Submitte d O n:
Nov 19, 2024, 10: 15AM PST
City Council Regular Meeting
Submit y our w r itten public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Na me F irs t Na me : Gabr ie l
La s t Na me : Johns on
Ema il this e ntry is dis c lo s a ble
if inc lude d) g. johns o n@ s ys er co- es . com
C ity C o unc il Me e ting Da te Novem ber 19, 2024
Me e ting Type Regular Meeting at 7 PM
Age nda Ite m Numbe r None
C o mme nts pleas e s ee attache d 2) uplo aded documents , to be s har ed with City Council m em ber s
Uplo a d F ile ( s ) Public Com m ents Pleas anton CA Ener gy Cr is is .pdf CA Clim ate Cr is is _City_ Placemat. pdf
Submitte d O n:
Nov 17, 2024, 01: 21AM PST
City Council Regular Meeting
Submit y our w r itten public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Na me F irs t Na me : S iddhar tha
La s t Na me : Par uthi
Ema il this e ntry is dis c lo s a ble
if inc lude d)
C ity C o unc il Me e ting Da te Novem ber 19, 2024
Me e ting Type Regular Meeting at 7 PM
Age nda Ite m Numbe r 1
C o mme nts While I r ecognize the im por tance of pr oviding co m petitive ter m s to a ttr act and r etain top talent, I have concer ns about appr oving a twelve- m onth s ever ance pa ckage. This pr ovis io n may place an undue financial bur den on the city and s ets a pr ecedent that co uld im pact futur e em plo yme nt agr ee me nts . I r ecomm end r eas s es s ing this am endm ent to balance fair ne s s to the City Ma nager with fis cal r es pons ibility to our comm unity."
Submitte d O n:
Nov 17, 2024, 09: 24PM PST
City Council Regular Meeting
Submit y our w r itten public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Na me F irs t Na me : Vin
La s t Na me : Pohr ay
Ema il this e ntry is dis c lo s a ble
if inc lude d)
C ity C o unc il Me e ting Da te Novem ber 19, 2024
Me e ting Type Regular Meeting at 7 PM
Age nda Ite m Numbe r 1
C o mme nts 6 months of s ever ance alr ea dy being pr ovided) is s ufficient. Mo s t e mployer s offer 1 week/ yea r as s eve r a nce.
At two year s tenur e, o ur mana ger a lr eady has 26 weeks s ever ance.
Incr eas ing that to 52 wee ks a nd o ffer ing 400, 000 on our dime , if dis mis s ed, is like kicking the city, on the way out.
It’s a bad pr ecedent, s ever ance s hould be e ar ned and pr opor tio nal to tenur e.
B ar ely 2 year s in the jo b. a nd as king for a 50% bo nus in s eve r a nce is e xces s ive.
B eing a s ked to pr ovide that, by an outgoing co uncil in its las t month, is als o no t appr o pr iate.
This incr eas e is too s oon, neither fair , nor ear ned and s ho uld not be im pos ed on the r es idents o f Pleas anton.
Submitte d O n:
Nov 17, 2024, 11: 29PM PST
City Council Regular Meeting
Submit y our w r itten public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Na me F irs t Na me : ga nes h
La s t Na me : s undar am
Ema il this e ntry is dis c lo s a ble
if inc lude d)
C ity C o unc il Me e ting Da te Novem ber 19, 2024
Me e ting Type Regular Meeting at 7 PM
Age nda Ite m Numbe r 1
C o mme nts I dis a gr ee with incr eas ing the s e ver ance to twe lve m onths fo r the city mana ger , who is likely alr eady the highes t- pa id em plo yee in the city. The r eas ons ar e as follows :
1. Seve r a nce s hould be pr o por tiona l to the le ngth o f em plo ym ent.
The city manager has only be en in the job for two ye ar s , m aking a twelve- m onth s ever ance pa ckage exces s ively high and atypical a cr o s s indus tr ies , including public s ecto r r oles .
