1 Responses to City Council Agenda Items – June 4, 2024
Community Development
Agenda Item #5
1. Can you briefly describe the inadequate performance of PlaceWorks during the three-year term?
A. Specific issues with PlaceWorks’ performance were lack of timeliness in delivering work products (e.g. scopes of work, draft documents), and lack of quality/accuracy in draft work products.
2. With our budget situation, is this expenditure necessary or could we reduce the fees and/or do in-house?
A. The vast majority of work completed to date under the on-call contracts has been CEQA review for development projects – in those cases, 100% of the consultant costs are reimbursed to the City (plus an administrative fee) by project applicants – i.e. there is no direct cost to the City. With respect to CEQA review of City- sponsored projects, all work is completed on an as-needed basis, meaning that the City can decide for every project whether to do the work in-house or use professional services. That said, for larger projects and more complex CEQA documents, City staff does not have the capacity or technical expertise to prepare the documents in house, and having access to a roster of on-call consultants is, in staff’s view, a helpful and necessary resource.
Agenda Item #6
1. Will the existing servers be repurposed or are they at end of life? A. To clarify the current state of our infrastructure:
Server Hardware and Virtualization Platform:
• The servers hosting our Accela solution are virtual servers running on a virtualized infrastructure.
• While the virtualized platform is approaching its end of life, it continues to host numerous production servers and services. Thus, the infrastructure itself is still actively used and maintained.
Operating System and Database:
• The operating system currently hosting our Accela solution, along with its associated database, is at the end of life.
• This presents a critical need for deprecation and transition to a more secure and supported environment.
Plan for Repurposing or Decommissioning:
• Virtual Servers: Given that the operating system and database are at the end of life, the specific virtual servers running Accela will be decommissioned as part of our transition to the SaaS version. 2 • Virtualization Platform: The underlying virtualized infrastructure will remain in operation to support other production services. However, a strategic review and phased upgrade of this platform are planned to ensure long-term sustainability and supportability.
In conclusion, while the specific virtual servers and their OS/database will be decommissioned, the virtualized platform will continue to operate and support other critical services until a planned upgrade can be executed.
2. The SOW for the software migration says there is no need for travel to the agency (Pleasanton) because the agency does not need any on-site resources.
So is all of the work by Accela to be done remotely?
A. Correct. All work or troubleshooting errors/problems would be done remotely.
3. Did this go out to bid (any requirement to do so) for an RFP to see if another vendor is more cost-effective and/or provides better service? A. The agreement with Accela is proposed as a sole-source contract, which is allowable under the City’s purchasing policy provided that certain criteria are met.
The City has been contracting with Accela since approximately 2010 and the Accela land management platform was launched in May 2011. Staff has explored other vendors over the years, however, the initial cost to transfer to a new vendor software is very expensive and the on-going annual maintenance costs would be relatively the same as Accela. Transferring to a new vendor would also require a significant amount of dedicated City staff time from multiple departments to implement the new software, beta test, and roll-out to the public, as well as costs for technical assistance from a third-party vendor to support the transition.
Agenda Item #7
1. What is the relationship between Ridge View Commons LLC and Eden Investments Inc.?
A. Ridge View Commons LLC is a single member LLC and the General Partner of the Ridge View Commons II Associates, L.P. (the new owner of Ridge View Commons Apartments). Eden Investments, Inc., (EII) is entirely controlled by Eden Housing, Inc., a non-profit entity that is the sole member of the single member LLC; Eden’s board is the same as EII’s Board. Eden Housing, Inc. through its control of EII is the controlling entity of the new Ridge View Commons II Associates, L.P. This partnership structure is standard and consistent for all tax credit-funded projects.
2. The only change is the lease term (so that renovations can occur and tax credits can be received), correct? No other changes?
A. The only change to the terms made since the last City Council meeting is to change the lease term from 75 years to 85 years. Other changes in the terms 3 negotiated as part of the broader agreement, all of which are supported by staff, are outlined in the Agenda Report.
Library and Recreation
Agenda Item #8
1. Besides the nonresident fee and access and information collection, are there other requirements in the original guidelines that are simply going away? A. Some additional, less significant items proposed to change, include: (Note: Both the original and the proposed Management Plans are included in the agenda packet for reference.)
