PARTICIPATORY
BUDGETING
RULEBOOK UPDATES
Flor Magallanes
Administrative Analyst II, City Manager’s Office
RECCOMENDATION
1. ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE CHANGES TO
THE PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING RULEBOOK TO
IMPLEMENT A 2-YEAR PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING CYCLE
BACKGROUND
• Financial Impact
• In 2020, City of Vallejo reduced PB project budget from $1,000,000 to $500,000.
• Management Partners Review (2020):
• Engaged by City Manager’s Office to review PB program. • Aimed to enhance PB process and staff efficiency.
• Interviewed stakeholders, examined documents, analyzed feedback.
• Lyons-Newman Consulting Survey (FY 2019-2020):
• Conducted survey during proposal development phase.
• Gathered feedback from program participants.
• Survey responses analyzed alongside input from budget delegates and PB Steering Committee.
TRANSITIONING TO TWO-YEAR CYCLE
• Accumulate funding over two fiscal years to
maintain a $1 million budget.
• Dedicate one year for highlighting project
implementation while continuing outreach and
education efforts.
• Dedicate one year for the development and voting
on thoroughly vetted comprehensive proposals,
ensuring efficient project implementation.
• Optimizes project funding allocation.
• Current PB project budget: $500,000 per fiscal
year.
• Adoption of two-year cycle accumulates $1
million in project funding over the same period.
PB PROJECT FUNDING
PB PROJECT FUNDING
Maximum allocation limits:
– Program and service projects: 7.5% of total project
funding.
– Capital infrastructure endeavors: 30% of total
project funding.
Historical total project budget of $1 million sets
maximum funding requests:
– Program and service projects: $75,000.
– Capital infrastructure projects: $300,000.
PROCESS YEAR
• Enhances public engagement process.
• Focuses on idea-collection, volunteer
recruitment, comprehensive proposal
development, and voting phase.
• Addresses challenges identified in
stakeholder feedback, ensuring
improved coordination and project
viability.
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION YEAR
• Dedicated to project execution
and reporting.
• Enhances public transparency.
• Efforts include executing selected
projects, providing public reports,
idea-collection, community
outreach, and prequalification of
partners.
PB RULEBOOK
(Rulebook page 4)
Changes:
• Include a section titled “Timeline” to include a definition of a cycle per the City of Vallejo’s PB process.
Timeline
Two-year Cycle
A cycle within the Participatory Budgeting (PB) program framework refers to a structured period lasting two consecutive fiscal years. • Process Year: The first year of the cycle is dedicated to proposal development and voting. During this year, community members submit project ideas, proposals are vetted, and projects are selected for implementation. • Project Implementation Year:The second year of the cycle is designated for project implementation, wherein selected projects are executed, monitored, and reported upon, ensuring transparent and accountable utilization of allocated funds.
Timeline: What happens when?
PB has four main stages:
Idea
Collection
Process Year
June-August of the
following year *–
Mid-September
At public events and
community meetings
across the city, Vallejo
residents and
stakeholders will
brainstorm project
ideas and volunteer as
budget delegates.
*Idea collection for the
following cycle runs
concurrently with project
implementation year
Proposal
Development
Process Year
Mid-September -
March
August-March
Delegates meet in
committees, along with
representatives from
City departments and
Public Agencies, to
transform the
community’s initial
project ideas into full
proposals. Delegates
submit final project
proposals for review
and vetting.
Voting
Process Year
April-JuneMay -–
June **
Residents vote at
locations around the
City or via online
ballots on which
projects to
recommend to City
Council. The projects
with the most votes
will be presented to
the City Council for
funding consideration.
**Exact start and end dates
of vote phase subject to
change
Evaluation &
Monitoring
Project
Implementation Year
July- Onward
Evaluation of the
process and
monitoring of the
implementation of
projects.
-PB Rulebook pg. 5
CONTACT(S)
Flor Magallanes
City Manager’s Office
707-648-4041
[email protected]
2441 Broadway Street
Vallejo, CA
FIRM
FOUNDATION
COMMUNITY
HOUSING
WHO ARE WE
Non-Profit Developer with the mission to solve
involuntary homelessness by building high quality,
service enriched housing.
Founded in 2020 with 4 completed projects and 2
projects in construction resulting in over 150 units
We partner with local jurisdictions, community
members and faith based organizations to develop
underutilized land into vital housing projects that save lives.
Fairmont Navigation Center Tiny Homes in Alameda County Since opening in 2021, over 200 individuals have been given the tools they need to heal, thrive and move on to secure, individual housing.
34 Micro Home Community with Wrap Around Services
Proven Approach
We have
a solution
2441 Broadway will provide:
Evidence-based housing intervention, Permanent Supportive Housing for 47 individuals
On-site staff team providing ongoing supportive services.
Long lasting community and safety.
Opportunity to establish stability and receive support needed to interrupt the cycle of homelessness.
Solano County currently has 1,179 people experiencing homelessness* *per HUD Point in Time Count 2022-
new PIT count for 2024 to be
published soon anticipates a higher
number
SUPPORTIVE COMMUNITY + ELEVATED DESIGN
ON-SITE
SUPPORTIVE
SERVICES
Community Members will have access to more than
housing. Supportive Services include:
Classes ranging from financial literacy, parenting
support, and job search strategies.
Housing navigation
Meals
Mental health support
Substance abuse recovery support services
Support with seeking medical care
LOCATION
2442
BROADWAY
DOG PARK VETERAN’S MEMORIAL
PARK & PLAYGROUNDMULTI-FAMILY
APARTMENTS
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
NEIGHBORHOOD
29 HWY - SONOMA BLVD
BUS
STOP
GASFAST FOOD
BUILDING DESIGN
F
27,406 SF Total building squire footage, including:
Primary Building - Four Story, 40 unit elevator bldg with Community Space, Laundry room, and office.