2. Pleas anton is cur r ently facing budge t deficits , which have neces s ita ted cuts , even in s cho o ls , and effo r ts to r ais e r evenue thr ough incr eas e d water a nd s ale s taxes . Allocating a twelve- m onth s ever ance package would wor s en the financial s tr ain o n the city' s budget.
Submitte d O n:
Nov 18, 2024, 01: 11PM PST
City Council Regular Meeting
Submit y our w r itten public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Na me F irs t Na me : Ros ar io
La s t Na me : Mile lli
Ema il this e ntry is dis c lo s a ble
if inc lude d) jkm ile1966@ co m cas t. ne t
C ity C o unc il Me e ting Da te Novem ber 19, 2024
Me e ting Type Regular Meeting at 7 PM
Age nda Ite m Numbe r 8
C o mme nts I have attached an analys is r egar ding por tfo lio managem ent which was pr ovided to the City Co uncil via em ail. The analys is was bas ed o n 5/ 31/ 2024 data, the cur r ent po r tfolio s tatus is not s ignificantly changed. My r ecom m endatio n involved liquidating the Feder al Agency Is s ue s , cur r ently yielding 916 YTM, r einves ting in 5 yea r Feder al Agency Is s ues with cur r ent Yie ld to Wor s t of 5. 25%. The net yield, taking into account capita l los s a nd cur r e nt pr ojected r e tur n at 916 is 26, 150, 00. vs . 7, 255, 000. The r is k level is uncha nged s ince the r eco mmended s ecur ities ar e the s a me Fede r a l Agencies Bonds .
This is o nly an example, in light of cur r ent budget is s ue s , a m or e pr o active m anagement is r ecommended.
Uplo a d F ile ( s ) Yield enhance me nt. docx
From: City of Pleasanton
To: PleasantonCityClerk
Subject: City Clerk Form submitted on City of Pleasanton Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2024 12: 02: 06 PM
EXTERNAL] This messagecomesfrom an external organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especiallyfrom unknown senders. ***
Your Name JohnnieLee
Your Email [email protected]
Subject Agendaitem1
Message Whyisthisontheconsentcalendar?
Not a routineitem
Whodecidetoputit onconsentcalendar?
Mayor and Members of Pleasanton City Council November 17, 2024 Spending scarce money on test wells in southwest Pleasanton is a risky bet based on questionable and incomplete information. Estimated costs have already increased, requiring approval for a revised contract amount.
1) The proposed test wells, costing roughly ~$ 1 million each ($ 2. 7M total), are proposed to be drilled in neighborhood parks in areas allegedly tapping groundwater not yet contaminated with toxic PFAS. The risky spending is not justified given Citybudget deficits, especially with the recent defeat of Pleasanton’ s tax Measure PP.
2) Since costs for test wells have increased, it is likely that the cost of production wells hasalso increased above previous estimates. Accordingly, life- cycle cost comparisons should be provided that addresses three scenarios:
a) Test wells leading to production wells;
b) Test wells not leading to new production wells; and
c) Wellhead treatment
3) The test wells are planned prior to installing actual production wells that would bedrilled hundreds of feet deep, pump millions of gallons of water per day, and likely result in accelerated movement of PFAS plumes to the west, under Pleasanton.
4) Zone 7 has stated that a groundwater barrier/ obstacle precludes movement of the PFAS plumes into uncontaminated areas of SW Pleasanton. Review of data by credible licensed Geologists/ Hydrogeologists does not support the presence of a groundwater barrier that would protect new wells.
5) Numerous professionals are opposed to the plan to install test wells followed by new production wells, rather than continue and expand wellhead treatment of PFAS contamination. 6) In contrast to the proposed new wells, wellhead treatment at existing wellswould inhibit the spread of PFAS, act to remove PFAS from our groundwater basin and provide clean drinking water. The cost of wellhead treatment would also be less in the long run. The health effects of ingestion of PFAS are serious and not yet well-known in our local area. Remedial actions are overdue.
7) The legality of knowingly accelerating the spread of PFAS contamination may violate environmental laws meant to preserve the quality of waters of the State for current and future generations.
8) PFAS ostensibly has been seeping below ground and impacting groundwater for many years.