• Removal of the etiquette guidelines at the beginning of the original exhibit.
These were no longer deemed accurate nor necessary. A guard is on duty 24/7 at the gate and no key cards have ever been issued for access. Any information included in this section is provided by the security guard at the gate upon entry.
• In the original exhibit, Pleasanton residents were to receive an annual pass. This was never practical, so City staff and Golden Eagle staff developed the acceptable forms of resident identification as described in Item 3 of the proposed Management Plan.
• Some other items deemed to be unnecessary were eliminated as well, such as special signage and striping. As this has not been deemed necessary or such signage already exists, it was removed from the original Management Plan (items 11, 12,13). Much of this information is included in what the City will be publishing in the proposed Management Plan (Item 13).
2. How have the meetings between Golden Eagle Estates staff and community residents been publicized?
A. This item was listed on an open agenda meeting for board discussion.
An e-blast was sent to all Golden Estates residents and posted on website.
3. Non-resident fees for usage are not listed on Exhibit A and it says to refer to the website. Can these fees be listed on our report?
A. Per the Master Fee Schedule, this fee would fall in Section VIII, Category E (mostly individual benefits and non-residents). Staff intend to start this fee at $5 for the pass and assess true costs for issuing the permits throughout the first year of the new process. Because the process can be completed online through the CivicRec platform, staff believes that true costs will be limited and $5 will be an appropriate fee.
4 4. Can language be included that allows for something other than or in addition to photo ID, maybe photo ID or some other proof of residency? A. Staff have coordinated with Randy Ritter at Golden Eagle and all are comfortable adding: iv. Other combinations of photo/address verification may be used if items in i-iii are unavailable.
Public Hearing Items
Agenda Item #14
1. Can we explain what other cost-containment measures are being looked at, if any, regardless of how small? Can it be explained why we aren't looking at water (resident comments)?
A. The City has evaluated cost containment measures including personnel and non- personnel reductions. Personnel reductions include freezing some positions (e.g., Police Evidence Clerk and Business License Specialist). Non-personnel costs include reductions to various budget line items such as contract services, professional services, supplies and materials, software subscriptions, travel and training, membership dues and tuition, books, uniforms, advertising and printing, and communications. The City is also deferring certain projects and purchases of vehicles and equipment (e.g., fire engine, backhoe, Fire Station and other City facility renovations).
The Water Fund is an enterprise fund. Funding cannot be commingled with the General Fund. In other words, revenues from the Water Fund cannot be used to cover General Fund operations. Cost analysis for the Water Fund is done through water rate studies.
2. On page 3 it says "chart below" (in the first paragraph). I don't see how many first place votes each item had?
A. The chart below (also shared as supplemental information on May 31 as it was inadvertently left out of the agenda report) shows the number of first place votes for each of the service areas.
5 3. Please address (again) the analysis used in the projections and how conservative it is.
A. The City’s key financial drivers are property tax, sales tax, and personnel costs.
The assumptions for these key drivers are 3.5%, 2.0%, and 3.3% in annual growth.
The City utilizes a balanced approach to develop the long-term forecast.
Revenue and expenditure projections are not too conversative or too aggressive.
It should be noted that the forecast is developed based on the financial and economic data that is available today. The forecast may change due to changing economic conditions such as an economic slowdown. The forecast is a tool that provides insights into the City’s financial future. The trend lines indicate that General Fund expenditures will outpace revenue in the long run.
Agenda Item #15
1. Has the city expended resources to advance Master Planning for the Mall so far in 2024, other than incidentals?
A. No, the City has not expended resources to advance the Master Plan in 2024, other than staff time spent coordinating internally and to communicate with various of the owners.
2. Does the Stoneridge Mall Framework process remain intact? Are there any updates regarding the impediments to its fulfillment?
A. If the DA is approved by City Council, staff anticipates that the initial six-month period will be used to define in more detail the scope, timeframe and steps to advance the Framework/Master Plan for the Mall, including the roles and collaborative process between the City and the owners. If, at the end of the six months, no further funding is secured as outlined in the DA, and it is clear that the owners, individually and collectively are unable to work together to progress
6 the plan, the City will need to reconsider how to proceed, whether City funds can or should be allocated to prepare a plan, or if another approach is needed.