Additional units: 4 back to back “duet” living units alongside outdoor landscaped gathering space. 47 total living units + 1 manager unit.
Units are equiped with a full bathroom, kitchen and living space.
Factory built units, constructed locally at Factory OS with the Carpenters Local 180 on nearby Mare Island
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION
Currently
the project
is 70%
complete
Roofing Complete
Water Resist. Barrier 95% Complete
Unit Windows Complete
Ground flr windows 80% Complete
Underground Utilities 90% Complete
Exterior + Site
Framing Complete in
Common Areas
MEP rough in, Drywall and
storefront installations in
progress
Community Room
Modular units are factory
built and complete on-site,
including finishes and
appliance installations.
Unit Interiors
Community
Asset
Improving quality of lIfe, especially
regarding our community’s health, safety
and stability.
Reducing Blight & Alleviating an
Attractive Nuisance at project
completion
Bringing local jobs: many of the
contractors working on this project are
local to Solano County and the Bay Area
Addressing homelessness
Benefits to the Community Aligned with the goals of Measure P Ready for
Move In
Design &
Entitlements
Begin
Project Milestones
Spring
2022
Sept. 19
2022
Construction
Begins
Modular Unit
Install
complete
Stalled at
70% due to
funding gap
July 6
2023
Sept
2023
Target
Funding
resolution &
Remobilization
June
2024
TCO
Sept
2024
Dec
2024
Broadway Project
Measure P Funding
Request
Gillian Haen, Assistant City
Manager
May 14, 2024
Agenda • Overview of the project
• Project History
• Timeline
• Budget
• Current request
• Next steps
Broadway Project
• 47 Permanent Supportive
Housing Units (studios)
• 1 manager unit
• Community room
• Courtyard
• On-site wrap around services
• State average is $700k per door,
Broadway is approximately $560k
Project History
• May 2022 – awarded Homekey
Grant
• June 2022 – Council accepted
grant and amended budget
• Construction started September
2022
• September 2024 – Anticipated
construction completion
• December 2024 – Anticipated
TCO
– Move in process through
coordinated entry system
Project Status
• Site currently under construction
70% completed
• Ownership – Firm Foundation
currently owns site (through
construction)
• City of Vallejo – will own project
once construction is completed
• Construction funding gap
• Council closed session
discussions in February and
March 2024
• Measure P committee in April
and May 2024
Total Project Cost
Total Project Cost
Overall Project Budget $ 23,267,194.00
Delays Incurred to date $ 830,949.00
Project Delays & Added Costs* $ 2,545,733.00
$ 26,643,876.00
• $6.15M gap
• HUD grant –HOME ARP
• Funding partner (January 2024)
Budget
Measure P Request
• Request: $6.1M (currently
available $4,251,800) for
construction of project
• Council Measure P Priority:
Homelessness
• Homeless/Unhoused – Council
Multi-year priority area
• Risk Assessment – without
funding project will not be
completed
– At risk of owing back all grant
funding (roughly $20M)
Measure P Funds
Apr 2023
Actuals
May 2023
Actuals
June 2023
Actuals
2022-23
Year to Date
$
1,117,681.70
$
1,008,019.12
$
2,125,803.97
$
4,251,504.79
July
2023
Actuals
Aug
2023
Actuals
Sept
2023
Actuals
Oct
2023
Actuals
Nov
2023
Actuals
Dec
2023
Actuals
Jan 2024
Actuals
Feb
2024
Actuals
2022-23
Year to
Date
(as of
4.5.24)
$
1,219,73
7.14 $
1,103,67
7.44 $
2,168,71
3.87 $
1,198,65
5.52 $
1,144,20
6.43 $
2,256,19
2.12 $
1,408,34
8.13 $
1,228,63
8.80 $
11,728,16
9.45 Total Amount
Available to date
$15,979,674.24
Measure P Committee
Recommendation
• 4/22/24, 5/8/24, 5/10/24
• $1.3M for Liens only
• Resolution on the dias and
emailed
• Emailed liens and detailed budget
to CC 5/13/24
Staff Recommendation
• $6.1M Measure P funding
– $4.25M currently available
– $1.85M when March and April
funds deposited
CONTACT(S)
Gillian Haen, Assistant City
Manager
[email protected]
Printed: 4/22/2024 1
BROADWAY FUNDING GAP ANALYSIS- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TOTAL PROJECT COST
$ 26,961,900
FUNDING SOURCES- SECURED
Total Funding Sources Secured $20,809,866
FUNDING GAP TO FINISH PROJECT
Funding Gap* $ 6,152,034
SCHEDULE*
4/15/24
Overall Project Budget $ 23,143,808
Delays Incurred to date $ 1,129,286
Projected Delays & Added Costs to complete* $ 2,688,806 State of CA HomeKey $11,429,866
City of Vallejo ARPA $190,000
Solano County ARPA $3,000,000
IIG Request $2,600,000
Wells Fargo Grant $90,000
City of Vallejo ARPA $200,000
LMIHAL Loan - COV $1,300,000
LMIHAL Loan - COV- additional funds $2,000,000
Overall Cost to finish $ 26,961,900
Secured Funding $ 20,809,866
To prevent further delay costs and achieve TCO by end of September 2024:
- Overdue balance must be committed to project by May 1, paid by end of May - Full Funding balance must be secured by July
Complete & Paid to date
Complete & Unpaid-
Contract w/ Approved Changes
as of April 5, 2024
projection if schedule milestones are met
Applies to Infrastructure
Can ony apply to costs incurred 4/5/24 or later
(excludes retention)
Construction Schedule paused until this is paid in full.