According to the 2020 Jacobs Engineering Report, probable source areas have been identified.
But surprisingly little has been done in the way of investigation/ remediation of PFAS sources believed to be primarily from sites using fire- fighting foam containing PFAS). 9) Local and regional professionals have provided information about the potential problems of new production wells in southwest Pleasanton. Approximately 230 concerned persons have signed a petition ( from the Tri- Valley Groundwater group) objecting to test wells and new production wells. Signers of the petition include licensed Geologists/ Hydrogeologists, clean-water advocates, health professionals, attorneys, neighbors in the well-site areas, etc.
Now is the time to stop spending taxpayers/ ratepayers’ money on test wells and production wells based on flawed and incomplete information. New production wells pumping at high rates could quickly become contaminated with PFAS, spreading PFAS further across the Basin and then costing millions of dollars more to treat these new wells. Instead, wellhead treatment on existing wells should be expanded using proven technology while also accelerating investigations and remediation removal/ stabilization) of PFASin probable source areas ( e. g. Livermore Airport, miscellaneous fire stations/ training sites, sewage treatment facilities, etc.). Also, the City should work on funding and cooperation of agencies/ government to restore our valuable water supply.
Tri- Valley Groundwater Group
Jim Lehrman, PG, CHG, CPG
Erik Sommargren Geologist, Vice- Chair of Sierra Club Tri- Valley Group Executive Committee George Reid, PG, CEG, CHG, CPG
Syserco Energy Solutions, Inc. | 215 Fourier Avenue : Suite 140 | Fremont, CA 94539 Good Evening Members of the Pleasanton City Council:
My name is GabeJohnsonand I work for an Energy Servicescompany called SysercoEnergy Solutions.
We are a Bay-Area based company with offices in Fremont and Petaluma.
The purpose of my comments is to bring to your attention an opportunity that you may want to consider taking advantage of:
We have all been feeling the pain of recent utility rate increases. I suspect that Pleasanton’s cost of electricity and natural gashas been increasing at higher rates than budgeted, but did you know it’s about to get much worse? The California Public Utility Company’s recent SB695 report has forecasted PG&E’s commercial rates to increase by 49% over the next 4 years! This is not good news for any of us, but the City of Pleasanton has an opportunity to think outside of the box, and do something about it.
Instead of wasting a significant amount of money by continuing to over-pay PG&E, wouldn’t it make more senseto redirect this money back into the City’s infrastructure? Instead of sending the money to the utility company, why not send it back to the City of Pleasanton? This is how I can help.
The majority of Cities in CAhave completed SOMEamount of energy conservation work, but almost none have completed ALLthere is to do. The concept is simple: Cut out the remaining energy inefficiencies and leverage the realized savingsto pay for the cost of the infrastructure improvements that generate the savings. This requires ZEROcapital.
The City is already spending the money. But it’s all going to the utility company. Why not get something out of it? Doing this will literally savethe City money AND make Pleasanton a better place to live and work. It’s a Win-Win for the City.
If you are interested in exploring what this opportunity looks like for your City, I am offering to provide a FREEANALYSISand then return to present our findings, so that you can be informed. There’s nothing to lose, and likely a lot to gain.
Pleaselet me know if you would like me to work with City staff to provide you with this information.
I have attached a 1-page summary of the energy crisis in California, and what can be done about it.
Pleasereview it, and I would love to hear your feedback.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Gabe Johnson
SysercoEnergy Solutions, Inc.
Cell: 707-227-6377
Email: [email protected]
Epicheatwavesexperiencedinthesummerhavebrought
California’spowergridto thebrinkofcollapsemultipletimes.
TheEnergy & ClimateCrisisisReal
Ratehikes, agingequipment, and
deferredmaintenanceresultin
financialinstability. Everyyearyou
don’t getahandleonyourcurrent
needsisonestepcloserto
higherfuturecosts.
TheCaliforniaEnergyCrisis
HowClimateChangeisAffectingYourCity
CitiesAren’t DoingEnough PlanAheadtoAvoidCapitalLoss
Theneedtorespondtoemergency
situationsrelatedtoblackouts
canplaceadditionalburdenson
CityCouncilMembers.
