways, it is easier. You are out there, doing this push. She will say this takes a lot of staff time. They are small and this is taking up quite a bit of time so if the Council will do it, it is a sustained effort. So, this is the risk of voters asking what the City just did with the money. On the other hand, anecdotally, communities have done it like El Cerrito. Apparently, it was not their strategy to begin with, but they were able to do it.
City Council Meeting Page 39 of 46 July 8, 2024
Mayor Dawson said those are the things that at ½% they fill the gap. Other than that, they have nothing else for basic community concerns and really what she would consider basic services.
Councilmember Anduri said he disagrees with that because with the ½% the City will be able to maintain public streets and storm drains, will not be reducing the number of police officers, and Mayor Dawson said the other ones did not track well, but they would not be able to do anything with wildfire.
Dr. Manross noted that the problem the City has had in the past has to do with the fact that they went to the ballot twice, said they had the need and then it failed, and the City did not cut back. They have a sophisticated electorate, so they think the City does not want to cut back. Whatever the City goes for and especially if it goes for ½% and if it fails, the City needs to cut right now. This is urgent which is one point.
The other point he would like to make is that one thing that SRI does that other firms do not do, is that they identify core values because those 75 words are the most important words the City will be dealing with. They must not only pass legal muster but also must be consistent with the collective wishes of constituents. So, they found a way to identify core values and to link them empirically to core values with behavior, in this case, a yes versus a no vote. So, you can have some confidence in that rank ordering. He emphasized three or four points are needed but the City should not have such a long laundry list.
At the same time, they must have a long enough laundry list to keep it as a general tax, so it is an interesting balance. There are other cities like San Pablo that have been his client over 10 years. They have gone out knowing well that they were going in a second one knowing that they can get this one now.
But the key is, if you go out now and get the ½% and it passes, if the City waits 2-5 years to go for another one and nothing happens between T-1 and T-2, you are back at the beginning. It is about communication.
He referred to the signs on the highway that say, “Your dollars at Work” and propositions for highway maintenance. The minute this passes at whatever level, you have to stay with outreach efforts and let the constituents know what the City is doing on wildfire, on road maintenance, addressing maintenance for the Community Center, and everything the City does needs to be promoted and it is not education, but information. The electorate is already educated. The issue is that the influentials are not aware and the City must make them aware. Once that happens, the City cannot sit back and wait for two years to bring out another one. The reason those others work is the whole time between T-1 and T-2, they do outreach for Hercules, Pittsburg, San Pablo, EBRPD, and where they are all the time promoting this is how they are spending the money. Promises made-promises kept.
Mayor Dawson said if the City goes with the ½% it is not an opportunity to say these are your dollars at work because these are what the dollars are supposed to be doing anyway. Dr. Manross said that is not quite true. If the City loses a service because the measure failed and the City had to cut, then the fact it passed and the City said they will keep services going, this will make it possible. Then, the City can say they have done it and would not have been able to without the ½%. The other threat the City could face is that if it gets 1% and $4.4 million versus $2 million, then now they are open to the criticism of greed.
This is a real threat and that is what opponents will use as well as a couple of other arguments.
City Council Meeting Page 40 of 46 July 8, 2024
Councilmember Candell said she thinks the decision is between the ½% and ¾%. Mayor Dawson agreed.
Some of the things she wants to say is just today they talked about maintenance costs for these projects which is not in the budget right now going forward. The library and community center will need infrastructure maintenance costs the City is deferring which is not in the budget. They had to say “no” to these things. The crossing guard increase has its own inflationary costs also, so the ½% looks like more of a sure thing, but it is not necessarily the responsible way. She thinks they should go with the 3/4% because the Council needs this in its budget that it does not have. Yes, it is true they will have to work on how they position that because they had not done that before, but they were more worried about not making their reserve deficit. So, empirically it makes sense, and it is a little bit harder to sell, but they will need to identify what that will pay for.
Councilmember McCormick said the attractiveness of the ½% is that it is a very easy message, and it says, if you like Lafayette, this is what you get. You do not have to promise anything else. He just is concerned with the City’s track record on this. They are still shell shocked with what happened with Measure C and his worry is that even if they do the ¾% or the full 1%, they are getting into Measure C territory where it is a “trust us” kind of thing. He thinks they can do it, but it is a more complicated conversation. The ½% is to maintain and the ¾% is to do some things they are not doing, so they have to be prepared for that.