Remobilization to full speed construction schedule will take 4 weeks after overdue payments are complete
$ 18,150,655
OVERDUE $ 2,921,131
Printed 4/22/2024 2
DETAILED PROJECT SUMMARY
Overall Project Cost Projected
Total Project Cost Projection $ 26,961,900
Construction Costs
Projected Total Construction Budget $ 19,967,151
Developer Costs
Total Projected Developer Budget $ 6,994,749
Work Completed to date
DUE NOW TO CONSTRUCTION $ 2,844,699
$ 2,921,131
DUE NOW TO FFCH $ 76,431
TOTAL DUE NOW
4/15/24
Total Construction Cost $ 19,967,151
Total Developer Cost $ 6,994,749
Original Contract Budget $ 16,672,666
Approved Changes $ 707,197
Total Approved Changes $ 17,379,863
Pending Changes
Delay- Incurred to date $ 830,949
Delay- Projected to complete* $ 1,050,839
Other Cost to Complete* $ 705,500
$ 2,587,288
*Assumes funding & schedule milestones achieved
Original Developer Budget $ 3,719,804
Added Cost- Delay Incurred to date $ 298,337 Includes Security to date, Addition Security, Additional Design &Engineering due to delays Added Cost to date- Other $ 1,745,805
$ 5,763,945
Projected Added Costs
Added Cost projected to complete- Delays $ 903,475
Added Cost projected to complete- Other $ 327,329
$ 1,230,804
*Assumes funding & schedule milestones achieved
Value of Construction Complete (inc retention) $ 16,057,660 less Retention $ (505,172)
Paid to date- Construction $ (12,707,788)
Value of Developer Complete (inc. construction) $ 21,071,786 Paid to date- FFCH $ (18,150,655)
includes CO# 001-003
CO# 004
CO# 005- projections
includes COR 01, 05, 10, 11, 15, 18, 21, 23, 25-29, 31-33, 36-41 +projections for unknowns Includes remaining committeed costs incurred to date
as of Pay Ap 34
Note that Pay Ap 32 needs to be invoiced to CoV still
less due to Cannon for Construction $ (2,844,699)
$ 2,921,131
Printed: 4/22/2024 3
OVERALL PROJECT BUDGET & PROJECTED COST TO COMPLETE- CONSTRUCTION BUDGET Div # Division Name Original Budget ApprovedChange OrderTotal Total ApprovedBudget
Delay CostsIncurred to date Pending Change Orders & Projected Costs Total ProjectedConstructionBudget* Value ofCompleted Work(inc. retainage)
Amount Paid toFFCH date % Paid Unpaid Balancedue %Unpaid Balance to finishApproved Budget Balance to finishProjected Budget Delay & RemobCostsProjected Total Other CostsProjected
Total PendingAdded Costs &ProjectionsCONSTRUCTION BUDGET / HARD COST CANNON- GENERAL CONTRACTOR:
Construction Subtotal $ 15,731,173 $ 667,260 $ 16,398,433 $ 19,095,585 $ 15,356,943 $ 12,135,806 $ 3,221,137 $ 1,041,490 $ 3,738,642 General Conditions & fee Subtotal $ 941,493 $ 39,937 $ 981,430 $ 700,717 $ 571,983 $ 128,733 $ 280,713 $ 170,974 TOTAL CANNON CONSTRUCTION BUDGET $ 16,672,666 $ 707,197 $ 17,379,863 $ 830,949 $ 1,050,839 $ 705,500 $ 2,587,288 $ 19,967,151 $ 16,057,660 $ 12,707,788 79% $ 3,349,871 21% $ 1,322,203 $ 3,909,491 OVER DUE NOW: $ 2,844,699 $ 1,827,375 $ 4,414,663
Delay CostIncurred to dateTotal
DATE: 4/15/24*Assumes Schedule milestones are met
(Contract Budgetdated 6/8/22) (Invoiced to dateApril 2024 Pay Ap) (excludes retainagebalance)
of workcomplete
(ageing unpaidinvoices to date +retention balance)
1 Division 01 - General Requirements $ 1,315,576 $ 185,096 $ 1,500,672 $ 732,093 $ 774,611 $ 2,556,151 $ 2,522,791 $ 33,3602 Division 02 - Existing Conditions $ 52,561 $ - $ 52,561 $ 52,561 $ 52,561 $ - 3 Division 03 - Concrete $ 411,237 $ 106,008 $ 517,245 $ 671,240 $ 604,116 $ 67,1244 Division 04 - Masonry $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 5 Division 05 - Metals $ 480,457 $ - $ 480,457 $ 5,000 $ 379,900 $ 160,300 $ 219,6006 Division 06 - Wood, Plastics & Composites $ 407,171 $ 20,229 $ 427,400 $ 511,964 $ 219,332 $ 292,6327 Division 07 - Thermal & Moisture Protection $ 940,411 $ - $ 940,411 $ 10,000 $ 657,833 $ 180,025 $ 477,8088 Division 08 - Openings $ 152,384 $ 27,378 $ 179,762 $ 273,777 $ 28,693 $ 245,0849 Division 09 - Finishes $ 695,295 $ - $ 695,295 $ 20,000 $ 645,991 $ 68,037 $ 577,95310 Division 10 - Specialties $ 39,795 $ - $ 39,795 $ 17,629 $ 7,786 $ 9,84211 Division 11 - Equipment $ 10,705 $ - $ 10,705 $ 3,427 $ - $ 3,42712 Division 12 - Furnishings $ 29,333 $ - $ 29,333 $ - $ - $ - 13 Division 13 - Special Construction $ 5,149,029 $ 156,887 $ 5,305,916 $ 5,611,933 $ 5,326,493 $ 285,44014 Division 14 - Conveying Equipment $ 210,750 $ 16,111 $ 226,861 $ 29,000 $ 158,300 $ 103,580 $ 54,72021 Division 21 - Fire Suppression $ 249,010 $ - $ 249,010 $ 10,000 $ 223,570 $ 162,059 $ 61,51122 Division 22 - Plumbing $ 671,635 $ - $ 671,635 $ 15,000 $ 815,827 $ 485,549 $ 330,27823 Division 23 - HVAC $ 524,705 $ - $ 524,705 $ 20,000 $ 385,300 $ 147,618 $ 237,68226 Division 26 - Electrical $ 1,014,921 $ 130,958 $ 1,145,879 $ 35,000 $ 956,689 $ 668,702 $ 287,98727 Division 27 - Communications $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 28 Division 28 - Electronic Safety and Security $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 31 Division 31 - Earthwork $ 447,151 $ - $ 447,151 $ 403,318 $ 462,531 $ (59,213)32 Division 32 - Exterior Improvements $ 797,579 $ 3,800 $ 801,379 $ 15,000 $ 201,848 $ 201,848 $ - 33 Division 33 - Utilities $ 879,055 $ 24,600 $ 903,655 $ 32,810 $ 50,000 $ 828,560 $ 732,659 $ 95,901Plan Check & Permit Allowance by contractors 0.00% $ - $ - $ - $ 1,125 $ 1,125 $ - Contractor Pricing Contingency * 6.00% $ 868,726 $ - $ 868,726 $ - $ - Contractor Construction Contingency 2.50% $ 383,687 $ (3,807) $ 379,880 $ 19,122 $ 19,466 $ - $ - Cost Escalation 0.00% $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Gross Receipts Tax $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Off Premises Liability and Automotive Insurance 0.07% $ 11,012 $ 466 $ 11,478 $ 549 $ 558 $ 10,726 $ 8,536 $ 2,189 $ 752 $ 2,617SDI or Subcontractor Bonding Allowance $ 212,519 $ 9,016 $ 221,535 $ 10,591 $ 10,781 $ - $ - $ - $ 221,535Contractor's Fee 4.50% $ 717,962 $ 30,455 $ 748,417 $ 35,784 $ 36,423 $ 689,991 $ 563,446 $ 126,545 $ 58,425 $ 168,357 TRUE Current Retention Balance(work is complete, pay at completion): $ 505,172 $ 505,172 $ 505,172 refer to total refer to total refer to total