Californiaisamongthetopfive statessufferingeconomic
effectsfromclimate-relatednaturaldisasters.
YourUtilityRatesare
GoingUp. Again.
Leverageenergysavingsto payforinitiativesthatalignwith
CityCouncilgoalswithoutdippingintoyourCapitalFund.
STOPWASTEFUL
SPENDINGWhenyourbuildingsconsumeexcess
energy, taxpayerdollarsflow to PG&E
insteadofsupportingyourcommunity,
infrastructure, andlocaleconomy.
SAVE$
15-30M
SAVEYOURCITY
TheaverageCaliforniacitycansaveup
to35% over15yearswithenergy
efficiency upgrades.
TheCaliforniaPublicUtility
Commission (CPUC) recently
reportedthatPG&Eprojectsan
increaseoftheirratesby49% over
thenextfive years.
FLOODS
BLACKOUTS
FIRES
RATES
INCREASING
49%
Yourresidentswantsmootherroads,
betterparkmaintenance, andprograms
forat-riskyouth. Imagineif investingin
yourfacilitiesnotonlysafeguardedyour
city’sfinancialstabilitybutalsoboosted
thelocaleconomy. Itbenefitsyourcity,
yourcommunity, andtheenvironment.
Envisionastrongerlocaleconomy,
expandedtaxbase, andaflourishing
cityandcommunity.
GetaFREEEnergy
AnalysisforYourCity!Widespreadblackoutscanleadto
significantpoliticalconsequences,
ascitizensgrowfrustratedwith
servicedisruptions.
Extremeweatherevents, wildfires,
drought, andenergysupplychallenges
allcontributetothisissue.
CALIFORNIA’SELECTRIC
GRIDISUNDERIMMENSE
PRESSURETOMAINTAIN
POWERFORMILLIONS
OFRESIDENTS.
Ourgoalistodesignanenergy
efficiencyprojectthat optimizes
utilityandoperationalsavings, while
providingyourcitywithascopethat
fits itsfacilityneeds, communityneeds,
andlong-termsavingsgoals.
ContactSysercoEnergySolutionsto
discusshowwecandesignandbuild
yourcityanenergysavingsplan.
TAKEACTIONNOW!STOPFUNDINGTHEUTILITYCOMPANIES
ArecentreportfromtheNorthwestEnergyEfficiency Council ( NEEC) revealedthatinvestmentsinenergyefficiency boostedthe grossregionalproduct (GRP) ofWesternStatesbyhundredsof
millionsofdollarsmorethanalternativespendingoptions.
ContactGabeJohnson, AccountExecutive
[email protected] | 707.227.6377Syserco
EnergySolutions, Inc.
www.syserco-es.com | 510.498.1410
To: The Pleasanton City Council
Subject: Suggestedactions to improve yields on Investment Portfolio I have reviewed the investment portfolio, dated5/31/2024, contained in the minutes of the City Council. I believe the City could do better job in improving yields. I would like to offer an example of thinking outside the box. The example is presentedfor discussion, more detailed analysis would be required before implementation. The thought is to liquidate a portion of the portfolio with extremely low yields, take the lossesresulting from the liquidation and invest the net funds in yields approximately 5X the current yield. All the while maintaining equivalent risk.
Assumptions ( Rounding down to thousands):
Portfolio Par Value: $262,690k
Market Value: $249,697k
Book Value: $262,891k
Table of current Bond and CD yields ( as of 10/ 21/2024) Examples of Current Government Agency Yields as of 10/ 21/ 2024) The nominal Yield to Worst YTW) averages around 4. 8% for 5 year maturity.