Mayor Dawson said the Fiscal Sustainability Subcommittee looked at the measure that Orinda put up and they say, “maintain and enhance essential City services including wildfire risk reduction, preparation for emergencies and disasters, repair public storm drains, continue public street maintenance and other City services.” So, it is the basics, and that was 1% over 20 years or $40 million. Again, the City is guiding a sophisticated constituency to make good choices to support the community that they love. They heard it and they have sound argument for why the City needs the money. If they are looking at ¾% it is an extra $1 million. The Library and Community Center are assets and not extra. The City must provide for maintenance going forward and they have not, and this is part of that. This is a basic responsibility, and it will cost more in the future.
Vice Mayor Kwok said he and Mayor Dawson are on the Fiscal Sustainability Subcommittee and this exact topic came up and they ended up spending hours on the topic which is that our messaging to date has been about a $2 million deficit gap. That has been what they have been talking about, but in fact, this is just a basic gap, and it is not for other anticipated expenses of City infrastructure. They actually have something bigger than that. It is just that they have put that number out there for so long that this is why it is a slam dunk for ½% to finish off the $2 million. But, when they study this in more detail, he thinks there are other infrastructure expenditures that are just right in front of them that the City did not even budget for. They all know that and know there are plenty of things that did not make it on the list that they absolutely cannot do but that are important for their City that they cannot do. So, even with today’s basic budget, the number they have been talking about is the $2 million.
Given the initial benchmark survey, it was not indicative that ¾% or 1% would be successful so they just had not looked at that, and it was not until right now as they are looking at the latest numbers where when they studied the issue, the numbers moved in greater support. They still have 4 months to go to see how they are going to be trending, but they have sort of boxed themselves in with a number. They literally spent an hour on this.
City Council Meeting Page 41 of 46 July 8, 2024
The subcommittee ended up endorsing the 1% for 7 years with the citizens’ oversight committee with the understanding that Dr. Manross also felt this is a number that could win statistically and also because it is only 7 years. It is not a 20-year, perpetuity, or even 10 years. So, it was a discreet amount of time the City would use to catch up here, so this is at least where they stood last Tuesday. The staff report talks about 1% for 7 years and why he and Mayor Dawson also concurred that this seemed to be the right combination of duration and percentage and that would sock enough away enough to do what they needed to do. But the messaging has trapped them into having this conversation. That is a practical matter, and they must message correctly.
Councilmember Anduri said his concern is in looking at the numbers of the tracking poll for ¾% and this is before positive arguments, and it is also before negative arguments. It is 50.5% and there is a sampling error of 5.5% to 7%. So, this to him is just too big a risk to take that the City would not get to 50 +1.
Councilmember Candell said she is so concerned with that and agrees with Councilmember Anduri. It does seem like a slam dunk, but it does not leave the City in a great position at all. She would love to do the 1% but she thinks it is way too risky. She would love to be able to provide all these things and do more, but she just does not think it is going to pass. So, she is toying between the ½% and ¾% and she does not know they will get over the hump for the ¾%. Dr. Manross’s numbers show that it might, after education, but it is a heavy lift and a complicated message. So, she can go with either one and noted the ½% will be easier.
Councilmember Anduri said what he is hearing is that if they go with ½% they have to start now with a message that says the City is facing a deficit which will result in the General Fund reserve getting below the 61%. All they are asking now is a ½% tax increase so the City can cover that deficit and maintain their reserve. All that half will do is that the City is going to provide the same services they are providing now.
If it does not pass, the voters will not get the same services because the City will have to cut assuming they want to maintain the reserve. They will need to cut. If it passes, the City will immediately start a discussion of what the community wants to do. Actually, it is the same discussion but would be doing it differently than in 2016. They would say they have stabilized the situation. Are there things the community wants or needs to do in order to make Lafayette an even better place to live? They should have that discussion, not pre-judging but asking the community what they want to do. Do they want another ½% because they are still behind Moraga and Orinda in terms of the taxes and tied with Walnut Creek.
Mayor Dawson said though this does not matter to the voters in terms of the comparison to their tax rate.
Councilmember McCormick said as long as the business community supports it, he agrees. He thinks if you look at the survey and look at the order of impact of different arguments, unfortunately, the ability to do wildfire preparedness is way down on the list. The most impactful arguments are they will reduce basic City services, reduce police officers and those are very compelling. If they end up doing the ¾% or the 1%, they are dipping into the arguments that do not seem to get much traction for whatever reason.