Printed: 4/22/2024 4
OVERALL PROJECT BUDGET & PROJECTED COST TO COMPLETE- DEVELOPER BUDGET DEVELOPER BUDGET Original Budget Committed Cost Actual spent todate Balance ofcommitted costsexpected to beincurred
Projected AddedCosts to complete Projection Notes Total Added CostProjected Total ProjectedBudget Project Budgetremaining to finish BREAKOUT ESTIMATESApproximate value added costattrituable to Delays TOTAL DEVELOPER BUDGET $3,719,804 $2,709,781 $5,120,470 $643,475 $772,000 $3,274,945 $6,994,749 $1,874,279 $298,337 $903,475 DATE:
(April 15, 2024) (April 15, 2024) (April 15- TCO end ofSept) (inc. spent to date)
INCURRED TODATE PROJECTED
Architecture and Engineering $800,000.00 $ 1,465,288 $ 1,531,486 $ 113,089 $ 300,000 Assumes Dahlin & ENGEO Cost to complete CA +WAG for some other consultants, Anticipatedstorage, remob,(elevator, light fixtures), legal feesfor delay $ 1,144,575 $ 1,944,575 $ 413,089 $ 100,000 $ 313,089
Land Acquisition $600,000.00 $ 609,600 $ 613,902 $ - $ - $ 13,902 $ 613,902 $ - Operating Reserve $94,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 94,000 $ 94,000 $ - Hard Cost Contingency $250,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ - Soft Cost Contingency $100,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000 $ 100,000Insurance $90,000.00 $ 218,159 $ 129,042 $ 94,248 $ 50,000 Assumes some renewal to get to sept $ 183,290 $ 273,290 $ 144,248 $ 11,000 $ 144,248OCIP Insurance $250,000.00 $ 373,798 $ 337,660 $ 36,138 $ 50,000 Assumes some bldrs risk renewal to get to Sept $ 173,798 $ 423,798 $ 86,138 $ 86,138Marketing $4,804.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 4,804 $ 4,804Appraisal $5,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 5,000 $ 5,000Accounting $5,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Security $0.00 $ - $ 187,337 $ - $ 260,000 Assumes 20k/mo night security + 6k/mo camerasecurity for 10 mo $ 447,337 $ 447,337 $ 260,000 $ 187,337 $ 260,000 Furniture, Fixtures, & Equipment $0.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Permits, Planning, and Impact Fees $600,000.00 $ - $ 1,728,715 $ - $ 12,000 Assumes 3x more property tax payments $ 1,140,715 $ 1,740,715 $ 12,000Permit Processing Fee $121,000.00 $ - $ 129,071 $ - $ 8,071 $ 129,071 $ - Developer Fee 4.8% $800,000.00 $ - $ 400,000 $ 400,000 $ 100,000 well under the negotiated fee percentage 4.8% ofprojected construction cost- added costs to manageproject during delays $ 100,000 $ 900,000 $ 500,000 $ 100,000 Utilities (Added) $0.00 $ 42,936 $ 63,257 $ - $ 63,257 $ 63,257 $ - 4/15/24
RESOLUTION NO. 24-001
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF VALLEJO MEASURE P COMMITTEE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL UTILIZE UP TO $1,300,000 OF
MEASURE P FUNDS TO PAY OFF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF MECHANICS LIENS ON THE
BROADWAY AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT, CONSIDER ADDITIONAL FUNDING
FROM OTHER NON-MEASURE P SOURCES AND TO CONTINUE DISCUSSIONS WITH
STAFF TO DETERMINE THE BEST WAY TO FUND COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City of Vallejo entered into a partnership with Firm Foundation, Inc. and Shelter, Inc. to construct a 47 -unit permanent supportive housing project in Vallejo (the “Broadway Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Broadway Project was initially funded by a Homekey grant of $11,621,866, City of Vallejo American Rescue Plan Act funds of $390,000, Solano County American Rescue Plan Act funds of $3,000,000, an Infill Infrastructure Grant of $2,559,656, a grant from Wells Fargo of $90,000 and a loan from the City’s Low Moderate I ncome Housing Asset Fund of $3,300,000 ; and
WHEREAS, the funding total $20,961,522 with additional funding coming from other sources; and
WHEREAS, the additional funding for the Broadway Project fell through after construction was well underway resulting in a shortfall in available funds for construction; and
WHEREAS, as a result of the shortfall in funds, payments to subcontractors could not be made resulting in the filing of at least eight mechanics liens; and
WHEREAS, as a result of the mechanics liens and lack of continued funding , construction activities on the Broadway Project stopped with the building approximately 70 percent complete; and
WHEREAS, because of the cessation of construction there were demobilization cost s, security costs and there will be additional mobilization costs when construction restarts leaving a total budget shortfall of $6.15 million; and
WHEREAS, staff has diligently searched for additional funding to complete the Broadway Project to no avail; and
WHEREAS, staff has presented the Broadway Project to the Measure P Committee for consideration of funding; and
WHEREAS, the Committee made additional findings which are included in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Measure P Committee hereby recommends to the City Council that it allocate up to $1,300,000 to fund payment of existing mechanics liens and require the contractor responsible for the project to provide monthly report s to the City Council DocuSign Envelope ID: ED538151-5F56-49F6-926C-6CAEE8387EBB concerning the project budget in order to help ensure that there are no additional mechanics liens going forward.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Measure P Committee recommends that the City Council consider looking at ways to fund t he remaining financial needs for construction of the Broadway Project from other City financial resources including the City’s reserve and possibly other sources.