Using as an example: The portfolio containing Federal Agency issues:
Book Value: 158, 420k
Market Value: 147, 496k
Yield to Maturity: 916%
Percent of Total Portfolio: 59%
The following is an example of how to improve yields;
Consider liquidating the entire portfolio of Federal Agency Issues, yields:
Investing Market Value) of 147, 496k
Accepting capital loss of 10, 924k
Compare Interest earnings over 5 years:
Estimated earnings doing nothing: 158, 402k x 00916 x 5 years 7, 255k Estimated Earnings w/ liquidation: 147, 496k x 048 x 5 years 35, 399k Estimated Earnings at 4. 8%, deducting capital loss of 10, 924k 24, 475k The net yield improvement of liquidating 24, 475k 7, 255k 17, 220K Yes, I fully understand as near term bonds roll over they will potentially be reinvested at higher yields.
The example is somewhat of a best case, however, it should be realized as rates fall, the book value of the 4. 8% portfolio will increase proportionately.
However, the current forecast for yields suggests bond yields will fall as the Fed approaches its target rate of inflation of 2%.
In summary, I believe the City of Pleasanton can do better and this approach warrants consideration. An added comment is the City should consider raising the maximum limit of investment in Federal Agency or US Treasuries to 10 Million. After all the Federal Agency Bonds are with almost entirely with the FHLB.
Thank you for your consideration,
Rosario Milelli
THE CITY OF
4ia Iwwd
PLEASANTON
Date: November 19, 2024
To Mayor and City Council
From: Gerry Beaudin, City Manager N_
Siew- Chin Yeong, Director of Public Works
Subject: Supplemental Material for the November 19, 2024, Agenda Report, Item 11, ApproveAmendmentNo. 1 to Agreementbetweenthe City of Pleasanton and Zone 7 Water Agency to perform Phase I Feasibility review for the Regional Groundwater Facilities Project for a revised total not -to -exceed amount of $ 2, 733, 178
In November2022, the City ceasedoperatingWells 5 and 6 (Well 8 was taken outof service in 2019) due to detectablePFASconcentrationsas determinedby new regulatory requirements. Since then, the City has been purchasing 100% of its water supply from Zone
7. Concurrently, the Citywas engagedin a detailedwater supplyalternativesstudyto ensure long-term water sustainabilityand reliability, from whichthe City Councilapproved (in October2023) a preferredalternativeto pursuetwo newwells to replacethe City's groundwater production quota of 3,500-acre feet that was unavailable after taking the wells offline. The City Council's approvalalso includedthe evaluationof a potentialpartnershipwith Zone 7 for a joint wells project.
Regional Groundwater Feasibility Study
To date, the City and Zone 7 have initiated Phase 1 of the Regional Groundwater Facilities Project, which undertakesa feasibilitystudybasedon installingtest wells to collectwater samplesand hydraulicdata. Zone 7, as the regionalgroundwatermanagementagency, is leadingthis effort, leveragingits expertisein water quality, aquiferstudies, and groundwater production, with the City as a partner agency.
The feasibilitystudy aimsto providecriticaldata on groundwaterreliability, production capacity, and treatment requirements. Based on Zone 7' s assessment, the test wells will have minimal impact or no significant impact on the groundwater basin storage or water quality as these are smaller diameter wells with temporary pumps to be operated for testing purposesfor a short duration. Test wells are essentialfor determiningthe feasibilityof production wells, potential yields, water quality conditions and cost share for each agency. No final decisionto drill permanentwells has yet been made; on completionof the feasibility study, the findings and recommendationswill be presentedto the City Counciland the Zone 7 Boardof Directorsto guidedata -drivendecisionsregardingthe feasibilityof permanent wells for the City and the region.
Notably, MeasurePP, which did not pass recently, pertainsto the GeneralFund and is unrelated to these water alternatives. The Water Enterprise Fund, through rates and recent bond issuance, fully funds efforts to secure alternative water sources.
Alternative Considerations
The Water SupplyAlternativesStudyalso re-evaluatedrebuildingexistingwells (Well 5, 6 and 8) and constructing a new PFAS treatment plant. However, this option was not recommendeddueto the advancedage and deterioratedconditionof the City's wells, which would requirecostly rehabilitationor redrilling. Additionally, constructinga PFAStreatment plantwould significantlyincreaseoperationalcosts, as well as training, testing, monitoring, and reportingresponsibilities. Wellheadtreatmentis not intendedto remediateor cleanup legacyor currentand future source(s) of PFAScontaminationin the groundwaterbasinbut, instead, to treat and meet the drinking water standards per EPA regulations in the distribution system.