He just does not know and maybe it is a couple of years of beating the drum about the deferred maintenance and wildfire preparedness. It is scary though, but the cost of failure is so high.
Mayor Dawson said they are basically delaying the pain until later and that is all. It will be more expensive later on top of it and they will still be looking at cuts potentially. She appreciates what Councilmembers are saying. It is disappointing to look at it that way because it guides all of them for fiscal sustainability, and it is such a conservative approach which is fine, but it does not help matters more than just ‘fill the hole.’ So, it sounds like she is hearing from Councilmembers Anduri, Candell, and McCormick that they are leaning towards the ½% increase.
City Council Meeting Page 42 of 46 July 8, 2024
Vice Mayor Kwok said he is hearing that at least from Councilmember Candell is between ½% and ¾% and he asked what it was for Councilmember McCormick.
Councilmember McCormick said he is thinking about the campaign ahead for the ½% because it is an easier path.
Vice Mayor Kwok said the other thing they should talk about is duration of 7, 10 or 15 years with ½% and asked for guidance from Dr. Manross in terms of what the data is showing in terms of duration for the ½%.
Dr. Manross said the answer is, the core value is they want it to sunset and the question is how long. He strongly suggests the Council not go beyond 10 years. When he presented it he said that. The advantage to 7 years is if they go with the ½% for 7 years, it is not very long and that gives the Council a reasonable argument to say they have been treading water for 7 years and they will know because with inflation at ½% the City will be in the hole and not break even. So, they will need to cut services whether the City likes it or not because the City will not have any money. The City should not wait 10 years for that. In 7 years, the City will have done its best to stay afloat, but inflation will get you and the city will have to increase, so they are in a better position with 7 than 10 years, but he recommended not going beyond 10 years because beyond that, the electorate will not support it.
Councilmember McCormick asked if sales tax is somewhat inflationary-proof because he asked if doesn’t it go up if prices go up. Things are more expensive. Dr. Manross said the yield goes up because prices go up, but not the rate.
Ms. Robinson said she has talked with the sales tax consultant. Their 5-year model actually has sales tax revenues increasing at less than the rate of inflation which seems somewhat counter-intuitive; however, he explained it this way. These are pretty high inflationary times. People are spending the money they have on rent, food, bills, and they have less disposable income which may normally go towards things that are taxable. So, if they are high inflation, the City might be getting less in sales tax.
Mayor Dawson said in June when the Council passed the 2024-25 budget, they froze 4 full-time positions and no new projects. With the ½% and if it passes, she asked if those will be unfrozen and asked if the budget includes those positions being filled. Ms. Robinson said yes, but it does not include new projects, for example, those discussed tonight.
Mayor Dawson said there are so many projects for the Housing Element where if they do not accomplish those, they lose local control which is key to many of those who would oppose this. Again, no new projects or tasks which means there will be balancing with maintenance which the Council talked about at the midJune meeting where there are already other projects they are trying to figure out if they can fit in. But nothing for wildfire, which needs to be very clear as well. She would stand by what the Fiscal Sustainability Subcommittee was thinking in the long-term and at least offer the ¾% which is empirically within Dr.
Manross’s tracking results. It is supported and the real challenge is whether they can create the language and campaign where they just do not want to tread water—they want to thrive, but it sounds like the Council is not confident enough, but they have done such a great job with communications and they have seen people are increasingly supportive. So, she asked if they are selling their constituents short by being so conservative.
City Council Meeting Page 43 of 46 July 8, 2024
Councilmember Candell said she thinks the numbers do not lie. The numbers in the table should show the ¾% and this is the only reason why she is not going straight for the ½%, but there is no way for the 1%. If they thought they could create this great argument and she is questioning whether this is going to be enough and whether this is the right thing. She is just so gun shy and she hates to be like that, but those are her concerns.
Councilmember Anduri said in following up on the discussion about the sunset period, he asked if there is a material difference between 7 and 10 years. Dr. Manross asked to define “material” and said he wants to be able to answer the question. Councilmember McCormick said it went from 54% to 73%.
Ms. Robinson said it went from 54% support for 10 years but 73% at 7 years, which is a huge difference.