Adopted by the Measure P Committee at a special meeting held on May 10, 2024 , with the following vote:
AYES: 6
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 1
ABSTAIN: 0
______________________________________
JASMINE SALMERON, CHAIR
ATTEST:
______________________________________
MELISSA TIGBAO, SECRETARY
DocuSign Envelope ID: ED538151-5F56-49F6-926C-6CAEE8387EBB
1 EXHIBIT A
Measure P Committee Findings
1. On April 22, 2024, the Measure P Oversight Committee received a request to support staff’s request to City Council for FY 23-24 Measure P funding allocation for the Broadway project, in the amount of $4.25 million dollars, with the possibility of asking for an additional $2 million dollars in the future. During that presentation staff recognized that this request would deplete the balance of revenues collected through February 2024, held for Measure P priorities. The Measure P Oversight Committee was unable to make a recommendation during that meeting due to the lack of supporting evidence to determine the cause of the funding gap and confidence that this issue would not reoccur. The Measure P Oversight Committee agreed to make a recommendation at a future meeting after staff had provided a response to follow up questions from the committee.
2. On April 29, 2024, Chair Jasmine Salmeron requested additional information about the Broadway Projects that is necessary to make an informed recommendation. Such documents included copies of all mechanics liens, pre-liens, waivers of liability, contractors imposing late fees with a sum of current exposure, proof that funding sources prohibit contingency as a budget line item, budgets, itemized cost variance reports, schedule of payments made with running fund balance, explanation of ownership and explanation of the April 5, 2024, Trust Deed.
3. On April 30, 2024, Co-Chair, Brien Farrell submitted a total of twenty seven questions requesting copies of enforceable contracts, timing in which City was made aware of critical issues, reasoning for the budget increase from $9.6 Million to $26 Million, use of City reserves, use of other funding sources, and rationale for decision making, including the $1.5 million staff bonuses that were distributed during the same time period that mechanics liens were filed on the Broadway project.
4. The questions and requests submitted to staff are appropriate according to Ordinance No. 1866 N.C. (2d),
3.30.170 Citizens’ Oversight Committee (A) (3). “The City shall provide such staff resources as are reasonably necessary to assist the Committee with the discharge of its duties under this chapter. The Committee shall not have authority to hire or retain its own staff, consultants, or contractors.” The Measure P Oversight Committee intends to exercise this provision of the ordinance to objectively and ethically serve our community. Citizens have requested that the Measure P Oversight Committee provide an explanation to support each of its recommendations as it serves to enlighten those who cannot participate in the committee meetings.
5. Many citizens have made public comments, sent letters to the Committee and addressed committee members directly. Citizens argue that Measure P funds should not be used as an emergency fund for major housing projects. Some examples given were the serious Blue Oaks and Navigation Center funding issues.
Many have also argued for more productive use of funds towards the unhoused would include harm reduction, mobile showers, dumpsters at encampments, helping unhoused individuals obtain the proper documentation needed to become eligible for social services and housing initiatives like the Broadway Project. It has been understood that a vast majority of unhoused citizens in encampments would not have the opportunity to be served by the Broadway project.
DocuSign Envelope ID: ED538151-5F56-49F6-926C-6CAEE8387EBB 2 6. On May 8, 2024, Measure P was provided with a response to the questions submitted four hours prior to the meeting in which the committee was expected to make a recommendation on the request for funding. The documents provided to the committee included a copy of the fully executed Contract 21-HK-17234, Broadway Project which is the standard agreement for the Homekey Program – Round 2, the Home ARP Spending Plan, the Infill Infrastructure Grant Standard Agreement, the Shelter Inc. negotiation emails and the high-level budget. None of the project accounting for the Broadway project was provided as requested.
During the May 8, 2024, special meeting, Firm Foundation was unable to give any specific financial information and continuously assured that the “round numbers” were sufficient evidence to approve completion of a meaningful project. At the conclusion of the discussion on May 8, 2024, the Measure P Oversight Committee had not been presented with any factual evidence to support an actual shortfall of $6.15 million dollars. Evidence to support this funding gap claim would have included the budgets, schedule of payments, legally enforceable funding agreements; not the word of staff and its developer, Firm Foundation. Due to the lack of evidence, Measure P did not recommend allocating funds or agree to a “city to city” loan.