Regarding impediments, progress has unfortunately been limited in the last 18 months: staff cannot definitively say what these specific issues have been, beyond overall challenges in communication and lack of alignment of interests/objectives between owners. However, based on one-on-one discussions between staff and individual owners, there is a shared willingness and understanding of the need for a collaborative/coordinated planning process, particularly to address key constraints posed by the current (private) agreements that control development at the mall.
3. Why continued delays when the mall is struggling and that affects the property owners as well?
A.
See response 2, above. Staff posed a similar question to Simon Property Group, who expressed that over the past year they were focused on the residential project entitlement and resolving subsequent litigation, and experienced change in the key personnel representing the mall property locally. During discussions on the DA extension, staff made it clear that advancing the mall planning is a key objective for the City, and the primary basis for considering the DA extension.
SPG has signaled their commitment to moving forward with the planning effort, including working collaboratively with the other owners to make progress going forward and meeting the milestones established in the DA.
4. What has been done to facilitate all four property owners to work together on a plan?
A. Staff has been in regular communication with all four property owners, including outreach over the past six months to check in, share information on the proposed Development Agreement extension, understand development objectives, and gauge interest in moving forward with the planning work. Staff continues to be clear about the City’s interest in advancing those efforts, and each owner has similarly agreed that completion of the planning, including working to re-negotiate terms of the private Reciprocal Easement Agreement between the owners, are important and necessary steps to unlock redevelopment opportunities at the mall.
Agenda Item #16
1. Continuing with the implementation has a cost (which was decreased due to budget). Can we decrease a bit further? Some things may be critical but others may not be.
A. Staff have been very cognizant of the financial impacts of implementing the strategic plan, and decisions about projects and resources are made within the context of the budget process. It is also important to note that many of the items 7 in the plan are about evaluating fees and considering new revenue, with the goal of achieving long-term fiscal sustainability. The City has already had to delay or slow on some priorities because there is not adequate staffing and/or funding, and these items are reflected in the Year 1 progress report.
2. Regarding B.1, what costs are associated with continuing with the implementation actions?
A. The City Council approved a DEI Officer position as part of the current two-year budget, however, this position has been frozen due to budget constraints, and will continue to be frozen in the next fiscal year (FY 2024/25). In lieu of hiring a full-time position, approximately $60,000 was budgeted in the current fiscal year (FY 2023/24) for consulting costs associated with beginning implementation of the Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging (DEIB) Action Plan, including creation of an interdepartmental task force to advance the work. For the next fiscal year, the work will be led by existing City staff, including the Assistant to the City Manager, working with an interdepartmental DEIB team of City staff.
Supplemental Material
City Council Meeting
June 4, 2024
Agenda Item #14: Presentation of community survey and public engagement results to further explore the feasibility of a revenue measure
The chart referenced on page 3 of the agenda report regarding the community survey data is below:
Submitted On:
Jun 4, 2024, 11:44AM PDT
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name
First Name:
Philip
Last Name:
Bowman
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included)
[email protected]
City Council Meeting Date
June 04, 2024
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting at 7 PM
Agenda Item Number
8 Comments
This is regarding consent Calendar item 8 regarding access to Augustin Bernal Park.
I'm a frequent (2 to 3 times per week) user of this park and there are a couple of items that are of concern to me in the draft Management Plan, Exhibit A.
First, the access time is said to be generally during daylight hours, but opening time is no earlier than 7:30 am.
During the summer I
know some people like to get an early hike in. Can we set the summer start time to be 6:30 am which would definitely be within daylight hours?
(I believe currently the opening time is 6:30 am so
changing this would impact our current access.)
Second, I believe the non-resident permits are too restrictive. This park is often used as a meeting place between residents and their non-resident friends. I request that a permit be for a two-week period (as it is now). Also, if the permit cannot continue to be free as it is now, could it be very low, like no more than $5 for a two-week period? Some parks (like Tamarancho in Marin) offer an annual pass, which could be very useful. So for $50 per year, a non-resident could get an annual pass and avoid a lot of regular paperwork and credit card hassle for both him/her and the city administrator.
Lastly, I want to ensure that the city is not responsible for construction costs such as for the new pedestrian locked gate that is proposed. There is no mention of who pays for this in the exhibit.
Thanks for your consideration.