Councilmember Anduri asked how that impacts the overall numbers and if they answered that question it could have been at 1%. If the City is going with ½% given this data, he asked what Dr. Manross thought about the data between 7 and 10 years would be.
Dr. Manross said the reason that happened was to give the Council an opportunity to prove it. In 7 years, it is not a lot of time but there was a huge support shift. They think for 7 years they can give the City a chance and they will find out whether the City is blowing smoke or whether this is real and serious, which is why it supports what he keeps saying. When this thing passes, the Council really needs to demonstrate to the constituents what the City has done with that money and show that the City has done good things with it. He understands it is maintenance, but all of these services are fundamental. He recommended talking about youth, seniors, the community center and if it is still in trouble to explain the impact on youth and seniors of that need and the roof leaking. The City must stay with it and at the end of 7 years, they should get another 10-20 because the City has proven itself. There is some suspicion out there.
Councilmember Anduri said what he is thinking about is not waiting for 7 years. The exact language when they formed the Sustainability Subcommittee was short-term and long-term financial sustainability, so that fits with what they are doing here. The ½% is short-term financial sustainability. If it passes, they tell people this is what the City is going to do in the short run because they must do it. They are going for what they hope is a sure thing. People are happy with the services they are getting now. The survey shows people are willing to pay ½% to keep those. If they do not get it, the City is not going to be able to keep services, but then immediately, they will start a discussion to look at long-term fiscal sustainability but also what additional things people want to do. It could be that it is nothing. It could be that it is more parks, more support for seniors, protected bike lanes from neighborhoods, wildfire mitigation, but they will have that discussion.
Dr. Manross agreed this is the strategy and Councilmember Anduri is correct.
Councilmember McCormick said it seems to him that because they are being so conservative on the ½% 10 years does not feel quite so bad because they are not proving much. They are just keeping things as is.
They have the citizens oversight committee as well, but it will really just be confirming what they see in the budget all the time anyway. They are keeping things afloat, and he asked if the Council is thinking of doing a 10 year versus 7 years just because they can put this short-term piece to bed for a while.
Councilmember Anduri said he thinks they would go forward on whether people want the additional ½%, but they are not in a constant state of tax elections then. They will be on the ballot for this one. Then if they look to 2026 for another ½%, if they have a 7-year tax, 4 more years they will be coming back to renew the original tax. The elections will be too close together. At least if they stretch it out to 10 years, it is more of a breathing period.
City Council Meeting Page 44 of 46 July 8, 2024
Mayor Dawson asked what if they are hitting that place before that where they are back at facing a deficit, given inflation and things costing much more before that 10 year passes where they are in a hole.
Councilmember McCormick said they would look at all the other bonds and different things.
Councilmember Candell said she would be comfortable with ½% for 10 years with a citizens’ oversight committee. Councilmember McCormick said the committee will not be auditing anything new that they are promising the City is going to do. They will just make sure the money raised is continuing to be spent in a responsible way.
Mayor Dawson said staff recommendation was 1% with 7 years and a citizens’ oversight committee. She asked for thoughts on their deliberation.
Ms. Srivatsa said they will say they came in with the 1% for 7 years but that chart which they just saw gave them pause. To go down to 50%, it is cutting it close. So, they appreciate the direction the Council is heading in.
Mayor Dawson confirmed the Council wants to put a measure on the ballot this year, and she asked for comments on the ½% versus ¾%.
Mayor Dawson and Councilmembers Anduri, McCormick, Kwok, and Candell voiced support for ½% with a 10-year sunset clause with a citizen’s oversight committee.
Staff recommends the Council direct staff to work with a Council subcommittee to draft the ballot language which staff will bring back.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Kwok made a motion to direct Staff to work with a subcommittee of Mayor Dawson and Vice Mayor Kwok to prepare a resolution establishing November 5, 2024, as the election date for the voters to consider adopting a general purpose, one-half cent transaction and use (“sales”) tax for a period of ten (10) years, with an advisory Citizens Oversight Committee.
Councilmember Anduri asked if Dr. Manross has any reservations about the proposed motion.
Dr. Manross said he only has one reservation which is the 10 years. He thinks the Council should go for 7 years because the Council saw the shift which was incredible. He thinks what that means is the electorate is saying to give the City an opportunity to show them, and 7 years is a short period of time. The difference is huge, but if the Council wants to go with 10 years, it is a good shot given they are asking for one-half cent.