7. In compromise, the Measure P Oversight Committee passed a motion on May 8, 2024, allocating up to $1 million dollars to pay the estimated amounts of mechanics liens that have been filed with the Solano County Assessor/Recorder. The resolution included a condition that Firm Foundation provide monthly reports to City Council providing assurance that the Broadway project is not in danger of future liens being filed. On May 10, 2024, the Measure P Oversight Committee amended the resolution increasing the amount to $1.3 million dollars covering the actual amounts of the mechanics liens filed. Through May 10, 2024, the committee had received Mechanics Liens and detailed budget. However, the evidence was provided without enough time for thorough review by the committee. Without the opportunity to review and ask additional questions resulting from the review, the Committee felt that it lacked satisfactory or compelling evidence to participate beyond its pledge for up to $1.3 million dollars.
8. Staff has proposed a “city to city” loan to close the remaining funding gap and an alternative option to commit to fifty percent (50%) of the funding gap. The Measure P Oversight Committee advises against a loan from Measure P funds. Should a “city to city” loan be deemed reasonable, the Measure P Oversight Committee requests that a loan from city reserves be considered to address the shortfall of the Broadway project.
9. The key factors driving opposition and concern about the loan include:
Lack of documented evidence to support claims made in various proposals. The unenforceable funding of $2 million dollars withdrawn by Shelter Inc. which materially contributed to the funding gap.
Ambiguity surrounding withdrawn $2 million dollars of HOME ARP funds which materially contributed to the funding gap.
Firm Foundation’s alleged failure to proactively advise the City of Vallejo on the risk of Mechanics Liens via Preliminary Notice, in a timely manner.
o California Contractors State License Board allows subcontractor or material suppliers 20 days after beginning work or delivering materials to serve a Preliminary Notice, which is a documented intent to lien.
o California Contractors State License Board requires claimants to file a Mechanics Lien within 90 days of: completion of work, owner begins using work or owners’ acceptance of the work.
DocuSign Envelope ID: ED538151-5F56-49F6-926C-6CAEE8387EBB 3 Firm Foundations alleged failure to provide the City of Vallejo with Mechanics Lien information until January 3, 2024; knowing that liens filed on 11/23/2023 had begun accruing 10% interest on debt as of the filing date.
Firm Foundations alleged failures to proactively notify the City of Vallejo of Preliminary Notices, demands for payment and Mechanics Liens, (current total $1.3 million) resulting in a missed opportunity for City Council to reconsider the allocation of $1.5 million for staff retention incentive (bonuses) during pay cycle 24, 11/18/2023 – 12/01/2023.
A $3.3 million LMIHAF loan is currently in 1st position upon the sale of property. Increasing total “city to city” loan obligations to nearly $10 million dollars.
Lack of appraisal or market information to substantiate the sales price of the project, in any significant amount, or an amount that covers city loan obligations. Lack of security, such as real property, in a non-structured “city to city” loan Loss of earning potential on funds that are withdrawn from the current interest-bearing account. High turnover of key personnel to carry out the commitments of loan repayment. The possibility of the future City Council forgiving the loan or changing the terms of the loan. Betrayal of the public’s trust for funding a construction project that is outside the scope of the Measure P campaign and ballot arguments relating to the use of Measure P funds. Depletion of Measure P’s balance will halt further funding of initiatives (below) until future revenues are collected and made available from the State of CA.
o Harm reduction, dumpsters and portable showers for the unhoused. o Sideshow reduction and traffic calming
o Free, low cost and adaptive youth resources
o Abandoned vehicles and blight
o Crime prevention through community-based organizations (i.e. Homies Empowerment)
DocuSign Envelope ID: ED538151-5F56-49F6-926C-6CAEE8387EBB Who
(Claimant) Total Contract
Value
Claim/ disputed /
Unpaid amount
Mechanics Liens
Aquamatic Fire Protection $22,357.00
Aquamatic Fire Protection $74,153.60
Alstate Steel Misc Metals
Division $38,635.00
Bigge Crane and Rigging
Company $103,897.50
Graybar Electric Company $194,171.84
Kevin M. Sullivan and Associates $346,770.00
Madden Plumbing $360,260.00
Bond Claim
Rick Slater Construction $370,987.00 $246,921.87
Stop Payment Notice
Aquamatic Fire Protection $247,600.00 $96,490.00
Ciarra Construction $624,253.00 $282,530.35
Proof of Notice
Declaration
US Dept of Housing & Urban
Development; CA Department of
Housing & Community
Development; Solano County
N/A N/A
Lawsuits
Kevin M. Sullivan and Associates $449,000.00
How Much
Aquamatic link Date: January 25, 2024
Aquamatic link Date: January 19, 2024
Alstate link Date: January 5, 2024
Bigge link Date: November 20, 2023
Graybar link Date: December 8, 2023
Sullivan link Date: January 10, 2024
Madden link Date: December 13, 2023
Rick Slater link Date: March 1, 2023
Aquamatic link Date: December 11, 2023
Ciarra link Date: December 15, 2023
Link Date: December 12, 2023
Sullivan link Date: January 12, 2024
Link to notice on
server Notes
Vallejo Passenger Rail
Feasibility Study
Vallejo City Council
2 Vallejo is the largest city in the Bay Area that
doesn’t have passenger rail service.
The California Draft State Rail Plan (2023) envisions a new North Bay passenger rail network connecting central Solano County with Novato and Napa but doesn’t include a connection with Vallejo.
Rail infrastructure exists within Vallejo that connects to the broader state railroad system at Napa Junction in American Canyon.
Vallejo has existing transit infrastructure, including a direct ferry connection to San Francisco and multiple transit centers for regional bus services.
Introduction
Project Context / Setting the
Scene
Study Progress Community
Overview Study Schedule Context Alignment
Long-term rail network vision. Source: California Draft State Rail Plan (2023)
3 Two rail alignments exist within Vallejo; a West
alignment which heads southwest towards Mare
Island, and a Central alignment which heads south
towards Highway 29; both would require new track
to reach the Ferry Terminal.