Conversely, under the current Regional Groundwater Facilities Project, if test well results indicate water quality challenges, Zone 7 can address treatment needs for PFAS and other potentialemergingcontaminantsthroughits existingfacilitiesor by addingadditional treatment processes for regionwide water supply needs. This shared -cost approach would savethe City the expenseof developingand operatinga newtreatmentplant independently for PFAS alone, making a regional approach more cost-effective and reliable.
THE CITY OF
PLEASANTON,
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 19, 2024
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Gerry Beaudin, City Manager r
Pamela Ott, Assistant City Manag
Re: Council Meeting November 19, 2024, Items 15 and 16 — supplemental The following additional information is provided as context regarding agenda items 15 and 16. The City is required to achieve a balanced budget every year, but to do so in the context of a budget deficit means that many critical funding needs are omitted from the budget due to lack of funding.
Actual property tax and sales tax revenues were close to what was budgeted.
When financial results, it is important to look at revenues, expenditures, and the financial trend. Historical growth does not always reflect future growth.
According to the City's property tax and sales tax consultants, property tax is projected to grow by only 4% in the current fiscal year, lower than the growth in the prior fiscal year, and sales tax is projected to grow by only 1.2%.
The General Fund budget does not reflect all the City's funding needs; the limited available resources can only help proving funding in some, not all, program areas.
All the financial transactions need to be properly recorded before the City can release the year- end financial report. The timing for publishing the fiscal year 2024 year-end report is consistent with prior fiscal years.
The purpose of the year-end report is to provide the Council and the community an overview of the City' s financial results and condition. As outlined in detail in the report to the City Council, property tax revenue was 0.1 % higher than budgeted, while sales tax revenue was 2. 3% lower than budgeted. At the same time, expense growth outpaced revenue as projected, in which expenses were nearly 7% higher than prior year, while revenues were about 1 % lower than prior year. The net positive financial results were mainly due to higher than budgeted hotel and business license tax, revenue recognized from the implementation of new accounting standards, the use of Rainy Day and General Fund program reserves, and cost reduction measures such as freezing positions, deferring purchases of vehicles and equipment and reducing contract services. As we've said, the City has been committed to cutting costs and we've demonstrated that in these significant near -term cuts; however, this is simply not sustainable in delivering all the programs and services that are currently provided to the community such that additional reductions will directly impact our residents and businesses.
2of2
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
1 Responses to City Council Agenda Items – November 19, 2024 Agenda Item #1
1. How does the city manager’s current contract compare to other city managers in the Tri-Valley regarding severance pay and total cash compensation? A.
Agenda Item #15
2. For Water and Sewer (Tables 7 and 8 of the report), please explain the ending balance from FY 2023 and the starting balance for FY 2024.
Water:
FY2023 Ending = 8.360M
FY2024 Starting = 7.372M
Sewer:
FY2023 Ending = 8.261M
FY2024 Starting = 7.605M
A. The variance is due to the reporting process for unrealized investment loss/gain at year-end. The agenda report presents the budgetary fund balance for the Water Fund and Sewer Fund, meaning the unrealized investment loss/gain is excluded. Here is how this has looked in recent years… the beginning fund balance for 6/30/23 (or 6/30/22 ending fund balance) excludes the unrealized loss from FY 2022. The FY 2022 loss was significant, resulting in a higher budgetary fund balance in the FY 2023 report. For the 6/30/24 beginning fund balance, the FY 2023 unrealized loss was excluded. The FY 2023 number was much lower, resulting in a lower budgetary fund balance in the FY 2024 report.
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
2 When the books are closed every year, the unrealized loss/gain is rolled into the fund balance for each fund, which represents the ACFR fund balance. To get to the budgetary fund balance, our team manually excludes the unrealized loss/gain for year-end reporting purposes.