City Council Meeting Page 45 of 46 July 8, 2024
Councilmember McCormick asked what would they show? It feels like they are playing defense and not offense, so he was not sure what they would show after 7 years that would be different from what they would show after 10 years. Part of this is that the City has been accused of wanting a blank check, being greedy, but yet the City only asked for what they need so they are not open to the criticism that admitting needing $2 million and now they are going to get $4 million which is a compelling argument. And, the City is asking for maintenance, status quo. Their constituents are not unhappy. They are pleased with services being provided, with the exception of wildfire in a neighborhood, so the City is doing a good job.
They have base services, have not asked for a lot more money, they need to get out of the $2 million deficit which they understand, and the City can be given a chance to demonstrate that 7 years from now they will still be even with life. He likes what was suggested that the minute this passes, then the City start talking about things they are maintaining as status quo but also the things they want that you cannot give them. So, you keep reinforcing that message that they wish they could provide more, so the 7 years has some benefit because it is a shorter duration than 10 years. The other thing is that the City cannot tell him in 7 years that inflation is going to hurt the City.
Mayor Dawson asked when the tax would go into effect if it passed. Ms. Robinson said the City would not see any funds until June 2025, just in time for the next fiscal year.
Mayor Dawson said if it was 7 years, it would line up with the second Presidential election after this one, which is when there would be more voters. Councilmember McCormick said actually it would be 8 years that would line up. For 7, they will be on an off-year election. Vice Mayor Kwok said in 2030 the Council would do it again to either reup the ½% or something different.
Mayor Dawson said 10 years is a decade out and the data came back with 7 years as the highest support.
She could go either way, but she likes the idea of the ability to sooner than later address it, because they will start to campaign as soon as this passes hopefully on why it would be great to continue.
Councilmember Anduri said the discussion if it passes immediately would be, okay, we are able to afford what the City has been doing. Is there more voters want to do? Mayor Dawson said she thinks they can accomplish that and obtain feedback in 7 years.
Councilmember Anduri said he is looking to do that over the next 2 years and if the community does not want to do anything, then the City will not plan to go back out. If it does, then in 2028, they are back on the ballot. If the approach is to make sure they get this done, then they go with 7 years. He asked if Vice Mayor Kwok would be open to amending his motion.
Mayor Kwok asked and confirmed the consensus of the Council was to amend to 7 years from 10 years.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Kwok/Anduri) to direct staff to work with a subcommittee of Mayor Dawson and Vice Mayor Kwok to prepare a resolution establishing November 5, 2024, as the election date for the voters to consider adopting a general purpose, one-half cent transaction and use (“sales”) tax for a period of seven (7) years, with an advisory Citizens Oversight Committee. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Dawson, Kwok, Anduri, Candell and McCormick; Noes: None).
Mayor Dawson and Councilmembers thanked Dr. Manross for his work and presentation.
15. PUBLIC HEARINGS – None.
16. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT – None.
City Council Meeting Page 46 of 46 July 8, 2024
17. COUNCIL/COMMISSION REPORTS
A. Councilmembers report on activities and consideration of matters a Councilmember wishes to initiate for placement on a future agenda.
Mayor Dawson reported they had discussed the idea of bringing the topic of a Council liaison for EBRPD, and also asked if the City had a liaison for Central Sanitary District. If not, the Council should consider this as well as for all utilities. She asked that this return to the Council for review and deliberation.
Vice Mayor Kwok said this is an election year and his term on the City Council ends in November. He had to make the difficult decision that he will not seek re-election to the City Council. It was a difficult decision to make and has enjoyed working with staff and all Councilmembers and the public; however, his work has increased dramatically as well as his travel schedule, which was normal before the pandemic. But he is back to traveling again, which is challenging.
Also, his parents are aging at 90 and 98 years old. They live out of state, and he is finding himself traveling more to Virginia as well. So, it is difficult to juggle this much travel to attend to all matters in the City. He regrets he will not run for re-election but will work hard on things ahead of them and relish and cherish the months he has left. He has posted this information on his campaign website, as well.
Mayor Dawson opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
18. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS – None.
19. ADJOURNMENT – 12:54 a.m. in memory of Ashley Dias.
APPROVED:
__________________________________
Gina Dawson, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Joanne Robbins, City Clerk