City staff selected the West Alignment to be the focus of this study, based on the following points:
• General Plan’s focus on in-fill development along the Sonoma Boulevard Corridor.
• Higher costs associated with the Central Alignment.
Preliminary station locations within Vallejo to study include:
• Vallejo Ferry Terminal
• Mare Island Way at Tennessee Street
• Sonoma Boulevard at Couch Street
• Sereno Transit Center
Introduction
Rail Alignment and Station Site
Selection for Study
Study Progress Community
Overview Study Schedule Context Alignment
Vallejo Ferry Terminal
Sereno Transit Center
Flosden Yard
Sonoma Blvd.
Rail infrastructure within Vallejo. Source: Arup
Sonoma Blvd. at Couch St.
Mare Island Blvd. at
Tennessee Way
4 Previous studies have generally focused on routes
between Novato and Suisun/Fairfield or Napa and
Suisun/Fairfield, bypassing Vallejo.
The rail right-of-way is owned or leased by four different entities in the broader study area, including the City of Vallejo, Union Pacific, California Northern Railroad, and SMART.
Introduction
Existing Conditions
Study Progress Community
Existing Conditions Market Demand Rail Vehicles and Service Plans SMART
Union Pacific (UP) (Leased to California
Northern Railroad (CFNR))
Rail ROW Ownership
Union Pacific (UP)
Vallejo
Points of Interest
Napa Junction
Brazos Green Island
Flosden Yard
General Mills Cereal Plant
Mare Island Causeway Bridge
Suisun/Fairfield
Station
Rail ownership in the study area. Source: Arup
5 The rail infrastructure in Vallejo is not in a condition to support passenger rail service, it is only
maintained to support minimal low-speed freight
operations.
Freight operations have declined in recent years with only a handful of regular freight trains each year. However, some freight rail connections are still important, such as to Mare Island.
The railroad in Vallejo is predominantly single-track, with a short section of two to three tracks between Sereno Drive and Tuolumne Street, an area referred to as Flosden yard.
Introduction
Existing Conditions
Study Progress Community
Existing Conditions Market Demand Rail Vehicles and Service Plans Rail tracks approaching Flosden Yard in Vallejo. Source: Arup 6 Methodology – Station catchment areas are based on
primary access mode to the station (e.g., walk or drive) and estimate the potential geographic capture of person trips to transit for each station.
Internal Demand – Overall travel demand between the
station catchment areas of Vallejo and American Canyon in Fall 2022 was about 82,000 daily weekday trips made on
all modes, which represents the potential market for rail passenger trips.
Introduction
Market Demand – Within Vallejo
Study Progress Community
Existing Conditions Market Demand Rail Vehicles and Service Plans Station catchment areas in Vallejo and American Canyon. Source: Arup
7 External Demand – Demand from Vallejo to station catchment areas in external markets across all modes is highest to Napa with 20,110 daily weekday trips, followed by Cordelia and Suisun/Fairfield in Solano County, and then Novato in Marin County.
Highway traffic can become congested between Vallejo and these destinations, which presents a potential market for rail.
Introduction
Market Demand – To/From Vallejo
Study Progress Community
Existing Conditions Market Demand Rail Vehicles and Service Plans City of
Vallejo
To / From Napa
20,110 daily weekday trips
To / From Marin
3,080 daily weekday trips
To / From Solano
9,440 daily weekday trips
External demand to/from Vallejo. Source: Arup
Introduction
Potential Weekday Ridership
Study Progress Community
Existing Conditions Market Demand Rail Vehicles and Service Plans *Ridership projections are inclusive of ridership for Vallejo to American Canyon.
Hashed color indicates additional ridership above Vallejo to American Canyon ridership. 1,825 1,850 1,975
2,850
7,550 7,600
8,925
10,125
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
11,000
Vallejo to American Canyon Vallejo to Novato* Vallejo to Fairfield* Vallejo to Napa* Low-End Estimate High-End Estimate
9 There are two options for rail vehicles to run this
service:
• Traditional Locomotive trains
(similar to Capitol Corridor)
• Multiple-Unit trains
(similar to SMART or eBART)
Introduction
Rail Vehicles
Study Progress Community
Existing Conditions Market Demand Rail Vehicles and Service Plans Traditional Locomotive Train. Source: Capitol Corridor
Multiple-Unit Train. Source: Stadler
10 Two concepts were studied to integrate with future
State Rail Plan-envisioned services:
• Vallejo Ferry to Napa Junction (north of American
Canyon), where passengers could transfer to other
rail services.
• Vallejo Ferry via Napa Junction to Suisun/Fairfield,
allowing passengers to transfer to other rail services
at either Napa Junction or Suisun/Fairfield.
Introduction
Concept Service Plans
Study Progress Community
Existing Conditions Market Demand Rail Vehicles and Service Plans Napa Junction
American Canyon
Sereno Transit Center
Sonoma Blvd.
Mare Island Way
Vallejo Ferry
Cordelia
Vallejo – Napa Junction Service
Vallejo – Suisun/Fairfield Service
Capitol Corridor Service
State Rail Plan Envisioned Service
Station
Vallejo Ferry
Mare Island Way
Sonoma Blvd
Sereno Transit Center
American Canyon
Napa Junction
Cordelia
Suisun/Fairfield
Solano Rail Hub
Potential rail transit services. Source: Arup
11 A new rail line would introduce new transit
connections from Vallejo to American Canyon,
Napa, Novato, and/or Suisun/Fairfield and beyond,
and bring new travel opportunities to the
community.
New connections with existing transit services such as Soltrans, Vine, WETA, and Capitol Corridor, could improve transit mobility and reduce traffic.
Transit-oriented development opportunities exist in both Downtown Vallejo and along Sonoma Boulevard.
Anti-displacement strategies could be implemented, such as inclusionary zoning, housing trust funds, commercial stabilization, and community benefits agreements to ensure that the rail line benefits existing community members.
Fares are expected to range from $2.00 to $4.50 one-way.
Introduction
Community Impacts and Benefits
Study Progress Community
Community Impacts Capital Improvements and Costs
Source: Arup
Public and Stakeholder Engagement
12 A new rail line would upgrade existing grade
crossings for enhanced safety and could introduce
additional noise and vibration to the community.
Prioritizing safety at grade crossings is key to reducing injuries and collisions. Grade crossings could include active warning and control devices such as bells, flashing lights, gates, and/or passive warning devices.
Noise and vibration from the trains, and noise from warning devices, could impact quality of life near the rail line. Quiet zones and enhanced engineering of tracks and trains can reduce the noise produced.
Introduction
Community Impacts and Benefits
Study Progress Community
Community Impacts Capital Improvements and Costs
SMART train at a grade crossing.
Source: Beth Schlanker / The Press Democrat
Public and Stakeholder Engagement
$-
$500,000,000
$1,000,000,000
$1,500,000,000
$2,000,000,000
$2,500,000,000
$3,000,000,000
Vallejo to American Canyon Vallejo to Suisun/Fairfield
Capital Costs
Low End Most Likely Cost High End
13 Capital and operational costs will need to be
assessed in greater detail in a future study.
Rehabilitating the rail right-of-way, building new stations and a maintenance facility, and purchasing trains are the highest capital costs.
Funding could be secured through partnerships with local and state agencies.
Introduction
Capital Improvements and Costs
Study Progress Community
Community Impacts Capital Improvements and Costs
Flosden Yard. Source: Arup
$250M
$950M
$650M
$2,500M
$500M
$1,300M
Public and Stakeholder Engagement
14 The public and stakeholder engagement process included a variety of opportunities for community input. The planning process included the following key elements:
• Stakeholder Database: 30 community members
• Project Website and FAQs: Ongoing project updates, questions, online workshop, and survey links
• Public Workshop: A Hybrid In Person and Virtual Workshop on March 7 th
• Virtual Workshop: English, Spanish, Tagalog
• Online Survey: 93 participants, available in English, Spanish, and Tagalog
Introduction
Public and Stakeholder
Engagement
Study Progress Community
Community Impacts Capital Improvements and Costs
In-Person Workshop. Source: LSC Transportation Consultants Public and Stakeholder Engagement
15 This initial feasibility study will be considered by the City Council along with Community Feedback.
Study results will be shared with state, county, and local stakeholders to determine the best course of action.
Delivering future passenger rail service to Vallejo will take many years and require securing partners and funding, engaging with regulators, and continued engagement with community members.
This is Just the Beginning
Rail line from Sacramento Street overpass. Source: Arup Next Steps
UPDATE - PUBLIC SAFETY
STAFFING EMERGENCY
Jason Ta, Interim Chief of Police
May 14, 2024
1 STATUS OF PHASES
• Partially Implemented
• Alarm Ordinance – moving forward based on
direction from Council
• “Condition Blue” being considered
– If the number of CFS pending reaches a pre-determined number, officers will only respond to priority 1 and high-level priority 2 calls • Highest Calls for Service (CFS)
Phase #1 Service Model Reduction
2 - Alarm activation - Mental distress
- Suspicious persons/vehicles - Trespassing
- Traffic-related offenses
Phase #2 Rotation of Officers to Patrol Shifts
• Completed
Phase #3 Collapsing Traffic & Detective Divisions
• Traffic Division collapsed (July 2023)
Phase #4 Modifying Patrol Shifts to 12-hours or
Another Staffing Model
• Due to recent staffing trends, Phase #4 does not
appear to be needed
3 • VPOA has an executed MOU
– Working on staffing models and possibilities
– First meeting with the Sheriff’s Office was on
December 4th
– Met with Sheriff on February 5th
– County Counsel was provided data requested
(April 12, 2024)
Outside Assistance
4 CURRENT STAFFING NUMBERS
Total Sworn Staffing 72 74
Modified Duty Officers 4 2
Off on Worker’s Comp. 6 7
Sworn Working Full Duty 64 65
Anticipated Officers Resigning 1 0
Officers Starting /Final Offers 1 0
5 Officers Working Patrol 37 37
Supervisors Working Patrol (Sgts) 5 5
4-23-24 Current
PREVIOUS STAFFING NUMBERS
6 8/29/2023 to 4/09/2024
8/29/23 9/12/23 10/10/23 11/14/23 12/19/23 1/9/24 2/13/24 3/12/24 04/09/24
Total Sworn Staffing 76 77 75 75 72 72 73 71 72
Modified Duty Officers 4 4 2 2 1 2 4 3 3
Off on Worker’s Comp. 9 9 9 9 10 10 9 9 7
Sworn Working Full Duty 63 66 64 64 61 60 60 59 63
Officers Working Patrol 32 35 34 35 32 32 34 33 36
Sergeants Working Patrol 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
RECRUITMENT & RETENTION
(Stephanie Sifuentes, HR Director)
Police Officer Applications
7 Look Back Period
April 22nd
to
May 12th
Police Officer Backgrounds Since 7/13/2023
8 • 5 Officers currently in police academies
– 1 will graduate in June 2024
– 1 will graduate in July 2024
– 3 will graduate in September 2024
Police Academy
9 Recruitment Efforts
• WSTB Physical Agility Exam Scheduled for May 17th, June 1st and June 6th • PELLETB Written Exam scheduled for May 17th and June 6th • Oral Panel Interviews scheduled for May 15th and June 6th • Career Fair Attendance:
• TAP (Transitional Assistance Program) at Travis Air Force base on 4/29 • Kennedy High School in Richmond on 4/30
• Upcoming:
• South Bay Regional Public Safety Training Consortium 5/18 • Bay Area Butterfly Festival on Mare Island 5/19
• West Contra Costa Career Fair 5/29
CONTACT(S)
Jason Ta, Interim Chief of Police
10